read the instructions

Don't burn your foot while barbecuing.

No, really.

I bought a cheap smoker and made some bad ribs and some pretty good pulled pork.

In the process, I learned that I am not as patient and thoughtful as I though I was, at least not when there is burnt pig to be had.

I botched the burn-in time when you season the smoker. I got the impression that you oil it all up and run a fire through it. Need to do this before the next fire when there will be actual food in it. Well, yeah. True. But a made a fire bigger than called for and scorched the black paint off part of it. "A small fire, making sure no coals touch the edges" is what was called for. But hey.

So then a few fires later I act like I am getting the hang of things. I made some ribs that turned out pretty good for a change. But while I am doing that, I managed to burn my foot. Wait, it gets stupider. I blame mostly myself but the smoker is a bad design in a lot of ways. It is easy to have a coal pop out the side. A couple did. I flicked hot one off my new recycled plastic deck. Got back to work on the ribs and felt a discomfort on the side of my bare foot, suddenly hot, then burnt foot. Stepped on a coal of course. Blistered foot AND puckered blackened spot on nice new plastic porch.

Now I betcha the book for the smoker says not to use it on a questionable surface and not to do it barefoot. I bet the material safety data sheet for the porch 'boards' say not to grill on it. I bet I even glanced at them. So anyway.

I used to brag to Guys that I read the owner's manual before I plugged anything in. They would scoff and say "you're not a real man". Well yeah, I am a real man who does not want to blow up his new stuff. Why did I not pay attention to these fire issues? I guess it seemed so basic and obvious that it should just work.

No excuse.

A Step in a Different Direction

So the more Bob and I talk the more I realize that the things we tend to discuss are not necessarily men's issues per se, but human issues, albeit from a decidedly male perspective. Thus I think a change in mission statement may be warranted. I'll have to discuss this with Bob in the near future.

A Step in the Right Direction

So at Bob's suggestion I've been reading and very much enjoying "The Story of B" by Daniel Quinn. The underlying message is that the environmental problems that we as a culture are experiencing, are caused by two interrelated factors: overpopulation, and overproduction of food.

The basic laws of ecology state that if a population's food supply increases so does the birth rate of said population. Normally in nature this works because there is a finite amount of food. Therefor if there is enough food to sustain 150 deer, the deer population in that area, assuming no change in food supply, will always be roughly 150.

We as humans have broken this system by becoming producers of food. Every year we increase food production, and every year our population continues to grow. The next year we have to increase food production to feed all these new people. And so on and so forth until we run out of floorspace and have to start building up like Coruscant.

In any case, I came to my own realization while I was absorbing this message. All of the ideas I've seen for sustainable living, while they do what they are intended, will never catch on for one simple reason. At worst they are viewed by the majority as a step backwards for our culture, and at best they represent a step sideways. All the major changes that were ever adopted by humans, be they metal tools, electricity, automobiles, or telecommunications, required a lot of time, money, infrastructure, and elbow grease to bring about. So why were they brought about? After all weren't people able to perform the tasks they needed to with stone tools? Couldn't they see in the dark by burning candles? Couldn't they move around by horse or steam train? Wasn't the pony express a good way to get a message where it needed to go?

Of course they were. The things I have described here were all perfectly adequate performers in their intended purpose. The reason the change is adopted, is that it offers an IMPROVEMENT, real or imagined, over the old system.

Now I've seen a few different ideas of sustainable living models. Some are fairly high tech while others advocate a return to a hunting gathering lifestyle. As I've said, the choice as it stands right now is a step backward or a step sideways. Hardcore fundamentalists are the only people who will step backwards and intelligent people, who know that we're running out of time are the only ones who will step sideways (keep in mind the world's population is largely composed of morons, if you doubt this statement take a trip to your local Wal-Mart and do some people watching).

The answer, clearly, is that for a sustainable living system to be adopted on a wide scale it must represent an IMPROVEMENT over the current quality of life. People need to be tripping over each other to adopt this new system like Best Buy customers on Black Friday when a new video game console is coming out. Anything less is just a finger in the dike.

Now I know what you're about to ask: what's the solution? Well unfortunately I don't have one. I'm an historian, not a scientist, my specialty is in studying and interpreting the past, so that we might avoid repeating mistakes. Improving the future is the specialty of a different thought process than that which I possess. All I can offer is the above mentioned historical perspective on why change is adopted. As I said before, people will fight stepping backwards, some will step sideways and some won't. In order to really change things, quality and ease of life must improve if we are to effect a lasting change in our culture.