Coop's Re-Posting House

climateadaptation:

These channels are failing the spirit of conservationism and education. They are failing inspiring awe in young people. Failing much needed inspiration in a very confused and conflicted world.

These shows are failing their core values, their main purpose, which is leadership in environmentalism and cultural education. Far worse, they are failing millions of young people - millions - who look up to them.

Please join me in asking Discovery, Animal Planet, and the History Channels to stop, apologize, and correct.

That’s an important read up there, folks. These “reality” shows are feeding an outdated and unscientific view of predator species. These are channels founded on principles of education and conservation (TLC, of course, left the building years ago). Are they willing to sacrifice that for what appears to be gratuitous bloodsport?

Like any media, you can vote with your eyeballs. And if you support any kind of rights for wild animals and natural spaces, you can not support these programs. If the account above is true, shame on these networks.

It speaks to part of a larger issue with nature films. The amazing footage we see in shows like Africa, Planet Earth, and Frozen Planet is rarely the result of serendipity. It involves years of careful research and preparation to maximize the chances of capturing nature’s majesty on camera, and what is captured is highly edited to create story, drama and emotion. These are uniquely human interests, and nature doesn’t include them in her original script.

That’s not to say we are being fleeced all the time. People like Sir David Attenborough take these concerns very seriously, and constantly strive to find the balance between entertainment and true nature in every varying instance. What we watch is real. But is it REAL?

I wonder how many people realize that, for instance, the famous polar bear birth scene from Frozen Planet was filmed in a zoo? Disney’s adorable Chimpanzee movie was not a documentary, but rather spliced together to create an emotional tale of adoption. Jason Goldman put together a great collection of opinions on the matter.

How far can we take allowances to deliver good edutainment before we are delivering bad science? The “reality” shows surely fail the test. But the others? What do you think?

+
2,596 notes

Reblogged from explore-blog

“ The way we try to recruit girls into STEM fields is all wrong. We typically compare them to some great woman or someone that has gone before them. We are saying, “Hey, you can be like Madam Curie or Sally Ride.” It is recruiting by intimidation. We need to change that message. We need to recruit by appealing to WHY we need them in STEM. We NEED you to help make the world a better place We NEED you to help discover the cure for cancer. We NEED you because you have the ability to change the course of humanity for the better.

Tim Holt on why we still see the number of females in STEM fields fall way behind their male counterparts. Also see how geography paved the way for women in science.

(↬ gender and science)

It’s true the amount of popular female scientists and researchers is comparatively lacking - but having a solid role model shouldn’t be the only motivating factor in young girls pursuing STEM fields. A recent Smithsonian Magazine article revealed that 49% of female STEM college students say they chose their field because of a desire to make a difference, compared with34% of male STEM students, andthere arejust as many women are pursuing STEM fields as undergraduates - but once they graduated college, 73.2% of science and engineering jobs were held by men.

I did not pursue a STEM degree as an undergraduate because I did not think there was any room left for individual input, interpretation, or creative control. Obviously now I see how absolutely incorrect that thinking is, but what that has taught me is this: if high school graduates see these fields as stagnant and unappealing spoon-feedings of rudimentary knowledge, we desperately need to change how work in the field is presented. We need to emphasize the need for creativity and innovation. And I don’t think there’s any argument that young women aren’t fully capable of being able to do this, but we have to keep them in the workforce. The truth is, ladies, that your inclination to join the field in the hope that you can make a difference or even change the world is absolutely accurate. That is exactly the kind of motivating self-initiative that the world needs.

Smithsonian Magazine’s: Infographic: Where a STEM Education Can Take You

(via thebrainscoop)

Reblogging again for this comment.

(Source: explore-blog, via thebrainscoop)

+
598 notes

Reblogged from thisisntlisa

“ In school, they would tell you that life wouldn’t come to you; you had to go out and make it your own. But when it came to love, the message for girls seemed to be this: Don’t. Don’t go after what you want. Wait. Wait to be chosen, as if only in the eye of another could one truly find value. The message was confusing and infuriating. It was a shell game with no actual pea under the rapidly moving cups. Libba Bray, Beauty Queens, 125. (via thisisntlisa)

(via wasarahbi)

+
233,792 notes

Reblogged from trixiofthesea

your-black-friend:

killtheromance:

what the fuck did i just watch

I don’t know but it really speaks to me

(Source: trixiofthesea, via mydrunkkitchen)

+
858 notes

Reblogged from everets

everets:

are you a math problem because you are fun to me but some people dont like you but thats ok.

(via itsvondell)