If things are so bad, why are things so good? Plus: Yet another science blog network, Twittering docs, and science writing's glorious future.
[We have an RSS feed. No orange icon, but click here. If that doesn't work, the URL is http://www.nasw.org/rss.xml]
PARADOX COST. The journal BioScience is usually a low-key, low-profile kind of place. Sometimes to my regret, since (full disclosure) I write for it occasionally and so does my partner, my SO, and my IT Department. At the moment, however, BioScience is stirring things up with a just-published paper examining the "environmentalist's paradox." Which is this: If ecosystems are deteriorating as fast as they say, how come most human beings are better-fed, richer, longer-lived, and safer than ever before in human history?
Watch video from underwater Pakistan and you may find that hard to believe, but apparently it's true. Even the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment said so. The BioScience paper agrees; it examines and rejects the hypothesis that those data on how terrific things are are flawed. Nope, solid stuff. (Get the free PDF here, and get a move on; it will be free only through the end of this month.)
The several authors, led by Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, a geographer at McGill, explored three of the possible explanations for the paradox: (1) As long as food production keeps on growing, humanity will prosper even as other parts of the environment keep on deteriorating; (2) Technology and social innovation have made us less dependent on the environment; and (3) The bad stuff simply hasn't overwhelmed us yet, but it will eventually, it will, just you wait.
There are arguments in favor of each of these explanations (and of course nor are they mutually exclusive.) The authors don't explictly endorse any of the three, although on reading the paper it seems to me they lean toward number 3. Me too, and so do the few bloggers who commented.
There's no contradiction in noting that coal is both bringing people out of poverty in China and insuring the suffering of future Chinese. Today the net welfare gains of coal use in China seem greater than the net losses, but that's only because the gains are immediate and the losses are deferred for a while. In our lifetimes, that will change — the losses will come due. The dangers of responding too late to that inevitability are far, far worse than the dangers of acting too early.
There doesn't seem to have been much blogging about this paper. Surprised me a bit. It struck me as a big deal, and the topic is so juicy. Finding ways to counter the argument that no environmental problems need addressing because all is hunky-dory should be a high priority. Perhaps bloggers were put off because a blog post might have meant wading through a longish multi-author academic paper.
Among the few exceptions was David Biello at SciAm's Observations, which led to a Leo Hickman post at The Guardian's Environment Blog. Both summarized the paper and viewed with alarm. Many comments follow both. Also find a summary from Bradford Plumer at The New Republic's The Vine.
Biello speaks hopefully about the potential for help from technology. Is technology the answer? Nice if that was true, because the human brain is superb at technological fixes and can always invent even more. What the human brain is not good at is taking the long view, being willing to give up some immediate comforts, conveniences, and toys for the sake of theoretical benefits in the future.
INTRODUCING ANOTHER NEW SCIENCE BLOG NETWORK. Speaking of the Guardian, that Brit newspaper has just put together the world's latest new network of science blogs. The Guardian's blog czar Alok Jha says there will be five of them: Punctuated Equilibrium (GrrlScientist), Political Science (Evan Harris), The Lay Scientist (Martin Robbins), Life and Physics (Jon Butterworth), and the Blog Festival, a revolving smorgasbord of well-known bloggers that includes Ed Yong, Moheb Costandi, Brian Switek, and others too numerous to mention.
THE NEW CHATTERING CLASSES ARE TWITTERING DOCS. Laura Newman has alerted me to Medical Lessons, home to blogging by Elaine Schattner,an internist who went to journalism school and no longer practices medicine. Schattner explains "The main idea of this blog is to consider how patients and doctors find, share and evaluate medical news and information."
Schattner posts infrequently, but her most recent offering was hair-raising. It's about tweeting docs, and who knew? Plastic surgeons and dermatologists tweet as a marketing tool. Emergency room docs tweet. Surgeons tweet from the OR. Fake docs tweet.
Schattner observes:
I'm convinced Twitter does have potential and practical, true value in our health care system. But I don't get why a regular doctor, sitting at her desk in an office or exam room, or standing in a hospital corridor with an iPad in hand, would tweet something about a particular patient. There's too great a risk of breaching privacy, inadvertently or just stupidly, and even it's been "OK'd" by the patient at the time. On Twitter there's no taking back something said — it's out there, period.
Oy. Do you suppose doc tweeting is the reason you are still in the waiting room 40 minutes after your appointed appointment?
ONCE MORE, THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE WRITING. A frisson of hope that professional marvels lie in science writing's future has emerged in the last couple weeks. One source is the recent Science Online meeting in London (sponsored by the Royal Society, Elsevier, Nature, etc., etc., and not to be confused with the gabfest of the same name held annually in January at the Research Triangle in North Carolina, sponsored by SigmaXi, Burroughs Wellcome, AAAS, etc., etc.)
Another source of optimism is Sheril Kirshenbaum's discussion of "the positive aspects of new media on science writing," which she began on Facebook and has continued on her Discover blog, The Intersection. There you will find dozens of comments and much endorsement of the notion that there is indeed a science-writing renaissance.
Prompted by Kirshenbaum, Paul Raeburn, a Knight Science Journalism Tracker, rhapsodized that science writing is booming. He reached back to the 19th century to compare today's opportunities for science writing to the California Gold Rush or the Homestead Act that gave all takers 160 acres of the American West. Now anybody can crank up a virtual printing press. He declared:
If you borrow a computer and use the free wireless at Starbucks, the cost of a press is zero. The only thing that stops any science journalist from producing solid reporting for an audience of 10 million people is his or her own ingenuity.
Ummmmm. Or weakness induced by constant hunger? Or shivering brought on by nakedness? Or exhaustion from possessing no bed on which to lay your idea-stuffed head? Or being deprived of the Starbucks free wifi because you can't pay for a cup of its costly coffee?
(FOOTNOTE: Here's a thrifty tip for when you start pursuing your audience of 10 million. McDonald's also has free wifi, and its plain coffee is a lot cheaper than Starbucks and occasionally drinkable. I have in fact filed a piece from McDonald's. Well, no, that's not precisely true. I filed the piece from the McDonald's parking lot. There was an excellent signal, and I didn't have to pay even the small fee for coffee.)
Paul reports that he's about to start teaching. No wonder he's upbeat. No teacher wants to tell his eager young students that when they finish their course work and are ready to take up their new vocations, they will find that the job market sux.
Pray that the Renaissance-mongers are right. From their lips to God's ear. But. The presses may be free these days, and your blog can, theoretically, reach millions. But, reality time, hardly anyone gets paid for blogging, and those few who do are usually paid poorly.
Paul counsels, "Find a way to cover your rent." For a really practical way to do that, check out a discussion this week on the NASW freelance listserv. Listserv archives are open only to members of the National Association of Science Writers, www.nasw.org, but I'll summarize. The subject line is "necessary items for freelancers." Among the popular proposals: An Internet connection, check. Cats, check. But two admirably successful science writers put forth this bracing dose of reality, which comes, I am guessing, from personal experience:
An employed spouse with medical benefits.
.png)
