I’m glad you did participate, because you have touched on something important. Science is ultimately the gathering of knowledge of things around us, whether it be water turbulence or “the environment”. The person you referred to had been conducting his own ‘research’, the gathering of data which could be passed on. A form of indigenous knowledge if you want. All of us on iNat are doing similar forms of research.
The business of science is a different issue. In order to get paid for doing science, some entity has to pay for the research. Increasingly, research for research’s sake is subsumed by research into a purpose. A couple of examples of how this has changed - in the middle 1980’s I worked Agriculture Canada as an entomology technician. I took part in, and observed, some very good research. It was found that by the time Bertha Armyworms are seen on top of Canola plants most of their damage had been done, and any spraying at that point was just wasted money (and useless pesticide load). Similarly, in a study of aphids on peas it was found that a second spray (common practice) was useless for the same reason. I doubt either of those studies would be done now in spite of saving farmers money. Business interests started to take over shortly after this, and their focus is, shall we say, different. Getting paid to study biodiversity is not going to lead to any monetary gains, so work in fields such as that are going to be few and far between.
I had wanted to work in taxonomy, but it would mean getting a Masters and then a PhD - at that time I had a wife and two small kids, so could not afford the time and money. Besides, I was very uncertain about who would employ me in such a ‘useless’ field.
I’ve kind of lost my train of thought, but basically there is amateur science, and professional science. Both are valuable. The work done by amateurs on iNat is very important to biodiversity. We are able to form a snapshot, a baseline for biodiversity, that people who are professionals can use. And yes, nothing is absolutely certain in life!
Just a general comment about employment in the field of biology. I agree that it isn’t an easy profession for gainful employment and the job searches can be frustrating. I did a few different jobs from my undergraduate years onward and thankfully nearly all had some relevance to natural resource management and conservation biology. Some were field projects that were great fun, educational, but didn’t pay well. Others paid well, were more office-oriented and bureaucratic. but weren’t much fun. I did a stint as a proofreader and technical writer which was really not much fun but did hone my writing skills; that was really valuable in subsequent jobs.
Every job I ever had taught me something new and gave me a leg up for the next one. The bottom line is to not hold out for that perfect job that is exactly what you’ve been looking for because it might not come. Use the opportunities that present themselves as a way to find that next (and hopefully better) job. Make contacts with people in your field and volunteer your time with them if that’s possible (if you make yourself known, you might get the call when a job does arise). If you’re willing to move around that really opens up your opportunities. But keep trying and good luck.
Icebreakers have been used in the Canadian north for years. Each type is rated to the thickness of ice it can break. There are only a few worldwide that can ram through pack ice a metre thick. Most icebreakers are used on seasonal ice. Their contribution to ice pack retreat is minimal.
Yeah I didn’t really understand the “implicatory” denial. Seems like that might be a stretch. Let me know if you can arrive at a better understanding of it.
My understanding of implicatory denial is that you might not deny the evidence for climate change/extinction crisis but as an individual you aren’t doing anything about it (basically you’re part of the problem of inaction).
I think after reading all these posts, I think that maybe it’s in my best interests to go back to college/university for something like business administration, agriculture or oil and gas.
Keep the science stuff as a closet hobby as I don’t see much of a future in it. Not just as a career but as science in general. Just like trying to become a famous musician. It’s not really something that can be achieved. Except by the very few that are extremely lucky.
If anything, If am lucky enough to survive and even luckier to be blessed with having kids and being a father and then grand kids someday. Which is not ever going to happened which is beyond words very difficult to accept and brings me to tears every time I think about it.
But, If by some miracle I do. At least I can show them my inaturalist page and show them all the flora and fauna that did exist. Once upon a time ago. Before the concrete jungles.
With that said. This is , in my opinion. Why people “deny” extinction and climate and stuff. We are being told and practically forced to believe it and to get involved and make a change. So we pursue it and end up destroyed because of it.
There is no jobs in science. There is jobs in oil and gas, commercial fisheries, fur trapping, industrial factories and corporations, plastics, urban development etc.
To put it short there is only jobs in destroying what’s left of the planet. There is no jobs in saving it.
These scientists keep telling us to get involved and make a change and then when we try, they turn around and say… No go away. Stay away.
Which turns people off of it.
Now I know my opinion and what I’m saying is not popular and believe me, it tears me apart inside every time I think about it because I have spent my whole life trying to pursue a life against this. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of thing.
Coming from personal experience, I have found that I am absolutely damned if I do so to speak. I’ve been alone for nearly 20 years. No friends, no girlfriends, no kids, no money. I have absolutely nothing. I don’t even know how I have stayed alive as long as I have. There is honestly no comprehension for it.
But, if I pursue life against or void of science. I probably could have quality of life like everybody else I see that pursued practically anything else. That are all happily married now and own there own houses and cottages and have lots of money and adult jobs that pay a solid salary with benefits and dental etc. Have lots of friends and people that care about them.
So I guess in my view, people deny not to deny, but simply because they are told to make a difference and then when they try they are told " to go way and not bother" and because they don’t want to sacrifice quality of life.
If I had of known pursuing this would have made me poorer than the poverty I grew up in, forced to live in my car, forced to not be able to shower or eat healthy, forced to be alone, unmarried without kids or any kind of human comfort, shunned by everybody in the world and left for dead.
I would of never even thought of pursuing it in any compacity.
Because in the end. Following this climate change and extinction stuff. Is just going to ruin your life and kill you off. Long long long before we even see the effects of climate and extinction.
We already see climate change, temperatures are rising, reefs are dying, effects of extinction are also we’ll seen in communities without great biodiversity.
People say other people to go away, but only the person itself decides to do so, if you want to change some major things you have to be a part of them, and only you can decide whether you want to change something at the moment or you live only for respect of others, which are in most situations are diametrically different things.
No, I agree. The report that I did over the summer I saw a decline in amphibian/frog populations. Drastically actually. Which are declining on a global scale. As well as the Common Loon and many other species. I even commented and made recommendations to improve the declines.
They denied the whole entire report. As I found out, it was because there urban development plans would have been jeopardized if they didn’t deny it. I spent the whole summer homeless working on that report in hopes it would lead to employment or at least improvement and in a matter of a whole second. They denied it. Solid scientific proof that I did.
Temperatures are absolutely rising. This summer I couldn’t spend too long out in the sun because the uv rays were so strong I would get migraines if I stayed out for too long. That’s never happened to me before.
I’m personally not denying anything.
I am just simply saying that most people are denying it or at least turning a blind eye to it and not caring because people are told we should get involved and then when they try. People are denied.
I can’t say for all people and it’s not true for all, but it seems for me that the majority of people doesn’t care about global problems because they have their on life problem, only minority can think outside of that box and not only think but do something, and if they grow up in such society and everyone around them when they’re adults doesn’t care about it how could they grow such ideals in themselves? Society is built on money and everything our goverments and businessmen do is focused on them, even eco-pro actions turn out to be for money, nobody will move a finger without such point, I don’t kno about US, but I can see almost from inside how everything is working here. And a big problem is that they want money right now, nature could bring more, but only in the future, it’s not interesting for them. It’s a global problem, going further than what we duscuss.
First off, before you decide anything, you should see some sort of counselor about what you may or may not be good at - an advanced business degree is not a guarantee of a job. The job market out there is pretty tough. There are jobs in science, but the competition is very stiff. After a year out of the job market, any skills that you may have will likely be overlooked - if your current experience is less than a couple of months old, it will likely be overlooked. I found out this the hard way.
If you wish to pursue science as a work goal, the market is even more tough (even drug firms are reducing their workforce). Apparently, it recommended that a person volunteers, and even that often needs some sort of interview or background checks (which can cost $).
I could ramble on, but I suspect that may be the best path for you just now.
back to - all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing ?
I have been having a similar experience, intensified awareness of the depth of ignorance and denial and selfishness, the issues of business interests increasingly controlling society to the detriment of knowledge, humanity and well being, and, the worst, realizing how much greenwashing there is in even the most worthy-sounding endeavours and organisations, including charitable ones funded by public money. While they may not make profit per se, only by supporting the status quo, ie denying the need for change, can they maintain funding to create or maintain jobs.
I think the societal reasons have been covered above.
It has been devastating and isolating, and I have had to bring all I have learned about MYSELF over many decades to the struggle against fear, despair, and eventually hatred.
You are highlighting the need for all of us facing these issues to know we are not alone, espdcialy while in situations where we do not have distraction by others and the necessary activities of housekeeping, food production, childcare etc, to know we are not alone.
I have worked out for myself one activity I can do that I enjoy, (observing and weeding in the local forest reserve,) gives me satisfaction, and (provided I do not let my mind turn on recent and current events and wider surroundings) brings me peace.
I spend the rest of the time recalling and trying to reproduce that peace, both when alone and when relating to whatever humans are around me, whether in person or online.
Having concluded my assessment of the people, organisations, undertakings and views that led to my various levels of disapproval, angst and despair, I try to maintain my distance, eg not reading those articles, or getting into conversation with those people, instead of trying to correct them.
I breathe a huge sigh of gratitude and relief when I DO occasionally encounter someone who is aware of and acknowledges the issues and the underlying causes, and I try to hang onto that awareness that I am not alone.
Edited one sentence for clarity, and removed last sentence as it was unable to be rendered unambiguous
@jameson_nagle I think you have made a really valuable contribution to this discussion with your honesty and your willingness to share your struggles. I think there are other people in your position. It’s really tough. And you should take pride in all the iNaturalist observations you’ve added–you’ve posted a ton!
I think you hit the nail on the head–there are more jobs using up the planet than there are jobs protecting and replenishing it. I know a lot talented people who have struggled finding work in natural resources. It’s probably going to take government spending of some kind to create more green jobs.
But please don’t be hopeless about this. There’s plenty of time to make career changes. First and foremost, take care of yourself. I kind of gave up on getting a job in academia earlier this year and honestly it’s been a huge relief. Try and be the best version of yourself, whether you end up in the oil and gas industry or as an ecologist at the nature conservancy.
In terms of jobs, we started a wiki for job opportunities (see link below). Besides ecology/wildlife etc. you might seriously look into is working on forest fire abatement and post fire restoration on the West Coast. There is going to be a ton of public and private sector work this winter cleaning up and replanting after all these fires. There are also a lot of nervous landowners that are going to be willing to pay a lot to mitigate fire risk around their homes. And you’ll be able to get out into really beautiful places! (lots of awesome iNaturalist users and wildlife too ).
I’m rooting for you. Part of what this forum can do, perhaps, is help us iNaturalist folks connect and get through tough times.
I think you hit the figurative nail on the head, the problem is that our economy values the destruction of nature. Most people may not see it this way, but we clearly still operate with an extractive economy that trades in natural resources. Too many of us turn a blind eye to the fact that our society operates on this fact, not necessarily because they are unaware of it, but because they don’t really want to know about it, not only this, but people still cling to the idea of infinite economic growth. I’m not optimistic that we will change this situation willingly, as we are notorious for resisting change.
In the long run, I’m not worried too much about Nature; life will go on long after we are gone, but I do worry tremendously about the species that we are pushing to the brink. Tom Wessels has written a great deal on this subject, and I highly recommend his book, The Myth of Progress.
This has similarly been the hottest summer I can remember in eastern New York. I remember winters when we would have two feet of snow from December until March, but for several years we’ve rarely had two feet at any one time, this last winter we never even had more than eleven inches on the ground at any one time!
Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) was required reading when I was a biology student many years ago. I haven’t re-read it in years. When it was written 50 years ago it was widely viewed as a warning. In 2020 it feels more like an epitaph.
Here is a good overview with research papers included about why the myth of “more CO2 is better for plants” is wrong:
One of the things people who say that CO2 is beneficial for plants tend to forget is that plants need more than just CO2 and water to survive. Nitrogen, among other minerals, is vital and in high CO2 environments plants have difficulty getting and storing nitrogen ( Norby, et al 2010, Larsen, et al 2010, Bloom, et al 2010, Taub & Wang, 2008 ).
Just like us, plants need their nutrients in certain ratios. Increasing one nutrient enormously doesn’t benefit the plant if the other nutrients aren’t available in increased portions as well, and on top of that, increasing certain nutrients too much will kill the plant, just as with humans drinking a certain amount of red wine is good for you, but if you habitually drink too much it’s very bad for you.
I just want to say, separate and apart from the larger discussions we are having in this topic, that I am really, really sorry that happened to you.
depending on @jameson_nagle 's skill set and interest, I would commend something fire oriented. In the Western Cape it has been good both for employment, and for the environment.
https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/everydropcounts-hat-pilot-project-hailed-as-a-success-13673378
The current chaos around baboon ‘management’ in Cape Town rests on a lucrative (for our country) 14 million rand a year contract. Paid for by ratepayers. Based out of a university department which is a cooperation between biology and commerce departments. If it pays it stays attitude to nature.
Is that steady work or well-paying intermittent? I get the impression @jameson_nagle may be looking for some degree of financial security (mybapologies if that is not actually part of your criteria, Jameson).
E.g. We have state parks that do controlled maintenance burns, but they have very small and specific windows when they can be scheduled, and those can be disrupted easily by many factors (wind, drought, availability of local fire departments for backup, availability of trained fire starters, etc). It is similar, because there is a commercial component to these parks (entrance fees, cabin & equipment rental, licensing, parking permits, etc).