I Won't Stand For It!

There has been quite a discussion on the merits (or not) of 'Power posing' as advocated by Amy Cuddy in the USA. She basically claimed (advocating 'fake it until you make it') that adopting a high-power pose (a la Wonder Woman) for as little as 2 minutes a day could improve both confidence and success. Cuddy was not even the lead author on the initial paper but the 'fad' was launched into the stratosphere by David Brooks, the NY-based author of 'The Social Animal'. The Cuddy Study basically described how adopting strong poses could increase levels of testosterone in the blood whilst reducing cortisol values. There are similar claims made about hormonal changes in response to winning an encounter in judo, karate, tennis or chess and performing well in examinations (with being defeated producing the opposite effects). Interestingly, 'undeserved' winning such as getting a lottery prize appeared to have no effect on hormone levels. This might suggest that the effects (if any) might depend on whether you believe your own hype (other studies are at variance with the initial study). Personally, I think that this type of use of 'scientific' data is both over-simplistic and unlikely to prove helpful in real life. I prefer doers to posers.

If You Go Down in the Woods Today

Disturbing news from the Woodlands Trust that 2016 was a record year for fly-tipping with almost 200 incidents on their land at a cost of more than £350,000 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/03/woodland-trust-sees-worst-year-for-flytipping-on-record). The Trust (like any charity) can ill-afford to spend its limited resources in this fashion. It seem likely that the fly-tipping is partially by rogue clearance operatives avoiding paying the disposal charges for the material they have been paid to remove (interestingly, the customer of such folk can be held liable for costs incurred) and people whose local councils have (probably under financial pressures) greatly reduced the collection of house-hold rubbish. There must be a better way to do things.

Sheffield Limeys

I lived for a year in Sheffield and it does not surprise me that 'activists' are still resisting the council's signing over its care of roads to a company that seems to be viewing the 100 year old lime trees that line some of the city roads as sources of problems rather than attractive assets (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/02/sheffield-tree-activists-vow-to-protect-jewel-in-the-crown-rivelin-valley-road). I agree that the trees should be conserved wherever possible (even if they add to the costs of road maintenance) but I do have some sympathy for the council who, I expect, are struggling with reduced spending and are being pulled simultaneously in several directions (most notably by a public that is tax averse).

Still Eager for Beavers in Wales?

An application has reportedly been made to 'reintroduce' (after an absence of more than 100 years) an initial 10 European beavers to Wales (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/02/beavers-could-be-reintroduced-to-wales-after-centuries-absence). This is after 'successful' reintroductions of the species to both Scotland and England. I personally think that this would be an interesting development but worry about it happening in a country where people become homicidal in response to mole-hills in 'their' pristine lawn or the 'mess' created by badgers and foxes raiding dustbins. You also have to consider that the beavers a) one in the wild, are likely to become free agents, invading areas where you might not expect them; b) eat trees as well as cutting them up to create their dams and lodges and c) can dramatically alter the courses of streams and even rivers. Beavers would essentially alter environments where they live, something that some humans find hard to tolerate. Just because a species used to be found here, doesn't mean that its 'reintroduction' will be an easy process.

The 'Crime' of Attenborough?

Martin Hughes-Games, the producer of 'Springwatch', has suggested that David Attenborough's immensely popular series 'Planet Earth 2' is a disaster for wildlife as it doesn't sufficiently emphasise the detrimental impact of human populations on nature (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/01/planet-earth-ii-david-attenborough-martin-hughes-games-bbc-springwatch). His basic point is that Attenborough's programme might leave the impression that all is well with a diverse and beautiful nature in many parts of the world. Certainly, humans and their aspirations are causing major detrimental effects on the organisms on our planet (this is one reason why some people advocate specifying a new geological era to be termed the 'Anthropocene', reflecting our impact on mass extinctions, habitat destruction and climate change). Hughes-Games is not convinced that the evidence is there that 'Planet Earth 2' and similar programmes sufficiently change the audience's attitudes, making them more supportive of conservation. One might argue, however, that it would be difficult to detect meaningful attitudinal changes in the short term (one must also remember that the series will be shown to folk outside the UK-perhaps in regions where the animals live). It also fails to take into account Attenborough's championing of attempts to limit human population growth (so he is well aware of the difficulty of accommodating humans and animals in a finite planet) . Given the resistance to climate change initiatives, I am uncertain whether spending whole series on the negative impacts of humans on nature would prove popular or even convince people to change their behaviour. I personally think that there are roles for both a) stressing the beauty of nature and b) pointing out that human activities pose real dangers to its survival. I believe that people are more likely to care about what they see, especially if it is as impactful as 'Planet Earth 2'.

Dippying Below the Horizon

Somewhat sad news that the plaster-of-Paris model dinosaur skeleton in the foyer of the Natural History Museum in Kensington is to be dismantled and replaced by the skeleton of a young Blue whale (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/01/dippy-diplodocus-london-tour-replica-dinosaur-whale-natural-history-museum). 'Dippy' the Diplodocus has been in place more than 100 years after being produced as an exact replica of a fossil found in the USA by workers constructing the rail system. It has been a source of wonder to generations of kids (I saw it on my first visit to London) and was a striking 'welcome' to the museum. The replica is apparently going on a UK tour, starting in Dorset's Jurassic coast but no permanent home for the fragile beast has been identified. Its replacement by the Blue whale skeleton is said to reflect changing fashions in conservation but, perhaps, the fact that the whale can be suspended creating more floor space is a consideration? I suppose the Blue whale skeleton has the advantages of being a) real, b) extant and c) actually the largest animal on the planet but I will miss old 'dippy'.

London Foxes in a Hole

Somewhat mixed news on the London fox cull (metro.co.uk/2016/12/28/petition-to-save-londons-foxes-after-massive-backlash-against-cull-6348623/). There are now several thousand signatures to a petition to the London mayor objecting to the plan to pay a company to shoot these 'vermin' but there are also websites put up by the 'pest controllers' advocating their approach. Urban foxes are a regular sight in many large UK cities as cost versus benefits analysis of behaviour suggests that this species can 'earn a living' there more easily than in rural areas by incorporating human waste into its diet (along with the odd rat). The cull seems unlikely to 'solve' the perceived problem as it will just create vacancies for foxes to move in from the surrounding areas. More efficient waste disposal (plastic bags are pretty useless) is more likely to reduce their numbers. One might ask whether the odd stray dog rummaging through bags on the street would be likely to meet a similar fate (not to mention cats, crows and 'seagulls'). I must admit to not being entirely happy about marksmen roaming in the dark 'to shoot foxes' and think the inconveniences of the fox's foraging are outweighed by a chance to see a real animal in London.