Norwegian Wood

Friluftsliv, a term coined by Ibsen, translates as 'free-air life'. There's a distinct enthusiasm for this activity in Norway. The 500 clubs amalgamated under the Norsk Friluftsliv banner is currently closing in on one million members. In deed, 77% of Norwegians spend time in nature (hiking, kayaking or simply sitting in woodland), on a weeking basis (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/27/the-norwegian-secret-how-friluftsliv-boosts-health-and-happiness). Such 'communing with nature' is hardly a new concept. Folk in many parts of the world have advocated it. There's good evidence that spending time in nature reduces 'stress' and improves mood. These effects have distinct health benefits in terms of blood pressure, cardiac disease and mental health. Given the Norwegian enthusiasm for nature, it's somewhat surprising, however, the country apparently remains committed to extracting every last drop of oil from North Sea deposits. That certainly won't be benefiting the natural world in Norway or anywhere else!

Some of My Favourite Pictures of UK Field Courses

Field courses around Swansea and in deepest Dorset.

Seeing the Changes 1883

Ash (Fraxinus excelcior) bud sequence in Bynea.

Modest Men With Much to be Modest About?

Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Prize-winner, Giorgio Parisi is obviously saddened by his online abuse for presenting evidence on Covid on Italian TV. Perhaps the first question one might ask is 'why is a theoretical physicist taking on this particular task?' The programme's organisers must have ranked Parisi's eminence, over his expertise. Parisi complains that scientists are publically regarded as part of 'the elite' and consquently an untrustworthy bunch. Perhaps, ranking fame higher as a criterion over expertise, simply adds to the unfair impression that scientists are a hierarchical cult? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/tiktok-global-crisis-world-trust-scientists-online-attack). Parisi accurately notes that "if citizens don't trust Science, we will not be able to fight global warming, infectious diseases, poverty and hunger and the depletion of the planet's natural resources". He finds it surprising that "as our societies become more and more dependent on advanced technologies based on scientific discoveries, people are becoming more and more suspicious of scientists". Parisi suggests that scientists showing a bit more modesty and talking about their failures might change public opinion. I'm not so sure. The general public seem to mostly prefer highly simplified accounts of science (if they have to hear about it at all). I don't think they would be interested in more scientific agonising, even if it could make scientists seem more 'human'. 'Too clever by half', seems to be a general label supplied by the public. Most members of the general public would never consider reading a scientific paper. It's certainly true that the immediacy of TV and online debate, puts most scientists at a disadvantage. Scientists generally like to consider things at length, before arriving at a consensus with their colleagues. That consensus also often changes as more evidence accumulates. The public seem, however, to often regard this as evidence of trickery rather than refinement. I think Parisi fails to fully appreciate that 'anti-science' plays by very different rules from science. In deed,'anti-science' may well be relatively immune to logical argument and corrections of fact. Agendas are also clearly at play. These may well include attempts to bolster commercial sectors (e.g. by climate change denial), to sow dissent (e.g. for political purposes) or just to provide as financially-rewarding 'click bait'. Conspiracy theories are very effective in all these respects.

Staying Alive

Amy Fleming collects some advice on how to age better (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/23/eat-beans-and-scratch-your-own-back-expert-advice-on-how-to-age-better-inside-and-out). Fleming notes that, appropriate exercise is clearly important. As they say, "Use it or lose it"! What can be done at different ages will, however, change. Fleming also refers to research on diet. It's relatively uncontested that long-term health can be improved, by eating more fruit and vegetables as well as less red meat. Legumes, wholegrains and nuts receive glowing reports in some quarters. Taking in too many calories is clearly not a good idea. Time restricted feeding (fasting) can have benefits if it's a regular practice. Mental health can also be improved by positive thinking and embracing joy (the emotion, that is). Improving one's sense of balance (e.g. by standing on one leg) is also said to slow the impact of aging. It may reduce the chances of falling over. Perhaps the whole thrust of current advice can be simply summed up? Folk are effectively advised to 'Keep moving, eat sensibly as well as look after their mental health'. Simples!

Immoveable Money?

The former UK PM, Gordon Brown, notes that money to counter the costs of climate change on poorer countries, could easily be funded by a levy on the substantial profits made on oil and gas (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/we-need-trillions-of-dollars-to-fight-the-climate-crisis-this-is-my-plan-to-raise-it). Brown suggests the necessary cash for mitigation could be extracted from nations that have become rich on hydrocarbons, such as the Emirates, Norway and Saudi Arabia. It's a nice idea but it seems very unlikely. Many petroleum-rich countries are unlikely to show such altruism. Why give any money to parts of the world with fires ands floods, when you can always use it to buy another UK Premier league football club or build a new city in the desert?

Some of My Favourite Pictures from the Himalayan Zoological Park (Sikkim, NE India)

Birds and Mammals in the Himalayan Zoological Park (Sikkim, NE India).