Blog #4

 Blog Post #4: Exercising Your Public Voice: Making a case for a position. 

Humanity and the Earth’s Oceans are one, and they need our help, but how do we get people involved in making these necessary changes? I think I may know a solution…

If I could live anywhere in the world, it would be on a beach somewhere warm next to the ocean. Currently, I live in Minnesota which is pretty much exactly in the middle of the continent. Luckily for me, Minnesota has many lakes, over 11,000 to be exact. Either way I’ve always dreamed of spending my days waking up with a cup of coffee in my hands, a book to read, and an ocean view to look out to. And for some people, that’s their reality. Around 2.4 billion people worldwide live near a coastline and for them, consequences of neglecting the ocean’s health can be felt more immediately. If something lives in your backyard, you probably have a greater chance of giving a shit about it. It’s kind of like, out of sight out of mind, type of mentality. 

At the end of the day, humans are selfish. We do what we do because it makes us happy. To some degree, somewhere down the line, every action we take leads us to our most desired state, happiness. So for the family that lives off the coast of Australia who spends their weekends surfing or the fishermen who work the coastlines of Malaysia, it’s easy to see why the ocean’s health is a high priority in their lives. But what about the rest of us? What about the remaining population that doesn’t live on a shoreline somewhere? 

To be honest, I care about the oceans health because I have a fascination with them. I genuinely find them fascinating and love spending time in the water. I swim, I scuba dive, I love fishing and pretty much any other water activity you can think of. So really, I don’t spend a good majority of my free time advocating about the importance of our oceans and why we should give a shit about them because I’m just such an exceptional human being. I do it because it brings me joy, it brings me happiness. 

For this reason, I believe the key to getting people engaged in a thing, is to get them personally involved in that thing. Why care about something that you have no connection to? Yes, it may be the ethical thing to do, but I just dont think it works that way. Just because a thing is good and people know they should do that thing, doesn’t mean they WILL do that thing. But, if you invite them to scuba dive with you in the Florida Keys or take a hike in one of our National Forests, they will develop a connection to that thing and although it may come from a selfish place, they’ll begin to be invested in it. And if a person has an investment in something, a personal life experience to that thing, they may actually do what it takes to TAKE ACTION in that thing.

So, how do you get people to take action on protecting our oceans, or anything else for that matter? You get them personally involved in it. You get them to experience whatever it is and gain a connection to it and you will see these same people who once could care less about it, suddenly start to take action to improve that thing. 

Check out the links below on ocean health and how to generate change!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rethink-your-way-the-good-life/202201/how-do-people-change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/03/18/climate-change-oceans/

https://www.marinebio.org/interview-with-dr-sylvia-earle/

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/why-care-about-ocean.html

My first blog!

My name is Bridgette and I’m excited to write my first blog here today! When I was brainstorming what kind of issue I wanted to talk about, my first thought was to look into the field of environmental sciences. This is a topic that has been of interest to me since I can remember. As a kid I grew up in nature. Our family had a cabin up North around Walker Minnesota and we frequented it all the time. Our cabin was on a beautiful lake that surrounded indigenous forest and a State Park. I spent most of my time on the lake with my brothers and friends. You could most likely catch me fishing or swimming or just observing the natural world. And when I wasn’t up north at my cabin I was in my hometown of Plymouth Minnesota going on hikes or exploring other lakes in the area. So its safe to say that I have a strong connection to nature and this planet; it means a great deal to me. 

When I wasn’t actually outside in nature, you could find me watching documentaries on any variety of topics that had to do with this beautiful planet. They were so captivating to me and were always portrayed in a cheerful and happy way. Fast forward a few years and I started to notice this changing. Documentaries would start to include concerning footage and information on new ways in which planet Earth was starting to suffer. They would go into detail on the destruction and devastation human impact was having on Earth and all its inhabitants. They would talk about deforestation and habitat loss due to humans making way for new housing development. These earlier videos would be about 95% upbeat and delightful while the remaining 5% would include these issues. 

As the years went by, more documentaries would be published and I started to realize something. That small 5% of the videos that mentioned the dreadful consequences of human actions to our planet would start to become greater and greater as time went by. Now, nearly a decade later, I’ve come to almost avoid any kind of nature documentary because it’s just too unbearable to watch. I log on to see the beauty of the natural world and all I seem to get is catastrophe and destruction. And I know I’m not the only one. 

While I know these issues are important to be aware of, I ask myself, is there a better way to get some of these issues across to the public without doing it in such a way that it just brings feelings of dread and overwhelm? How can a person be informed on these important matters but not be blasted with overwhelming info that leads them to disengage completely? This is a question I still ask myself and one I personally am trying to find the answer to. 

In the end, mother nature will always be close to my heart and I will never stop fighting to protect it. From my first memories up north on my lake cabin to exploring natural areas in the twin cities, I’ll always have a connection with the natural world. Maybe I just need to adjust the ways in which I consume news about our environment and do it in a way that I can realistically be a part of. Can anyone else relate? Has anyone else found some solution and happy medium that they’d like to share their experience on? Thank you and Happy Earth Day 2023! 

Below is a link to an article discussing this topic.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190917075833.htm

Should We All Be Scientists?

Last semester in my Information Studies class I was tasked with doing a research paper on something related to information and the way it is changing in the digital age. We had just finished a unit on Wikipedia and so I was curious if there were other platforms like that where ordinary people contribute to something that used to be entirely the purview of experts. I started digging around, googling things I was interested in, and I stumbled upon citizen science. Although I have not yet participated in a project, I have since been in awe of the possibilities this presents.

Before I go too far down the rabbit hole, let me briefly explain what citizen science is. citizen science involves utilizing ordinary citizens in the collection of, and sometimes the analysis of, data for scientific purposes. I will not regurgitate my research paper beyond that, but the potential this creates is vast and then you throw in social media and the potential explodes.

Calling all Scientists

There is something missing from the world today … actually, there are a great many somethings missing from the world today.

I refer of course to the species that have gone extinct throughout history. Some of these extinctions occurred naturally over a great span of time. Others occurred as a mass extinction caused by some cataclysmic event. 

The “natural” rate of extinction is about one-five species per year, but in recent history, scientists have estimated about twelve species per day are going extinct!!

At this rate of acceleration, it appears we may be heading for another mass extinction. This time it will be the end of the Age of Mammals (the Cenozoic Era).

We as humans discuss a lot of issues, politics, religion, social injustice, and yes even the environment. But where we seem to focus our attention is at the very high level, big picture aspects. When we talk about the environment we talk about the ice caps melting (which will take a long time and have obvious widespread effects), we also talk about our grandchildren and providing them with clean air and water. Long-term, big picture stuff.

But what about the small things? The microbiology of Earth? EO Wilson, a microbiologist, speaks out about the importance of insects and microorganisms. For example, he talks about a tiny marine-bacteria in the oceans that was only recently discovered, in 1988. They are now considered to be one of the most populace life forms on Earth, and one of the smallest. This sub-microscopic entity is now thought to be the leading producer of photosynthesis in the ocean.

These are things that go unknown and unnoticed to most people. Because of this ignorance of the world around us. We continue to generate contaminants that we think are protecting us, but are probably actually leading us down the path to extinction. Many small organisms and insects are absolutely vital to our survival, but we spread pesticides and antibiotics with ease.

Wilson has a dream of knowledge, spreading knowledge of every species on Earth and how they might interact with and support our own selves. He calls it the Encylopedia of Life. The idea is an opensource online encyclopedia where scientists can log their knowledge about any and every species on Earth.

That fits into what we discuss in class very nicely, I think, it is basically a scientific forum for sharing information and knowledge. It could inspire a movement to help save some of these species that we unwittingly rely on for life.

Another TED talk given by Wilson is a call to young scientists to take up the mantle of research and discovery. It seems Wilson has a concern about a reduced interest in the field of scientific research. He cites a fear of failure as what he thinks is the reason for this decline. Amusingly, he spends some time trying to convince the audience that math isn’t that hard to learn, and he goes so far as to say that professors and academics should focus less on mathematics, and more on imagination. He suggests that if you make a brilliant discovery, or have a brilliant idea, you can always hire a mathematician to join the research team.

Not Your Parents’ Cosmos

A couple weeks ago in class we briefly discussed Neil deGrasse Tyson’s recent pulpit-styled rhetoric and how science seems to be changing its tactics to gain more recruits. Initially, I didn’t find the approach very irritating, as I’m all for spreading the gospel of science. But after watching a couple episodes of the new Cosmos, I’m beginning to feel my hackles twitch.

Tyson wrote and produced an episode that spends a great deal of time focusing on the plight of Dominican friar Giordano Bruno. Friar Bruno was a forward-thinking stargazer of the 16^th century who questioned the orthodox view of the universe and suffered the grand price for his heresy. He was, no doubt, a heroic figure who moved the conversation forward, but so were Galileo, Copernicus, and a slew of other great minds. His inclusion was conspicuous to say the least and hints at an agenda that wants to wiggle a finger at the religious establishment, which, in my opinion, has no place in serious scientific television.  I find myself siding with the creationist Danny Faulkner who, in this article, basically says ‘if you’re going to go there, you’d better be prepared to take some guff.’

The Sagan era

While the new Cosmos is definitely a feast for the eyes and imagination, it lacks the rigorous focus of its predecessor. Sagan’s Cosmos was all about the business of science and nature. Of religion, Sagan seemed to have no opinion. His door was locked to the debate. At the same time, Sagan had a way of using the wonder and awe of nature to speak his philosophy for him. He seemed a man more fond of the questions than the answers, questions that produce new theists and scientists alike. From that standpoint Sagan could’ve been loosely defined as an evangelist, but that’s where the similarities ended.

Sermonizing science

I’m not sure what to make of Tyson’s, almost confrontational, approach, nor do I think it’s particularly suited for Cosmos. It is not the job of Science to invalidate religion for the masses. Nor should it be in the business of defending evolution against creationists or debating the merits of the fossil record with Young Earthers–the trilobites and triceratopses speak for themselves. Scientists like Tyson ought to keep their eyes on the sky, keep testing and re-testing their hypotheses, and politely opt out of the discussion.

At its core, science is unbiased observation. It’s an often dry and thankless job uncovering those kernels of discovery. The same sober handling of the data should accompany its delivery to the public, voiced by someone who sounds more like an astrophysicist and less like a televangelist.