We homo sapiens tend to think that our opposable thumbs give us dominion over the Earth - and honestly, the fact that we have the capacity to pass along vast quantities of information from generation to generation through written communication is extraordinary. Yet, if the living beings on planet Earth formed a democracy, there is no doubt in my mind that homo sapiens would be a minority. It's possible that the bacteria, viruses and insects might lobby for us - and they are powerful lobbies. Dead species can't vote, so we have it pretty easy there as well.

But the only reason we believe we hold dominion over this planet is the hubris of mankind. Said thumbs press the point home through pen and sword across the generations, telling us we're in charge. That hubris allowed us to pollute the planet severely for the last few hundred years, proving that we could affect the environment and weather.

Perhaps that hubris can also save the planet and prove it isn't hubris.

I was trimming trees in front of the house a three days ago and accidentally drew the anger of a flock of Carib Grackles. A nest had fallen and they were protecting the nest - when I gently moved the branch holding the nest, the dive bombing began - and somewhere around 30-50 of the birds came from all around to protect those two nestlings. I was buzzed by the birds and decided that they weren't going to give up.

Since then, I get dive bombed and buzzed whenever I come out the house. No one else gets that sort of attention. There must be a picture of me somewhere, stuck to a tree, because they know me. A few sprays of hose and they've backed off over the days - but they definitely know me. Quite a testament to the longevity of the species.

Remember when humans were more like that?

In What For?, footnote 4, I was toying with the idea that life is at least a bit like a ponzi scheme. The Wikipedia definition of a Ponzi Scheme starts with:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned...

Ponzi schemes are all the rage these days - but let's step back and consider the Ponzi scheme as a legitimate way of looking at things; that it could have benefits in other contexts.

Now consider: Over generations of society, single generations who started something typically end up profiting the next generation - or not, as the case may be. So after past generations die, they will not be able to make a 'withdrawal'. But new generations keep 'depositing'. And withdrawing, hopefully not as fast as they are depositing. It could be money, land, culture or what have you.

At the core of this cycle is a concept of a societal commons or economy of sorts. But it's almost impossible to destroy the wealth unless one consciously do so - biblioclasms and draconian copyright Law may qualify.

And the really weird question is: Who is perpetrating the fraud, if there is fraud?

Just one to kick around and play with.