All posts by Rose

I like [pigeons]
AMNH

The Hall of Biodiversity: In Which I Observed Others and Looked Suspicious While Doing It

1 Comment

I made my visit to the American Museum of Natural History on the 28th of November, 2014 at approximately 11 ‘o clock in the morning. I expected a quiet visit, as it was the morning after Thanksgiving, and people should have been sleeping off the turkey.

That was not the case. There was a lot of people. However, it was all the better for me as there was more to work off of when I sat down and began to observe my first group of humans.

Forest Elephants and the Saline

Collected Data:

Time Frame: 15 minutes

Amount of people passing by the exhibit: 116

Those who interacted with the exhibit: ~50

Types of interaction: Reading the text docent, reading the book, looking at the display, watching the video.

Phrases Overheard:

“Oh, oh! There’s animals back there!”

“Look, look. I found a snake!”

Overall findings:

The results of my observation are a little bleak. Only a little less than half the people who passed by the exhibit gave it more than a glance. I noticed those who took more time were the parents with children aged 3~9. Those in large groups, and people on their phones were the ones who spent the least time at the exhibit.

Research and Outreach

This exhibit was located on the far end of the hall, and it consisted mainly of a map on the wall, two interactive computer screens, and a video playing on the opposite wall about over-fishing.

Collected Data:

Time frame: 15 minutes + a little extra

Amount of people passing by the exhibit: 92

Those who interacted with the exhibit: ~10

Types of interaction: Reading the text docent, taking a picture, looking at the display, watching the video.

Phrases Overheard:

“I would like to go to the jungle and study the animals”- elderly woman

“Oh my god. Aww.”- Middle aged mother commenting on video.

Overall findings:

This is perhaps one of the most important parts of the entire Hall of Biodiversity, but the amount of people who walked away from this exhibit more educated is far to little. Most people lose interest when they discovered that there was a lot of reading involved in this exhibit, but I don’t blame them because the writing is small, and there is a lot of it. Generally, this is a very underrated exhibit.

Analysis:

Just by slowing down and observing, I learned a lot about people, the faults of the exhibits, and also how they can be improved.  One would expect the child to be easily distracted by everything, but often times, it’s the parents who are pushing the kids away from the exhibits. I think parents often have an itinerary planned out in their heads, and are always worried about how much more of the museum they have to get through, so much that they would ask their kids to stop reading something just so that they can move on. Adults have a great effect on the interests of children, as I could see that those who spent the most time at both exhibits consisted of an adult with great patience, and a child with a curiosity, both extremely necessary for the interaction to be longer than 10 seconds.  However, another factor that plays into the patron’s interaction with the display is how easy the material is to understand. I noticed that the displays with more reading and smaller font tend to scare people away, as the most popular interaction was simply to look and see.

I don’t want to speak poorly of the Hall of Biodiversity, as it is a great exhibit, but I can’t help but think that it could have been designed better. Standing at the two ends of the hall, I observed that the side with the biodiversity is a lot brighter than the side with the conservation displays. Human beings are very much attracted to light, and most people gravitate towards the better lit wall of organisms. Another thing that unbalances the amount of traffic is that the great “blue whale room” is also located on the side with the eye-candy, and it’s incredibly easy to get side-tracked when faced with such a tourist magnet. By the time people leave the whale room, they are probably far behind schedule, and seeing as there is another exit at the end of the hall, they take it. Sadly passed over is the dimly lit wall of research and conservation, which is given a glance, deemed uninteresting, and forsaken. What an unfortunate fate, because the answers to keeping all the beautiful and interesting organisms lie within the dark recesses.

Final words:

Something that occurred to me as I was browsing the Hall of Biodiversity was that there was no focus on extinct animals. Long-gone animals like the Dodo bird, were placed amongst the living animals, as if it still existed today. By placing living and extinct species together, the exhibit leads people to subconsciously believe that everything is okay. If I were in the position to do so, I would put all the extinct and endangered animals on the side with the conservation displays, separate from the “safe” animals, to prompt a visual understanding that biodiversity is very closely connected to conserving the environment. That way, people would be more willing to walk on the other side of the rainforest, and actually learn about the effects of their actions on this earth, and how they might change.

Footprint

Footprints in the sand~

1 Comment

ROSE

 

1. How does your original footprint compare to the country average (US per capita is 5 planets and 17 acres)?

My original footprint was the one labeled Apartment. I sort of expected the number of earths and acres to 3.3 and 14.9, respectively. I have a low meat diet, I don’t really purchase things often, and I live close enough to the school to walk every day.

2. What changes could you make and what level would it make a difference, it any? Include your bar graph.

For the next two simulations, I changed my mode of living from apartment to house, just to see if that would make a difference in the footprint I leave, and also made myself a voracious eater, which I believe is the standard stereotype of Americans.

Making the switch from apartment to house didn’t have as much of an effect on the environment as I thought, which makes me feel better about when I’m at home. However, now that I think about it, there really isn’t that much of a difference between living in a house vs an apartment. Sure, the apartment may accumulate some extra charges when it comes to heating and lighting the hallways and such, but the house makes up for it with it’s own maintenance fees.

Labeling the third simulation “Voracious Eater” might be a bit confusing, so I’ll explain the boundaries. The changes I made were based on what came to mind when I thought about how the average American (okay, hillbilly) ate: A lot of processed foods, meat in almost every meal, and virtually nothing locally grown. So I made my changes based on those, and boy did the amounts skyrocket! As you can see, I also included the amount of CO2 emission each lifestyle would produce, and the numbers changed dramatically with a heavy meat, processed, non-local food diet.  All three factors contribute a great amount of CO2 in either production or transportation, which certainly adds up.

3. What do you think, overall, we need to do as a society, as a world, to really make a more sustainable society?

Clearly, all the options in the simulation illustrate a decision that would affect the world; I think it’s up to us to take those options, and make the better choice. Being more conscious of our eating and buying habits so that less energy is required to sustain us, would be a start. We can re-evaluate how many material possessions we actually need, and stop ourselves from making impulsive purchases. Walk more, eat less, and buy less things are all a good start, not just for the environment, but for ourselves as well.

What is Science?

Shaken, Not Stirred: Fracking Fluid

3 Comments

Oh the joys of a good cocktail.

If fracking fluid were a drink, it’ll be the highlight of many restaurant bars. However, actual fracking fluid is neither tasty nor potable, and the formula is probably better hidden than the recipe for Dr. Pepper.

If you click on this link, you’ll be taken to a chart that shows the basic components of the fluid used during hydraulic fracturing.

For those who need a reminder, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is (simply put) the process of injecting tons of fluid underground to break up shale, which releases natural gas that can be collected and used. The issue is, the fluid often cannot be retrieved, and the chemicals it carries often leach into the earth and fresh water supply.

Recently, California has been experiencing a long drought, and this article reports that the officials in the state have decided to shut off several injection sites in order to protect the water that was originally deemed unsuitable for human consumption. The article states that the aquifers which were exempt from protection weren’t polluted to begin with, but rather just of “poor quality” or difficult to reach. This makes me question how much scientific knowledge was applied when the decision to exempt the aquifers was made. Only about 2 percent of the earth’s water is drinkable, and yet, the state of California allowed fresh water sources to be polluted? As a state highly prone to drought, one would think that they would protect whatever precious amount of water they had.  I wonder how much of that decision was based on projected usage, and whether or not the political economy, instead of science, played a role.

Another glaring example of whether or not something is science is the statement made by the state gas and oil supervisor of CA, Steve Bohlen, “We do not have any direct evidence any drinking water has been affected,”. Already, I can sense some bias in the statement. Bohlen says that there is no direct evidence, but what about indirect evidence? As you may know, many scientific theories are proven by examining how variables are affected instead of trying to look for the cause. For example, we cannot “see” gravity, but we know it is there because things fall when thrown in the air. Likewise, fracking fluid may not be coming out of the taps, but there can certainly be a high amount of pollution surrounding a major source of drinking water. We know that the EPA has already deemed California irresponsible when it comes to checking conditions around an injection site “to ensure that fluids pumped into it would not leak underground and contaminate drinking water”, so it is rather unprofessional to demand solid proof of pollution before agreeing that the aquifers are put in danger simply by being close to the dumping grounds.

Bioblitz

Everything is edible…once

Leave a comment

I originally chose the Mushrooms group so I could learn how to identify and find edible mushrooms, but after the Bioblitz session with an actual mycologist, I am more hesitant  to eat things I find growing from the ground.

Most of the mushrooms we found we relatively harmless; there were several that were edible under certain conditions. For example, the “Inky Cap” is eaten by some people, but never with alcohol since it can cause a nauseating reaction. For that reason, it is sometimes given to alcoholics to help treat their disease.

At first, my group was pretty unenthused about walking around looking for mushrooms. Many of them hadn’t actually signed up for the group, and were just put there when they got to the Macaulay building. However, our specialist’s enthusiasm and love for mycology was so influential, that pretty soon everyone was keeping their eyes peeled for anything resembling fungi.

The highlight of the session occurred on our way back to the headquarters of the gardens. Our group leader pulled us to the base of an old tree and directed our attention to an inconspicuous little white mushroom. I though he was going to point out a common edible species, like ones you might find in a grocery store. However, once he spoke the name, it was clear that it was only going to be edible…once.

Destroying Angel.

Its white flesh was unmarked; there were no bright spots that yelled “toxic”. However, as our guide gleefully pointed out, once ingested, the toxins in the mushroom would begin to eat at your vital organs, and you’ll be dead within 24 hours.

And that’s enough to deter me from foraging by myself!