Call us toll free: +1 4062079616
How To Be Spiritual In A Material World
Call us toll free: +1 4062079616

Full Width Blog

27 Nov 2022
Comments: 0

This is what’s happening to your brain in the middle of a conflict

A few months ago, I was introduced over email to a consultant, who I’ll call Brad. The person who made the introduction thought Brad would make a good contributor to Harvard Business Review, where I work as an editor. I receive a good number of these introductions, and when this one came in, I was particularly overwhelmed with requests. Brad asked if we could get on the phone to talk. I courteously declined and let him know that an editor would be in touch about the draft he submitted.

A few weeks later, he asked again. Again, I sent what I thought was a polite response explaining that because of the demands on my time, I wouldn’t be able to have a call with him. Then I got this email from Brad: “We’re all busy but human connection is the most important thing. I’m going to take my writing elsewhere. I can’t handle the ego.”

This wasn’t the first time I’d dealt with a frustrated would-be author. But this one got to me. I reread his note a few times, my heart rate increasing and my shoulders and neck tensing. Initially, I thought that it was all Brad’s fault. That soon morphed into self-doubt. I started to wonder if he was right. Then, I took a few deep breaths and did what I thought was right: I deleted the email.

After hitting delete, Brad’s email kept popping into my mind. When I was making dinner that night, I thought about the line “I can’t handle the ego.” And at 3:00 a.m. the next morning, instead of falling back to sleep, I was still thinking about it, and beating myself up for not being able to let it go.

When interacting with someone challenging, our brain wants to protect us from harm. In the process, however, it often holds us back. I decided to let Brad’s email go, shrug it off, and move on. But my brain was hooked on the interaction.

Our brains on conflict

When we experience or perceive a potential rupture in our relationship with another person, our brain reacts as if we’re in actual danger. It prepares our body to respond to that perceived threat while attempting to make sense of what we’re experiencing.

On each side of our brain, behind the optical nerves, there’s an amygdala. One of its functions is to detect fear and then prepare the body to respond appropriately. So, when you perceive a threat, the amygdala begins to react by signaling the release of stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline.

These instinctual responses save time and energy and often do keep us safe. If you’re standing in the middle of the road and there’s a car bearing down on you, it would be dangerous if your brain paused to think. You need it to react instinctively and tell your body to get out of the street as quickly as possible.

How mental space prevents amygdala hijack

The more you can observe your instinctive reactions when your mind senses a threat, the better you’ll get at separating the stories your brain cooks up from what’s actually happening. Once you’ve created a little space from a vexing episode, you can then reappraise it. Psychologists have found that reappraisal—reassessing an emotional situation in a more positive or neutral light, or as a challenge instead of a threat—helps people focus and make more considered decisions about how to proceed.

Pay attention to your stress levels  

When stress is running high, you become more susceptible to the pitfalls of an amygdala hijack. Having a simple list of questions on hand for fraught situations could be the difference between losing your cool and finding a productive way forward. Here’s a mental checklist that I use when I notice that I’m going into an amygdala hijack:

  • Am I hydrated?
  • Am I hungry?
  • How did I sleep last night?
  • What else am I worried about?
  • Do I have any big projects or deadlines weighing on my mind?
  • Are any of my important relationships with friends or family strained right now?
  • When was the last time I did something that I enjoyed?

Monitoring your mental resources in this way can help you gain perspective. Throughout 2020, I had to remind myself regularly that the cognitive load of living through a pandemic made me much more prone to interpret the behavior of those around me as threatening, mostly because I already felt threatened. And when you’re in survival mode, you don’t have the reserves to tolerate additional stress.

The power of time 

Often, getting a good night’s sleep is exactly what you need to change your mindset. Alice Boyes, the author of The Anxiety Toolkit, helped me understand that while our initial response to a coworker talking over us in a meeting (again) or not following up on a task they promised to get done may be intense, those negative emotions don’t usually persist.

Let’s go back to my incident with Brad. I noticed the following day when I woke up that I cared less about what had happened. I didn’t really think about it during the day. Each day passed, and I thought about it less and less. As I’m writing this now, I actually care almost not at all—almost.

Give yourself time away from thinking about issues you’re having with a coworker. Consider taking a break. Get outside or listen to your favorite song—anything that pulls your attention away from your colleague for a bit. Then return to the interaction later and see if you have a different point of view once you’ve gotten out of the amygdala hijack.

That’s not to say you should completely ignore conflict or pretend it doesn’t bother you. Boyes says that thinking about challenging situations can actually be helpful, as long as your mind is focused on problem-solving and not rumination or perfection.

Our minds can often work against us in these moments of conflict. But we can use the same brain science in our favor. One way to do this is to remind ourselves that the other person may be going through the same thing. It might not be their intention to hurt you, lash out at you, or make your life miserable—perhaps they’re in an amygdala hijack and aren’t thinking clearly. Seeing an adversary as a person with a brain that works in the same—sometimes flawed—way that yours does can be the first step toward creating a better relationship.

 

 

Original article here


23 Nov 2022
Comments: 0

The Power of “Thanks”

In Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan, Francesca Gino, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, explores a range of fascinating subjects, including how emotions influence decisions and the often-thorny matter of understanding the perspectives of others. Blending social science and real-world examples, Gino’s book also highlights the science of gratitude.

“The message of ‘Sidetracked,’” Gino said in an interview, “is that a lot of these forces happen even though we are unaware of them. People might just not realize how powerful expressions of gratitude are.”

In two of the gratitude experiments, Gino worked with Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton School. They first asked 57 students to give feedback to a fictitious student, Eric, regarding his sloppy cover letter for a job. Half were emailed a terse confirmation: “I received your feedback on my cover letter.” The other half received gratitude: “I received your feedback on my cover letter. Thank you so much! I am really grateful.”

When Gino and Grant measured the students’ sense of self-worth afterward, 25 percent of the group that received just an acknowledgment felt higher levels of self-worth, compared with 55 percent of the group that received thanks.

In a follow-up experiment, participants received a message from another fictitious student, Steven, asking for feedback on his cover letter. Would participants who had received thanks from Eric be more likely to help Steven? Indeed. More than double the percentage of students in the gratitude group (66 percent) helped Steven, versus just 32 percent of those in the no-gratitude contingent.

“Receiving expressions of gratitude makes us feel a heightened sense of self-worth, and that in turn triggers other helpful behaviors toward both the person we are helping and other people, too,” Gino said. She described the scope of the “gratitude effect” as “the most surprising part” of her research.

Gino built on the research in a field study that looked at 41 fundraisers at a university, all receiving a fixed salary. The director visited half of the fundraisers in person, telling them, “I am very grateful for your hard work. We sincerely appreciate your contributions to the university.” The second group received no such expressions of gratitude.

What was the impact of the director’s thanks? Gino said that “the expression of gratitude increased the number of calls by more than 50 percent” for the week, while fundraisers who received no thanks made about the same number of calls as the previous week.

By missing chances to express gratitude, organizations and leaders lose relatively cost-free opportunities to motivate, Gino said.

“I spend a lot of time working inside organizations and see teams working together to accomplish a task, usually with a deadline,” she said. “Oftentimes, you don’t see the leaders going back and actually thanking the team members. Those are situations where expressions of gratitude from leaders could have wonderful effects.”

Gino has seen those effects up-close, in both her own behavior and that of those close to her.

“My husband is now working for a start-up. I received flowers and a note from his company’s CEO thanking me for my understanding because my husband had been up all night working on a big project.” The gesture was a motivator for her husband, Gino said.

The work behind her book, she said, “really makes me think more carefully every time I am the one expressing gratitude to others. I don’t want to miss opportunities. … I learned from my own research and now try to say ‘thank you’ much more often.”

 

 

Original article here


17 Nov 2022
Comments: 0

Our Buildings Are Making Us Sick

 

 

For years, Alan, a designer in Vermont, had a persistent, hacking cough that kept him up at night, and every winter, a near-constant series of sore throats and colds. He visited his doctor’s office, got diagnosed with reflux, and took reams of antibiotics for suspected sinus infections. But the cough always came back, so intransigent it permanently hoarsened his voice.

One spring, his doctor hired him to design an addition to his home. Alan invited him to his office to review the plans. “He just walked in the door, took one whiff, and said, ‘Whoa, that’syour problem,” recalled Alan, who requested we only use his first name.

The sharp air — a combination of off-gassing from an ammonia-based blueprint copier and fumes from two construction workshops that shared the building — was, to the doctor’s nose, immediately and unambiguously toxic. Later, a pulmonologist who looked at the insides of Alan’s lungs with a tiny camera said they looked like he’d survived a chemical fire.

But Alan himself barely noticed the smell anymore. “It was like the frog that’s boiled,” he said. Major problems in our environments can go entirely unnoticed if they happen gradually enough.

Although he’s been out of his old office space for a few years now, Alan still has a cough. He gets sick less often these days, but will probably have to take inhaled steroids for the rest of his life. “The damage was done,” he said.

There’s a version of Alan’s story that’s playing out again and again, all over the US. Whether we notice it or not, the air we breathe indoors can make us sick. For most of us, it’s not an industrial printer that’s contaminating the air: It could be the pollution from our ovens and stoves or the chemicals off-gassed from everyday household cleaners, or it could be the respiratory diseases exhaled by others we share our spaces with. Our indoor air can become toxic without us realizing it — but indoor spaces aren’t always designed with this in mind.

The technology and the human knowledge necessary to improve indoor air exist. But despite decades’ worth of science linking dirty indoor air with threats to human health, the public has simply learned to tolerate poor indoor air quality and all the downstream problems that follow in its wake. We are the frog that’s boiled.

The people who design, maintain, and manage the air inside America’s buildings now have a chance to make things right. The Covid-19 pandemic, spread by an airborne pathogen, prompted demands for a paradigm shift in the way we think about air quality. Now more than ever, it’s clear what we have to gain from improving indoor air quality: Not only could doing so help mitigate the next pandemic, but it could also lead to other large-scale improvements in health and productivity — and even bring the US closer to its climate goals. And it could help build a more equitable society, as rural and low-income Americans are most vulnerable to the negative health effects of air quality and crumbling infrastructure.

At the same time, cost, environmental concerns, a lack of enforceable indoor air standards, and the slow-changing nature of culture are formidable obstacles to scaling up air quality improvements inside the US’s aging building stock.

The past few years have seen a surge of new science, new air filtration technologies, and new political will to do something about it, but these advances will only make a difference if policymakers create regulations to ensure progress reaches the people and places that need it.

In its March announcement of a Clean Air in Buildings Challenge, the White House urged states, local governments, and schools to use any of the half-trillion dollars they got through the American Rescue Plan to improve buildings’ indoor air, signaling that the issue is increasingly one of national priority. But a challenge isn’t an imperative; there’s no law requiring buildings to participate.

How the indoors got so stuffy

Humans have been using fresh air to cure and prevent disease for as long as we’ve understood diseases to be something other than punishment from the gods. But where we encounter clean, fresh air has changed with time and technology.

In the early 1900s, buildings were generally constructed of wood, stone, clay bricks, and other natural materials that generally did not emit airborne toxins — and they were drafty, often allowing outdoor air to circulate whether people wanted it or not. Over the course of the next century, the building blocks of modern construction changed: Plastics were the future, and new or renovated buildings began incorporating contemporary materials like synthetic carpets and glues, pressed wood products, and vinyl into their designs — and with them, a variety of toxic compounds they silently emitted.

Meanwhile, the global energy crisis of the 1970s incentivized architects and engineers to design buildings that were increasingly airtight — why pay money to heat a building just to see that heat escape out a crack around a window? That, in turn, required new approaches to controlling their interior climates. Mechanical systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) became more common, as did open-plan layouts to allow for better air circulation.

Every day, people entered sealed buildings held together with solvents, adhesives, particleboard, drywall, and all of the chemicals that came with them. Reports of “office illness” crept into the media, and in the early 1980s, the World Health Organization coined the term “sick building syndrome” to describe the constellation of symptoms caused by the invisible byproducts of modern construction.

The structures intended to keep people safe were instead becoming threats to their health in a variety of ways. Bad lighting was causing headaches and eye irritation; noise and vibration were leading to nausea and dizziness. And all sorts of airborne contaminants were causing a host of respiratory illnesses.

Among the most insidious of those airborne pollutants are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like formaldehyde and benzene, gaseous and sometimes odorless chemicals that were (and occasionally still are) found in everything from compressed wood to body lotion. Particulate matter — bits of residue thrown off from unvented heaters, candles, cigarettes, and other sources — was also a key offender. These pollutants can cause mild symptoms like eye and nose irritation but are also strongly associated with asthma, worsened respiratory and cardiovascular illness, low birth weight and several types of cancer. And they were all over the buildings that were making so many people sick.

It wasn’t just the buildings’ and furnishings’ byproducts making inhabitants ill. If people became sick in one of these sealed-up buildings, the airborne pathogens they spewed could linger, spreading respiratory infections. When HVAC systems didn’t adequately clean the air or the airflow in a building wasn’t carefully managed, disease-causing molds, bacteria, and viruses could spread not only from buildings to people, but from people to people. Under the right conditions, certain building features could intensify the transmission of disease.

Buildings have gotten better — but not better enough

The worst offenses against many of our senses are relatively easy to detect: Most people can tell when lighting is bad or when a building’s bowels groan too loudly. But our capacity for sensing bad air is less finely tuned.

We certainly can tell when the air is too hot or too cold for our liking. But we’re much less likely to notice the air we’re breathing has high levels of carbon dioxide — indicating we’re breathing a lot of other people’s expelled air — or contains dangerous VOCs. When we get headaches after a day in a stuffy conference room or a nagging cough that starts a few minutes after we walk into the building, how often do we wonder if the problem is in the air?

Our sense of smell is only good for detecting indoor air quality on the really extreme end of bad, said Ian Cull, a Chicago-based environmental engineer who specializes in indoor air quality. We might notice the rancid or stale smell of mold, but there’s a lot we can’t detect. “We can probably, with our nose, tell the D minuses and the F’s,” he said, “but from an A plus to a C minus, you don’t really know.”

In the 1990s, a wave of lawsuits holding architects and engineers liable for health problems related to poorly built or maintained buildings led to massive overhauls of construction codes. The new codes created restrictions for the materials architects and engineers could use in buildings and HVAC systems. “Buildings were afraid of litigation,” said Sachin Anand, an engineer who leads a Chicago-based sustainable building firm. So most of them made meaningful changes that ultimately led to much healthier indoor climates all over the US.

By the early 2000s, complaints of sick building syndrome — and concerns about indoor air quality more broadly — had faded from the public eye.

Health problems related to bad indoor air still existed — it was just hard to prove in any individual’s case that their built environment, and not some other factor, led to a particular illness. Research accumulated linking indoor air pollution to worse cardiovascular disease; cognitive decline in older adults; higher rates of chronic respiratory diseases, lung infections, and cancers; and infectious diseases including measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, influenza, and SARS. In schools, high levels of multiple pollutants and carbon dioxide were tied to lower academic and cognitive performance and worsened respiratory health for students — with the worst consequences accruing to children of color and low-income children.

Still, there were no national requirements to improve building designs that force hundreds of people to share the same air space. Huge numbers of students, office workers, nursing home residents, and apartment dwellers were stuck regularly breathing poor-quality air. It wasn’t clear exactly how many were breathing bad indoor air because there was no broadly accepted definition of “regularly” and “poor-quality.” (This is still true today.) And while people complained about how annoying and paradoxically antisocial designs like open-concept offices are, they rarely protested the health risks of these kinds of layouts.

This was the state of things when Covid-19 arrived. The virus exploded, and almost instantly showed itself to be particularly good at infecting people in indoor spaces with poor ventilation and poor air filtration — like in many open offices, classrooms, and restaurants.

It took much longer than it should have for health authorities to publicly acknowledge that aerosols — tiny flecks of fluid, like those created when people cough or sneeze — could transmit SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, through the air. But scientists were quicker to the draw, and the public’s awareness of the new dangers of sharing airspace changed overnight.

“We’re in a place where people know that indoor air quality is important, but they’re just uncertain as to what to do,” said Cull.

Brett Singer, an environmental scientist and indoor air quality expert at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, agreed.

“Covid was a big wake-up call,” he said. “Whether it’s going to be a sustained concern that’s going to allow us to make the kind of structural and cultural changes that we need is an open question.”

The three most important tools on the indoor air quality workbench

As the coronavirus turned lives and economies upside down, newly formed companies flooded the market hawking air filtration technologies. Some were evidence-based, but many, like air cleaners that emit the pollutant ozone, not so much.

So what’s a building operator to do? The tools available for managing indoor air quality generally fall into three categories, each with its own pros and cons.

  • Ventilation involves replacing a building’s stale air with fresh air, whether by opening doors or windows or by engineering an HVAC system to suck in air from outside. Cull said there are dose-response gains to increasing ventilation, meaning, “The more outdoor air you bring in, the better health benefits and productivity benefits you get,” he said.

On the flip side, ventilation is costly, especially during seasonal temperature extremes; it consumes a lot of energy — and dollars — to heat or cool a large volume of air. For that reason, cost-conscious building operators sometimes ventilate buildings less in the peak of winter or summer.

  • Air cleaning purifies the air by removing particulate matter — including viruses, molds, and bacteria — either systemwide through an HVAC system or by using standalone air cleaners in individual rooms. Those standalone cleaners are cheaper upfront than a full HVAC overhaul (which can run into the millions of dollars in a large building), and their filters can be more easily upgraded to catch smaller infectious particles.

However, filtration doesn’t remove volatile organic compounds from the air — that requires ventilation. And standalone units can be prohibitively noisy. Cull said that in schools, many of which spent millions of dollars on these units, teachers often kept them on the lowest setting “just for the acoustics,” greatly reducing their effectiveness.

Air cleaning can also involve treating air with ultraviolet radiation, which is an effective tactic for reducing the recirculation of disease-causing germs along with air in an HVAC system. However, UV systems can be expensive, and they require careful attention to ensure they’re used safely.

  • Source control, finally, involves removing or avoiding things that emit chemicals or other contaminants — like certain building materials or furnishings, noxious cleaners, and cigarettes. Appliances that combust gas, like gas stoves, are often the worst offenders in the modern-day home.

Source control is the most cost-effective strategy overall, said Cull. However, it still requires profit-motivated contractors to choose building materials that don’t emit volatile organic compounds, or to switch a building’s utilities from gas to electric — a move that brings big indoor air quality benefits. All those solutions can be costly or challenging.

It takes a building-by-building adjustment in each of these categories to achieve healthier buildings while minimizing financial costs and climate impacts.

But making that adjustment is not straightforward.

One of the biggest challenges comes before any of these tools are deployed. In the US, the EPA doesn’t regulate indoor air, and there’s no federal standard for indoor air quality. That means there’s no minimum for building managers to strive for, and no way for inhabitants to know what’s in the air they’re breathing.

Still, there is guidance telling engineers and architects how to design buildings with air quality in mind.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers — ASHRAE, a professional association whose guidance outlines minimum standards for acceptable indoor air quality — updated its recommendations after the pandemic began.

ASHRAE’s standards include minimum ventilation rates that a building’s HVAC system should have, and measures that should be taken to prevent contaminants from entering inhabitants’ air supply. But it doesn’t include a requirement to check whether any of those controls are working.

Broadly speaking, there’s still no standard for assessing indoor air quality as a whole — only individual measurements quantifying its components. Effective sensors to detect carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter are available on the retail market, but there’s no widely approved composite score that communicates indoor air quality the way the Air Quality Index does for outdoor air quality. No simple parameter captures the safety of a building’s air in a way that’s meaningful to the public; no unambiguous reporting metric exists to facilitate accountability.

Without this, building owners have little incentive to improve bad air, said Cull.

He imagines something akin to the health department score many restaurants have to post up front: “The restaurant owner doesn’t want to have that sign, but it’s a requirement to post that they got a B minus for hygiene and cleanliness,” he said. Perhaps building operators should be doing the same for the air they offer inside.

What’s keeping us from having clean indoor air in every US building right now?

Besides the lack of meaningful standards or regulation, the upfront cost of improving indoor air quality is one of the biggest obstacles to achieving it.

At a minimum, gold-standard building designs involve electric utilities rather than gas, and an HVAC system powered to drive a full fresh air exchange of the building’s air four to six times an hour. They also clean the air using high-efficiency filters. Achieving that standard is an expensive project, usually in the range of several million dollars for a high-occupancy building.

Building operators with large budgets and a lot of motivation can and do spend that kind of money to make the changes they need to make.

Steve Hanon leads campus operations at Avenues, a private K-12 school with multiple international campuses. He spared no expense to ensure that the HVAC systems in the school’s newest campuses are being built to the highest standard. He says what made that possible was that the school’s leadership has prioritized it.

Making things easier: “We’re a premium school,” said Hanon; annual tuition is nearly $63,000.

American public schools are in a very different position. In schools with disproportionately high numbers of low-income students, resources for making capital improvements are often scarce, and facilities — including HVAC units — are disproportionately out of date. In a recent workshop, Hannah Carter, who manages school air quality projects at the US Green Building Council, said these schools often lack adequate facilities staff to keep up with needed changes, and may be less likely to get guidance on improving their air quality from federal sources. “It’s definitely an equity issue,” she said.

Public schools’ facility budgets are usually fixed, and except in the richest districts, relatively modest, making it prohibitively expensive to achieve the gold standard. And while federal grants like those available through the American Rescue Plan and the CARES Act are meant to make premium upgrades attainable, they don’t always work the way they’re supposed to.

Consider the case of the Milford School District in southern New Hampshire. Buildings and grounds director Bill Cooper knew that one of the highest-impact changes he could make would be to replace the five aging HVAC units that served the high school.

When Cooper heard federal dollars were available for school districts to make improvements aimed at mitigating Covid-19 transmission, he jumped at the opportunity to get funding. But he quickly found there were enormous obstacles to clear: He had to get a detailed set of plans approved by the state fire marshal’s office, which required bringing in an engineer to make each unit’s drawings and plans to an exhaustive level of detail. “That’s a lot of work,” said Cooper.

With a small staff already stretched thin, he demurred, instead opting to make do with a pallet of box fans — what amounts to a temporary and seasonally imperfect fix.

He’ll replace the HVAC units somewhere down the line on the district’s own dime, when red tape is less of an issue. “You have to jump through all these hoops,” Cooper said.

Although the price tag may prevent many building operators from making initial investments in permanent and effective air quality solutions, Joseph Allen, an environmental health expert who founded the Healthy Buildings program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argues that the payoffs outweigh these investments by several orders of magnitude. In a 2015 publication modeling costs and benefits of doubling office buildings’ ventilation rates, Allen and his co-authors found businesses had a lot to gain from relatively small investments in workers’ air quality.

The benefits: lower rates of absenteeism and sick leave, lower health care costs (as a result of lower incidence of health care use due to influenza, pneumonia, and other respiratory infections), and higher productivity due to better cognitive performance and productivity. “When we do the economic analysis,” said Allen, “we show that the cost is on the order of tens of dollars per person per year — against benefits of six to seven thousand dollars per person per year.”

But there’s a wrong-pockets problem here: Most of the savings Allen points to don’t end up accruing to the building owner, who ultimately bears the cost for improving the building. While investments in a building’s engineering can lead to a higher resale or rental value — gains that do end up in the owner’s pockets — that profit can take a long time to be realized, and most building operators want to see a return on their investment in three to five years, said Cooper, the school facilities director.

It’s not just the price tag that’s holding back change 

Many of the interventions that lead to cleaner indoor air consume additional energy — often, a lot of additional energy. And in the US, coal still supplies about a fifth of the nation’s electricity. It’s not ideal to create more outdoor air pollution in pursuit of cleaner indoor air.

Fortunately, it’s entirely possible to have healthy buildings that use very little energy, Singer, the environmental scientist, said. When it comes to indoor air quality, climate and health priorities “are absolutely compatible, but attention needs to be paid to both in order to accomplish that,” he said.

Among the clean air building strategies that reduce climate impacts are HVAC tune-ups to improve energy efficiency, and novel technologies like energy recovery ventilation, which uses the warmth or chill of exhausted stale air to heat or cool fresh air being brought into a system.

Older strategies — perhaps the oldest ones — also work: opening windows is an incredibly cheap, effective, and climate-neutral way of increasing ventilation.

But these strategies only help if they’re used. Anand, the sustainable building engineer, said because windows that don’t open and close are cheaper than those that do, many high-occupancy buildings have inoperable windows.

That trend highlights one of the biggest barriers to industry-wide change: culture. Although plenty of strategies exist to overcome cost and climate concerns in the service of healthier indoor air, getting decision-makers to choose to construct and run buildings differently means asking many people to realign their priorities, with the impediments often clearer than the incentives.

When Tom White, who works for an affordable housing nonprofit in the Bay Area, switched one apartment building’s utilities from gas to electric, he encountered resistance from all sides. White said the choice rankled both the workers putting in the new electric conduits and the pipefitters who lost out on work setting up the building for gas. “It’s like, ‘Why would we want to change when we have all of this energy just sitting in the pipe right there?” he said.

If a change like this is so challenging to make even in California, with its climate-forward political culture and many green building incentives, how much harder is it to make in states where fossil fuels run the table?

Everyday people need to be empowered to demand cleaner indoor air 

The pandemic has made Americans perhaps more aware than ever of the links between clean indoor air and their health.

But what they still lack is leverage. Even after a global pandemic made filtration and ventilation household words; even after the business case for healthier buildings was made clear in books and the press; even with mountains of data on one side, there is little regulatory recourse people can use to back up their demands for better indoor air.

We shouldn’t need carrots and sticks to make our workplaces, schools, residences, nursing homes, and places of worship safe, and to engineer them to better protect us from common pollutants or the next pandemic. Our health should be enough of an incentive. But for indoor air quality to become a business priority in the US, we’re going to need something with more teeth.

People need a clear path for demanding better when buildings fail them. They deserve transparent standards for indoor air, with metrics they can easily understand and use to make their own decisions. And they require policymakers to provide enough support — and consequences — for building owners to ensure they meet those standards.

“The cost of fixing that HVAC system to work properly, to provide good ventilation and filtration,” said Singer, is not the critical barrier. “The key barrier is not the cost. The barrier is the knowledge, the infrastructure, the culture.”

 

Original article here


11 Nov 2022
Comments: 0

A Journey Into the Animal Mind

Amid the human crush of Old Delhi, on the edge of a medieval bazaar, a red structure with cages on its roof rises three stories above the labyrinth of neon-lit stalls and narrow alleyways, its top floor emblazoned with two words: birds hospital.

On a hot spring day, I removed my shoes at the hospital’s entrance and walked up to the second-floor lobby, where a clerk in his late 20s was processing patients. An older woman placed a shoebox before him and lifted off its lid, revealing a bloody white parakeet, the victim of a cat attack. The man in front of me in line held, in a small cage, a dove that had collided with a glass tower in the financial district. A girl no older than 7 came in behind me clutching, in her bare hands, a white hen with a slumped neck.

The hospital’s main ward is a narrow, 40-foot-long room with cages stacked four high along the walls and fans on the ceiling, their blades covered with grates, lest they ensnare a flapping wing. I strolled the room’s length, conducting a rough census. Many of the cages looked empty at first, but leaning closer, I’d find a bird, usually a pigeon, sitting back in the gloom.

The youngest of the hospital’s vets, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, was making his rounds in jeans and a surgical mask. The oldest vet here has worked the night shift for more than a quarter century, spending tens of thousands of hours removing tumors from birds, easing their pain with medication, administering antibiotics. Singh is a rookie by comparison, but you wouldn’t know it from the way he inspects a pigeon, flipping it over in his hands, quickly but gently, the way you might handle your cellphone. As we talked, he motioned to an assistant, who handed him a nylon bandage that he stretched twice around the pigeon’s wing, setting it with an unsentimental pop.

The bird hospital is one of several built by devotees of Jainism, an ancient religion whose highest commandment forbids violence not only against humans, but also against animals. A series of paintings in the hospital’s lobby illustrates the extremes to which some Jains take this prohibition. In them, a medieval king in blue robes gazes through a palace window at an approaching pigeon, its wing bloodied by the talons of a brown hawk still in pursuit. The king pulls the smaller bird into the palace, infuriating the hawk, which demands replacement for its lost meal, so he slices off his own arm and foot to feed it.

I’d come to the bird hospital, and to India, to see firsthand the Jains’ moral system at work in the world. Jains make up less than 1 percent of India’s population. Despite millennia spent criticizing the Hindu majority, the Jains have sometimes gained the ear of power. During the 13th century, they converted a Hindu king, and persuaded him to enact the subcontinent’s first animal-welfare laws. There is evidence that the Jains influenced the Buddha himself. And when Gandhi developed his most radical ideas about nonviolence, a Jain friend played philosophical muse.

In the state of Gujarat, where Gandhi grew up, I saw Jain monks walking barefoot in the cool morning hours to avoid car travel, an activity they regard as irredeemably violent, given the damage it inflicts on living organisms, from insects to larger animals. The monks refuse to eat root vegetables, lest their removal from the earth disturb delicate subterranean ecosystems. Their white robes are cotton, not silk, which would require the destruction of silkworms. During monsoon season, they forgo travel, to avoid splashing through puddles filled with microbes, whose existence Jains posited well before they appeared under Western microscopes.

Jains move through the world in this gentle way because they believe animals are conscious beings that experience, in varying degrees, emotions analogous to human desire, fear, pain, sorrow, and joy. This idea that animals are conscious was long unpopular in the West, but it has lately found favor among scientists who study animal cognition. And not just the obvious cases—primates, dogs, elephants, whales, and others. Scientists are now finding evidence of an inner life in alien-seeming creatures that evolved on ever-more-distant limbs of life’s tree. In recent years, it has become common to flip through a magazine like this one and read about an octopus using its tentacles to twist off a jar’s lid or squirt aquarium water into a postdoc’s face. For many scientists, the resonant mystery is no longer which animals are conscious, but which are not.

No aspect of our world is as mysterious as consciousness, the state of awareness that animates our every waking moment, the sense of being located in a body that exists within a larger world of color, sound, and touch, all of it filtered through our thoughts and imbued by emotion.

Even in a secular age, consciousness retains a mystical sheen. It is alternatively described as the last frontier of science, and as a kind of immaterial magic beyond science’s reckoning. David Chalmers, one of the world’s most respected philosophers on the subject, once told me that consciousness could be a fundamental feature of the universe, like space-time or energy. He said it might be tied to the diaphanous, indeterminate workings of the quantum world, or something nonphysical.

These metaphysical accounts are in play because scientists have yet to furnish a satisfactory explanation of consciousness. We know the body’s sensory systems beam information about the external world into our brain, where it’s processed, sequentially, by increasingly sophisticated neural layers. But we don’t know how those signals are integrated into a smooth, continuous world picture, a flow of moments experienced by a roving locus of attention—a “witness,” as Hindu philosophers call it. 

In the West, consciousness was long thought to be a divine gift bestowed solely on humans. Western philosophers historically conceived of nonhuman animals as unfeeling automatons. Even after Darwin demonstrated our kinship with animals, many scientists believed that the evolution of consciousness was a recent event. They thought the first mind sparked awake sometime after we split from chimps and bonobos. In his 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes argued that it was later still. He said the development of language led us, like Virgil, into the deep cognitive states capable of constructing experiential worlds.

This notion that consciousness was of recent vintage began to change in the decades following the Second World War, when more scientists were systematically studying the behaviors and brain states of Earth’s creatures. Now each year brings a raft of new research papers, which, taken together, suggest that a great many animals are conscious.

It was likely more than half a billion years ago that some sea-floor arms race between predator and prey roused Earth’s first conscious animal. That moment, when the first mind winked into being, was a cosmic event, opening up possibilities not previously contained in nature.

There now appears to exist, alongside the human world, a whole universe of vivid animal experience. Scientists deserve credit for illuminating, if only partially, this new dimension of our reality. But they can’t tell us how to do right by the trillions of minds with which we share the Earth’s surface. That’s a philosophical problem, and like most philosophical problems, it will be with us for a long time to come.

Apart from Pythagoras and a few others, ancient Western philosophers did not hand down a rich tradition of thinking about animal consciousness. But Eastern thinkers have long been haunted by its implications—especially the Jains, who have taken animal consciousness seriously as a moral matter for nearly 3,000 years.

Many orthodox Jain beliefs do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The faith does not enjoy privileged access to truth, mystical or otherwise. But as perhaps the world’s first culture to extend mercy to animals, the Jains pioneered a profound expansion of the human moral imagination. The places where they worship and tend to animals seemed, to me, like good places to contemplate the current frontier of animal-consciousness research.

At the bird hospital, I asked Singh whether any of his patients gave him trouble. He said that one refused to be fed by hand and sometimes drew blood when he tried to pick it up. He led me to another room to see the offending bird, an Indian crow whose feathers were record-groove black but for a sash of latte-colored plumage around its neck. The crow kept fanning one of its wings out. Light from a nearby window filtered through the feathers, as though the wing were a venetian blind. Singh told me it was broken.

“A few days after the crow arrived, it started using a special call when it wanted food,” Singh said. “None of the other birds do that.” The bird’s call was not an entirely unique case of bird-to-human communication. A grey parrot once amassed a 900-word vocabulary, and in India, a few have been trained to recite the Vedic mantras. But birds have only rarely assembled verbal symbols into their own, original proto-sentences. And, of course, none has declared itself conscious.

That’s too bad, because philosophers tend to regard such statements as the best possible evidence of another being’s consciousness, even among humans. Without one, no matter how long I stared into the crow’s black pupil, wishing I could see into the phantasmagoria of its mind, I could never really know whether it was conscious. I’d have to be content with circumstantial evidence.

Crows have an unusually large brain for their size, and their neurons are packed densely relative to other animals’. Neuroscientists can measure the computational complexity of brain activity, but no brain scan has yet revealed a precise neural signature of consciousness. And so it’s difficult to make a knockdown argument that a particular animal is conscious based strictly on its neuroanatomy. It is suggestive, though, when an animal’s brain closely resembles ours, as is the case with primates, the first animals to be knighted with consciousness by something approaching a scientific consensus.

Mammals in general are widely thought to be conscious, because they share our relatively large brain size, and also have a cerebral cortex, the place where our most complex feats of cognition seem to take place. Birds don’t have a cortex. In the 300 million years that have passed since the avian gene pool separated from ours, their brains have evolved different structures. But one of those structures appears to be networked in cortexlike ways, a tantalizing clue that nature may have more than one method of making a conscious brain.

Other clues can be found in an animal’s behavior, though sifting out conscious acts from those that are evolved and mindless can be difficult. Tool use is an instructive case. Australian “firehawk” raptors sometimes fly bundles of flaming sticks out of forest fires and into neighboring landscapes, to flush out prey. Maybe that means the raptors are capable of considering a piece of the physical environment, and imagining a new purpose for it. Or maybe something more rote is going on.

Crows are among the most sophisticated avian technologists. They have long been known to shape sticks into hooks, and in 2018, members of one crow species were observed constructing tools out of three separate sticklike parts. In Japan, one crow population has figured out how to use traffic to crack open walnuts: The crows drop a nut in front of cars at intersections, and then when the light turns red, they swoop in to scoop up the exposed flesh.

As Singh and I talked, the crow grew bored with us and turned back to the window, as though to inspect its faint reflection. In 2008, a magpie—a member of crows’ extended family of corvids, or “feathered apes”—became the first non-mammal to pass the “mirror test.” The magpie’s neck was marked with a bright dot in a place that could be seen only in a mirror. When the magpie caught sight of its reflection, it immediately tried to check its neck.

Singh told me this crow would soon move upstairs, to one of the roof’s exposed cages, where the birds have more space to test their still-fragile wings, in view of an open sky that must surely loom large in a bird’s consciousness. With luck, it would quickly return to the spirited life preferred by wild crows, which sometimes play like acrobats in high winds and ski down snowy surfaces. (Birds that die at this hospital are buried along a riverbed outside Delhi, an apt touch in the case of the crows, which sometimes hold funerals—or, if not funerals, postmortems, where they gather around their dead like homicide detectives discerning cause of death.)

I asked Singh how he felt when he released birds on the rooftop. “We are here to serve them,” he said, and then noted that not all the birds leave right away. “Some of them come back and sit on our shoulders.”

Crows are not among the shoulder-perchers, but Singh sometimes sees former crow patients hovering around the hospital. They might be looking for him. Crows recognize individual human faces. They are known to blare vicious caws at people they dislike, but for favored humans, they sometimes leave gifts—buttons or shiny bits of glass—where the person will be sure to notice, like votive offerings.

If these behaviors add up to consciousness, it means one of two things: Either consciousness evolved twice, at least, across the long course of evolutionary history, or it evolved sometime before birds and mammals went on their separate evolutionary journeys. Both scenarios would give us reason to believe that nature can knit molecules into waking minds more easily than previously guessed. This would mean that all across the planet, animals large and small are constantly generating vivid experiences that bear some relationship to our own.

The day after I visited the bird hospital, I left Delhi by car, on a road that follows the Yamuna River south and east, away from its icy source among the serrated ridges of the Himalayas. Delhi’s sewage has blackened long stretches of the Yamuna, making it one of the world’s most polluted rivers. From the road, I could see plastic bottles floating on its surface. In India, where rivers have a special place in the spiritual imagination, this is a metaphysical defilement.

Millions of fish once swam in the Yamuna River, before it was desecrated by the human technosphere, which now reaches into nearly every body of water on Earth. Even the deepest point in the ocean is littered with trash: A grocery bag was recently seen drifting along the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

We last swam in the same gene pool with the animals that evolved into fish about 460 million years ago, more than 100 million years before we split from birds. The notion that we are kin across this expanse of time has proved too radical for some, which is one reason the ever-changing universe described by Darwin has been slow to lodge in the collective human consciousness. And yet, our hands are converted fins, our hiccups the relics of gill-breathing.

Scientists have sometimes seemed to judge fish for their refusal to join our exodus out of the water and into the atmosphere’s more ethereal realm of gases. Their inability to see far in their murky environment is sometimes thought to be a cognitive impairment. But new evidence indicates that fish have minds rich with memories; some are able to recall associations from more than 10 days earlier.

They also seem to be capable of deception. Female trout “fake orgasms,” quivering as though they’re about to lay eggs, perhaps so that undesired males will release their sperm and be on their way. We have high-definition footage of grouper fish teaming up with eels to scare prey out of reefs, the two coordinating their actions with sophisticated head signals. This behavior suggests that fish possess a theory of mind, an ability to speculate about the mental states of other beings.

A more troubling set of behaviors has emerged from experiments designed to determine whether fish feel pain. One of the most intense states of consciousness, pain is something beyond the mere detection of damage. Even the simplest of bacteria have sensors on their external membranes; when the sensors detect trace amounts of dangerous chemicals, the bacteria respond with a programmed flight reflex. But bacteria have no central nervous system where these signals are integrated into a three-dimensional experience of the chemical environment.

Fish have many more kinds of sensors than bacteria do. Their sensors flare when the water temperature spikes, when they come into contact with corrosive chemicals, when a hook rips through their scales and into their flesh. In the lab, when trout lips are injected with acid, the fish do not merely respond at the site. They rock their entire bodies back and forth, hyperventilating, rubbing their mouths against their tanks’ sides or gravel bottoms. These behaviors cease when the fish are given morphine.

Such actions call the ethics of the research itself into question. But the experiences of lab fish are nothing compared with those endured by the trillions of aquatic animals that humans yank, unceremoniously, out of oceans and rivers and lakes every year. Some fish are still alive, hours later, when they’re shoveled into the sickly lit, refrigerated intake tubes of the global seafood supply chain.

Fish pain is something different from our own pain. In the elaborate mirrored hall that is human consciousness, pain takes on existential dimensions. Because we know that death looms, and grieve for the loss of richly imagined futures, it’s tempting to imagine that our pain is the most profound of all suffering. But we would do well to remember that our perspective can make our pain easier to bear, if only by giving it an expiration date. When we pull a less cognitively blessed fish up from the pressured depths too quickly, and barometric trauma fills its bloodstream with tissue-burning acid, its on-deck thrashing might be a silent scream, born of the fish’s belief that it has entered a permanent state of extreme suffering.

The Jains tell a story about Neminath, a man from deep antiquity who is said to have been sensitive to the distress calls of other animals. He developed his unusual fondness for animals while tending cattle in pastures on the banks of the Yamuna River, in his home village of Shauripur, which I reached four hours after leaving Delhi.

Neminath is one of 24 Jain “Fordmakers,” prophetlike figures who crossed a metaphorical river, freeing themselves from the cycle of birth and rebirth, before showing others the way to enlightenment. The Fordmakers’ life stories tend to emphasize their nonviolent natures. One is said to have floated perfectly still in the womb, sending not so much as a ripple through the amniotic fluid, to avoid harming his mother.

Only a few Fordmakers are confirmed historical figures, and Neminath is not one of them. The Jains say Neminath left his village for good on the day of his wedding. That morning, he mounted an elephant, intent on riding it to the temple where he was to be wed. On the way, he heard a series of agonized screams, and demanded to know their origin. Neminath’s elephant guide explained that the screams came from animals that were being slaughtered for his wedding feast.

This moment transformed Neminath. Some versions of this story say he freed the surviving animals, including a fish that he carried, in his hands, back to the river. Others say he fled. All agree that he renounced his former life. Rather than marry his bride, he set out for Girnar, a sacred mountain in Gujarat, 40 miles from the Arabian Sea. 

My own ascent up Girnar began before dawn. It followed the usual topography of enlightenment. I was to climb 7,000 steps, all built into the mountain, by nine in the morning, so as not to be late for a ritual at an ancient temple near the peak.

The trail was only 50 miles from Gir National Park, where, the day before, I’d seen two Asiatic lions, nearly indistinguishable cousins of Africa’s lions. Once the region’s apex predator, the Asiatic lion almost went extinct during the British empire’s colonization of India, when no viceroy could visit a maharaja’s palace without a hunt in the local forest. Even today, the Asiatic lion still ranks among the rarest of the large feline predators, rarer even than its neighbor to the north, the snow leopard, which is so scarce that a glimpse of one padding down a jagged Himalayan crag is said to consummate a spiritual pilgrimage.

I did my best to put the lions, which have recently expanded to Girnar’s forests, out of my mind as I passed small huts and tents in the dark, at the trail’s base. Daylight brought langur monkeys onto the trailside boulders. One watched a vendor set up his stall to offer food and water to passing Jain pilgrims. The monkey waited until the man’s back was turned, at which point he scampered in to grab a banana. In Gir National Park, I’d seen deer using these monkeys as a treetop surveillance system. The monkeys sat high in the trees, keeping watch for leopards and lions, which blend into the woodland’s pre-monsoon palette of amber and gold. Monkeys that spotted a stalking cat let out a specific call. Deer weren’t the only ones that recognized and used these calls; the lion tracker who had been with me in the park did too.

On the hike up Girnar, barefoot women kept passing me, wearing iridescent saris in bright shades of orange, green, or pink. Their delicate silver anklets tinkled as they went. When I reached a trail marker that said I was still 1,000 steps from the temple, I removed my pack and hopped up onto a wall, letting my legs dangle.

Two switchbacks below, an aged Jain monk in a white robe was struggling up the steps. He looked lonely, and seemed to be having trouble breathing. When Jain monks and nuns renounce worldly life, they sever all family ties. They embrace their children one last time, and vow never to see them again, unless chance brings them together on the rural back roads where the monks and nuns wander for the rest of their lives, carrying all their possessions on their back.

The monk and I had the trail to ourselves for a moment. All was silent but for a buzzing sound that I traced to a spindly black wasp bobbing above a dense clump of bougainvillea. The last ancestor this wasp and I shared likely lived more than 700 million years ago. The insect’s appearance reinforced this sense of evolutionary remoteness. The elongated shape and micro-tiled matte finish of its eyes made it seem too alien to be conscious. But appearances can deceive: Some wasps are thought to have evolved large eyes to observe social cues, and members of certain wasp species can learn the facial features of individual colony members.

Wasps, like bees and ants, are hymenopterans, an order of animals that displays strikingly sophisticated behaviors. Ants build body-to-body bridges that allow whole colonies to cross gaps in their terrain. Lab-bound honeybees can learn to recognize abstract concepts, including “similar to,” “different from,” and “zero.” Honeybees also learn from one another. If one picks up a novel nectar-extraction technique, surrounding bees may mimic the behavior, causing it to cascade across the colony, or even through generations.

In one experiment, honeybees were attracted to a boat at the center of a lake, which scientists had stocked with sugar water. When the bees flew back to the hive, they communicated the boat’s location with waggle dances. The hive’s other bees would usually set out immediately for a newly revealed nectar lode. But in this case, they stayed put, as though they’d consulted a mental map and dismissed the possibility of flowers in the middle of a lake. Other scientists were not able to replicate this result, but different experiments suggest that bees are capable of consulting a mental map in this way.

Andrew Barron, a neuroscientist from Macquarie University, in Australia, has spent the past decade identifying fine neural structures in honeybee brains. He thinks structures in the bee brain integrate spatial information in a way that is analogous to processes in the human midbrain. That may sound surprising, given that the honeybee brain contains only 1 million neurons to our brains’ 85 billion, but artificial-intelligence research tells us that complex tasks can sometimes be executed by relatively simple neuronal circuits. Fruit flies have only 250,000 neurons, and they too display complex behaviors. In lab experiments, when faced with dim mating prospects, some seek out alcohol, the consciousness-altering substance that’s available to them in nature in broken-open, fermenting fruit.

Many invertebrate lineages never developed anything beyond a rudimentary nervous system, a network of neurons dispersed evenly through a wormlike form. But more than half a billion years ago, natural selection began to shape other squirming blobs into arthropods with distinct appendages and newly specialized sensory organs, which they used to achieve liberation from a drifting life of stimulus and response.

The first animals to direct themselves through three-dimensional space would have encountered a new set of problems whose solution may have been the evolution of consciousness. Take the black wasp. As it hovered above the bougainvillea’s tissue-thin petals, a great deal of information—sunlight, sound vibrations, floral scents—rushed into its fibrous exoskull. But these information streams arrived in its brain at different times. To form an accurate and continuous account of the external world, the wasp needed to sync these signals. And it needed to correct any errors introduced by its own movements, a difficult trick given that some of its sensors are mounted on body parts that are themselves mobile, not least its swiveling head.

The neuroscientist Björn Merker has suggested that early animal brains solved these problems by generating an internal model of the world, with an avatar of the body at its center. Merker says that consciousness is just the multisensory view from inside this model. The syncing processes and the jangle and noise from our mobile bodies are all missing from this conscious view—some invisible, algorithmic Stanley Kubrick seems to edit them out. Nor do we experience the mechanisms that convert our desires into movements. When I wished to begin hiking up the mountain again, I would simply set off, without thinking about the individual muscle contractions that each step required. When a wasp flies, it is probably not aware of its every wing beat. It may simply will itself through space.

If one of the wasp’s aquatic ancestors experienced Earth’s first embryonic consciousness, it would have been nothing like our own consciousness. It may have been colorless and barren of sharply defined objects. It may have been episodic, flickering on in some situations and off in others. It may have been a murkily sensed perimeter of binary feelings, a bubble of good and bad experienced by something central and unitary. To those of us who have seen stars shining on the far side of the cosmos, this existence would be claustrophobic to a degree that is scarcely imaginable. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t conscious.

When the monk arrived at the wall where I was resting, the wasp flew away, rising up toward the sun until I lost it in the light. The monk was wearing a white mask like those that some Jains wear to avoid inhaling insects and other tiny creatures. I nodded to him as he passed, and lay back against the warm stone of the mountain.

The monk was a white dot some six switchbacks up by the time I hopped off the wall and continued the climb, my legs stiffened by the break. I reached the entrance to the temple complex with only 15 minutes to spare. Its marble courtyard shone brilliant white, as though bleached by the mountain sun.

Ducking under a row of elegant golden medallions, I entered the temple’s interior chamber, where dozens of candles flickered in intricately carved wall niches, and on platforms that hung from the ceiling on chains. The stone ceiling was carved into a lotus flower, its delicate unfurling petals symbolizing the emergence of a pure, ethereal soul from the Earth’s muddy materials.

Forty Jains were sitting on the floor in neat rows, their legs crossed in the lotus position. The women wore fresh saris they’d carried up the mountain for the occasion. The men were dressed in all white. I wedged into a spot in the back.

We faced a dark, tunnel-like space lined by two sets of columns. At the far end, candlelight illuminated a black marble statue of a seated male figure. Its barrel chest was inlaid with gemstones, as were its eyes, which appeared to float, serenely, in the dark space, inducing a hypnotic effect, broken only when the man sitting next to me tugged my shirt. “Neminath,” he said, nodding toward the statue.

It was here on this mountain that Neminath is said to have achieved a state of total, unimpeded consciousness, with perceptual access to the entire universe, including every kind of animal mind. Jains believe that humans are special because, in our natural state, we are nearest to this experience of enlightenment. Among Earth’s creatures, no other finds it so easy to see into the consciousness of a fellow being.

The pilgrims started singing, first in a low hum and then steadily louder. One wheeled a giant drum next to the tunnel’s entrance and struck it with a dark mallet. Two others bashed cymbals together. Men and women walked in from opposite doors, converging, in two lines, on either side of the tunnel. A woman wearing an orange sari and a gold crown crossed in front of Neminath, lifted a vessel over his black-marble head, and poured out a mixture of milk and blessed water. When she finished, a white-robed man from the other line did the same.

The singing grew louder until it verged on ecstatic. The pilgrims raised their arms and clapped overhead, faster and faster. A climax seemed to loom, but then it all dropped away. The drums and the bells and the cymbals went quiet, leaving a clear sonic space that was filled by a final blow on a conch.

The shell’s low note was long and clean. It rang out of the temple and over the ancient peaks. As it trailed off, I wondered whether, in the centuries to come, this place might become something more than a Jain house of worship. Maybe it will become a place to mark a moment in human history, when we awakened from the dream that we are the only minds that nature brought into being. Maybe people will come here from all corners of the Earth to pay their respects to Neminath, who is, after all, only a stand-in for whoever it was who first heard animal screams and understood their meaning.

 

 

Original article here


Leave a Comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.