Frank Herbert Book

[Juliane Bari]

Overa hundred years ago, giant sand dunes threatened to overwhelm parts of Florence, Ore. These dunes snake along the coast for over 50 miles, and some are taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. And that sand moved. It buried roads, even houses. When writer Frank Herbert saw the dunes in 1957, he was inspired by the awesome power of the sand. A few years later, he published his science fiction novel "Dune."

DETROW: Denis Villeneuve's latest adaptation of the book came out earlier this year, earning nearly $180 million in its first weekend at the box office. As for the dunes which inspired the book, well, today they're disappearing. For NHPR's podcast, Outside/In, Justine Paradis follows in Frank Herbert's footsteps to meet the people trying to save the Oregon dunes.

PAVLIS: That's why I moved here. You know, it's the love of my life, the dunes. So - well, my husband, I guess, is the love of my life. Don't let him - don't tell him I said the dunes were the love of my life. They're the second love of my life, well, the third because my daughter first. Husband, daughter, dunes - that order.

PATTY WHEREAT PHILLIPS: There's a site actually not too far from here. Out in the dunes was a small village, and sometimes it's uncovered, and artifacts are exposed. And at other times, it is completely buried, and you would never know that a village had ever been there.

PHILLIPS: Along some of the creeks that flow through the dunes, people had fish camps there every year. The moving sands didn't bother them. They'd just come in and put up with it for a few weeks while they would set up and be fishing for migratory salmon and lampreys.

PARADIS: It's a familiar story. European settlers had a very different relationship to the landscape. With the opening of the Oregon Trail and the draw of the Gold Rush, the number of white settlers in the area grew, leading to conflicts over land, fish and basic rights. To settlers, land should generate value through farming or through timber. They didn't want to build temporary camps on the sand. They wanted permanent homes there. So all that movement of sand and water, that was frustrating, to say the least. We decide to head outside to check out a spot where we can get a good view of the dunes. Patty's colleague and fellow tribesmember Jesse Beers drives the truck. He's got bundles of dried plants on his dashboard.

Yeah. I mean, looking at this, I'm actually kind of shocked. It's like I had seen pictures of the dunes and, like, you can kind of see the extent of them looking off to the south here. But it's amazing how much beach grass and forest is covering these dunes.

PARADIS: In 1908, after failed attempts at farming in the dunes, President Teddy Roosevelt put much of them in the charge of the USDA's Forest Service. The Forest Service wanted to fix the dunes in place by planting two non-native species. First, European beach grass. Then, a couple years later, a hardy shrub called Scotch broom. As they took root, the landscape began to transform. Native plants like seashore bluegrass and pink sand verbena have struggled. Other species that rely on the sand, like the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle and the endangered western snowy plover, are rapidly losing habitat. At the spot where we're standing, the Forest Service estimates 75% of what was once open sand is gone - 75% - replaced by grassy meadows, wetlands and evergreen trees.

BEERS: And pretty soon you're going to come up here and it'll talk about dunes on the sign and you won't see any dunes. You'll see forest, which is awesome in its own right, but it's not the dune ecosystem, so...

PARADIS: Today the U.S. Forest Service has reversed course. Instead of planting grass, now they're trying to get it out. But if European beach grass gets buried by sand, no matter, it will push up through it. If you burn it, it usually comes back stronger. Even spraying with herbicides has mixed results. The problem is the beach grass becomes essentially a wall, blocking sand coming from the ocean.

PARADIS: This again is Dina Pavlis. She says that the efforts to fight the grass do make a difference, but to really save the dunes, it would involve bulldozing many of the new forests that have grown up along the coastline over the past century. But ironically, those forests have become the new home for another species, a threatened woodland creature which moved in after it lost its habitat further inland - the coastal marten, which looks like a tiny weasel and is frankly adorable. So now a local plan to cut down those trees to save the dunes is not an option anymore.

PAVLIS: It's messy. The whole thing is messy because we've messed it up. You know what I mean? But I think, like, well, what about the beetles? And what about the other rare animals that are out here? Like, do we not care about them? So are we just going to let all of those disappear to protect one animal? I don't know the answer to that. And by the way I'm saying it makes it sound like I have an opinion, but I honestly don't know what the answer is.

PARADIS: In Frank Herbert's "Dune," the major powers are fighting for control of the desert on the planet Arrakis because this desert is the only place in the system that produces a resource called spice. But some have a dream of transforming the desert into a paradise, to slowly capture water and terraform the planet. These are competing visions for what the planet should look like, much like what is happening here on the dunes which inspired "Dune." Dina herself has actually never read or watched any of the adaptations of "Dune," but she's basically living many of its themes.

PAVLIS: Science fiction has a way of somehow always predicting the future. And really, in a way, what is happening here is what they wanted to happen, right? The goal was to create a forest. It's just that now we have a different viewpoint, right? So what changed, I guess, is the viewpoint. Because we see the outcome is not what we thought we wanted.

DETROW: Justine Paradis reports for the podcast Outside/In from NHPR. That's Outside slash In. The full version of the story is available in their feeds and at outsideinradio.org. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standardso that everyone will be equal, it ends up creatinginjustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lowerstandard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying forthe same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.

People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Letus both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get theaccounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the samecircumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respectto social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with thecrime committed.

Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so thingsaren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can toimplement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice asfairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.

Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force thingsto turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather beoutside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm notgood at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may findto be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what Iwant to do and what I'm good at.

In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.

Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).

A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).

Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).

3a8082e126