Another Man's Treasure

Derrick's basic premise goes on to say that, "Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization." I pulled that off of www.endgamethebook.org He goes on to write about how civilization is dismantling the health of the Earth. Extensively. I wholeheartedly agree with him with every fabric of my being.

The reason that I mention him at this moment is that you have an opportunity to see him speak. And so do your friends. If you have no doubt in your mind that civilization is killing the planet, then you should go to support him. If you have no doubt that civilization is not killing the planet, you should go to challenge your paradigms. Either way, you should go.

He also has a website. It is www.derrickjensen.org. Check it out. You can also type his name on You Tube to see videos. In addition, he is producing a movie, which can be found at www.endciv.org

This culture of civilization is killing the planet (the only one we and all other living and non-living things have) and it needs to end now. We have the power to dismantle it. Do it now.

See Derrick Jensen in the BMU (Bell Memorial Union) at CSU Chico on November 7th from 2-4 pm. 

The article posted in the ChicoER is of how a man, Dick Sullivan lost his case to the city regarding his preference to remove a Linden tree in the front of his house. The tree was referred to as having "bad habits" and as being a "nuisance" to Mr. Sullivan. It leaves sticky residues on his car, buckles the pavement, and drops prickly balls on the ground. If it isn't obvious that the car and pavement should not affect the fate of the tree, I will explain: covering the Earth with concrete is not healthy; trees have roots and if it gets paved over, then it is likely that the pavement will be affected. The tree is not disturbing the sidewalk, rather, the sidewalk is invading the tree's natural growing existence. The car (and car culture) is another can of worms and should also not be a factor in the fate of the tree. As for the prickly balls, simply do not walk under it without shoes.

One of the main reasons to remove the tree is so that the owner can put in a driveway, so that he can park his car because others park in front of his space. A reality check is in order if a tree's life can even be called into question because of spiky balls, buckling sidewalk (which should not exist), cars (which should not exist), and driveways (which should not exist).

If the tree were to be removed, planting a younger tree would be a consolation for its absence (or murder if you value accuracy). This will be touched upon after the next article is examined.

Thankfully the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission deemed that the tree was not a hazard.

However, the most egregious part of the story is not found in the article-- it is the comments that followed. I am shocked and appalled that not only does it seem that there is a deep hatred towards trees, people saw this as an opportunity to express such outspoken feelings towards them. Things such as, "Kill the tree," "CUT THAT DEATH TRAP DOWN, NOW!," "Yeah! Those GD trees need to go! Let's go cut em all down.," "I am making copies of this article right now and will be passing it to as many people as I can to take and read it. This is F **** unbelievable. You can no longer improve your own property?" This is highly alarming and deeply saddening. Is this the culture's world view of trees? If I were a tree, I would be sick to my trunk.

The Orion featured a story on the front page this week regarding a Bunya-bunya and how this "Campus tree becomes safety hazard." A fence has been placed around the tree so that no one gets hit by fifteen-pound falling pine cones. That is a reasonable solution. I would not want to get hit in the head either, as I doubt any sane person would. As usual, insane people are in power and insane people decide the fate of "nuisance and "hazard" trees. In this case, these people are the Campus Arboretum Committee.

"The fate of the tree looks grim, as Wills and Dempsey have confirmed the tree will be cut down." This tree does not have the same luck as the linden tree. Wills and Dempsey have already begun planning where the replacement tree will go so that it will not be, "such a threat to life and limb." What about the threat of the tree's life. What about replacing a tree?

Just as one cannot replace a forest with smaller trees and expect it to retain the same qualities, one cannot replace a larger tree with a smaller one and expect to have the same effect. Is it justifiable to cut down a tree and simply replace it with another one? Is that just breeding the idea that humans can do whatever they wish to other beings and just because they 'planted a replacement tree' everything is 'good'?

I write about these trees because I wish to use these as examples of the perception of how humans (and this culture) interact with and perceive a specific part of this Earth.

Trees ought not be cut down (or slaughtered if you prefer honesty) due to human convenience, perceptions of 'safety hazards' (who is a 'safety hazard' to whom? Those with chainsaws or those with pine cones?), insanity, or 'distasteful looks'.

The Earth, and its trees deserve better. Much better.

And while I'm at it, I think I'll examine the CN&R's 'Go Green' section as another example of...well, misleading things one can do to mitigate one's footprint while at the same time still participating in a culture of destructiveness towards the planet but in a way that makes people feel ok about it. That sounds about right.

This week's tidbit about going 'green' (whatever that means) falls on "Eco-Purchasing Power" on page five. Let's see what they have to say:

"There are many ways retail-store owners can help reduce the environmental footprints of their businesses, but a really proactive one is to make a conscious effort to purchase sustainable merchandise.

"Buying products made from renewable resources, such as bamboo, is a good example. Everything from earrings to (super soft!) clothing can be fashioned out of this fast-growing plant. Stocking goods constructed from recycled items is another eco-friendly option. Some designers specialize in rehabbing perfectly good used T-shirts with cool screenprints, for instance.

"Another friendly way to go is to keep things really local by purchasing merchandise from local artisans. Not only will this help support the local economy, but it will also cut down on the fossil fuels that would ordinarily be used to ship the goods."

Accompanying the article is a cute picture of a paper shopping bag that says, 'This Shoppe shops local' to demonstrate to consumers that the CN&R really knows what it is talking about.

The basic flaw of this feeble attempt at a 'green' lifestyle is that it is only focused on reducing the environmental footprints. It gives no importance to the fact that the earth does not need a reduction in footprint, but rather the earth needs a positive input back into its systems. No harm, not just a lesser amount of harm.

Not that this matters, but I just Google'd the words 'sustainable merchandise' and Wal-Mart was the first hit. Surprised?

In regards to renewable resources, I sincerely doubt that the Earth gives a hoot (I really wish I could swear) if someone's earrings are made of bamboo or bottle caps. The premise that we need earrings is erroneous. And yes I am aware that some indigenous people had earrings, but they did it in a manner that does not damage the planet.

Addressing when they used the word 'recycle', it is an inappropriate use of the term. Recycling means that a thing is reconstituted in its chemical make-up and put into another useful form. Composting food scraps and leaves is the best example of recycling (organics recycling) and cans and bottles recycling is the worst example. Instead of using the word 'recycle' they should have used the word 'reused'.

One good thing that the article mentions is purchasing from local artisans. That is certainly a step, but until money altogether is out of the picture, it won't be perfect.

I conclude that the best eco-purchasing power (as if anyone could possibly trade a piece of paper that is believed to be worth something for any part of the Earth) is to not purchase at all. I would also go as far as to say that being an advocate for no economy (no system based upon 'money') and taking down this economic system is real power.

This planet will not be a better place if the culture is tricked into believing that if only we purchase 'green', 'sustainably', or 'eco-friendly' all of the problems will go away. Industry, capitalism, the economy, money, and the mistreatment of resources are the problems, and when they no longer exist, the Earth will be a better place.

Tune in next week when these news sources take another stab at how to 'green' our lifestyles and reduce our footprint.

It didn't feel right examining (or criticizing if you wish to call it) just one newspaper in town. The Orion is also worthy of such consideration.

Every week, The Orion (found at www.theorion.com) has a snippet about 'Staying Sustainable'. It is the task of the Assistant Sustainability Coordinator of the Associated Students. I mean no offense to this person, nor to the AS.

I must point out that the very title, 'Staying Sustainable' is flawed. If this is a tip for us to remain in a manner of sustainability, it is assumed that we as readers are already being 'sustainable' (whatever that word even means, but that's another entry).

That being said, let's see what this week's tip on how people can 'stay sustainable':

"Problem: Restaurants almost always have portions too large for one sitting. Taking home leftovers means taking home Styrofoam, which contains the dangerous chemical styrene, does not break down, is highly toxic to produce and is especially dangerous when microwaved or left in the sun.

"Solution: Bring a Tupperware container when you go out for dinner. It's easy, eliminates waste and helps to reduce the demand for the harmful production for Styrofoam. Plus, your food won't be collecting chemicals as it sits in your refrigerator."

First of all, there are many problems: yes, the portions are too large and that is a problem because how callous is it to offer people more than they can eat when there are those of whom, both humans and non-humans who cannot find enough food to survive. Second, restaurants probably get their product from non-local sources. Third, yes, Styrofoam is of course bad. Microwaves, bad (reasons? Energy, plastic, industry). On to the problems in the 'solution' portion. Tupperware is plastic. This is bad. And finally, refrigerators are bad as well (same reasons as the microwave plus some extra chemicals).

Now that that is settled, we can explore what potential solutions can be and find a meaningful solution. The first step would be to not go to a restaurant in the first place. Restaurants are huge contributers to the waste stream with plastic gloves, hairnets, and single serving products such as cutlery, napkins, etc. (unless the restaurant chooses to use re-usable materials, but then that uses a lot of water and electricity to wash such items). Just go look in a dumpster behind a restaurant. So, don't go to a restaurant.

Next: buying Tupperware is not a solution. It is made of plastic and I cannot say that plastic is good for anything. How is bringing one's own container reducing any sort of production of Styrofoam? If I bring my re-usable container to a restaurant, does that mean that at the Styrofoam production plant, there will be one less take-out container produced? I don't think so. Not for a second. The same goes with purchasing a ChicoBag and plastic bags and a KleenKanteen and plastic bottles. Not a chance.

So where does that leave us? No restaurants, no plastic, no single-use products.

It was a good stab at how people can 'stay' 'sustainable'. Perhaps next week will unfold a better' 'tip'.

Welcome back. Today's topic is inspired by the editorial titled 'Festival reminds of what's missing' in the local paper. It is located on page 4A of the ChicoER and can be found online at http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/ci_13407345.

The article goes on to explain about the upcoming festival this weekend in Oroville, with tours hosted by the Feather River Hatchery. The tone of celebration afoot, but in a melancholic manner. I would like to go on and take bits and pieces of the article and break it down.

The overview is as follows, "The Salmon Festival once celebrated the bounty of the fishery. Let's hope that things will return to normal." This makes me wonder what the festival is going to celebrate tomorrow. Will it celebrate the mediocre bounty of the fishery? What will it celebrate next year? If the salmon go extinct, will there be a festival to remember the salmon? The second sentence stings the most. I hear, "As you sit and read this paper, hope that the salmon will return to their once prolific numbers, but just hope because that's all you can do. Those in power have already decided the fate of the salmon and industry will drive them to their increasing demise." Hope is such an inappropriate word to use when something important is at stake.

"That means a walk to the fish barrier dam just upstream from the hatchery to watch salmon try to make the impossible leap before deciding the hatchery's fish ladder is much easier to navigate." The author has found a possible problem to the declining numbers of salmon. It's right there: the ninth word in the sentence: dam. Salmon are dying because of dams. Here is some information about the relationship between salmon and dams: http://www.pcffa.org/dams.htm. Or just type 'salmon' and dam' into Google. Or go look at a dam and consider how much easier it would be if there weren't several feet thick of cement blocking the waterway to spawning grounds. And hooray that the fish ladder is 'much easier to navigate'. That is a clear example of how humans put their needs before the needs of the natural world. Humans first (well, some humans), the rest of the world, dead last.

"Just seven years ago, three-quarters of a million adult salmon returned to spawn. Now that number is less than 100,000." If I lived on the Feather River and I saw 750,000 salmon spawning seven years ago versus the fewer than 100,000 today, I might put two and two together and think that something is terribly wrong. Terribly wrong.

Perhaps my least favorite part of the article stated that, "Despite that backdrop, the Salmon Festival will run for the 15th year in Oroville, as it has become about more than just the fish. It's about the human community too." 'The insert anthropocentrism' here button must have been hit accidentally by the author. The author must have been fooling him/herself that the human community is somehow significant compared to the salmon population. The only thing that is significant in terms of humans is when the dam will be removed, when commercial fishing will end, when chemicals cease to be dumped (and created in the first place) in the rivers, when pollution stops altogether. It is about the human community in the sense that the human community owes it to the salmon to stop. To just stop. Not because it makes us feel good that the salmon are returning. Not because it will win some environmental organization a prize. But because the human community needs to learn what it means to 'let it be', or bluntly, the human community needs to learn to quit destroying everything, living or non-living, just because this culture's supposed needs (ok, greeds) outweigh that of a healthy and vibrant ecosystem.

But the author does not leave the reader in a sense of despair. Remember in the beginning, he or she asked us to hope things will return to normal. And here's what we've been waiting for: "There are signs of hope. First, everyone is aware of the problem and making changes to aid in the salmon recovery. Second, there's history. At the end of the drought in the early 1990s, salmon were dwindling on the Sacramento and Klamath systems. A lack of water makes all other environmental problems worse. When the rain started falling again, the stocks recovered. Certainly some extreme winters would help again." Everyone is aware and making changes? I don't see any dams being removed. If everyone were making changes, the dams would be removed. Ah, and history. Of course. When there was a drought, the stocks declined and when it substantially rained again, the stocks returned to normal. However, we are not in a drought right now. Sorry. Certainly, some extreme winters would help out, only if the winters were so effective as to not only fill rivers with water, but also destroy dams, destroy industry, and destroy those ethos' that are killing the natural world.

Finally, "Let's hope everybody is resolved to fixing the problem, or the Salmon Festival could become as endangered as the fish." Is this just a pathetic attempt at a joke? Salmon are dying and somebody with an opinion who works for a newspaper ends with the catchall that the festival will become as endangered as the fish. Boo on you sir or ma'am. The hilarity of your comment has diminished any sort of confidence that you could actually care about the salmon, even though you write an editorial about the festival. Not that you gave any convincing statements about caring for the fish. Piss poor performance.

So that's pretty much the gist of the article. Thanks for the write-up about the festival. It reminds me of what's truly missing: a respect at the very basic level for the Earth and its inhabitants.

I went to a documentary last night put on by Gerard Ungerman, creator of Free-Will Productions at http://www.freewillprod.com/

The doc was called 'Addicted to Plastic. It was an informational time to spend, but the discussion afterwards was what inspired this commentary.

With the premise that plastic is not a healthy innovation for the Earth, someone asked the speakers something that they could not answer. She asked why is it always the so-called solution to choose an alternative to something such as plastic. What I hear when the word alternative is used, it is not at all a solution in any way, shape or form. Alternative effectively means that there is another choice to a problem. Alternative does not at all make the problem go away, even though everyone agrees that the problem exists.

For example, there is speculation that driving a vehicle is a problem, therefore I ride my bicycle. Vehicles are still being driven. I do not buy my water in plastic bottles, but water is still sold in plastic bottles. And so on.

This 'alternative' mentality is not solving any problems at all. Yes, it is making some small change. But in reality, this mentality is simply allowing those who care about a healthy planet something of a pacifier to suck on and forget about the problem.

Do people think to themselves, "Oh, I purchased a reusable bag for shopping, now I no longer need to concern myself with the single-bag use problem"? I say that the problem is NOT solved and the conversation is NOT over once an alternative is chosen.

Don't get me wrong, this act of choosing an alternative is a step in the right direction. But the steps on the path often fall short of finishing the journey, also known as removing the problem altogether.

So what does that mean? Should someone who purchases something like a reusable bag also do anything possible to remove the single-use bag problem? Or is our power as a human being, as a part of this Earth, to be limited to a purchasing power? Does the health of this Earth only go as far as what the individual can do? Is my slate now clean that I do not use bags even though I know it is a problem and I do nothing other than change my own habit? Or is it something larger?

Are alternatives creating larger problems than the ones it was designed to solve?

It seems apparent to me that we find ourselves limited to purchasing power. But we can only purchase what is available. How do we make it so that certain things are no longer available? These problems?

I'm tired of fooling myself that my own personal change is affecting the whole in the manner that I wish it would. I'm tired of lying to myself, to the Earth. I'm, tired of seeing the Earth in pain. Are you?

     I am a Coho and I am a Pink. I am a Chinook and I am a Sockeye and I am a Chum. I am a salmon of the Pacific. Out species has a tale to tell. If our story is neither heard, nor acknowledged, it is feared that we, just like countless other species, may no longer be extant on the face of this planet.

     Migrating thousands of years, for millions of years, by the billions, we have been driven into a serious population decline these past 200 years, the cause of which staggeringly points to direct and indirect contact with the industrialization of the planet brought about by: the human race.

     It is already a battle to survive to complete the life cycle of a salmon, even without human interference. Only four out of every thousand hatch lings will make it back to our original spawning grounds, with the chance at reproduction. Predators subsist off of our population as we feed in the oceans, waiting until it is time for us to spawn.

     After four years of gaining enough strength to make the return trip home, we travel in massive schools; our strength in numbers is an advantage for future generations to come. Predators such as Bald Eagles and Grizzly Bears lie ahead and hungrily await our return. We are not mad at them for eating us, as they allow for the continuity of our species, just as we allow for theirs.

     Another element that also affects our return journey: the amount of rainfall. Too little and the streams will not be deep enough for upstream travel, just as too much rain causes a great deal of stress on our bodies as we fight torrents upstream. It is crucial that we navigate upstream without an entirely exhausting expedition-- as soon we hit fresh water, we cease to eat and drink water altogether. Our internal organs have acclimated themselves to saltwater conditions.

     After the necessary few return to the exact spawning grounds, the entire process begins again.

     But that's how it used to happen (and still does, in places). Enter the human-induced industrialization of the Pacific Coast. In addition to predators, water levels, and the rate of decay once the body stops eating, the human creation of industrialization, machine-like, is dismantling our very way of life. Industrialization is the worst kind of 'predator' to have; it takes and takes and takes and does not give back. Treating salmon as some kind of 'resource', it takes more than it could ever give back-- the right to live. The greatest gift of all would be for humans to give back to the salmon (and the planet as a whole).

     Industrial fishing is not healthy for salmon populations as it decimates large numbers of salmon at a time. Industrial agriculture is not healthy for salmon populations as it poisons rivers, toxifying precious habitat. Industry-driven deforestation is not healthy for salmon populations as it leads to erosion, sending tons of soil and silt downstream, making upstream navigation extremely difficult. Finally, industry-driven dams are not healthy for salmon populations as they are thick, concrete barriers in the rivers, making upstream travel near impossible.

     Industrialization continues still. Large numbers of salmon continue to die in commercial fishing. Large amounts of pesticides from agricultural runoff continues to flow down streams, rivers, and other waterways. Large forests continue to be cut down. Large dams continue to stand. Industrialization continues to grow and grow as our populations continue to shrink and diminish. How few numbers must we have for industrialized humans to do away with industrialization? How much do we have to give?

     When will industrialized humans know that the cost of buying pesticide-laden produce in the supermarket comes at more than just the price tag, and when will they realize that the cost of a forest is more substantial that its physical beauty, and when will they realize that the cost of commercial fishing is greater than the ships and labor used to orchestrate it, and when will they realize that hydro-electric power costs more than the PG&E bill in addition to the dam's tax-payer-funded bill? Again, how much do we have to give?

     The cost of industrialization are the lives and future of the salmon, and all of the non-human creatures that depend on us as a food source. That cost is devastating.

     Humans continue to have hydro-electric power, industrial agriculture, deforestation, and commercial fishing. Salmon continue to die.

     Death from a culture of convenience, exploitation, wastefulness. The salmon (among others, human and non-human) pay the price of death. The salmon deserve better: honesty, support, respect, and the need to survive. The need to be. What does it mean to 'just be' to you? What would a salmon say if it asked you what it wants?more dams? Fewer forests? More fishing boats? More pesticides? The answer is a striking no.

     What does it mean to you to know that there is a possibility-- no-- there is direct correlations between industrialization and the murder of the salmon as well as other species, as well as toxifying the land, air, and water, as well as the air, as well as creating mountains of garbage, as well as causing cancer, and overall significantly diminishing the quality, health, and well-being of the very planet in which you live? What does that mean to you?

     And what are you going to do about it?

     But what can you do about it?

     Now, what will you do about it?

     It's not just about saving the salmon. It is also about honoring the interconnectedness of all life on this planet. After all, the salmon might prefer to be just another fish, instead of the next species on deck to lose out on a chance at life in the future.

...less than three.

      A recent ride on the train got this train of thought rolling. As I gazed at the changing landscapes from the second story of the train car, one thing remained constant-- the presence of fences. When I used to observe a thing that was so mundane, I never really bothered to give it a second thought. I've since learned from past mistakes and decided to ask myself more about them. What are the implications of fences? The reasons, the initial uses, and most importantly the unseen meaning behind such creations.

      Everyone living in this culture has seen a fence or two. They come in many forms such as concrete, brick, chain-link, lumber, and hard metal with sharp tips. Some are covered in ivy, morning glory, or other vined, flowering plants. Aside from the flowers, these barriers are largely unsightly. The dictionary online defines fences as, "a barrier enclosing or bordering a field, yard, etc., usually made of posts and wire or wood, used to prevent entrance, to confine, or to mark a boundary." Keeping things in or out seems to be the main function of a fence.

      Probably one of the oldest fences, or walls in this case is one of the largest things that humans have erected. Seen even from space, the Great Wall of China spans across China at the length of 4,000 miles. That's a lot of defense, as some serious determination went into its construction. To me, this stands as a reminder that humans have had and continue to have a difficult time at being peaceful; a constant stream of conflict seems to always haunt this ever growing civilization.

      Not only are these fences and walls used as a defense militarily speaking, but also to preserve 'national security'. This particular fence is used to keep unwanted individuals out who will 'ruin our economy', 'steal our jobs', and otherwise be detrimental to our 'united states'. Talk about a messy world where the rich keep the poor off of their precious land so that they will not be able to have an opportunity at a life just above the poverty line. So much for equality (in addition, if we cannot treat each other in a respectable manner, how can the Earth expect to be treated with dignity? But that's a hole other can of worms). Keeping people out is very popular with fences.

      On the other side, there is also the element of keeping things in, or confining them to a space. The thing that comes immediately to mind is an animal. Prisoners for life, many animals are enclosed in some type of fenced structure made to wait for however long their self-proclaimed masters allow them to (in the case of livestock), or until they die of old age (in the case of pets). Imagine having to live within a small space for life. Humans are just animals, too, and living in cages (prison) does not do well for the soul. I am extremely sad to see any animal trapped behind a fence. It just goes to show how much humans need to control their surroundings in order to function. Human benefits come at the cost of the well-being of their surroundings. I dislike seeing the chickens at my house behind an electric fence. I do not want to take part in imprisoning animals, which is why, as a form of protest, I have stopped eating their eggs. I cannot abide the gifts of those with their liberty stripped.

      So what goes in to making a fence, anyways? Mining of metals, cutting of trees, paint, harvesting of ingredients for concrete to name a few. Fences have been an American icon for many years. The white picket fence to be certain. It seems that everyone just just hangs around eating apple pie and putting up and painting white picket fences. Sweet.

I just have the eerie feeling that humans are putting up more than fences. It's something more than just a physical barrier...it's a mentality of division. Resulting notions include feelings of superiority, ownership, a false sense of security, and a 'this is mine and not yours' manner of living life. I do not like it one bit.

      If neighbors in a community put up fences to have their own space, privacy, and whatever other kick they get out of it, I struggle to see how a community can really be a community. To me, a collection of people would instead of dumping water on individual plots of grass, neighbors would come together and grow food and ultimately spending more time together, creating a greater sense of intimacy in the community. That would be beautiful.

      One good thing that fences bring is from a demographic of expression through 'graffiti'. This seems to be one of the truly uncensored forms of expression, with the exception of it being illegal. Graffiti, when tasteful, is a great form to embrace and it is often pleasant to admire. Another somewhat good thing that fences have brought about was in Tim Allen's 'Home Improvement' where Tim would hear meaningful and insightful words from his neighbor. A real home improvement would have been to take the fence down. But that was just a fictional television show.

      `Fences are pretty intense, and seem to bring about more alienation, animosity, separation, and division than anything else. Let's create a better world without fences in our yards, minds, or hearts. Because in the end, is it more than just something physical that humans put up, or is it something more?

This star-studded summer night

Is basked in moonlight

As I sit here

Not eighty-eight paces

From where I took you

That lonely Christmas

Yet two years ago

Roses and lavender grow in abundance and

Cassiopeia shines down on me.

Can you see its beauty?

I pull a peace out of my pocket

And bring it slowly to my face

Taking in its sweet aromas into my nostrils

As I turn it in my hands.

Its soft flesh reminds me of your touch...

How I yearn for yours ever so much.

I bite into it;

A symbol of your kisses.

And how you gave me butterflies

In your yellow dress that day--

Just as they are tattooed on your back

Circling the Earth

Of which we share in common

After a month of not eating

For what we believe in

A non-violent act

A fire that burns within us

Just as our legs burned

Climbing up Mount Siskiyou

And crossing the sign

That welcomed I and you

Into Eugene

A triumph still discounted

By our peers after we dismounted

Carrying burdens of the Earth

Burdens that orangutans know

While swinging to and fro from trees

As their habitats are taken

By the greedy and horribly mistaken

To me, you are like the honeybee

Enhancing its surroundings

Enhancing my life

Making it sweet and dripping with honey

Buzzing along

Singing sweeter songs of signets

And western fence lizards

Scurrying along

As I fondle the first heart rock

That you ever gave me

Wondering if I'll ever again

See your smiling face

Present in your ever-loving grace

Asking me to move along

Is like asking a Truffula tree

To take up its roots

And move to another place

Well I am at the far edge of town

Where the grickle-grass grows

And I will for the Truffula trees to grow

In this wondrous place

Oh I will grow a forest

From this last seed of our love

And feed it fresh water

And give it clean air

And protect it from axes that hack

Because believe me I do care a whole awful lot

And everything's going to get better

Please don't believe it's not

I do indeed love you a whole awful lot

Because this earth is all we've got

I need you just as it needs us

And just as the mountains

Need the salmon

And the quiet skies

Need the songbirds

And the forests need the trees

And all that I shall leave

Under these heartbroken words

Is this small token mess of my love

(which is much less than three)

And of course

The one word

Unless.