Population of Deaf People Worldwide

Video: Population of Deaf People Worldwide.



Density of Deaf people worldwide version (HD) - Deafness worldwide selected estimated figures. Timing is improved, but the stats are still a bit mixed. They are accurate, averages from the last 20 years (where possible). This was produced in after effects, the globe is own creation having sourced the original flat map from NASAs image library.

Video by TheDeesunset



The slightly lame cloud effect is simple fractal noise on a background layer, with feathered masking to contain it. Also 3D'd the text boxes.

Celebration For The CSD Student Development Center

Video with captions - Celebration For The CSD Student Development Center at RIT/NTID. What the CSD Student Development Center Means to NTID.



ROCHESTER, NY. - NTID students, faculty and staff talk about what the The CSD Student Development Center means to them. This was shown during an anniversary event for the building put on by Communication Service for the Deaf, the major donor for the building.



"Accolades for the CSD Student Development Center"

The CSD Student Development Center, described as “the heart and center of student life at RIT/NTID,” was celebrated Friday by Communication Service for the Deaf (CSD), the major donor of the building constructed in 2006.



Students, faculty, staff and alumni attended the celebration under mild and sun-filled skies in the D. Robert Frisina Quad.



“This building is an important part of our college life,” said Corey Burton, NTID’s Student Congress president. “Thank you to CSD for making our dream a reality. I cannot imagine where we might be if this building never existed. It truly means a lot to us.”

Read More http://www.ntid.rit.edu/news/accolades-csd-student-development-center.



Subscribe the official YouTube channel for National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology. RITNTID

Video by RITNTID

A Late Summer Harvest

It's been a good year for gardening in Seattle, at least in my garden.  Thanks to great new tools* and Steve Solomon's recipe for homemade fertilizer, my house has been swimming in home-grown vegetables all summer.  I'm fortunate that a friend lets me garden a 300 square foot plot behind her house.  Here's a photo of part of today's harvest; various kale/collards, zucchini, tomatoes and the last of the pole beans:

Perfect for the Eocene diet.  

Read more »

Earth Day - April 22

On this day people of all nationalities and backgrounds voice their appreciation for the Planet and demand its protection! Earth Day intends to mobilize the Planet simply to say one thing: the Earth won’t wait. It seems that environmental issues have been put behind as we are in the midst of a global recession. It’s time to mobilize the Earth and speak with one voice, one message.

Its founder was US Senator Gaylord Nelson, who after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil spill in California, realized that if he could infuse some energy with an emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution, it would force environmental protection onto the national political agenda. It was a success in 1970 and it still is! Together we will stand united for a sustainable future and call upon individuals, organizations and governments to do their part.
So if you don't have an Earth Day event happening where you live, just take some your time and think about what you're doing to to our Planet, to Mother Nature... Will we have a second chance?

                                                                                                 photo credit: IronRodArt - Royce Bair (NightScapes on  Thursdays)via photo pin cc

Source: Earth Day Network

Density of Deaf People Worldwide

Video: Population of Deaf People Worldwide.



Density of Deaf People Worldwide Version (HD) - Deafness worldwide selected estimated figures. Timing is improved, but the stats are still a bit mixed. They are accurate, averages from the last 20 years (where possible). This was produced in After Effects, the globe is own creation having sourced the original flat map from NASAs image library.

Video by TheDeesunset



The slightly lame cloud effect is simple fractal noise on a background layer, with feathered masking to contain it. Also 3D'd the text boxes.

National Wildlife Resources

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has some great resources for educators on their web site. There is a news section, wildlife animal information and resources, environment and global climate change resources, and much more.

They have wildlife cameras that you can view, such as the Eagle Cam, an incredible Wildlife Library with information about different species, and Wild Places where you can virtually visit and explore some great wild parts of America.

There are outdoor activity guides and things to do outside, Wildlife news reports, and Global Climate Change resources.

This is a great resource for teachers and students to use when studying wildlife, nature, and the environment. I'm getting ready to start a unit under the motto "The World Around Us", so it sounds "perfect stuff" to me ;)

Source: Educational Technology Guy

What is Grass Based Health?

Animals make us human.

Temple Grandin

. . . the Andamanese believe it is the possession of fire that makes human beings what they are and distinguishes them from animals.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1922.

The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1

So, what does barbecue make us?

With his new opposing thumb and his king-sized cranium,

Man sallied forth with grace and savoir faire.

With Promethian desire he soon discovered fire,

And arson but a single step from there.

The wheel and gasoline, to the full-sized limousine,

Music, art and law are but a few,

But name what can compare to the artistry so rare of

the sparerib that has met the barbecue.

from The Big Band Theory. Mark Graham.2

I recently had the opportunity to attend the 7^th Annual Cattlemen’s Workshop in La Grande, Oregon. It was a wonderful opportunity to connect with the region’s beef industry and learn from the ranchers, industry and University folks who were there. One lesson I learned is that “Grass Based Health” means something to everyone, but it may not mean the same thing to everyone. So I thought it was time to define what I mean by the phrase.

Grass Based Health is the concept that pasture-based livestock production systems are better for the animals, better for the farmers and ranchers, better for the land, and better for the communities they are a part of than the alternative livestock production systems. I’ll be covering all of these topics in future posts. But the fundamental principle of Grass Based Health is that our diet ought to be grass based, not grain based. Understanding and accepting this premise then forces the consideration, and re-consideration, of many other topics as well.

It’s obvious (or it ought to be!) that we lack the herbivores’ specialized ingestive and digestive anatomy that permits them to utilize cellulose. We depend on various animals to convert cellulose, the most common organic compound on Earth[3], into animal fat and high quality, complete protein. The majority of feed units consumed by all domestic livestock (beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs and poultry, sheep and goats, horses and mules, and “other”) in the US in 1970 came from forage (54.4% of all feed units, 36.1 and 18.3 percent from pastured and harvested forage, respectively).[4] I’ll simplistically refer to all forage as “grass” from now on. A grain-finished steer spends most of his life eating grass, and is only fed grain as a portion of its diet during the finishing phase. Even then, its ration still contains grass. So, even today meat and dairy products can be described as “grass based.” I do believe that there is vast room for improving the production and utilization of grass in pasture-based production systems, and I’ll address that in future posts. 

Terms like “grass-fed,” “free-range,” “pastured,” and “organic” are all used to market food today. Quantitative and qualitative differences have been determined between grass-finished and grain-finished meats. Similar differences have been determined between the milk from dairy cows grazing pasture compared to those housed in confinement systems. Just how important are these differences? Future posts will deal with this subject, too. I am concerned, however, that the claims some make for these products are over-stated. Without addressing the biggest insult to human health – an oversupply of readily digestible refined carbohydrates – is the consumer likely to realize any of these benefits? (see What's the Limiting Factor?)

It is beyond dispute that the “natural” diet of mankind is one that is much higher in animal products and much lower in carbohydrate than what our current “experts” advise us to eat. The archeological evidence provided in the fossil record and the testimony of anthropologists concerning various hunter-gatherer cultures provides significant evidence regarding our ancestor’s diet. The ancients who 19,000 years ago produced the awe-inspiring Lascaux cave paintings in present-day southwest France were paying homage to what gave them sustenance – the auroch, the ancestor of our modern European cattle.

Loren Cordain (2000) published an analysis of the diets of hunter-gatherer populations whose diets had been assessed by anthropologists.[5] One in every five of these 229 populations subsisted on almost entirely hunting or fishing. More than 85 percent of their calories came from meat or fish, with some groups thriving entirely on meat and fish. Only 14 percent of these groups got more than half their calories from plant foods. Not a single one of these populations was exclusively vegetarian. 

Today we understand the need to avoid obesity and the chronic diseases that are associated with being overweight. The “experts” tell us that we can accomplish these goals by eating less and exercising more, and by eating diets that are low in fat and high in carbohydrates. Animal products must be restricted, according to this advice. In response to the expert’s recommendations, as published in the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, the American caloric intake averages 15% from protein, 33% from fat, and the balance from carbohydrates. In contrast, Cordain’s hunter-gatherers’ diets were high to very high in protein (19 to 35 percent of calories) and high to very high in fat (28 to 58 percent of calories). Several of these populations obtained as much as 80 percent of their calories from fat. 

There is an abundance of evidence documenting the oft-repeated experience of isolated populations who exhibited none of the various “western diseases” until the introduction of sugar and white flour to their diets (see Grass and Cancer, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Why we Get Fat and What to Do About It, among other sources). The scientific research and observational data so strongly supports the fattening carbohydrate hypothesis and explains the phenomenon of metabolic syndrome that all but those with a vested interest ought to be convinced that the lipid hypothesis should never have been adopted as the basis of public health policy in this country, or anywhere else. And this flawed “conventional wisdom” about weight loss and what constitutes a healthy diet has contaminated all of science. Not just nutrition and human health, but disciplines as seemingly unrelated as soil conservation. I’ll write about that in the future, too.

At the end of the introduction to his newest book, Gary Taubes writes:[6]

In the more than six decades since the end of the Second World War, when this question of what causes us to fatten – calories or carbohydrates -  has been argued, it has often seemed like a religious issue rather than a scientific one. So many different belief systems enter into the question of what constitutes a healthy diet that the scientific question – why do we get fat” – has gotten lost along the way. It’s been overshadowed by ethical, moral, and sociological considerations that are valid in themselves and certainly worth discussing but have nothing to do with the science itself and arguably no place in a scientific inquiry.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets typically (if not, perhaps, ideally) replace the carbohydrates in the diet with large or at least larger portions of animal products – beginning with eggs for breakfast and moving to meat, fish, or fowl for lunch and dinner. The implications of that are proper to debate. Isn’t our dependence on animal products already bad for the environment, and won’t it just get worse? Isn’t livestock production a major contributor to global warming, water shortages, and pollution? When thinking about a healthy diet, shouldn’t we think about what’s good for the planet as well as what’s good for us? Do we have a right to kill animals for our food or put them to work for us in producing it? Isn’t the only morally and ethically defensible lifestyle a vegetarian one or even a vegan one?

These are all important questions that need to be addressed, as individuals and as a society. But they have no place in the scientific and medical discussion of why we get fat.

It is understandable that Taubes would limit his argument, especially in this book which was envisioned as a simplified and focused discussion of the causes and treatment of obesity. Taubes is to be commended for acknowledging the broader ramifications of this subject and stating that, while he’s aware of these issues he would not address them. But there’s an implication in his statement that I’d like to dispute. 

I believe that we can address, scientifically, the questions regarding the impacts of animal agriculture on “the environment,” including the issues of anthropogenic global climate change (“global warming”), water quality and water quantity. The effort will show that this science is as muddled as Taubes found the disciplines of diet, nutrition and human health to be. Some of this muddle is the result of dietary dogma contaminating the discussion. If you believe that eating animal products is bad for you, it’s easy to imagine that belief impacting your perception of environmental issues. If your environmental beliefs are informed by the incorrect 18^th and 19^th century image of pre-Columbian North America as an “unspoiled wilderness,” then activities by man to transform the environment are necessarily seen as degradation. If you’ve never thought of the impacts of field-crop agriculture and horticulture, it might be possible to remain ignorant of the fact that greater soil erosion occurs in annual cropping systems that in perennial pasture-based animal production systems. Pasture-based livestock production systems protect surface and ground water quality. Credible science supports the role of well-managed animal agriculture in not only protecting but actually improving the environment. Future posts will discuss these issues. This, too, is what I mean by Grass Based Health.

In the Introduction to his book, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie makes the following statement:[7]

I am not overly concerned with questions of dietary health, nor do I take any interest in the diet and dentition of our remote ancestors.

Only someone not convinced of the fundamental requirement for animal fat and protein in the human diet could label meat an “extravagance!” Fairlie’s book is one of many I’m working my way through. His book apparently is having an impact. Folks who’ve been committed to vegetarianism are being swayed by his argument that animal products can be produced in ways that are sustainable. Glad to hear it. I remember being told almost twenty years ago that animal agriculture had no place in “sustainable agriculture.” “Organic” and “sustainable” were once synonymous with vegetarian.

My initial arguments with Fairlie’s thesis are that:

• The vast majority of the earth’s surface is best suited for producing grass for grazing.
• A significant portion of the “grain” that is fed to livestock are by-products like brewer’s grains and oil meal. These are not suitable for humans, and not utilizing them as livestock feeds would increase the cost of the primary products.
• The field and horticulture crops are the “extravagance,” not the animal products. And they are far from “benign.” Soil loss through erosion and soil organic matter depletion, and water quality degradation, fossil fuel use, petrochemical inputs, wildlife impact – all of these are greater in annual cropping situations than in perennial pasture-based livestock production systems. And that list does not include the impact these crops have on the human health and the cost of treating the resulting diseases.

Consider diabetes: Diabetes is one of the western diseases, now understood to be part of metabolic syndrome. The US population today is approximately 312 million people, 76.9% of whom are adults (approximately 240 million). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 105 million adults in the US have diabetes or prediabetes (26 million with diabetes, 79 million with prediabetes), as diagnosed with hemoglobin A1c.[8] Thus diabetic and pre-diabetic adults represent 44% of the US adult population. The increase in those with pre-diabetes, now equal to 1 in 3 US adults, represents a 39 % increase since 2008. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called benign! The CDC estimates the direct and indirect costs of diabetes at $179 billion annually. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called sustainable, either.

I sometimes hear those in the low-carb / Primal / Paleo community refer to “agriculture” negatively. It is important to remember that the farmers and ranchers – the people who actually steward natural resources to produce our food - have been taken in by the same official dietary guidelines as the rest of us. They are challenged by the same chronic health problems the rest of us face. They need to hear this alternative to the conventional wisdom. The average age of farmers in the US is just over 57 years.[9] Sustainability implies longevity, but the intergenerational transition of the current production models have been difficult to achieve. Is there an alternative? There can be no sustainability without profit. In western Oregon, traditional dairies are finding it difficult to break even while pasture-based dairies are making a profit. Dairymen from Europe and New Zealand have been looking at the potential for grass-based dairying in the US. Some have done more than just look. Americans spend less, as a percent of their income, on food than any other industrial country. And we spend more on medical care. We can pay our farmers or we can pay our doctors. Payin’ our doctors hasn’t worked out all that well. That, too, is what Grass Based Health is about.

Finally, if meaningful change is going to happen in our nutrition policies and all that they influence it will have to begin at the grass roots. Individuals will have to learn on their own what we should have been taught since the 1960s. They will have to apply this information to their own lives and obtain the thoroughly predictable results – improved health and weight loss. They will then pass the word along to their families and friends, some of whom will listen and adopt this appropriate way of eating and living. And so it will spread until we reach the tipping point. A grass roots movement. But "Grass Roots Health” was already taken (and a worthwhile effort that is, too, regarding the role of vitamin D in preventing chronic diseases!). 

So now you know I called this blog “Grass Based Health,” what I mean by that phrase, and some of what I’ll be writing about in future posts.

---

[1] From Wrangham, R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York, NY

[2] Mark Graham. 1979 in The Mark Graham Songbook: Twenty-Five Originals From the Forked-Tongue Demon. Mark Graham. 1991.

[3] Cellulose. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[4] Meath, M. E., D. S. Metcalfe, R. F. Barnes. 1973. Forages; The Science of Grassland Agriculture. The Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

[5] Cordain, L., J. B. Miller, S. B. Eaton, N. Mann, S. H. Holt, and J. D. Speth. 2000. “Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Mar;71(3):682-92.

[6] Taubes, G. 2011. “Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It.” 2011. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. pp 11-12

[7] Fairlie, S. 2010. “Meat: A Benign Extravagance” Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes and Prediabetes in the United States 2011. Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[9] http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Operators/Characterists/07-M124-RGBChor-largetext.pdf

FiveFingers in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness

I recently bought a pair of Vibram FiveFingers Sprint (pictured). They're minimal, lightweight shoes with "toes". They're designed to mimic barefoot walking as closely as possible, while protecting the feet from punctures and abrasion. The soles are thin, flexible and offer no padding whatsoever.

I've always been a barefoot walker, because our feet evolved to be nude (or close to it). Besides feeling amazing, walking barefoot allows the body to express proper biomechanics. My feet have become tougher over time, but I still can't handle a rough trail barefoot.

When I first put the FiveFingers on, my initial thought was "these don't feel as much like being barefoot as I wish they did". Simply having something between your skin and the ground makes your feet much less sensitive. But I got used to them quickly, eventually using them for my parkour training.

I had a few converstions with my parkour instructor Rafe Kelley, during which I realized I had to re-teach myself how to walk and run correctly. Rafe is well-versed in natural human movement due to his background in MovNat, gymnastics, martial arts, strength training, parkour and anthropology. Modern shoes allow us to walk and run in a way that our bodies did not evolve to tolerate. The padding in shoes allows us to take large steps, in which we overshoot our center of gravity and contact the ground in a jarring manner. It also allows us to strike with our heels when we run, which is not comfortable when you're barefoot.

I took the FiveFingers on a 13-mile hike in the Alpine Lakes wilderness with a few friends last weekend. The Pacific Northwest has to be one of the most beautiful places in the world. I was expecting to use the shoes for a few miles and then swap them for my lightweight hiking shoes (Inov8 Flyroc trail runners). The beginning of the trail was really rocky and I thought I was going to have to take them off in the first few hundred yards. Surprisingly, my feet adapted, and although the trail stayed rocky, it became fairly comfortable by the time we had walked a mile.

I found myself thinking about Rafe's advice, and taking smaller steps that strike closer to my center of gravity. Although my strides were shorter, I had no trouble keeping up, and in fact going up the hills was remarkably easy. We gained 3,000 feet of elevation but I never got winded. I had to pay close attention to foot placement, which kept me from looking around much but was actually kind of fun.

After a few miles, I switched to my hiking shoes, with the idea that I should switch before my feet really started to hurt, rather than after. I immediately noticed that going up hills was harder, especially on my calves. My feet felt more cumbersome as well.

Here's me foraging for mushrooms on the trail. This is Laetiporus sulphureus, also known as "chicken of the woods". It's widely eaten in this area. However, my mushroom guide All That the Rain Primises, and More, had this to say about it:

"If you eat and enjoy this moushroom, always cook it thoroughly and do not serve it to lawyers, landlords, employers, policemen, pit bull owners, or others whose good will you cherish!"

I didn't take my chances. If you're going to pick wild mushrooms, make sure you know what you're doing and carry a regional identification guide. "I recognize them from China/Russia/Europe" kills several people a year in the Pacific Northwest. If you're experienced, this area is a mushroom bonanza. I can't set foot outside without stepping on a king bolete (porcini, cep) in the fall.

I ended up switching back to the FiveFingers for the majority of the hike, about 9 miles of it. The soles of my feet were a bit sore by the end (due to stepping on sharp rocks for miles), but my joints and muscles felt remarkably good! I had no joint pain or muscle tightness. I also felt pretty energetic. This was a big surprise, since I haven't done much hiking this year. The next day, my calves were sore, but that was it.

All in all, I really like the FiveFingers. I can wear them in places that require shoes, yet remain nearly barefoot. One potential drawback is the price-to-durability ratio. They cost me $80 and I don't expect them to last a year. That being said, I'm putting a brutal beating on them. Parkour training destroys shoes. The rubber seems to be excellent quality (which you'd expect from Vibram), but it's thin and it has cuts in it for flexibility and grip, which will lower its lifespan. The upper is simply a piece of stretchy fabric that tears easily. I'm willing to deal with the durability issues because the advantages outweigh them [update- several FiveFingers wearers have commented that they actually last a surprisingly long time. See comments].

Eating Down the Food Chain

Europe once teemed with large mammals, including species of elephant, lion, tiger, bear, moose and bison.

America was also home to a number of huge and unusual animals: mammoths, dire wolves, lions, giant sloths and others.

The same goes for Australia, where giant kangaroos, huge wombats and marsupial 'lions' once roamed.

What do these extinctions have in common? They all occurred around when humans arrived. The idea that humans caused them is hotly debated, because they also sometimes coincided with climactic and vegetation changes. However, I believe the fact that these extinctions occurred on several different continents about when humans arrived points to an anthropogenic explanation.

A recent archaeological study from the island of Tasmania off the coast of Australia supports the idea that humans were behind the Australian extinctions. Many large animals went extinct around the time when humans arrived in Australia, but that time also coincided with a change in climate. What the new study shows is that the same large animals survived for another 5,000 years in Tasmania... until humans arrived there from the mainland. Then they promptly went extinct. That time period didn't correspond to a major climate change, so it's hard to explain it away.

It's a harsh reality that our big brains and remarkable adaptability give us the power to be exceptionally destructive to the environment. We're good at finding the most productive niches available, and exploiting them until they implode. Jared Diamond wrote an excellent book on the subject called Collapse, which details how nearly every major civilization collapse throughout history was caused at least in part by environmental damage. It's been a hallmark of human history since the beginning.

I don't think it will take much to convince you that the trend has accelerated in modern times. Ocean life, our major source of nutrient-rich wild food, has already been severely depleted. The current extinction rate is estimated to be over 1,000 times the baseline, pre-modern level, and rising.

Humans have always been top-level predators. We kill and eat nutrient-dense prey that is often much larger than we are. But today, the extinction of such walking meat lockers has caused us to eat down the food chain. We're turning to jellyfish and sea cucumbers and... gasp... lobsters!

While it's true that we've probably always eaten things like shellfish and insects, I find it disturbing that we've depleted the oceans to the point where we can no longer sustainably eat formerly abundant carnivorous fish like tuna. We need to make a concerted effort to preserve these species because extinction is permanent.

I don't want to live in a future where the only thing on the menu is bacteria patties, the other other other other white meat.

Improving Fuel Economy

OK, you know driving isn't good for the environment, but you're going to do it anyway. Here's how to substantially increase your fuel economy without buying a new car:

1- Drive deliberately; accelerate gradually. A car uses a lot of fuel when it's accelerating rapidly.

2- Drive 55 mph on the highway. This makes a huge difference. It maximizes fuel efficiency by reducing wind resistance, which exponentially increases with speed. This reduces gas consumption by more than 20% relative to a speed of 75 mph. 60 mph is almost as good, if 55 is to slow.

3- Draft a truck. Large trucks with flat, square backs leave a massive low-pressure zone behind them, which you can exploit to save gas. At 20 feet behind a standard 18-wheeler, you will use about 27% less fuel. If that's too close, you still save 20% at 50 feet, and 11% at 100 feet. Be careful because trucks have a blind spot behind them, and some truckers do not appreciate drafting.

4- Keep your car well-maintained. Clogged filters, faulty oxygen sensors and flat tires all hurt fuel efficiency.

5- Lose the cargo. The more weight you have in your car, the more fuel is required to get it up a hill or accelerate it.

6- Turn off accessories. AC is the biggest power drain, but the fan used to circulate air also draws power.

Two Tons of Steel

While I was waiting for the bus one morning, I decided I'd count cars to see how many were single-occupancy vs. two or more. I came up with a ratio of roughly 20 single-occupancy vehicles for every multiple-occupancy vehicle. The multiple-occupancy vehicles were most often work trucks, containing plumbers or construction workers going to a job.

People have to get to work. Maybe they don't have public transit where they are, or maybe they just don't feel like sitting next to smelly commuters, but for whatever reason, here in the U.S. they drive their cars.

The average American weighs about 180 lbs. Due to our love affair with SUVs, the average American car weighs over 2 tons and climbing. That means every time a person drives a single-occupancy vehicle to work, they aren't just expending the energy it takes to move 180 lbs 15 miles. They're also lugging around a hulking two-ton chunk of steel and plastic. The passenger of the average single-occupancy vehicle is only about 1/24 (4%) of the mass that's being moved to and from work. That's ridiculous!

Of course, we make up for the big weight of our cars with big engines so they can go vroom. That adds up to a lot of gasoline burned, for no clear benefit. In other words, most of us could easily be driving vehicles that perform the exact same function but burn 1/3 the gasoline. I'm not talking about space-age technology here; these vehicles are already on the market.

Why do we commute so inefficiently when better options surround us? I think there are several reasons. First of all, gasoline is dirt cheap. We have no incentive to be efficient beyond our own consciences. Even with the recent price jumps, gasoline doesn't cost much more than it ever has, if you adjust for inflation. In Europe, where high taxes mean gasoline can cost four times as much as in the US, vehicles are lighter and more efficient.

Secondly, we've always been a very car-centric society. Cars appeal to our desire for independence, power and control. A large, powerful car is a status symbol in the US. We've inherited these attitudes from previous generations and we're just beginning to question them. Are there healthier and less wasteful ways of getting to work?

There are, and many of them are very simple. The first and simplest is a carpool. If we put two average Americans in our two-ton car, all of a sudden the people are 1/12 the weight of the vehicle. With four people, the number jumps to 1/6. We've just made our vehicle almost four times as fuel efficient, per passenger! 1,000 lbs per person is still a lot of weight to be lugging around though, so let's look at some other options.

If you are on the market for a new car, fuel-efficient models abound. The new hybrid cars by Toyota and Honda are twice as efficient as their non-hybrid brethren, and not much more expensive. Some people truly need SUVs for their business, but I have good news for them too: there are now hybrid SUVs as well. That's right ladies and gentlemen, they're the most efficient gas guzzlers on the market.

Public transportation is another great option where it's available. Buses are big and heavy but they can accommodate many people.

Now let's get into the really efficient vehicles. Motorcycles and scooters weigh from 250-500 pounds, meaning that a passenger would be from 1/2 to 1/4 the total weight of the vehicle. Now we're beginning to make some sense. Certain scooters can go over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

An even better option is to use vehicles that don't burn gasoline at all. A bicycle weighs about 20-30 pounds, making the passenger about 9/10 of the total vehicle weight. That weight ratio might change as the average American loses some weight however. Even if you factor in the extra food you eat when you cycle regularly, it's still terribly efficient. Best of all, bikes allow us to get exercise and feel the sun for a while.

The title for the most fuel-efficient and low-tech vehicle around goes to feet. When using a pair of these, the passenger is 100% of the weight of the vehicle. You can walk until you wear them out and you still won't have burned a single molecule of gasoline. Now that's efficient.

Thanks to lairdscott for the CC photo.