by Christopher Hall

Some time ago – I can’t remember if it was before, during, or after the pandemic – I read Michael Finkel’s The Stranger in the Woods: The Extraordinary Story of the Last True Hermit, which is an account of Christopher Knight, a man who, in 1986, drove his car as far as he could into the Maine wilderness, adandoned it, and then proceeded to live in the woods without human contact for 27 years. My first reaction, and I sure I’m not alone in this, was to say “Ah, wouldn’t that be nice, to get completely free from everyone!” followed very swiftly by the realization that I wouldn’t last a day in such circumstances, not just due to my total incompetence as an outdoorsman, but also that I have a limited tolerance for isolation. I live what’s likely a more solitary life than most, but I still need contact with people, at least on occasion. Nevertheless, I remain impressed with Knight; like a person who has complete immunity to some serious disease, Knight seems to have been completely invulnerable to loneliness.

A Google search will provide you with a raft of recent articles which informs us of the deleterious social, mental and even physical effects of loneliness, and their increasing pervasiveness. In January of this year, the Atlantic published an article entitled “The Anti-Social Century” about our tendency to isolate even in settings where we used to commune with others; we go to the bar, take out our phones, and drink in a solitude nearly as complete as if we just stayed home. Now, not three weeks after the Atlantic published the above article, it published another one questioning the existence of a loneliness epidemic, so perhaps we can rest a little easy – but the potential seriousness of the issue ought also to concern us. Loneliness is not just a private or purely social concern; there are, as Hannah Arnedt told us, serious political concerns here. Lonely people lose their connection to others and, Arendt thought, to reality itself. These people become deeply manipulable and subject to the predations of those who would unite them into groups bent on destruction; loneliness is a precondition for totalitarianism. A common quality of contemporary warnings against the dangers of loneliness is that we all must “reconnect;” stop looking at your phone at the bar and talk to somebody – the bartender’s always there, right? Read more »

by Ed Simon

Demonstrating the utility of a critical practice that’s sometimes obscured more than its venerable history would warrant, my 3 Quarks Daily column will be partially devoted to the practice of traditional close readings of poems, passages, dialogue, and even art. If you’re interested in seeing close readings on particular works of literature or pop culture, please email me at [email protected]

On Valentine’s Day in 1990, the Voyager space-probe reoriented its camera in the direction of its origin, and was able to capture the furthest image of the Earth ever taken, from almost four billion miles away. Smaller than a single pixel, our world is suspended in a ribbon of luminescence, with Earth appearing as nothing so much as a solitary dust fragment captured in a ray of morning light. The picture was taken at the urging of astrophysicist and science popularizer Carl Sagan, who had worked on the original Voyager mission (and was famously involved with the compilation of its “Golden Record”). Acknowledging that there was little concrete scientific benefit to the image, Sagan had argued that reorienting the space probe’s camera so as to record Earth from such a distance would provide a perspective that would be culturally, philosophically, and spiritually beneficial. He considered the implications of that picture four years after it taken, in his celebrated work of science popularization Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. A passage from that book, often informally referred to as “Reflections on a Mote of Dust,” asks the reader to “Look again at that dot.” What follows are five concise paragraphs wherein Sagan does just that, producing one of the most popular passages from a work of scientific journalism written in the past several decades.

Writing in The Atlantic, Marina Koren says that thirty years later, the Voyager image should be understood as a “display, however fuzzy, of humankind’s capacity to catapult away from our planet in an attempt to understand everything else.” Science correspondent for the BBC, Jonathan Amos, declares that the aqua sliver in a field of black is “unquestionably one of the greatest space images ever.” Meanwhile, Carolyn Porco at Scientific American exclaims that the picture “capped a groundbreaking era in the coming of age of our species.” Many peoples’ reactions to the picture, which if a viewer is unaware of what they’re looking at happens not to look like much of all, is understandably filtered through the experience of reading Sagan’s “Reflections on a Mote of Dust.” Perhaps the most talented and widely read popular science writer of the last quarter of the twentieth-century, Sagan was able to avoid the acerbic mean-spiritedness of a Richard Dawkins or the naïve scientificity of a Neil DeGrasse Tyson, writing rather in a poetic idiom that sacrificed nothing in the way of accuracy. Sagan rather belonged to an earlier grouping of scientist-explainers, figures like Stephen Jay Gould, Lewis Thomas, and Rachel Carson, who drew upon a rich vein of humanistic expression to use science as a means of contemplation and not just technocratic apologetics, making him a figure as reminiscent of the eighteenth or nineteenth-centuries as much as of the twentieth (in the best way). Read more »

by Brooks Riley

If Wolfgang Porsche, 82, chairman of the supervisory board of Porsche AG, is able to live in a historic landmark villa on the Kapuzinerberg, a forested mountain in Salzburg, he owes a debt to Stefan Zweig, the popular and prolific Austrian writer who bought the rundown 17^th century structure in 1917, at a time when it had no electricity, no telephone, little heating and a treacherous path down the mountain to the city.

“I did most of my work in bed, writing with fingers blue with cold, and after each sheet of paper that I filled I had to put my hands back under the covers to warm them.”  (The World of Yesterday: Memoirs of a European)

The villa, first conceived as a hunting lodge for Prince-Archbishop Paris von Lodron in the 17^th century, was expanded over the following centuries by new owners who gave it new names. Mozart and his sister are said to have performed at the villa. Kaiser Franz Josef bowled there as a boy.

Zweig completely renovated the Paschinger Schlössl, as it is now called, and lived there until 1934, when a fascist police department raided his home on a false pretense. Zweig, who was Jewish, and the best-selling German-language author of that period, read the writing on the wall and moved to London. In 1938, after the Anschluss, his books were burned on Salzburg’s Residenzplatz. Four Stolpersteine serve as reminders of Zweig’s involuntary exit from a city that he loved.

I lived in the cozy shadow of the Kapuzinerberg near the Stefan Zweig villa for four years in the early nineties. At the time, it was still owned by the family who had bought it for a song from Zweig in 1937, but I liked to imagine the cultured author still at home above me—in near solitary splendor—enjoying the best view in town, his only neighbors the novitiates at a nearby Capuchin monastery. Zweig maintained a vast library in his home, and had been a regular at the Café Bazar, which was also my favorite place to soak up the atmosphere over a mélange. Read more »

by Ken MacVey

When promoting her new book in September, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated in an interview as quoted in Politico : “I think the Constitution is alive and well.” She went on – “I don’t know what a constitutional crisis would look like. I think that our country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have functioning courts.”

Contrast that with what  conservative icon, one time Supreme Court justice contender, and retired  federal appellate court Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote for Constitution Day – less than two weeks after Justice Barrett’s interview – about Trump’s current presidential term: “He has ruled as if he were a king who is above the law, when in America there are no kings, the law is king and no man is above the law. He has corrupted our democracy and asserted control over our elections in violation of our Constitution. He has refused to faithfully execute the laws, and he has waged war on our Constitution, our Rule of Law, and our Federal Courts . . . . He has sought absolute power, unchecked and unbalanced by other branches of our government, by the several states, by the free press, or by us. He has enthralled our Supreme Court, spellbinding it into submission to him and his will rather than to the Constitution and its will, and our Supreme Court has favored him with its affirmation and its acquiescence in his lawlessness.”

The Dred Scott Decision:  What a Constitutional Crisis  Can Look Like

The Supreme Court started its new term in October, which may prove to be one of the most consequential in its history in what it does or doesn’t do in protecting democracy and the rule of law. If Justice Barrett would like to know what a constitutional crisis can look like all she has to do is go back in time to another consequential Supreme Court term. In 1857 the Supreme Court helped to set the stage for a constitutional crisis with its infamous decision, Dred Scott v. Sanford, authored by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

Dred Scott was a slave whose  owners took him from Missouri to US territory where slavery was banned. Afterwards as a resident of New York, Scott brought a lawsuit in federal court claiming his status as a slave terminated by entering jurisdictions where slavery was prohibited. Taney teed up the case this way:  “The question is simply this: Can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?”

The answer was no. Taney and the Court found that when the Constitution was ratified slaves were considered “a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated to the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority.” Read more »

This wild apple tree in Franzensfeste, South Tyrol, had scores of apples on its leafy branches a month ago but now has just this one last apple still hanging on.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Tim Sommers

The economy is not a force of nature. We have some control over it. Granted, it’s also not like a machine controlled directly by levers, switches, and buttons either. But when the state acts, intentionally or not, it often influences the distribution of income and wealth. More often than not, it influences the distribution of wealth and income in reasonably predictable ways. It seems to me that, for this reason alone, we should care what the ideal distribution of wealth should be. The ideal distribution is, at a minimum, one factor we have an ethical obligation to take into account in governing.

Some people say that any ideal distribution is unrealistic, impossible to achieve. That’s alright though. Ideals – perfectionism, utilitarianism, the Ten Commandments – are, as they say, honored as much in their breach. We should still have ideals to follow.

Others say that trying to enforce any particular distribution – equality, first and foremost – leads to coercion and political oppression. I think they say this mostly because they have frightening real-world cases in mind. But people also do terrible things in pursuit of freedom, justice, or whatever.

You certainly can pursue equality in a repressive way. Say, seize everyone’s property, redistribute it, and redo that every so often to maintain equality. But you could also, as I implied above, mostly regard equality (or whatever the correct principle is) as a kind of tie-breaker. For example, the point of health care is not the distribution or redistribution of wealth per se, but when you must decide between two approaches one of which takes you closer, the other further away, from the ideal distribution, there’s nothing repressive about going with the one that also has a positive effect on the distribution of wealth and income. In other words, there is nothing inherently oppressive about pursuing more distributive equality. It just depends on how you do it. Read more »

by Priya Malhotra

There’s a strange vulnerability in realizing that no one is coming to comfort you—and a stranger kind of strength in learning that maybe, just maybe, you can do it yourself.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the child I was. Not in some wistful, soft-focus way, but with the fierce clarity of someone trying to understand what was missing—not to assign blame, but to give name to the hunger. At seven, I needed safety. At fourteen, I needed space to be messy, dramatic, unsure. At twenty-seven, I needed someone to tell me I didn’t have to be so hard all the time. And now, I’m learning to become that someone for myself.

There’s a quiet revolution in that sentence—“I’m learning to become that someone for myself.” It sounds gentle, but it’s anything but. It has meant dismantling a scaffolding built over decades, composed of all the coping strategies that once helped me survive: perfectionism, people-pleasing, self-erasure, chronic competence. It has meant walking backwards through the house of my own memory, opening locked rooms, and saying to the younger selves still sitting there: I see you. I’m sorry. I’ve got you now.

No one teaches you how to do this. There’s no roadmap for re-parenting, no syllabus handed out at the start of adulthood that says: “Here is how you’ll hold the child inside you.” Instead, you notice the signs. The way you crumble after criticism. The way you contort yourself to avoid disapproval. The way you ache after certain holidays or scroll through photos of other people’s mothers and feel an inexplicable, wordless longing. The clues are scattered, like breadcrumbs leading back to the places where you first learned your worth was conditional.

What I’ve come to understand is that you can have loving parents and still be emotionally undernourished. Read more »

by Brooks Riley

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by David Greer

The smallest spider I’ve ever seen is slowly descending from the little metal lampshade above my computer. She’s so tiny, a millimeter wide at most, I have to look twice to make sure she isn’t just a speck of dust. The only reason I can be certain that she’s not is that she’s dropping straight down instead of floating at random.

It’s become almost automatic to reach for the iPhone to obtain a visual record of a wildlife encounter out of the ordinary, and so I do. However, the spider’s size and the fact that she’s now spinning like a miniature dervish presents a challenge beyond my iPhone’s capabilities. You’ll just have to take my word for it that that’s her in the image to the right, the tiny golden blob to the left of the lamp stem.

Perhaps I shouldn’t make assumptions about the spider’s gender, but her size makes verification problematical. Ever since I fell in love with Charlotte’s Web I’ve been inclined to think of spiders as feminine in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I would no more call her an “it” than I would a human, and she doesn’t strike me as a probable “they.” So “she” it will have to be.

Having observed many swarms of aimlessly scrambling baby spiders fresh out of their communal egg sacs, I know that in the not distant future she’ll be many times her current size. And however small she may be today, a few clicks worth of research confirms that she’s a giant compared to some of her cousins. A full-grown Patu digua, quite possibly the smallest spider species on the planet, maxes out at around 0.37 millimeters, about four times the width of an average human hair (75 micrometers).

Accurately determining the size of the tiniest creatures on the planet can be a challenge using standard units of measurement. Read more »

Naotaka Hiro. Untitled (Tide), 2024.

Canvas, fabric dye, oil pastel, rope, and grommets.

“… Several of the paintings feature something strange: two perfectly round openings in the surface of the work.  The Japanese-born, Pasadena-based artist uses these holes to practice a highly intimate kind of artmaking. Collapsing the traditional, arms-length distance between the artwork and the artist, he slips his limbs into these openings to hold the surface close. He often wraps himself in unstretched canvas, creating a cocoon he paints from within (“Untitled (Green Door)”2021, “Untitled (Vector)” 2021). At other times, he lies on his back on the studio floor, his legs poking through a plywood panel so it hovers above him (“Untitled (Frequency)” 2021). He presses parts of his body against the surface as he works, and the strokes and shapes of his paintings and drawings are often the length of a hand, a forearm, or a torso. Each piece is a record of the artist’s position, movements, and sensations during artmaking, from aches and temperature shifts to the rise and fall of his chest with each passing breath. ” From Naotaka Hiro’s Pulp Fiction, UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture.

More here and here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Sherman J. Clark

In a previous essay, Beatrice 2.0, I argued that a love of beauty can guide our desires and help us flourish amid distraction and commodification. But what hinders us from letting beauty lead us in those ways? Beauty abounds—if we can see it. Not only in art, but in sports and music, in craftsmanship and science, in mathematics and everyday life. The trouble is not scarcity—or not merely scarcity—but our own habits of mind.

What hides beauty

We may be able to develop the capacity to see and cherish beauty. But that may first require us to confront a set of obstacles—internal obstacles, patterns of thought and feeling that make it hard to direct our desires where they would most nourish us. Some are what contemporary philosophers call intellectual vices—things that cloud our thinking. Some mirror what older traditions call sins or moral vices: habits of thought and action that mark us for judgment. We can think of these as barriers to flourishing, vices in the eudaimonist rather than moral sense. These are attitudes that keep us from attending to beauty. If we want a label for this sort of inquiry, it would be “neo-Aristotelian eudaimonist virtue ethics.” But elaborate philosophical labels won’t make us happy or guard us against exploitation and commodification. Beauty, however, might—if we can let it.

To that end, we can tentatively identify four internal obstacles—vices, if you will—that can prevent us from nurturing a love of beauty and letting that love help us thrive: impatience, laziness, arrogance, and, more obscure-sounding but perhaps most destructive of beauty, what Aristotle called micropsychia, which we can translate as smallness of soul.

Our impatience is profitable to those who want to keep us grasping at the next thing they can sell us; but it can prevent us from attending to what might matter most. The first few moments of a Bach fugue are lovely, but the transcendent order emerges when we hear it through, and then again, and begin to catch the patterns. Shakespeare’s language can seem strange and off-putting at first, but rereading can reward us with nearly shocking depth and beauty—if our impatience and lack of attention didn’t prevent us from making that effort.

Good and beautiful things often take not just time but also effort. Read more »

by Lei Wang

If not for COVID, I would have moved back to China after my MFA instead of staying in Iowa City. Instead of not seeing him for three years, I would have married my fiancé at the time, an Italian kung fu master in Shanghai who had the peculiar fate of teaching Chinese people their own lost esoteric spiritual practices. I would have then moved with him to an island off the coast of Portugal, where he now lives and teaches at a martial arts retreat center.

But because things happened the way they did, I am not on an island off the coast of Portugal, enjoying the best temperate weather in the world. I am not writing overlooking the Atlantic Ocean and considering the travails of America from the vantage of Europe. I am not married.

I am here, but also if I were there, I would still always be here, wherever I am. And then perhaps I would be dreaming of Iowa, of living five- to ten- minute walks from my friends, all artists of some sort, all expert cuddlers. Perhaps I would be bored and lonely in Portugal; there is only so much good weather one can take.

In a recent newsletter, the writer Suleika Jaouad writes of a What If thought experiment game she plays with a friend that imagines into the other lives they could have lived:

It usually starts when one of us says something like, Remember that guy who wore a lot of vests? and suddenly we’re spiraling: What if I married him and lived in a yurt in Montana, labeling mason jars of lentils in flowery live-laugh-love cursive? What if I had gotten that soulless business consulting job in Dubai and wore pantsuits the exact shade of despair and office lighting? What if I stayed in Vermont instead of moving back to New York City and became a homesteading influencer who films sourdough tutorials with my roommate, a potbelly pig named Meredith? What if I had five children and a timeshare in Sarasota and a minivan full of crushed graham crackers?

What if I hadn’t for some mysterious reason gone down a notoriously financially unrewarding delayed-returns path of writing and instead been a corporate consultant like many other achiever-type humanities majors? On the one hand: oof. On the other: who knows? What if I had simultaneously pursued writing with a career in therapy or even interior decorating? What if I had studied neuroscience and now had my dream alter-ego job, teaching empathy to robots (which sounded far-off a mere few years ago)? Who would I be? Read more »

Cast your bread on the waters:
for you shall find it after many days.
…………………………… —Ecclesiastes

Bread Upon the Water

Oh, the young don’t keep
and the old just go,
and the keeper of the sheep
casts a long, long shadow,
and your song won’t come
where your life won’t go,

so throw your bread on the water,
and beat your feet to the chimes,
and if you have a daughter.
and count your change to the dime.
and if you open up the borders
you’ll let it all fall in behind

Every book just speaks.
and every light just shines,
and every touch just feels,
and every look just finds,
and everywhere just is,
and every road’s a line

—when every deed is done
and you might be feeling so low
like a dream is over,
as if it didn’t grow
but still, the soil is good
and with what we know,

Throw your bread on the water
and beat your feet to the chimes
and if you have a daughter
and count your change to the dime,
and if you open up the borders
it’ll all fall in behind it’ll
fall in behind

poem/song by Jim Culleny, 1970
 1972, Jim Culleny
and Starship Productions

(at link, scroll to bottom)

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Peter Topolewski

Isn’t it time we talk about you?

You.

A collection in the realm of 4.5 x 10^27 atoms. A portion of your hydrogen and helium atoms originated in the Big Bang, 14 billion years ago. The heavier elements in you, the stuff of life, the carbon and nitrogen, they came from stars. From exploding stars, in fact. The dying blasts of stars in distant galaxies accounted for perhaps a smallish measure of your atoms. Most came from stars exploding in the Milky Way, and above all from a single super nova that preceded the existence of our own star, the Sun. Like all the others, it was a super nova without a name, one we’ll never know, but one we should be especially grateful for. It was amazing wasn’t it, generous, as Thomas Berry would say, giving itself away without asking?

It gave me you.

Extraordinary, those 4.5 trillion quadrillion atoms in you, from across the cosmos, they’re mostly empty space. Take away the space, and all of them together would be no larger than a single biological cell. As far as those atoms have traveled, as large as the universe has grown, there is, as Duane Elgin wrote, more smallness in you than there is bigness beyond you. On our cosmic scale, you are a giant.

In a photo I’m blessed to have, you’re five or six years old, standing near a farmhouse. Anyone who looked at it would say you’re little, but really you’re a giant. Who are you in that photo?

I could believe I came about randomly, through trial and error, but not you.

You are the atoms in that photo, but much more.

In another picture, you are in your twenties, alone on a chair in a living room, pensive and beautiful. All the atoms you contained when you were six and seven and eight years old, they’re gone, given over to the environment, replaced with others wholly new to you. In that frozen moment, your eyes are on a place only you can see, your mind on thoughts, hopes, concerns I cannot reach.

Who were you?

If you can be composed of other atoms and still be, you can be any atoms, can’t you? And if you can be any, can’t you be all?

Who are you?

You are atoms and more. Read more »

by Dilip D’Souza

The autumn equinox – well, autumn in the northern hemisphere – came and went a few weeks ago. I spent it, as I mentioned in my last column here, at the Hanle Dark Sky Reserve (HDSR) in north India. Four nights with some 40 other amateur astronomers, in the open at 14,000 feet, temperatures hovering just below freezing, photographing the splendid night sky.

But on that equinox in particular, I was a fascinated spectator as a young PhD student in Physics from the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, Sourabh, channeled his inner Eratosthenes. Maybe mine too.

That’s Eratosthenes the ancient Greek mathematician. But he was many other things too – a historian, an astronomer, a librarian, a musician and, perhaps most relevant to Sourabh on equinox day in Hanle, a geographer. To read about him is to think, this was a Renaissance Man before we knew the term. And at our homestay in Hanle, Sourabh set out to replicate this ancient Renaissance Man’s most famous experiment.

Which is … well, let’s see how Sourabh went about it.

September 22, the equinox: a bright, sunny day in Hanle. Shirtsleeve temperatures by mid-morning even though it had been near zero at night. Cloudless brilliant blue sky augurs well for more stargazing tonight, our last night here. But right now the sun dazzles, casting sharp shadows.

In one corner of the homestay’s yard is a pole stuck in the ground, about 3 feet tall. When we walk over, it is actually a length of grey PVC pipe and it isn’t clear why it stands here. Unless … maybe it’s meant for Eratosthenes-style experiments? It certainly fits the bill. It casts a shadow and it makes a near-right angle with the ground. In fact, the ground right around it is a small expanse of flat concrete, which will shortly prove its convenience. Read more »

by Carol A Westbrook

This is the story of a DNA mutation that profoundly changed the course of human history, and had a major impact on human activities, altering communication, transportation, agriculture, and warfare. This story is about the horse, and how came to be a domesticated, rideable animal due to this DNA mutation.  This genetic change in the horse occurred unexpectedly late, about 4500 years ago, which is almost 5000 years later than the domestication of pigs, cattle, goats and sheep.

The earliest ancestors of horses, known as Eohippus, first appeared in North America about 55 million years ago, where they evolved into Equus, the modern horse ,by the time of the Pleistocene epoch. They spread from North America to Asia and Europe by crossing the Bering land bridge  at a time when the oceans were much lower than they are today, that is during the last ice age. As Eohippus evolved into the horse as we know it today, it continued to be an important source of meat for the humans, and was hunted throughout the Pleistocene epoch (ice age).

The North American horse went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, about 10,000 years ago, along with most of North America’s large mammals. This period of extinction is known as the Pleistocene megafauna extinction event, and resulted in the loss of mammoths, mastodons saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, giant ground sloths and giant beavers.  The cause of the extinction included climate change—the earth warmed up—over-hunting, change in flora resulting from climate change and the appearance of bison which competed directly with horses for food.

The horse disappeared from North America, but survived in Europe and Asia, particularly the Eurasian Steppes. Read more »

by Thomas Fernandes

To be alive is to maintain a coherent structure in a variable environment. Entropy favors the dispersal of energy, like heat diffusing into the surroundings. Cells, like fridges, resist this drift only by expending energy. At the base of the food chain, energy is harvested from the sun; at the next layer, it is consumed and transferred, and so begins the game of predation. Yet predation need not always be aggressive or zero-sum. Mutualistic interactions abound. Species collaborate when it conserves energy. For example, whistling-thorn trees in Kenya trade food and shelter to ants for protection. Ants patrol the tree, fending off herbivores from insects to elephants. When an organism cannot provide a resource or service without risking its own survival, opportunities for cooperative exchange are limited. Beyond the cooperative, predation emerges in its more familiar, competitive form. At every level, the imperative is the same: accumulate enough energy to maintain and reproduce. How this energy is obtained, conserved, or defended produces the rich diversity of strategies observed in nature.

On the savanna after rain, the sequence of consumption illustrates this principle. Zebras arrive first, grazing vast quantities of coarse grass. Their hindgut fermentation extracts energy efficiently but incompletely, favoring volume over quality. Sixteen hours of grazing may be required to meet their energy needs. Gazelles arrive afterward, targeting smaller, more nutrient-rich shoots. Their rumen, a multi-chambered stomach, allows for regurgitation and thorough microbial digestion. The slower, more meticulous process extracts more energy per bite. Reproduction and survival hinge on the energy accumulated this way. Gestation and nursing occur only during seasons of peak grass growth and only when the gazelle has the metabolic green light of sufficient energy.

This extracted energy inevitably attracts predators. Predator-prey interactions extend far beyond the immediate chase. While roaming for prey, predators exhibit preferential roaming, patrolling region most likely to contain their favored prey and encountering them far above chance level. Even when encountering prey, predators decide to initiate the hunt with calculated strategies. Lions exploit cover, coordinating in groups to ambush large prey like buffalo. Cheetahs, mostly solitary, approach carefully to close the distance before committing to a sprint. Predators weigh energy costs, prey size, terrain, and detection before deciding to pursue. Selecting targets with high probabilities of success is critical.

Prey respond with equally finely tuned adaptations. Gazelles detect predators early through lateral eyes, motion-sensitive retinas, and vigilance. Zebras would stand their ground against a solitary, small cheetah but have evolved rotating ears to detect the more threatening, camouflaged lions’ ambush. Early detection and avoidance are ideal, but when impossible, prey rely on alternative strategies. Read more »

by David J. Lobina

So yet another controversial topic from me, and thus another go at getting cancelled. A long series of pieces on the use and abuse of the term fascism by American commentators (here, here, and here), a dismissal of a dismal “academic” book on inclusion in linguistics (here), and an argument that universality trumps diversity in most respects (here) haven’t done the job, so perhaps a put-down of the current fad on all things equity will finally get me walking.

But isn’t equity an economic thing, a concern of business people, with little to do with equality per se? If anything, equity-qua-stocks would be related to inequality… That was the very reaction of a friend of mine, Italian and philosopher as he happens to be, when I told him I was writing about equality and equity. And no surprises there, for equity is not a common concept in political philosophy, where equality has been most discussed. In fact, the focus on equity is mostly a North American phenomenon, first originating within social justice movements and now very present in business circles too. And such is the soft power of the US (and this is stuff coming from the US) that this sort of social and political discourse can easily travel beyond those shores. But for my money it is really the fault of LinkedIn, that cesspool of naked self-promotion and half-baked ideas and advice.

Interestingly, the original version of the meme heading this post made a different point:

As the original graphic shows (see endnote 1 for more details), the aim was to differentiate between two different ideas of equality, at least from the perspective of what the terms conservative and liberal are taken to mean in North American political discourse (which, as I discussed here, doesn’t necessarily apply elsewhere, certainly not piecemeal). The intent behind the original graphic was not to contrast equality and equity, let alone was it a defence of equity over equality – the very opposite of what I shall argue for here, then. Read more »