One of my favorite Charles Darwin quotes is from The Descent of Man: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” Sadly, it appears that lately there are a lot of confident people out there when it comes to knowing what’s real in this universe and what’s not. And science and scientists have taken a bit of a beating. With media darlings like “Climategate” and mismanaged flu outbreaks on one side, and the rise of religious extremism on the other, I’m sometimes frightened that science is being edged out, marginalized by all those folks who seem much more certain than I of the ways of the world. Is it true? Are we really getting medieval on ourselves?

Sometimes, perhaps just for comfort’s sake, I find it’s a good idea to check in with the base and make sure we’re all pretty much on the same page. To that, Scientific American just posted what seem like some encouraging numbers from a web survey that “suggests that the scientifically literate public still trusts its experts.”

To conduct the survey, SA joined forces with its “sister publication,” Nature, to poll online readers and got a huge response – more than 21,000 people. The publications acknowledge it was “a supportive and science-literate crowd,” with nearly 20 percent identifying themselves as PhDs. Nevertheless, the survey points to some interesting trends and some wide variations of viewpoints within the community.

Happily, these variations are not apparent regarding the big question of “Who do you believe about stuff?” When asked how much scientists were trusted “to provide accurate information about important issues in society” versus others groups, such as politicians, religious leaders and friends and family, scientists came out way ahead (four out of five stars as opposed to religious leaders getting only about one and a half stars). What’s interesting, though, is that respondents trust scientists on certain subjects like evolution (that’s for you, Charles) and the origin of the universe, but much less so on issues like flu pandemics, depression drugs, pesticides, genetically modified crops and vitamin supplements. It’s almost as if respondents sniffed out the potential for profits and the possibility of scientists being, how shall we say, less than straightforward.

Another interesting line of questions regards one of our fave topics, climate change denial, particularly among us gringos. “Numerous polls show a decline in the percentage of Americans who believe humans affect climate,” says SA, “but our survey suggests the nation is not among the worst deniers.”

Turns out we’re happily behind France, Japan and Australia on this dubious list. But there’s good news here too as “among those respondents who have changed their opinions in the past year, three times more said they are more certain than less certain that humans are changing the climate.”

One heartening, and particularly timely area of inquiry, indicates that respondents still feel, despite the global econominic situation, that putting cash into science is a good ROI (return on investment) strategy. In fact, 72 percent of respondents think that “investment in basic science is one of the best ways to stimulate jobs and the economy.”

The survey looks into a number of other interesting areas as well, including science and politics, “techno fears” and “suspicion over the flu.” The SA post also has some nifty graphics for you at-a-glance folks.

I do realize that SA is asking the choir (albeit one with a diverse voice) for answers here, but sometimes, when the din of dumb gets loud enough, it helps to turn around, face the home crowd and ask, “You still with us?” A resounding “Yes!” is nice to hear.

Image: Jordan Cole

The post Checking in With the Home Team: You Still Down With Science? appeared first on EcoSalon.

To me, Charles Darwin was always one of the good guys. Growing up, the knowledge of evolution offered all the creative wonder I needed, thank you very much, and in conversation with pals I’d play Clarence Darrow to anyone’s William Jennings Bryan. In my little heathen mind, I naturally most often won the day. (Some kids liked cowboys and Indians. I liked Inherit the Wind. Go figure.)

As I got older, however, I was dismayed to discover how robber barons, past and present, had used the “survival of the fittest” argument to justify all kinds of vile behavior. From turn-of-the-century monopolists to today’s slum-lording real estate magnates, the Great Man’s concepts have been co-opted for evil purposes. (And I use the word “evil” advisedly. We are, in fact, talking Evil here.) Would Darwin see these thieves, oligarchs and social criminals as part of a natural order? Is it simply an evolutionary principle that the weak are taken advantage of and are, as they say, weeded out?

Then one day, someone added a phrase to my lexicon: “It’s just as much “˜survival of the luckiest.'” This explains how “acts of god” (so to speak) could wipe out otherwise “fit” populations. An asteroid? A political or economic system gone awry? Take your pick. Yes, the fittest survive – sometimes. And yes, the not-necessarily-more-fit-than-anyone-else take advantage of situations. Often.

Now, a new study offers another angle (or perhaps layer) to Darwin’s original theory. It not only helps put the Rockefellers in their evolutionary place, but should also give us all pause to think again about how we view our world, and how we use it.

Here’s the headline (from the BBC this past Monday): “Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims – Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.”

Aw, those Brits and their headlines. Indeed, “wrong” is the wrong word here, but this certainly is interesting news. Here’s the rub: Recent research from the University of Bristol shows “the availability of “˜living space,'” along with competition, as centrally important to evolution.

Studying patterns and fossil records covering more than 400 million years of land-animal biological history, the scientists, says the story, “showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of “˜living space’ through time.”

Living space – that’s the area where an animal and its species survive in a fairly comfortable way. What this study shows, say the researchers, is that important evolutionary advancements occur when a group gets more elbow room that’s free from predators and competitors.

Two examples they provide are birds and mammals. The former, once they took to the unoccupied air, made explosive strides. The latter waited for the Dinosaurs to get out of the way before making their evolutionary move. “This concept,” notes the story, “challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.”

Now whether or not the study’s more radical conclusions hold up over time remains to be seen. (Co-author Professor Mike Benton goes so far as to say that “competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution.”)

Of course, there are already those who question those conclusions, including Yale Professor and evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns who says he “found the patterns interesting, but the interpretation problematic,” and asks, “What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?”

But the point is made that living space rocks a species’ world and the lack thereof can keep (or bring) it down.

I’m left with two thoughts from this bit of news. First, it offers a rebuttal to the Trump-esque, entitled egos of the world who gloat over their gets and glories. Consider their “living space” – an environment cleared of true competition, where skids are greased, incumbents bought, arenas cleared of threat or responsibility. Maybe that’s a stretch, but what the hell, there is surely more at play in these folks’ “landscapes” than pure smarts and fitness.

The second takeaway, I think, is something to consider as we gobble up habitats and witness subsequent extinctions. We ought to note that we’re not immune from gobbling up our own living space, whether we poison it with chemicals, rip open its arteries of oil or simply pave it over at every opportunity in the name of “development.” This might be a study to remember if we truly want to make sure our ultra-fit species will ultimately have a place to live.

Says Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Try adapting to having no place to go.

Images: Simon Welsh and shehal

The post Giving Darwin Some Elbow Room appeared first on EcoSalon.