In an interesting contrast of perspectives on governments’ takes on environmental issues, these two videos highlight air pollution in Hong Kong and electronic waste in Toronto.

The first is a comedic public service announcement (PSA) put out by the Clean Air Network (CAN), which is a nonprofit advocating for more action to control air pollution in Hong Kong. I first saw this as part of an entry at the Green blog at New York Times that I saw yesterday.

Basically, air quality is a big mess because of industrial activity and roadside pollution. Instead of the usual “shockvertising” and serious ad campaigns, CAN decided to change their approach with this light, but poignant piece. Check it out:

For the Cantonese version, click here. The wording in this version is a little bit different, but the ideas are the same. (Interestingly, instead of the horse scent, there is man’s scent. Probably geared towards the fans of the main actor, Daniel Wu, because that is him in the image, I believe. I wonder why those chose to make it a horse scent and not anything else.)

The second is also an entertaining PSA but this time put out by a government agency. The City of Toronto wants your electronics, and they make it quite clear here:

I also saw this yesterday, at the blog Green as a Thistle. This video is quite funny, almost to the point where you don’t believe the City are the ones who actually released it. It is more in the style of a cheesy mattress commercial.

It seemed like a strange twist of fate that I came across these two videos on the same day, each with its own purpose in a common mission to incite environmental action, but coming from different perspectives. As I see it, there is one government attempting to stimulate action, and one government needing to be stimulated into action. It really gives you something to think about!

Instead of reading mediocre to bad fiction in your spare time, how about some classics? For free?

I might be defining my opinion about Twilight by this entry, but, really, what happened to reading good literature? After leaving high school where many of us had required reading, how many continue to pay tribute to the oldies (English majors not included)? There are plenty of classics in similar genres to what is available today.

Many classics have been freely available for while, since works enter the public domain after copyright expires. Project Gutenberg has been making available public domain books since 1971 and is the largest collection of free ebooks around. It is a pretty huge collection, and a great source of reading material especially if you own an ebook reader.

Something new on the rise, however, is Read Print, which is a website that also puts out books, but in more modern Web format complete with Facebook, Twitter, and extensive chat capabilities (Meebo, Facebook, AIM, MySpace IM, Google Talk). It was recently named one of TIME’s 50 best websites. I would still use Gutenberg for getting ebooks to read on my Sony Reader, but being able to read online is an attractive function of Read Print.

It would be interesting to try to have a virtual book club meeting through Read Print. It would be quite easy to communicate and the readers would not have to be worried about buying the same edition of a book to keep track of page numbers. It would be possible to even try to schedule our reading sessions to be synchronous so that we can chat as we read. That might be more distracting than helpful, but it would more closely emulate watching a TV show or a movie together.

Check out the Read Print collection. You can browse for books by title or by author, here are a few:

• Emma by Jane Austen
• Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
• The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
• Or if you are a science nerd like me, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
• Shakespeare
• Charles Dickens
• George Orwell

[Originally posted May, 15, 2009]
(This semester our class had the opportunity to have Adam Bly of Seed Media Group as a guest speaker. I asked him his opinion on the role of education in scientific literacy, specifically for the piece I wrote and posted here earlier. The following is the response he sent me. Thanks Adam!)


At the heart of how I feel about science education is the idea that science should be used as a lens through which to look at the world, not just a subject to be taught. And further; science education goes on forever and should be available to everyone.

We live in a world where we now produce more information in a year than in all prior human history combined. Graduating college no longer means you know the essentials of your field. Fields merge and change with new data. Walls between scientific disciplines are torn down. Education must run parallel with any successful pursuit of a profession. We now see universities cater to this new reality. Many universities offer their course material for free. It’s a great model. What the universities can still offer exclusively to their paying students, is valuable access to professors and a network of other students.

But the bigger picture in my view of science education is a scientifically literate nation. That’s the goal. To have a population that understands scientific concepts and processes is more crucial to the progress of our country, than churning out a certain number of scientists and engineers.

In order to translate this ideal to the classrooms, teachers and anyone else in charge of shaping curriculums, must acknowledge science as a prime driving force in society. The teaching of natural sciences should be as actively connected to and engaged in current events and advancements as the social sciences are. Science education needs to be connected to science news.

A constant interaction between industry and the education system is obviously necessary to determine what’s essential knowledge for each field. A good initiative to accomplish this is the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science Education Alliance (SEA), which arranges workshops around innovations in science education, inviting educators and experts from each field to learn and collaborate. I would also strongly encourage a more consorted effort to channel the findings of neuroscientists and social scientists that study the way we learn, into the education system.

As for the more hands on classroom experience, there are two aspects I’d like to highlight. Science is our knowledge of how the world works, and science education should lead to real understanding. There are many beautiful examples of how this is achieved. One is the story of Bob Moses, a parent in Cambridge who decided to teach algebra to his daughter’s middle school class. Upon discovering that the concepts of algebra remained abstract to the students despite weeks of training, Moses switched strategy and decided to take his students out of the classroom, around the city, matching each math problem with a real physical event. My own science education was similar. As a kid, our neighbor Dr. Kato was a scientist who took the time to show me how things worked through examples in his garden.

The other aspect is pure awe. Science uniquely lends us the ability to access the invisible. When we are empowered by science to zoom out – experience the enormity and depth of our planet and space, and zoom in – recognize the details of ourselves and the world, it humbles us in the best possible way. It evokes a sense of wonder. It gives a taste for the thrill of discovery. It shows us the systems in which things fit.

If I were in charge of setting a science curriculum, that’s what I would keep as my guiding light: the connection to the real world, the connection to science’s role in shaping the world, but, most importantly, the sheer beauty of it all.

Adam Bly
Editor-in-chief, Seed

[Updated response]

I agree with him that scientific literacy is a extremely critical. I also agree that teachers and authorities in control of curriculum must recognize their role in building the foundations for a scientifically literate society. There are many teachers whom I know personally that are doing great things in their classrooms, including hands-on learning and field trips integrated with science content.

I also would like point out that these teachers are usually at schools that are already more progressive than others, and are typically also not public schools. Schools whose students have a hard time keeping up in math and reading may not have the resources to bulk up their science programs. Math and reading often trumps science, even though as Adam Bly implied, it has a more intuitive driving force which is the want to understand our world which we are in awe of.

There are so many things working against science education, which includes lack of funding, resources, but also lack of support from our culture. In many parts of the country, people’s views on evolution have pitted religious communities against the scientific community. This is a large waste of time and effort, in my opinion, but it is still a reality that must be dealt with. I often think about how the cultural barriers may be overcome, and it has brought be back to many of the points Adam Bly made in his commentary, but also I think a lot about Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, which some scientists are working on updating.

It is an interesting psychological and philosophical question of whether we can take on these larger issues without first fulfilling the first few rungs of the hierarchy (physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, self-actualization). I would argue that many people in our country are stuck at the 3rd and 4th rungs (love/belonging and esteem) and that thinking about bigger things, like the beauty of the world and environment we live in, do not occur until we reach the last rung of self-actualization.

Today I started reading news in Google Reader, and came across 2 topics that I wish could just find a way to meet up. They have to do with getting widespread behavior and mentality change to happen and funding for political campaigns/issues. That may not sound like they can be connected, but just read on!

The first article is titled “Misperceived Paths to Energy Savings” from the Dot Earth blog on the New York Times. It that talks about a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The researchers surveyed regular people and found that they generally do not have the right idea about what the most effective ways to save energy are, when compared to what is recommended by experts. The best ways to increase energy savings, according to this study, are efficiency improvements, rather than usage curtailment. (Though both may be necessary, in my opinion.)

I think what they are trying to stress here is that people have the idea in their heads that if they just turn the lights off when not in use or drive a little less, that that will be enough to make a major difference, that they can “do their part” in these small ways. While these behavioral changes are good and great, there really isn’t much of a change in mentality or understanding of the deeper issues. There is still a self-centered approach to those activities, whereas more significant action would take more significant effort (i.e. buying more efficient light bulbs, appliances, water heaters, cars, etc.; insulating your home).

The NY Times journalist suggests that this study is a sign that the US needs to invest more in energy literacy in order to make a dent in the wasted energy and avoidable carbon emissions related to energy use.

The next article I would like to bring into this discussion is about Proposition 23 in California. You can find the second article here at Grist. Prop 23 opposes the climate change legislation in California, and is supported by big oil companies from other states such as Texas. The campaign against Prop 23 also has big backers, such as environmental groups, tech companies in Silicon Valley, and other companies. All in all, there are several millions of dollars going into the campaigns on both sides.

I won’t get started on how unrestricted lobbying could possibly be one of the big reasons why our local and federal governments continue to fail on important fronts, because that would be too much of a tangent. But I couldn’t help thinking, what if they took those millions of dollars going into campaigning and actually put it into informative programs on the ground to address issues like energy efficiency? Maybe it wouldn’t even take that much seed money to get something going, because apparently home energy efficiency is a booming business.

Now, I’m not actually suggesting to take the money out of the No on Prop 23 campaign, but what if every group that invested in the campaign matched with an investment into an energy literacy program? Rather than only putting money into TV and radio ad campaigns that may not increase the general public’s understanding of climate change legislation but confuse people more?

I do not wish to resign to the idea that people are mindless and believe whichever campaign had the most funding and was therefore more prominent. Maybe I don’t understand enough about what is going on. I admit that I sometimes do not understand why people are such adamant deniers of climate change.

In any case, the point is that there really isn’t enough effort or funding going into informing the masses and this could potentially be an innovative way to raise funds and awareness. I would really like to see a lot of things become part of general knowledge, like climate change and evolution, which really deserved to be a part of general knowledge decades ago.

I was lucky enough to catch The xx at Summerstage in Central Park last Sunday after being away for a tournament. And by “catch,” I mean I sat/stood outside of the gates in a clearing in the trees and barely was able to see a sliver of stage.

There is something about being outside in semi-nature, enjoying live music, that makes me very very happy. Maybe it is the combination of being in a green, grassy park with the sun shining and breeze blowing, and good aural stimulation that just relaxes the mind and body. It could also be that outdoor concerts are associated with summer, which is a generally happy time of the year. Yay for Vitamin D!

This reminds me of a few things I’ve read in the past few months. First, there were some studies that looked at how consumers spent their money. They split this into 2 categories: material purchases and “experiential” purchases. The researchers found that the happiness that consumers felt from material purchases did not last as long as the happiness that they got from experiential purchases. For example, buying a massage or doing something with friends gives a longer lasting happiness than shopping for clothes or splurging on things.

Considering I didn’t even have to purchase a ticket to The xx’s concert, I’m really glad that I went! It has been good for my mental health this week.

Another good article is this one in the NY Times. It talks about similar ideas and a specific story about a couple who took it upon themselves to get rid of most of their belongings. The woman was able to get it down to 100 personal items, and they were able to move into a smaller apartment and pay off their $30K debt. The couple was also happier with their jobs and life in general because they were able to do more of the things they liked, like being outdoors, volunteering, and spending time with family.

I’m not ready yet to winnow down my belongings that much, but I would like to try to get rid of the possessions that I don’t necessarily need anymore. It is a difficult thing to do, though, but I have managed to clean out some clothes at least once a year. I do, however, find it particularly satisfying to find a use for something that I had been saving for a long time. This might be a different type of happiness. Maybe a happiness from solving some kind of puzzle? A puzzle of how to use randomly sized boxes and containers?

What experiences make you happy?

This entry has a common thread that everything is about different, thought-provoking visual stimuli.

The Denver Post posted this gallery by photographers from the Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information. These color slides were recovered from the 1939-1943 and show glimpses into what life was like for Americans during harsh times.

The data nerd in me really loves the blog Information is Beautiful for its use of data to create visualizations that are beautiful and interesting.

The science nerd in me loves the website The Fun Theory for the psychological experimentation it is conducting.

…but it is an everyday problem for many people in developing nations.

Watch this documentary by scientists Nicolas Mainville and Jena Webb about their work in communities in Amazonia regarding mercury pollution in their rivers.

ZONA CRUDA from Realidad Visual on Vimeo.

I’ve just started reading the book Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman. They are two brothers who got into seemingly different fields of business and psychology, but found that there are really interesting ideas that tie the two together.

I haven’t gotten that far in the book yet so I can’t give a full review yet, but I will highlight some interesting points that I have picked up on so far.

A lot of the concepts they bring up tie back to the idea of loss aversion, which I have blogged about in the past. The authors brought up the example of an extremely experienced commercial airline pilot who made a series of errors that led to the crash of the airliner and death of everyone on board. Long story short, the situation he was in placed him under pressure to avoid certain losses and eventually got the better of him in even the simplest decisions like waiting for takeoff clearance from the air traffic controller.

A few more things to think about:

• diagnosis bias: when experts make an initial diagnosis and ignore all evidence against it, particularly in medical fields
• value attribution: how the value or respect we place on or expect from a thing or person affects our view of their work
• commitment: when we are very committed to a decision, we are more likely to behave irrationally to stay the course even if we realize we are wrong

I have so many books on my to-read list, but if you have any more suggestions, I would love to hear them!

On May 18th, I went to a talk by Dr. Iain Couzin, hosted by the Secret Science Club at the Bell House in Brooklyn.

Couzin’s lab at Princeton investigates collective animal behavior, some of which include fish schools, bird flocks, and locust swarms.

This video shows predator and the prey swarms interacting. When the video shows it in slow motion, notice how the prey individuals can avoid the predator by keeping a cushion of space between them. Couzin talked about how they measure these movements in his lab’s research and what they hope to be able to model and measure in the future, like behavior and movement.

They are also using some really amazing tracking software to calculate the orientation and movement of fish using video taken from above the tanks. They have even started using this technology to track movements of people walking around and as part of an escape-route experiment.

I couldn’t find any videos from this section, but there was a video that Couzin showed from an experiment where they had a large group of people in a circular room. Only a few people were told which “emergency exit” was the safest exit. These people had to move towards that door and get others to follow without communication.

The most incredible thing I took away from the talk was from the discussion of locust swarms and their research on what drives the movement of these swarms.

Here is Iain Couzin giving a short talk about swarm movement:

So I have yet to even successfully BEGIN to incubate any of the eggs that Rosa has laid, but she is going to lay again this week (probably Wednesday). I am very prepared this time! I would feel really frustrated and mad at myself if I failed again.

I’m using perlite this time as the incubation substrate, and I have been testing it out in the box with a heating pad so that I can get the right temperature and humidity before she lays again. Hopefully it works out this time!!