Tag Archives: environment

Human Behavior

Why Jane Goodall says human disregard for nature led to the coronavirus pandemic – PBS NewsHour

Jane Goodall sees a direct line between the global coronavirus pandemic and humanitys disregard for and mistreatment of nature.

We are all interconnected, the famed primatologist, and a leading voice in conservation efforts, told the PBS NewsHour. And if we dont get that lesson from this pandemic, then maybe we never will.

Goodalls decades of research into chimpanzees in Africa is the subject of a new documentary, Jane Goodall: The Hope, which will air April 22 on the National Geographic Channel. Goodall has also been a tireless advocate for animals and environmental issues, particularly when it comes to how human behavior can disrupt wildlife habitats.

I just hope that when this is over, were wiser.

Many infectious diseases that have emerged in our lifetime Zika virus, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), AIDS and Ebola, among them have stemmed in some way from human interference with wildlife and their habitats, creating the conditions that allow new viruses, like COVID-19, to spill over from animals to people.

MORE: I toured this exhibit on epidemics before the coronavirus pandemic shut it down

Initial evidence about how the novel coronavirus first spread pointed to wet markets where live animals are sold in Wuhan, China. Goodall said its our interactions with animals and the environment that had led to the global pandemic, and I just hope that when this is over, were wiser.

Goodall also said she hopes that Chinas ban on wet markets holds and is extended to prohibit the sale of wild animals for medicine, like pangolin scales and bear bile.

We mark this 50th anniversary of Earth Day with Jane Goodall, one of the worlds most renowned scientists and environmentalists. Jeffrey Brown talks to Goodall about her career and mission and the pandemic that has brought modern civilization to its knees.

MORE: Understanding the origins of the coronavirus

Goodall also said officials ought to tamp down animal trafficking because that brings animals in close contact with people at the markets theyre sold.

Its mistreatment of animals and exactly where the next pandemic might come from, if we dont pay attention to our behavior, she said. I pray that we will this time take heed of the message that were being given, because this pandemic has been predicted for many, many, many years.

Watch the Newshours full interview with Goodall here.

See the article here:
Why Jane Goodall says human disregard for nature led to the coronavirus pandemic - PBS NewsHour

Human Behavior

Fifty years of Earth Day where did we go wrong? | TheHill – The Hill

Earth Day turns 50 today. This is a milestone in the environmental movement and should be a cause for celebration. But since 1970, our global carbon emissions have increased by 146 percent and our per capita emissions have increased from 4 to 4.9 metric tons.

How did we go awry in our effort to save our Earth? Quite simply, we focused our attention in the wrong place.

Science proves that climate change is real and that we are in an environmental crisis caused by human behavior. As individuals, we are advised to reduce our carbon footprints, reduce our waste and water consumption, switch to plant-based diets, choose local foods, make low-carbon choices, reduce, reuse and recycle. There is no end to the recommended actions for individuals to do their part in reducing our human impact on the planet.

This is where we went wrong; these recommendations are misplaced. While these recommendations can help, these are not the most effective actions you can take to produce the change that is needed to save our planet. The source of our environmental problem is the activities of business and industry and the most effective actions you can take are those that will force positive change within business and industry.

Industries that produce our goods are the largest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions that are polluting our air and causing climate change. Research has determined that just 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global emissions and just 25 companies are responsible for 52 percent of global emissions. These companies are primarily gas and oil companies that emit significant greenhouse gasses during the fossil fuel exploration and drilling stages of production. Emissions continue when those fossil fuels are burned for energy.

Industries are the largest producers of solid waste in the U.S. Although data is not tracked, industrial solid waste is estimated to account for 97 percent of U.S. national trash, while municipal solid waste accounts for 3 percent. Industrial wastewater is also not tracked but it is estimated that as much as 80 percent of global wastewater is not treated before being released back into the environment.

Industries use the most freshwater in the United States. Industrial, commercial and agricultural activities account for 87 percent of U.S. freshwater usage while domestic and public activities account for 13 percent. Most freshwater in the U.S. is used by the thermoelectric-power industry to cool equipment and by the agricultural industry for irrigation.

To be sure, I am not encouraging you to abandon efforts to reduce your impact on the environment. While doing your part will help, the most influential actions you can take are to insist that business and industry take responsibility and make positive social and environmental change; you can do this through shareholder and stakeholder activism and through voting.

If you own stock, you can demand more responsible activities from the company. If you have a retirement account, you can pressure your employer and investment firm to adopt socially responsible investing. If you are a concerned citizen, you can pressure industry regulators and certifying bodies to require business and industry to adopt socially and environmentally responsible operations. If you are a consumer, you can pressure businesses to have responsible operations and supply chains.

But the fastest way to ensure change is through government legislation. Legislators can reallocate subsidies, implement taxes, or use other incentives to force positive social and environmental change for businesses and industries. You can vote for policymakers who will support this change.

You can make a difference for the future of our planet and help us get on track for the next Earth Day. But your impact can be far greater than simply reducing, reusing and recycling. The greatest impacts you can have are to put pressure on businesses and industries to take responsibility and you can vote for politicians who will ensure positive social and environmental change.

Nancy E. Landrum, Ph.D., is a professor of Sustainability Management at Loyola University Chicago and a Fulbright Specialist in sustainability.

See more here:
Fifty years of Earth Day where did we go wrong? | TheHill - The Hill

Human Behavior

Rewriting the definition of 2020 | News, Sports, Jobs – timesobserver.com

Leigh Rovegno is the Executive Director at ACNC.

2020 marks the beginning of a new way forward in more ways than one. Its the beginning of a new decade, one of which that is already filled with many uncertainties. The year is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

The 2020s (pronounced twenty-twenties) is the current decade in the Gregorian calendar, which began on 1 January 2020 and will end on 31 December 2029.

The decade began with the coronavirus pandemic which quickly spread to 210 countries and territories. The pandemic led to severe global socioeconomic disruption, the postponement or cancellation of sporting, religious, political and cultural events, and widespread shortages of supplies exacerbated by panic buying. Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there was a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions.

The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that its definitions change with time. This definition is not written in stone. As I read about all of discussions of when and how we will all return to normal once the coronavirus pandemic passes I find myself wondering SHOULD we return to normal, or perhaps instead should we take advantage of this opportunity to create a NEW normal'?

If I were to rewrite the definition of 2020 it would read:

The 2020s, which began on 1 January 2020 and ended on 31 December 2029, was a transitional time for humanity. The decade began with the outbreak of the coronavirus which led to unprecedented socioeconomic disruption. This disruption inspired a significant shift in the human perspective that changed the trajectory of the entire planet.

It was during this time when humans returned to their basic skills and values. They re-learned the once-lost art of growing their own food. They began giving back to their local businesses and communities through volunteerism, financial support, and providing services to those in need. Humanitys appreciation of nature was renewed. An increased determination to protect the environment around them resulted in saving hundreds of plants and animal species from extinction. During this decade, many lives were lost, but many lives were also saved as a result of this greatly transitional time.

We are being presented with an opportunity to change history and to rethink what we value, to reshape our economy and our society based on our values. I wonder, what do you envision as the new normal? What do you want this time to be remembered as? What do you want the future to look like? Now is the time to make those changes. Now is the time to put people and planet first.

Fifty years ago, on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated. As a result, many environmental habits and laws came into being including the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Endangered Species Act. Fifty years is a long time to see real results, and many of us may have forgotten just how far we have come since then. It is a hard thing to remember when you are ten how the river looked compared to how it looks now. Slow change is very hard to measure, so hard that sometimes we forget that the change has even occurred. The truth is that great strides have been made, but theres still some ways to go.

The changes right now are much faster, because the change in human behavior has been much faster. My wish is that we expand our desire to preserve and protect humanity through this crisis to include the preservation and protection of all species, and of the Earth as a whole. For all those who say We cant make a difference, we ARE making a difference RIGHT NOW. A huge one. The difference is life-changing for so many.

In Belgium, seismologists have reported that their instruments on the Earths surface are able to pick up the subtleties of the planet usually picked up by instruments buried 100 meter under the surface. Noise has fallen 30%, as if there were two people talking and suddenly one stopped. Weather patterns are changing, air quality is improving, people in cities are hearing birds sing that they didnt even know lived in the city. Audubons birdseed is flying off the shelves because people at home are noticing the birds in their backyards, perhaps for the first time, and theyre taking the time to stop and enjoy their incredible beauty.

This moment is a remarkable opportunity. We, as humans, can make a difference in life across the planet. Our daily choices, though influenced now by efforts to contain a pandemic, affect the world.

I hope that when the Wikipedia entry is finalized for 2020, that it tells the story of a people that rose to the challenge, that overcame personal loss, community loss, and global hardship to create a safer, healthier planet for all. That humans became a beneficial part of the natural world, not a collective user and abuser. That they embraced the spirit of the 50th Earth Day Anniversary and bettered the entire planet as they bettered their own cultures.

Now THAT would be the epic start to a new decade.

Leigh Rovegno is the Executive Director at ACNC.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Link:
Rewriting the definition of 2020 | News, Sports, Jobs - timesobserver.com

Human Behavior

Names in the news – Jacksonville Journal Courier

Journal-Courier staff, dbauer@myjournalcourier.com

Kenneth Babyface Edmonds

Kenneth Babyface Edmonds

Kenneth Babyface Edmonds

Kenneth Babyface Edmonds

Babyface-Riley

battle fades out

The much-hyped battle between Kenny Babyface Edmonds and Teddy Riley was derailed by audio issues, forcing the R&B producers to postpone the Instagram Live event.

More than 400,000 tuned in to watch the livestream with Riley and Edmonds. But sound and technical issues plagued the friendly competition. Riley appeared to prepare more for a concert, with a set-up that led to echoing and playback.

The battle had already been postponed from April 12 after Edmonds was diagnosed with COVID-19. The Grammy-winning singer and producer, said last week he and his family who also tested positive were recovering.

After about an hour of troubleshooting Saturday, the 61-year-old singer said they would try again another time.

I think that its only right that we postpone this thing until another time when there arent any technical difficulties, and everybody can hear the music the way it needs to be heard, said Edmonds.

The technical struggles of two legendary producers with a stripped-down Instagram performance spawned widespread mockery and disappointment on social media, including from other quarantined musicians who had tuned in.

Come on its 2020 we aint meant to get what we want, Adele commented.

The digital battle was part of a series dubbed Verzuz organized by Swizz Beatz and Timbaland.

Goodall sees

closings good

Even though the planet has reaped the benefits of a cleaner environment from society shutting down during the coronavirus outbreak, Jane Goodall worries about human behavior resorting back to a business as usual mindset after the pandemic is over.

The famed primatologist wants people to grow wiser and live an enjoyable life without harming the environment and animals that live within it.

We have to learn how to deal with less, said Goodall, who began her lauded career as a pioneering researcher of chimpanzees in Africa more than 50 years ago. Shes worked for decades on conservation, animal welfare and environmental issues.

Goodall has encouraged young people since 1991 to become stewards in their communities through her Roots & Shoots program, which operates in 60 countries. She normally travels 300 days per year to advocate her endeavors, but these days shes been staying busy inside her family home in Bournemouth, England, to practice social distancing. She calls it more exhausting than traveling.

Her new documentary Jane Goodall: The Hope, premieres today on National Geographic and Nat Geo WILD, while streamed on Disney Plus and Hulu. The two-hour documentary focuses on her lauded career of transforming the scope of environmentalism.

Associated Press

See the original post here:
Names in the news - Jacksonville Journal Courier

Genetics

Is anxiety genetic? It’s a combination of genes and your environment – Insider – INSIDER

Anxiety disorders are the most common type of mental illness. In a given year, 19% of Americans experience an anxiety disorder, according to the National Association on Mental Illness (NAMI).

Among the most common are:

Scientists have long debated the importance of nature versus nurture in terms of human development and illness. We now know that genetics play a significant role in the development of anxiety. Particularly, researchers have found that genes on chromosome 9 are associated with anxiety.

But your experiences within your environment including family upbringing and major life events are also important factors. Here's what you need to know about how genes and life experiences contribute to anxiety.

You're more likely to develop an anxiety disorder if another member of your family also has an anxiety disorder.

Research has indicated that anxiety disorders have a heritability rate of 26% for lifetime occurrence. This heritability rate means that 26% of the variability in whether or not people develop anxiety is caused by genetics.

So, about one-quarter of your risk for developing anxiety is genetic. That means other factors, such as traumatic experiences or physical illnesses, can have a larger impact. And your family can still contribute to anxiety in ways other than genetics.

"Family provides both the genes and the environment. It might be genes or it may be because a family member modeled a very anxious way of being in the world or often a combination of both," says Elena Touroni, PsyD, a psychologist and co-CEO at My Online Therapy. "It can be difficult to disentangle genes and environment."

One 2018 study found that children with anxiety disorders were three times more likely than children without disorders to have at least one parent with an anxiety disorder. The connection was particularly strong for social anxiety.

The study authors suggest that in addition to genetic risk, parents "model" behavior that increases the risk of their child developing social anxiety. For example, a parent who avoids social events might unintentionally teach their child to do the same.

However, adults who were raised by parents with anxiety can mitigate their risk of developing an anxiety disorder by learning how to manage anxiety with effective stress-management techniques. If you're a parent with anxiety, the earlier you teach your kid about this, the better.

"The best thing you can do is be aware of the fact that there is a higher chance that you might be prone to anxiety yourself," Touroni says. "Make a conscious effort to learn techniques to calm the mind, such as mindfulness. Also, having psychological therapy will help you better understand the anxieties of the people in your family, and therefore what they have left you vulnerable to as a result."

You don't need to have a family member with an anxiety disorder in order to develop anxiety. A stressful or traumatic event, for example, can increase the risk of developing an anxiety disorder.

"The main underlying core belief of any anxiety disorder is an exaggerated sense of vulnerability in the world of yourself or the people you care about," Touroni says. "Fundamentally, it's about understanding whether your experiences led you to develop a belief that the world is a dangerous place."

In particular, child sexual abuse and family violence may lead to an increased risk for anxiety. Moreover, having three or more adverse childhood experiences these are somewhat traumatic events for children, ranging from divorced parents to abuse is associated with a higher likelihood of developing anxiety.

Different childhood experiences at home, school and elsewhere can help explain why some family members might develop anxiety while others don't.

For example, a 2018 study followed 49,524 twins for 25 years. The researchers found that as twins aged and their environments became more different, the influence of heritability on their chance of developing anxiety decreased. In short: even though the twins shared genetics, their risk factors for anxiety were affected more by their environment than their genes.

In the end, there's no concrete set of factors that can predict if you will develop anxiety, or not.

"Mental illness is very different to physical illness. We can't always find a concrete link because there are a lot of variables," Touroni says. "Our mental wellbeing is influenced by so many different factors, and because of that, it's difficult to isolate genetic loading from environmental influence."

Go here to see the original:
Is anxiety genetic? It's a combination of genes and your environment - Insider - INSIDER

Human Behavior

Watching the Giant Sequoias Die – Slate

Photo by welcomia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Each week this summer I snapped pictures of giant sequoias. Each week I documented their sparse, browning needles. They were dying. I was trying to track it.

Giant sequoias are special; they are both incomprehensibly massive and ancient. Reaching upward of 250 feet tall and over 100 feet in circumference, sequoias are among the largest living things on Earth. They can live to be 3,000 years old, which means that some giant sequoias alive today were here when King Solomon ruled Israel, Zoroaster prophesied, and the Mayan civilization arose. Of course they werent actually there in ancient Israel, Persia, or Central Americabecause sequoias are also rare, found only in about 75 isolated groves on the western slope of Californias Sierra Nevada. But statistics like those dont even begin to convey what makes giant sequoias special. You have to be there, to feel just how small you are, to see the Sierra sunshine illuminate a sequoias cinnamon-red trunk, to really understand. In the summertime, I get to work among these trees. For the past 12 years, Ive worked as a seasonal ranger in Yosemite National Park, leading visitors through the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias, in the parks south end, pointing out all the ways these trees are extraordinary.

Giant sequoias are so good at surviving that you almost never see a dead standing sequoia, I used to tell visitors. They keep living and growing for thousands of years, until they finally get too top-heavy for their shallow root systems to support. Then they topple over. I dont say that anymore.

Because now giant sequoias are starting to die where they stand. And its been my job to document it. Last summer, our park botanist requested a photo log of declining sequoia health. So each week when I was out in the field, I took pictures of several groups of dying sequoias, snapping photos from the same GPS point each time. Then I carefully labeled each photo with the date and location and dropped it into a folder on the parks internal network. These photos wont do anything to save the trees. But it seems important, somehow, to provide our grandchildren with some kind of record of the time we realized we might be losing the largest trees on Earth.

Now giant sequoias are starting to die where they stand. And its been my job to documentit.

Giant sequoia mortality is complicated and, as with all facets of science, attribution is difficult. But climate change is one suspectit appears to be affecting giant sequoia survival in other parts of their range. Perhaps this mortality is due to drought and heat, the direct effects of climate change in this region. Maybe its some kinds of beetles, some species of which are proliferating at exponential rates in warmer temperatures, unmolested by the cold snaps we used to get around here that once kept their numbers in check. Maybe its something else altogether. Its almost certainly a combination of factors. I dont know exactly whats going on; I only know that some groups of sequoias are visibly dying now, and they werent just a few years ago.

In graduate school I studied climate change communicationthe ways in which scientists, institutions, and laypeople perceive and talk about climate change. The received wisdom in this field holds that climate change is difficult to see because it happens gradually, making it imperceptible on a day-to-day scale. This is why, according to the experts, lots of people dont believe its happening. Maybe that used to be true, but I dont think its true anymore. Trees are dying, and people notice. Australia has gone up in flames, leading to the death of 1 billion animals, and people notice. Some part of California is likely to be on fire at any given time, and people notice. Droughts stretch on for years here in the American West, and people notice. Back east and along the Gulf Coast, hurricanes and flooding are ramping up, and people notice.

In fact, now more Americans than ever understand that climate change is happening. Seven in 10 believe it is. Thats not to say they all understand the scientific reality that human activity is the cause of climate changesome surveys shows that barely more than half of Americans believe the scientific consensus that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. And most wont do much about it, even if they realize its happening and realize our emissions are causing it. One poll conducted in 2018 found that 70 percent of Americans would be unwilling to contribute just $10 a month, the cost of a Netflix subscription, to combat climate change.

I didnt need a poll to tell me that. Just look at our behavior. Last May, the United Nations released a report on the massive extinction currently underway due to human activity. I wasnt all that surprised, but some part of me thought that maybe the tragic report would spur some kind of conservation action. Instead, within months of the reports release, humans were intentionally burning the Amazon. Here in the United States, the Trump administration proposed rollbacks to the Endangered Species Act, nixed greenhouse gas emissions limits, greenlit oil drilling projects in sensitive Arctic habitat, loosened restrictions on the fossil fuel industry, and much, much more. We are never going to wake up, I realized.

There are moments when I think maybe we will wake up. In September, 6 million people around the world participated in global climate protests. Anger was welling up and spilling into action, and I felt more hopeful than I had in a long time, even as I continued to snap pictures of ailing sequoias. But now, only a few months later, our attention is elsewhere. As a pandemic radically alters our day-to-day lives, its unsurprising that nearly every headline is about the coronavirus. But climate change continues to have serious impacts on just about every ecosystem on Earth. It will take long-term focus and the ability to reckon with multiple crises at once, along with sustained public outcry, to put enough pressure on our existing political and economic systems to force them to change. Maybe well see that kind of long-lasting focus and outcry at some point in the future, but were not seeing it yet. And while the all-consuming pandemic will presumably end at some point, there will inevitably be another crisis, another election, another distraction, to suck our attention away from the climate catastrophe. So now Im trying to come to terms with the fact that I will spend the rest of my life watching the world I love burn up, one beautiful species after another going up in flames.

In September, 6 million people around the world participated in global climate protests. Anger was welling up and spilling into action, and I felt more hopeful than I had in a longtime.

Nate Stephenson, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey who has spent his career studying giant sequoias, isnt so sure the trees are doomed. Over 3,000 years, a tree has gone through a lot of environmental changes, he says when I ask him if he thinks sequoias will survive climate change. But we could start leaving the realm of a 3,000-year-old trees experience. Maybe we already have. I dont know. But if you push hard enough, you can probably break their resilience. He says he doesnt know whats killing the trees I photographed in the Mariposa Grove last summer; it could be lots of other things besides climate change effects. Stephenson is a scientist, and he had to get permission from his agency to talk to me in the first place. So hes cautiousvery cautiousabout making any claims he cant back up directly with very specific scientific evidence. And the future, he notes, is impossible to predict, not only because of the complexities of climate science but also because of the unpredictability of human behavior and technological advances. We could find a geoengineering solution to climate change, he suggests. So many things are possible.

But do you think sequoias are resilient enough that theres still time for us to figure those things out? I ask. Can these trees really hang on that long?

He pauses. Maybe.

That optimismthe hope that giant sequoias might just be OKis the optimism of a scientist who doesnt yet have the models or the data to predict what will happen. Its the optimism of someone who is cautious about making definitive claims without hard evidence. Ive stopped pretending that I can predict the future, he says.

But me, Im not a scientistI have the freedom to look at the society around me and write about what I see and what I fear the future will look like. I dont need hard data to back up my fears; my fears are driven by something more intuitive. And when I look at a dying sequoia and a dozen fires burning across California and a hundred burning across Australia and record-breaking flooding back east and an utter lack of any responsible action to do something about any of itI am willing to predict that fragile species like giant sequoias are doomed. Or at least, I am willing to say out loud that Im afraid this will happen and that I believe my fear is realistic.

Last fall, Jonathan Franzen came to pretty much the same conclusion in a much-hated essay about the meaning of hope in the era of climate change. If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live on it, there are two ways to think about this, Franzen writes. You can keep on hoping that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or enraged by the worlds inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope. For Franzen, hope at this late date means focusing on the small, specific thing you love, be it a species, a place, or an institution, and taking whatever small, specific actions you can to forestall its demise. Put your energy into the smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning, he says. By Franzens lights, stopping or reversing climate change is not a winnable battle.

Climate scientists hated the essay, many taking to Twitter to express their dismay at Franzens nihilism and take issue with the scientific claims he made. As Myles Allen, the relevant lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes special report pointed out months before Franzens essay came out, climate change is complicated. Yes, its true that theres a certain amount of warming that weve already bought into and that climate changes effects are already being felt. Its also true that it is not an on/off switch, clicking on if we overshoot a certain warming threshold or staying off if we dont. Climate change is not so much an emergency as a festering injustice, he writes. Every half a degree of warming matters. In which case, every battle to curb every ounce of emitted carbon is a battle worth fighting, and giving into nihilism because we arent going to solve the whole thing is probably counterproductive.

I am willing to say out loud that Im afraid this will happen, and that I believe my fear isrealistic.

I dont pretend to be a climate scientist like Allen or an ecologist like Stephenson. Maybe thats why Franzens essay resonated with me. Just like him, when I look at the current state of affairs, I have no hope, or at least no hope for fragile species like giant sequoias. Climate change might not turn out to be a global apocalypse, universally awful for every human alive in a century, especially if we start fighting those battles against every ounce of carbon. But even if life goes on for humanity, and even if it goes on relatively comfortably for most people, my hunch is that it will probably be a life without giant sequoias, because Im willing to predict that we arent going to do enough in time to save beautiful, vulnerable species that dont necessarily serve human needs directly. Thats not a life I want, and its not a life I want for my great-grandchildren. But its probably the life theyll get, and that leaves me hopeless. Like Franzen, the reason for my pessimism is not scientific so much as anthropological. When I consider the total lack of meaningful policy action on climate change, and the fact that Americans will spend $10 a month on streaming services but not on climate change mitigation, I dont find any reasons for hope.

But this is not what I tell visitors to the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. I tell them about the threats these trees face. I even tell them that some are dying for reasons we dont completely understand but that are probably related to climate change. But I also tell them its not too late to save them. Anything you can do thats good for the environment, that helps us start to address climate change, will also help giant sequoias, I say at the conclusion of each guided walk through the grove. Things like recycling, walking or biking or taking public transit instead of driving, simply consuming less stuffthese are small steps every one of us can take. Its probably also time to start thinking about much larger steps we can take as a global society, to restructure the way we live, in order to start to address the climate crisis. I dont know if well do enough in time to save giant sequoias. And heres where the big lie comes: But Yosemite gets about 5 million visitors a year, and it does give me a lot of hope to think about what would happen if each of those visitors started making some of these changes in their day-to-day lives. It could go a long way toward making sure that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren get to live in a world with giant sequoias.

Here is why I lie: I dont have to be a climate scientist to know that 5 million people recycling isnt going to do much to save giant sequoias. But I have a masters degree in climate change communication, and I know that you cant leave people hopeless. You have to give them specific actions they can take, and you have to let them know those actions matter. Otherwise they get hopeless and they dont do anything at all. And even if 5 million people recycling isnt going to save giant sequoias, isnt it better than 5 million people not recycling?

But maybe the important thing, at this point, is to give up on the illusion that what we have to do is recycle. Maybe the important thing is getting people to understand what is at stake, and to feel the weight of all we stand to lose and all we have already lost. Take, for example, the woman from Germany who approached me after attending a program I gave in the Mariposa Grove. She was weeping. My whole life Ive wanted to see these trees, she said. They are so, so beautiful and we are killing them! We have to do something! Precisely. We have to do something. We have to do something. We dont just need 5 million individuals recycling or biking or switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs. We dont just need 5 million individuals doing anything. We need many millions of people coming together with sustained attention and outrage to demand that our lawmakers and corporations do what they have to do to put an end to this tragic status quo. It could happen. But it hasnt yet.

Without that kind of collective outrage, were stuck with individual actions like recycling. And Im not convinced that recyclingor anything else I do in my daily lifewill matter in the long run for giant sequoias, or any of the millions of other species that are threatened by climate change; the problem is so massive that its far, far beyond the scope of individual action. But action is all we have,and for now, as we wait for collective outrage to foment into coordinated collective action, were stuck with the small steps of personal action. Nate Stephenson seems to have reached the same conclusion. I went through my personal crisis, he told me, describing his realization several decades ago that ecosystems can no longer be preserved or restored to their pristine conditions due to the rapidity of climate change and the far reach of human influence. It took years, he said. But Ive come to a degree of peace about that. Where can that peace be found? For Stephenson, the answer is research. He has the skills to study changing ecosystems, to research the ways sequoias responded to the latest drought in order to predict how they might respond in a hotter, drier future. Armed with that information, he can help land management agencies like the National Park Service adapt to coming changes. But Im not a scientist, and I dont have those skills. All I have is a cheap point-and-shoot camera to document dying sequoias and the chance to tell visitors every day that their actions matter. Its a message I dont entirely buy. But doing something has to be better than doing nothingI have to believe that. And maybe that is its own form of hope.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

View original post here:
Watching the Giant Sequoias Die - Slate

Human Behavior

Earth Day Musings – The RoundTable is Evanston’s newspaper – Evanston RoundTable

Prior to the first Earth Day celebration in 1970, most landmark environmental regulations and laws were yet to be passed. It was completely legal for a factory to emit massive black clouds of toxic smoke into the air or dump tons of toxic waste into nearby waterways. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the sight and smell of a prospering nation, leaving mainstream America oblivious to environmental concerns.

In 1962, the publication of Rachel Carson'sSilent Springmarked apowerful impact on the growth of environmental consciousness. With more than 500,000 copies sold in 24 countries, the bestseller became a rallying point for the new social movement in the 1960s, focusing on the indissoluble links between pollution and public health. Earth Day 1970 provided a voice to the emerging movement.

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson came up with the idea for a national day to focus on the environment as a result of a massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, in 1969. Noticing the power behind the student anti-war movement of the time, Senator Nelson sought to harness the energy behind the anti-war protests and merge it with the growing public concern for air and water pollution in order to force environmental protection onto the national political agenda.

April 22 was selected as the date and in 1970, massive coast-to-coast rallies comprising of 10 percent of the total United States population at the time took to streets, parks, and campuses in order to demonstrate for a healthy and sustainable environment. Earth Day united groups across political and socioeconomic boundaries that had been fighting individually against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife. The first Earth Day led to the formation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts.

Twenty years after the first Earth Day celebration, in 1990, Earth Day became a global celebration, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries. Today, Earth Day is widely recognized as the largest secular observance in the world, marked by more than a billion people every year as a day of action to change human behavior and provoke policy changes.

On its 50thAnniversary, Earth Day will return to its roots from 1970, placing environmental progress among the best ways to improve our world.

Read the original:
Earth Day Musings - The RoundTable is Evanston's newspaper - Evanston RoundTable

Human Behavior

Sea turtles expected to thrive now that many people are staying indoors – 10TV

Stay-at-home orders have forced millions of people to stay indoors to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

Now, as summer approaches and beaches remain void of people and pollution, sea turtles are finally able to nest peacefully and they're expected to thrive.

Sarah Hirsch, senior manager of research and data at Loggerhead Marinelife Center, told CBS News affiliate WPEC that "it's going to be a very good year for our leatherbacks."

Advertisement - Story continues below

"We're excited to see our turtles thrive in this environment," Hirsch said. "Our world has changed, but these turtles have been doing this for millions of years and it's just reassuring and gives us hope that the world is still going on."

David Godfrey, executive director of the Sea Turtle Conservancy, told CBS News in an email that thousands of turtles are currently migrating to nesting beaches in Florida and other areas in the Southeastern United States, and that "all of the potential positive impacts relate to changes in human behavior."

All seven species of sea turtles are endangered. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the largest threats sea turtles face in the U.S. are damages to nesting habitats, accidentally getting captured by fishermen, debris entanglement and getting hit by marine vessels.

Godfrey explained that since there are far fewer people boating and operating cruise and container ships now, "the chances that turtles are going to be inadvertently struck and killed will be lower."

"All of the reduced human presence on the beach also means that there will be less garbage and other plastics entering the marine environment," Godfrey added. "Ingestion and entanglement in plastic and marine debris also are leading causes of injury to sea turtles."

A study conducted at the University of Florida in 2016 found that removing debris from the beach can increase the number of nests by as much as 200%.

In Juno Beach, Florida, researchers from the Loggerhead Marinelife Center have found at least 69 nests, which is "significantly more than normal" for the 9.5 miles of beach they include in their research, according to CBS Miami. According to the center, only 1 in 1,000 sea turtle hatchlings live to be adults, and all of the hatchlings the center takes in have ingested microplastics.

Florida reported more than 395,700 sea turtle nests in the 2019 nesting and hatching season, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Many nesting sites are along the beaches that double as popular tourist destinations, including in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and the Florida Keys. But now that the beaches are seeing fewer tourists, closed businesses, and many are still closed to the public, Godfrey said the beaches are darker.

"We expect that thousands of hatchlings that ordinarily would be disoriented by lights this nesting season will not be and are more likely to survive to reach the sea," he said.

Nesting and hatching season lasts from March 1 to October 31.

In Tortuguero, Costa Rica, the Sea Turtle Conservancy announced Friday that they counted 45 leatherback turtle nests, three green turtle nests, and one hawksbill nest.

The first Kemp's ridley sea turtle nest was discovered in Texas on April 11, which the Padre Island Division of Sea Turtle Science and Recovery says is about 10 days earlier than last year. They wrote on Facebook that they hope it's a sign of a "busy nesting year."

The Loggerhead Marinelife Center and other sea turtle researchers have said they are optimistic about how coronavirus will impact the rest of the nesting season.

Visit link:
Sea turtles expected to thrive now that many people are staying indoors - 10TV

Human Behavior

Star Wars: Are droids property, pets or people in the galaxy? – Dork Side of the Force

The first character to appear in the entire Star Wars Saga was a droid. Then that droid was subjected to on-screen bullying for three movies (I can think of seven instances where C-3PO is told to shut up explicitly or physically restrained from speaking in the original trilogy.) Viewer relationship to C-3PO is typically separated into three camps Hate him, Love him, or hopelessly identify with him on a personal level.

These relationships with C-3PO only work for one reason his emotions and personality are clearly defined on-screen. Droids have a complex role in the Star Wars Universe, and its tough to pin down their social status in the galaxy.

Just about every droid on the hero side has defining qualities that make them original and almost human. Each of our droid characters tends to have highly personalized relationships with our living heroes. R2 was loyal to Anakin and Luke, K2-SO was close with Cassian Andor, and Lando had aum complicated relationship with L-3. Despite these qualities, they are frequently dismissed in-universe as by-products of programming and other alterations. They cant think, have a programmed purpose and their autonomy is viewed as a malfunction.

If droids could think, there would be none of us here would there Obi-Wan Kenobi

There is an expectation that droids are meant to behave exactly as they were designed. Obviously, with any artificial intelligence, things dont always go as planned. K-2S0 developed a seemingly self-aware personality with the ability to disobey orders, make jokes, and make decisions that he deemed productive to his mandate. Cassian Andor explained this behavior as a by-product of his reprogramming. But it feels more like evolution to become closer to his organic companions.

L3 follows a similar path to K2. She is opinionated, dreams of a crusade for droid liberation, and bitterly refers to her organic overlords. The origins of L3s personality are never explained beyond Lando saying he doesnt have her mind wiped because She has the best damn navigational database in the galaxy.

There is an acknowledged level of control over droids by our living characters throughout the Star Wars Universe meaning to reduce a droid to its essential functions. C-3PO had his mind wiped at the end of Revenge of the Sith, K-2SO is reprogrammed to serve Cassian, and restraining bolts play a major role in controlling a droids movement and behavior, emphasizing their need to fulfill their purpose.

In this case, droids are property. By the Jawas placing bolts on R2 and 3PO, the two droids were confined to being farmhands and tools for moisture farmers. The transaction between Owen Lars might be the perfect microcosm for the existence of droids in the Galaxy. They can be bought, controlled with restraining bolts, and repurposed to serve their owners. Its tough to give this more than a second thought. They are just non-living robots after all.

Droids are not good or bad. They are Neutral reflections of those who imprint them Kuiil

The Original trilogy struggles to convince viewers that our living characters care about our droids on a human level. And this might not be illogical. If droids are not living things, they cannot feel. And if they do not feel, it might be easy to disregard their capacity to experience life as living things (this concept is confusing if we consider this scene from ROTJ).

In the season finale of The Mandalorian, IG-11 sacrifices himself for the group, not out love for his friends, but to fulfill his purpose of protecting the Child. He cant get around his original source programming of self-destructing to avoid capture. Again, a droid is an instrument for a specific means and takes action to fulfill that means, instead of making a conscious decision. Battle Droids, for example, were built for pone purpose Destruction. They follow orders and were built in mass to overwhelm and eventually be destroyed. They were tools. Same for Probe Droids, Gonk Droids, and countless other units. Even C-3PO was programmed to understand human behavior and cant exceed his mandate on Endor despite motivation from his friends.

Donald Glover is Lando Calrissian and Phoebe Waller-Bridge is L3-37 in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY.

However, it seems possible that droids have the capacity to learn behavior, either intentionally or unintentionally. Of any character in Star Wars, R2 had had the strongest relationship with Anakin. R2 was loyal and eventually brought his loyalty to the next generation with Luke and Leia.

The loyal and opinionated astromech superseded his programming as a mechanic and became a message courier, swiss army knife, and regular savior of his companions, (until he is stored in the Resistance attic next to a box of Christmas decorations for who knows how long but whatever.) Ultimately, R2-D2 becomes more than his programming, likely the results of never having his memory erased.

Dave Filoni compared R2 to the family dog and Chopper to a cat when describing the moody astromech from Rebels. Despite both droids having the same utility and same role within their companions, they, like our own pets have different personalities and behavior. Your pet can be your companion and they can be trained for certain tasks, but you are ultimately held responsible for their well being and transgressions.

Comparing droid companions to pets might be selling droids short I mean C-3P0 knows over six million forms of communication, R2-D2 is elite hacker, and K-2SO can handle a blaster when given the opportunity. But if you consider their roles and relationships with other characters, it might not be a total stretch. They can be valued members of their families or teams, even loved, but its tough to place them in the same in-universe social standing their living counterparts.

Of course, L3 would have a serious problem being compared to a pet. And she might have a point.

If we take L3s point of view, the next logical question has to be asked are droids people too?In The Mandalorian, Kuiil points to an interesting argument in defense of the reprogramming and trusting IG-11. He tells Mando, Droids are not good or bad. They are neutral reflections of those who imprint them. There are parallels to the age-old philosophical questions of whether people are inherently good or bad. You can take a neutral approach and say people are neither good or bad, but products of their environment.

Thats similar to what Kuiil says in support of IG-11. They arent created in one way or another, but dependent on those around them. You can even teach them to be good, as Kuiil did, just as you can teach them to be bad.

IG-11 (Taika Waititi) in THE MANDALORIAN, exclusively on Disney+

Droids might be programmed to perform or behave in a certain capacity, but we already know that certain behaviors can be learned. L3 wasnt programmed to be a droid revolutionary and R2-D2s behavior surely surpassed that of a mechanic.

These behaviors make certain droids closer to living than not. Such characteristics inevitably generate responses from living characters. For instance, Mandos PTSD results in his distrust of all droids until IG-11 protects The Child and saves the group.

Perhaps one of the more belligerent examples is the bartender in the Mos Eisley Cantina. In a strange and offputting display of prejudice, the Bartender shouts to Luke that C-3PO and R2 must wait outside, since they dont serve their kind there. Generating such a horrible and emotional response seems strange for a non-living patron who wouldnt even be interested in their drink service anyway. The response is akin to any other prejudice against a race or species. It doesnt align with our typical notions of robots. So in some respects, droids must be viewed as a counterpart by living beings in the Star Wars Universe. Perhaps not all droids, but some.

Im not sure there is a proper way to categorize droids in a Star Wars social hierarchy. We know what L3 thinks, and we know Anakin valued R2 way more than property. R2 was a friend. Yet throughout the Saga, there is a limited amount of empathy and consideration in regards to droids, despite droid characters displayed varying levels of autonomy and capacity for relationships. So droids must be pets. Or people. Or maybe just property.

Who is the best droid in the Star Wars Saga? Let us know your opinions below.

Go here to read the rest:
Star Wars: Are droids property, pets or people in the galaxy? - Dork Side of the Force

Physiology

Expert Alert: Stress, Anxiety, and COVID-19 – UMM News, Sports & Events

UMD Expert Robert Lloyd, associate professor of Psychology, UMD College of Education and Human Service Professions.

Lloyd's faculty expertise includes evolutionary psychology, experimental methods and measurements, mind-body connection, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, and psychopharmacology.

"The coronavirus pandemic has caused many of us to experience persistent, high levels of stress. It is important to understand what this can do to us, and to know what steps we can take to reduce these harmful effects as we watch the scenario unfold."

Robert Lloyd says understanding how the brain functions gives us insight on actions people can take to stay emotionally healthy as well as physically healthy in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

Prolonged stress works on the brain in a cycle. Stopping the cycle is key to surviving a crisis.

The brains amygdala, the part of the brain where we experience emotions, responds to threatening stimuli in the environment. When it becomes activated, it causes the release of the stress hormone cortisol and prepares the body for a fight-or-flight responses. However, when stress becomes chronic, a continuous elevation in cortisol results in depressed immunity and depression. The elevation in cortisol feeds back to, and excites, the amygdala, which, in turn, causes more cortisol to be released.

Periodic exposure to bad news about the coronavirus elevates cortisol in the feedback cycle and contributes to a blunted immune response, immune deficiency, and a depressive state characterized by rumination and withdrawal.

Lloyd cites specific restorative actions, such as reframing and wellness activities along with engaging in safe social engagements, that can break the cortisol production feedback cycle.

Publications

Lloyd's publications include: "Ketamine modulates TRH and TRH-like peptide turnover in brain and peripheral tissues of male rats," in the journal, Peptides, April 2015, authors A. E. Pekary, University of California, Los Angeles, Albert Sattin, University of California, Los Angeles and Robert Lloyd, University of Minnesota Duluth. "The Behavioral Physiology and Antidepressant Mechanisms of Electroconvulsive Shock," in The Journal of ECT, November 2014, authors Robert Lloyd, University of Minnesota Duluth and Albert Sattin, University of California, Los Angeles.

Contact Information

rlloyd@d.umn.edu

(218) 726-6799

Read the rest here:
Expert Alert: Stress, Anxiety, and COVID-19 - UMM News, Sports & Events