Francis memes and what the current surge of papal positivity says about us

As a Catholic, I appreciate the positive attention pope Francis is getting in the media - it is certainly a breath of fresh air to hear about his ideas in the news as opposed to the constant (and rightly so) reporting of sex scandals throughout the late 90s and early 2000s.

But I've gotta say the only really different things about Pope Francis that I see are (1) that he rejects many of the 'elitist' formalities of office (whereas his predecessors viewed it as a necessary burden), and (2) he uses common language with a great social media presence, thereby appealing to a much broader swath of society.  It is not news that he (and by implication, the church) accepts much of evolutionary theory, that he criticises corporate capitalism and human greed, that he suggests pollution and other environmental damage is sinful, or that he preaches love and compassion above other considerations (especially those surrounding marriage and divorce).  

All of these things have been true of much of the church leadership for much of the last few decades.  For example, John-Paul II wrote extensively about the importance of philosophy, logic, and the power of the human intellect, especially when it comes to science and technology, and Benedict XVI spoke often about the importance of preserving the environment, how pollution is sinful, and that climate change is a grave problem for humanity that is coupled with our modern lifestyle.  At the core, Benedicts message on caring for the environment (“As we care for creation, we realize that God, through creation, cares for us”), is really no different than David Suzuki's (what we do the the environment, we do to ourselves) minus the theism.  And so I'm inclined to think that, while I agree that Pope Francis seems poised to make more significant changes, the public, in general, are a bit naive when it comes to Catholicism, both in practice and in theory.

The current bandwagon seems to be largely occupied by people who formerly had been (or perhaps still are) persuaded to to think that the Catholic leadership and teachings were universally corrupt and bad.  I'm certainly not defending the entire canon (I could hardly do so effectively as both a layperson and a partial dissenter), and there have definitely been some truly bad people in the church's leadership.   But I would suggest that, if you're going to be critical of of something, you should at least consider the possibility of good and bad simultaneously, rather than simply picking the bits that agree with your world-view.  In this case, my suspicion is that many of us had prematurely jumped on the Pope-critiquing bandwagon in the past.

So if you're one of the people giving Francis a Facebook pat-on-the-back, it might be worthwhile asking yourself whether you are doing so because something has fundamentally changed, or because you just like what he says.  If it's the former, please point out to me what the changes are, because I'm very busy and could use the help.  If it's the latter, I would suggest that you would probably like much of what all recent popes have written or said, and may want to reconsider your (premature) judgement of them.

Alternatively, if you're just being happy and positive, please continue, and enjoy this photo of a cute sloth wearing a papal mitre.

Funny excerpts from student writing

I'm keeping track of these from now on, for my own benefit and that of my teaching freinds, because sometimes you just need a laugh to get you through the marking :)


"These observations were then sketched out and labelled."

-- If you're not sure why this one's funny, do a Google search for "sketched out".


"There were no sperm seen ... due to possible immaturity, therefore I looked at someone else's sperm."

-- The part that I abbreviated does not change the implication. Brings a whole new meaning to the term 'lab partner'.

 "Within a population there will always be strong, intermediate, and weak individuals. If you are weak you will not find a mate (no one will want you) and you will not get food so you will die in what is called 'Natural Selection'."

-- Guess you'd better hit the gym then bro.

Is having kids bad for the environment?

Ever since a friend posted a complaint against mothers who seek attention on Facebook for their 24/7 (often thankless) vocation of child-rearing, I've thought about how environmental reasons factor into the decision to have kids, and have come to the conclusion that most of my friends who cite the current unsustainably large population size of earth as a reason for not having children may not be making the best argument (not that they should have to defend their choice one way or another, but these things do come up from time to time). 

It's not the best argument because it seems (to me) like those who choose not to have kids often also choose to drive 4-8 hours every other weekend so they can enjoy some time away, take more frequent vacations in other coutries via air-travel, or simply buy more than my friends who have kids at home.  In other words, it seems like the extra freedom and financial resources generated by not having children cause us to consume a much larger amount of resources, thereby increasing our environmental footprint.  Although I'm not sure if the resulting environmental footprint would be quite as large as that of feeding and clothing additional mini-humans (probably not by the time they are teenagers), I'm betting that it is certainly not simply the same footprint minus the kids share.  I've always maintained that if you raise your children to be committed to improving sustainability, they may end up decreasing that footprint even more; and I suspect that the hero of many environmentalists, David Suzuki, probably shares that view, givent that he's had 5 children himself. Ultimately, by limiting yourself to one child you are still contributing to a trend of reduced reproductive output in the country.  Perhaps the large population size of the earth and other environemntal arguments are not the best arguments for not having children; but then, why should we have to argue about it at all?

If you get in a discussion about this with someone who thinks everyone should have kids and presses the issue, the best argument is simply "I don't want to have children"; if they press further, you could add "because I don't want to give up my freedom", as usually seems to be the case.  Citing the large population size of the earth is likely to make people that have kids defensive about their own reasons, because it implies they are doing more damage than you (although if that's what you mean to imply, its a great way to do it).  If you have particularly fecund siblings, you could also suggest that your genes are already being passed on abundantly, so you choose to improve your biological fitness in other ways (e.g., getting more exercise, education, or R&R).

Occasionally people with children become somewhat persistent in trying to convince those that don't want them, even suggesting that it is 'selfish' to not have children, while maintaining a 'holier than thou' attitude (although I have also seen this attitude in non-reproducers).  Given the fact that not having children is an evolutionary dead end, and that devoting more time to other people's children (or just other people), as many teachers, professors, and aunties or uncles do is, by definition, altruistic (the opposite of selfish), this is certainly not the case for most.  Although one could argue they are at least a bit more selfish than reproducers, in that they only devote 50% of their time compared to 80% or more of reproducers (to pick two not very well-researched guesstimates), there are selfish reasons involved in both choices: reproducers are selfish in that they want to ensure their own DNA is represented in the next generation (as opposed to that of others), whereas non-reproducers are selfish in that they are not willing (note that this wouldn't apply if you simply couldn't have children) to devote as much time to raising children.

In my opinion, the absolute best of both worlds, and the least selfish option altogether, is adoption, because there is zero increase in population, but you still have a chance to pass on your best, most sustainable ideals for the future.

Being an environmentalist doesn't mean you have to abstain from child-bearing, nor does having children necessarily make you less environmentally friendly (unless, perhaps, you have rabbit-like reproductive tendencies).  Whatever you choose to do, you can also choose to do it responsibly; don't fool yourself into thinking you are somehow more enlightened than those who choose differently.

Human-caused extinctions, values, and religious beliefs

We are currently in the middle of a human-caused extinction crisis (the loss of many species on a Geologically tiny time-scale) that is only projected to get worse over coming decades, as humans continue to homogenize the natural world in order to grow crops, create living spaces, and provide resources for an expanding population.  If you are a religious person, or have some thoughts on how religious people think about this, I'd like to know if you think that religious beliefs either justify these actions or contradict them.  I emphasize some of the Christian perspectives below, but would be particularly interested to hear your point-of-view if you have another faith-background.

In several places in the bible, we are told that all species have intrinsic value (e.g., God created the birds of the sky, fish of the sea, etc... and saw that it was "good").  Yet, the bible also clearly indicates that humans are the 'pinnacle' of creation, and are therefore more important than other species.  It even tells us that we are to "have dominion over them" - which at the very least indicates that we have precedence to displace, if not the priveledge to use and misuse as we please. This is something of a paradox for Christians - some would suggest that, both because because God deemed it to have intrinsic value, and because the diversity of life around us relates directly to our quality of life, it is justifiable to protect that biodiversity from over-exploitation. I think few Christians would argue about the prior argument, but the latter is one that many people disagree with.  As an ecologist, I can say that there is ample evidence for high natural biodiversity having a huge positive impact on human quality of life.  For example, there are well-documented cases of artificially increasing agricultural production through the use of fertilizers, while simultaneously reducing the native microflora and microfauna of the soil, leading to long-term degredation of ecological capacity, including the capacity to produce crops.

From an evolutionary perspective, one could also justify preservation or exploitation: all species evolved from the same elementary life-forms via essentially random processes, and are therefore of equal value, including humans.  We are no more valuable than dogs, gophers, or mushrooms, and therefore do not have the right (whatever that means) to 'play God' and cause these other species to go extinct.  To some extent, this argument ignores that, throughout the geological history of the earth, a small group of highly successful species has often come to dominate ecosystems or even continents, thereby leading to the extinction of many other species.  Indeed, some people have used this justification for the rampant exploitation of natural resources that happens today, suggesting that we are simply following our biologically hard-wired instincts to consume more and increase our genetic inheritance (in theory).  Furthemore, there are clearly different 'levels' of importance (at least ecological importance) for different species - some are simply too rare, too few in number, or too specialized to have much of an impact on the function of the system as a whole.  Although I can assure you that the human species is unique so far in the magnitude of our 'domination', I can't say with certainty that we are or are not following our instincts by causing extinctions, be it from over-use (e.g., passenger pigeons) or from purposeful eradication (e.g., large predators, biting insects).

Now it is clear to most biologists that causing species to go extinct on such a large scale as we currently are is probably not very good for US as a species.  Most of the things we've tried to or successfully gotten rid of have not even been well-understood, and have occasionally caused some pretty serious ripple-effects.  To be sure, there may be some ecological redundancy at larger scales, but most biologists would agree that it's a bad idea to start taking things out and expect that the various ecosystem goods and services will still be available to us later on, particularly given the complexity of these systems. Think of it as playing Jenga while wearing really dark glasses and boxing gloves.

But, despite this view being widely published throughout the scientific literature, and apparently having widespread public support, you don't generally hear priests, reverends, or rhabis telling their congregations to stop eating bluefin tuna or buying new mahogany furniture.  I'm not suggesting they ignore environmental issues - I've heard many preach about responsible consumption, and a couple of years ago the pope actually declared that pollution was a sin - but they seem to ignore that species are being lost at an alarming rate.

Unlike many outspoken scientists, I think religious leaders have great potential to help with the challenges we scientists get to document. But I'm not seeing it yet (at least not at more than a lip-service level), so I'd be grateful if any reading this post could point towards a few examples of local leaders doing so, and perhaps answer a few questions to help me understand all these social and religious complexities.

1) Do you believe that all species have intrinsic value? (in other words, that they have value even if we don't see any particular use for them)
2) Do we have the moral obligation to prevent species from going extinct?
3) How do you justify that belief?
4) If you justify it on religious grounds (even partly), have you ever heard a religious leader speak about it as a problem?

Free data and data-collector's remorse

Free data and data-collector's remorse

If you've ever designed your own field study in ecology or environmental science, there's a very good chance that you experienced what I call "data-collector's remorse" at the end of the field season. Much in the same way that "buyer's remorse" is a feeling of regret at having bought something for which your appreciation is flagging, data-collector's remorse is essentially regretting having collected too much, or too little data, during that carefully planned and budgeted 8-weeks you spent in the field.

For me, data-collector's remorse tends to manifest in one of two ways: (1) I start to run some preliminary analyses on the data, find out that have too many variables, and end up having to cut some out (meaning I wasted my time collecting them), or (2) during the course of follow-up research, I discover a half-dozen new papers that all describe a much better way of measuring a variable, or a much better set of variables to collect data on, than what I just finished doing. Obviously, these two ways are not equally damaging to a project, because while you can always save excess data for other work (or to use as a demo for a class you're teaching), we seldom have a chance to go back and collect a new dataset to get those things we wish that we collected in the first place.

Sound familiar?

Thankfully, we live in a world that is awash with data; there are literally hundreds of websites, papers, and databases with almost everything you need to fill in the blanks without leaving your office.

For example, during my M.Sc. field work in northern B.C., I measured the basal and breast-height diameters of tree trunks, thinking that it would be all I needed. Later on, I had a great idea to build a model of canopy tree influence on understory vegetation using falling-object formulae from Newtonian physics, but this model needed the height of the trees to work.

Knowing that foresters often only collect the diameter at breast height (DBH) of trees when doing their timber-cruising, I figured there must be something published on modelling the height of lodgepole pine trees using basal diameter or DBH. Within about 15 minutes on the Web of Science, I had located a paper that did just that, and was able to use the equations from that paper to get what I think were pretty accurate estimates of tree height (I tested it on a few local trees in the Prince George area to make sure).

In a more recent example, I was lamenting not having collected rainfall data for some study sites on a project where I used microclimate to predict the cover of epixylic bryophytes and lichens on rotting logs in the forest. What I did have was relative humidity (RH) data, and access to Environment Canada's online repository of historic weather data, on which I found a weather station that was only 5 km away from my study sites. After downloading the weather data, and synching it up with the timing and periodicity of my own RH data, I realized that the weather station recorded rainfall whenever my data loggers were registering RH of 96% or greater. So even though I still lacked information on total rainfall amounts for my specific location, I was pretty confident that I could predict when it was and wasn't raining over my study sites.

The take-home message is this: if you find yourself experiencing data-collector's remorse at the end of the field season, stay calm and do what scientists do best - RESEARCH!!! Consult the literature, consult your peers about where they get different types of data, and consult good old-fashioned Google. And for the sake of all us scientists out there for whom only hind-sight is 20-20, please share your data online once you've published.

Here are some of my favourite sources for online data - please feel free to share yours with me :)

Climate / Weather data
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/
http://cfcg.forestry.ubc.ca/projects/climate-data/climatebcwna/ http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/modcom/eole/wind-atlas-selection.html

Mapping / GIS data -
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/topographic-information/free-data-geogratis/11042
http://geobc.gov.bc.ca/
http://www.snb.ca/geonb1/

Species occurrence data - 
http://bryophyteportal.org/portal/
http://lichenportal.org/portal/
http://collections.nature.ca/en/Search
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/?lang=EN 

Pollution
http://globalnews.ca/news/622513/open-data-alberta-oil-spills-1975-2013/
https://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=En&n=B85A1846-1

Statistics Canada (mostly social & economic data)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start 


 

Either you love stems, or you hate pandas

 Preface

 This is the third in my "botany" series of short-essays. It was written as an introduction to a lesson on stems as part of the Introduction to Botany lab I was the instructor for at UNBSJ back in 2011. Enjoy!

Either you love stems, or you hate pandas    

           Plant stems are one of those things that we tend to take for granted on a day to day basis.  We may think of them as the boring part of the plant – they are not as pretty as flowers or leaves, they lack the mystery and intrigue of roots, and if you try to think of the last time you ate one, well, it can be difficult to remember.  It’s not that they aren’t important, obviously we couldn’t have the delicious fruits and vegetables, the beautiful flowers, or shady leaves without the stem.  They’re kinda like the offensive lineman of a football game – absolutely necessary, because the quarterback would be immediately sacked and the team would lose without them, but they don’t do much other than stand there and provide support for the rest of the team (plant).  This analogy is true in that stems are overlooked, but they are probably more interesting and important than you think.  Like roots, stems can be aerial, underground, or aquatic, and like roots, we eat them in copious amounts. 

            In fact, one of the most important crops in the world is a stem - the sugar cane; if you had cereal for breakfast this morning, jam on your toast, or something sweet in your coffee, chances are you ate some sugar cane.  If you had a thanksgiving dinner this past weekend, chances are you ate some potatoes or yams – both modified underground stems (tubers).  A couple of things we had in the lab last week alongside the roots, like arrowroot cookies and sarsaparilla, are actually from modified underground stems called rhizomes.  Ginger is a stem – and I ask you, where would Asian food be without ginger?!!  Curries, stir-frys, and sushi would be soooo bland.  Asparagus spears, artichoke hearts, and water chestnuts are examples of delicious stems too. 

            Of course, all of the wood we use for building houses, furniture, boats, and baseball bats is also from the stem – although we’ll talk more about wood and other secondary growth products in the next lab. 

            Bamboo is another stem of incredible importance – not only is it used as a building material, fibre for paper products, and food (bamboo shoots), but it grows quickly and readily in warm climates, helping to meet the great demand for these products.  PLUS, it is the primary food of the endangered and incredibly cute giant panda. 

So, in conclusion, if you think stems are boring or stupid, we can only assume you don’t like to eat candy or yummy food, you live in a concrete house with plastic furniture, and probably hate pandas. 

The root of the problem

Preface

 This is the second in my "botany" series of short-essays. It was written as an introduction to a lesson on roots as part of the Introduction to Botany lab I was the instructor for at UNBSJ back in 2011. Enjoy!

The root of the problem

Root vegetables may not be the most abundant, most nutritional, or most valuable crops around; the ratio of protein to carbohydrates is often quite small, they cost more to grow than many grasses, and they tend not to have as many nutrients and vitamins as fruits or legumes.  They do, however, have their place as historically and traditionally important foods and products.  Here are a couple of examples I came across.  (Can you add any more?)

As I was preparing for the ‘root lab’, I came across an interesting excerpt in one of my text-books on the significance of one particular root, the sugar beet, in conflicts between world powers.  The sugar beet is actually the same species as the dark purple ones we see more commonly, but has achieved much higher sugar content through selective breeding.  Apparently, the sugar beet was developed by plant breeders in Germany and France during Britain’s naval blockade in the late eighteenth century, as a way of overcoming the loss of imported sugar from tropical locations that could grow sugar cane.  Sugar beets were Napoleon’s way of stickin’ it to the King of England.  It’s kind of like when as a child you get sent to your room for bad behaviour, but end up finding plenty of things to do in there anyways. 

The second time sugar beets came to the forefront of world politics was during the cold war era, when suddenly the U.S.A. didn’t like Cuba so much any more.  Ironically, Cuba had previously supplied the majority of the U.S.A.’s sugar, so the American government really shot themselves in the foot with that one.  This ended up working out well for American farmers though, because sugar beet production went up exponentially during that time.  Of course, with the country that bought the majority of their exported sugar no longer doing so, Cuba suddenly had more sugar than money, so their communist allies in northern Europe had to step in and buy some sugar – even though northern Europe had no shortage of the stuff with ample sugar-beet production already in place.  I wonder what the dental health of Russians from that time was like with all that extra sugar in their diet… 

            But of course, world politics have involved roots in many more forms that just that of the sugar beet.  Until recently in North America, tobacco production was one of the most financially lucrative (and environmentally damaging) forms of agriculture around.  The political importance of tobacco lies in its financial support for (and some would say control over) election campaigns, national spending priorities, and international trade.  It still is a major and growing industry in many other places around the world.  Of course, the product itself is a leaf, but the nicotine that accumulates in the leaves is produced in the roots of the plant, and without that nicotine (which is what causes addiction), tobacco markets would be a mere shadow of what they are today.