The Animal Doctor

DEAR DR. FOX: I have studied Earth processes for over 40 years as a geologist, both in R&D and commercial capacities. Most of my career, ironically, was spent as an explorationist in the fossil fuel industry.

What we know is that the Earth has undergone five major extinctions in the last 500 million years. With the possible exception of the Cretaceous extinction event, these were primarily caused by dramatic changes in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, in the case of past extinctions). Too little, and the Earth freezes; too much, and it overheats, acidifying the oceans in the process. A dramatic reduction in species accompanied all five extinctions, with the Permian event being the worst: The planet lost 90% of all its life and came perilously close to sterilization.

We are currently experiencing a sixth major extinction. Like the others, the cause is an imbalance of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Unlike the others, the trigger is a single species: humans. It is why many scientists have unofficially dubbed the current epoch the Anthropocene.

Past extinctions occurred over tens of thousands to millions of years -- an eternity, by human standards. But the current extinction is happening over decades to hundreds of years. Estimates suggest that humankind is injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at 10 times the rate it was being added naturally during the Permian extinction. In my opinion, any curtailing of it at this point, although admirable, is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent catastrophic and lasting climate events. The damage that is already done (e.g., to the coral reefs) will certainly not be repaired naturally for many human generations.

You might enjoy the following books if you haven't read them already: "What We Know About Climate Science" by Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at MIT; "The Ends of the World" by Peter Brannen, science journalist; and "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History" by Elizabeth Kolbert, staff writer at The New Yorker. -- D.H., Ph.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR D.H.: Many readers will appreciate your synopsis of our planet's geo-history and where we are now. Others may experience intensified environmental anxiety -- or absolute despair. But much can be saved, including our sanity!

The Anthropocene Epoch began with our ability to make fire, which led to pyro-technology and the wanton waste and pollution from burning fossil fuels. This was followed by other technologies, including chemical, atomic/thermonuclear and genetic engineering. Some of these technologies were weaponized to fight adversaries, human and non-human, with little regard for their adverse consequences to the biosphere.

All of these technologies have had their own consequences, interacting in ways we still may not understand. And we certainly do not know the long-term consequences of all this unbridled, unexamined "progress." Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, we have increased the metabolism of the planet to unsustainable levels of extraction and consumption, which now calls for sound, science-based, public policy corrective action and international cooperation.

The expanding human population, along with our food crops and livestock, have decimated natural ecosystems and healthy plant and wildlife biodiversity -- contributing, in large measure, to epizootic and pandemic diseases: the blights, plagues and pestilences of biblical record. The increasing burden of these adverse consequences may prevent future generations from ever evolving into the ecocentrism needed for effective planetary CPR: conservation, protection and restoration. My friend the late Father Thomas Berry called this the "ecozoic" era of human evolution. I hope and pray for this empathic and informed transformation in human consciousness and action to come without delay!

When we forget our history, we relive it. According to the United Nations report Groundswell, by 2050, 200 million people may be climate-change migrants seeking refuge from uninhabitable homelands. Even if we did not have this existential crisis of climate change, we would still face the issues of overpopulation, overconsumption, economic and political refugees and the violence and inhumanity toward each other and other species. And none of these issues are helped by political and public paralysis of will and action -- nor by denial.

Denial was especially evident in the U.S. at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in the face of this crisis, which some see as the latest of nature's "bioweapons" to control the human population, many people saw mask mandates as a violation of their personal freedoms. Clearly, the educational system has been deficient in teaching civics, ethics and critical thinking. An even worse revelation is that even while facing the common enemy of this virus, we seem incapable of effective international cooperation.

Political scientist William Ophuls writes, in his essay "What Can Give Us Hope?": "But the prophetic madness attending the death throes of industrial civilization will also contain a small but significant ray of hope: Out of the welter of false prophets there may arise one whose message will effect the metanoia that is the only real way out of the impasse. For only by transcending our obsession with material power and progress, and recovering a deep empathic connection to the planet and the life it bears, can we hope to reconstruct civilization to be sane, humane and ecological."

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Your article on fish cruelty really hit home. I have always been an animal lover and advocate, but I was also a fisherman. Spring through summer I fished every chance I got. I always put them back unless the fish was hurt in some way that I knew it would not survive. About 10 years ago, I suddenly realized what I was doing -- the terror I was putting these poor animals through. I haven't fished since.

I believe that all living creatures have a soul, feel pain, and have a purpose. This includes fish, bugs, snakes, other animals that people just kill without a thought. When I try to explain this to people, I use the example of a chain necklace. If you are wearing a necklace and a link breaks, you lose the whole necklace. Nature is like this. Every living thing, whether plant or animal, has its place; it is a link in the chain of life. -- L.D.R., Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania

DEAR L.D.R.: I am sure many readers will appreciate your communication and empathetic transformation upon realizing how fish suffer in this traditional and cruel "sport." Fish indeed have feelings; for details, visit fishfeel.org.

It is worth noting that in some cultures, the catching of fish is done as gently as possible because those consuming them can taste the difference between those scooped up in a net and killed swiftly and those that struggled to escape -- or worse, those that were strung alive through the gills and tied to the boat.

This reminds me of the advice given to a young hunter to kill the deer swiftly with one arrow; otherwise you will feed its fear to your family. I wonder, in this regard, how the meat from the millions of pigs, poultry and cattle being transported to slaughter here in the U.S. and around the world may affect consumers. Meat processors can indeed recognize how stress affects meat quality.

DEAR DR. FOX: I just read your column advising a person about their dog's anal gland problems. Besides adding shredded coconut to the dog's food, as well as getting more exercise, why did you not mention adding more fiber, like vegetables, to their diet?

My vizsla had leaking anal glands, so, after a doc visit to make sure there was not an underlying problem, I added chopped cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and other dog-friendly vegetables to his diet. Since then, he has had absolutely no problems at all. -- T.S.G., Owasso, Oklahoma

DEAR T.S.G.: I appreciate your sharing the benefits of fiber in the diet of dogs with anal gland issues. Shredded, unsweetened coconut (or flakes or powder) is the best and most convenient source. I also often give my dog shredded raw organic carrots.

Go easy on the broccoli, cabbage and related vegetables -- they can depress thyroid function. I would steam them lightly. Even if you feed only a small amount of these vegetables, I call for caution, since there are many other environmental contaminants that act as endocrine disruptors and can affect thyroid function in dogs, cats and humans.

From a Mayo Clinic column on this topic: "Concern surrounding the impact of spinach, kale and other similar vegetables -- including broccoli, broccoli rabe, turnips, Brussels sprouts, Chinese cabbage and cauliflower -- on thyroid health is due to the effect they can have on the thyroid's ability to absorb iodine. Having enough iodine in your diet is crucial for thyroid health." (Source: newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org)

PROGRESS IN ADOPTING THE ONE HEALTH PRINCIPLE

For readers interested in learning more about the One Health movement, the article "One Health approach: a symphony of effort, a health exigency worldwide" is a great introduction. To read it, visit innovationnewsnetwork.com/one-health-approach-health-exigency-worldwide/13217.

I emphasized this principle -- which is becoming a global movement, especially in steps toward disease prevention and climate change -- in my book "Healing Animals and the Vision of One Health." Human health, as we are learning (too late, some fear), is dependent upon a healthy environment filled with healthy animals and plants. In a practical sense, this is a call to science- and ethics-based planetary healing and stewardship.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Moments ago, I read your recent article wherein you included an exchange with "P.H., Ph.D.," from Seattle. As a theoretical particle and nuclear physicist with a heavy background in experimental techniques and many years of experience in environmental monitoring, I support your assessment of climate science. -- Dr. Robert I. Price, class of 1979, Arizona State University

DEAR DR. FOX: I have no expertise in climate, since I am a retired journalist/editor whose work (over some 50 years) has been read by many hundreds of millions of North Americans, and my job was to disbelieve anything that was not supported by empirical facts. There is no question we are experiencing global warming, but I am not convinced one way or the other that the principal cause is man-made.

Now, that does not mean the man-made theory is wrong. Frankly, I don't know. However, I did find that around 1972 (only about 50 years ago), the great climate scientists all over the world agreed that we were headed for an ice age soon, that it would be caused by man, and that by the year 2000 we would likely be in a worldwide hunger catastrophe. It was headlined all over the Western world by TV networks, and by papers like The New York Times and the Times of London. Newsweek ran a scary cover story about it. They all quoted the top climatologists and university scientists in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, etc. Basically the same lofty titles now saying our global warming is man-made. So how could these people be so WRONG then and so RIGHT now?

The answer is lazy reporters and media. They should have been asking: "You are the experts in this science, but when did you become psychics?"

Show me something you had published 25 years ago that predicted what is happening now. You seem to KNOW what 2050 will bring, so why didn't you know 25 years ago? -- I.C., Boca Raton, Florida

DEAR DR. FOX: I enjoy your column very much and am writing, as a geologist of 40 years' experience, in response to your recent thread about climate change.

The evidence that human activity is driving current climate trends is incontrovertible. Being dispassionate toward dogmatic ideas is the hallmark of good research, and pushes the boundaries of the unknown. However, to entertain diametrically opposed viewpoints on unambiguous issues in the name of "balance" or "tolerance" is a mistake that scientists are prone to make -- one that gives the fringe a platform from which to continue their dangerous misinformation and disinformation efforts.

Airtime equals legitimacy. It is probably why past IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have not had the urgency of the most recent one. Climate scientists are past the point of being polite. -- D.H., Ph.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR R.I.P., I.C., and D.H.: I appreciate your communications. Some scientists, for various reasons -- especially for vested career "tenure" concerns, aligned with corporate interests -- refuse to accept peer-reviewed scientific reports and the consensus of the scientific community when it comes to the current climate and extinction/biodiversity loss crises.

This was the case earlier with the documented risks of DDT and other pesticides, and with the addictive and cancer-causing consequences of tobacco. I was writing and testifying that the "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide and other gas emissions would lead to global warming no less than 30 years ago! The naysayers came mainly from the fossil fuel industry, and had essentially bastardized the scientific method.

Here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of the scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." The biological and physical sciences, often linked with ethics, economics and mathematics, are grounded in objectivity. And like justice, they are impartial. Otherwise, self-interest, ideologies and other biases would distort the interpretation and application of scientific discovery.

Regrettably, vested material, industrial, military and other interests and aligned investors, politicians and regulatory agencies have too often failed to consider the ethics and consequences of their decisions. Otherwise, many of the problems we face today -- especially in industrial agriculture, the medical industry and veterinary services -- would not exist.

When science speaks truth to power and exposes the lies, deception and delusions of the status quo and "progress," we witness the anti-science backlash of political and corporate opposition, as with the Trump administration's inaction concerning the climate crisis and bungled response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sciences can help us build a "circular" economy that is sustainable and healthful rather than extractive and polluting. Generating safer alternative sources of energy rather than burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and not relying on hydroelectricity from ecologically hazardous dams (and now-unpredictable rainfall) are survival initiatives all nations must pursue. The fossil fuel industry's production of plastics -- predicted to soon exceed in mass the weight of fish in the oceans -- and of toxic petrochemicals -- linked to cancer, immune and endocrine system dysfunctions, sterility, birth defects and neurological problems -- must be terminated for the common good and the good of the commons.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)