Glad To Get To Yellowstone BEFORE The Selfie-Instagram Hordes Arrived

Buffalo seen from our car soon after entering Yellowstone in summer of 2000.

Scene inside Yellowstone - heading to one of the many geysers.

Lake not far from Lodge where we stayed for three days.

At Fountain Paint Pot in Yellowstone National Park, August, 2000.


Overlooking a raging river in Yellowstone National Park, Aug. 2000

According to a recent detailed report by the UK Guardian,  see,  e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/national-parks-america-overcrowding-crisis-tourism-visitation-solutions

Americans are overwhelming their national parks, literally "loving them to death".   In Yellowstone, the nation's oldest national park, visitation has surged 40 percent since 2008, topping 4 million in 2017.  Fortunately, we (Janice and I) visited the park long before the instagram era, in August, 2000.  This was while it was still largely unspoiled and one didn't deal with traffic jams and clueless boors. (Like the much publicized recent idiot who came to the park to taunt the buffalo).

Anyway, over a period of four months, from  high summer to late autumn last year, the Guardian dispatched writers across the American West to investigate how tourist crowding is playing out at ground level.  The results were not sanguine and showed clearly the time when we visited was likely the optimum.

For example, the Guardian team found:

- Two mile long "bison lines" in Yellowstone

- Fist fights in Glacier - a small Colorado town overrun by million of visitors.

- At Yosemite, park officials warn visitors to expect "two to three hour delays entering Yosemite valley"

-  At Glacier National Park MT, there are regular, tense standoffs in parking lots.

- A new level of moron has invaded Yellowstone, illegally flying drones and tossing rocks and debris into the sensitive geothermal features.

According to one park ranger, tourists to Yellowstone now regularly scramble from their vehicles - even temporarily abandoning them -  in the hope of getting close up photos. (We shot our buffalo - shown in the top pic - from the car while briefly stopping. We did not get out.) According to the same park ranger: Most visitors "just don't know how to behave in a wild place".

Well, maybe because they were also never taught how to behave in a non-wild place.

In the case of Yellowstone, which became the first national park in the world in 1804, original visitor numbers were on the low side. For example, in 1904, a total of 120, 690 people visited the then national parks which included: Mount Rainier, Sequoia and Yosemite.   By just the mid-century the numbers swelled to tens of millions.  Soon national park destinations became synonymous with summer vacations.

Today, the pace of visitation has outstripped resources. Worse, recent research has ascertained our national parks bear the disproportionate brunt of global warming - while years, hell decades-  of wear and tear have seen parks' maintenance left far behind.   Traffic has clearly become one of the most visible consequences of the tourist tsunami, with some locations seeing thousands of cars per day jamming the entry roads. In addition, some parks have seen a 90 percent increase in vehicle accidents.   Again, according to one park ranger at Yellowstone, "We're exceeding the carrying capacity."


The numbers explosion since 2008- 2010 is not surprising and is almost totally attributed to the dawning  of the selfie and instagram era.  People today, often the young and clueless (e.g. millennials), don't believe a destination exists unless it's captured in a selfie and dispatched to followers on instagram or Snapchat. This voyeur yen and personal image capture obsession has driven ever more crowds with their selfie sticks, not only to Yellowstone, but to Rocky Mountain National Park, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. In some cases, like at Yosemite, distracted tourists have become so mesmerized with the scene and getting their selfies they've misjudged their positions - and fallen to their deaths.  They were so taken by getting the photo they didn't look where they were leaning.

What may have to be done to control the mob factor, especially as the planet gets ever more overpopulated, is to adopt a reservation system for the parks. This is already being seriously considered for Yellowstone, and it should be.  In such a system, just like for a fine hotel, reservations would have to be made long in advance - as well as payment.

Yep, it sounds like a sacrilege, but given the masses invading the national parks and the problems being caused - including overflowing porto-potties, it is inevitable.

As I noted, I am glad we got to visit Yellowstone almost twenty years ago - as well as Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes Park (site of the Stanley  Hotel - where 'The Shining' was centered, and many scenes shot.).

Let's also be aware the tourist selfie crush is inundating most of the fragile and beautiful places of the world - where it seems every manjack armed with selfie stick  wants to get snaps. Europe is especially overrun and in places like Dubrovnik, Croatia (a  'Game of ' Thrones'  site)  they are also considering limiting the influx - which, like in France (Louvre), Italy (Venice), often tasks the available resources.  Not to mention all the trash, garbage left behind.   We also beheld the tourist swarm in Prague when we visited in September, 2015, e.g. by the Astronomical clock:



The constant hordes  of humanity eyeballing and instagraming are forcing many more discriminating travelers to consider less popular cities and sights, such as  Jasper, Alberta  (see me entering the post office below)


which we visited this year,  and  Bratislava, Slovakia,  which we visited in 2015, e.g. me by the Opera House :


Yes, travel can be a unique  and even educational experience, but it is now evident too many of the same places are being overrun by tourist crowds which are killing a good thing.  Almost certainly, as the damage from human masses inflicted on precious local infrastructure becomes more pronounced, the numbers will have to be managed or in some cases, like in Venice, severely limited.  Exaggeration? Uh, no.

 In  an article appearing  in  In These Times ('Should Cities Ban Tourists?', August, p. 12, 2015) we're informed that Barcelona's Mayor had insisted the popular Spanish destination needed a "tourist cap" and a "moratorium on new hotel licenses".  This since "tourism is now seen by many as a scourge" and as reported by one resident:

"They have urinated on my balcony. They have set fire to laundry and one even defecated in the building's hallway"


Meanwhile, in the U.S.,  reservations to the national parks like Yellowstone will almost certainly be implemented in the next few years. By way of perspective, when we visited Europe in July and August,  1978 we experienced no similar issues. We easily got into the National Gallery in London  and Greenwich Observatory, same with Windsor Castle, Earl's Court, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Royal Albert Hall for a summer concert as well as the Tower of London with no delays and not being forced onto conveyor belts as they have to do now to rigidly control the time allowed (30 sec), i.e. to see the jewels (WSJ, 'Europe's Culture Storm', May 25, 2015)

What gives is the world is a much more crowded place than it was 40 years ago with nearly twice the number of people and also many more affluent people- namely middle class Chinese - who can now afford to travel at will to wherever they want - from African safaris, to Jungfrau Joch in Switzerland, to Jasper, Alberta. 

 Worse, much of today's tourism is driven by the omnipresent cell phone and the obsession to take selfies of everything on God's green earth.   As comic George Carlin would put it if he was still around: "People, I have to tell ya, this is a very unhealthy habit!"

In the midst of the current  human crush and swarming let us remember it was the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre who once pronounced: "Hell is other people".  For many exceptional places in this world, Sartre's maxim is being proven each and every day.

Stay tuned.

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/american-wilderness-trump-energy-threat

Erosion Of Intellect And Emotions: Part And Parcel Of What The Smart Phone Delivers

Kids with eyes buried in tiny smart phone screens risk their intellectual capacity as well as emotional health.  The best advice based on latest research? Do not give a kid an iPhoneX for Xmas!

It was gratifying to read in The Denver Post of October 13 that Littleton students - touched by recent teen suicides -  met last month  to eat pancakes, play volleyball and soccer, and delete every social media app from their smartphones. En masse on Oct. 1st, about 150 students kicked off a month-long social media blackout by erasing Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and the rest from their screens. Since then, the “Offline October” challenge has grown to include 1,600 people at 200 schools in seven countries.

This is a timely move even as we have learned about the new iPhoneX craze striking giddy buyers across the planet, despite its outrageous $1,000 price.  Then there was the news about Washington state announcing that from January it will prosecute for DUI-E or driving under the influence…of electronics.  Each offender will be fined $130 for each violation observed with the potential for enhanced sanctions for repeat violators. This also has come about as there is increased awareness of how smart phone use is pillaging minds - not only of teeny boppers but adults too (WSJ, 'How Smart Phones Hijack Our Minds' Oct. 7-8, pp. C1- C2)  Also, more recently, the article 'We Need To Talk About Kids and Smart Phones' (TIME, Nov. 6, by Markham Heid, sheds light on the pernicious emotional havoc that social media and overuse of smart phones can wreak.. The latter piece  highlighting "teen depression has surged fueling concern over mobile devices."

Actually, this shouldn't be at the level of quantum mechanics or rocket science.  Anyone who allows his or her attention to be fixated on assorted social media devices or apps (most of the contents  of which qualify as fake news, gossip or images that make others feel worse about themselves) can't help but lose self -esteem and also social context. If all you are doing is keeping your eyes fixed on a tiny blinking screen then you are already detaching from social real world interactions - as seen in the image at top. One can easily see this false social system at work any time you are in a public place such as a restaurant - where all the diners appear to be more connected to their phones than their fellow diners. It's absurd!

According to the Post article:

"Teens who made the blackout pledge say giving up social media is like trying to break an addiction."

And this should not be at all surprising.

What are some of the symptoms of smart phone  'always on' syndrome?

- The skipping heartbeat when your phone beeps with an alert and your brain is clobbered by instant curiosity at who or what it might be.

- The nagging need to ceaselessly check for incoming texts or pics even at the movies or while having dinner with your family.

- The recurring 'phantom vibration syndrome' - the creepy sensation in your gut that your cell is sounding off and you need to deal with it.

- The need to access your Twitter and text some bullshit, oblivious to walking even in traffic or high crime areas.

The WSJ piece, meanwhile noted that:

"A 2015 Journal Of Experimental Psychology study, involving 166 subjects, found that when people's phones beep or buzz while they're in the middle of a challenging task, their focus wavers and their work gets sloppier - whether they actually check the phone or not. Another 2015 study, which involved 41  iPhone users and appeared in The Journal of Computer -Mediated Communication, showed that when people hear their iPhone ring but are unable to answer it their blood pressure spikes and their pulse quickens as problem -solving skills decline."

This is truly ridiculous!  But now, what about the effect on younger, still maturing brains? Could there be intellectual as well as emotional penalties? The evidence appears fairly clear that there can be.

Adrian Ward, a cognitive scientist at University of Texas suspects our attachment to smart phones has grown so profound, so intense that their mere presence can diminish intelligence.  Experiments actually carried out at the Univ. of California-  San Diego appear to bear this out (WSJ, ibid.).  Two years ago, Ward and two colleagues (Kristen Duke and Ayelet Gneezy) recruited 520 students at UCSD and gave them two standardized tests - one of which actually gauged "available cognitive capacity". The second assessed fluid intelligence or the ability to interpret and solve an unfamiliar problem.  The only variable in the experiment was the location of students' smartphones.

In both tests it was fond that those subjects whose phones were in full view posted the worst results.  In contrast, those who left the phones in another room did the best, "out of sight out of mind".  Clearly, as the phone proximity increased, brainpower decreased.    This led Prof. Ward and colleagues to conclude in published work that "the integration of smart phones into daily life caused a brain drain that diminished mental skills including: logical reasoning, abstract thought, problem solving and creativity."   Indeed, even the desire to check one's phone  could debilitate one's thinking.

Another less noted phenomenon is what's called the "Google Effect"  whereby smart phones make it so easy to gather information online that users believe it's their own mental capacities doing the work.   Thus, as Drs. Ward and Wegner noted in a 2013 Scientific American article smart phone addicts believe their own "mental capacities" had generated the information not their devices. As Dr. Ward put it (WSJ, ibid.): "The advent of the information age seems to have created a generation of people who feel they know more than ever before even though they really know ever less about the world around them."

Ward believes this also explains why our current society has a gullibility crisis, precisely because people identify the easy info via smart phones as real so often, they come to accept anything coming through it as real.  Hence, they became too quick to "credit lies and half truths spread through social media by Russian agents" as real news. They became intellectual puppets and dupes.

There is also evidence overuse of smart phones can debilitate one's emotions, especially of younger high school kids.  This lot are more susceptible to counting image above everything else and so put themselves at risk of distorted comparison to others and depression. Case in point was the Connecticut teen "Nina" highlighted in the TIME article who grew so depressed  she attempted suicide. Cause? She had "stayed up late and stalked models on Snapchat" comparing her body to theirs and always finding it wanting.  As she put it "I always worried about how I looked".'

Now, to a normal adult brain this is small potatoes. No one, certainly of 71 yrs. of age like yours truly- contemplates suicide over how he looks!   That in itself is the epitome of solipsistic, distorted thinking. But for teens with unfinished brains it's a problem because they obsessively follow every image (or word)  sent to them - or that they access- on their little devices.   Thus, as Dr. Jenna Glover - a psychologist who treats teens with depression - put it in the Denver Post piece:

"These anonymous messaging apps are incredibly dangerous. When we have anonymity we are more likely to be reckless . These apps are bad for all kids no matter they are the bully or the victim"

Adding that "Girls, in particular, bully each other through relational aggression" - harming each other by social status and friendships.   And no one can argue that social media apps have dramatically magnified the degree of shame and embarrassment - when seeming everyone in a school can see a negative comment about someone at the same time.  Thus, while private physical bullying may have involved only one or two peers seeing it, anonymous message apps expand the audience vastly wider and in much less time.

This is why Dr. Glover advises parents to limit the use of media and apps like Snapchat and Instagram.

Recall that in an earlier post (Aug. 10) I referenced  McAfee survey report that also appeared in the Post (Aug. 7, p. 12A) that cyber bullying has now reached epidemic proportions especially in the U S of A.  The platforms most used for bullying in the order of their percentage of young users affected included:

- Facebook  71 %

- Instagram  - 62 %

- Snapchat  49 %

In the survey, which ranged over more than 3,000 kids in multiple countries it was found there was a 22 percent overall reporting of cyber bullying, compared to 30 percent for U.S. students. This is ridiculous and shows: a) too many kids are spending way too much time with these media, and b) the parents have abdicated control to their addicted kids.

In response to the findings, the author of the piece Minda Zetlin presented these bullet points:

-  Instagram and Snapchat have the greatest negative effect on young people's emotional health, with Instagram topping the stats.

- Spending more than two hours a day on social media is detrimental to kids' mental health and a "seriously bad idea".

Meanwhile, the research of Ward and others is disturbing indeed. It shows that "our thoughts and feelings, far from being sequestered in our heads, can be skewed by external forces we're not even aware of."   This is possible because our brain confers inordinate power on any object or device which has "salience" - and which then causes it to embrace and use beyond normal bounds.  In modern times that is the smart phone, and the motto from all these findings - for all of us- would seem to be: Less is better!

For parents considering buying the outrageously priced iPhone X for their offspring the advice would be not to do it. Why put an even more powerfully addicting device in their hands which would speed the intellectual and emotional descent of most users?  It would be little different from giving them an indefinite supply of narcotics.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/instagram-envy-since-s-virtual-psych.html

To Control The Social Media Scourge Parents Need To Ration Kids' Smartphone Use

A youngster is distracted from her regular class work because of text messages from bullying imps.


Let me get it out there that if wifey and I were parents (never had the inclination),  we'd be seriously rationing our offspring's use of social media - whether Instagram, Snapchat or Facebook. We'd also limit access to cell phones: only for emergencies or official business except maybe for a half hour of social contact a day. Indeed, we'd probably be much tougher than even columnist Minda Zetlin allows in her recent piece in the Sunday Denver Post ('Shut It Down!').    The premise being the grown ups have to get control of the kids' social media addictions as opposed to allowing the kids and their addictions to run them. Or in the worse case, lead to a kid's suicide.

Don't laugh or sneer. A McAfee survey report that also appeared in the Post (3 days ago, p. 12A) noted that cyber bullying has now reached epidemic proportions especially in the U S of A.  The platforms most used for bullying in the order of their percentage of young users affected included:

- Facebook  71 %

- Instagram  - 62 %

- Snapchat  49 %

In the survey, which ranged over more than 3,000 kids in multiple countries it was found there was a 22 percent overall reporting of cyber bullying, compared to 30 percent for U.S. students. This is ridiculous and shows: a) too many kids are spending way too much time with these media, and b) the parents have abdicated control to their addicted kids.

Ms. Zetlin for her part, in her article, presented these bullet points:

-  Instagram and Snapchat have the greatest negative effect on young people's emotional health, with Instagram topping the stats.

- Spending more than two hours a day on social media is detrimental to kids' mental health and a "seriously bad idea".

As I told Janice, and she agreed, if we had young teens they'd be allowed no more than one hour per day on such media.  Do what you wish within reason in that hour but once it elapses, that's it. Finito!

- Social media can mean sleep deprivation which exacts a terrible toll on kids' brains

The problem here is that "social media can be deeply addictive, even more than nicotine".

This alone screams out for parental intervention to make sure one's kids don't get hooked. In fact , if one can monitor their messages - to and from  - it's even better, lest they get snared.

The main culprit parents need to control is the pervasive  FOMO syndrome, i.e. "fear of missing out". Kids can get so hooked, even on nasty, negative images, they keep glancing at the stupid cellphones to make sure no new ones have come in.   This has to be nipped in the bud, and kids taught the Buddhist mind mode to not allow the external world or people to manage one's interior world.

Rather than waste hours on Instagram staring at stupid text messages (or photos) from deadbeat peers, far better to use that time in meditation: clearing the mind -brain of all extraneous stimuli, thoughts. They can use a master word as they close their eyes, the best being "A-U-M" (Ah-ooo-mmmm)..  If they need practice or a model - get a hold of Joseph Campbell's DVD series 'The Power Of Myth' - the specific episode on the Buddhist Monks. They will see and hear the "AUM" as never heard before, every chord and note.

- Cyber bullying is a worse problem than many believe

Indeed! Already my psychologist niece Shayl in her research on the deleterious effects of social media has found that cyber bullying imposes the most serious adverse effects, leading many to contemplate suicide.

Zetlin herself cites a recent survey that discloses that 70 percent of young people claiming they experienced cyber bullying, with 37 percent "on a high frequency basis".  Again, they can't experience such levels if they have no access to the devices.

Ration their use and watch the stats drop!   As Zetlin concludes:

"The problem of cyber bullying on social platforms is largely up to parents and teachers to solve and that's one more reason to know how much time their kids are spending on which social network".

Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I do admit that I regard Twitter especially as a "cartoon medium" that doesn't permit the full expression of thought. Having to relentlessly truncate communications to 140 characters like Trump does, inevitably breeds immaturity  - and also invites more bullying - since that's about all a truncated message is good for.

The most incredible aspect of the McAfee study that really pissed me off as a former physics lecturer? The stat that "29 percent of students used their devices to cheat."

One kid actually cited the method in "taking a photo of notes then peeking at them during a test".

Say WHAT!??  What the hell is the teacher doing? Did she or he suddenly become a zombie? How about you confiscate ALL cellphones before the kid even enters the room?  That's what I'd do.  AT the end of the test the kid can collect his or device from the security box (similar to those used in TSA lines).

The rate of teen suicides,  owing to cyber bullying,  is increasing at alarming rates and it's time thoughtful,, intelligent parents take control of their kids' devices before it's too late.  As Ms. Zetlin put it: "SHUT It DOWN!"

Video Now Dominates Text On The Net? Probably - But It's Nothing To Cheer About!

Barely more than 2 weeks ago the New Yorker's Nicholas Thompson - in a CBS Early Show segment,  'What's the Big Idea?'', proclaimed there is now a major shift to video as opposed to text on the net. According to the Internet Trend Report quoted by Nora O'Donnell, "Video is dominating and the text Internet is experiencing a downturn".

Blogs such as mine, in other words, are going the way of the dinosaur. Most people would much rather be entertained by Youtube videos of a monkey in a cowboy hat riding on a Pit bull  or a kitten punching a puppy, than read through 600-1000 words of informative text.  The text, the blog post, may be about an unfamiliar subject, for example. And heck, life is too short to strain one's brain on the unfamiliar where you actually have to confront the issues and get the billions of prefrontal gray cells actively engaged.

The problem's corollary was originally articulated by author Mark Bauerlein in his book,The Dumbest Generation. He wrote (p. 138):

"For education to happen, people must encounter worthwhile things outside their sphere of interest and brainpower. Knowledge grows, skills improve, tastes refine and conscience ripens only if the experiences bear a degree of unfamiliarity.”

What that means, as he further observes, is one must move through and beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction: “I don’t get it! That’s not for me, not my cup of tea!”

because the intellectual effort in making it your ‘cup of tea’ will then be intellectually rewarding. Bauerlein again (ibid.):

“Nobody savors the process, but mature adults realize the benefits. Adolescents don’t and digital connections save them the labor of self-improvement…..the screen and cell bombard adolescents with youth trifles and the sporadic brush with challenging subjects that recall their shortcomings are quickly offset by a few minutes back in virtual comfort zones”

Besides, the "opportunity costs are high".  For the visual -oriented net user more enthralled by Snapchat, kitty videos and selfies, there's much more investment worth in those images than having to read a post concerning space physics - say the aurora, or deep politics or the effects of climate change on the environment.

Nicholas Thompson in his CBS morning spot, said this basically means "the (text)  internet is not growing as fast as it was. What is happening is that there is a huge shift from text to video and that's happening for a number of reasons."

He cites the limits in bandwidth in the "early days" which more or less forced the concentration on text - given it sucked up less BW than video. (Uploads slow, storage limited).

But:

 "Now that we have massive bandwidth and great connections, people love images. CEOs of all the major tech companies have notices people engage more with interactive images than they do with text. There is a massive, massive shift to the visual internet right now"

But could this be about something more significant than "a shift to greater bandwidth"? Might it be yet one more sign our culture is becoming alienated from reading, and hence infantilized?

Fortunately, the older generation has not yet been taken in by the video obsession to the same extant as Gen Y, as a graph shown on the TV spot  indicated that only 2 percent of over 55 net users are on Snapchat, as opposed to 23 percent of 13-17 year olds and 37 percent of 18-24 year olds. That is, more than half of net users (60 percent) have likely been infantilized in the age range 13- 24. To me, this is something to fear if this same demographic goes into the voting booths. But I somehow don't believe most will bother.

All of which reverts to Neal Postman's observations in 'The Disappearance of Childhood' on how Americans are increasingly being infantilized by preoccupation with visual images - and lose appreciation for text.

In his Chapter Seven (‘The Adult Child’), for example, Postman lays out a summary of his thesis on the disappearance of childhood in tandem with defining the modern conception of “adult” and what it has evolved (devolved?) into after the emergence of video culture. As he puts it, the modern idea of the adult “is largely a product of the printing press.” Further, almost all the attributes we associate with adulthood “are those either generated or amplified by a literary culture”. These include:


- A capacity for self-restraint

- A tolerance for delayed gratification

- A sophisticated ability to think sequentially and conceptually

- A preoccupation with both historical continuity and the future

- A high valuation of reason and hierarchical order


Postman then goes on to warn that as electronic (visual) media assume center stage “different attitudes and character traits come to be valued and a new, diminished definition of adulthood begins to emerge”. This new stunted version of the adult reaches its apotheosis (nadir?) in the adult child having arrived with the television-video age - which primary characteristic flattens out all differences between ages. A typical observation by Postman (p. 101) serves to clarify and lead to a fuller exposition:

"Television redefines what is meant by ‘sound judgment’ by making it into an aesthetic rather than a logical matter. A barely literate ten year old can interpret and at least respond to the information “given off” by a (political) candidate as easily and quickly as a well-informed 50 year old."


In other words, one required literary heft and markers - say in ability to read weighty, dense books (like James Joyce's Ulysses , or Milton's Paradise Lost, or Jean -Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness) to finally separate adults from children, adult minds from childish imitators.  Thus, literary culture and mature works provided the truest litmus test to distinguish an adult from a child.

Now, I am not saying or implying that those who don't read my blog posts as opposed to say,  spending time on Snapchat or Youtube,  are less informed about many issues or more childish. Rather, if they exclusively invest their time on those visual platforms they will (logically)  suffer in their knowledge base, irrespective of whether that means not reading my blog, or not reading books or newspapers. The point made is any kind of reading (especially outside one's comfort zone) is better than no reading at all. It is the latter condition which assures an infantilization because one will no longer be able to master complex thought, ideas.

Since most kids can't do that either, one mutates to the stage of an effective "kid".  One of the measures also used is the incidence of "difficult" words per page, of a book or post. Interestingly most people turn off their brains at 20 percent (e.g. 100 of say 500 words on a page is seen as the threshold.).  Thus, writers keeping the proportion to 5 percent or less (say 25 words) ensure the most reads.  But, as one psychologist (Dr. Pat Bannister) once put it, this basically" reduces the person to the level of a primary school student" (or 3rd grader in the U.S. context).

Remove reading and text entirely from one's life and what would you have? Well, I leave that question for readers to ponder on their own!