Recently during the ideal weather period of mid October I had a visit from long time friends who were actually college buddies and later biology teachers like myself. As we took advantage of the beautiful waterfalls and scenery of the area, we talked about how much of today's teaching of the subject seems to emphasize the microscopic, even the molecular nature of the plant/animal world much to the neglect of the total organisms.
With that comment in mind I shared some of your recent articles from The Source, and a thought occurred to all of us.
Possibly you were influenced, as my friends and I were, by two naturalists who wrote in the mid 20th century, Loren Eiseley and Edwin Way Teale. Both men were originally from the Midwest and spent their own young years hiking and observing the prairies and riverbeds of that area. They shared a love and reverence for all living things because they saw the interconnection of each organism with its environment. Their work preceded knowledge of DNA (for the most part. Teale lived until 1980 and Eiseley until 1977).
We need more people today emphasizing the unique "personality" of all living things, even those that tend to be maligned. It is especially difficult for those of us who have taught in big cities to teach young people to have a love for non-domesticated animal life. They may know all about the challenging Kreb's Cycle, but if their reaction to the organism is not favorable, how can we expect those same people to work to protect that organism's habitat? Thanks to you, we know more about even the lowly chicken (whom I never knew could be an aggressive predator).
I am all for the biochemical knowledge and research, but not at the expense of seeing and hopefully loving the whole plant and animal. Both types of knowledge are needed if future people want an environment that preserves already endangered species.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving with your family,
Sincerely, Anne Lippert