Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Love Island” and the coded language of sex

“We were at St Mary’s stadium last night, both teams were ready to rock and roll. The whistle got blown soon as well, before the lights even went down, and the floodlights come on and it was literally – sprinklers erupted!”

This confusing description is how “Love Island” contestant Jake Cornish talked about his bedtime exploits with fellow contestant Liberty Poole last week.

The reality show, now in its seventh season, takes a group of mainly 20-somethings (known as islanders) and throws them into a villa for eight weeks in the hope that drama and, most importantly, romance will ensue. They are expected to “couple up” from the very beginning, and references to sex form much of the programme’s content.

Islanders are often very candid about their sexual histories, but their discussions of in-villa sexual activity rely heavily on metaphors and innuendo. In part, this might reflect contestants not wanting to broadcast explicit details of their sex lives to their families, friends and the wider British public. But, as a historian of sexuality in the 20th century, I can see how it also highlights broader trends in how non-penetrative sex has been understood and talked about over the last 70 years.

Danger zones

Islanders have been very creative when describing forms of non-penetrative sexual activity. In the fourth season, this was often referred to as “doing bits”. The 2019 islanders often referred to “the danger zone” to describe their bedroom intimacies. This year’s contestants have developed their own code based on the different levels of the British system of national vocational qualifications. “Entry level” is “just a snog,” “NVQ1” is “a cheeky finger,” “NVQ2” is “oral” and “NVQ3” is “the full shebang.”

While these might be particularly modern turns of phrase, the use of such sexual euphemisms has long historical precedents and reflects the fact that while there is a rich vocabulary in the English language for describing and talking about penetrative intercourse (“making love,” “going all the way,” “doing it” – and that’s just at the more polite end of the spectrum), the language associated with other forms of sexual behaviour is more limited.

Without any “good” language, people have often developed creative systems for discussing sex acts. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, teenagers often used a numerical ranking system. A typical five-stage code ranked sexual activity from kissing (1), breast touching, touching a partner’s genitals, having one’s genitals touched by a partner, to finally having penetrative intercourse (5).

History shows that these ranking systems are elastic and change over time. In contrast to modern youth, teenagers in the mid-20th century would rarely include oral sex in these rankings as this was often deemed more intimate than penetrative sex. Similarly, in Love Island the girls distinguished between “kissing in a challenge” and “snogging,” highlighting how intimate acts that are physically similar can be ranked differently based on context.

Sex talk on “Love Island” is refreshing in the way it addresses forms of intimate behaviour beyond penetrative sex. It is also positive to observe a community of young people celebrating sexual pleasure and playfully constructing ways of thinking and talking about sex on their own terms.

The programme does highlight, however, some of the limitations of this type of sex talk. At the same time that the shared construction of sexual languages creates opportunities for dialogue and inclusion, it can also be exclusionary and obscure. After a number of viewers were confused by the boys’ football metaphors, the “Love Island” producers chose to have one of the female contestants explain some of the code.

Chloe Burrows explained that “‘One all’ is basically doing bits. ‘One all.’ You did something, I did something, we both had a very happy ending!” Even here though, Burrows was vague about exactly what the couples were doing.

Perhaps more importantly, the metaphors that are used reflect and reinforce certain assumptions about sexual activity. For example, the 2021 islanders’ qualification metaphors reinforce hierarchical understandings of sexual activity and the “right” order that couples should engage in sex acts – snogging to “the full shebang”.

These cultures are deep rooted – the order outlined in “Love Island” 2021 is very similar to those used by teenagers in the 1950s. But these hierarchies are not fixed and people can have fulfilling sex lives without engaging in penetrative intercourse, just as they can have penetrative sex without having engaged in other forms of sexual activity.

How young people talk about sex can be as important as their actual sexual activity. “Love Island” shows it can be fun to develop new ways of talking about sex. But so far, the language doesn’t necessarily reflect radically new ways of thinking about sex. Maybe next season the islanders will get even more creative.The Conversation

Hannah Charnock, Lecturer in British History, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why are small dogs so anxious all the time?

Happy little dogs are popular punchlines in Hollywood. In “There’s Something About Mary,” an annoying Border Terrier is repeatedly injured as the characters engage in slapstick antics, until the dog requires a full body cast. In the live-action “Scooby-Doo” movie, the diminutive Scrappy-Doo was so obnoxious that the rest of the group ultimately casts him out. Beyond the world of cinema, comic sketches mocking celebrities who carry Chihuahuas in their purses more often than not comment on the dogs’ vocal behavior.

But are little dogs actually ankle-biting annoyances, or do they get a bad rap? And regardless of which answer is true, does the explanation for their stereotyped anxious behavior rest in nature or nurture?

“It could be a genetic association with small body size,” Dr. James Serpell, an animal behavior expert at the University of Pennsylvania, told Salon by email as he listed the possible explanations for little dog behavior. “It could be because little dogs feel more threatened and defensive than bigger dogs and are therefore more likely to react aggressively. And it could be that the owners of small dogs are more protective of their pets and consequently fail to socialize them properly when they are young and impressionable. Or maybe it’s a combination of all three.”

Evidently, the stereotype of the preternaturally anxious toy dog is a subject that inspires debate among behaviorists. Dr. Erica Feuerbacher, who studies animal behavior at Virginia Tech, wrote to Salon that the information we have about little dog behavior is based not on precise quantitative data, but the anecdotal experiences of the people who know them best — their owners.

“Results from owner reports on dog behavior dog show that lighter weight dogs tend to be more excitable and energetic, and that could translate into barking more,” Feuerbacher explained.

According to Feuerbacher, smaller dogs may tend to nip or show other aggressive behaviors because their owners are not properly raising them. This is where the “nurture” part of the equation comes into play; dogs, like humans, have to be socialized so they behave appropriately toward other people and animals. Yet this is no less true for a Pomeranian than it is for a Great Dane.

“Because they are small, having a dog 10 times their size approach them could likely be scary and they feel a need to defend themselves, which manifests as growling or snapping since this is how dogs communicate,” Feuerbacher said. “Because they are small there’s also a sense for some (not all) owners that they don’t need to be trained and that they can be managed by simply picking them up, which you can’t do with a barking Labrador retriever.”

There is some scientific evidence suggesting that owners will treat dogs differently based on their appearance. A 2013 study by Italian scientists analyzed how strangers reacted to unknown dogs and learned that “passersby showed more interest toward puppies and interacted more with puppies and large dogs, and their handlers,” as opposed to dogs with other features. This reveals that we do treat dogs differently based on their appearance (and size); it stands to reason that this influences how dogs behave around us. A child who is frequently approached with eagerness and interest will generally become more outgoing in adulthood; dogs, it seems, socialize similarly.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Likewise, the “cute” factor to small dogs makes humans interpret their behavior differently than they might the same behavior in a large dog. This leads to radically different psychological interactions. As Feuerbacher explained, not everyone realizes that smaller dogs who growl and show their teeth are stressed and uncomfortable — just as when big dogs do the same. Owners of small dogs may react as if this behavior is cute. But when smaller dogs are not trained how to react better in negative situations, they will not develop the maturity of a larger dog whose aggressive behavior is taken more seriously.

“A greater recognition that these behaviors are indicative of the dog not handling the current situation well, and being stressed would be really helpful to these dogs’ welfare,” Feuerbacher concluded.

Some experts insist that small dogs are not inherently nippy and loud, but are socialized that way. Dr. Catherine Reeve, an animal cognition expert at Queen’s University Belfast, countered the notion that small dogs behave worse than larger ones.

“Small dogs are not inherently more aggressive or yappy than larger dogs,” Reeve wrote to Salon. “Small dogs have a bad reputation for these behaviors because people tend to socialize and train small dogs less than larger dogs. People also tend to invade the personal space and disregard the boundaries of smaller dogs more often because they are ‘cute’ and people feel less threatened by them compared to, say, a large German shepherd.”

Like Feuerbacher, Reeve said that people will often fail to effectively address behavior problems in smaller dogs because they do not feel the same pressures that they would from a big canine. 

“A chihuahua that snaps at people is often observed as being ‘funny’ or ‘grumpy,’ but if it was a Malinois snapping at people, people tend to take this much more seriously and seek out help from a professional,” Reeve pointed out.

She added that there is a fierce debate over how humans should handle aggressive dogs, adding that “science stands firmly on the side of force free training (no use of positive punishment, shock collars, prong collars, intimidation, etc.)” She added that she is entirely opposed to “the use of punishment to treat aggression in dogs,” and says that “force-free behavior modification” is frequently very successful in treating aggression.

Is bacon actually banned in California?

Is a bacon ban really looming in California? That’s been the pressing question among meat lovers for days after the Associated Press sounded the alarm on the upcoming implementation of Proposition 12, a law in California that will require a larger minimum confinement area for pigs, egg-laying chicken, and calves. The good news is that this doesn’t mean that bacon or other pork products will be all-out banned in the Golden State, but the legislation, which will go into effect in 2022, will impact farmers, restaurateurs, and consumers, as the price of pork will likely increase in a few years.

What is Proposition 12?

Although pork lovers are biting their fingernails, wondering if they’ll be able to enjoy bacon strips with breakfast or a nice, crispy pork schnitzel at dinner, this measure isn’t anything new. It was actually on ballots in California way back in 2018.

California Proposition 12, aka the “Farm Animal Confinement Initiative” would establish the minimum space requirements for calves being raised for veal, pigs, and egg-laying hens and ban the sale of veal from calves, pork from pigs, and eggs from hens if the animals were confined to areas below the minimum square-feet requirements. In short, it’s just a law that guarantees more humane conditions for animals.

And what’s more, the measure was pretty popular. In November 2018, 62.66% of California residents voted yes to Prop 12, saying that the measures outlined above should be enforced.

So really, it has nothing to do with banning bacon or any other beloved meat products. It’s all about ensuring that the meat Californians consume comes from humane farms and responsibly-raised animals who have had enough room to live and breathe. Seems reasonable, right?

So, why is everyone freaking out? 

The proposition may have slipped the mind of the average Californian. But the AP has so kindly reminded us that the state is less than six months away from implementing and enforcing the ban, which has people worried that these products are going to be banned altogether. Once again, bacon will not be banned in California. Say it louder for the people in the back.

What this does mean is that bacon and other pork products will likely become more expensive in the state of California. Currently, only 4% of pork farms meet the new standards for the minimum confinement area. Most veal and egg producers have not raised concerns about being able to meet the minimum confinement area, which is why there aren’t headlines like “There’s a Ban on Eggs in California” or “Say Goodbye to Veal Parmesan.”

Is California alone in this?

Although this is the most headline-grabbing measure in recent history, California is not by any means the only state to implement a measure that will encourage more humane practices among farmers and meat producers. A total of 13 other states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington have all passed legislation or regulations that ban things like gestation crates, battery cages, and veal crates in their states, and also ban the sale of products that have come from animals raised in these conditions.

Prop 12 is a bigger deal because it fundamentally changes the blueprint of pork, veal, and egg farms by expanding the space requirements for animals.

But I thought everyone in California only ate avocados? 

Very funny, but no. Californians consume 225 million pounds of pork each month, according to ABC-100. That’s about 15% of the total amount of pork consumed nationwide each month. However, farmers in the state only produce approximately 45 million pounds of pork each month, meaning that the vast majority of the meat comes from outside farmers. If farmers across the country don’t comply with California’s new regulations, the price of pork will increase dramatically within just a few years.

A study conducted by a consulting firm hired by opponents of Prop 12 estimated that bacon prices would increase by 60% if out-of-state farmers don’t comply. That means that a $6 package of bacon could soon cost $9.60.

What does the pork industry have to say? 

Surprise, surprise, they’re not happy about it! The National Pork Producers Council and a coalition of California restaurants and business groups have petitioned the courts to delay the new requirements, but the courts have continued to side with the nearly 63% of California voters who are in favor of the new animal welfare practices.

The new changes will cost farmers more money, as they’ll need to invest in more space and structures to expand the animal’s confinement spaces. If the farmers spend more money on their pigs, then the price of meat will increase, thus changing the cost of consumer-facing pork products like baconpork chops, and sausage.

But more expensive products does not mean banned products, so even if prices are going up, Californians aren’t going to have to take a long road trip for their next bacon, egg, and cheese.

From dark chocolate bark to savory oatmeal, 8 unique ways to use chili crisp

Over the past several years, chili crisp, a crunchy and spicy condiment made with fried chili pepper, garlic and roasted soybeans, has seen its popularity heat up across the United States. A well-stocked condiment collection these days includes at least a jar, perhaps by Lao Gan Ma, Fly by Jing or Loud Grandma

But after you’ve used it on the basics — over leftovers, swirling into rice, as a topping for dumplings — consider spooning chili crisp into these eight dishes for a more flavorful day, from breakfast to dessert. 

Drizzled over vanilla ice cream 

In 2018, dessert shops in Sichuan, China, starting posting images of creamy white ice cream flecked with deep red chili oil. The trend hit the States soon after, and for good reason. The mix of creamy and cold ice cream with spicy chili crisp is a delicious juxtaposition. 

Swirled into spaghetti al limone 

This idea comes from Jenn de la Vega, who published her recipe for Chile Crisp Spaghetti al Limone over on TASTE. “I wondered if chile crisp would stay crisp if I cooked it in a sauce,” de la Vega wrote. “And the answer is yes!” 

I love this recipe. The delicately acidic cream sauce is given a serious spice boost from the addition of chili crisp, which also adds a delightful textural contrast that isn’t always present in pasta. Also the umami of the crisp pairs beautifully with the umami of the pecorino cheese. 

Whipped into mayonnaise 

Amp up your ho-hum lunch by crafting a quick sandwich spread from velvety mayonnaise (we like Kewpie) and chili crisp. It’s also a great binder for a more flavorful egg, chicken or tuna salad. 

Incorporated into chocolate 

The bittersweetness of chocolate and the spice of chili crisp are a natural, if not intuitive, pairing. Melt 8 ounces of dark chocolate and spread it on a parchment-covered sheet pan and sprinkle with chili crisp to taste. Put the pan in the refrigerator until the bark completely sets up and break into shards for snacking. 

Sprinkled on mango 

One of my favorite summertime snacks is chile-spiced mango. For a play on that, cut up some mango, spritz it with a little bit of lime juice and drizzle it with chili crisp. 

Spooned onto hummus 

I love hummus, but the stuff from the grocery store can definitely veer a little bland. There are a few add-ins that help — a squeeze of lemon juice, some chopped olives or roasted red pepper, pine nuts — but chili crisp is an all-in-one solution. It adds spice, crunch and salt. 

Layered onto grilled cheese 

As mentioned in the spaghetti al limone and ice cream examples, chili crisp plays really well with creamy flavors. Spice up your basic grilled cheese with a smear of chili crisp before frying. 

As an addition in savory oatmeal 

While I like a bowl of oats spiced with cinnamon, brown sugar and a pat of butter, I absolutely love savory oatmeal. It’s simple to make — cook the oats down in stock instead of water and reach for add-ins like fried or soft-boiled eggs, crumbled bacon, avocado, dashi or citrus kosho. Chili crisp is the perfect final touch. 

Read More Saucy:

Interview: AFT president says Fox News’ attack on teachers part of larger assault on democracy

With schools set to reopen in less than a month, the national debate has grown hotter over how public education should respond to the reality of a resurging pandemic.

Among the biggest issues: Should teachers be required to become vaccinated to return to the classrooms? But that’s hardly the only raging question.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sits in the eye of the storm as public education becomes ever more engulfed in America’s culture war. Attacks from the political right have hardly been limited to vaccine questions, with rash claims about Critical Race Theory (CRT) — among efforts to rewrite history– also in the forefront.

The nation’s second-largest teachers union and its president, Randi Weingarten, have become a favorite target of right-wing media. In Weingarten’s view, it’s all part of an overarching effort to attack teachers. And truth.

Raw Story caught up with Weingarten Saturday for this exclusive interview:

Q. What is the latest on the union’s position regarding vaccine mandates?

A. The circumstances have changed in the last few weeks. The Delta variant is so virulent, yet kids under 12 can’t get a vaccine yet. The good news is that it looks like full approval by the FDA is in the offing of these vaccines, and that’s one of the issues people have been concerned with. These factors have given rise to us reconsidering the other measures to get more and more people vaccinated, including requiring vaccinations. We’re in the middle of those conversations with our leaders and members.

Q. So, your position might be changing because of the evolving situation?

A. We are 1000% behind vaccines. They are the most effective way of dealing with the variant. But until this moment, we’ve thought that voluntarily shots in the arms were the most effective way to get more people vaccinated in this very polarized world and with all the misinformation that’s out there. But circumstances have changed so we’re thinking about other ways of creating vaccine access, including evaluating our position on employer mandates.

Q. How do concerns about the effects of the Delta variant on kids factor into that thinking?

A. We’re very concerned, particularly since younger children don’t have access to the vaccine. We’re seeing a changing circumstance in the last three weeks, and we’re seeing in places like Florida, Louisiana and Texas that this variant can affect children far more than the virus previously did.

Q. Do you have a timetable for that decision? Perhaps in the next week?

A. I would say it’s sometime soon.

Q. What is your reaction to how you’re being betrayed in the conservative media — personally and as a union — as one of the main reasons, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci, as to why schools have been closed and so forth?

A. There is a group of people in America led by Fox News that wants to keep the anxiety, the fear, the chaos, the disinformation and people angry and on edge. That’s what they’re doing. It’s terribly unfair and misplaced. But I’m a big girl and I’m going to my job, which is to get schools open — and keep them open — in a safe way. That is what educators in America want. That is what children in America need. And that is what we at the AFT are trying to do. Teachers want what children need.

The post-truth society which has also helped fuel the Big Lie about voting is very disturbing and is really undermining of democracy. And public schooling is the key to democracy. So, these all have political overtones and I understand it. But we don’t whine about it: We just organize. I just wish they didn’t have the kind of megaphone they have because they’re scaring a lot of people and creating a lot of ground for anxiety and hate, and it’s just wrong.

This is not about me, it’s about my members, it’s about teachers, it’s about bus drivers. It’s about the people who every single day, have been out there engaging kids in the last 16 months. It’s about the nurses who, regardless of where things were in terms of COVID, were out there at the bedside. These folks are real heroes. They’ve engaged kids. They’ve protected families. They’ve helped nurse people back to health. And yet, they get scapegoated at every turn. And some of it is also by the mainstream media on the issues of vaccine mandates.

Look at what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with lots of these anti-vaxxers, who are really, really resistant, and we have to meet fear and we have to meet misinformation with facts.

Educators have been engaging kids and they have been kids’ lifelines, but they have been thrown a lot of stuff that they’ve had to deal with. “Remote, hybrid, in-school, hybrid, remote.” They have done everything they could to help our kids be engaged, survive and now thrive.

This is about the undermining of our profession, it’s about the undermining of teachers, and it’s about not actually crediting or honoring them for who they are in the work they have done.

Q. Speaking of your work, how has the debate about Critical Race Theory impacted your lives?

A. In terms of this issue of our teaching honest history, I’m a high school social studies teacher. I taught in the 90s. Our kids need to know the history of this country. And they need to be able to understand and to have the skills to assess current events. That’s what history teachers do, and this is important for all kids.

Those of us who’ve taught history and social studies for years are a little stunned by this debate. Like really, we can’t teach slavery anymore? It’s just like core curriculum in some states where we must teach that slavery was a betrayal of our Founding Fathers, which is absolutely not true.

Yes, some of our history is uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable talking about the fact that our country had a legalized system of slavery until the Civil War and had lots of other legalized systems of discrimination like Jim Crow. That is uncomfortable, but our job is to make sure that kids can get through uncomfortable situations. And if they do, it’s going to give them a skill set for the future. Our job is to help them become critical thinkers, to help them, assess these issues going forward. And it’s our job to teach history and teach the effects of history and to teach current events, and the effects of it. That is part and parcel of a full education for children.

We don’t teach CRT in pre-K through high school. This is a college-level analysis of law and whether systemic racism exists in some of the laws and in this country. And so, what’s happened here is again an undermining of public education, an undermining of teachers, an attempt to scare parents. And using it in the elections — as Steve Bannon and others have said — to try to stop what’s been the trend of more families and women and working moms and stay-at-home moms in the suburbs starting to vote for Democrats. So, we know where it’s coming from, and we know who is behind it. But at the end of the day, the consequence of this group of people winning is that it’s going to hurt our kids.

Q. Are you seeing similar controversy over how history or current-events teachers might portray the insurrection at the Capitol?

A. Yes, I think that that’s part of this. This is all about the push to pretend that January 6 didn’t happen or to create a narrative that, that nothing bad happened that day. But our democracy could have died that day. Think about the difference between how that day is viewed, through a political lens in the United States, versus how 911 is viewed as we get to the 20th anniversary. It tells you a lot about the problems in the country. There’s a push to stop us from teaching the truth or create context for these very important moments. What happened that day? Why did it happen? These are legitimate questions that you teach in an age-appropriate way through public education.

Q. What do you think is the legacy of Donald Trump and Betty DeVos for teachers and public education?

A. Betsy Devos is a destabilizer. We’ve have had Education Secretaries who believed that there should be vouchers and charters and a competitive environment in schools. But they also believed in public education. And while they believed that a public school should be the best it can be and that you had to have a system of great neighborhood public schools and public-school choice, this was the first Secretary of Education who didn’t believe that. She didn’t believe in a public system. She didn’t believe we should be investing in a public system as a primary way of helping all kids thrive and learn. So, at every moment that she could, she destabilized it. This was a destabilizing strategy. And Trump believed in the chaos theory of governing instead of the unifying theory of governing. He believed in chaos and divisiveness and that’s what you see here. The disturbing piece is that truth took a second seat to wanting power.

Former Newsmax host dies of COVID after deathbed about-face on anti-vax beliefs

A former Newsmax host who spent much of his recent career railing against vaccines and all manner of COVID-19 precautions died earlier this week of complications from the virus, reports said. 

Dick Farrel, 65, was also a longtime radio host in Florida, where local TV station WPTV writes he was “known and beloved by fans for his over-the-top right-wing opinions.”

Those opinions grew increasingly vicious over the course of the past year-and-a-half as COVID swept through Florida, and the United States as a whole — calling Dr. Anthony Fauci a “power tripping lying freak” and repeatedly disparaging mask wearing as “face diapers” and “face pantys.”

He also advocated strongly against vaccines — until contracting the virus himself.

“He told me this virus is no joke and he said, “I wish I had gotten it!” Amy Leigh Hair, a close personal friend of Farrel’s who spoke with WPTV, wrote on her Facebook page. 

“He is the reason I took the shot. He texted me and told me to ‘Get it!’ He told me this virus is no joke.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


It was a stark about-face from his rhetoric throughout the pandemic, where he penned screeds on social media almost daily, blasting mitigation efforts and public health officials. “So, u think it wasn’t a SCAM DEMIC? NOT ONE ELECTED DEMOCRAT ever tested positive,” he wrote earlier this year. 

Farrel was also a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, and parroted many of his lies about the 2020 election to his thousands of listeners and readers. He even advocated for violent uprising months after the Jan. 6 insurrection, posting “civil war beckons” as part of a June diatribe against liberals who wanted to ban the American flag, The Daily Beast reported.

He was warmly remembered by broadcasting professionals in Florida, who recognized his skill in being able to keep his audience listening.

“Was he right all the time? No… But he was “RIGHT” all the time, especially if you asked him. Did he stay out of trouble? Not always,” Lee Strasser, the former Market General Manager for CBS Radio West Palm Beach, told WPTV. 

“His passing is a big loss. He was a kind-hearted person with a load of passion, and his memory will stand the test of time.”

“The White Lotus” may inspire vacation fantasies, unless you see Belinda’s point of view

If social media streams of consciousness tell us anything, “The White Lotus” may inspire a trend of all-inclusive resort bookings, pandemic lockdowns be damned. Each new episode brings a flurry of tweets expressing a yearning for beach vacations and blended cocktails, something I can only attribute to the assumption that people are watching the show with their televisions muted.

If they’re coming to this conclusion after listening to resort customers drone on about their own self-importance, that’s troubling. No sunset is beautiful enough to make me put up other guests’ demented debates about privilege or loudly lamenting how hard white men have it. No beach has sand silky enough to risk navigating gaggles of solipsists committed to behaving like boors because the sea washes away all consequences.

But then, this perspective is colored by my absolute empathy for Belinda, the spa manager, and the sole character in whom I am invested. In a tragicomedy that pits guests against our patience and the hotel’s irresponsible manager Armond (Murray Bartlett), whose sanity is crumbling before our eyes, Belinda is a woman caught in a nightmare that looks a lot like a dream.

This is the lot of every White Lotus employee, but Belinda has it worse than most. Where others serve food or clean up messes or guide guests from one attraction to the next, Belinda’s job is to soothe and comfort the damaged and needy.

That Belinda is played by comedic actor Natasha Rothwell, who gives “Insecure” some of its finest moments, only makes me more inclined to be on her side. Belinda and Rothwell’s “Insecure” party girl Kelli are night and day in terms of temperament; knowing them both only makes my soul hurt for Belinda even more.

This is because Kelli is everything Belinda can’t be: free with her opinions, unable and unwilling to countenance bad behavior and gloriously all about herself. Belinda’s job restricts her from being anything less than accommodating.

Her smile is warm, and only if you know everything she’s going through can you notice the weight of exhaustion pulling at its corners, the desperate glimmer in her eyes that’s silently shouting for aid or rescue. If her schedule is fully booked, as it is when she’s introduced to the vampiric Tanya McQuoid (Jennifer Coolidge), she must cut into her own free time in the name of making this very important guest happy.

Tanya’s entrenched sorrow makes that impossible. Even more sinister, though, is her magical thinking that hooks Belinda with flattery and the false hope of funding her own spa. From the first time Belinda treats Tanya in a session that’s part cranial massage and part counseling session, she’s doomed.

In dangling that carrot, Tanya makes a hostage of Belinda, forcing her to sacrifice her personal life in order to be this woman’s friend – for the sake of forging a partnership, maybe, but probably just for the week.

This is absolutely depressing to witness, especially at a time when so many people in the service industry are lauded as heroes but treated like servants. Belinda has the added burden of being a Black woman and healer, working in a venue where guests are encouraged to unburden themselves of their worries and assured that it is the pleasure of the workers to pick up their trash. To Tanya, Belinda might as well be her psychological porter, except no amount of tips can compensate for the load that guest makes that the spa managers carry. . . and probably for nothing.

In Brenda I see every underappreciated restaurant server, flight attendant and, yes, massage therapist. All of these workers’ livelihoods took a crippling hit during pandemic lockdown. Now that customers have returned, their forbearance and good manners haven’t. Instead, people are taking out their pent up anxieties on the people trying to bring them relief, even in the smallest way possible.    

I want to send Belinda on a vacation, but where? Another paradise locale would remind her of the hell she commutes to every day. I want her to enjoy a month’s worth of naps and peace, but how? The reason she puts up with Tanya at all is that she sees her as a chance to escape. Tanya radiates the kind of flakiness and instability that tells a sensible person that salvation is not going to come from her.

The White Lotus Hotel is absolutely gorgeous and exclusive enough to ensure that spending some time with its worst people is inevitable. On the other hand, that’s part of the show’s appeal. Besides figuring out who’s in the casket teased in the series’ opening scene and how that person gets there, we get to vacation with these guests from hell at a safe distance.

We can vicariously experience what it would be like to leave behind all the constraints of everyday living, including the obligation to observe social graces and treat others with consideration. Viewing the show in that light, I suppose I can understand why Mike White’s characters are sending some people to travel sites looking for flight and hotel packages.

We’re all dying to go on vacation, especially those of us who haven’t gone much further from our homes than the grocery store or a few walks around the block during the past year and a half. We all want someone else to carry our troubles for a while. So if you succumb to the influence of “White Lotus,” bon voyage I guess. My only request is that if you run into some version of Belinda, be gracious and grateful and tip her well.  It won’t be enough to compensate for what she has to put up with, but at least it’s something.

New episodes of “The White Lotus” premiere Sundays at 9 p.m. on HBO. 

Dalit scientists face barriers in India’s top science institutes

In the summer of 1976, 26-year-old Raosaheb Kale entered the School of Life Sciences at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, alongside about 34 other incoming doctoral students. At the time, a committee of teachers at the school would review the students’ records and assign each to a Ph.D. supervisor to mentor them through graduate school. When the school posted the list of assignments, Kale scanned the piece of paper: Every single student, he said, had been matched with a supervisor, except for him.

“Nobody wanted to take me,” recalled Kale, who is now 71, sitting on his apartment’s balcony in Pune, in western India.

Kale knew why his name was missing: In his class, he was the only one from the Dalit community — formerly known as the untouchables. The teachers didn’t want to supervise Dalits, Kale said, because they perceived that Dalits “won’t perform well.”

Historically, Dalits were considered so low that they fell outside the caste system, a rigid social hierarchy described in ancient Hindu legal texts. Brahmins (priests) occupied the top of the pyramid, followed by the Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and then Shudras (artisans) at the bottom. Today, caste, which is defined by family of origin, remains an ever-present reality in Indian culture, and functions somewhat similarly to race in America.

Growing up in the drought-prone Beed district of western India, Kale shared a mud-walled, tin-roofed house with his parents and four younger siblings. Like other Dalits, his parents were unable to own land and barred from entering temples. In his village, Dalits were assigned various jobs such as sweeping streets, supplying firewood, delivering messages, and picking cotton. In return, they received grains, leftover food, or, on very rare occasions, one rupee for a day’s labor — well below a livable wage.

When Raosaheb Kale, a member of the Dalit caste, entered graduate school in the 1970s, he was the only student the school did not match with a Ph.D. supervisor. “Nobody wanted to take me,” Kale said. In Indian culture today, caste, which is defined by family of origin, functions similarly to race in America. Visual: Ankur Paliwal for Undark

The village was peaceful as long as Dalits followed the Hindu caste hierarchy. “You know your limits,” Kale recalled. “The moment lower caste crosses the limit, ignorantly or otherwise,” anything can happen, he said. Once, when Kale was a kid, he recalled holding the hand of a higher-caste boy to cross a river in the village. A furor erupted. An older upper-caste person from the village warned parents of both boys that such close contact should never happen again.

Against staggering odds, Kale excelled in academic science. He fought his way through the upper-caste dominated School of Life Sciences, became its dean, and received a prestigious award for his contributions to radiation and cancer biology research. In 2014, he completed his tenure in one of the top academic posts — vice chancellor of a university — in India.

But his story remains rare. In 2011, around 17 percent of India’s population, which now totals over 1.3 billion people, were Dalits, who are officially referred to as “Scheduled Castes” in government records. Caste discrimination is illegal, and India’s reservation policy — a form of affirmative action that has been around since 1950 — currently mandates that 15 percent of students and staff at government research and education institutes, with some exceptions, come from the Dalit community. But records obtained by Undark under India’s Right to Information Act from some of the country’s flagship scientific institutions, along with data from government reports and student groups, reveal a different picture.

At the elite Indian Institutes of Technology in Delhi, Mumbai, Kanpur, Kharagpur, and Madras, the proportion of Dalit researchers admitted to doctoral programs ranged from 6 percent (at IIT Delhi) to 14 percent (at IIT Kharagpur) in 2019, the most recent year obtained by Undark. At the Indian Institute of Science, or IISc, in Bengaluru, 12 percent of researchers admitted to doctoral programs in 2020 were Dalits. And at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research — a major government research institution — of the 33 laboratories that responded to Undark’s data requests, just 12 met the 15 percent threshold.

The numbers are even lower among senior academics. IIT Bombay, in Mumbai, and IIT Delhi had no Dalit professors at all in 2020 — compared with 324 and 218 professors, respectively, in the General Category, which includes upper-caste Hindus and some members of religious minorities, like Muslims. (In India, the term “professor” refers to senior-ranking positions and does not include assistant or associate professors.) IISc had two Dalit professors and 205 General Category professors in 2020. None of the department heads at IISc were Dalit last year. And five out of the seven science schools of Jawaharlal Nehru University did not have a single Dalit professor.

Similar disparities exist in other professions in India; Dalits face continued discrimination and violence from upper-caste people across the country. But researchers who study casteism in science say that even as Dalits have mobilized for their rights, they have encountered distinctive barriers in scientific institutions, which remain especially resistant to reservation policies and other reforms. At a time of growing attention to inequities in global science, those barriers leave Dalits systematically underrepresented in the major research and academic institutes of the world’s largest democracy.

Undark sent repeated interview requests to the directors of IISc and five leading IITs. Only one responded, but declined to comment. In interviews, some upper-caste researchers said that finding qualified Dalit researchers can be difficult. “When you’d sit in the interview board, you will find out yourself,” said Umesh Kulshrestha, the dean of Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of Environmental Sciences, who is upper caste. Some Dalit candidates “can’t answer even easy questions,” he said, later adding that he has “some good quality Dalit researchers” in the school. Several other upper-caste researchers simply denied that caste prejudice was common in Indian science, saying that they didn’t believe in caste.

But interviews with Dalit scientists and scholars show a different picture — one in which systematic discrimination, institutional barriers, and frequent humiliation make it difficult to thrive at every step of their training.

* * *

Kale was born in 1950 — three years after India became free from British rule, and the same year India’s constitution came into force. That constitution abolished untouchability and declared caste discrimination illegal. It also introduced reservation policies in public sector jobs, politics, and education for marginalized communities, including Dalits and Indigenous groups known as Adivasis. By the 1970s, the government had settled on the 15 percent quota for Dalits that’s still in place today.

Caste discrimination, however, continued. Sitting on his balcony in Pune, Kale described how casteism followed him on his path to higher education. As a small child, he studied in a public school with only one teacher. When the teacher died of cholera, the school closed. Kale walked to a nearby village every other Sunday to meet the headmaster of a bigger school there and ask when he’d get a new instructor. Eventually, the headmaster, who was Dalit, invited Kale to join his school and stay with him. “He really treated me like his son,” said Kale. He would later dedicate his Ph.D. thesis to the headmaster.

When Kale was in the sixth grade, and attending a new school, a teacher invited him over to take special classes at his home. When Kale arrived, the teacher’s wife was going to offer him some food in a “tasla” — an iron pan that laborers use to carry mud — instead of a plate. Kale refused both the meal and the classes.

But he kept getting grades so good that he eventually won admission to Milind College of Science — part of a group of colleges founded by Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a Dalit leader and lawyer who is sometimes compared to Martin Luther King Jr.

In the late 1940s, a couple of years before Milind College opened, the Indian government began planning to set up a network of exclusive technical institutes to train engineers and scientists who would help build a new India. The first branch of the Indian Institute of Technology, or IIT, opened in 1951 near Kharagpur, and the government soon termed the schools “institutions of national importance.” At the time, a government committee described advanced scientific research as the work of a “few men of high caliber,” the Harvard University anthropologist Ajantha Subramanian writes in “The Caste of Merit,” a study of caste and engineering education in India. IITs were highly selective, and upper-caste Indians quickly dominated their ranks, despite the official reservation policies.

In the early 1970s, when Kale was applying to graduate schools, he didn’t seriously consider IITs, which he said looked like “closed spaces.” Instead, he enrolled in Marathwada University, in Maharashtra state. Part of a wave of new, more democratic state institutions, the university had become a fertile ground for student movements. (It has since been renamed in honor of Ambedkar.) Kale decided to study chemistry, partly because he thought that could get him a job as a chemical engineer in the fast-industrializing country. As the eldest sibling, Kale wanted to support his family as soon as possible. But at same time, he said, “I had an internal desire to get as much education as I can and the highest honorable degree.” So instead of heading straight into the workforce, he began considering doctoral programs.

Kale used some of his saved-up scholarship money to buy a train ticket to New Delhi, where he would take the Ph.D. entrance exam for Jawaharlal Nehru University, or JNU, which attracted students for its interdisciplinary approach, and where Kale’s battle against institutional casteism would begin.

* * *

A few weeks after the JNU faculty failed to match Kale with a Ph.D. supervisor, they offered him a mentor in a different field from the one he hoped to study. He began contemplating what to do next. He learned that Araga Ramesha Rao, a radiation biology researcher, had worked at a cancer research institute in Mumbai, a field he wanted to pursue. Kale managed to arrange a meeting. After several discussions Rao, who has since died, agreed to supervise the aspiring scientist. He did so, Kale said, despite the advice of an upper-caste colleague who urged Rao to avoid mentoring a Dalit student. (Kale was careful to clarify that various upper-caste colleagues, like Rao, supported him throughout the years.)

Alok Bhattacharya, who later joined the school as an associate professor, and belongs to an upper caste, said experiences like Kale’s are not uncommon, and that the only form of discrimination he has observed in his career is that the “lower caste” students faced difficulty in getting a supervisor: “They are the last ones to be picked.”

Kale completed his Ph.D. in 1980, and the school hired him as an assistant professor the next year. But Kale had to wait 17 years to become a professor — much slower than some of his upper-caste peers.

Kulshrestha, the dean of the School of Environmental Sciences at JNU, and Pawan Dhar, a professor and former dean of the School of Biotechnology, both said that delays in promotions are common for researchers, irrespective of caste. But Govardhan Wankhede, a Dalit sociologist and former dean of the School of Education at the Mumbai-based Tata Institute of Social Sciences, believes that Dalits tend to face more delays, something he said he has experienced firsthand. According to Dhar, there’s little data analysis on caste-based discrimination in promotions — a gap, he said, that he hopes future research will address.

As Kale was waiting on his promotion, he was also waiting to get a lab to advance his research on making radiation therapy more effective in cancer treatment. While administrators gave most of his upper-caste peers their own laboratory space, Kale said, he worked out of a small corner office with broken furniture. When a senior professor vacated his lab to move to a bigger one, Kale declared the space his own. The ploy worked. “You have to have decency for some time, but not beyond certain limit. If it is your right, you have to snatch it,” he said. “We cannot wait.”

Over the years, Kale held several positions, including dean of students and head of the equal opportunity office at JNU. He would invite Dalit students from his and nearby villages to stay with him, helping them navigate the admissions process for universities. Kale also became the chairperson of the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies in New Delhi, and served on a government committee on Dalit and Adivasi reservation in universities.

Despite his success, all through his career, Kale said, he has feared just one thing — making mistakes. He and several Dalit researchers described experiencing a constant internal pressure to prove themselves in institutions dominated by upper-caste researchers who think Dalits don’t deserve to be there. “If I do a mistake, it is not my mistake,” said Kale. Instead, he said, it would be labeled “the mistake of the community.”

* * *

In the late 1990s, when Kale became a professor at JNU, he sat on a committee to select junior researchers at the Nuclear Science Center, about a mile away from the university in New Delhi. Among the candidates was a Dalit researcher named Rajendra Sonkawade. “He was the best among the lot,” recalled Kale. Sonkawade got the job.

Like Kale, Sonkawade had grown up in the western state of Maharashtra and planned to become an engineer. After high school, he applied to some engineering colleges but couldn’t score high enough to gain admission. He enrolled instead at Marathwada University, where he excelled in physics.

As Sonkawade worked his way through graduate school, the Dalit movement gained momentum in Indian politics, and the Bahujan Samaj Party, a pro-Dalit political party, rose to power in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh.

During the same time, though, India witnessed new opposition by upper-caste Hindus against the reservation policies. In 1990, the Indian government announced that it would implement a commission’s recommendation to expand reservation policies to include Other Backward Classes, an official designation for various other marginalized castes. Adding to the existing quotas, the new policy meant that 49.5 percent of seats were now, at least officially, reserved for lower-caste candidates. “Merit in an elitist society is not something inherent,” the commission had argued in its report, “but is the consequence of environmental privileges enjoyed by the members of higher castes.”

That “ignited a firestorm,” Subramanian writes in “The Caste of Merit.” “Upper-caste students took to the streets, staging sit-ins; setting up road blockades; and masquerading as vendors, sweepers, and shoe shiners in a graphic depiction of their future reduction to lower-caste labor.” More than 60 upper-caste students, many of whom said they were protesting the new policy, died by suicide.

The tension was palpable in educational and research institutes. At the Nuclear Science Center — later renamed the Inter-University Accelerator Center, or IUAC — Sonkawade began to study radiation safety. Often, he said, he would hear some of his upper-caste colleagues say that Dalits were incompetent. Frustrated, he waited for the standard new-employee probationary period to end. Then Sonkawade worked with Dalit and Adivasi researchers in the institute to form an association to represent their rights.

“We became more active with our demands,” said Sonkawade, thumping his palm on the table in his office at Shivaji University, in the west Indian city of Kolhapur, where he now teaches physics. On the wall to his right were some photographs, including one of Ambedkar, whom Sonkawade calls his role model.

After forming the association, Sonkawade began to push IUAC to set up a special committee to tackle Dalit and Adivasi issues to ensure implementation of the reservation policy — something required of government-funded institutes, but which the school had not established. His group also asked for the representation of marginalized communities in the governing boards of the institute.

Described by Kale as “the best among the lot” of junior researcher candidates, Rajendra Sonkawade was hired in the 1990s at what is now called the Inter-University Accelerator Center, where he began advocating for the rights of lower-caste researchers. In his office at Shivaji University, a portrait of Dalit leader Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar hangs on the wall next to an image of Mahatma Gandhi. Visual: Ankur Paliwal for Undark

While Kale was tactful in navigating institutional casteism, Sonkawade was more confrontational. His advocacy soon brought him into conflict with the IUAC administration, several of his colleagues said. “He became very unpopular,” Debashish Sen, a scientist at IUAC, recalled. Others felt, Sen said, that Sonkawade was operating out of his own self-interest rather than for the betterment of his community.

In interviews, many of Sonkawade’s colleagues described him as hard working. But, around the mid-2000s, the scores on Sonkawade’s annual performance reports — essential for promotion — began to drop. Sonkawade was overlooking his responsibilities in the lab, said Devesh Kumar Avasthi, a senior scientist who was one of the evaluators of Sonkawade’s performance. But Satya Pal Lochab, who oversaw the lab in which Sonkawade worked and also participated in the evaluations, said that his “anti-establishment activities” affected his scores. Eventually, the lagging scores delayed a promotion.

Dinakar Kanjilal and Amit Roy, both former directors of IUAC, said the delay in promotion had nothing to do with caste. In national labs, “I don’t see anybody bother about caste,” said Kanjilal, who is upper-caste. “They see your contribution.”

Feeling harassed, Sonkawade left and joined Shivaji University. Even at his new post, he kept pushing IUAC to recognize that it had owed him a promotion. Although IUAC eventually yielded — and Sonkawade said he won partial backpay. By that point, he said, the promotion “wasn’t of any use” for his career. “The whole system was against me,” he said. “I paid the price for speaking up.” An IUAC employee who used to field discrimination complaints confirmed seeing many cases where Dalits received performance review scores just a few decimal points below the requirement for promotion. The person requested anonymity, fearing reprisal from the institute.

Between 2018 and 2020, Sonkawade was invited to interview for the position of vice chancellor at three universities in Maharashtra, and for the director’s position at IUAC. In at least three of those four cases, an upper-caste person was chosen.

After his promotion was delayed due to lower scores on his annual performance reports, Sonkawade joined Shivaji University, where he teaches physics today. A senior scientist who participated in the evaluations said that Sonkawade’s “anti-establishment activities” affected his scores. Visual: Ankur Paliwal for Undark

* * *

Even as Dalit researchers like Sonkawade and Kale recount fighting against casteism, many upper-caste researchers describe themselves as caste-blind, or beyond caste — a phenomenon, critics say, that has made it more difficult to address ongoing disparities in top scientific institutions.

In 2012, social anthropologist Renny Thomas joined a chemistry laboratory at the Indian Institute of Sciences to study caste dynamics at the institute, arguably India’s most elite science university. That year, he interviewed 80 researchers, and later observed a cultural festival celebrated at the institute. Again and again, Thomas found, Brahmin researchers denied that caste existed in their lives or on the campus. “Caste!?? Oh, Please! I have nothing to do with caste,” one molecular biologist from a Brahmin family told Thomas, according to a paper he published last year. “It never registered in my mind.”

Such claims aren’t limited to academic science. In a 2013 paper, University of Delhi sociologist Satish Deshpande argued that for many upper-caste Indians, caste is “a ladder that can now be safely kicked away,” but only after they convert those high-caste privileges into other forms of status, such as “property, higher educational credentials, and strongholds in lucrative professions.” Many Dalits, Kale said, would also like to forget their caste. But upper-caste people, he added, “don’t let us.”

Interviews with young Dalit scientists, along with a growing body of academic work, detail the obstacles Dalits still face on their path through scientific training. Those barriers begin early: Just getting into science and engineering education has been a challenging and uncommon choice for Dalit students in the first place, according to Wankhede, the educational sociologist. “Science education is very expensive. Highly inaccessible,” he said. Students pay higher tuition rates for science courses than in other areas, because they are required to take additional classes to do experiments. And to keep up with their coursework, science students often pay for instruction in pricey private academies called coaching institutes, something many Dalit families cannot afford.

For those Dalits who make it into elite scientific institutes, cultural barriers remind them of the caste divide. During his time at IISc, Thomas found that his lower-caste and Dalit sources identified reflections of upper caste culture throughout the institute. Thomas focused on the Carnatic music concerts that Brahmin students organized. Traditionally, Carnatic music, a type of classical music, has long been the domain of Brahmins in southern India. In one instance at IISc, after the singer finished her song, the Brahmin audience continued singing, showing their familiarity with the art form, writes Thomas. But such events alienated researchers who were not Brahmin. One saw Carnatic music as a “symbol of domination” and said he preferred “folk songs and songs of resistance by Dalit reformers.”

“The mindset remains extraordinarily Brahminical in these elite institutions,” said Abha Sur, a historian of science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has written about caste and gender in Indian science. That mindset, she added, tacitly aligns itself with caste hierarchy: “There is implicit devaluation of people that continuously erodes their sense of self.”

In a predominantly Dalit neighborhood of Mumbai, people gather around a statue of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar to read their newspapers. Ambedkar, a Dalit leader who founded a group of colleges, is sometimes compared to Martin Luther King Jr. To many, the casteism Ambedkar fought against still exists today. Visual: Ankur Paliwal for Undark

Undark spoke with eight early-career Dalit science researchers who declined to be identified, fearing retaliation from their institutions or harm to their careers. Most described receiving humiliating reminders about using reservation quotas from upper-caste students and teachers, which implied they weren’t there on their own merit. Many also said their institutes make no effort to create awareness about casteism, and just overlook it. “It seems that the untouchability still exists, but in a different form,” said one student, who’s pursuing a Ph.D. in engineering at IISc.

These tensions sometimes bubble into the public eye. In 2007, for example, a government committee found widespread discrimination and harassment against Dalit and Adivasi students at the All India Institute of Medical Science in New Delhi. The humiliation and abuse by upper-caste students was so bad, the committee reported, that Dalit and Adivasi students had moved to the two top floors of their hostels, seeking safety together.

In 2016, Rohith Vemula, a Dalit Ph.D. researcher at Hyderabad University, died by suicide. The press reported that discrimination at the university had contributed to Vemula’s death. His loss sparked outrage on several campuses across India and led to the formation of more student organizations like Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle, which offer support to Dalit and other oppressed castes.

In a copy of one 2019 discrimination complaint leaked to Undark, a Dalit Ph.D. student at IISc describes experiencing several instances of caste discrimination. In one incident detailed in the report, the student’s supervisor didn’t let him enter a lab where cells are grown in a carefully controlled environment, saying he was “not clean.” Later, the supervisor justified his actions by saying that the student sometimes scratched his skin. The report alleges that the student’s supervisors also kept delaying a critical exam required within two years of starting a Ph.D., saying the student had not gathered enough data. But, the student said in the complaint, other students from the same lab had taken the exam with far less data. The student asked for a transfer to another lab, where he passed the exam and transitioned to a senior fellow position.

Such formal complaints may be relatively rare. Akshay Sawant, an upper-caste member of Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle, a student organization at IIT Bombay, said that discrimination cases remain underreported because students fear retaliation from their upper-caste supervisors. The special Dalit and Adivasi affairs committee at IIT Bombay received only one complaint between 2019 and 2020, which, as of May, was still being investigated. IISc received three complaints in 2020, of which two, as of late April, were unresolved.

Caste divisions occasionally spill over into scientific communities beyond India’s borders. Since the mid-1960s, for example, United States policies designed to incentivize the immigration of skilled STEM professionals have led hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers — most of them upper-caste — to move from India to the U.S. In June 2020, California state regulators sued the technology company Cisco Systems, alleging that two upper-caste supervisors had harassed and discriminated against a Dalit employee. According to the complaint, one of the supervisors had disclosed the engineer’s caste to colleagues, telling them he had attended an IIT in India under the country’s reservation policy. The complaint also states the engineer was subjected to a hostile work environment and pay discrimination based on his caste. (The hearings have been postponed until September of this year.) ­­­

A 2016 survey by Equality Labs, a progressive Dalit civil rights organization, found that 67 percent of Dalits in the Indian diaspora in the U.S. reported facing caste-based harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In Silicon Valley, most of the Indians come from institutions “where caste discrimination is rampant,” Subramanian wrote in an email to Undark. “Therefore, the entry of caste discrimination into the American tech sector is not in the least bit surprising.” 

* * *

When Kale entered graduate school in the 1970s, there were no Dalit role models for him in science. Fifty years later, many early-career Dalit researchers say the same.

One early-career Dalit scientist willing to speak openly about her experiences is Shalini Mahadev, a researcher pursuing a doctorate in neural and cognitive sciences at the University of Hyderabad, one of India’s top-ranked universities. In an interview, Mahadev said she badly wants to see more senior scientists from her community, and to have teachers who can relate to the life experiences of students like her. “Having them in your classroom, in your research, in your lab is something else, because you are coming with so many anxieties, you know,” she said. “And you are feeling inefficient all the time.”

Mahadev is in her late 30s and grew up in Hyderabad. Her father, who was part of the first generation in his family to go to school, had received an engineering diploma — a specialized course shorter than an undergraduate degree — in order to get a job quickly. Her mother discontinued her studies after marrying young. The family had modest resources, and Mahadev remembers feeling intense pressure to study and perform. Her father told her that he has always lived with a gnawing feeling that he couldn’t study more, and that he didn’t want her to feel the same way, recalled Mahadev.

After high school, Mahadev took a break to prepare for national examinations to become a doctor. Like many students in India, she turned to coaching institutes that help students prepare for the exam. The atmosphere in these institutes is extremely competitive. On her first day of classes, she said, teachers would ask Dalit students to stand up, while upper-caste students sat in their chairs. The teachers would tell the Dalit students that, even if they didn’t study hard or get great marks, they were likely to get admission in medical colleges because of reservation policies — unlike the upper-caste students who needed to study harder.

Standing in the class, Mahadev could feel the eyes of her upper-caste classmates on her. Teachers “are already making people hate me,” she remembers thinking. As demeaning incidents piled up, Mahadev said, she began avoiding going to the institute. Eventually, she decided she didn’t want to become a doctor. Instead, she chose to study biology, because she liked learning about genes. Later, she became fascinated with neurons. Today, she studies the connection between neurons and the sense of hearing in grasshoppers.

Reminders of caste shadowed her. On campus, she said, upper-caste people would assert their status in subtle ways — through what they wore, how they talked, even how they walked. At one point, when Mahadev was a junior research fellow, another fellow told her that science is not for poor people, she recalled. That broke Mahadev’s heart, because it also seemed true to her. In her view, historically, “science was only done by rich people,” she said — people who have the time and resources to pursue it. And for Mahadev, time often seemed scarce: Living in a neighborhood on the outskirts of Hyderabad, she spent four to six hours each day commuting via bus between her house and the university, until she could finally get a place in the university hostel.

Many elite institutes have resisted change. In April 2020, following growing criticism in Indian media about the low representation of marginalized communities at IITs, India’s Department of Higher Education formed a committee to suggest ways to implement the reservation policy. The committee, in its report, said that because few students from the “reserved category” receive Ph.D.s, few are available to be hired as teachers or researchers. The committee also recommended that IITs, as “institutes of national importance,” should be exempted from following the reservation policy in hiring teachers.

In interviews, many upper-caste scientists made similar points about the reservation policy, arguing that reservation for marginalized communities is essential only to a certain level, like admission to doctoral programs, but shouldn’t apply at senior positions. Reservation at the level of professors will be “detrimental to the overall academic ecosystem of the country,” said Arindam Ghosh, an upper-caste physicist at IISc. Only “capable people with vision,” he added, whichever community they are from, should lead research.

But, some Dalit researchers say, sometimes reservation is the only way they get senior positions. Raju Nivarti Gacche, a cancer biologist, said he got his current professor post in the biotechnology department at Savitribai Phule Pune University because it was reserved for Dalits. Gacche has published in top journals, including Oncogenesis, a Nature publication. Still, he said, each time he applied for an un-reserved post, he was rejected.

The argument that reservation undercuts excellence is a “casteist assumption intended to maintain the upper-caste stranglehold of these institutions,” said Subramanian. Sundar Sarukkai, a philosopher of science who has written about caste, agreed. “Reservation has to be followed with your eyes shut,” he said. “We have not built the kind of maturity and systems to say ‘I’m going to take the best person independent of caste.'”

Sarukkai advocates for making science more equitable and inclusive, which he said he thinks could produce “new forms of thinking” about science. Diversity of thought “expands the horizon of scientific investigation,” said Rohini Godbole, an upper-caste physicist at IISc. “If we don’t tap it, it’s going to get lost.” Some researchers say that their caste experiences do shape their scientific questions. Vidyadhar Atkore, an ecologist at the Salim Ali Center for Ornithology and Natural History in Coimbatore, said that ecologists from his Dalit community sometimes want their research to intersect with issues related to caste — for example, applying fisheries science to improve the livelihood of marginalized communities. But for that, he added, they need supervisors who “understand their questions” and an academic space to pursue them, which isn’t always available.

For Mahadev, even reaching a place where she can do advanced interdisciplinary science still feels determined, to some extent, by her caste. A lot of success, she said, seems to emerge from the kind of environment upper-caste families experience: one in which reading and extracurricular activities are encouraged, and where friends and relatives can offer career advice. “Are parents from marginalized communities able to give that to their children?” she asked. And outside the home, the discrimination and judgements in science institutes make the journey of a Dalit researcher a constant battle. Just speaking up, she said, is a fight.

Sur, the historian of science from MIT, noted that when the Black Lives Matter movement resonated in U.S. science corridors as #ShutDownSTEM last year, it was outside social pressure that drove the changes in scientific communities. In India too, for the current situation to change, she said, scientists would need to join forces with a broader intersectional Dalit movement.

When he spoke with Undark early this year, Kale was reading “Caste,” the New York Times-bestselling book by Isabel Wilkerson, a Black American writer who draws parallels between the caste system in India, racial hierarchies in the U.S., and policies in Nazi Germany, arguing that “caste is the infrastructure of our divisions.” While Kale discussed these issues back in January, the Indian media continued to report on ongoing atrocities against Dalits, including the rape of a Dalit girl by upper-caste men in September 2020 in northern India.

As Kale reflected on the events, the afternoon sun was descending behind buildings outside the balcony of his apartment. Kale’s forehead creased. “I think the society is going backwards,” he said. “I am very worried.” Kale believes that Dalits and their supporters are fighting hard, but that there have only been small changes.

For a big change, a national-level movement needs to emerge, he said: “We need a storm.”

* * *

Ankur Paliwal is an independent journalist who writes about science and inequality. He currently lives in New Delhi.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Cynthia Barnett is listening to seashells — and what they’re prophesying doesn’t bode well

We eat out of them. We use them as currency. We pick them out of the sand on a sunny summer day, and carry them home like treasures. We hold them up to our ears. But Cynthia Barnett is actually listening to them.

In “The Sound of the Sea: Seashells and the Fate of the Oceans,” Florida author Cynthia Barnett takes us on a global tour of archeology, anthropology and environmental science, by way of what she describes as “perhaps the most loved objects in nature.” It’s clear from Barnett’s exhaustive research how our deep fondness for shells can and should be our way in to protecting them — and ourselves, by extension — from climate change, from overfishing, from our reckless relationship with our planet. Yet this not a scolding book; it’s an awestruck travelogue and appreciation of something beautiful.

I read this wise, often funny book over my own recent vacation. I was on Cape Cod, staying at a spot where the beaches and the souvenir shops and the restaurants were awash in shells and shell imagery. With each page, Barnett’s meticulous insights soon had me marveling with new appreciation — if not full blown conchylomania (shell collecting madness). I spoke to Barnett recently about her work, conservation, and why shells make great fact-checkers. As always, our interview has been condensed and edited for print.

Your book has so much humor, and such a sense of marvel and delight. It was infused with a light touch about complicated things.

That is a really tough balance to strike. You’re trying to write about climate change and bring people into the stories of what’s happening to the sea and its life and to the earth. But I think it’s important to draw people with laughter, and just remember the joy of life that animals themselves exude.

You remind me of the line where you talk about having empathy for these “soft, vulnerable animals.” You spent six years in this world. What was it that drew you to taking on such a huge topic?

In some ways it’s such a tiny topic. I also teach science journalism and environmental journalism, and one thing we always talk about to young people is how to take a really small thing to tell a big story.

The way this started was not something I had been thinking about for a long time, by any means. I had been invited to a small seashell museum on Sanibel Island to give a talk about a previous book. I was having dinner with the director after the talk and I learned that they had surveyed visitors to find out how much visitors already knew about seashells.

These are mostly tourists visiting Florida with their children. The survey had revealed that 90% of visitors to this museum didn’t know that a seashell was made by a living animal. This includes children, but most of the visitors thought that they were some kind of a rock or a stone. I was just so moved by that. I was disturbed by that. I kind of couldn’t stop thinking about it. I had wanted to write next about the oceans, because my previous books were about fresh water. Then I wrote a natural and cultural history of rain. Tor me, this is a really nice conclusion of the hydrologic cycle. But when I heard that statistic, that night, I couldn’t stop thinking about it as I was falling asleep. I think by the time I fell asleep, I knew that I was going to write this book.

I did love seashells as a child, although I’ve never been in an obsessive collector. I think you either have the collecting gene or you don’t. That’s something that really hit me because I interviewed people over these years who are really obsessed collectors. But I find, like everybody, seashells extraordinarily beautiful.

I think they’re perhaps the most loved object in nature, and a really collectible object. I came to think of them as really good ambassadors for what’s happening to the ocean, and also the perfect metaphor, because we’ve loved seashells for their gorgeous exterior rather than the life inside. In just that way, we’ve loved the oceans as the beautiful backdrop of life. As a postcard, without really understanding what’s happening beneath the waves or without understanding the oceans as the very source of life. I really was thinking of that broader audience of people and how to bring them into these stories of what’s happening with climate change and what’s happening with the seas.

I didn’t know that shells are a profound window into our historical climate and environmental change. Can you explain what shells can tell us?

Mollusks use biomineralization, that is, chemicals and minerals in the surrounding environment, to build their shells. The carbon dioxide we send into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has turned the sea water about 30% more acidic than it was at the start of the industrial era. Climate change in the ocean has begun to limit the carbonate that mollusks use to make their shells. Acidic waters are also boring into some shells, pitting or eroding them. Two big things are happening to shelled animals. One is that stress from ocean acidification is making it harder to build shells.

But secondly, there’s the warming oceans, and this is something I’m not sure how well people understand. The oceans have protected us from so much warming already. They’ve absorbed some 90% of Earth’s warming in the past century. That heat is transferred to the oceans and the animals to live in the ocean. Some parts of the oceans have already become too warm for marine mollusks. More recently, in the Pacific Northwest during that late June heat wave that we had, that heat dome killed some billion marine tidal animals, including mussels, clams and oysters. It’s really all around us and all over the Earth.

How did you approach this book in terms of looking at it from the archeological side, the anthropological side? There are so many different aspects of the story of shells and our own relationship to them.

I thought the human side was really important. I approached it from the standpoint of humanity and archeology and our lives with shells. There’s something fundamentally aesthetic for us about seashells, something that really pleases the brain. It turns out that that has been true since pre-humanity. You might remember the fossilized mussel shells at the Solo River in Indonesia at the site of Java Man. They had those geometric zigzags that are considered some of the oldest known art. But it also represents something more. It represents that early human cognition. I open the book with imagining a Neanderthal girl collecting seashells 100,000 years ago.

That was based on science, the science that archeologists know from the seashells that have been found in Neanderthal caves in Spain. What was important about those shells is that they helped scientists overturn these assumptions and poorly conceived science that Neanderthals were dimwitted brutes. Everywhere I went in the history and in the archeology, I found that shells were great fact-checkers, because they tell a story more accurately than the vanquishers who tend to write history.

That was true in every chapter of this book. That was really true in some of the colonial history that comes with the Taíno people of the Caribbean. The only written records we have are what the Spanish wrote about the Taíno, but their shells tell their story more accurately than those written records. That was true of the Calusa and the Cahokia. That’s a beautiful thing in both the science and the humanities, that the seashells told the best stories, or I should say the most accurate stories.

As you point out, it’s the people who had the closest relationships with the shells, who had the deeper understanding of the environment.

I loved the story of the Zuni. When we think about the history of science, we so often talk about the Greeks and the Romans and what they knew and how bright and prescient they were. But from the fossilized marine animals in what is now the American Southwest, the Zuni knew and believed that the sea had once covered the land and that these were living creatures that lived a very long time ago. It was all part of their cosmology.

I found all of that fascinating. That was the case in many different cultures. We’re learning that’s true in so many other ways now, such as with the wildfires that have been burning in the west and are becoming worse because of the warming world. Indigenous people had ways of managing fire that we have ignored that we’re finally paying attention to. I think the same is true with marine conservation and how we live with the seas and our coastlines. Shells say a lot about all of those things.

There is a store in Provincetown that sells seashells. You go in watch people clustering around shells. You take that shell back home with you and it serves as this talisman, this object of beauty. But a shell is also food.

I had to make a conscious decision pretty early on that this book wasn’t going to be about shellfish. At some point I decided to organize it around seashells that have been the most iconic to humanity. The first chapter is about those marine micro mollusks that came long ago before marine mollusks. I built the chapters around seashells that were iconic to us, but some of those are eating seashells, and those include the bay scallop, the giant clam and the queen conch.

So another thing I try to do in this book is I really try to be honest and humble and not preachy about my own life with shells and with the ocean. I grew up spear fishing with my father who also collected all different kinds of conchs to eat. When my kids were younger, I always took them scalloping. Through telling those stories, I am learning about the pressure on wild shellfish, including bay scallops. I hope that I am showing the reader that there are more sustainable ways to enjoy shellfish.

By the end of the book, I’m not eating wild scallops, but I’m still enjoying the Gulf of Mexico, and going to look at scallops with my mask and snorkel and taking lots of pictures. But I don’t think I would ever eat another wild scallop having written this book. I do eat aqua-cultured shellfish.

I think the important thing is to help people understand that we’re in this transition, and we can do this. We can do this like we’ve done other big things, like stopped killing plume birds in the early 20th century. Our ethics change over time and our ethical relationships with animals change over time. This is an example of that. It’s an evolution that we’re experiencing. There are some really great aquaculture projects going on with shellfish that are very promising all over the world, that also represent part of the solution for conserving the oceans and for helping us adapt to climate change. My hope is that seashells help draw a broader audience to some of those really deep and important stories — and those solutions.

This book makes a case of contextualizing that shells are also animals. Our relationship with them is as objects and objects desire, but they are also, as you put it, these very vulnerable living creatures.

It’s so interesting, the money we spend to conserve say, sea turtles and pandas. I do think it has a lot to do with their relatability and the fact that they look at us with those big eyes that look almost human. There are these extraordinary animals in the oceans and also on the land that are equally important to ecosystems and to the earth. Marine mollusks are among those. And they do have fabulous eyes, but just sometimes they’re on tentacles. 

4 steps to an (almost) bug-less garden

“Something is eating my so-and-so plant, what should I spray?” is a question I get asked . . . very often. My answer is always short and rather brusque: “Nothing, before you know what you’re up against.”

There are almost one million insect species in the world but only three percent of them are viewed as pests. Indiscriminately treating anything that visits your garden plants in search of food or shelter with a wide-spectrum insecticide does more harm than good, because it kills everything that crawls and flies, including beneficial insects and the pollinators we need so badly. It’s also a waste of time, effort, and money — plus, it can create a health hazard for humans and pets.

Here are four essential steps you should take for targeted, sensible pest control:

* * *

1. Identify your enemy

With mobile apps like Picture Insect and iNaturalist, you can identify an insect by uploading a photo. Some apps ask you to provide the location, which helps to narrow down the search. Googling descriptive keywords can also give you the answer. When I search for “spit on plant leaves” it leads me to the spittlebug and I learn that what looks like spit is created by the nymphs (the immature insects) as a way to protect them from predators and insulate them from temperature extremes and low humidity. I also learn that while spittlebugs feed on many plants, they create little damage. It’s just that we humans are freaked out by what looks like spit. It can simply be washed off — end of story.

The plant on which you find an insect also gives you important cues about what it could be. Garden pests are often highly specialized and named after their favorite food: cabbagewormcorn earwormtomato hornworm, Colorado potato beetle, cucumber beetle, pea weevil, pepper maggot, Mexican bean beetle, and so on. These pests often go after other members of the plant family too. Colorado potato beetles, for example, feeds on other nightshade plants: eggplant, pepper, tomato, ground cherry, and tomatillo.

When trying to identify omnivore insects such as aphids, leaf miners, spider mites, or Japanese beetles, it helps to include the geographical location (state) and month in your search.

2. Know the pest’s life cycle 

Once you have positively identified the insect as a pest, learn about its life cycle, as the type of damage greatly depends on which stage an insect is in its life cycle. For some insects like cutworms, it’s the larvae that do the damage, in others, such as the tarnished plant bug, it’s the nymphs and adults that severely damage vegetables, berries, fruit trees, and ornamental plants. Also, insects can go through one or more generations per year.

Equipped with this information, get ready. Have your Japanese beetle traps lined up once the adults emerge and appear in your neighborhood, and get floating row covers for vegetable plants. You can also adjust your planting schedule. I gave up on growing arugula in my garden in the spring because flea beetles left the leaves looking like a window screen. In the fall, flea beetles are much less numerous and we get to eat the arugula. Flea beetles also used to ravage my young eggplants, so I had them growing in a high tunnel and only uncovered them in mid-summer when the plants were sturdy and less vulnerable.

3. Assess the damage

Next, determine whether the damage is so bad that it requires action. Keep in mind that not all damage is caused by bad bugs. Beneficial insects need to eat as well! Leafcutter bees, for example, are important native pollinators, but they chew round holes in plants with thin, smooth leaves like roses, azaleas, and bougainvillea, to build their nests.

If the damage is caused by a real pest, and it’s severe to the point where it defoliates or threatens to kill the plant, or makes crops unsightly or inedible, then the next step is to combat it.

Damage caused by pests do not necessarily come from the pests themselves, it can also come from a disease they transmit. For example, the cucumber beetle can transmit bacterial wilt and squash mosaic virus, both serious plant diseases that will destroy a crop. In these cases, controlling the pest before it can infect the plant is crucial.

4. Find the right treatment

Conventional or organic insecticides are only one option to fight garden pests. You can also protect plants with mechanical barriers such as tunnels, floating row covers, or put up sticky traps. Another option is to plant pest-resistant varieties or make plants unpalatable for hungry insects with natural products such as diatomaceous earth, a talc-like powder made of the ground-up diatomic fossils. You can also encourage predatory insects such as the parasitic wasp that will eat the tomato hornworm. If you don’t have these good guys in your yard, you can purchase them from companies that specialize in biological pest control.

If you choose to use an insecticide, make sure that it is specifically designed for the pest and the life stage it’s at. Timing and the right conditions for pesticide application are also crucial. Milky spore, which is a popular biological control of Japanese beetles, should be applied in the early fall when the grubs are feeding and when there is more likelihood of rainfall, because milky spore should be watered in.

For pest prevention, meticulous garden hygiene is important so that pests won’t overwinter.

* * *

Also: Ugly guys can be good guys 

Some of the beneficial insects that prey on garden pests — ladybugs, lacewings, praying mantids, hoverflies — are beautiful, but don’t be fooled by appearances. The wheel bug, the largest of the assassin bugs, looks like it comes right out of a horror movie; however, it’s a highly beneficial insect. Assassin bugs stab their prey with their long mouthparts and they do not sting humans unless they feel threatened. A few years ago, I made the mistake of rolling up a car window with a wheel bug stuck in it, and got stung, which was quite painful for weeks. I preserved the bug in alcohol and sent it to our local Extension Office which promptly identified it for me (your local Extension Office is an excellent destination for all your gardening questions, by the way). Now, I stay at a safe distance when I see a wheel bug and I think of all the bad guys this creature keeps at bay.

A terrifying new theory: Fake news and conspiracy theories as an evolutionary strategy

Political misinformation — whether “fake news,” conspiracy theories or outright lying — has often been attributed to widespread ignorance, even though there are numerous examples of 20th-century propaganda aimed at those most attentive to politics. Books like Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” began to challenge that notion, as did the 1991 study of media coverage of the first Gulf War with the memorable bottom line, “the more you watch, the less you know.” In the age of social media, scholarly explanations have shifted to discussions of “motivated reasoning,” which could be defined by Paul Simon’s line from “The Boxer”: “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

But the ignorance perspective has a deep hold on us because it appeals to the Enlightenment notion that we are motivated to pursue truth. We are “the thinking animal,” right? The important part of that expression may be “animal.” Human beings have an evolutionary history, and deception is commonplace in the animal world because it confers evolutionary advantage. There’s good reason to believe we’re not so different, other than the fact that humans are ultra-social creatures. In ancestral and evolutionary terms, being part of a successful social group was every bit as essential as food and water. So deception among humans evolved from group conflicts. That’s the thesis of a recent paper called “The Evolutionary Psychology of Conflict and the Functions of Falsehood” by the Danish political scientists Michael Bang Petersen and Mathias Osmundsen and American anthropologist John Tooby. 

While the paper aligns with the “motivated reasoning” perspective, its focus goes deeper than the psychological mechanisms that produce and reproduce false information. These researchers are trying to elucidate the functions of those mechanisms, that is, to answer the question of why they evolved in the first place. I interviewed Petersen three years ago, about a previous paper, “A ‘Need for Chaos’ and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies,” which was summarized on Twitter thusly:Many status-obsessed, yet marginalized individuals experience a ‘Need for Chaos’ and want to ‘watch the world burn.'” That paper provided crucial insight into prolific spreaders of misinformation and why they do what they do. But that individualist account was only part of the story. This new paper seeks to illuminates the evolutionary foundations and social processes involved in the spread of outright falsehoods. So I had another long conversation with Petersen, edited as usual for clarity and length.

Over the past decade or so, it’s become more common to regard the spread of political misinformation, or “political rumors,” as they’re sometimes called, as the result of “motivated reasoning” rather than ignorance. But your new paper proposes a broad evolutionary account of the social functions behind that motivated reasoning. Tell me about what led you to writing it, and what you set out to do? 

One of our major goals with this research is to try to understand why it is that people believe things that other people believe are completely bizarre. I think it’s clear for everyone that that problem has gained more prominence within the last few decades, especially with the advent of social media. It seems that those kind of belief systems — belief in information and content that other people would say is blatantly false — is becoming more widespread. It can have some pretty dire consequences, as we could see for example with the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

So what we’re trying to understand is, why people believe things that must be false. The traditional narrative is, ‘Well if you believe false things, then you must be stupid. It must be because you haven’t really made an effort to actually figure out what is going on.” But over the last few decades, more and more research has accumulated that suggests that’s not the case. In fact the people who are responsible for spreading misinformation are not those who know the least about politics. They actually know quite a lot about politics. In that sense, knowledge doesn’t guard against believing things that are false. 

 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


What we’re trying to do is to say, “Well, if it’s not because people are ignorant, then what is it?” In order to understand that, we utilize the framework of evolutionary psychology, basically trying to understand: Could there be anything adaptive about believing false information? Could this in some way be functional? Is it actually sort of on purpose that false information is believed and spread, rather than being an accident?

Before you discuss human evolution, you have a section of nonhuman animals.  What can we learn from deception and conflict in the animal world? 

I think that’s an important stepping stone, to look at the animal world, because most people would say that what animals do is the products of biological evolution, and has some sort of evolutionary advantage. And what we can see in animals is that they spread false information all the time when they are engaged in conflict. 

One sort of obvious example is that animals try to appear larger than they are when they are engaged in conflict with other animals. That’s, of course, to send a signal to the other animals that you shouldn’t mess with me and if we actually get into a real fight I will win. So animals are trying to get an upper hand in conflict situations by making false signals. 

So how does that change, or not change, when we look at humans?

First, that is also what we should expect that humans do, that if they can send false signals that are advantageous to them, then they should do it. What we then discuss is that there are certain constraints on the degree of falsehood in animal communication. That constraint is that communication systems evolved in the first place because they are a helpful for both individuals or both organisms involved in the exchange. So before a communication system can evolve it should be adaptive for the sender and for the receiver. That means that even in conflict situations you cannot set up blatant falsehoods. There are some kinds of reality constraints. 

We are then saying that actually, in some situations, with regards to humans and human evolution, these constraints doesn’t operate. That’s because if we look at nonhuman animals, then the conflict is often between two individuals, but in human conflict it’s often between two groups, and the members of one group, are cooperating with each other against the other group. That means there might be certain advantages, within one group, to spread misinformation and spread falsehoods, if that can give them an upper hand in the conflict with the other group. Then we go on to discuss a number of ways in which that might be true.

You identify three functions of information sharing: group mobilization for conflict, coordination of attention, and signaling commitment. You argue that accomplishing these goals efficiently is what gets selected, in evolutionary terms, not truth or veracity. Can you give an example of each, starting with mobilization?

When you want to mobilize your group, what you need to do is find out that we are facing a problem, and your way of describing that problem needs to be as attention-grabbing as possible before you can get the group to focus on the same thing. In that context, reality is seldom as juicy as fiction. By enhancing the threat — for example, by saying things that are not necessarily true — then you are in a better situation to mobilize and coordinate the attention of your own group.  The key thing is that it may actually be to your group’s advantage that if everyone is in agreement that we don’t like these other guys, then we make sure that everyone is paying attention to this other group. So by exaggerating the actual threat posed by the other group, you can gain more effective mobilization. 

The key to understand why this makes sense, why this is functional, is that one needs to distinguish between interests and attention. A group can have a joint set of interests, such as, “Well, we don’t like this other group, we think we should deal with this other group in in some way.” But on top of that interest or set of interests, there is the whole coordination problem. You need to get everyone to agree that this is the time to deal with that problem. It’s now, and we need to deal with it in this way. It’s in that sort of negotiation process where it can be in everyone’s interest to exaggerate the threat beyond reality, to make sure that everyone gets the message.

You’ve more or less answered my next question about coordination. So what about signaling commitment? How does falsehood play a role there? 

I think these are the two major problems, the mobilization on the one part and then the signaling on the other part. When you’re a member of the group, then you need other group members to help you. In order for that to take place, you need to signal that, “Well, I’m a loyal member of this group. I would help you guys if you were in trouble, so now you need to help me.”

Humans are constantly focused on signals of loyalty: “Are they loyal members of the group?” and “How can I signal that I’m a loyal member?” There are al sorts of ways in which we do that. We take on particular clothes, we have gang tattoos and all sorts of physical ways of expressing loyalty with the group. 

But because we humans are exceptionally complex, another way to signal our loyalty is through the beliefs that we hold. We can signal loyalty to a group by having a certain set of beliefs, and then the question is, “Well, what is the type of belief through which we can signal that we belong?” First of all, it should be a belief that other people are not likely to have, because if everyone has this belief, then it’s not a very good signal of group loyalty. It needs to be something that other people in other groups do not have. The basic logic at work here is that anyone can believe the truth, but only loyal members of the group can believe something that is blatantly false.

There is a selection pressure to develop beliefs or develop a psychology that scans for beliefs that are so bizarre and extraordinary that no one would come up with them by themselves. This would signal, “Well, I belong to this group. I know what this group is about. I have been with this group for a long time,” because you would not be able to hold this belief without that prehistory. 

I believe we can see this in a lot of the conspiracy theories that are going around, like the QAnon conspiracy theory. I think we can see it in religious beliefs too, because a lot of religious beliefs are really bizarre when you look at them. One example that we give in the text is the notion of the divine Trinity in Christianity, which has this notion that God is both one and three at the same time. You would never come up with this notion on your own. You would only come up with that if you were actually socialized into a Christian religious group. So that’s a very good signal: “Well, that’s a proper Christian.” 

Right. I was raised Unitarian. As a secular Jew in Northern California at that time, the only place we could have a home was a Unitarian fellowship. It was filled with secular Jews, definitely not “proper Christians.”

Yes, I went to a private Catholic school myself, so I’ve been exposed to my portion of religious beliefs as well. But there’s another aspect that’s very important when it comes to group conflict, because another very good signal that you are a loyal member is beliefs that the other group would find offensive. A good way to signal that I’m loyal to this group and not that group is to take on a belief that is the exact opposite of what the other group believes. So that creates pressure not only to develop bizarre beliefs, but also bizarre beliefs that this other group is bad, is evil, or something really opposed to the particular values that they have. 

This suggests that there are functional reasons for both spreading falsehoods, and also signaling these falsehoods. I think one of the key insights is that we need to think about beliefs in another way than we often do. Quite often we think about the beliefs that we have as representations of reality, so the reason why we have the belief is to navigate the world. Because of that, there needs to be a pretty good fit or match between the content of our beliefs and the features of reality.

But what we are arguing is that a lot of beliefs don’t really exist for navigating the world. They exist for social reasons, because they allow us to accomplish certain socially important phenomena, such as mobilizing our group or signaling that we’re loyal members of the group. This means that because the function of the beliefs is not to represent reality, their veracity or truth value is not really an important feature. 

In the section “Falsehoods as Tools for Coordination” you discuss Donald Horowitz’s book, “The Deadly Ethnic Riot.” What does that tell us about the role of falsehood in setting up the preconditions for ethnic violence?

“The Deadly Ethnic Riot” is an extremely disturbing book. It’s this systematic review of what we know about what happens before, during and after ethnic massacres. I read this book when I became interested in fake news and misinformation circulating on social media, and this was recommended to me by my friend and collaborator Pascal Boyer, who is also an evolutionary psychologist. Horowitz argues that you cannot and do not have an ethnic massacre without a preceding period of rumor-sharing. His argument is exactly what I was trying to argue before, that the function of such rumors is actually not to represent reality. The total function of the rumors is to organize your group and get it ready for attack. You do so by pointing out that the enemy is powerful, that it’s evil and that it’s ready to attack, so you need to do something now.

One of the really interesting things about the analysis of rumors in this book is that, if you look at the content of the rumors, that’s not so much predicted by what the other group has done to you or to your group. It’s really predicted by what you are planning to do to the other group. So the brutality of the content of these rumors is, in a sense, part of the coordination about what we’re going to do to them when we get the action going — which also suggests that the function of these rumors is not to represent reality, but to serve social functions. 

What I was struck by when I read Horowitz’s book was how similar the content of the rumors that he’s describing in these ethnic massacres all over the world, how similar that is to the kind of misinformation that is being circulated on social media. This suggests that a lot of what is going on in social media is also not driven by ignorance, but by these social functions.

One point you make is that to avoid being easily contradicted or discredited, these kinds of “mobilization motivations should gravitate towards unverifiable information: Events occurring in secret, far away in time or space, behind closed doors, etc.” This helps explain the appeal of conspiracy theories. How do they fit into this picture?

When we look at falsehoods there is a tension. On one level, there is a motivation to make it as bizarre as possible, for all the reasons we have been talking about. On the other hand, if you are trying to create this situation of mobilization, you want the information to flow as unhindered as possible through the network. You want it to spread as far as possible. If you’re in a situation where everyone is looking at a chair and you say, “Well, that chair is a rock,” that’s something that will hinder the flow of information, because people will say, “Well, we know that’s really a chair.” 

So while there is this motivation or incentive to create content as bizarre as possible, there is also another pressure or another incentive to avoid the situation where you’re being called out by people who are not motivated to engage in the collective action. That suggests it’s better to develop content about situations where other people have a difficult time saying, “That’s blatantly false.” So that’s why unverifiable information is the optimal kind of information, because there you can really create as bizarre content as you want, and you don’t have the risk of being called out. 

We see a similar kind of tactic when conspiracy theorists argue, “Well, we are only raising questions,” where you are writing or spreading the information but you have this plausible deniability, which is also a way to avoid being called out. Conspiracy theories are notorious exactly for looking for situations that are unverifiable and where it’s very difficult to verify what’s up and what’s down. They create these narratives that we also see in ethnic massacres, where we have an enemy who is powerful, who is evil and who is ready to do something that’s very bad. Again, that completely fits the structure of mobilizing rumors that Horowitz is focusing on. So what we’ve been arguing, here and elsewhere, is that a lot of conspiracy theories are really attempts to mobilize against the political order.

In the section “Falsehoods as Signals of Dominance” you write that “dominance can essentially be asserted by challenging others,” and argue that when a given statement “contradicts a larger number of people’s beliefs, it serves as a better dominance signal.” I immediately thought of Donald Trump in those terms. For example, he didn’t invent birtherism, and when he latched onto it he didn’t even go into the details — there were all these different versions of birther conspiracy theories, and he didn’t know jack-shit about any of them. He just made these broad claims, drawing on his reputation and his visibility, and established himself as a national political figure. I wonder if you can talk about that — not just about Trump, but about how that works more generally. 

Yes, I can confess that I too was thinking about Donald Trump when writing that particular section of the paper. So I will talk a little bit about Donald Trump, but I will get to the general case. I think one of the first examples for me of that tactic was during the presidential inauguration in 2017, where the claim was that there were more people at Trump’s inauguration than Obama’s inauguration, and everyone could clearly see that was false. 

So there are two explanations. Either Trump is ignorant — and I don’t believe he’s ignorant, I think he is an extremely skilled or intuitive psychologist who knows how to mobilize his followers — or it suggests he’s thinking, “I can say whatever I want, and I care so little about the other group’s opinions that I can say things that are blatantly false, where they know that I know it’s false, and it’s precisely because they know that I know that it’s false that it serves as a dominance signal.” 

That’s why, in order to get that kind of dominance signal through, you need to find these cases where it’s clear that it’s not just because you’re getting it wrong — it’s exactly because you know and you just don’t care. That’s the kind of signal you want to go for when you are trying to assert dominance through holding those kinds of beliefs. 

You point out that for group members preparing for conflict, “signals of falsehoods are cooperative rather than conflictual.” It seems to me that one of the ways your paper could be built on is to look at other ways falsehoods enter into the picture. For example, there are times when people deny or undercut the false claims they’ve made. With the recent spread of racist voter-suppression laws, the underlying racism helps build group solidarity and prepare for conflict, but you also constantly hear Republicans deny any racist intention. I wonder if you have thoughts about how further work can be done in that direction.

Just to start with that particular observation, I think with that sort of denial — for example, “This is not racism, this is not sexism,” or whatever — part of the function is again to have plausible deniability, whereby you can make sure that the information spreads, that everyone who needs to hear it will hear it and it’s not really being blocked. Because you could say that outright racism or outright sexism would be something that would stop the spread of the information. So people who are in a mobilization context are always caught in this cross-pressure between making sure that the signal is as loud as possible, and that it is disseminated as widely as possible. Often there is this tension between the two that you need to navigate. I think looking at and understanding that conflict and that tension is an important theoretical next next step. 

As we say numerous times in the chapter, this is a theoretical piece where we are building a lot of hypotheses which are in need of empirical evidence. So I think one important next step is to gain and develop the empirical evidence or empirical tests of these hypotheses, to see what actually seems to hold up, and what may be misguided. 

One thing I’m very interested in personally is to to look into who uses these tactics more than others — who is most motivated to engage in these kinds of tactics to win conflict. This is a line of work that we have been studying, and one thing we are finding is that people who are seeking status are the most motivated to use these kinds of tactics to gain that status.

I always like to end by asking: What’s the most important question I didn’t ask? And what’s the answer?

I think the most important question that you may not have asked is this: We started out talking about motivated reasoning, so what is the difference between what we are bringing to the table, compared to the traditional theories of motivated reasoning? Those argue that you hold certain beliefs because they feel good. You like to believe certain things about your group because it gives you self-esteem. You like to believe the other group is evil because that also helps you feel good about your group. When social scientists have abandoned the ignorance argument for those kinds of beliefs and looked into social function, then they say, “Well, the social function of these beliefs is to make you feel good about yourself.” 

What we are saying is that while it is probably true that these beliefs make you feel good about yourself, that’s not really their function, that’s not their real purpose. We’re saying that evolution doesn’t really care whether you feel good or bad about yourself. Evolution cares about material benefits and, in the end, reproductive benefits. So the beliefs that you have should in some way shape real-world outcomes. 

We are arguing that these false beliefs don’t just exist to make you feel good about yourself, but exist in order to enable you to make changes in the world, to mobilize your group and get help from other group members. I think that’s an important point to think more about: What it is that certain kinds of beliefs enable people to accomplish, and not just how it makes them feel. 

Trump’s acting AG testified about White House attempts to overturn the election: report

The final person to lead the Department of Justice during Donald Trump’s administration has testified about efforts to overturn the election, The New York Times reported Saturday afternoon.

“Jeffrey A. Rosen, who was acting attorney general during the Trump administration, has told the Justice Department watchdog and Congressional investigators that one of his deputies tried to help former President Donald J. Trump subvert the results of the 2020 election,” the newspaper reported, citing “a person familiar with the interviews.”

Rosen testified before DOJ’s inspector general on Friday and gave closed-door testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday.

“The investigations were opened following a New York Times article that detailed efforts by Jeffrey Clark, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, to push top leaders to falsely and publicly assert that ongoing election fraud investigations cast doubt on the Electoral College results. That prompted Mr. Trump to consider ousting Mr. Rosen and installing Mr. Clark at the top of the department to carry out that plan,” The Times reported. “Mr. Rosen has emerged as a key witness in multiple investigations that focus on Mr. Trump’s efforts to undermine the results of the election. He has publicly stated that the Justice Department did not find enough fraud to impact the outcome of the election.”

On “FBoy Island,” the line between nice guys and fboys is thin to nonexistent

On HBO Max’s hit reality series “FBoy Island,” three women looking for love seek a potential mate among 24 bachelors, half of whom self-identify as “nice guys,” and the other half as “fboys.” Throughout the series, CJ, Sarah, and Nakia scope out who they can and can’t trust, while their fboy suitors attempt to camouflage as nice guys, and charm the women for a chance at $100,000.

Simple, right? But through twist after twist on the show, you’ll find there’s almost nothing simple about how we recognize and define who is and isn’t a “nice guy,” certainly in a patriarchal society, and also on “FBoy Island.” The show makes a pretty strong case for the reality that there aren’t actually many differences.

In an interview with Salon, “FBoy Island” creator Elan Gale confirmed that the team “talked a lot about the verbage” of these labels, and the show’s intent to not treat “fboy” and “nice guy” status as assessments of the contestants’ moral characters. Rather, the labels on the show exclusively speak to the men’s intentions for being on the show and when it comes to dating. Everything else is immaterial.

“There’s no such thing in my mind of a 100% fboy or 100% nice guy,” Gale said. “A lot of these guys fall into a lot of gray area in between. Being a nice guy doesn’t mean you’re going to do everything right; being an fboy doesn’t mean you’re going to do everything wrong. We use these titles, but what we really get to see is there’s every kind from 0 to 100 on the fboy to nice guy spectrum.”

The women on “FBoy Island” discover this themselves in the fifth episode when the remaining contestants put their cards on the table and confess their fboy or nice guy status. While the women are disappointed when certain leading suitors – like Garrett and every guy Nakia likes – end up falling into the fboy category, one of the most shocking reactions is to the unveiling of a nice guy.

But the women shouldn’t have been caught off guard. Spoiler alert: Many self-identified nice guys aren’t actually all that nice. Plenty, in fact are bold-faced liars or simply lack the self-awareness to even realize they aren’t nice. In other words, they’re either fboys themselves or worse, just plain bad people.

Nice guys aren’t necessarily good people

Gale agrees that “nice guy” is and has always been a loaded term, and the show was deliberate about calling them nice rather than good. Much of what we choose to recognize as “nice” from men stems from low standards and expectations for male behaviors, such that something as basic as being open to a relationship makes a man “nice,” and sometimes even justifies looking the other way on their numerous not-so-nice behaviors. 

Since the entrance of Jarred Evans, aka New Jarred, in the third episode of “FBoy Island,” we watch as he swerves from trying to woo Nakia to CJ, stirring the pot by starting possessive, often toxically masculine, name-calling fights with other contestants every step of the way. His presence is immediately grating to the other men, yet, to the surprise of the female leads and especially CJ, in the show’s fifth episode, Jarred reveals he’s a nice guy. 

“What is going on? I am shook, blown away,” CJ says. “How is Jarred a nice guy, did someone make a typo? The way everyone else got upset when he came in, and I figured you were causing the riffraff,” she adds, referring to the numerous macho, peacocking fights New Jarred instigated.

CJ even apologizes (apologizes!) for having perceived Jarred as an fboy, as if it’s her fault for misinterpreting his not-so-nice behaviors, rather than Jarred’s for behaving this way. Eventually, CJ rationalizes Jarred’s nice guy identification, ceding bare minimum, nice-ish behaviors from him: “He does act pretty sweet, and I guess he’s, like, kind of polite.”

Still, just because Jarred says he’s a nice guy, are we really to accept that premise given his behavior? Are we to believe his words and self-perception over what we’ve seen with our own eyes?

Similarly, contestants like Garratt Powers, eliminated on the first night for his creepy behaviors toward Nakia — including reading her a poem he’s written despite her obvious discomfort — have seriously shady tendencies, only to claim nice guy status upon elimination, and flash a sort of smug look, as if the women have lost out on something.

Wanting or being open to a relationship doesn’t make a man a good person, and certainly doesn’t mean they have the maturity and sensitivity to respect women’s boundaries or not instigate petty, hypermasculine competitions with romantic rivals. “FBoy Island” is clear about what the term “nice guy” does and doesn’t mean, but it seems worth emphasizing that plenty of not-so-nice guys will be regarded as nice for the bare minimum. And such men aren’t necessarily the most trustworthy figures when it comes to self-evaluation and assessment.

So, what does it all mean? If self-proclaimed “nice guys” aren’t to be trusted, are the leading ladies of “FBoy Island” and straight, single women everywhere better off pursuing fboys who at least are who they say they are? Not necessarily.

Self-awareness should be a starting point — not an end

The fboys of “FBoy Island” may at least, at this point in the show, be open about who they are, or who they were when they joined the cast. On some level, it’s tempting to regard this self-awareness and honesty with prospective partners as refreshing. Let’s face it — there’s almost nothing more toxic than a poem-reading, fedora-wearing, self-identified nice guy who treats you and others poorly, but remains determined to gaslight you into believing they’re nice, despite this.

But the answer to this isn’t to embrace fboys. Case in point: Casey.

The end of Episode 4 of “FBoy Island” comes with the show’s first major shock, as CJ’s main love interest, Casey, the “hottest guy in Ohio” is forced out of the competition as part of the surprise double elimination. Casey then reveals he came on the show as an fboy, surprise-surprise, before launching into a retaliatory tirade about how CJ “doesn’t deserve any of the guys on this show.” Then in an on-camera talking head segment, he suggests that at 30, CJ should be more mature, speaking about her age as if it’s a sort of insult.

Casey’s elimination is not in any way CJ’s fault, since she only put him in the hot seat as a warning for his earlier aggressive behaviors. But she had saved him, choosing another guy to leave. It’s one of the production’s many twists that gives Casey the boot – but in his anger, he doesn’t care, and instead lashes out at CJ, the woman he’s supposedly falling for.

The show’s other leading fboy is a full-time bitcoin investor (duh) and self-proclaimed “king of ‘FBoy Island,'” Garrett Morosky. His reveal as an fboy is pretty much no surprise to any of the women, which you’d think would have been a bit of a red flag, despite how he remains a clear favorite of Sarah’s. Garrett even owns up to a murky relationship timeline prior to starting the show. Nevertheless, his lies, deceptions and sudden strokes of honesty and performative goodwill have become so frequent as to be inseparable at this point, entrapping Sarah in a perpetual guessing game.

The intention of “FBoy Island” is, according to Gale, to portray the deceptive realities of dating in the Tinder age, a time when women’s options usually aren’t a picture-perfect “The Bachelorette” cast vying for our hand in marriage. Instead, we’re forced to play guessing games about the motives of a mix of shady and slightly less shady online suitors.

But the show also comments on the reality that there aren’t actually many differences between men who identify as nice guys, and men who identify as fboys. “Nice guys” often think the mere act of dating a woman entitles them to the label, and certainly entitles them to any outcome they want from a woman in exchange for their “niceness.” Fboys are usually sleazy, dishonest men who think it’s good enough that they know they’re sleazy and dishonest, and lack intention to correct this. Knowledge of your issues with dating is a starting point — it shouldn’t be the end.

The show is well aware of all of these conflicts and philosophical debates, and though it’s all in good fun, Gale says “FBoy Island” ultimately welcomed change and growth in contestants. “A big part of the show generally was people are moving targets. Human beings are ever evolving and changing,” he said. “We hoped the fboys would slide a little bit further into the nice guy camp — and the nice guys would not be boring.”

“FBoy Island” puts that potential evolution up for scrutiny in its finale, when the series releases its final four episodes on Thursday, Aug. 12 on HBO Max.

Scientists uncover the genes that control how long women stay fertile

Science and technology, like everything humans do, becomes rather pointless if we can’t reproduce. All of the gadgets, gizmos, whozits and whatzits lose their value if people don’t exist to work, play, learn and grow from using them. Thus, there is a profound irony that inventions like plastic, while improving life in some ways, are linked to precipitously dropping sperm counts.

Every so often, however, science suggests ways that human reproduction can be improved. This is the case for a new study published in the journal Nature about reproductive aging in women. Researchers were able to identify almost 300 gene variations that determine female reproductive lifespan, even manipulating key genes in mice that are associated with these variations to extend their period of fertility.

“We found 290 different genetic regions that were linked to menopause timing — previously we knew about only 56 of them,” Dr. Anna Murray, an associate professor in human genetics at the University of Exeter Medical School who co-authored the study, told Salon by email. She added that while some of these genes only influence menopause timing by a few weeks, others do so by more than three years. “The vast majority of the genes we identified are involved in repairing damaged DNA,” Murray explained, noting that there are roughly 750 genes involved in DNA repair and the scientists found DNA repair genes that were in various ways linked to the timing of menopause.

These genetic discoveries are compelling because they offer hope that medicine might one day improve female fertility. Biological women are born with all of the eggs that they will ever carry and, over time, gradually lose all of them. Menopause is a term for when most of a woman’s eggs are gone; that said, most women significantly lose their fertility years earlier. The question now is how much our ability to understand the genetics of why this happens can allow scientists to give women more control over their reproductive futures.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“In the shorter term, we want to test whether combining the genetic variants into a risk score can help women who do not respond to hormone stimulation during IVF treatment, because their ovarian reserve is low,” Murray told Salon. Right now scientists can only measure hormones on their own, but scientists hope a genetic score can provide doctors with more information to help their patients.

Murray added, “In the longer term, by identifying the genes that govern reproductive aging, we might be able to use known or develop new pharmaceuticals to stimulate egg release in women.” She added that this possibility is a long way off because scientists would first need to research how to make sure that the eggs would be of a high quality and with undamaged DNA.

We are in a troubling era for human fertility. Male fertility issues have increased precipitously since industrialization, to the extent that some scientists believe most men could be effectively infertile by the end of the century. The reasons include obesity, substance abuse, global warming and plastic pollution. That last one — plastic pollution — is particularly troubling because both plastics and microplastics completely envelope human civilization.

Congress is finally starting to do something about toxic PFAS chemicals

For generations, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community has made its home along the shores of Michigan’s Lake Superior, developing a culture and livelihood closely tied to the waterbody, the largest freshwater lake by surface area in the world. Species such as salmon, lake trout, and walleye play a key role in the subsistence fishing tribe’s day-to-day life. 

In the last few decades, however, pollutants like mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, have put fishing cultural traditions at risk in the Great Lakes. Now, scientists are warning there’s a new threat — PFAS, a group of man-made toxic substances also known as “forever chemicals” found in everyday household items. 

For the first time, officials in Michigan and Wisconsin have issued a fish consumption advisory for PFAS in the Great Lakes. The chemicals, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, bioaccumulate in the environment — similar to DDT in the 1950s and 60s — building in concentration as they move up the food chain. They have been linked to health issues like reproductive and liver damage.

According to the new advisories, adults should limit their consumption of rainbow smelt, a fish that has been consumed by generations of Indigenous peoples, caught in Lake Superior to just one single 8-ounce serving per month. In a 2013 study, 87 percent of Keweenaw Bay Indian Community members surveyed indicated they relied on Lake Superior fish as a major food source or for their livelihood. 

“It’s hard for the community,” Kathy Smith, a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and a habitat specialist for the tribe’s natural resources department, told the Traverse City Record-Eagle. She highlighted that the PFAS advisory adds to a number of fish consumption advisories that have been issued previously for species important to the community. 

Similar PFAS advisories have been issued in the last few years in New Jersey, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, and for inland water bodies in Michigan. 

The warnings point to the increasing pervasiveness of PFAS in American lakes, rivers, and streams. In 2020, a study of 2,000 fish from across Michigan revealed that PFOS, a PFAS chemical, was found in 92 percent of the biological samples. An analysis published by the Environmental Working Group this week found that the number of industrial sites across the United States that use PFAS, and may be releasing it into the environment, is over 41,000. An analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 found that 14 out of 91 foods tested contained PFAS.  

Citing the growing contamination nationwide, U.S. Representatives Democrat Debbie Dingell and Republican Fred Upton, both of Michigan, introduced the bipartisan PFAS Action Act of 2021 in April. Late last month, the bill passed in the House of Representatives 241 – 183. The law would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, to establish national standards for PFAS levels in drinking water and would designate PFOA and PFOS, two PFAS chemicals, as “hazardous,” thereby allowing the EPA to take action to clean up contaminated sites across the country and allocate $200 million for water utilities and wastewater treatment. 

Upton and Dingell especially highlighted the threat PFAS has posed to Michigan families. In 2018, the chemicals were found in the drinking water for Parchment, Michigan, residents at 20 times the federal health advisory limit. The sample was collected 30 days before the public announcement was made, meaning residents were drinking the contaminated water for upwards of a month. 

Some groups representing the water sector, including the American Water Works Association and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, disagree with the PFAS Action Act, saying that it would absolve polluters from the “polluter pays” structure of EPA Superfund cleanup sites and put the burden on water treatment facilities. Some Republicans have also voiced concerns about it becoming a “de facto ban” on PFAS chemicals that are used beneficially, like for contact lenses or medical safety gear. 

But Christine Santillana, legislative counsel for Earthjustice, a public interest environmental nonprofit, said the evidence has been there for decades that PFAS is toxic, and action needs to be taken. “PFAS should absolutely be a top priority,” she told Grist, “and we need comprehensive legislation to ensure deadlines are put in place to protect public health and the environment from toxic PFAS being released into our air, soil, and water.”

A previous version of the PFAS Action Act stalled under Trump, but now has renewed hope with President Joe Biden’s support. The White House has said Biden will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not revealed whether he will bring the bill to the Senate floor or not. 

It’s unlikely to be taken up for a vote in this legislative session, according to Santillana. “We are pushing the Senate to take this up as soon as possible,” she told Grist, “but it’s unlikely they’ll do so this session given infrastructure priorities and budget reconciliation.” 

Still, environmental leaders say getting the bill passed in the House was a meaningful step. “Getting Republicans on board is a big step,” said Santillana. The PFAS Action Act was signed off on by 23 Republicans. “Now it’s really the Senate’s turn to push this across the finish line,” she said.

“Reservation Dogs” is steeped in pop culture. The difference is that its homages star Native actors

Quentin Tarantino never hid the fact that he lifts scenes and themes from other movies. That doesn’t make his films less original or worthwhile. Some would say his conscientious odes add legitimacy to his artistry, proving his extensive knowledge and study of the artform.

Plus, it’s a neat trick. Only the most discerning viewers noticed what he was doing. The rest of simply thought “Pulp Fiction” and “Kill Bill” were cool without realizing part of the reason we like them is that they plug into an internalized nostalgia.

“Reservation Dogs” reminds me of this because of its title and a cinematic style, with visuals encrusted in 1990s indie grit. But series co-creators and executive producers Taika Waititi and Sterlin Harjo aren’t simply painting a stylized crime caper set on a rez.

They’ve made something much truer to life, a comedy about four kids fluent in popular culture, mainly hip-hop. Everyone around them acts like they’re gangsters living in a hood film. If so, that movie isn’t “Menace II Society.” Think “Friday,” with a touch of “The Goonies” thrown in for flavor.

Cinephiles tend to regard movies about movies in reverential terms, especially when establishment-blessed filmmakers make them. “Reservation Dogs” is not quite that, but it is a show that knows its audience watches a lot of films and formulates its ideas about the world based on such fictions.

But the way Waititi and Harjo use cinematic callbacks is unique. They’re jogging our collective pop culture memories to tell a familiar story with Indigenous actors. And they’re using the fact that we’ve never seen such plots play out in rural Oklahoma, or written and filmed by Indigenous creatives, to tell non-Native people something about themselves, especially in terms of the assumption that non-white people should be versed in white culture with no expectation of reciprocity.

And it’s all done with hilarity. From front to back, every episode rolls with a low key, consistent humor that invites you to float with it, placing you firmly within this world of loony, friendly neighbors and relatives. The result is liberatingly hysterical.

Of course, Bear (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai) and his best friend Elora Danan (Devery Jacobs) and their fellow partners in crime Willie Jack (Paulina Alexis) and Cheese (Lane Factor) do have one thing in common with “Reservoir Dogs” counterparts, in that they’re a crew of thieves.

But nobody’s planning any diamond heists where they live. Low-stakes petty thefts are their gig, save for a series-opening theft matched in its boldness by its ridiculousness. Their thievery is meant to fund a move to California, a place that looms large in their imaginations as a kind of promised land.

Although the title carries a different connotation, “Reservation Dogs” is mainly a slice-of-life comedy that lets us tag along with the characters on very regular adventures. Bear sustains an injury requiring a trip to the local clinic where a jaded staff runs the place like an impenetrable bureaucracy. Another quest leads them to Elora Danan’s uncle, an unstoppable brawler back in his day who since turned into a paranoid connoisseur of ancient weed.  

He’s one of a few adults of consequence around, which I’d attribute more to the producer’s Spielbergian approach to centering the plot on this foursome. We get to know Bear’s mother Rita (a charming Sarah Podemski) as loving and independent, but she’s on her own mission to land a man of means or, barring that, a reliable dude with a steady job.

Harjo, who serves as the series showrunner and co-wrote the premiere with Waititi, establishes the innate goodness of these kids straightaway too. They’re mostly outlaws in their own minds, and that’s only possible because they live in a place where everybody knows everybody else, policed by a Lighthorseman called Big (Zahn McClarnon) who’s more intent on capturing aliens than fighting crime.

But the kids’ main challenge is staving off boredom . . . until they’re confronted by a new-to-town gang set on dethroning them. Bear, Elora, Willie Jack and Cheese find that confusing because they never considered themselves to be a gang. Sometimes the fight comes to your doorstep instead of the other way around. And sometimes the battle and the schemes are a means of staving off sadness; we learn early on that the foursome used to have a fifth member, a friend they lost a year ago.

The cleverest filmmaking odes in “Reservation Dogs” tell on the mainstream audience by satirizing racist tropes perpetuated by Hollywood that have taken root in our culture. Like the spirit guide nonsense: Bear finds his while he’s knocked unconscious. Unfortunately for him, his ghostly wisdom broker was no heroic legend, but the aimless in life William Knifeman. He tells a tale of riding into battle at Little Bighorn only to die a stupid death before he could make any diference.

“I came over the hill real rugged-like!” he says in his defense, before admitting, “The spirit world . . . is cold. My nipples are always hard.”

Most of the show’s comedy is woven into the dialogue, giving everyone a punchline at some point, although Woon-A-Tai and Jacobs mostly play it straight. (Jacobs has less of a choice in that regard given Elora Danon’s role as the brains of the outfit and the fact that she shares a name with the baby in “Willow,” a piece of trivia that inspires at least one bit in every episode.)

The greater revelation, aside from Alexis’ naturally winning goofiness as Willie Jack, is McClarnon’s deadpan kookiness. McClarnon is an actor known to most for stoic, barely verbal portrayals in “Fargo” and “Westworld,” and with Big he plays off of that reputation by delivering doltish proclamations with utter authority – such as explaining to Bear why an energy drink is healthier than soda. “It’s natural. It’s made out of energy.”

Don’t underestimate the scene-stealing prominence of underground hip-hop artists Lil Mike and Funnybone as Mose and Mekko though. Their roles in the story fall somewhere between hood versions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and a Greek chorus, somewhat neutral parties who see all and prod conflicts into being, mostly to keep things interesting. And the performers deploy their flawless syncopation brilliantly.

If “Reservation Dogs” were set in other American places people would liken it to “The Wonder Years” and its core quartet’s dynamic to that of the protagonists, “That ’70s Show.” But it is decidedly one of a kind, using homages to other shows and movies to solidify our connection to its heroes by tapping into a common love of such stories. Accurate, honest film and TV portrayals of Indigenous people in media barely exist, which lends an extra level of satisfaction and mirth to watching this show. It conveys the sense that these are people we know and love laughing with and cheering on. Better still, it makes us want to see more shows like it.

“Reservation Dogs” premieres Monday, Aug. 9 on FX on Hulu.

https://youtu.be/RoHewFAkrWU

When to admit you’re wrong: JFK’s lessons for Joe Biden

The eviction moratorium crisis may have come and gone — though likely not for long — but it illustrated a crucial lesson in leadership that Joe Biden needs to learn, and soon. In a free society, the people at the top owe it to the public to admit when they made a mistake. After that, they must learn from those mistakes, even if that means assuming considerable political risk. 

To understand why this principle is so important, let’s look back at the brief but memorable presidency of John F. Kennedy.

Upon taking office, Kennedy inherited a plan that had been hatched under his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, to invade Cuba and overthrow the Communist government led by Fidel Castro. This plan ultimately culminated in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when a group of Cuban exiles funded by the U.S. government landed on Cuba’s southwestern coast, hoping to spark an anti-Castro revolution. The invasion was badly planned and poorly executed, and ended in total failure, with the exiles captured and paraded before television cameras as evidence of American ineptitude.

Kennedy’s supporters blamed bad military advice and bureaucratic incompetence for the Bay of Pigs disaster, while his critics blamed JFK personally for withholding U.S. air support for the rebels. Cold War tensions were at a fever pitch in 1961, and this failure could easily have dealt a death blow to Kennedy’s young presidency, just three months into his term. Many Americans were terrified of the specter of Communism — and of the Communist island nation less than 100 miles from Florida.

How could any president — particularly one who had barely won one of the tightest elections in history, and who was already being accused by Republicans of being “soft on Communism” — recover from such a major foreign policy blunder?

Simple. First, Kennedy set aside whatever reservations he might have had about accepting the blame, at least for public consumption. Which is not to say he wasn’t privately pointing the finger at others. He reportedly told one aide, “If someone comes in to tell me this or that about the minimum wage bill, I have no hesitation in overruling them. But you always assume that the military or intelligence people have some secret still not available to ordinary mortals.”

But Kennedy had the wisdom to accept that a leader must take the blame whether or not it’s deserved. (A striking contrast to our recent president who regularly threw his own staffers under the bus, and literally never accepted blame for anything.) So his second critical choice was openly accepting responsibility. When he appeared before the press to announce the humiliating failure of this major foreign policy initiative, he declared:

There’s an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. … Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility because I’m the responsible officer of the Government…

Kennedy’s final critical choice was not simply to own his administration’s error, but learn from it. As his presidency continued, Kennedy began to challenge the belligerent assumptions underpinning the Cold War. By 1963, he was even able to do something many pundits felt was politically impossible — making the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty negotiated with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev into a reality. We’ll never know if Kennedy would have brought the Vietnam War to an earlier close or otherwise staved off some of the Cold War’s worst tragedies, but he at least revealed a capacity for personal growth on issues of American imperialism.

JFK’s willingness to challenge the military-industrial complex arguably saved the world from apocalyptic disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when he ignored recommendations from supposed military experts that could have plunged America and the Soviets into a nuclear war. There are reasonable indications that Kennedy intended to reduce the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and other dangerous foreign entanglements.

Flash forward six decades. While foreign policy and domestic policy mistakes are obviously very different kettles of fish, Biden’s eviction moratorium bumble is somwhat analogous to the Bay of Pigs invasion, at least in that it marks the first undeniable error of the Biden presidency. We don’t know everything that occurred behind closed doors, but it appears the White House waited until the last minute, for no good reason, before announcing that it would not extend the emergency eviction moratorium passed by Congress to protect renters during the pandemic. That left Congress scrambling to find a solution — literally as members left Washington for the August vacation — before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally announced a 60-day extension of the eviction moratorium, but only in U.S. counties with “substantial and high levels of community transmission” of the coronavirus.

The most generous way of interpreting this screw-up is that Biden’s team sincerely believed they shouldn’t try to order another extension that would likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court, but fumbled on effectively conveying that to the public. But the subsequent position reversal risks bringing about precisely the outcome they had hoped to avoid: Buying a little of time but creating a legal hornet’s nest (which is already starting to happen) as landlords fight the new policy. That’s better than nothing for vulnerable renters, but ultimately amounts to little more than a delaying tactic that fails to resolve the crisis.

Another possibility is that the White House viewed the eviction moratorium as a low priority, and were surprised by the massive pushback. If that’s what happened, they owe a giant debt to progressives in Congress like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Cori Bush, who applied the head and gave the Biden team an opportunity to do the right thing while saving political face. It is also conceivable that the Biden administration defaulted to “moderate” or “bipartisan” political thinking, and decided to throw renters to the wolves in the name of strict legal propriety, failing to realize how profoundly that would anger the Democrats’ progressive base.

That last fact — the widespread anger among their own voters — is a crucial ingredient here, leading to the lessons Biden should take from JFK. If Kennedy stumbled into a supposedly “radical” position by challenging Cold War hawkishness after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Biden has suddenly learned that millions of Democrats no longer view private property rights as paramount. Instead, they think it’s morally unacceptable and dangerous to public health to force tenants into homelessness as the COVID-19 pandemic resurges. This may be the result of specific circumstances right now, but it also reflects the cumulative impact of the 2008 and 2020 economic crashes, which have dramatically worsened economic inequality.

Going forward, Biden has an opportunity to challenge neoliberal orthodoxy — which is already massively unpopular with the public —just as Kennedy challenged Cold War orthodoxy. Indeed, if Biden doesn’t do that, it will be another major failure of his presidency. 

The other lesson that Biden can learn involves trust. The president has done much to repair his reputation for fudging the facts since taking office, and he has the benefit of following the most overtly dishonest president in the nation’s history. But let’s remember that Biden has been credibly accused of plagiarizing other people’s words and speeches twice during his political career. His handling of Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings as Senate Judiciary Committee chair in 1991 was disgraceful. He has frequently tried to make himself sound like a principled early critic of the Iraq war, which isn’t even remotely true. There is also something fundamentally weaselly about Biden’s refusal to admit that the Senate filibuster is an anti-democratic, extra-constitutional practice that has often been used to impede civil rights and voting rights — and is being used that same way right now.  

If Biden’s credibility gap is creeping back into public consciousness right now, that’s for good reason. By far the best way to address that is to stand up and take responsibility for his mistakes. The moment has almost certainly passed for Biden to come clean about the eviction moratorium. That’s regrettable: It would have provided an instructive contrast to Trump’s bluster and blame, and established Biden as a candid and self-aware grownup. (As, for the most part, he is.)

But Biden still has the opportunity to admit being wrong about other things. It would do wonders for the president’s reputation if he stood up and admitted that his loyalty to the filibuster was a misguided figment of the past. Things have changed, and it’s time to ditch this anachronism and move on. Of course something else will come up, whenever inevitable human frailty interferes with policy implementation, and he’ll surely get the chance for a “failure is an orphan” moment of his own.

After four years of a president bellowing in rage and blaming others over even the most tepid criticism, it would be refreshing and healthy to hear a president simply say, “I was wrong.” Those three words could be as radical a transformation as any policy metamorphosis. They would build on Biden’s most obvious political strength, the basic human decency perceived even by his political enemies.

Nearly 60 years after his death, John F. Kennedy remains an iconic president because he appeared on the American scene as a new and surprising kind of leader. Even though Joe Biden is the oldest person ever elected president — while Kennedy was the youngest — he has the opportunity to learn from Kennedy’s example, and to be just as surprising and invigorating. 

Federal government forgives PPP loan given to white nationalist publisher

The federal government award COVID relief funds to a white nationalist publisher. According to ProPublica’s database of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) recipients, Happy Penguins LLC had a total of $76,106 in COVID funding forgiven by the Small Business Administration.

Further research determined that the limited liability company is owned by white nationalist publisher, Peter Brimelow, who also serves as head of the Virginia Dare (VDARE) Foundation.

Back in 2016, Brimelow spoke with The Associated Press where he noted that Happy Penguins is the entity used to pay himself and other employees. As of 2019, Brimelow reportedly earns a total of $345,364 annually from VDARE. Since 2019, both entities have been listed as operating from Brimelow’s home address in Litchfield, Va.

According to The Daily Beast, Brimelow, an immigrant and United Kingdom native, “has long been a bitter polemicist against nonwhite arrivals to the United States.”

Although he adamantly denies that he is a white nationalist, he has stereotyped different ethic groups as he has insisted Latinos “specialize in rape, particularly of children” and “Haitians have very high crime levels.” In fact, the publication notes that VDARE has a history of “publishing race rants, conspiracy theories, and manifestos by such white nationalist authors as American Renaissance founder Jared Taylor has gotten it kicked off platforms ranging from Facebook to Paypal.”

Despite the denial of white nationalism, the name of the foundation also suggests otherwise as it also has racially charged ties. Virginia Dare is considered a prominent figure in white nationalist mythology.

In the past, Jared Holt has defended Brimelow describing him as a “suit-and-tie type.” However, his actions reportedly continue to lean further toward far-right ideologies.

“VDARE’s reputation is pretty egregious,” said Holt. “This is a type of white nationalist organization that is trying to posture itself as ‘the thinking man’s white nationalism.’ Any instances where they are obtaining any veneer of legitimacy are very concerning.”

CNN anchor’s suggestion for Republican accountability? Name new COVID variants after GOP governors

CNN anchor Jim Acosta on Saturday blasted Republican governors for refusing to implement public policy measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

“As the Delta variant is raging across the U.S., the nation remains divided between states fighting the virus and states fighting the science. States led by politicians who know better. Case in point, Florida,” Acosta reported.

“Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, is barring school districts in the state from enacting mask mandates. Never mind that conservatives tend to support local control over their schools, that’s only part of the problem. The problem is that Florida has been one of the leaders in the U.S. in COVID cases, just as kids too young to be vaccinated are heading back to the classroom,” he explained.

“DeSantis has put his own stamp in this anti-science crusade, bashing Dr. Fauci, selling koozies and T-shirts that say ‘Don’t Fauci my Florida,” he noted.

Acosta had an idea to hold GOP governors accountability for the deaths they are choosing.

“People should not have to die so some politicians can own the libs. They’re not owning anybody,” Acosta said. “But they may end up owning the pandemic, because they’re prolonging it.”

“Perhaps it’s time to start naming these new variants that may be coming out after them instead of the Delta variant. Why not call it the DeSantis variant? We could sell beer koozies that say ‘Don’t Florida my Fauci’ and use the money to help pay for all of the funerals that will be coming in the days to come,” Acosta said.

Watch below via CNN:

98% of emperor penguin colonies could be extinct by 2100. Can the Endangered Species Act help them?

Emperor penguins thrive on Antarctica’s coastlines in icy conditions any human would find extreme. Yet, like Goldilocks, they have a narrow comfort zone: If there’s too much sea ice, trips to bring food from the ocean become long and arduous, and their chicks may starve. With too little sea ice, the chicks are at risk of drowning.

Climate change is now putting that delicate balance and potentially the entire species at risk.

In a new study, my colleagues and I show that if current global warming trends and government policies continue, Antarctica’s sea ice will decline at a rate that would dramatically reduce emperor penguin numbers to the point that almost all colonies would become quasi-extinct by 2100, with little chance of recovering.

That’s why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to list the emperor penguin as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The proposal will be published in the Federal Register on Aug. 4, 2021, starting a 60-day public comment period.

The greatest threat emperor penguins face is climate change. It will disrupt the sea ice cover they rely on unless governments adopt policies that reduce the greenhouse gases driving global warming.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act has been used before to protect other species that are primarily at risk from climate change, including the polar bear, ringed seal and several species of coral, which are all listed as threatened.

Emperor penguins don’t live on U.S. territory, so some of the Endangered Species Act’s measures meant to protect species’ habitats and prevent hunting them don’t directly apply. Being listed under the Endangered Species Act could still bring benefits, though. It could provide a way to reduce harm from U.S. fishing fleets that might operate in the region. And, with expected actions from the Biden administration, the listing could eventually pressure U.S. agencies to take actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Marching toward extinction

I first saw an emperor penguin when I visited Pointe Géologie, Antarctica, during my Ph.D. studies. As soon as I set foot on the island, before our team unpacked our gear, my colleagues and I went to visit the emperor penguin colony located only a couple of hundred meters from the French research station – the same colony featured in the movie “March of the Penguins.”

We sat far away to observe them through binoculars, but after 15 minutes, a few penguins approached us.

People think that they are awkward, almost comical, with their hobbling gait, but emperors walk with a peaceful and serene grace across the sea ice. I can still feel them tugging on my shoelaces, their eyes flickering with curiosity. I hope my children and future generations have a chance to meet these masters of the frozen world.


Penguin curiosity meets a GoPro camera. Credit: C. Marciau/IPEV/CNRS

Researchers have studied the emperor penguins around Pointe Géologie, in Terre Adélie, since the 1960s. Those decades of data are now helping scientists gauge the effects of anthropogenic climate change on the penguins, their sea ice habitat and their food sources.

The penguins breed on fast ice, which is sea ice attached to land. But they hunt for food within the pack ice – sea ice floes that move with the wind or ocean currents and may merge. Sea ice is also important for resting, during their annual moult and to escape from predators.

The penguin population at Pointe Géologie declined by half in the late 1970s when sea ice declined and more male emperor penguins died, and the population never fully recovered from massive breeding failures – something that has been occurring more frequently.

Chart of penguin pair decline and projection
The number of breeding pairs of emperor penguins at Pointe Géologie is projected to decline significantly in a world with high greenhouse gas emissions. The chart uses the RCP 8.5 climate scenario of high-emissions future. Jenouvrier et al., 2020, CC BY-ND

To assess whether the emperor penguin could qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encouraged an international team of scientists, policy experts, climate scientists and ecologists to provide research and projections of the threats posed by climate change to emperor penguins and their future survival.

Every colony will be in decline by 2100

Emperor penguins are adapted to their current environment, but the species has not evolved to survive the rapid effects of climate change that threaten to reshape its world.

Decades of studies by an international team of researchers have been instrumental in establishing the need for protection.

Seminal research I was involved in in 2009 warned that the colony of Pointe Géologie will be marching toward extinction by the end of the century. And it won’t just be that colony. My colleagues and I in 2012 looked at all known emperor penguin colonies identified in images from space and determined that every colony will be declining by the end of the century if greenhouse gases continue their current course. We found that penguin behaviors that might help them adapt to changing environmental conditions couldn’t reverse the anticipated global decline.

Major environmental shifts, such as the late formation and early loss of the sea ice on which colonies are located, are already raising the risk.


The projected status of emperor penguin colonies by 2100 and annual mean change of sea ice concentrations between the 20th and 21st centuries. Natalie Renier/WHOI, Jenouvrier et al. 2021

A dramatic example is the recent collapse of Halley Bay, the second-largest emperor penguin colony in Antarctica. More than 10,000 chicks died in 2016 when sea ice broke up early. The colony has not yet recovered.

By including those extreme events, we projected that 98% of colonies will be extinct by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions continue their present course, and the global population will decline by 99% compared with its historical size.

Meeting the Paris goal could save the penguins

The results of the new study showed that if the world meets the Paris climate agreement targets, keeping warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) compared to pre-industrial temperatures, that could protect sufficient habitat to halt the emperor penguins’ decline.

But the world isn’t on track to meet the Paris Agreement. According to one estimate, by Climate Action Tracker, countries’ current policy pathways have a greater than 97% probability of exceeding 2 C (3.6 F). With recent government announcements factored in, the increase is estimated to be around 2.4 C (4.3 F).

So it appears that the emperor penguin is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.” The future of emperor penguins, and much of life on Earth, including humanity, ultimately depends upon the decisions made today.

Marine ecologist Philip Trathan of the British Antarctic Survey contributed to this article.

Stephanie Jenouvrier, Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s finally time to reunite with friends. So why do I feel so lonely?

After over a year of isolation during Covid, my hunger to reunite with friends grew more and more desperate. Last spring, when New York City became the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic and I volunteered as an emergency medical technician, I often telegraphed to a better future that involved traveling to a warm-weathered island with my girlfriends, telling stories deep into the night, laughing for days.

Yet when the fatal spring peak eased last May, there was little reprieve. The public’s interest in front-line workers vanished, as attention shifted to the protests that erupted across the city, fueled by the police killing of George Floyd and others. As EMTs, we returned to our baseline state of invisibility. It shocked and saddened me to be so swiftly forgotten. “Never forget” is the slogan of 9/11, perhaps because of our historical failure at the art of remembrance.

When winter arrived, it brought with it another surge in Covid infections, along with the loss of a close friend: an FDNY firefighter turned ER doctor who lived in Las Vegas and died of World Trade Center-related cancer. He was a funny, kind, loving, mustached man who always wore a fire department t-shirt, made a heroic spiritual U-turn at the end of his life by getting sober on his deathbed, and helped me more than anyone when I was on the ambulance during the pandemic. He would spend hours on the phone with me debriefing about what I’d seen.

I’d become a first responder four years ago to honor his late brother, a firefighter killed on that horrific blue Tuesday morning in September 2001. The tragedies of 9/11 and Covid dovetailed for me in 2020, and I found myself pitched into a sea of grief. Even now, months later, I struggle to understand that my friend is gone. I don’t sleep well. I don’t eat well. I cry often. My therapist assured me this is a normal stage of grief, made more acute by isolation. She referred me to an article about people languishing.

One day a passage returned to me from a Jim Shepard story called “Boys Town,” about a struggling war veteran, which goes like this: “You get lonely, is what it is. A person’s not supposed to go through life with absolutely nobody. It’s not normal. The longer you go by yourself the weirder you get, and the weirder you get the longer you go by yourself. It’s a loop and you gotta do something to get out of it.”

When the possibility of taking a trip to Martha’s Vineyard with four of my closest friends arrived along with the vaccines, I seized the opportunity. I packed my bags, grabbed my best friend, and together we sped across New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, then ferried to the vineyard. We arrived on shore, sunglasses in hand, bursting with hope that our loneliness would abate. Isolation and suffering would give way to friendship, togetherness, and healing.

The four of us spent five days enjoying salty, lilac perfumed air, orange-pink sunsets, and delicious foraged watercress and sea bass ceviche. Nights, we stayed up late talking and telling stories, just as I’d dreamed. It was the closest I’d come to pre-pandemic life I’d experienced since the previous spring. And yet rather than the laughter I’d imagined would permeate the air, I was reduced to tears every day.

When I hugged one of my friends for the first time in a year, a deep sadness overtook me. I wept at how comforting it was to take in the miracle of our aliveness. I wept over all the events we’d missed in each other’s lives over the past year — the birthdays and brunches, funerals and holidays — the time we lost and would never get back. I was startled by the depth of my sorrow, the convulsion of tears released with each hug. 

And while I was comforted by my friends’ companionship, after spending a few hours with them I felt like I’d just marched in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade. I often retreated to my bedroom to read or nap, longing for solitude, the very thing I’d come to the island to escape. Unaccustomed to being out of my apartment, I jumped at the sound of an icemaker, mistaking it for an intruder who’d come to the house to murder us, obviously. At night I lay awake in bed, unable to sleep, thinking about the gray horrors of 2020, how the pandemic kept me from seeing my dying friend during the last months of his life, the catastrophic Covid deaths that were ransacking India at the time while we were seemingly tiptoeing out of the tragedy, ruminating on the unfairness of it all.

Why, despite being so grateful to be with friends once again, was I so easily overwhelmed, so plagued with feelings of sadness and loneliness, especially when this trip was the only thing that I’d looked forward to in months?

After a year of isolation and death, it’s fair to say we’re all a bit weird now. On the island it was impossible not to notice how odd we’d all become post-2020. One of my friends lost her home and now had a Band-Aid slapped across her forehead from running into a lacerating cupboard. One sobbed when she talked about losing her aunt to cancer. Another friend cried alone in her room while journaling in the morning.

Driving up a steep road flanked by the sea, one of my friends agreed the trauma we all feel is real and collective, but she added that some people had it worse than others during the pandemic. “Anyone who works in health care,” she said, looking at me sideways.

At first, I bristled at her remark. I didn’t consider myself especially traumatized, despite having worked on the front line as an EMT, particularly when I viewed my experience against that of full-time first responders who worked mandated overtime with no hazard pay, or friends who lost jobs, or family members, or their lives.

True, I’d been on the ambulance when the sirens flared and thousands of New Yorkers perished while my friend was dying of cancer. Yes, I’d gotten sick with what my doctor presumed was Covid, though I tested negative for the virus. No, I didn’t tell my friends who weren’t first responders about what I’d seen and felt during those godawful months. They were anxious enough as it was, stuck at home mainlining news and mortality data, and I didn’t think telling them things were much worse on the street than what they were seeing in the news would be especially helpful.

And so while it saddened me to admit it, my friend was perhaps right to stick me in a separate emotional sock drawer than the one she inhabited. Last year, in the chaos of the disaster, I didn’t have time to feel. This trip provided me with the opportunity to start to absorb the losses and reflect on how agonizing it had been to be confronted with so much death, how disheartening that half the country thought Covid was a joke, and how exhausting that while things were slowly getting better here, it still wasn’t over.

I know this is supposed to be the “summer of joy,” and I do feel a new sense of freedom and relief with get-togethers made possible by the vaccines. But as an EMT I can’t help but feel insulted that New York City has chosen to honor its front-line workers with a parade rather than by paying EMTs and paramedics a fair wage for the grueling and critical rescue work they’ve been doing thanklessly for years, with 2020 offering a master class in ambulance-driven heroism. And I can’t say I feel especially cheerful to be an EMT now or in agreement with the notion that Covid is somehow magically done with us. The last time I was on the ambulance and transported a psychiatric patient to the hospital, the adult and pediatric ERs were packed bed-to-bed with sick and dying patients, every nurse I encountered looked exhausted beyond endurance — they’re quitting in droves — and the fluorescent lights that illuminated the hospital floor seemed to highlight a world of endless misery with no end in sight for those on the front-line. 

On a mental health questionnaire circulating among healthcare workers, one of the questions asked: When you think of Covid-19, how often do you feel disappointed in people? Never? Rarely? Often? Always?

Always, I answered.

The last day of the trip I dressed in all black in preparation to return to New York, ringing with gratitude at having seen my friends, but also reeling from newly registered sorrows. On the ferry ride home, I stared at the deep blue water and forced myself to acknowledge that this summer was not like the last. This year, 2021, was in fact different. Vaccines were here and they were working. Treatments were improving. People who died in the chaos of last spring now had a chance.

The trip with my friends was wonderful and I have not recovered — not even close. But it will get better, I told myself as I unpacked. In the meantime, I know the loneliness will still be there. But this time, I also know how to get out of the loop: I can reach out to friends and pull them close before things start to get too weird.

Want creamier scrambled eggs? These are the best dairy products to add for texture and flavor

I was in graduate school when I decided to master scrambled eggs. Like many students, I didn’t have a ton of disposable income. But I loved good food, and I took this quote by James Beard to heart: “It is true thrift to use the best ingredients available and to waste nothing.”

Eggs are cheap, but good eggs done right are almost heavenly. 

Some of this is, of course, dependent on technique. To this day, I still have “weekday scrambled eggs” and “weekend scrambled eggs” coming out of my kitchen. 

Especially when I was commuting to work, weekday scrambled eggs were a matter of sustenance, cooked hot and quick and rendered slightly rubbery, but good enough to slap on a piece of toast as I was heading out the door (five minutes late with wet hair that I prayed would dry if I drove with the windows down). Weekend scrambled eggs were — and remain — a whole different production. 

RELATED: How to brew a better French press coffee, according to an expert

This is a low and slow process that involves a little more butter and time than weekday eggs. Some cooks recommend a 20 to 30 minute process; others say that 10 minutes is sufficient. I just stand and stir gently until soft, velvety curds form. This simple alteration in heat and time results in a radically different end product. 

Adding various add-ins to my scrambled eggs resulted in pretty different results, too. There was something luxurious about splurging on the best dairy products I could afford. For months, my shopping basket included rice, beans, chives, a dozen eggs and a precious bottle or tub of organic cream, whole milk, crème fraîche and sour cream.

I learned a lot. The steam from a splash of water, for instance, gives you springier eggs if that’s your thing. Some chefs, notably Anthony Bourdain, eschewed adding dairy products because, as he told “Tech Insider” in 2017, “You’re not making a quiche here — you’re making scrambled eggs.” Bourdain preferred more texture to his final product. 

Through that process, I learned that I’m a sucker for a creamy soft scramble. If that’s something you’re looking for, too, here’s the lowdown on what add-ins make for a better breakfast. 

Crème fraîche

Crème fraîche is a soured cream product with up to 45% butterfat. It’s thicker than typical supermarket sour cream — which contains about 12% butterfat — and richer in flavor. The higher fat content makes it good for cooking because it’s less prone to curdling, which is why it’s a better add-in than sour cream. 

Unlike milk or cream, I wouldn’t recommend whipping the crème fraîche into the raw eggs before cooking. Instead, add a dollop to the pan just as the scrambled eggs begin to set up. Pull the mixture off direct heat to swirl the crème fraîche throughout the eggs before returning it to the heat to finish cooking. 

It gives the eggs a subtle, tangy flavor and a really velvety texture. It’s one of my favorite additions by far.

Cream, half-and-half and milk

I follow America Test Kitchen’s lead here. They recommend half-and-half as the ideal dairy product for producing puffy, stable curds. A combination of milk and heavy cream is a good substitute, as well, while using only milk tends to produce watery scrambled eggs that are prone to “weeping” excess liquid.

Mayonnaise or an extra egg yolk

At the most basic level, fat helps create creaminess, and an egg’s fat is in its yolk. A simple way to achieve creamier scrambled eggs is to simply add an extra yolk to the mix. Another way to achieve this is by taking a page out of “Good Eats” host Alton Brown’s book: Add a teaspoonful of mayonnaise to your scrambled eggs. 

Mayonnaise is a mixture of egg yolks and oil — a one-two punch of fat — and it really does help create creamier scrambled eggs. 

Cream cheese 

The addition of cream cheese is more of a flavor enhancement than the aforementioned dairy products, but thanks to its at-least 33% butterfat, it will add a nice boost of creaminess to your scrambled eggs. Fold it into your eggs using the same technique as the crème fraîche. Only 1 or 2 teaspoons go a long way. 

 

Want to make a better breakfast? Check out these stories: 

Low on dinner inspiration? These flavor-packed Italian-American chicken recipes will satisfy

When people think about Italian-American chicken recipes, their mind probably wanders to dishes like luscious chicken marsala or chicken piccata dotted with briny capers and lemon. They may also think of chicken parmesan, which Salon’s Michael La Corte aptly described as “the apex and confluence of weeknight meal, red sauce joint staple and comfort food.” 

“My chicken parm is reliable, dependant and a constant,” he wrote. “I know that I can bread chicken, I know that I can make sauce, I know that I can top chicken and sauce with copious heaps of cheese with reckless abandon. And I know that it’ll taste delicious.” 

But let’s say that you find yourself with some extra chicken, but you’re low on inspiration – that’s where La Corte comes in again with some dishes that are perhaps a little lesser known, but just as classic and delicious: pollo alla saltimbocca and pollo alla Francese. 

Per La Corte, Taste Atlas writes that saltimbocca originated in Brescia, “a Lombaridan city nestled at the foot of the apps,” but it is now wildly popular within Roman cuisine. “Salti in bocca” means “jumps in the mouth,” it is typically made with veal, and it is made with prosciutto, sage, white wine, and usually garlic, cheese and a touch of tomato. It was first written about in Pellegrino Artrusi’s cookbook in 1891. 

Meanwhile, La Corte notes “chicken Francese is a bit of a wonky amalgamation.”

“It is sometimes called chicken French, and one might even argue that it’s more French than Italian, but it’s become a simple, customary inclusion in the Italian-American repertoire of chicken classics,” he said. 

La Corte shares his recipe for a base chicken which can be used for both recipes, as well as the preparations and sauces that give them their signature flavors. 

***

Recipe: Base Chicken 

Ingredients

  • 1.5 pounds chicken breasts, thinly sliced or pounded
  • Kosher salt to taste 
  • Freshly ground black pepper to taste 
  • Enough AP flour to thoroughly coat the chicken (about 2 cups)
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons of onion powder
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons of garlic powder
  • 2 to 3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
  • 2 to 3 tablespoons unsalted butter

Directions

1. Using salt and pepper, season the chicken breasts well on both sides. Then, in a large shallow bowl or rimmed plate, season the flour with salt, pepper, onion powder and garlic powder. 

2. In a heavy bottomed saucepan or skillet, melt the butter and olive oil over medium-high heat. 

3.. Dredge the chicken breasts in the seasoned flour — coating both sides — before adding to the pan. Cook the chicken until the coating is a deep, golden brown, about 4 to 5 minutes on each side. 

5. Move the chicken to a plate, drain the pan of the cooking fat and return to the stove. 

***

Recipe: Pollo alla Saltimbocca

Ingredients 

  • 2 to 3 tablespoons unsalted butter
  • 5 to 6 sage leaves
  • 4 to 5 pieces prosciutto di parma
  • 1 cup shredded mozzarella
  • 1 to 2 lemons, juiced
  • ½ cup white wine
  • ¾ cup chicken stock
  • Handful of chopped flat-leaf parsley

Directions

1. Melt the butter in the pan in which you cooked the chicken

2. Meanwhile, place the reserved chicken pieces on a sheet pan with prosciutto, sage leaves and shredded mozzarella and put under broiler until cheese is melted and prosciutto is crisping at the edges.

3. To pan with butter, add white wine, deglaze and reduce by half.

4. Add chicken stock and lemon to the pan, reduce by half, and add chicken to pan. Do not turn in the sauce.

5. Sprinkle with chopped parsley

***

Recipe: Pollo alla Francese

Ingredients

  • 2 to 3 tablespoons unsalted butter
  • 3/4 cup white wine
  • 1 cup chicken stock
  • 4 lemons, juiced and zested
  • Handful of freshly chopped parsley

(Note: For Francese, prepare chicken as usual, but also mix 2 to 3 eggs with a splash of milk or heavy cream and whisk until homogeneous. Stir in salt and pepper. Dredge chicken in seasoned flour, then eggs, and then add to pan.)

Directions

1. Melt butter in the pan in which you cooked the chicken. 

2. Add white wine to the pan over medium heat, deglaze and reduce by half.

3. Add stock, lemon juice and zest, and reduce by half.

4. Add chicken back to pan, warm through and further reduce, marrying chicken and sauce, and sprinkle with parsley.

 

More by this author: 

The only summer wines you need, according to a wine pro

These days, we’re certainly spending a bit more time in the house or hanging out with friends at their homes. As we know all too well, 2020 gave us a taste of a slower life, as we spent more time inside than we ever could’ve imagined was possible. Boredom set in. We all felt a little like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

Fortunately, our resilience came out to play — and when 2020 gave us lemons, we made lemonade. We purchased all the home essentials, decked out our outdoor spaces, and perfected recipes that we’re still proud to share with friends. In short, we all mastered the art of entertaining. And kudos to us for keeping the party going!

While being an outstanding host can often mean paying attention to the little details, here’s my advice as a person who’s spent an entire career in hospitality hosting dinners and events: Don’t stress over being super fancy. The days of the fine china place settings and four-course seated dinners are becoming a distant memory. That said, while you may not need your grandmother’s porcelain dinnerware anymore, but don’t put her crystal glassware away too quickly. You can entertain in style and still keep it casual, putting more focus on the best part — beverages. As the saying goes: “Life is too short to drink bad wine.”

Once you’ve narrowed down the food selections, head to your local wine retailer to take care of the rest. As the owner of a neighborhood wine shop, I can say firsthand there is nothing more satisfying than helping cooks and hosts pick the perfect bottles to serve and dazzle their guests. With that in mind, here are a few of the summer wines I recommend time and again — wines that will get the sensory wheels spinning and give you all the summer-breeze-making-you-feel-fine vibes.

* * *

Bubbles

Rare is the event when it’s not OK to start with bubbles. Of course, you can keep it classic and classy and serve a true Champagne to your guests. If that’s the direction you decide to take, here’s an insider tip: Ditch the traditional flute — we’re done with them. For sure, they’re definitely pretty glasses. But unfortunately, they don’t do your sparkling wine any justice. That mini vessel is stifling your wine! Reach for a coupe glass or white wine glass instead. The wine’s aromatics need room to express themselves.

If you want less sparkle and a little more fizz, of course you can grab a bottle of vinho verde, the queen of effervescence. But right now, piquette pét nats are all the rave. Piquette is a by-product of the wine fermentation process. Water is added to the grape pomace (the remaining grape solids — think: seeds, skins, stems) resulting in a low alcohol, uncomplicated beverage. It’s tart, a little cloudy, and wildly refreshing. The winemaker can take an additional step and add still wine to the piquette, allowing it to undergo secondary fermentation in the bottle. That’s when the magic happens — piquette pétillant naturel. All the things we love about piquette but with a slightly sparkling, fizzy flare. Party in style . . . or shall we say, trend. The United States still reigns supreme in piquette production with must-try producers such as Old Westminster in Maryland and Swick Wines out of Oregon.

Be sure not to leave out the red sparkling wine counterparts! The obsession with Lambrusco is real, and for good reason. What was once a cloyingly sweet sparkling wine in the 1970s is now being taken seriously by wine professionals and sommeliers all over the world. Lambrusco is a sparkling wine made from an assortment of Lambrusco grape varietals grown almost exclusively in Emilia-Romagna — land of Prosciutto di Parma, tortellini, and Parmesan-Reggiano cheese. Lambrusco, similar to pet nats, are frizzante in style, meaning they’re light on the bubbles, powerful in the flavor. Ranging from dry and tannic, to fruit forward and elegant, and sometimes slightly sweet, Lambrusco is the ultimate food-friendly sparkling red wine.

Pairing Cheat Sheet:

Whether you’re having homemade pizza, charcuterie and cheese boards (don’t forget to include Parmesan Reggiano with Modena Balsamic), or summer sausage, Lambrusco will work every time.

With piquette’s attractively low ABOV, and intentional style to be consumed casually with the purpose of hydration, this fizzy beverage can pair with snacks or quite frankly, on its own.

Sarah’s Faves:

* * *

Coastal Whites

Picture this: Fishing boat ports, olive trees, dry sandy beaches, and cultivated farmland. We’re not talking about the Hamptons here — it’s all about uninhabited, sleepy coastlines. Seems like a no-brainer for wine, right? Here’s why: Wine growing regions along the coast means lots of wine consumption outdoors. These are perfect sites for thriving wine growing regions. Wines produced along the ocean and sea oftentimes have racy acidity, ocean spray salinity, and a distinct freshness that clearly exhibits purity. Ooh la la, these white wines are intriguing. Keep your eyes peeled for electric wines from Fiefs Vendéens Brem in Loire Valley France, Rias Baixas in Northwest Spain, the Southern Italian coast of Sicily, and Portugal’s volcanic Azores islands.

Pairing Cheat Sheet:

Coastal whites are best served with ceviche, oysters and shellfish, simple green salads, and poached fish. Do you see where we’re going with this? What grows together goes together.

Sarah’s Faves:

 

* * *

Chillable Reds

Contrary to popular belief, drinking a chilled light red wine is one of the best ways to consume them these days. That’s right — cold red wine. We’re not talking Napa Valley Cabernet-style reds that are full bodied, oaky, and intensely flavored. We are specifically recommending a young, fresh, fruit-forward red with little to no tannin.

Every winemaker has the ability to make a chillable red. Many have always made wines in this style, and others, being a bit tardy to the party, are just realizing that this is becoming one of the most desirable ways to drink a red wine. These reds are often referred to as “glou glou”-style reds — reds that go down entirely too easy, creating the sound “glug glug” as you drink. They are typically bottled and consumed in their youth, rarely ever aged in oak, and have a shorter maceration period with the red grape skins resulting in a lighter color. Basically, they’re made in a way that’s similar to rosé, but much darker.

The traditional cellar temperature for a red wine is 60 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, but get those glou glou reds in the fridge for about 30 minutes and temp down the bottles to 50 to 55 degrees. This refreshing way to drink your light red wine is so rewarding. There’s the immediate gratification from drinking a red wine, then having a red that is insanely versatile with food, and it’s chilled so you don’t get the heavy red wine sweats. You can even find these in cans!

Pairing Cheat Sheet:

Chillable reds make for an all-around easy food pairing, especially when serving light dishes fro Mediterranean cuisines, roasted cauliflower, crudite, or fish tacos. It’s the wine you want to serve when you want heft but you’re not trying to overpower the meal.

Sarah’s Faves:

* * *

With a good playlist and pop of flowers from your local florist (or yard!), you’re all set for a Friday night fête at home. And don’t forget the water, friends. There is no summer hydration without water.