It was terrific! More than you ever imagined about owls and absolutely fascinating. And it’s amazing how much we are only now learning. I particularlyIt was terrific! More than you ever imagined about owls and absolutely fascinating. And it’s amazing how much we are only now learning. I particularly appreciated the section on their inner lives and how humans have misinterpreted their behavior—largely relevant to captive owls. Just because an animal is quiet and “calm,” doesn’t mean it isn’t “dying inside” from terror. ...more
Very good. It seems there’s been an explosion of research into the lives of animals, led probably by technology that lets us see these things we couldVery good. It seems there’s been an explosion of research into the lives of animals, led probably by technology that lets us see these things we couldn’t before and also by women entering the field. A glance through the bibliography shows a lot of women researchers. I feel like we’re achieving a kind of tipping point as I drive around and see many former lawns replaced with native wildflower gardens. Not enough yet, but it makes me hopeful. Writers like Lawson, Doug Tallamy, Heather Holm, Suzanne Simard, Robin Wall Kimmerer do a tremendous job of making the natural world relatable and share not only the urgency of changing our ways, but also the benefits and hope for a future that won’t be as bad as what I write fiction about....more
Ed Yong, so high expectations. I liked it, but the level of detail is numbing. But fascinating to think how all these microbes work together with our Ed Yong, so high expectations. I liked it, but the level of detail is numbing. But fascinating to think how all these microbes work together with our cells to keep us healthy. And how we muck it up with antibiotics and crappy food....more
Fascinating. Who knew beavers dug canals to join ponds? Or channels in the bottom of ponds to get around. Didn’t get to finish before it had to go bacFascinating. Who knew beavers dug canals to join ponds? Or channels in the bottom of ponds to get around. Didn’t get to finish before it had to go back to the library, so one to be continued....more
I'm a big fan of Lynn Margulis, but her books with Dorian Sagan are more readable. Important, but kind of a slog.I'm a big fan of Lynn Margulis, but her books with Dorian Sagan are more readable. Important, but kind of a slog....more
This is going to make me rethink nature. She offers no easy answers to some very difficult questions. What is invasive? If the plant or animal moved hThis is going to make me rethink nature. She offers no easy answers to some very difficult questions. What is invasive? If the plant or animal moved here on its own or does it need to have been brought here by humans? Life has traversed the planet since, well, there was a planet with life, so who’s to say what’s OK and what’s a problem? A really interesting, thought-provoking book. Highly recommend....more
A terrific book! But read it in summer because you’re going to want to go out and look at mosses. I so want to sit in on a conversation between her anA terrific book! But read it in summer because you’re going to want to go out and look at mosses. I so want to sit in on a conversation between her and Suzanne Simard!...more
I could have used a trigger warning. He gets really graphic with the sexual abuse and I don’t need that burned into my brain. Overall, I’m meh about tI could have used a trigger warning. He gets really graphic with the sexual abuse and I don’t need that burned into my brain. Overall, I’m meh about the book. He comes across as such a privileged guy, getting to jet around the world anytime he pleases just to follow a story. The essays feel overwritten. I loved his books when I was younger. Did he change as a writer or have I changed as a reader? Curious....more
These are New Yorker essays that appeared in the early 1980s. But so much good McPhee! The New Jersey biologist trapping bears for science was terrifiThese are New Yorker essays that appeared in the early 1980s. But so much good McPhee! The New Jersey biologist trapping bears for science was terrific. But as she misses her daughter’s performance, she laments that women should be at home. Argh! The last piece was the best! The other John McPhee, a Maine Warden pilot. It’s tempting to dismiss this collection as dated, since they are from the 1980s, but it never hurts to have a reality check of where we were (first bear caught in New Jersey) and how we got here. It made me want to Google the stories for updates....more
Oakes is studying the effect of climate change on yellow-cedar in Alaska, near Sitka (I’d seen the dead trees on a cruise a few years before she startOakes is studying the effect of climate change on yellow-cedar in Alaska, near Sitka (I’d seen the dead trees on a cruise a few years before she started her research). Scientists knew global warming was killing the trees, but she wants to know what will replace them. Fascinating and a wonderful insight into how science works.
This goes right up there with Finding the Mother Tree—in fact, I’d love to listen in on a conversation between Drs. Simard and Oakes. This doesn’t have quite the emotional impact of Mother Tree and Oakes focused so much on adapting to climate change that she never mentioned the importance of actually stopping it. Yes, there’s a lag time—temps will continue to rise after (if) we stop burning fossil fuels, but there should still be some sense of the importance of stopping that. Given her reaction to her students not knowing that, I guess she simply takes it for granted and now the push is to figure out how to adapt, because, frankly, there’s no reversing this trajectory. And that is the gobsmacking truth that underlies this compelling tale of a tree. It’s like trying to stop the Titanic once they’ve seen the iceberg. ...more
It’s an interesting exploration of what hope is, exactly. She does say, which I’d seen before, that the distinction with humans is that we are capableIt’s an interesting exploration of what hope is, exactly. She does say, which I’d seen before, that the distinction with humans is that we are capable of torture and evil. We can plan out how to cause pain and suffering. Pretty despicable. This is a somewhat distracted conversation with Douglas Abrams and they got very woo woo, spiritually, at the end, but it worked for me. I guess I believe that stuff more when it comes from a scientist. Jane Goodall is incredibly smart about a lot of things. She does address her “Damascus” moment (a Biblical reference) and I found more detail in her other book, A Reason for Hope. About how she came around to becoming an advocate for chimps, especially those in medical research (couldn’t read parts of that). She hadn’t felt comfortable challenging scientists till she finished her big book on chimps, a scholarly piece, in the early 1980s. Then she changed focus away from day-to-day study to advocating and lecturing. I don’t believe we’ll pull off what we have to in order to stop climate change from wrecking the planet, but give her props for doing her part. And she's been doing it for a very long time....more
If you ever wonder how scientists come up with the conclusions and theories they do about things like climate change and have any inclination to be skIf you ever wonder how scientists come up with the conclusions and theories they do about things like climate change and have any inclination to be skeptical, read this. Especially if you aren't a scientist. Arthur C. Clarke, I believe, came up with the dictum that any significantly advanced technology will appear as magic. That's where I think we're heading with too many people not understanding how science works and why. They dismiss it as voodoo. Industries have capitalized on this tendency to their bank accounts' advantage.
Watch in this book how Dr. Simard's research showing that spraying herbicides (Roundup) on replanted clear-cuts does not help the commercial species the timber industry wants. Yet they ignore her findings and a chance to save money and continue spraying and eliminating the very trees that help the commercial crop grow. But it's in the details, the endless hours spent amid bugs and rain, plotting experiments, digging holes, testing how gases (dangerous, radioactive ones at that) transfer elements from not just one tree to the next but from one species to another. And how the fungi in the ground help make this all possible.
Walk the aisles of any big-box store and you'll see Roundup, fungicides, grub killers, all marketed by greedy companies trying to convince you that nirvana can be found in a weed-free green lawn of nonnative grasses. When all you really have to do is encourage native species—both plant and animal—and you not only save money, you save bees and birds and have a beautiful landscape to look at instead of desert grass.
But I digress from her point—forests. It's heartbreaking to read how her work was dismissed, probably because she's a woman. It's also gratifying to see scientists at work. I love science, love ecology and the natural world, but Dr. Simard's story beautifully points out how my personality is so not suited to the actual work of science. The sheer patience, level of detail, care and precision all elude me. Thank god for people like Suzanne Simard!
Meanwhile, her life is like a novel, all the things that go wrong. As her marriage is falls apart, she visits a friend, Mary. As she leaves, she thinks, “Was I in love?” I wondered if that was a tease, the way some straight women talk about their “wife,” really a bestie. I find that annoying. I shall spoil here that it’s not a tease, though the relationship is not a big part of the story. But for young queer women scientists who might need a role model—here she is! She’s a very interesting person and precisely why we need marginalized voices brought to the center—whether queer or simply female. ...more
She had me at “Qwah.” This memoir is different from most. The storytelling is unusual. A bit hard to get into, but I think it’s because the writer is She had me at “Qwah.” This memoir is different from most. The storytelling is unusual. A bit hard to get into, but I think it’s because the writer is unusual. She definitely relates better to animals and being alone than to being around people, and she pays a price for that, like a lack of insurance-providing work. I can relate to her saying, “A mouse in your garage is a mouse in your car. If she’s a female mouse, she’ll turn your car into a mobile maternity ward.” Yep. It’s very different from most animal-centered memoirs (think H is for Hawk or anything by Sy Montgomery). I like that. My only issue is she cared too much about flak she might get for naming Fox. Not even a real name. I think Jane Goodall broke that taboo some 60 years ago. But a terrific book. ...more
Turned out it’s from a chapter in her Birdology, which I'd read. But still a good story. Twenty bucks for a chapter! Glad it was a library book.Turned out it’s from a chapter in her Birdology, which I'd read. But still a good story. Twenty bucks for a chapter! Glad it was a library book....more
One thing that strikes me is the detail of the research. Instead of just saying bower birds build these elaborate leks and bowers to attract a female,One thing that strikes me is the detail of the research. Instead of just saying bower birds build these elaborate leks and bowers to attract a female, which I knew, Ackerman finds researchers figuring out what that looks like to the female (coincidence that a lot of these researchers are female?). The intelligence isn’t only the male's with their complex songs or fancy dances, it’s also the females sorting out these clues, deciding which among many does the best job, and choosing. Birds are crazy remarkable....more
This gets five stars, not because there’s a “wow” on every page (my usual criteria), because there isn’t; I know this stuff. We all do. But Hope JahreThis gets five stars, not because there’s a “wow” on every page (my usual criteria), because there isn’t; I know this stuff. We all do. But Hope Jahren puts it together in a fresh way. Like we’ve been looking out one window of our house and suddenly see another and find a completely different view. First, she repeats all the data we know, but in the context of her own lifetime, since she was born in 1969. The fact that the numbers, the doubling and tripling of excess, of so many things, in that time gives it a fresh shock. Yeah, we get that we’ve been polluting the air since the Industrial Revolution, but when you see what we’ve done since 1969, since we’ve known exactly what harm we are doing, you reel back.
Her informal tone reminds me of Heather Cox Richardson. Both are excellent writers. You revel with every page. And both make what can be a dry subject (science, history) absolutely fascinating and even funny. If I were to throw a dinner party (if I weren’t an introvert), I’d invite them.
Jahren also doesn’t give any of us (at least Americans) an easy way out. For decades I’ve been rebelling against environmental advice to turn off the tap when I brush my teeth. Well, duh, I’ve been doing that as long as I’ve been brushing my teeth—the old “50 things you can do to save the planet.” Tell me something new, will you? Something that might actually make a difference. Recently, the drumbeat has shifted to, there’s really nothing we can do as individuals at this point because the problem is so big, so intractable. We need industry to step up, governments to crack down.
Here’s what Hope Jahren tells me—guess what, they are not going to do it. Fuggedaboutit. They work on timescales too short—something else we already know, but sometimes you need to hear it again from a different voice. Industry only cares about the bottom line, which must continue to grow. My financial advisor beats me over the head with this mantra: the American economy is powered by consumption (he jokes that I’m not doing my part). As Jahren says, you can’t have continued growth and conservation at the same time.
Politicians only care about the next election and staying in power, and, as we’ve seen, if that means deceiving voters and destroying democracy, so be it. Throughout history, Jahren says, when we’ve managed to be more efficient—in gas mileage, electricity use, agriculture—we’ve erased that efficiency by doing more of it all. It really is, if you build it they will use it. All the gains made with fuel-efficient cars is undone by the increasing number of cars and miles we drive. And so it does, in the end, come down to us. And as Americans, we bear the greater responsibility because, as Jahren says, we only want more of everything and have been unwilling to share any of it. And for those who think we need to wear hair shirts, ditch the car for a bike, or, god forbid, put on a sweater, she shows that all we have to do is live like Switzerland in the 1960s, which wasn’t a bad place to be.
I often think, when considering a purchase or action, is this worth someone dying? Because people die every day giving me what I need and want, whether it’s an exhausted Amazon warehouse worker from a heart attack, or a hundred textile workers in Indonesia killed when their factory collapses. The farm workers doused in pesticides or working without proper gear in hot fields. The women selling their bodies because their job doesn’t pay enough to live on.
Inequality based on climate is as bad as inequality based on race. And guess what? They more than overlap. We can’t save the planet without equality. Most of the climate models tell us how horrible life will be by the year 2100. But that’s where they stop. My nieces’ children, your kids, your grandkids, will live well into the 22nd century. We are, as Jahren puts it, about 200 years from when all this began. What will life be like in another 200 years? Better than now? Better than 200 years ago? Or will our descendants be living in biobubbles and putting on life-support suits to go “outside”?
Jahren’s message is simple, use less, share more, because, particularly for us Yanks, we have spent her lifetime accumulating more stuff, and she explains exactly what and how, and leaving the rest of the world to suffer as a result. Yet she remains hopeful (how could she not?), but reminds us: “The fact that we are of the group with food, shelter, and clean water obligates us not to give up on the world that we have compromised. Knowledge is responsibility.” She tells us: “We, the 20 percent of the globe that uses most of its resources, must begin to detox from this consumption, or things will never get better. Look at your own life: Can you identify the most energy-intensive thing that you do? Are you willing to change? We will never change our institutions if we cannot change ourselves.” And if we think it means hardship and sacrifice, look to Switzerland in 1969. Would that really be so bad?
I often think of Ursula K. Le Guin’s story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” What is the price we pay for the way we live? Is it worth it? And should we walk away from it? Or should we try to change it? What will you do? ...more
Excellent. One of those books with a Wow every few pages. These bird brains are pretty damn smart. I’ll never listen to bird song the same way again. Excellent. One of those books with a Wow every few pages. These bird brains are pretty damn smart. I’ll never listen to bird song the same way again. The sheer skill and mastery. And the problem-solving. We really do underestimate nonhumans....more
Quiz: Who said, “We can no longer consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we Quiz: Who said, “We can no longer consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources, which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor’s yard.”
Bill McKibben? Greta Thunberg? Al Gore? Wangari Maathai?
How about President Richard Milhous Nixon. In his 1970 State of the Union address. This terrific, albeit now ancient, quote kicks off Tallamy’s call to action to clean up not only our own waste but “ecological contamination as well.”
Your yard may look green and lovely (perfect lawn!), but chances are it’s teeming with invasive plants from far-off lands that are useless to the birds you’ve grown so fond of now that you are staying home. Because for birds to raise families, they need insects. Caterpillars, moths, bugs of all kinds. And bugs need plants, but if all your beautiful, perfect shrubs and flowers came from a foreign country, our bugs can’t eat them (that’s what you like about them, no doubt) and so birds can’t find enough food for their babies—and as Tallamy shows, bird babies need a LOT of bugs.
Tallamy’s premise is simple: Small acts by a lot of people can create a better world for us now and into the future. Because what benefits bugs and birds also helps us. Anyone who controls the tiniest piece of property can be part of the solution. And now, especially, with so many at home and perhaps for the first time noticing the plant and animal world around them—whether city, suburb, or remote enclave—is a great time to take this on. He’s asking us to literally look at our own backyard.
He’s not saying we could help the planet if we use our lawns and private property. He’s saying we must. It’s a moral imperative. If you own land (or a fire escape to place pots), you have the responsibility to plant native species and help the insects and birds survive. There’s nowhere else left because 95 percent of American land has been altered: agriculture, roads, malls, cities. 95 percent! And we wring our hands over the Amazon. This book has a wow on every page. For better or worse. All that said, the pessimist in me feels like it’s too late. We’ll see. I like his anger, his passion for the planet. He’s not holding back or being polite or objective. This matters! He sure is optimistic. (And I’m putting in a native-plant garden!) ...more
Loading...
