scientificamerican--2020-08-18--In The Midst Of The Pandemic, Loneliness Has Leveled Out

Before the coronavirus pandemic , there was a loneliness epidemic .
By some estimates , two thirds of Americans often or always felt lonely in 2019 .
So when quarantines and shelter-in-place orders began , I was one of many social scientists who raised concerns that loneliness might worsen in the months to come .
Would prolonged isolation trigger a “ social recession , ” as former U.S. surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy and physician Alice T. Chen put it ?
Now , thanks to early research , we are starting to get answers—and the data give us reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , loneliness has not only leveled out but , in certain cases , actually improved .
Social distancing has made us recognize the importance of our relationships , which influence health and mortality as much as factors such as smoking and excessive drinking .
In a study published in the American Psychologist , researchers surveyed a group of people aged 18 to 98 across the U.S. at three different times : in late January and early February , before the U.S. outbreak ; in late March , after social distancing was first recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelter-in-place orders had been underway for a month .
Each time , they polled participants using the UCLA Loneliness Scale and asked them to rate the statement , “ I receive the social and emotional support that I need.
” On average , the researchers found no significant changes in loneliness .
In fact , perceived social and emotional support actually increased .
Another study conducted in the U.S. , the U.K. and 26 other countries echoed these findings .
The researchers surveyed the same individuals both before and during the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The responses indicate that , despite social distancing , people ’ s feelings of loneliness slightly improved .
Both studies stand out in that they followed the same sets of participants starting before the pandemic .
In contrast , several papers that have reported a rise in loneliness used cross-sectional data—information from a single point in time—after the pandemic was already underway , meaning we can ’ t be sure if the individuals they surveyed were more or less lonely before .
Other investigations have revealed additional nuances : After monitoring daily experiences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown , a preprint study in Germany reported an initial increase , followed by a decrease .
This finding suggests that sudden isolation triggered a spike , but people quickly adapted and found ways to maintain social connection despite the circumstances .
Surprisingly , it seems that levels of loneliness around the world have remained generally stable .
How have we avoided a social fallout ?
First , social isolation does not necessarily cause loneliness .
While isolation is the objective state of being alone , loneliness is the subjective experience of disconnection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lonely while surrounded by people or connected while by yourself .
Amid COVID-19 , most of us are more isolated , yet that doesn ’ t mean we are lonelier .
In the past few months , we ’ ve made a point to prioritize connection .
The pandemic has made people more aware and appreciative of their relationships .
Researchers have long known that social connection reduces your risk for illness , disease and early death .
But only recently has the rest of society caught up .
Whether we do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with friends , family and neighbors can bolster our social health—the dimension of well-being that comes from connection .
Similarly , taking action to support our communities through volunteering , making masks or thanking health care workers can confer a general sense of belonging .
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks , researchers observed an influx of kindness , love and teamwork .
For many of us , the pandemic has inspired similar solidarity and a spirit that “ we are all in this together.
” Technology has also allowed us to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national organizations offer remote programs , such as the Institute on Aging ’ s Friendship Line for people aged 60 and older and the AARP ’ s mutual aid groups for people to support each other within their community .
Innovation has accelerated in the technology sector , with platforms emerging to better meet our connection needs and existing products launching new features , such as Nextdoor ’ s Neighbors Helping Neighbors program .
Lawmakers are also acknowledging the need for political action to prevent loneliness : In March the House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , which included provisions to address social isolation .
If these trends continue , the social recession we feared could turn out to be a social revolution .
Ironically , the pandemic may catalyze a cultural shift in which neighborhoods and communities band together to build healthy connection habits .
In the process of reimagining cities , buildings , schools and workplaces , we have an opportunity to design our spaces and institutions in ways that enhance our social well-being .
In short , it ’ s possible that a symptom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the loneliness epidemic .
To be sure , these trends don ’ t mean that everyone has felt connected .
Loneliness may not have changed on average , but some groups are more affected than others .
In the American Psychologist study , older adults initially felt lonelier , and people who lived alone or had a chronic disease reported more loneliness overall .
Other evidence suggests that younger generations , men and residents of individualistic countries are particularly susceptible to loneliness .
Meanwhile the digital divide has left older adults especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialize or seek support remotely .
We still have a long way to go to reduce loneliness at the population level .
But at the very least , so far , COVID doesn ’ t seem to have made it worse .
With cases fluctuating and states closing down again , it will take a concerted effort to ensure that we stay socially connected even while physically separated .
We all feel powerless when it comes to the coronavirus , but we still have some control over our social lives and our social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones , participate in quarantine pods , reach out to isolated neighbors and organize virtual gatherings .
Now is the time to strengthen bonds within families , neighborhoods and communities of all kinds—because by doing so , we will not only endure ; we might emerge better off .

Before the coronavirus pandemic, there was a loneliness epidemic. By some estimates, two thirds of Americans often or always felt lonely in 2019. So when quarantines and shelter-in-place orders began, I was one of many social scientists who raised concerns that loneliness might worsen in the months to come. Would prolonged isolation trigger a “social recession,” as former U.S. surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy and physician Alice T. Chen put it?
Now, thanks to early research, we are starting to get answers—and the data give us reason to hope. According to several recent studies, loneliness has not only leveled out but, in certain cases, actually improved. Social distancing has made us recognize the importance of our relationships, which influence health and mortality as much as factors such as smoking and excessive drinking.
In a study published in the American Psychologist, researchers surveyed a group of people aged 18 to 98 across the U.S. at three different times: in late January and early February, before the U.S. outbreak; in late March, after social distancing was first recommended; and in late April, after shelter-in-place orders had been underway for a month. Each time, they polled participants using the UCLA Loneliness Scale and asked them to rate the statement, “I receive the social and emotional support that I need.” On average, the researchers found no significant changes in loneliness. In fact, perceived social and emotional support actually increased.
Another study conducted in the U.S., the U.K. and 26 other countries echoed these findings. The researchers surveyed the same individuals both before and during the pandemic, also using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. The responses indicate that, despite social distancing, people’s feelings of loneliness slightly improved.
Both studies stand out in that they followed the same sets of participants starting before the pandemic. In contrast, several papers that have reported a rise in loneliness used cross-sectional data—information from a single point in time—after the pandemic was already underway, meaning we can’t be sure if the individuals they surveyed were more or less lonely before. Other investigations have revealed additional nuances: After monitoring daily experiences of loneliness in the first month of lockdown, a preprint study in Germany reported an initial increase, followed by a decrease. This finding suggests that sudden isolation triggered a spike, but people quickly adapted and found ways to maintain social connection despite the circumstances.
Surprisingly, it seems that levels of loneliness around the world have remained generally stable. How have we avoided a social fallout? First, social isolation does not necessarily cause loneliness. While isolation is the objective state of being alone, loneliness is the subjective experience of disconnection, which means that you can feel lonely while surrounded by people or connected while by yourself. Amid COVID-19, most of us are more isolated, yet that doesn’t mean we are lonelier.
In the past few months, we’ve made a point to prioritize connection. The pandemic has made people more aware and appreciative of their relationships. Researchers have long known that social connection reduces your risk for illness, disease and early death. But only recently has the rest of society caught up. Whether we do so in person or virtually, spending time with friends, family and neighbors can bolster our social health—the dimension of well-being that comes from connection.
Similarly, taking action to support our communities through volunteering, making masks or thanking health care workers can confer a general sense of belonging. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, researchers observed an influx of kindness, love and teamwork. For many of us, the pandemic has inspired similar solidarity and a spirit that “we are all in this together.”
Technology has also allowed us to avoid a social decline. Local nonprofits and national organizations offer remote programs, such as the Institute on Aging’s Friendship Line for people aged 60 and older and the AARP’s mutual aid groups for people to support each other within their community. Innovation has accelerated in the technology sector, with platforms emerging to better meet our connection needs and existing products launching new features, such as Nextdoor’s Neighbors Helping Neighbors program. Lawmakers are also acknowledging the need for political action to prevent loneliness: In March the House of Representatives passed the Supporting Older Americans Act of 2020, which included provisions to address social isolation.
If these trends continue, the social recession we feared could turn out to be a social revolution. Ironically, the pandemic may catalyze a cultural shift in which neighborhoods and communities band together to build healthy connection habits. In the process of reimagining cities, buildings, schools and workplaces, we have an opportunity to design our spaces and institutions in ways that enhance our social well-being. In short, it’s possible that a symptom of the coronavirus pandemic could become a cure for the loneliness epidemic.
To be sure, these trends don’t mean that everyone has felt connected. Loneliness may not have changed on average, but some groups are more affected than others. In the American Psychologist study, older adults initially felt lonelier, and people who lived alone or had a chronic disease reported more loneliness overall. Other evidence suggests that younger generations, men and residents of individualistic countries are particularly susceptible to loneliness. Meanwhile the digital divide has left older adults especially vulnerable because many lack the means to socialize or seek support remotely.
We still have a long way to go to reduce loneliness at the population level. But at the very least, so far, COVID doesn’t seem to have made it worse. With cases fluctuating and states closing down again, it will take a concerted effort to ensure that we stay socially connected even while physically separated.
We all feel powerless when it comes to the coronavirus, but we still have some control over our social lives and our social health. We can call our loved ones, participate in quarantine pods, reach out to isolated neighbors and organize virtual gatherings. Now is the time to strengthen bonds within families, neighborhoods and communities of all kinds—because by doing so, we will not only endure; we might emerge better off.


scientificamerican--2020-08-18--In Defense of the Psychologically Rich Life

“ I do not accept any absolute formulas for living .
No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man ’ s life .
As we live , we grow , and our beliefs change .
They must change .
So I think we should live with this constant discovery .
We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living .
We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.
” —Martin Buber What does it mean to live a good life ?
This question has been debated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinkers and novelists throughout the course of humanity .
In the field of psychology , two main conceptualizations of the good life have predominated : A happy life ( often referred to as “ hedonic well-being ” ) , full of stability , pleasure , enjoyment and positive emotions , and a meaningful life ( often referred to as “ eudaimonic well-being ” ) , full of purpose , meaning , virtue , devotion , service and sacrifice .
But what if these aren ’ t the only options ?
In recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life has been receiving greater research attention : the psychologically rich life .
The psychologically rich life is full of complex mental engagement , a wide range of intense and deep emotions , and diverse , novel , surprising and interesting experiences .
Sometimes the experiences are pleasant , sometimes they are meaningful , and sometimes they are neither pleasant nor meaningful .
However , they are rarely boring or monotonous .
After all , both happy and meaningful lives can become monotonous and repetitive .
A person with a steady office job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally satisfied with their life and find many aspects of their life meaningful and still be bored out of their mind .
Also , the psychologically rich life doesn ’ t necessarily involve economic richness .
For instance , consider Hesse ’ s character Goldmund , who has no money but pursues the life of a wanderer and a free spirit .
Recent research on psychological richness has found that it is related to , but partially distinct from , both happy and meaningful lives .
Psychological richness is much more strongly correlated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiencing both positive and negative emotions more intensely .
But is the psychologically rich life one that people actually want ?
In a new study , Shigehiro Oishi and his colleagues propose that psychological richness is a neglected aspect of what people consider a good life and set out to assess how much people around the world actually desire such a life .
The researchers asked people living in nine diverse countries the degree to which they value a psychologically rich life , a happy life and a meaningful life .
They found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives involve psychological richness .
When forced to choose a life , however , the majority chose a happy life ( ranging from 49.7 percent to 69.9 percent ) and a meaningful life ( 14.2 percent to 38.5 percent ) .
Even so , a substantial minority of people still favored the psychologically rich life , ranging from 6.7 percent in Singapore to 16.8 percent in Germany .
These numbers went up when the desire for a psychologically rich life was measured indirectly .
To fully understand what a person wishes their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explore what people wish they had avoided in their lives .
Therefore , Oishi and his colleagues asked people what they regret most in their lives and whether undoing or reversing this regrettable life event would have made their lives happier , more meaningful or psychologically richer .
They found that about 28 percent of Americans said that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer .
For instance , one person wrote that they regretted “ not going to a four-year college to get a degree .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting experiences.
” In Korea , the percentage was even higher , which 35 percent of participants saying that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer [ compared to happier ( 27.6 percent ) or more meaningful ( 37.4 percent ) ] .
These findings suggest that while most people do strive to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their lives , a sizable number of people are content merely living a psychologically rich existence .
Indeed , other emerging research suggests that for a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters more than merely how “ positive ” or “ negative ” it was .
As Oishi and colleagues conclude , “ we believe that taking the psychologically rich life seriously will deepen broaden , and yes , enrichen our understanding of well-being.
” At the end of the day , there is no one singularly acceptable path to the good life .
You have to find a path that works best for you .
As Nietzsche put it : “ No one can build you the bridge on which you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life .
There may be countless trails and bridges and demigods who would gladly carry you across ; but only at the price of pawning and forgoing yourself .
There is one path in the world that none can walk but you .
Where does it lead ?
Don ’ t ask , walk !
” However , the philosopher also noted that it is “ an agonizing , hazardous undertaking thus to dig into oneself , to climb down roughly and directly into the tunnels of one ’ s being.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your being and realize that the best path for you is to live a life full of rich and complex ideas , emotions and experiences ( which sometimes can be negative but ultimately conducive to growth ) , then I hope this research shows you that this is not necessarily a lonely path .
There are plenty of people in the world who crave the psychologically rich life , and who even prioritize novelty , variety , complexity , intensity , depth and surprise in their daily lives .

“I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man’s life. As we live, we grow, and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.”—Martin Buber
What does it mean to live a good life? This question has been debated and written about by many philosophers, thinkers and novelists throughout the course of humanity. In the field of psychology, two main conceptualizations of the good life have predominated: A happy life (often referred to as “hedonic well-being”), full of stability, pleasure, enjoyment and positive emotions, and a meaningful life (often referred to as “eudaimonic well-being”), full of purpose, meaning, virtue, devotion, service and sacrifice. But what if these aren’t the only options?
In recent years, a long-neglected version of the good life has been receiving greater research attention: the psychologically rich life. The psychologically rich life is full of complex mental engagement, a wide range of intense and deep emotions, and diverse, novel, surprising and interesting experiences. Sometimes the experiences are pleasant, sometimes they are meaningful, and sometimes they are neither pleasant nor meaningful. However, they are rarely boring or monotonous.
After all, both happy and meaningful lives can become monotonous and repetitive. A person with a steady office job, married with children, may be generally satisfied with their life and find many aspects of their life meaningful and still be bored out of their mind. Also, the psychologically rich life doesn’t necessarily involve economic richness. For instance, consider Hesse’s character Goldmund, who has no money but pursues the life of a wanderer and a free spirit.
Recent research on psychological richness has found that it is related to, but partially distinct from, both happy and meaningful lives. Psychological richness is much more strongly correlated with curiosity, openness to experience and experiencing both positive and negative emotions more intensely. But is the psychologically rich life one that people actually want?
In a new study, Shigehiro Oishi and his colleagues propose that psychological richness is a neglected aspect of what people consider a good life and set out to assess how much people around the world actually desire such a life. The researchers asked people living in nine diverse countries the degree to which they value a psychologically rich life, a happy life and a meaningful life.
They found that many people’s self-described ideal lives involve psychological richness. When forced to choose a life, however, the majority chose a happy life (ranging from 49.7 percent to 69.9 percent) and a meaningful life (14.2 percent to 38.5 percent). Even so, a substantial minority of people still favored the psychologically rich life, ranging from 6.7 percent in Singapore to 16.8 percent in Germany.
These numbers went up when the desire for a psychologically rich life was measured indirectly. To fully understand what a person wishes their lives might have been, it is important to explore what people wish they had avoided in their lives. Therefore, Oishi and his colleagues asked people what they regret most in their lives and whether undoing or reversing this regrettable life event would have made their lives happier, more meaningful or psychologically richer.
They found that about 28 percent of Americans said that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer. For instance, one person wrote that they regretted “not going to a four-year college to get a degree. I feel like I missed out on some interesting experiences.” In Korea, the percentage was even higher, which 35 percent of participants saying that undoing the regrettable event would have made their lives psychologically richer [compared to happier (27.6 percent) or more meaningful (37.4 percent)].
These findings suggest that while most people do strive to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their lives, a sizable number of people are content merely living a psychologically rich existence. Indeed, other emerging research suggests that for a lot of people, the intensity of the experience matters more than merely how “positive” or “negative” it was. As Oishi and colleagues conclude, “we believe that taking the psychologically rich life seriously will deepen broaden, and yes, enrichen our understanding of well-being.”
At the end of the day, there is no one singularly acceptable path to the good life. You have to find a path that works best for you.
As Nietzsche put it: “No one can build you the bridge on which you, and only you, must cross the river of life. There may be countless trails and bridges and demigods who would gladly carry you across; but only at the price of pawning and forgoing yourself. There is one path in the world that none can walk but you. Where does it lead? Don’t ask, walk!”
However, the philosopher also noted that it is “an agonizing, hazardous undertaking thus to dig into oneself, to climb down roughly and directly into the tunnels of one’s being.”
If you dig deep into the tunnels of your being and realize that the best path for you is to live a life full of rich and complex ideas, emotions and experiences (which sometimes can be negative but ultimately conducive to growth), then I hope this research shows you that this is not necessarily a lonely path. There are plenty of people in the world who crave the psychologically rich life, and who even prioritize novelty, variety, complexity, intensity, depth and surprise in their daily lives.


scientificamerican--2020-08-18--Nine COVID-19 Myths That Just Won't Go Away

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus , it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic : misinformation .
This “ infodemic ” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself , leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “ cures.
” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media .
Even with widely available evidence to the contrary , beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic , and why they are wrong .
Myth 1 : The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China .
Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan , China , President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there .
Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon , although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility , stating that the intelligence community “ concurs with the wide scientific consensus that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetically modified.
” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either .
As Scientific American reported earlier this year , Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19 ’ s source—compared the pathogen ’ s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them .
Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an independent , international investigation into how the virus originated , China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission .
But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab .
Myth 2 : Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit .
In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored , a woman named Judy Mikovits , who once published a high-profile , now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates , suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease .
Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film ’ s claims , many of which appear elsewhere in this article .
The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon .
It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements .
Yet the large number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreads perniciously .
Myth 3 : COVID-19 is no worse than the flu .
Starting in the early days of the pandemic , Trump has repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza .
Although COVID-19 ’ s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down , epidemiologists suspect it is far higher than that of the flu .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast , COVID-19 has caused more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this writing .
Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection , whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19 .
So no , coronavirus is not “ just the flu.
” Myth 4 : You don ’ t need to wear a mask .
Although early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent , there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have long been known as an effective means of source control ( preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others ) , but the early guidance was based , in part , on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “ N95 ” and surgical masks .
We now know that cloth face masks can be an effective alternative .
But despite the evidence , many people still refuse to wear one , considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating .
Georgia ’ s governor Brian Kemp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates .
And he sued Atlanta ’ s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one , although he has now dropped the lawsuit .
But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months , even states that were once staunch holdouts have now implemented mask orders .
Myth 5 : Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment .
When a small , now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease , Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients .
In a tweet , Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “ one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine , ” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings .
The Food and Drug Administration initially issued an emergency use authorization for the drug , but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization .
Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are exposed .
And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication , stating that while it was not harmful to patients , it did not provide any benefit .
Yet Trump continues to hype the drug .
Just a few weeks ago , he retweeted a video—viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel , a Houston , Tex.–based physician ( who has made questionable assertions in the past , including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by having sex with people in their dreams ) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 .
Myth 6 : The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission .
When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police killing of George Floyd and violence against Black Americans , some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases .
But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gym , such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed .
A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths .
And those who did not attend the protests may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise .
The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors , where the risk of transmission is much lower , and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reopened , there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants , as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread .
Myth 7 : Spikes in cases are because of increased testing .
As coronavirus cases began surging in many parts of the U.S. in recent months , Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested .
He has tweeted that “ without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing .
If that scenario were true , we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down .
But numerous analyses have shown the opposite .
The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks ( such as Arizona , Texas and Florida ) , while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks ( such as New York ) , indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases .
Myth 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting the virus spread through the population .
Early on in the pandemic , some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus to prevent it from spreading to others .
( Both nations ’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy , but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown , and Sweden had decided against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental flaw with this approach , however : Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity .
And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease , letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions of deaths .
That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic , in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished .
The U.K. ’ s COVID-19 death rate is among the world ’ s highest .
Sweden , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths than neighboring countries , and its economy has suffered , despite not shutting down .
It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner .
Myth 9 : Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19 .
As scientists race to develop a vaccine against the disease , worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available .
Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 vaccine will “ kill millions ” and that other vaccines have done so ( in fact , vaccines save millions of lives each year ) .
Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people ; Gates has denied the claim , which is not supported by evidence .
Most Americans still support vaccination , yet the few voices of opposition have been growing .
A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clusters of undecided people .
A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today , with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats .
There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of a new vaccine , but that need for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy .
If one or more of them pass muster , it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives—including , perhaps , their own .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus, it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic: misinformation. This “infodemic” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself, leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “cures.” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media. Even with widely available evidence to the contrary, beliefs are hard to change. Here are some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic, and why they are wrong.
Myth 1: The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China. Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan, China, President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there. Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon, although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility, stating that the intelligence community “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either. As Scientific American reported earlier this year, Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19’s source—compared the pathogen’s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them. Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response in Science. In reaction to calls for an independent, international investigation into how the virus originated, China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission. But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab.
Myth 2: Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit. In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored, a woman named Judy Mikovits, who once published a high-profile, now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome, makes unsubstantiated claims about National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease. Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film’s claims, many of which appear elsewhere in this article. The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon. It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements. Yet the large number of people who watched it suggests misinformation spreads perniciously.
Myth 3: COVID-19 is no worse than the flu. Starting in the early days of the pandemic, Trump repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza. But on September 9 the Washington Post published recordings of Trump telling journalist and author Bob Woodward—in interviews in early February and late March—that the president knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity. Although COVID-19’s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down, epidemiologists suspect it is far higher than that of the flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast, COVID-19 has caused more than 191,000 deaths in the country as of this writing.*
Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection, whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19. So no, coronavirus is not “just the flu.”
Myth 4: You don’t need to wear a mask. Although early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent, there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets. Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control (preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others), but the early guidance was based, in part, on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “N95” and surgical masks. We now know that cloth face masks can be an effective alternative. But despite the evidence, many people still refuse to wear one, considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating. Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates. And he sued Atlanta’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one, although he has now dropped the lawsuit. But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months, even states that were once staunch holdouts have now implemented mask orders.
Myth 5: Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment. When a small, now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease, Trump and others seized on it and have continued to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients. In a tweet, Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings. The Food and Drug Administration initially issued an emergency use authorization for the drug, but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization. Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed. And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication, stating that while it was not harmful to patients, it did not provide any benefit. Yet Trump continues to hype the drug. Just a few weeks ago, he retweeted a video—viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel, a Houston, Tex.–based physician (who has made questionable assertions in the past, including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments and that demons cause certain medical conditions by having sex with people in their dreams) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Myth 6: The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission. When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police killing of George Floyd and violence against Black Americans, some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases. But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big a risk as going to church or the gym, such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed. A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths. And those who did not attend the protests may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise. The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors, where the risk of transmission is much lower, and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented superspreading events. Meanwhile, as states have reopened, there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants, as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread.
Myth 7: Spikes in cases are because of increased testing. As coronavirus cases began surging in many parts of the U.S. in recent months, Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested. He has tweeted that “without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases” and has said in interviews that the reason they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing. If that scenario were true, we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down. But numerous analyses have shown the opposite. The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks (such as Arizona, Texas and Florida), while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks (such as New York), indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases.
Myth 8: We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population. Early on in the pandemic, some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus to prevent it from spreading to others. (Both nations’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy, but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown, and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions.) There is a fundamental flaw with this approach, however: Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease, letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions of deaths. That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished. The U.K.’s COVID-19 death rate is among the world’s highest. Sweden, for its part, has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries, and its economy has suffered, despite not shutting down. It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner.
Myth 9: Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19. As scientists race to develop a vaccine against the disease, worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available. Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos. In Plandemic, Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “kill millions” and that other vaccines have done so (in fact, vaccines save millions of lives each year). Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people; Gates has denied the claim, which is not supported by evidence. Most Americans still support vaccination, yet the few voices of opposition have been growing. A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups, they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people. A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today, with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats. There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of a new vaccine, but that need for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy. If one or more of them pass muster, it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including, perhaps, their own.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.
*Editor's Note (9/10/20): This paragraph has been updated in light of a report in the Washington Post that Donald Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in recorded interviews from February and March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he had intentionally downplayed the threat.


scientificamerican--2020-08-18--Extreme Heat Exposure Could Really Ramp Up in U.S. Cities

Human exposure to extreme heat could increase dramatically across U.S. cities by the end of the century , a new study finds .
As climate change worsens , urban development expands and populations grow , more people will experience high temperatures for longer periods of time .
In a severe scenario , according to the study , exposure could increase twelvefold to thirtyfold across the country .
It ’ s alarming news , as extreme summer temperatures are already wreaking havoc across the United States this year .
The month of July broke local temperature records around the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hottest month in history .
Meanwhile , extreme heat in California during the past week prompted the state to issue a series of rolling power outages designed to manage strain on the electrical grid—the first rolling outages ordered since 2001 .
On Sunday , California ’ s Death Valley recorded a staggering high of 130 degrees Fahrenheit , the highest temperature recorded on Earth since at least 1931 .
As the climate continues to warm , these kinds of extremes will only happen more often .
Research consistently projects that heat waves and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent and more intense between now and the end of the century .
But the new study , published yesterday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , suggests the future could be even more dire than previously thought .
Led by Ashley Broadbent of Arizona State University , and co-authored by ASU colleagues Eric Krayenhoff and Matei Georgescu , the study examines the way that climate change , urban development and population growth all jointly affect human exposure to extreme temperatures .
The researchers used two global climate models to simulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which global average temperatures could rise by around 9 F by 2100 .
They then used these simulations to inform regional models zeroing in on metropolitan areas across the United States .
The study also assumed high rates of future urbanization and population growth .
The researchers focused on the way that local extremes might change across the country .
They were careful to note that extreme heat isn ’ t the same from one city to the next .
Temperatures that might be considered very hot in New York City , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a city like Phoenix .
“ Trying to put a one-size-fits-all blanket temperature across cities is a gross oversimplification because people experience temperatures differently depending on where they are , ” Georgescu said in an interview .
With that in mind , the researchers defined “ hot days ” as days in the 99th temperature percentile for that particular city .
It ’ s a departure from other similar research , the authors note .
Other recent studies have often chosen a blanket temperature threshold to define extreme heat for every region—temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These kinds of studies have also consistently found that heat exposure will increase across the United States in the coming decades , but exposure levels aren ’ t as severe in many of those studies .
The new study paints a grim potential forecast in which some cities could see as many as 70 additional hot days each year by the end of the century , with more and more people threatened as the population also grows .
Major U.S. cities , such as New York , Atlanta and Los Angeles , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat exposure .
New York City , in particular , could see twice the annual increase in human exposure of any other metropolitan region .
That said , the majority of the hardest-hit cities are located in the Sun Belt region , stretching across the southern United States .
Urban development plays some role in the rising temperatures , the study notes .
As cities expand , they can wipe out vegetation and increase the urban heat island effect , a phenomenon that causes urban areas to be hotter than their rural surroundings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and population growth still has the biggest effect .
The scenario depicted in the new study isn ’ t an inevitable future .
The assumptions included in the models are severe , and stringent climate action could still stave off some of the worst effects of future climate change .
But the study does serve as a warning about what ’ s possible—and about the importance of preparing for the worst .
Aging electrical infrastructure is not necessarily prepared for the kinds of extremes that are possible in the coming decades , Georgescu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still time for an overhaul if decisionmakers know what they need to plan for .
Cities should also be considering better ways to communicate risks to their inhabitants , especially to homeless populations and people without access to smartphones or the internet , he added .
And city planners should be thinking about ways that improved urban design—such as trees , green spaces or reflective rooftops—could help mitigate those risks .
Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to slow the progression of human-caused climate change .
But temperatures are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re already hitting new extremes every year .
That means cities should be carefully considering ways to adapt to their changing climate , even as they ’ re working to reduce their emissions , Georgescu suggested .
“ These urban-level considerations—that the urban climate community , for example , thinks about all the time—I think are very pivotal when it comes to developing appropriate , actionable climate action plans that are beneficial to the citizenry , ” he said .
“ If you ’ re focusing [ only ] on limiting emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
And if you ’ re missing half the problem , you ’ re putting your citizenry at risk.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

Human exposure to extreme heat could increase dramatically across U.S. cities by the end of the century, a new study finds.
As climate change worsens, urban development expands and populations grow, more people will experience high temperatures for longer periods of time. In a severe scenario, according to the study, exposure could increase twelvefold to thirtyfold across the country.
It’s alarming news, as extreme summer temperatures are already wreaking havoc across the United States this year. The month of July broke local temperature records around the country, with a number of cities experiencing their hottest month in history.
Meanwhile, extreme heat in California during the past week prompted the state to issue a series of rolling power outages designed to manage strain on the electrical grid—the first rolling outages ordered since 2001. On Sunday, California’s Death Valley recorded a staggering high of 130 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature recorded on Earth since at least 1931.
As the climate continues to warm, these kinds of extremes will only happen more often. Research consistently projects that heat waves and other extreme heat events will become more frequent and more intense between now and the end of the century.
But the new study, published yesterday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests the future could be even more dire than previously thought.
Led by Ashley Broadbent of Arizona State University, and co-authored by ASU colleagues Eric Krayenhoff and Matei Georgescu, the study examines the way that climate change, urban development and population growth all jointly affect human exposure to extreme temperatures.
The researchers used two global climate models to simulate a severe future climate scenario, one in which global average temperatures could rise by around 9 F by 2100. They then used these simulations to inform regional models zeroing in on metropolitan areas across the United States.
The study also assumed high rates of future urbanization and population growth.
The researchers focused on the way that local extremes might change across the country. They were careful to note that extreme heat isn’t the same from one city to the next. Temperatures that might be considered very hot in New York City, for instance, might be relatively typical in a city like Phoenix.
“Trying to put a one-size-fits-all blanket temperature across cities is a gross oversimplification because people experience temperatures differently depending on where they are,” Georgescu said in an interview.
With that in mind, the researchers defined “hot days” as days in the 99th temperature percentile for that particular city.
It’s a departure from other similar research, the authors note. Other recent studies have often chosen a blanket temperature threshold to define extreme heat for every region—temperatures over 95 F, for instance.
These kinds of studies have also consistently found that heat exposure will increase across the United States in the coming decades, but exposure levels aren’t as severe in many of those studies.
A challenge for cities
The new study paints a grim potential forecast in which some cities could see as many as 70 additional hot days each year by the end of the century, with more and more people threatened as the population also grows.
Major U.S. cities, such as New York, Atlanta and Los Angeles, are expected to see the biggest increases in heat exposure. New York City, in particular, could see twice the annual increase in human exposure of any other metropolitan region.
That said, the majority of the hardest-hit cities are located in the Sun Belt region, stretching across the southern United States.
Urban development plays some role in the rising temperatures, the study notes. As cities expand, they can wipe out vegetation and increase the urban heat island effect, a phenomenon that causes urban areas to be hotter than their rural surroundings.
But the combination of climate change and population growth still has the biggest effect.
The scenario depicted in the new study isn’t an inevitable future. The assumptions included in the models are severe, and stringent climate action could still stave off some of the worst effects of future climate change.
But the study does serve as a warning about what’s possible—and about the importance of preparing for the worst.
Aging electrical infrastructure is not necessarily prepared for the kinds of extremes that are possible in the coming decades, Georgescu pointed out. But there’s still time for an overhaul if decisionmakers know what they need to plan for.
Cities should also be considering better ways to communicate risks to their inhabitants, especially to homeless populations and people without access to smartphones or the internet, he added. And city planners should be thinking about ways that improved urban design—such as trees, green spaces or reflective rooftops—could help mitigate those risks.
Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to slow the progression of human-caused climate change. But temperatures are still rising in the meantime, and they’re already hitting new extremes every year.
That means cities should be carefully considering ways to adapt to their changing climate, even as they’re working to reduce their emissions, Georgescu suggested.
“These urban-level considerations—that the urban climate community, for example, thinks about all the time—I think are very pivotal when it comes to developing appropriate, actionable climate action plans that are beneficial to the citizenry,” he said. “If you’re focusing [only] on limiting emissions, you’re missing half the problem. And if you’re missing half the problem, you’re putting your citizenry at risk.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-08-18--Warbler Species Fires Up Song Diversity

Warbler Species Fires Up Song Diversity

That ’ s a bird called the Hermit Warbler .
It breeds along the U.S. West Coast .
“ They have a cute little yellow head , and a gray body.
” Brett Furnas , a biostatistician at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife .
Typically , birds sing the same one song within one region , because the song attracts mates .
And different regions can have slightly different dialects of the song .
“ But what we also noticed that there are some places that were exceptions to this rule that some places , there was more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so we were curious why that would be the case.
” To investigate , Furnas and his team recorded Hermit Warbler songs .
Lots of them .
“ We had to go all over California , so we went to 100 different locations throughout the state and all the different potential habitats of the species.
” The researchers analyzed all the Hermit Warbler songs they collected and discovered that the Hermit Warbler doesn ’ t just violate the usual one song per region rule—they positively demolish it .
“ Doing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we found actually an amazing 35 different dialects across the state.
” Here are just two examples of dialects , slowed down for easier comparison .
But why would the bird repeatedly alter its song when any changes could affect its ability to attract a mate ?
The answer is wildfire .
“ Basically the idea is that warblers are very sensitive to fire in the short term and so they will abandon an area temporarily , even if it 's just an understory or a low severity fire that does n't destroy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this creates a vacuum , and then other Hermit Warblers singing rival dialects move in into this vacuum and then you end up , maybe a few years later , with two or more different dialects in the same place.
” The study was published in the journal The Auk : Ornithological Advances .
[ Brett J. Furnas , Russ H. Landers , and Rauri C. K. Bowie , Wildfires and mass effects of dispersal disrupt the local uniformity of type I songs of Hermit Warblers in California ] Even though the California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that such musical diversity might actually work in the Hermit Warblers ’ favor .
“ They may have greater resiliency to things like , that are stressors to our natural habitats , like climate change .
And so , understanding that helps us to make better conservation decisions to protect biodiversity .
But it ’ s also…what makes the outdoors interesting and a beautiful place to be because you can go to one part of the state and hear hermit warblers singing a certain way and you can go to another part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different way .
And even though you might not know it ’ s a hermit warbler , your experience outdoors is enriched by that diversity .
”

Full Transcript
[CLIP: Hermit warbler song]
That’s a bird called the hermit warbler. It breeds along the U.S. West Coast.
“They have a cute little yellow head and a gray body.”
Brett Furnas, a biostatistician at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Typically, birds sing the same one song within one region because the song attracts mates. And different regions can have slightly different dialects of the song.
“But what we also noticed [was] that there are some places that were exceptions to this rule—that some places, there was more than one song in the same place. And so we were curious why that would be the case.”
To investigate, Furnas and his team recorded hermit warbler songs. Lots of them.
“We had to go all over California, so we went to 100 different locations throughout the state and all the different potential habitats of the species.”
The researchers analyzed all the hermit warbler songs they collected and discovered that the hermit warbler doesn’t just violate the usual one-song-per-region rule—they positively demolish it.
“Doing this over a period of 10 years, we found, actually, an amazing 35 different dialects across the state.”
Here are just two examples of dialects, slowed down for easier comparison.
[CLIP: Hermit warbler songs]
But why would the bird repeatedly alter its song when any changes could affect its ability to attract a mate? The answer is wildfire.
“Basically, the idea is that warblers are very sensitive to fire in the short term. And so they will abandon an area temporarily, even if it’s just an understory or a low-severity fire that doesn’t destroy the whole stand. And so this creates a vacuum. And then other hermit warblers singing rival dialects move in into this vacuum. And then you end up, maybe a few years later, with two or more different dialects in the same place.”
The study was published in the journal The Auk: Ornithological Advances. [Brett J. Furnas et al., Wildfires and mass effects of dispersal disrupt the local uniformity of type I songs of Hermit Warblers in California]
Even though the California Hermit Warblers sing multiple songs, Furnas says that such musical diversity might actually work in the hermit warblers’ favor.
“They may have greater resiliency to things like—that are stressors to our natural habitats, like climate change. And so understanding that helps us to make better conservation decisions to protect biodiversity. But it’s also what makes the outdoors interesting and a beautiful place to be, because you can go to one part of the state and hear hermit warblers singing a certain way, and you can go to another part of the state, and they sing a different way. And even though you might not know it’s a hermit warbler, your experience outdoors is enriched by that diversity.”
—Karen Kwon
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-08-18--The Racist Legacy of Computer-Generated Humans

Computer-generated imagery is supposed to be one of the success stories of computer science .
Starting in the 1970s , the algorithms for realistically depicting digital worlds were developed in a monumental joint effort between academic , commercial and federal research labs .
Today , we stream the results onto the screens in our homes .
Escaping into worlds where computer-generated superheroes right all wrongs , or toys come to life to comfort us , are welcome respites from stories of real-life systemic racism , the ubiquitous dimensions of which are becoming clearer every day .
Alas , this technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own .
For almost two decades , I have worked on the science and technology behind movies .
I was formerly a senior research scientist at Pixar and am currently a professor at Yale .
If you have seen a blockbuster movie in the last decade , you have seen my work .
I got my start at Rhythm and Hues Studios in 2001 , when the first credible computer-generated humans began appearing in film .
The real breakthrough was the character of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weta Digital applied a technique from Stanford called “ dipole approximation ” that convincingly captured the translucency of his skin .
For the scientists developing these technologies , the term “ skin ” has become synonymous with “ translucency.
” Decades of effort has been poured into faithfully capturing this phenomenon .
However , translucency is only the dominating visual feature in young , white skin .
Entwining the two phenomena is akin to calling pink Band-Aids “ flesh-colored.
” Surveying the technical literature on digital humans is a stomach-churning tour of whiteness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” often feature a single image of a computer-generated white person as empirical proof that the algorithm can depict “ humans.
” This technical obsession with youthful whiteness is a direct reflection of Hollywood appetites .
As in real life , the roles for computer-generated humans all go to young , white thespians .
Consider : a youthful Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation ( 2009 ) , a young Jeff Bridges in Tron : Legacy ( 2010 ) , a de-aged Orlando Bloom in The Hobbit : The Desolation of Smaug ( 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2015 ) , a youthful Sean Young in Blade Runner : 2049 ( 2017 ) , and a 1980s-era Carrie Fisher in both Rogue One : A Star Wars Story ( 2017 ) and Star Wars : The Rise of Skywalker ( 2019 ) .
The technological white supremacy extends to human hair , where the term “ hair ” has become shorthand for the visual features that dominate white people ’ s hair .
The standard model for rendering hair , the “ Marschner ” model , was custom-designed to capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interacts with the micro-structures in flat , straight hair .
No equivalent micro-structural model has ever been developed for kinky , Afro-textured hair .
In practice , the straight-hair model just gets applied as a good-enough hand-me-down .
Similarly , algorithms for simulating the motion of hair assume that it is composed of straight or wavy fibers locally sliding over each other .
This assumption does not hold for kinky hair , where each follicle is in persistent collision with a global range of follicles all over the scalp .
Over the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an algorithm developed to handle this case .
This racist state of technology was not inevitable .
The 2001 space-opera flop Final Fantasy : The Spirits Within was released before the dipole approximation was available .
The main character , Dr. Aki Ross , is a young , fair-skinned scientist of ambiguous ethnicity , and much of the movie ’ s failure was placed on her distressingly hard and plasticine-looking skin .
Less often mentioned was the fact that two other characters in the movie , the Black space marine Ryan Whittaker and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more realistic than Aki Ross .
Blacker and older skin does not require as much translucency to appear lifelike .
If the filmmakers had aligned their art with the limitations of the technology , Aki Ross should have been modeled after a latter-day Eartha Kitt .
For a brief moment in the 2000s , the shortest scientific path to achieving realistic digital humans was to refine the depiction of computer-generated Blackness in film , not to double down on algorithmic whiteness .
Imagine the timeline that could have been .
Instead of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation of moviegoers could have seen their own humanity radiating from Black heroes .
That alternate timeline is gone ; we live in this one instead .
Today ’ s moviemaking technology has been built to tell white stories , because researchers working at the intersection of art and science have allowed white flesh and hair to insidiously become the only form of humanity considered worthy of in-depth scientific inquiry .
Going forward , we need to ask whose stories this technology is furthering .
What cases have been treated as “ normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
How many humans reside in those cases , and why ?
The racist legacy of computer-generated imagery does not cost people their lives , but it determines whose stories can be told .
And if Black Lives Matter , then the stories of their lives must matter too .

Computer-generated imagery is supposed to be one of the success stories of computer science. Starting in the 1970s, the algorithms for realistically depicting digital worlds were developed in a monumental joint effort between academic, commercial and federal research labs. Today, we stream the results onto the screens in our homes. Escaping into worlds where computer-generated superheroes right all wrongs, or toys come to life to comfort us, are welcome respites from stories of real-life systemic racism, the ubiquitous dimensions of which are becoming clearer every day.
Alas, this technology has an insidious, racist legacy all its own.
For almost two decades, I have worked on the science and technology behind movies. I was formerly a senior research scientist at Pixar and am currently a professor at Yale. If you have seen a blockbuster movie in the last decade, you have seen my work. I got my start at Rhythm and Hues Studios in 2001, when the first credible computer-generated humans began appearing in film. The real breakthrough was the character of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), when Weta Digital applied a technique from Stanford called “dipole approximation” that convincingly captured the translucency of his skin. For the scientists developing these technologies, the term “skin” has become synonymous with “translucency.” Decades of effort has been poured into faithfully capturing this phenomenon.
However, translucency is only the dominating visual feature in young, white skin. Entwining the two phenomena is akin to calling pink Band-Aids “flesh-colored.” Surveying the technical literature on digital humans is a stomach-churning tour of whiteness. Journal articles on “skin rendering” often feature a single image of a computer-generated white person as empirical proof that the algorithm can depict “humans.”
This technical obsession with youthful whiteness is a direct reflection of Hollywood appetites. As in real life, the roles for computer-generated humans all go to young, white thespians. Consider: a youthful Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation (2009), a young Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy (2010), a de-aged Orlando Bloom in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), Arnold again in Terminator Genisys (2015), a youthful Sean Young in Blade Runner: 2049 (2017), and a 1980s-era Carrie Fisher in both Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2017) and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019).
The technological white supremacy extends to human hair, where the term “hair” has become shorthand for the visual features that dominate white people’s hair. The standard model for rendering hair, the “Marschner” model, was custom-designed to capture the subtle glints that appear when light interacts with the micro-structures in flat, straight hair. No equivalent micro-structural model has ever been developed for kinky, Afro-textured hair. In practice, the straight-hair model just gets applied as a good-enough hand-me-down.
Similarly, algorithms for simulating the motion of hair assume that it is composed of straight or wavy fibers locally sliding over each other. This assumption does not hold for kinky hair, where each follicle is in persistent collision with a global range of follicles all over the scalp. Over the last two decades, I have never seen an algorithm developed to handle this case.
This racist state of technology was not inevitable. The 2001 space-opera flop Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was released before the dipole approximation was available. The main character, Dr. Aki Ross, is a young, fair-skinned scientist of ambiguous ethnicity, and much of the movie’s failure was placed on her distressingly hard and plasticine-looking skin. Less often mentioned was the fact that two other characters in the movie, the Black space marine Ryan Whittaker and the elderly Dr. Sid, looked much more realistic than Aki Ross. Blacker and older skin does not require as much translucency to appear lifelike. If the filmmakers had aligned their art with the limitations of the technology, Aki Ross should have been modeled after a latter-day Eartha Kitt.
For a brief moment in the 2000s, the shortest scientific path to achieving realistic digital humans was to refine the depiction of computer-generated Blackness in film, not to double down on algorithmic whiteness. Imagine the timeline that could have been. Instead of two more decades of computer-animated whiteness, a generation of moviegoers could have seen their own humanity radiating from Black heroes. That alternate timeline is gone; we live in this one instead.
Today’s moviemaking technology has been built to tell white stories, because researchers working at the intersection of art and science have allowed white flesh and hair to insidiously become the only form of humanity considered worthy of in-depth scientific inquiry. Going forward, we need to ask whose stories this technology is furthering. What cases have been treated as “normal,” and which are “special”? How many humans reside in those cases, and why?
The racist legacy of computer-generated imagery does not cost people their lives, but it determines whose stories can be told. And if Black Lives Matter, then the stories of their lives must matter too.