Shared posts

24 Sep 22:45

A Herd of Ghost Deer Roams Seneca's Abandoned Army Depot

by Atlas Obscura

Atlas Obscura on Slate is a new travel blog. Like us on Facebook, Tumblr, or follow us on Twitter @atlasobscura.

For years, rumors circulated about the strange herd of white deer living in the former Seneca Army Depot in Seneca County, New York. Some speculated that the "albino" breed of deer was the result of an army experiment gone wrong, while others attributed the animals' appearance to an underground supply of radioactive military weapons. Neither of these rumors, however, are true.

The white deer were first spotted around 1941, when the U.S. Army fenced off 24 square miles of land for the Seneca Army Depot, a munitions storage site. Under the protection of the security fencing, the deer population thrived -- and, along with it, a recessive gene for white coloration. Though the animals appeared to be albino, they were in fact white-tailed deer who carried the recessive gene for an all-white coat.

As the white deer population proliferated through the 1950s, the U.S. Army decided to protect the unique herd. Aiding in the process of artificial selection, a depot commander managed the brown deer population through hunting and forbade GIs from shooting any white deer. Since then, the white deer population has grown to approximately 300, making it the largest herd of white deer in the world.

The Seneca Army Depot shut down in 2000 and has been closed to the public ever since. A non-profit group, Seneca White Deer, Inc., has been fighting to turn the area into a conservation park and Cold War museum. Until then, dozens of deer are visible from the highway, frolicking among the hundreds of abandoned bunkers.

More on the Seneca White Deer can be found on Atlas Obscura.

Animals amok:

More on the Seneca White Deer can be found on Atlas Obscura.

02 Sep 18:11

“Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed”

by Johann Koehler

As the semester begins and teaching resumes, the pleasantly self-directed pace of the summer rapidly accelerates to the breakneck speed of classwork. In the change from one to the other, it’s worthwhile to recall Bertrand Russell’s ten rules for the Liberal Outlook. While they are intended for everyone, no matter their profession, they are particularly apposite for those reflecting on how to command a classroom. I’m especially fond of the third rule.

  1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
  2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
  3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
  4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
  5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
  6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
  7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
  8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
  9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
  10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

(h/t Maria Popova)

Happy teaching, and happy learning, RBC.

02 Sep 16:22

Bee Orchid

In sixty million years aliens will know humans only by a fuzzy clip of a woman in an Axe commercial.
01 Sep 15:06

Obama’s Eden Moment

by politicalviolenceataglance
Time, August 27, 1956. Image via Flickr user Zeinab Mohamed

Time, August 27, 1956. Image via Flickr user Zeinab Mohamed

By Allison Beth Hodgkins

As President Obama contemplates his next move on Syria, he would do well to consider the cautionary tale of the late British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, whose disastrous handling of the 1956 Suez Crisis led to his commemoration as “the last Prime Minister to believe Britain was a world power and the first to confront a crisis proving she was not.” Evidence of the US’ eroding influence in the Middle East should prompt deep consideration on the consequences of unilateral action that produces little more than ambiguous results. Recalling 1956, the American failure to recognize the limits of its own waning influence and the rise of regional aspirants’ will define the balance of power in this fragile region for the generation to come. However, unlike in 1956 there are no obvious rising superpowers to step in and pull today’s dangerous array of regional aspirants back from the brink.

The parallels between the current crisis over the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons and the 1956 crisis sparked by the nationalization of the Suez canal are not immediately apparent. But as with Great Britain’s dilemma over how to respond to that “upstart dictator,” today the United States is suddenly faced with the recognition that changes in the regional chess board have already revealed the limits of US power.

One has to remember that Nasser would have never have been so audacious as to unilaterally nationalize the Suez canal had he not been certain Britain lacked the wherewithal to overrule him — much like Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons today.

Nasser knew that Britain’s era of dominion in the region was through. He saw Britain’s ignominious withdrawal from Palestine and understood that the British public had no stomach for lengthy entanglements in foreign sectarian conflicts. Nasser was also aware that regional powers, such as himself, were gaining influence and could prod weaker actors into taking steps at odds with Great Power interests. Just months before the Suez Crisis King Hussein of Jordan, considered the most dependable British ally in the Middle East, politely declined to join the British-orchestrated Baghdad pact and sent his own cadre of British military advisors packing. King Hussein, of course, had just seen the British sit by while the Free Officers — in an early example of the Egyptian military facilitating the people’s will — swept away their ally King Farouk.

Reading the writing on the wall, Nasser took measures he believed necessary to secure his own position in the rapidly changing regional landscape. Whether or not he anticipated the now infamous 1956 collusion between Britain, France and Israel, Nasser was certain he would prevail. After the Suez Crisis the Middle East lurched into a turmoil lasting until Kissinger negotiated the Egyptian-Israeli and Syrian-Israeli disengagement agreements in 1974. This Cold War-imposed stability held until the 1991 Gulf War signaled the beginning of US global, and by extension regional, hegemony. Yet that “pax Americana” has been unraveling since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This is where the parallels between the 1956 story of imperial hubris and the current crisis diverge, and new dangers come into focus. Unlike in 1956, it is unclear who the next regional hegemon will be, and there is no comforting Cold War balance of power to impose stability and contain violence. Russian influence is testing the waters through the standoff in Syria. Iran is as well, but so is Saudi Arabia and tiny Qatar – who may be little more than “300 people and a TV station,” but has certainly managed to funnel enough arms into the hands of the Syrian rebels to prevent Assad from achieving decisive victory.

And there is Israel to consider – the unquestioned leading regional military power whose willingness to launch armed attacks wherever and whenever it deems fit doesn’t look like self-defense to those in the region.

If the US launches strikes against Assad, and does nothing more, Assad will be strengthened, as will Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Israel, of course, will be unimpressed with this situation and continue to rely on its own measures. While Russian influence will increase in this newly-competitive arena, will it be enough to restore a semblance of calm?

This brings me to the final lesson from 1956. Among the many prescient decisions Eisenhower made during the crisis, the most overlooked was his choice to work through the UN. Eisenhower knew the nascent international organization was in trouble, and if the crisis was resolved by the world powers acting alone it would be doomed. Instead, Eisenhower purposefully worked through diplomatic channels and endorsed the settlement orchestrated by UN Secretary General Dag  Hammarskjold — which produced the first UN peacekeeping force — a victory for diplomacy that gave the organization sufficient credibility to carry on, a gesture in favor of multilateralism repeated by George H.W. Bush in 1991.

Today it appears that Obama is willing to pull the last leg from that shaky stool, as well.


Filed under: Foreign Policy Tagged: Anthony Eden, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Suez Crisis, Syria
01 Sep 15:04

The oceans are acidifying at the fastest rate in 300 million years. How worried should we be?

by Brad Plumer

The world’s oceans are turning acidic at what’s likely the fastest pace in 300 million years. Scientists tend to think this is a troubling development. But just how worried should we be, exactly?

It’s a question marine experts have been racing to get a handle on in recent years. Here’s what they do know: As humans keep burning fossil fuels, the oceans are absorbing more and more carbon-dioxide. That staves off (some) global warming, but it also makes the seas more acidic — acidity levels have risen 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution.

There’s reason for alarm here: Studies have found that acidifying seawater can chew away at coral reefs and kill oysters by making it harder to form protective shells. The process can also interfere with the food supply for key species like Alaska’s salmon.

But it’s not fully clear what this all adds up to. What happens if the oceans keep acidifying and water temperatures keep rising as a result of global warming? Are those stresses going to wipe out coral reefs and fisheries around the globe, costing us trillions (as one paper suggested)? Or is there a chance that some ecosystems might remain surprisingly resilient?

That’s one of the big outstanding questions on climate change. “We understand the physics of simple things like how oceans become acidic,” said Richard Norris, a paleobiologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. “But when it comes to how ecosystems might react, that’s big and complex and messy, with all these interactions going on, both physiological and how organisms interact with each other.”

How to study acidification’s effects

Broadly speaking, there are two ways that scientists can try to study the effects of ocean acidification — and both have limitations. First, they can examine various species in laboratories or in the field and see how corals and molluscs and fish respond to changes in ocean pH levels. The downside is that it’s hard to see how these species might adapt (or not) over the longer run.

Another approach is to examine the fossil record. There have been multiple periods in the Earth’s history where atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose sharply (for natural reasons) and the oceans became warmer and more acidic. That includes the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, an era 55 million years ago with greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere roughly comparable to what the Earth could soon face.

In a recent paper for Science, Norris and his co-authors found that this ancient world had few coral reefs, a poorly oxygenated ocean, and drastically different food chains that had difficulty sustaining large predators like sharks and whales. On the flip side, “the extinction of species was remarkably light, other than a mass extinction in the rapidly warming deep ocean.” So that’s one possible glimpse into our future:



Yet even the fossil record isn’t a perfect analogue. For one, the rate of today’s acidification — driven by human activity — is at least 10 times as fast. What’s more, modern-day oceans are facing all sorts of additional pressures, from fishing to pollution runoff, that could place additional stress on various species.

Getting a more precise estimate of the damage

So, recently, biologists at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany decided to try to combine the two approaches. They tallied up much of the field research that’s been done to date and compared it against the fossil record, in an attempt to get a broad overview of the effects of acidification on corals, molluscs, echinoderms, crustaceans and shes.

The results, published this week in Nature Climate Change, aren’t exactly encouraging: “Our analysis demonstrates that all considered groups are impacted negatively, albeit differentially, even by moderate ocean acidification.”

Here’s what that looks like in chart form — the red bars show that the number of “negative effects” on the fitness of species tend to go up as the amount of carbon in the ocean increases:



The picture is also complicated. A good many corals and molluscs (say, oysters or mussels or squid) turn out to be extremely sensitive to changes in pH levels and are likely to have trouble adapting to the level of acidity currently projected for the decades ahead.

That doesn’t bode well for areas like the Great Barrier Reef, which has already lost roughly 50 percent of its live coral over the past 27 years, thanks to a combination of tropical cyclones, an invasive sea star, and “bleaching” caused by higher ocean temperatures. Rising acidification is likely to add to that stress. It’s also bad news for, say, oyster hatcheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, which have already been decimated by rising acidity levels.

There’s more hope for other species, though. For instance, even though field research suggests that fish larvae are highly sensitive to acidification, the fossil record suggests that fish can adapt decently well to changes in acidity over time. “That was surprising to us,” says Hans-Otto P rtner, one of the study’s co-authors. But the big caveat, he adds, is that the ocean is now changing much faster than it ever has in the past.

“There’s a note of precaution there,” says P rtner. “Those changes in the past were slower than they are today. What this tells me is that we’re bringing these species much sooner to the edge of their capacity to compensate.”

So how much could this all cost humanity?

That’s the million- or billion- or maybe even trillion-dollar question. So far, there have been remarkably few studies published on the social and economic costs of acidification and other ongoing changes to the ocean.

One study published last year in Climatic Change suggested that the loss of mollusks — one of the easier-to-forecast effects of acidification — could cost the world around $100 billion per year by the end of the century. The main variable here is how much China and other fast-growing countries are likely to depend on these species for food in the future.



Beyond that, though, there’s a fairly wide range of possible impacts: It’s obvious that seafood is hugely important, with fish representing about 6 percent of the protein people eat. And the world’s coral reefs provide another $20 billion to $30 billion in economic value each year — not just by supporting tourism and fisheries, but also by protecting coasts against storms (see chart). There’s certainly potential for costly damage.

Recently, the National Research Council suggested that U.S. efforts to address acidification need to get a much better handle how these changes might affect people and the economy. If emissions keep rising at their current rates, the report noted, ocean acidity levels are likely to rise as much as 150 percent by the end of the century. Figuring out what exactly that might mean, the report argued, is pretty urgent.


    






27 Aug 13:56

Measles

by Erik Loomis

Who could have guessed that anti-vaccination idiocy would lead to illness?

A measles outbreak in Texas traces to a congregation of a megachurch whose leader, Kenneth Copeland, reportedly has warned followers away from vaccines, advocating for faith healing and pushing the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism. One of Copeland’s churches, Eagle Mountain International Church in North Texas, is the epicenter of the outbreak, which now has hit at least 20 people. According to USA Today’s Liz Szabo,

Those sickened by measles include nine children and six adults, ranging in age from 4 months old to 44 years old. At least 12 of those infected were not fully immunized against measles, Roy says. The other patients lack documents to show whether they were vaccinated.

Just as Wales is paying the price of the autism-measles vaccine panic begun 15 years ago, so is this Texas community. In the wake of the outbreak, the church’s pastor and Kenneth Copeland’s daughter, Terri Copeland Pearsons, was urging congregants take advantage of a couple of free vaccination clinics the church suddenly has on offer or to self quarantine at home for two weeks if they didn’t want to receive vaccinations.

The only solution to this problem is to give Jenny McCarthy a plumb position on a major talk show.


    






23 Aug 22:17

The Pace of Modern Life

'Unfortunately, the notion of marriage which prevails ... at the present time ... regards the institution as simply a convenient arrangement or formal contract ... This disregard of the sanctity of marriage and contempt for its restrictions is one of the most alarming tendencies of the present age.' --John Harvey Kellogg, Ladies' guide in health and disease (1883)
17 Jun 14:50

The virtual therapist

by Tyler Cowen

The virtual therapist sits in a big armchair, shuffling slightly and blinking naturally, apparently waiting for me to get comfortable in front of the screen.

“Hi, I’m Ellie,” she says. “Thanks for coming in today.”

She laughs when I say I find her a little bit creepy, and then goes straight into questions about where I’m from and where I studied.

“I’m not a therapist, but I’m here to learn about people and would love to learn about you,” she asks. “Is that OK?”

Ellie’s voice is soft and calming, and as her questions grow more and more personal I quickly slip into answering as if there were a real person in the room rather than a computer-generated image.

…With every answer I’m being watched and studied in minute detail by a simple gaming sensor and a webcam.

How I smile, which direction I look, the tone of my voice, and my body language are all being precisely recorded and analysed by the computer system, which then tells Ellie how best to interact with me.

Right now there are two assistants guiding the avatar, in essence standing behind a screen, but that will not always be the case:

Real people come in to answer Ellie’s questions every day as part of the research, and the computer is gradually learning how to react in every situation.

It is being taught how to be human, and to respond as a doctor would to the patients’ cues.

Soon Ellie will be able to go it alone.

The full article is here, and for the pointer I thank Michelle Dawson.