Human Exceptionalism

A terrific new book, The Arrogant Ape, by the primatologist Christine Webb, will be out in early September, and I don’t think a nonfiction book has affected me more, or taught me more, in a long time. It’s about human exceptionalism and what’s wrong with it.

It also has illuminating things to say about awe, humility, and the difference between optimism and hope. (...)

Here’s my review:

Here are some glimpses from the review:

***

Christine Webb, a primatologist at New York University, is focused on “the human superiority complex,” the idea that human beings are just better and more deserving than are members of other species, and on the extent to which human beings take themselves as the baseline against which all living creatures are measured. As Hamlet exclaimed: “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!… The paragon of animals!” In Webb’s view, human exceptionalism is all around us, and it damages science, the natural environment, democratic choices, and ordinary (human) life. People believe in human superiority even though we are hardly the biggest, the fastest, or the strongest. Eagles see a lot better than we do. Sea sponges live much longer. Dolphins are really good at echolocation; people are generally really bad at it. And yet we keep proclaiming how special we are. As Webb puts it, “Hamlet got one thing right: we’re a piece of work.” [. . .]

I have two Labrador Retrievers, Snow and Finley, and on most days, I take them for a walk on a local trail. Every time, it is immediately apparent that they are perceiving and sensing things that are imperceptible to me. They hear things that I don’t; they pause to smell things that I cannot. Their world is not my world. Webb offers a host of more vivid examples, and they seem miraculous, the stuff of science fiction.

For example, hummingbirds can see colors that human beings are not even able to imagine. Elephants have an astonishing sense of smell, which enables them to detect sources of water from miles away. Owls can hear the heartbeat of a mouse from a distance of 25 feet. Because of echolocation, dolphins perceive sound in three dimensions. They know what is on the inside of proximate objects; as they swim toward you, they might be able to sense your internal organs. Pronghorn antelopes can run a marathon in 40 minutes, and their vision is far better than ours. On a clear night, Webb notes, they might be able to see the rings of Saturn. We all know that there are five senses, but it’s more accurate to say that there are five human senses. Sharks can sense electric currents. Sea turtles can perceive the earth’s magnetic field, which helps them to navigate tremendous distances. Some snakes, like pythons, are able to sense thermal radiation. Scientists can give many more examples, and there’s much that they don’t yet know.

Webb marshals these and other findings to show that when we assess other animals, we use human beings as the baseline. Consider the question of self-awareness. Using visual tests, scientists find that human children can recognize themselves in a mirror by the age of three—and that almost no other species can do that. But does that really mean that human beings are uniquely capable of recognizing themselves? It turns out that dogs, who rely more on smell than sight, can indeed recognize themselves, if we test by reference to odor; they can distinguish between their own odor and that of other dogs. (Can you do that?) In this sense, dogs too show self-awareness. Webb argues that the human yardstick is pervasively used to assess the abilities of nonhuman animals. That is biased, she writes, “because each species fulfills a different cognitive niche. There are multiple intelligences!”

Webb contends that many of our tests of the abilities of nonhuman animals are skewed for another reason: We study them under highly artificial conditions, in which they are often miserable, stressed, and suffering. Try caging human beings and seeing how well they perform on cognitive tests. As she puts it, “A laboratory environment can rarely (if ever) adequately simulate the natural circumstances of wild animals in an ecologically meaningful way.” Suppose, for example, that we are investigating “prosociality”—the question of whether nonhuman animals will share food or cooperate with one another. In the laboratory, captive chimpanzees do not appear to do that. But in the wild, chimpanzees behave differently: They share meat and other food (including nuts and honey), and they also share tools. During hunting, chimpanzees are especially willing to cooperate. In natural environments, the differences between human beings and apes are not nearly so stark. Nor is the point limited to apes. Cows, pigs, goats, and even salmon are a lot smarter and happier in the wild than in captive environments. (...)

It would be possible to read Webb as demonstrating that nonhuman animals are a lot more like us than we think. But that is not at all her intention. On the contrary, she rejects the argument, identified and also rejected by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, that the nonhumans animals who are most like us deserve the most protection, what Nussbaum calls the “so like us” approach. (This is also part of the title of an old documentary about Jane Goodall’s work.) Webb sees that argument as a well-meaning but objectionable form of human exceptionalism. Why should it matter that they are like us? Why is that necessary? With Nussbaum, Webb insists that species are “wonderfully different,” and that it is wrong to try to line them up along a unitary scale and to ask how they rank. Use of the human yardstick, embodied in the claim of “so like us,” is a form of blindness that prevents us from seeing the sheer variety of life’s capacities, including cognitive ones. As Nussbaum writes, “Anthropocentrism is a phony sort of arrogance.”

by Cass Sunstein, Cass's Substack |  Read more:

Image: Thai Elephant Conservation Center

[ed. See also: this.]

Morning golf 

Image: markk

36,000 feet above Sahara Desert

via:

90% of Frozen Raspberries Grown in the U.S. Come From This WA Town

LYNDEN, Whatcom County — Even if you’ve never been to Lynden, there’s a good chance you’ve eaten the raspberries grown here. They’re just not the ones you find in the plastic clamshell in the produce section.

Labeled generically as “U.S.-grown raspberries,” you’ll find them all over the grocery store: in the frozen triple berry blend and the raspberry lemon muffins at Costco. In Tillamook’s Washington raspberry yogurt, Smuckers’ raspberry jam and Rubicon’s vegan raspberry cupcakes. Raspberry Uncrustables, raspberry crumbles in the smoothies at Jamba Juice … you get the point.

Farms in Lynden — a town of roughly 16,000 people about 5 miles south of the Canadian border — grow 90% of the frozen red raspberries that are grown and harvested in the United States each year. Since 2015, these berries have generated more than $1 billion in sales, according to the Washington Red Raspberry Commission.

From June to early August every summer, across 54 farms, roughly 50 million pounds of red raspberries are mechanically harvested and processed in Lynden. Most berries get flash-frozen whole in tunnels, minutes from where they’re picked, and packaged into familiar foods like the ones above. You’ve probably got a few in your house right now. (...)

The process is fascinating. The only wrinkle? Raspberries — although delicious, and even when they get flash-frozen right away — are a pain to grow.

“They’re finicky,” said Markwell Farms owner Mark Van Mersbergen, running his hands over a deep-green raspberry cane last month, halfway through the picking season. “They have to have it their way, and if they get a curveball thrown at them, it’s tough to adjust.”

by Jackie Varriano, Seattle Times | Read more:
Images: Nick Wagner/Esri (Mark Nowlin)/The Seattle Times

[ed. 90%!]

Arctic Beavers

Beavers are poised to invade and radically remake the Arctic.

In the summer of 2023, University of Alaska Fairbanks ecologist Ken Tape walked across the tundra on the outskirts of Nome, Alaska, to a site where a shallow stream just a few meters wide had flowed 2 years before. In its place he found an enormous pond, created by a dam made of branches bearing the distinctive marks of beaver incisors.

It was a vivid illustration of how beavers are transforming the Arctic. In Tape’s past work studying Arctic landscapes, such places changed little over decades. “It gives you a sense of timelessness,” he says. “With beavers, that couldn’t be further from the truth,” as the chunky rodents quickly replumb vast areas by building dams that can stretch hundreds of meters.

Soon, the land-altering power of beavers could be felt in a region currently beyond their reach: the farthest northern parts of the Alaskan Arctic. In a 30 July paper in Environmental Research Letters, Tape and James Speed of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology forecast that as a warming climate eases Arctic temperatures, beaver populations will march northward, sweeping across Alaska’s North Slope this century. Their arrival could bring dramatic change, the researchers say, upending ecosystems in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and accelerating the loss of permafrost that stores vast amounts of carbon. (...)

Tape has spent the past decade documenting this upheaval in parts of the Alaskan Arctic farther south and west, including the Seward Peninsula, where Nome is located. When he and colleagues scrutinized aerial photos of the region from the middle of the 20th century, they found no sign of the distinctive ponds beavers create to protect their mound-shaped lodges, accessible only underwater, and to cache branches for food in winter.

Today, satellite images show more than 11,000 beaver ponds dotting the Arctic tundra south of the Brooks Range, a wall of mountains running east to west that isolates the North Slope. The number there doubled from 2003 to 2017. (...)

Tape suspects warmer weather is critical because it means more unfrozen water in winter. A completely frozen pond can trap beavers in their lodges and make food caches inaccessible. Milder winters could preserve pockets of liquid water around springs or ponds. Melting permafrost also creates more groundwater-fed springs. And earlier spring thaws enable beavers to forage just as their food supplies dwindle.

“The ecological bottleneck for beavers is the end of winter,” Tape says. “Now imagine that comes 2 weeks earlier.”

Using computer models that forecast how a warming climate could expand the amount of Alaskan tundra suitable for beavers, the researchers found that the area dotted with ponds could nearly double by 2050, and more than triple by the end of the century, from 30,000 square kilometers to 99,000 square kilometers. In these scenarios, beavers would breach the Brooks Range and spread across the North Slope to the shores of the Beaufort Sea. (...)

This isn’t the first time beavers have occupied the Arctic, notes Emily Fairfax, an ecohydrologist at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. There is fossil evidence of beavers in the Alaskan Arctic—though none has been found in the North Slope—dating to between 6000 and 10,000 years ago, when temperatures there were warmer and the landscape more forested. In fact, it’s thought that beavers might have evolved to build dams and cache food to adapt to one of the Arctic’s cooling phases millions of years ago. Still, Fairfax says the forecast that sensitive North Slope ecosystems “will probably be full of beavers is probably going to cause a lot of strong reactions.”

Residents of the Arctic have mixed feelings about their new neighbors. Ezra Adams, a member of the Native Village of Noatak, just south of the Brooks Range, says his father first saw a beaver there in the late 1990s, when Adams was 6 years old. Now, the animals have altered his family’s way of life. Their dams have reduced creeks where Adams once caught whitefish and salmon to a trickle. When out trapping or gathering firewood in the winter, he must beware of breaking through the ice on beaver ponds. Whereas his father once drank straight from lakes in the backcountry, Adams now brings treated water to avoid giardia in beaver feces. There are some upsides. Adams uses beaver meat to bait traps and beaver pelts for garments. “They provide a lot for our trapping,” Adams says. “But then for the general population it would be beneficial if there weren’t as many.”

Researchers, too, see both risks and benefits in beaver expansion. New ponds could become hot spots for songbirds and other wildlife. But they also hasten the thaw of permafrost, promoting the release of planetwarming carbon dioxide. A soon-to-be-published survey of 11 beaver pond systems in Arctic Alaska, for example, found that the water-covered area increased more than 600% once beavers arrived. Nearby ground thawed so much that researchers could plunge 1.2-meter-long rods used to test permafrost all the way to the tip.

Ponds could also create ample new habitat for microorganisms that convert carbon to methane, an even more potent warming gas, Griffin notes. “If we are going to start having expansion of wetlands because of beaver dams, how is that going to tip the balance between carbon and methane?” he wonders.

He might soon find out. Tape has already stumbled on one beaver pond on the northern slope of the Brooks Range. Although it disappeared a few years later, the pond showed beavers can cross the mountains. To spread even farther north, Tape notes, “they just have to swim downstream.”

by Warren Cornwall, Science |  Read more:

Image: Ken Tape

Border Patrol Wants Advanced AI to Spy on American Cities

The recent passage of Trump’s sprawling flagship legislation funnels tens of billions of dollars to the Department of Homeland Security. While much of that funding will go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to bolster the administration’s arrest and deportation operations, a great deal is earmarked to purchase new technology and equipment for federal offices tasked with preventing immigrants from arriving in the first place: Customs and Border Protection, which administers the country’s border surveillance apparatus, and its subsidiary, the U.S. Border Patrol.

One page of the presentation, describing the wishlist of Border Patrol’s Law Enforcement Operations Division, says the agency needs “Advanced AI to identify and track suspicious activity in urban environment [sic],” citing the “challenges” posed by “Dense residential areas.” What’s considered “suspicious activity” is left unmentioned. (...)

The reference to AI-aided urban surveillance appears on a page dedicated to the operational needs of Border Patrol’s “Coastal AOR,” or area of responsibility, encompassing the entire southeast of the United States, from Kentucky to Florida. A page describing the “Southern AOR,” which includes all of inland Nevada and Oklahoma, similarly states the need for “Advanced intelligence to identify suspicious patterns” and “Long-range surveillance” because “city environments make it difficult to separate normal activity from suspicious activity.”

Although the Fourth Amendment provides protection against arbitrary police searches, federal law grants immigration agencies the power to conduct warrantless detentions and searches within 100 miles of the land borders with Canada, Mexico, or the coastline of the United States. This zone includes most of the largest cities in the United States, including Los Angeles, New York, as well as the entirety of Florida.

The document mentions no specific surveillance methods or “advanced AI” tools that might be used in urban environments. Across the Southwest, residents of towns like Nogales and Calexico are already subjected to monitoring from surveillance towers placed in their neighborhoods. A 2014 DHS border surveillance privacy impact assessment warned these towers “may capture information about individuals or activities that are beyond the scope of CBP’s authorities. Video cameras can capture individuals entering places or engaging in activities as they relate to their daily lives because the border includes populated areas,” for example, “video of an individual entering a doctor’s office, attending public rallies, social events or meetings, or associating with other individuals.”

Last year, the Government Accountability Office found the DHS tower surveillance program failed six out of six privacy policies designed to prevent such overreach. CBP is also already known to use “artificial intelligence” tools to ferret out “suspicious activity,” according to agency documents. A 2024 inventory of DHS AI applications includes the Rapid Tactical Operations Reconnaissance program, or RAPTOR, which “leverages Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance border security through real-time surveillance and reconnaissance. The AI system processes data from radar, infrared sensors, and video surveillance to detect and track suspicious activities along U.S. borders.”

The document’s call for urban surveillance reflect the reality of Border Patrol, an agency empowered, despite its name, with broad legal authority to operate throughout the United States.

“Border Patrol’s escalating immigration raids and protest crackdowns show us the agency operates heavily in cities, not just remote deserts,” said Spencer Reynolds, a former attorney with the Department of Homeland Security who focused on intelligence matters. “Day by day, its activities appear less based on suspicion and more reliant on racial and ethnic profiling. References to operations in ‘dense residential areas’ are alarming in that they potentially signal planning for expanded operations or tracking in American neighborhoods.”

by Sam Biddle, The Intercept |  Read more:

Image: Jenny Kane/AP
[ed. See also, via The Intercept:]

***

~ Guess Who’s Eligible for Student Loan Forgiveness: New ICE Agents

The Department of Homeland Security announced on Tuesday it will offer student loan forgiveness and repayment options to new Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruits — along with a $50,000 signing bonus.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration works to limit the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for groups the president considers political enemies.

***

~ National Guard Ordered to Do ICE Paperwork at Immigration Facilities in 20 States

The Trump administration authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to immigration facilities in 20 states beginning early next month, further entwining the military in civil and law enforcement functions.

The move undermines long-standing prohibitions on the use of the armed forces in domestic operations, sidestepping the Posse Comitatus Act and accelerating the U.S. transition into a police state, experts said.

The National Guard will be deployed in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, among other states, according to a defense official who was not authorized to disclose the information. (...)

Guard members will assist ICE officials in “alien processing” – administrative work preceding detention — in 20 states while ICE leadership will “direct” troops assigned to the mission, which will begin in early August, according to a memo first revealed on Wednesday by the New York Times.

***

~ “Intense Culture of Fear”: Behind the Scenes as Trump Destroys the EPA From Within

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency had taken “significant actions” to protect public health and the environment while working “to Power the Great American Comeback.” The agency said it was also working to fulfill Trump’s promises to revitalize the auto industry, “restore the rule of law,” and give decision-making power back to the states.

In practice, the agency has done the opposite, several EPA staffers told The Intercept. 

Under Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA announced a set of new core priorities that includes making the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world and revitalizing the auto industry. (...)

“A lot of us are really confused about what our new mission is, when they’re coming out with these pillars of serving the auto industry and bringing back auto industry jobs,” Hagen said. “I don’t know how we fit into that.”

The EPA’s role is not to create jobs; it’s to regulate and protect people from pollution, she said.

“Our mission is not to promote AI or energy dominance,” she said. “That’s not our mission.” (...)

Last week, the agency said it is planning to dissolve the Office of Research and Development, which does life-saving research on toxicity and developing sampling protocols, and helped in emergencies after the East Palestine train derailment in Ohio and the Covid-19 pandemic.

As a result, more than 1,500 scientists will have to compete for 300 jobs, Hagen said.

“It’s essentially like lobotomizing our agency. If we don’t have the brain — the research behind protecting the environment — we can’t do that effectively, and I think that’s exactly what they want,” she said. “They’re doing all this under the guise of efficiency, but what they really are doing is dismantling this agency from doing its job.”

Loren Holmes, A fisherman picks salmon from his setnet at Pederson Point near Naknek, Alaska. (ADN)
via:

Guadalupe River, Kerrville, Texas

As the Texas floodwaters rose, one indispensable voice was silent 

Image: Guadalupe River in Kerrville, Texas, on July 4, 2025. Carter Johnston/The New York Times

Alaska’s War on Grizzly Bears

The attention focused on the spectacle of state wildlife biologists flying around in helicopters shooting every grizzly bear they can find (186 killed so far plus 5 black bears and 20 wolves) on the calving grounds of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd in Southwest Alaska should not obscure the geographically much larger campaign against grizzly bears being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Board of Game.

This war, often termed “intensive management,” is being conducted through decades of liberalized bear hunting regulations motivated by the desire to reduce bear numbers in the hope this will result in more moose and caribou for harvest by hunters (most of whom live in urban areas).

The Mulchatna program is officially defined as being “predator control” because it involves aerial shooting of bears by Fish and Game staff. The geographically much larger effort to reduce bear abundance using regulation liberalizations is not defined as predator control. This lawyerly sleight-of-hand by definition allows Fish and Game to misleadingly claim that predator control on bears (and wolves) is occurring only in the relatively small portions of Alaska where aerial shooting of bears is ongoing. The opposite is true using a commonsense definition of predator control, which is to achieve declines in predator numbers.

We are four retired Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists who have published one or more peer-reviewed papers documenting this effort to reduce grizzly abundance through regulation liberalizations. We documented this in an area that represents approximately 76% of Alaska; the area where liberalizations of bear hunting regulations are most aggressive. This is everywhere except in Southeast Alaska, Kodiak, Prince William Sound and the Alaska Peninsula, where bears are large and are still managed for sustainable trophy harvests. It includes all areas where moose and/or caribou are common. Some elements of the liberalizations in this area include:

• Liberalized regulations in a Game Management Subunit a total of 253 times and made more conservative only six times. This contrasts dramatically with the pattern prior to passage of the Intensive Management law in 1994, when regulation changes were equally balanced between small tweaks in either direction.

• Increasing the bag limit from one bear every 4 years (everywhere in 1980) to 1 or two bears per year. In 2005, 5% of the area had an annual bag limit of 2 per year but this increased to 45% by 2020 and to 67% by 2025.

• Longer open hunting seasons to include periods when hides are in poor condition and bears are in dens. The whole area had hunting seasons totaling less than 100 days in 1975; by 2015, 100% of the area had seasons longer than 300 days (20% longer than 350 days).

•Grizzly bears could not be baited anywhere in 2010 but, by 2022, grizzlies could be baited in 75% of the area (essentially everywhere except north of the Brooks Range).

• In 1975, all resident hunters were required to purchase a $25 tag prior to hunting grizzly bears but this is now routinely waived everywhere.

• Regulations designed to incentivize killing more grizzlies even include allowing hunters to sell the hides and skulls of bears they kill (nowhere prior to 2010, 26% of the area in 2016 and 67% in 2025). Allowing these sales is, effectively, a bounty on bears and is contrary to one of the basic principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation against the commercialization of hunted wildlife.

Throughout this entire area of our analysis, there has been only one scientific study with new information on grizzly bear numbers or trends. In Subunit 13A, Fish and Game biologists reported a decline in bear density of 25%-40% during 1998-2012; results from a follow-up ADFG study in the same area 5 years ago have not been analyzed. It is scientifically irresponsible to conduct a study like this with (in all likelihood) more than $200,000 of public funds expended and not analyze and report the results. Declines in grizzly bear density similar to or greater than those found in 13A have probably occurred throughout Alaska correlated with the regulation liberalizations (and documented increases in grizzly bear harvests). Nobody can say this for sure however, because the state has not done any studies. Short of avoiding extirpation, it is hard not to conclude that the BOG and the leadership of ADFG does not care what is happening to grizzly bear populations in most of Alaska.

This aggressive management of bears is largely driven by the 1994 Intensive Management Law (IM). This law set a wildlife management priority for human consumptive use of moose, caribou, and deer. Under the IM law, state managers are effectively required to conduct predator reduction efforts wherever hunter demands for more moose or caribou harvests exceed the supply.

Nowhere in Alaska since the passage of the IM law has there been any scientifically-documented “success” showing increased hunter harvests of moose, caribou or deer that is significantly correlated with the predator reduction programs. One of us (Sterling Miller) co-authored the only peer-reviewed paper on this topic since passage of the IM law; this paper concluded that 40 years of wolf and bear reduction efforts in GMU 13 were not correlated with increased hunter harvests of moose. We are saddened to see the agency in which we once proudly served the Alaska public now reduced to shooting bears (and wolves) from helicopters in some areas while misleading Alaskans about the true extent of the war on bears that is occurring in Alaska and its “effectiveness”.

by Sterling Miller, PhD; John Schoen, PhD; Charles C. Schwarz, PhD; and Jim Faro, MS, Anchorage Daily News |  Read more:

Image: NPS

[ed. Esteemed former collegues and world-class research and management biologists, all. ADF&G itself was once considered world-class, one of Alaska's oldest and most venerated institutions (beginning in territorial days, pre-statehood). But during the late 90s/early 2000's, politics began intruding and now it's just...eh. I've known the current Commissioner all his career (a fish biologist), and let's say none of this is surprising.]

Nature Writing is Survival Writing: On Rethinking a Genre

If there were a contest for Most Hated Genre, nature writing would surely take top honors. Other candidates—romance, say—have their detractors, but are stoutly defended by both practitioners and fans. When it comes to nature writing, though, no one seems to hate container and contents more than nature writers themselves.

“‘Nature writing’ has become a cant phrase, branded and bandied out of any useful existence, and I would be glad to see its deletion from the current discourse,” the essayist Robert Macfarlane wrote in 2015. When David Gessner, in his book Sick of Nature, imagined a party attended by his fellow nature writers, he described a thoroughgoing dud: “As usual with this crowd, there’s a whole lot of listening and observing going on, not a lot of merriment.”

Critics, for their part, have dismissed the genre as a “solidly bourgeois form of escapism,” with nature writers indulging in a “literature of consolation” and “fiddling while the agrochemicals burn.” Nature writers and their work are variously portrayed, fairly and not, as misanthropic, condescending, and plain embarrassing. Joyce Carol Oates, in her essay “Against Nature,” enumerated nature writing’s “painfully limited set of responses” to its subject in scathing all caps: “REVERENCE, AWE, PIETY, MYSTICAL ONENESS.”

Oates, apparently, was not consoled.

The persistence of nature writing as a genre has more to do with publishers than with writers. Labels can usefully lash books together, giving each a better chance of staying afloat in a flooded marketplace, but they can also reinforce established stereotypes, limiting those who work within a genre and excluding those who fall outside its definition. As Oates suggested, there are countless ways to think and write about what we call “nature,” many of them urgent. But nature writing, as defined by publishers and historical precedent, ignores all but a few. (...)

Any genre can only stretch so far, though, and the limitations of nature writing are inscribed in its very name. Nature writing still tends to treat its subject as “an infinite variety of animated scenes,” and while the genre’s membership and approaches have diversified somewhat in recent years, its prizewinners resemble its founders: mostly white, mostly male, and mostly from wealthy countries. The poet and essayist Kathleen Jamie calls them Lone Enraptured Males. (...)

Today, the nature-writing genre reminds me of the climate-change beat in journalism: the stakes and scope of the job have magnified to the point that the label is arguably worse than useless, misrepresenting the work as narrower than it is and restricting its potential audience. The state of “nature,” like the state of the global climate, can no longer be appreciated from a distance, and its literature can no longer be confined to a single shelf. If we must give it a label, I say we call it survival writing. Or, better yet, writing.

by Michelle Nijhuis, Lit Hub | Read more:
Image: uncredited

Essential Skills for the Training of Conservation Social Scientists

Abstract

Since 2000, the field of biodiversity conservation has been reckoning with the historical lack of effective engagement with the social sciences in parallel with rapid declines in biodiversity and escalating concerns regarding socioecological justice exacerbated by many common conservation practices. As a result, there is now wide recognition among scholars and practitioners of the importance of understanding and engaging human dimensions in conservation practice. Developing and applying theoretical and practical knowledge related to the social sciences, therefore, should be a priority for people working in biodiversity conservation. We considered the training needs for the next generation of conservation social science professionals by surveying conservation professionals working in multiple sectors. Based on 119 responses, the 3 most cited soft skills (i.e., nontechnical abilities that facilitate effective interpersonal interaction, collaboration, and adaptability in diverse contexts) were cultural awareness and the ability to understand the values and perspectives of others, people management and conflict resolution skills, and the ability to develop and maintain inter- and intraorganizational networks and working relationships. The 3 most cited technical skills were expertise in behavior change expertise, expertise in government and policy, and general critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Overall, we found that current conservation social scientists believe students and early career conservationists should prioritize soft skills rather than technical skills to be effective. These skills were also correlated with the skills considered hardest to acquire through on-the-job training. We suggest early career conservationists develop essential soft and technical skills, including cultural awareness, networking, critical thinking, and statistical analysis tailored to sectoral and regional needs.

Introduction

(...) The growing recognition of the importance of social sciences to conservation stems from an increasing awareness among policy makers, practitioners, and scientists of the tight connections between human dimensions of conservation and their effectiveness and ethical dimensions (Moon et al., 2019; Sala & Torchino, 2020). Integrating social science insights in conservation science, policy, and practice, can make conservation more inclusive and equitable and thus foster improved collaboration among scientists, policy makers, and communities (Evans, 2021). The historical neglect of social science perspectives often resulted in conservation measures that overlooked the complex sociocultural dynamics affecting local communities (West & Brockington, 2006). Connecting ecological objectives with the lived experiences of those affected by conservation policies is pragmatic, because successful conservation frequently relies on community support and participation (Armitage et al., 2020; Berkes, 2004), and ethical, because it involves the moral imperatives in conservation, including acknowledgment and protection of the rights and livelihoods of local populations crucial to conservation outcomes (Miller et al., 2011). This approach not only enhances the sustainability of conservation programs, but also aligns them with broader ethical commitments to social justice and equity.

However, the use and application of social science in conservation by those lacking appropriate training remains problematic (Martin, 2019; St John et al., 2010). Social sciences are absent in the core curricula of the majority of conservation education programs (Slater et al., 2024). Moreover, there has been limited exploration into which specific social science skills are the most sought after—or most necessary—in the conservation professional workforce. To address the pressing need for socioecological justice and achieve conservation outcomes that genuinely integrate people's central role in conservation, alongside the increasing demand for expertise in conservation social science, it is critical to enhance training for social science students (Newing, 2010). (...)

This lack of emphasis on skills development for professional practice (e.g., leadership, communication, and management skills) underscores a tension between cultivating technical skills and soft skills (Bickely et al. 2013). Technical skills encompass disciplinary expertise and knowledge required for methodological proficiency or a deep understanding of a topic, including theoretical and applied aspects, such as human−wildlife interactions, statistical analyses, and geographic information systems. Soft skills, essential for effective interaction and collaboration, include interpersonal abilities, communication skills, emotional intelligence, adaptability, and cultural competency. Although technical skills are critical for practicing rigorous conservation social science, quantitative and qualitative soft skills are vital to fostering cross-cultural understanding, collaboration, and effective communication in diverse work environments. These skills are also invaluable for career advancement, leadership, and overall workplace success because they enable individuals to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics, build strong relationships, and adapt to change. Slater et al. (2024), however, found that fewer than half of the conservation courses they reviewed prioritized the development of interpersonal or project management skills. They further noted a deficiency in social science methodology training across most conservation undergraduate programs in Australia and the United Kingdom. (...)

Discussion

Overall, we found that current conservation social scientists believe students and ECCs should prioritize soft skills rather than technical skills to be effective. These skills were also correlated with the skills considered hardest to train on the job. Additionally, we observed variation in the importance of soft and technical skills by institution and region. The soft skills identified as most critical for the sector include cultural awareness and ability to understand the values and perspectives of others, people management and conflict resolution, and developing and maintaining inter- and intraorganizational networks and working relationships. The top 3 technical skills were behavior change expertise, government and policy expertise, and general critical thinking and problem-solving skills. (...)

The growing preference for soft skills among conservation social scientists highlights a critical shift in the understanding of what it takes to navigate the complex social processes inherent in conservation projects. Although knowledge of ecology and social sciences provides a solid foundation, we found that it is often the interpersonal qualities—such as empathy, cultural competency, and the ability to communicate effectively across different knowledge systems (Knight et al., 2019; Redpath et al., 2013)—that could determine the success of conservation efforts. Conservation contexts are inherently diverse, including a multitude of stakeholders ranging from Indigenous communities and local people to forest managers and researchers, each with unique backgrounds, cultures, and training. This diversity presents a challenge and an opportunity because it necessitates a nuanced understanding of different ontologies and epistemologies—the fundamental ways in which individuals and communities perceive and understand the world around them (Kohn, 2015). Skills, including cultural awareness, people management, and maintaining interorganizational networks, are crucial for navigating the diverse landscapes of stakeholders integral to successful conservation efforts. These skills improve engagement by fostering social capital and facilitate more effective negotiations with various groups, from local communities to governmental bodies and nonprofit organizations, thus significantly increasing the likelihood of project success (Pretty & Smith, 2004). Emotional intelligence and the ability to adapt to changing contexts also empower and support others, identify and manage their own emotions and stress, and maintain motivation among team members (Rice, 2022). In this context, therefore, soft skills become more than just an add-on; they are integral to the very fabric of successful conservation practice. They allow conservationists to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and real-world application to ensure that conservation strategies are not only ecologically sound, but also socially just and culturally relevant. This shift toward valuing interpersonal and cultural competencies reflects a broader recognition that the success of conservation initiatives depends as much on mutual understanding and respect as it does on ecological understanding.

Our survey findings revealed that the most necessary soft skills were also among the hardest to train on the job, underscoring the limitations of conventional training programs in imparting such skills and highlighting the value employers place on these skills because they seek individuals who can navigate complex social situations effectively from the start. 

by Laura Thomas-Walters, Francisco Gelves-Gomez, Stephanie Brittain, Lily M. van Eeden, Nick Harvey Sky, Amit Kaushik, Kaylan Kemink, Patricia Manzano-Fischer, Kyle Plotsky, Matthew Selinske, Conservation Biology | Read more:

Image: Conservation Biology

[ed. Good Advice. People have strong connections the land and its natural resources.]

G.O.P. Plans to Cripple Wind and Solar Power

China breaks more records with surge in solar and wind power (The Guardian)

China’s installations of wind and solar in May are enough to generate as much electricity as Poland, as the world’s second-biggest economy breaks further records with its rapid buildup of renewable energy infrastructure.

China installed 93 GW of solar capacity last month – almost 100 solar panels every second, according to an analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Wind power installations reached 26 GW, the equivalent of about 5,300 turbines.

While estimates for the amount of power generated by solar panels and wind turbines vary depending on their location and weather conditions, Myllyvirta calculated that May’s installations alone could generate as much electricity as Poland, Sweden or the United Arab Emirates.

Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey.

“We knew China’s rush to install solar and wind was going to be wild but WOW,” Myllyvirta wrote on social media.

by Amy Hawkins, The Guardian |  Read more:

Image: Costfoto/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock

***

[ed. Meanwhile, in dumb ass nation: G.O.P. Bill Adds Surprise Tax That Could Cripple Wind and Solar Power.]

Senate Republicans have quietly inserted provisions in President Trump’s domestic policy bill that would not only end federal support for wind and solar energy but would impose an entirely new tax on future projects, a move that industry groups say could devastate the renewable power industry.

The tax provision, tucked inside the 940-page bill that the Senate made public just after midnight on Friday, stunned observers.

“This is how you kill an industry,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors. “And at a time when electricity prices and demand are soaring.”

The bill would rapidly phase out existing federal tax subsidies for wind and solar power by 2027. Doing so, many companies say, could derail hundreds of projects under development and could jeopardize billions of dollars in manufacturing facilities that had been planned around the country with the subsidies in mind. (...)

President Trump, who has mocked climate science, has instead promoted fossil fuels and demanded that Republicans in Congress unwind the law.

But the latest version of the Senate bill would go much further. It would impose a steep penalty on all new wind and solar farms that come online after 2027 — even if they didn’t receive federal subsidies — unless they follow complicated and potentially unworkable requirements to disentangle their supply chains from China. Since China dominates global supply chains, that measure could affect a large number of companies. (...)

Even some of those who lobbied to end federal support for clean energy said the Senate bill went too far.

“I strongly recommend fully desubsidizing solar and wind vs. placing a kind of new tax on them,” wrote Alex Epstein, an influential activist who has been urging Republican senators to eliminate renewable energy subsidies. “I just learned about the excise tax and it’s definitely not something I would support.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also criticized the tax. “Overall, the Senate has produced a strong, pro-growth bill,” Neil Bradley, the group’s chief policy officer, posted on social media. “That said, taxing energy production is never good policy, whether oil & gas or, in this case, renewables.” He added: “It should be removed.”

Wind and solar projects are the fastest growing new source of electricity in the United States and account for nearly two-thirds of new electric capacity expected to come online this year. For utilities and tech companies, adding solar, wind and batteries has often been one of the easiest ways to help meet soaring electricity demand. Other technologies like new nuclear reactors can take much longer to build, and there is currently a multiyear backlog for new natural gas turbines.

The repeal of federal subsidies alone could cause wind and solar installations to plummet by as much as 72 percent over the next decade, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. The new tax could depress deployment even further by raising costs an additional 10 to 20 percent, the group estimated.

by Brad Plumer, NY Times/dnyuz |  Read more:

Image: Randi Baird for The New York Times

Supersize Me: Amazon’s Biggest Data Center For AI

A year ago, a 1,200-acre stretch of farmland outside New Carlisle, Ind., was an empty cornfield. Now, seven Amazon data centers rise up from the rich soil, each larger than a football stadium.

Over the next several years, Amazon plans to build around 30 data centers at the site, packed with hundreds of thousands of specialized computer chips. With hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber connecting every chip and computer together, the entire complex will form one giant machine intended just for artificial intelligence.

The facility will consume 2.2 gigawatts of electricity — enough to power a million homes. Each year, it will use millions of gallons of water to keep the chips from overheating. And it was built with a single customer in mind: the A.I. start-up Anthropic, which aims to create an A.I. system that matches the human brain.

The complex — so large that it can be viewed completely only from high in the sky — is the first in a new generation of data centers being built by Amazon, and part of what the company calls Project Rainier, after the mountain that looms near its Seattle headquarters. Project Rainier will also include facilities in Mississippi and possibly other locations, like North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Project Rainier is Amazon’s entry into a race by the technology industry to build data centers so large they would have been considered absurd just a few years ago. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is building a two-gigawatt data center in Louisiana. OpenAI is erecting a 1.2-gigawatt facility in Texas and another, nearly as large, in the United Arab Emirates.

These data centers will dwarf most of today’s, which were built before OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot inspired the A.I. boom in 2022. The tech industry’s increasingly powerful A.I. technologies require massive networks of specialized computer chips — and hundreds of billions of dollars to build the data centers that house those chips. The result: behemoths that stretch the limits of the electrical grid and change the way the world thinks about computers. (...)

Just a few months after OpenAI released ChatGPT in late 2022, Amazon was in talks with electrical utilities to find a site for its A.I. ambitions. In Indiana, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, or AEP, suggested that Amazon tour tracts of farmland 15 miles west of South Bend that had been rezoned into an industrial center. By the end of May 2023, more than a dozen Amazon employees had visited the site.

By early 2024, Amazon owned the land, which was still made up of corn and soybean fields. Indiana’s legislature approved a 50-year sales tax break for the company, which could ultimately be worth around $4 billion, according to the Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer and environmental advocacy organization. Separate property and technology tax breaks granted by the county could save Amazon an additional $4 billion over the next 35 years.

The exact cost of developing the data center complex is not clear. In the tax deal, Amazon promised $11 billion to build 16 buildings, but now it plans to build almost twice that.

by Karen Weise and Cade Metz, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Visuals by A.J. Mast

[ed. Crazy. Wouldn't more people enjoy a nice golf course instead?]

Google Rolls Out Street View 'Time Travel'

Celebrating 20 years of Google Earth.

After 20 years, being able to look at any corner of the planet in Google Earth doesn't seem that impressive, but it was a revolution in 2005. Google Earth has gone through a lot of changes in that time, and Google has some more lined up for the service's 20th anniversary. Soon, Google Earth will help you travel back in time with historic Street View integration, and pro users will get some new "AI-driven insights"—of course Google can't update a product without adding at least a little AI.

Google Earth began its life as a clunky desktop client, but that didn't stop it from being downloaded 100 million times in the first week. Today, Google Earth is available on the web, in mobile apps, and in the Google Earth Pro desktop app. However you access Earth, you'll find a blast from the past.

For the service's 20th anniversary, Google was inspired by a social media trend from last year in which people shared historic images of locations in Google Maps. Now, Google Earth is getting a "time travel" interface where you can see historic Street View images from almost any location.

While this part isn't new, Google is also using the 20th anniversary as an opportunity to surface its 3D timelapse feature. These animations use satellite data to show how an area has changed from a higher vantage point. They're just as cool as when they were announced in 2021.

by Ryan Whitwam, Ars Technica |  Read more:

Image: Google

[ed. From 15th anniversary:]

Google is also introducing a new in-house camera built specifically for Street View. The company says it's "roughly the size of a house cat" and weighs less than 15 pounds. The goal is to take "all the power, resolution and processing capabilities that we’ve built into an entire Street View car" and cram it into an ultra-portable package that can be shipped to underserved areas "like the Amazon jungle."

Google already has several versions of a backpack-mounted "Trekker" Street View camera for hiking trailers, so this camera is designed to augment its car fleet. Street View cars are big, rolling computers that are hard to move around the world, while this camera is completely self-contained. It can be easily strapped to the roof racks of a car and is controlled via a smartphone app. There's even a modular system for add-ons like lidar.  ~ Read more:

The Burn Identity

Luxury white charcoal

Today I want to explore maybe Japan’s greatest invention. A luxury good that has remained luxurious, long after its creation. I’m talking about Binchotan charcoal.

Binchotan beginnings

If I was to tell you that this image above is this highly valued luxury good, I’m sure you would believe me. It may be a tough item to differentiate from almost any other burning item, particularly another charcoal bucket.

Binchotan is a very specific form of charcoal. Often known as white charcoal, this would actually be a good present if found in a Christmas stocking. Yes, it’s the world’s most expensive charcoal. This is not the same as the being the world’s smallest giant or other contradictory statements. This product is bespoke.

Made from Japanese Oak, normally Ubame, the process of creating binchotan is more drawn out than simply heating wood. It all goes back to old Bicchuya Chozaemon (備中屋長左衛門), now better known as Bincho (備長). Back in the 1600s, he discovered a secret. A way to make charcoal (normally black), as a white product.

His town of Tanabe, Wakayama became famous nationwide as the only place to find this product. As Bincho’s Tan (Japanese for coal), became even more popular, the surrounding cities and towns started adopting these methods/ stealing these secrets. Over centuries the methods of creating luxury coal have become more apparent and widespread. Yet the technical expertise and regional Ubame wood has meant that Wakayama still holds the title for where you want your best quality Binchotan. To be clear, it is still called binchotan even if it doesn’t comes from the Wakayama region of Japan, but you can look for sparkling charcoal elsewhere.

Burn Book

The following instructions for how to make this charcoal are based off a very detailed Japanese manufacturer on Youtube- found here for the full process in Japanese.

1. Find your tree.
This is easier said than done; the Ubame Oak grows in very hilly areas only, and in particular microclimates.

2. Cut the tree and bring wood to factory.
Again, easier said than done. The bringing of said tree is done by hand due to the aforementioned hilly terrain.

3. Into the kiln.
This is maybe the same said as done. The kiln is a specially made kiln that is very big and built for precise heating at a gradual pace. The hard part in this step is probably either sourcing or building a specific Binchotan kiln.

4. Light it on fire.
This is another difficult step which starts to make the high price seem downright reasonable. You first need to layer the wood properly so all of it is neat and consistently heated. Then also add in less dense wood to the kiln that burns quicker. Then time to seal it with brick, not before ensuring there are 4 tiny airflow/steam holes on the top and bottom. Then wait 9 hours.

5. Light it on fire again.
You previously just had burnt wood. Now you need to make charcoal. So a lower temperature heat, just burning for 6 or 7 days.

6 Seiren time
Step 5 got you the charcoal. Here is where the actual Binchotan technique comes in. This seems to be the most delicate step in a series of ever escalating delicate steps. The craftsmen will need to open up more holes to slowly increase the airflow. Yet the speed needs to be very carefully balanced, otherwise you just get dodgy charcoal and not Binchotan. Keep doing this 'until 1000 Celsius (i.e., only 24-48 hours for this step).

7. Cover it up
After all that, you need to keep your charcoal in a charcoal-y form. This means you can’t just be waiting for it to cool down and removing it (like most other charcoal manufacturing methods) since you’d be left with ash. Instead, you need to remove the Binchotan while it’s hot and cover it with sand and ash to keep the product at a gradual cool. After about 10 days, you’ll have your coal!

The Heat Is On

You may be forgiven in thinking that our old friend Bincho had spent too much time in the kiln, as this seems overly arduous for any amount of charcoal. Yet the demand has continued to grow ever since that fateful 17th Century day. To be honest, for most of its history, Binchotan was quietly burning along. Of course Japanese grillers, especially the yakitori and unagi restaurants, saw the benefits.

They saw the selling point of it basically being better across every metric you’d measure coal by. It burns hotter. Longer. Cleaner. While standard lump charcoal or briquettes last at most an hour or two, Binchotan is expected to burn 5 hours straight. Yet it is the even burning and smokeless heat that keeps the chefs coming back.

Not just coming back, but telling their friends.

The 2000s saw the chefs in those New York, London, and Paris restaurants that no one can afford, seeking authentic and pure Japanese materials in every aspect of cooking. They began importing Binchotan for their high-end robatayaki and yakitori grills. Binchotan found itself showing up in Michelin-starred kitchens, where chefs now treated it like a premium ingredient, not just a fuel source.

The chefs started boasting about them on their countless podcasts. Who talks about charcoal otherwise? That’s what makes Binchotan special. It transformed from a nearly invisible product to something chefs name-drop on menus.

by Leon, Hidden Japan |  Read more:
Image: Food and Wine

U.S. Bottled Water Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report

U.S. Bottled Water Market Size & Trends

The U.S. bottled water market size was estimated at USD 47.42 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.7% from 2025 to 2030. This can be attributed to increasing health and wellness trends among consumers, the rising need for convenience and accessibility, and robust production innovation. The growing demand and consumption of bottled water can largely be attributed to increasing health consciousness among consumers. With rising awareness about the harmful effects of sugary beverages, such as sodas and juices, people are shifting towards healthier hydration options.

Bottled water is viewed as a simple and effective way to stay hydrated without the added sugars, calories, or artificial ingredients associated with other drinks. As more individuals prioritize wellness and hydration in their daily lives, bottled water has become a go-to choice, especially for those with active and health-conscious lifestyles.

Convenience also plays a crucial role in the rising demand for bottled water. It offers unmatched portability, making it easy for consumers to stay hydrated while on the go. Bottled water is readily available in grocery stores, convenience shops, and vending machines, which enhances its appeal as a staple beverage choice. This accessibility has solidified bottled water's position as one of the most popular beverage categories in the country.

Marketing strategies have further contributed to the growth of the bottled water industry. Companies have successfully created strong brand loyalty through campaigns that emphasize the purity and safety of bottled water compared to tap water. In some regions, concerns about tap water quality have bolstered consumer preference for bottled options, positioning them as a reliable source of hydration. Innovations in product offerings have also played a significant role in market expansion. The emergence of functional bottled waters-enhanced with vitamins, minerals, or flavor infusions-has attracted health-oriented consumers looking for added benefits beyond basic hydration. This segment is expected to grow substantially in the coming years, driven by consumer demand for beverages that provide health advantages. In addition, advancements in eco-friendly packaging are addressing environmental concerns while appealing to sustainability-minded consumers.

A notable factor propelling the growth of the bottled water industry is robust production innovation. This involves the introduction of enhanced manufacturing processes and the development of new product variants to meet diverse consumer demands and preferences. Innovations in packaging, such as eco-friendly materials and convenient designs, along with advancements in water purification and flavor infusion technologies, have significantly contributed to making bottled water more attractive to consumers. These innovative efforts not only aim to improve product quality and sustainability but also seek to differentiate offerings in a highly competitive market, thus driving consumer interest and market growth. (...)

Product Insights

Purified water accounted for a revenue share of 40.4% in 2024 in the U.S. market. Purified bottled water offers a convenient, portable hydration option, especially for people on the go, making it easy to access clean water anytime and anywhere. The increasing focus on personal health and wellness has led to a growing preference for purified water, which is perceived as a cleaner, more beneficial option compared to tap or other types of bottled water. Health-conscious consumers view purified water as free of impurities like chemicals, heavy metals, and bacteria, aligning with their desire for healthier hydration choices. (...)

As consumers seek healthier beverage alternatives, the demand for bottled water in on-trade settings continues to rise. For instance, in July 2024, Chipotle introduced a new lineup of ready-to-drink beverages available at all of its U.S. restaurants. This includes Open Water, which is canned water in aluminum bottles. (...)

Packaging Insights

PET bottled water accounted for a revenue share of 80.1% in 2024, owing to its significant advantages in convenience, recyclability, and lightweight nature compared to other packaging materials. The widespread preference for PET bottles among consumers stems from their ease of transport and use, alongside a growing awareness and concern for environmental sustainability. PET bottles, being fully recyclable, align with increasing global initiatives towards reducing plastic waste and promoting circular economies. Furthermore, the lightweight characteristics of PET bottles reduce transportation costs and carbon footprint, making them a favored choice among manufacturers and consumers alike, thus driving their market growth. [ed. ...and disposal]

In October 2023, Coca-Cola India launched its first 100% recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle, specifically for its Kinley packaged drinking water brand. This initiative marks a significant step towards promoting sustainability and plastic circularity in the country. The company introduced these bottles as part of its broader commitment to environmental responsibility and aims to reduce its carbon footprint.

The canned bottled water segment is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7.0% from 2025 to 2030. This can be primarily attributed to increasing consumer awareness towards environmental sustainability. It can offer an eco-friendlier alternative to plastic bottles due to their higher recyclability rate and efficiency in transportation, which contributes to lower carbon emissions. In addition, the convenience and durability of cans appeal to active and on-the-go lifestyles, making them a popular choice among consumers. As a result, both beverage companies and consumers are shifting towards canned water, driving significant growth in this market segment. For instance, in April 2024, Coca-Cola’s Smartwater brand unveiled 12-ounce aluminum cans with a new design, marking the first instance of vapor-distilled water being offered in this packaging format. The cans feature both Smartwater Original and SmartWater Alkaline with Antioxidant, catering to consumer preferences for convenient and environmentally friendly options. (...)

Key U.S. Bottled Water Companies:

• Adidas AG
• Nestlé
• PepsiCo
• The Coca-Cola Company
• DANONE
• Primo Water Corporation
• FIJI Water Company LLC
• Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. KG
• VOSS WATER
• Nongfu Spring
• National Beverage Corp.
• Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
• Recent Developments

In July 2024, Source, a company based in Scottsdale, Arizona, unveiled a groundbreaking method to tackle the water crisis by generating canned water using air and sunlight. This initiative is part of the increasing trend towards sustainable technologies that aim to resolve environmental challenges while ensuring access to vital resources. The product will be branded as Sky Wtr and is designed to offer an off-grid solution for producing drinking water. Source intends to launch this water for public sale across the U.S. in major retail outlets around August or September 2024. The canned drinking water will be packaged in recyclable aluminum cans and bottles.

by Grandview Research |  Read more:

Image: Grandview Research

[ed. What is wrong with people. Rhetorical question of course, too many answers.]

Forced to Relocate by Climate Change, These Southwest Alaska Villagers Found a New Crisis

Newtok’s relocation to the new site of Mertarvik, where much of the infrastructure is already failing, highlights the nation’s failure to prepare for the ways climate change is making some places uninhabitable.

A jumble of shipping containers holds all that remains of the demolished public school in Newtok, where on a recent visit, a few stray dogs and a lone ermine prowled among the ruins.

Late last year, the final residents of this sinking village near the Bering Sea left behind the waterlogged tundra of their former home, part of a fraught, federally funded effort to resettle communities threatened by climate change.

Nearly 300 people from Newtok have moved nine miles across the Ninglick River to a new village known as Mertarvik. But much of the infrastructure there is already failing. Residents lack running water, use 5-gallon buckets as toilets and must contend with intermittent electricity and deteriorating homes that expose them to the region’s fierce weather.

Newtok’s relocation was supposed to provide a model for dozens of Alaska communities that will need to move in the coming decades. Instead, those who’ve worked on the effort say what happened in Newtok demonstrates the federal government’s failure to oversee the complex project and understand communities’ unique cultural needs. And it highlights how ill-prepared the United States is to respond to the way climate change is making some places uninhabitable, according to an investigation by The Washington Post, ProPublica and KYUK radio in Bethel, Alaska.

Dozens of grants from at least seven federal agencies have helped pay for the relocation, which began in 2019 and is expected to cost more than $150 million. But while the federal government supplied taxpayer dollars, it left most of the responsibility for the move to the tiny Newtok Village Council. The federally recognized tribal government lacked the expertise to manage the project and has faced high turnover and internal political conflict, according to tribal records and interviews with more than 70 residents as well as dozens of current and former members of the seven-person village council.

Federal auditors have warned for years that climate relocation projects need a lead agency to coordinate assistance and reduce the burden on local communities. The Biden administration tried to address those concerns by creating an interagency task force led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Interior Department. The task force’s report in December also called for more coordination and guidance across the federal government as well as long-term funding for relocations.

But the Trump administration has removed the report from FEMA’s website and, as part of its withdrawal of climate funding, frozen millions in federal aid that was supposed to pay for housing construction in Mertarvik this summer. The administration did not respond to a request for comment.

“We’re physically seeing the impacts of a changing climate on these communities,” said Don Antrobus, a climate adaptation consultant for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. “And the fact that we don’t have a government framework for dealing with these issues is not just an Alaska problem, it’s a national problem.”

Newtok’s relocation follows the resettlement of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, where land vanished under rising sea levels. Both relocations have been labeled “blueprints” for the federal government’s response to climate change. Both have been mired in complicated and disjointed funding systems and accusations that the government neglected traditional knowledge.

by Emily Schwing and Ash Adams, Washington Post via ADN |  Read more:

Image: Tiny homes in Mertarvik. (Ash Adams/For The Washington Post)

via:

Testing AI's GeoGuessr Genius

Seeing a world in a grain of sand

Some of the more unhinged writing on superintelligence pictures AI doing things that seem like magic. Crossing air gaps to escape its data center. Building nanomachines from simple components. Plowing through physical bottlenecks to revolutionize the economy in months.

More sober thinkers point out that these things might be physically impossible. You can’t do physically impossible things, even if you’re very smart.

No, say the speculators, you don’t understand. Everything is physically impossible when you’re 800 IQ points too dumb to figure it out. A chimp might feel secure that humans couldn’t reach him if he climbed a tree; he could never predict arrows, ladders, chainsaws, or helicopters. What superintelligent strategies lie as far outside our solution set as “use a helicopter” is outside a chimp’s?

Eh, say the sober people. Maybe chimp → human was a one-time gain. Humans aren’t infinitely intelligent. But we might have infinite imagination. We can’t build starships, but we can tell stories about them. If someone much smarter than us built a starship, it wouldn’t be an impossible, magical thing we could never predict. It would just be the sort of thing we’d expect someone much smarter than us to do. Maybe there’s nothing left in the helicopters-to-chimps bin - just a lot of starships that might or might not get built.

The first time I felt like I was getting real evidence on this question - the first time I viscerally felt myself in the chimp’s world, staring at the helicopter - was last week, watching OpenAI’s o3 play GeoGuessr.

GeoGuessr is a game where you have to guess where a random Google Street View picture comes from. For example, here’s a scene from normal human GeoGuessr:

The store sign says “ADULTOS”, which sounds Spanish, and there’s a Spanish-looking church on the left. But the trees look too temperate to be Latin America, so I guessed Spain. Too bad - it was Argentina. Such are the vagaries of playing GeoGuessr as a mere human.

Last week, Kelsey Piper claimed that o3 - OpenAI’s latest ChatGPT model - could achieve seemingly impossible feats in GeoGuessr. She gave it this picture:

…and with no further questions, it determined the exact location (Marina State Beach, Monterey, CA).

How? She linked a transcript where o3 tried to explain its reasoning, but the explanation isn’t very good. It said things like:

Tan sand, medium surf, sparse foredune, U.S.-style kite motif, frequent overcast in winter … Sand hue and grain size match many California state-park beaches. California’s winter marine layer often produces exactly this thick, even gray sky.

Commenters suggested that it was lying. Maybe there was hidden metadata in the image, or o3 remembered where Kelsey lived from previous conversations, or it traced her IP, or it cheated some other way.

I decided to test the limits of this phenomenon. Kelsey kindly shared her monster of a prompt, which she says significantly improves performance:  (...)

 …and I ran it on a set of increasingly impossible pictures.

Here are my security guarantees: the first picture came from Google Street View; all subsequent pictures were my personal old photos which aren’t available online. All pictures were screenshots of the original, copy-pasted into MSPaint and re-saved in order to clear metadata. Only one of the pictures is from within a thousand miles of my current location, so o3 can’t improve performance by tracing my IP or analyzing my past queries. I flipped all pictures horizontally to make matching to Google Street View data harder.

Here are the five pictures. Before reading on, consider doing the exercise yourself - try to guess where each is from - and make your predictions about how the AI will do.

Last chance to guess on your own . . . okay, here we go.

by Scott Alexander, Astral Codex Ten |  Read more:

Images: Kelsey Piper; uncredited

[ed. I'm sure the CIA/NSA/FBI are loving this. See also: Highlights From The Comments On AI Geoguessr (ACX).]