I feel like part of this is a lack of gardening. I used to love gardening and watching plants grow as a child in my grandmother's garden. Carrots, beets, berries, onions, etc. All pretty easy, as long as you aren't worried about having too many! Even though I don't have a lot of knowledge about plants, I do certainly have more of an appreciation.
I was just looking at a house yesterday and spied a garden growing in the side yard and remarked I think those are onions! Of course the agent had no idea apparently what an onion plant looks like, which kind of surprised me. But then after a bit, it also didn't surprise me!
Of course I have to mention the amazing and great youtube channel "Crime pays but botany doesn't", here's a neat recent video:
For a nice way to start discovering plants around you I recommend the excellent iNaturalist app/site: See a plant, snap a photo and the app will suggest what it thinks it is. Other users can help with identification if the app fails.
Besides beeing a kind of nerdy pokemon go (how many organisms can you collect?) it's also crowd-sourced science.
What's fun of I naturalist is that with someone confirming your ID (or two others agreeing) your observation is included in a variety of databases used by researchers. It's fun to help out in a low key way.
In my country (NL) stonyfication of garden is a real problem. Apart from looking like shit, the loss of seasonal flowering plants and water absorption in the soil are becoming major problems.
There's peer pressure too: a neighbour is angry because leaves get stuck on our bushes and blow onto her gravel. People rave about being able to vacuum their garden. It's insane.
I am a researcher / explorer of Arecaceae species and pay the bills with cybersecurity work, this article definitely struck a chord. It is very difficult to get anyone to care about even the rare and beautiful species these days, let alone help the efforts in conservation.
I am working on a website that helps links people wanting to help learn and protect forests with the people with the background knowledge and those who are getting their fingers in the dirt, please reach out if you are interested in participating.
Did you get into cybersecurity or plants first? Do you have some kind of formal qualifications for the plant research or how did you get started with it?
I would very much like to make a career switch to something that allows me to spend time in the nature, but I have no idea how that world works.
I know this is unsatisfying, but I suspect that our approach to conservation will soon be "remember to slap the genome on S3 before turning their habitat into farmland".
Nature is gradually turning into a luxury we cannot afford.
Renewable energy production takes a minuscule amount of land compared to agriculture, and a lot of that land can be things like parking lots and roofs.
Due to the situation in Ukraine (big exporter of vegetable oil), the world is currently quite dependent on palm oil. You know the one they cut down rainforests to make. It was interesting to follow the politics around the Indonesia's temporary export ban back in May.
There is no shortage of botanists, they just have biology or other degrees.
I know perhaps a dozen people who can walk into an environment and name all the plants, their origins, and growth behavior.
I know companies that employ dozens and dozens of them. They just don't have botany degrees.
The way academia and the job market is set up, it simply doesn't make sense to get a highly specialized degree when most of the botanical knowledge can be picked up on the job and further enhanced once you settle into that career.
Exactly. I personally know several people in this line of work and none are botanists, but are instead organic chemists, geneticists, scientists of various types. The work companies are looking to do with plants requires those areas of expertise.
It's like engineering. Lockheed Martin and Boeing don't hire "airplanasists", they hire engineers and scientists that do the things they need to to to build a plane. The airplane part they learn in the job, the building blocks are science. Yes, there are aerospace engineering programs so this analogy only goes so far.
Can you expand on the types of jobs they are doing? My brother in law is a skilled botanist (runs a botanical garden), but the pay in his line of work is pretty appalling (although ok for him now he has finally climbed the tree a bit as it were).
It's like plant science stuff for companies like Bayer and Monsanto. Check out UC Davis and all the stuff they do. They have a whole college dedicated to wineaking, grape growing, etc. Same with olives. Basically large Ag companies and their research partnerships with famous universities in the space.
My ex went from botany to library science (to become a research librarian for botanists/agriculture) to bioinformatics. So it's possible to go in a similar direction while still leveraging the botany degree, at least.
Not on youtube, not on udemy or platforms like that.
So far I’m reading “botany for gardeners” and it’s a noce book, easy to read and to follow. Which is nice, because I wanted something akin to an introduction to botany for people who are not enrolled in an university.
Despite a long-term fascination with botany and medicine, finishing high school I didn't feel that stressing myself to try to get in to medicine was a smart idea. Came back to it a few years ago during COVID and learned with some supportive PhDs at a local plant study group. I'm still firmly at the beginner-intermediate stage but have greatly enjoyed iNaturalist and rediscovering microscopy (the industrial camera based digital microscopes are awesome and can output HDMI directly). Despite being busy with work I've already spotted many endangered species, some of them are the first identifications. I do regret that I had not studied more earlier, as it really adds great interest and depth to exploring new environments during travel.
When trying to learn any new discipline, I recommend this strategy. First, identify some competent world-class universities. Second, search for their related programs. Third, obtain a list of textbooks for those courses. Finally, obtain said textbooks (eg. LibGen). However, if you are feeling lazy just search the topic directly (but be sure to use the scientific title) and then order descending by year. Any textbook with three or more editions is probably well regarded. This method would recommend: ISE Stern's Introductory Plant Biology (15th edition), Botany: An Introduction to Plant Biology (6th edition), Botany for gardeners (3rd edition), Botany in a Day: The Patterns Method of Plant Identification (6th edition), Laboratory Topics in Botany (8th edition).
Then raise the wages, and raise the budgets for that research.
Do people that write this drivel think college students read it? And even if they did, do they think the students will just turn their lives around into doing something else just because someone online is complaining about not enough people doing it?
I think these pieces miss a crucial point about skepticism. In a highly competitive capitalist landscape, if there’s not a lot of people entering then it’s safe to assume there’s a good enough reason. Without googling, I’d be willing to bet there’s fewer people becoming librarians lately, and fewer becoming actuaries, etc. These jobs are often passion-related and I think collectively the young people are realizing that following your passion leads to an increased risk of poverty and hardship.
The last time I heard someone talk about botany was when *I* was in college several decades ago. Back then, there wasn’t people around me talking about machine learning very much either but that’s probably half of what I hear recent graduates in my industry talking about.
This is exactly the issue, but the solution will not be easy. Over the past 25 years some careers have become exponentially more lucrative, with much less risk, than other careers, even though they require and use the same skill set. A data scientist working for a big tech company is making gobs more than a botany post-doc, even though their skills and required education are similar.
Back 25-30 years ago, the chasm in pay wasn't as wide, and that was because pre-Internet (or pre-widely utilized Internet I should say), software just wasn't as lucrative. Now, though, I think you're seeing lots of challenges hiring in many professions because tech has become so monstrously dominant. You can say "just pay these folks more", but the money has to come from somewhere, and when big tech can easily afford 300k plus salaries for a position where other industries can't afford half that, it's difficult to see how this will improve.
It's not just a matter of salaries and funding, the economic environment has changed a lot in the few decades. Individual incomes don't go as far as they used to, inflation is through the roof. Even the high paying jobs are suffering, they just have further to fall. The jobs that were on the margin (like Botany probably) have been pushed over the economic cliff and are no longer viable given the cost of entry.
We need a fundamental reassessment of science funding and our economic priorities, sadly I imagine things will have to get a lot worse before that conversation happens, and frankly the people who got us into this mess have to leave office/die off, as a class they've proven unwilling/unable to adapt to uncomfortable realities.
Alternately, consider the 1970's US oversupply of physics phds, with associated "near collapse" of graduate programs. With a risk and pay gap - "Q: How can I talk with a physics PhD? A: Hail a cab."
Programs and market restructured, with more flow into industry. But retargetability of science PhDs to match market need remains a challenge. And today, science programs depend on tech absorbing lots of graduates. With acceptable career opportunity cost, both absolute and relative to other education paths. So what happens if/when tech no longer provides that opportunity? No longer mitigates oversupply back-pressure? Especially with teaching career paths collapsing.
The 1970's oversupply shakeup did some good. Perhaps another might too - perhaps science education might finally get the intensive focus needed to become less of a disaster. But...
> some careers have become exponentially more lucrative, with much less risk, than other careers, even though they require and use the same skill set.
Absent which, studying the sciences might become far less viable, rather than more. Tech is currently allowing society to avoid a great deal of "have a degree, can't find work" difficulty.
People become actuaries out of passion? I thought that was the definition of a stable, boring career. It’s what the dad does in Boyhood after giving up his dreams of a music career.
Librarians I grant you, though I think the market for librarians continues to be oversaturated with supply. Lots of people like the idea of a career adjacent to reading books.
As someone who is a passion-related IT person, I often meet a lot of IT people who surprise me with their fixation on making money. Generally it is a hard time to be young anywhere in the world with unemployment and underemployment rates being high among young people from the US to China.
In this situation the problem is more likely to be over specialization. If botany is a topic that you could somehow pick-up after university with little ease then it would be something more people would do. If there is a programming language that has too few people who know it, why not replace it with a code more easy to pick up by other programmers?
I think we are saying the same thing here. The work ethic is based on different bases for both - you would never be needlessly harming your health if you are passion driven for example.
The paradox is this is at a time when the population has never been more numerous and the economy more prosperous. There should be more specialists in all kinds of areas, not fewer. Instead capitalism is reducing people's horizons and impoverishing their choices of vocation and lifestyle, destroying the landbase while simultaneously driving the people that try to maintain the landbase and natural systems out of work, and in many cases into prison slave labor. It is a self-destructive cycle steering us into civilizational collapse.
I would be surprised if we had fewer specialists, either in absolute numbers or in relative numbers. The fields of specialization might have changed over time. Maybe many people who would've become botanists a hundred years ago now are geneticists or something like that.
> Most people suffer from what is commonly known as “plant blindness”, a term coined by US botanists Elisabeth Schussler and James Wandersee. They described it as “the inability to see or notice the plants in one’s own environment”. Unless taught, people don’t tend to see plants – despite the fact that at any given moment, there is likely to be a plant – or something made by plants – nearby.
But there are also proteins nearby -- isn't it worrying how people don't notice those too? With COVID and monkeypox raging around the world, isn't "protein blindness" an even more dire issue? I think the author might be suffering from "protein-blindness blindness," a term coined by US biochemists Elisabeth Simoneer and James Widdershins. In our recent study...
I would bet ‘plant awareness’ tracks pretty well with rural vs urban demographics. That’s not to say rural population somehow magically have built-in knowledge as to the botanical science; they don’t and eduction need to improve across the board. Yet I sometimes feel that these articles are written by urbanites interviewing other urbanites and making sweeping generalizations about ‘our’ view of the world.
My point was that framing the problem as an individual pathology that afflicts at random rather than a cultural, communal sickness inevitable under capitalism is absolutely absurd
I was just looking at a house yesterday and spied a garden growing in the side yard and remarked I think those are onions! Of course the agent had no idea apparently what an onion plant looks like, which kind of surprised me. But then after a bit, it also didn't surprise me!
Of course I have to mention the amazing and great youtube channel "Crime pays but botany doesn't", here's a neat recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThU0SUcf6Ws