Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

A Father Consumed by the Question of What to Teach His Children

News Feed
Tuesday, April 30, 2024

When I got pregnant last year, I began reading online about parenting and found myself confronted with an overwhelming quantity of choices. On social media, how-to graphics and videos abound, as do doctrines about the one true way to discipline your children, or feed them, or get them to sleep through the night. Parent forums, blogs, and product-recommendation sites are full of suggestions for the only swaddle that works, the formula that tastes milkiest, the clicking animatronic crab that will get your tummy-time-averse baby to hold her head high. Scrolling through all of this advice can make it seem as though parenting is largely about informed, research-based decision-making—that choosing the right gadgets and the right philosophy will help parenting itself go right.This logic can feel particularly visceral for a parent considering how to be a good steward of the environment. (Do I genuinely need a special $160 blender to avoid giving my baby prepackaged food? Or can I just mash steamed veggies with a fork?) Worrying about waste can turn into a variation on the pursuit of perfect parenting—but not worrying about it is illogical. Our children will inherit the climate crisis. Personal decisions cannot undo that fact; can, indeed, hardly mitigate it. Deciding to be a parent anyway means you had better hope that our species and societies can work out a new way to thrive on a changing, warming, conflict-riddled planet—because if not, what have you done?Choice, the Booker Prize–nominated writer Neel Mukherjee’s fourth novel, addresses this question head-on. It’s a triptych novel in the vein of Susan Choi’s Trust Exercise and Lisa Halliday’s Asymmetry, which use their three parts to repeatedly surprise and challenge readers. Compared with these novels, Choice is both more ambitious and less successful, harmed by the fact that its second and third sections just cannot compete with its blistering first.But that first section is a barn burner. Mukherjee starts Choice with the story of Ayush, an editor at a prestigious London publishing house, whose obsession with the climate crisis lands somewhere between religious fervor and emotional disorder—especially as far as his kids are concerned. Ayush and his economist husband, Luke, have twin children, Masha and Sasha, and his portion of Choice is a beautiful, horrifying, detailed, and messy evocation of parenthood, full of diapers and dirty dishes and “Can you help Daddy make dinner?” It also presents having children as a moral crisis, a stumbling block Ayush can’t get past. He tries bitterly to lessen his family’s consumption—we see him measuring the exact amount of water in which to cook the twins’ pasta, boiling it in the electric kettle because he’s read that it uses less energy than a stovetop pot —but he can’t get away from the belief that Masha and Sasha are “not going to have a future anyway.” His conviction that they’re doomed weighs more and more heavily on his parenting decisions, eventually convincing him that he can no longer parent at all.Readers meet Ayush in a scene nearly too painful to read. Home alone with his kindergarten-age twins, Ayush skips their bedtime story in favor of a documentary about an abattoir. Mukherjee describes this moment in vivid visual detail, contrasting the children’s sweet bedroom decor (cherries on the bedding; sea creatures on the night-light) to the laptop screen, which shows slaughtered pigs on a floor “so caked with layers of old solidified blood and fresh new infusion that it looks like a large wedge of fudgy chocolate cake.” Unsurprisingly, the twins sob hysterically as the video plays; their distress upsets Ayush so acutely that he cannot talk. But rather than comfort them once he regains speech, he doubles down on the decision that he has to teach them about cruelty to animals—and about their complicity in it. He puts his children to bed not with an apology or a lullaby, but with the stern reminder that “what you saw was how our meat comes to us.”[Read: The books that help me raise children in a broken world]Ayush seems like a monster in this scene—and not an unfeeling one, which signals to the reader that he may be as much tortured as torturer. Mukherjee swiftly makes it apparent that this is the case. We see him begging Luke to help teach their too-young children to weigh the morality of “things that don’t appear to be choices,” such as eating meat; Luke, in turn, begs Ayush to examine the roots of his unhappiness and anxiety, his compulsion to conserve energy far beyond what could reasonably be useful. Ayush yearns to “shake off his human form” and become one with nature—or, more ominously, vanish into it. At one point, Ayush takes his children to explore some woods outside London, an activity that many parents might relate to: He wants to share the wonder of the natural world with his children, both as a bonding activity and as a lesson in ecological stewardship. But he can’t focus on Masha and Sasha. What he hears instead is that the “great trees are breathing; Ayush wants to still his heart to hear them.” Mukherjee only implies this, but it seems that all Ayush’s experiences lead to this paradox: His love for the Earth makes him want to erase himself from it.Ayush’s relationship with his children is also shaped by a desire to remove himself, as well as a significant amount of attendant guilt. He is the twins’ primary parent, despite the fact that he never wanted children—a revelation that Mukherjee builds to slowly. Ayush’s anxieties about choosing parenthood are legion. He’s upset by the ecological impact of adding to the Earth’s human population, and believes that his twins will face a future of walled cities and climate refugeeism. Having grown up South Asian in Britain, he’s frightened of exposing children to the racism he’s faced his whole life; he also has a half-buried but “fundamental discomfort about gay parenting,” of which he is ashamed. Most of all, before having children, he didn’t want to have a baby who could become like him—“a consumed, jittery, unsettled creature.” His own unhappiness, he feels, should have precluded him from having children. Yet he acquiesced, a choice he partly disavows by suppressing his memory of why he did. Not only does he go along with having children; he takes daily responsibility for raising them.On the surface, this is the case because Ayush earns less than Luke, a dynamic the novel explores with nuance. In straight partnerships, the question of who parents more is very often gendered, which Mukherjee acknowledges: At one point, Luke, who has a big job and generational wealth, dismisses Ayush with a sexist reference to the “pin-money” he earns in publishing. But there are more layers here. Ayush, it seems, takes responsibility for his children in order to atone for not having wanted them. Luke, who pushed for fatherhood, is the more patient and affectionate parent, while Ayush is busy fretting over the environmental impact of disposable diapers. Luke is also much kinder and more open to Ayush than Ayush is to him: Although Luke is an economist, with a genuine belief in the rationality that undergirds his discipline, he’s motivated far more by his emotions than his ideas.Ayush believes himself to be the opposite. His domestic decisions are often logical (or logical-seeming) responses to climate anxieties, but this impulse becomes more disturbing as it influences his child-rearing. Sometimes, he seems to care more about raising Masha and Sasha as environmentalists than he does about any other aspect of their upbringing—almost as though he wants to offset having had them to begin with. He doesn’t necessarily want to be this way: After the somewhat-failed forest outing, Ayush takes the twins on a walk around London and teaches them to come up with similes and metaphors to describe what they see, making a game of comparing dandelions to egg yolks and lemons. Here, he successfully keeps his attention on his children, but he still spins a tender moment into one of moral exigency. “Will this remain in their memory,” he wonders, “make them look up and out, make them notice, and, much more importantly, notice again?” For Ayush, this qualifies as optimism. He’s trying to control his children’s way of seeing the world, but he is also trying to offer them the gift of coexisting, happily, with the Earth.[Read: The book that captures my life as a dad]Mukherjee does give Ayush one way of communing peacefully with nature: his relationship with his dog, Spencer. The writer Joy Williams has said that any work of fiction should have an “animal within to give its blessing,” which Spencer certainly does in Choice. Mukherjee describes Ayush’s devotion to his dog in lush detail; the book’s most beautiful passages have Spencer in them. Ayush’s heart breaks when he realizes that Luke does not see “you, me, and the dog” as family enough; it breaks far more deeply when Spencer grows too old to “bound to the door … surprised by joy, impatient as the wind, when any member of his family comes in.” Among Ayush’s most treasured memories is a spring morning with Spencer: Then a puppy, he had rolled in wild flowers so that his “silky golden throat and chest had smelled of violets for a brief second, then the scent had disappeared. Ayush had sat on the ground, sniffing Spencer’s chest for another hit of that elusive perfume, but it was gone.”Ayush plainly sees Spencer as his child, and yet the dog also gives him a way to experience the “elusive perfume” of a pleasurable connection with the planet. As Spencer ages and that link is harder to sense, Ayush’s unhappiness grows. He understands that he is grieving preemptively for Spencer, but the approaching loss of his dog—an event he cannot control or avoid—does not motivate him to snuggle with Spencer or prepare his children for the loss. Instead, it makes him want to leave his family when Spencer does—as if, without the connection to nature that the dog offers, he can no longer bear to be caged in his family home.By the end of his section of Choice, Ayush has completely lost the ability to make rational decisions. He betrays Spencer in a scene perhaps even more painful than the book’s opening, thinking that he’s doing his beloved dog a service; he also betrays his children, his husband, his life. All of his efforts to control his family’s ecological impact, to do the right research and calculations, to impart all the right moral lessons, lead directly, maybe inexorably, to this tragic point. At the novel’s start, he tells Luke that he wants their kids to understand “choices and their consequences.” But it ultimately becomes clear that he can’t accept the consequences of his choice to have children. He can’t save the planet for his children; nor can he save it from them—and so, rather than committing to guiding them into a future he can’t choose or control, he abdicates his responsibility for them.Mukherjee leaves Ayush’s family behind rather than linger on the aftermath of these betrayals. He moves on to two narratives the reader will recognize as parts of books that Ayush edited: first a story about a young English academic who begins meddling in—and writing about—the life of an Eritrean rideshare driver, then an essay by a disillusioned economist who describes the misery that ensues when an aid organization gives a Bengali family a cow that is meant to lift them from poverty, but radically worsens their situation instead. Mukherjee imbues these sections with a propulsive mix of anger and grace, but neither is especially complicated. Emily, the academic, has no one who depends on her, and her odd choices concerning the rideshare driver, Salim, have no real consequences for anyone but herself. Sabita, the mother of the family that gets the cow, is so wholly at the mercy of her material conditions that choice is hardly a relevant concept to her—something that she understands, though the cow-providing “people from the city” do not.Emily’s section primarily serves as a portrait of choice amid abundance. Sabita’s, meanwhile, underscores the central idea of Ayush’s: that our efforts at control are, by and large, delusions. For parents, this can be especially painful to accept. We want our choices to guarantee our children’s safety, their comfort, their happiness. For Ayush, who believes fervently that his twins will grow up to inhabit a “burning world,” the fact that he can’t choose something better for them drives him away from them. By not showing the consequences of Ayush’s actions, Mukherjee leaves incomplete the book’s exploration of parenting. What his abdication means to Masha, Sasha, and Luke is hidden. What it means to the reader, though, is clear. In Choice, there is no such thing as a perfect decision or a decision guaranteed to go right. There are only misjudgments and errors—and the worst of those are the ones that can never be undone.

Neel Mukherjee’s new novel explores the reality that no decision—particularly as a parent—is perfect.

When I got pregnant last year, I began reading online about parenting and found myself confronted with an overwhelming quantity of choices. On social media, how-to graphics and videos abound, as do doctrines about the one true way to discipline your children, or feed them, or get them to sleep through the night. Parent forums, blogs, and product-recommendation sites are full of suggestions for the only swaddle that works, the formula that tastes milkiest, the clicking animatronic crab that will get your tummy-time-averse baby to hold her head high. Scrolling through all of this advice can make it seem as though parenting is largely about informed, research-based decision-making—that choosing the right gadgets and the right philosophy will help parenting itself go right.

This logic can feel particularly visceral for a parent considering how to be a good steward of the environment. (Do I genuinely need a special $160 blender to avoid giving my baby prepackaged food? Or can I just mash steamed veggies with a fork?) Worrying about waste can turn into a variation on the pursuit of perfect parenting—but not worrying about it is illogical. Our children will inherit the climate crisis. Personal decisions cannot undo that fact; can, indeed, hardly mitigate it. Deciding to be a parent anyway means you had better hope that our species and societies can work out a new way to thrive on a changing, warming, conflict-riddled planet—because if not, what have you done?

Choice, the Booker Prize–nominated writer Neel Mukherjee’s fourth novel, addresses this question head-on. It’s a triptych novel in the vein of Susan Choi’s Trust Exercise and Lisa Halliday’s Asymmetry, which use their three parts to repeatedly surprise and challenge readers. Compared with these novels, Choice is both more ambitious and less successful, harmed by the fact that its second and third sections just cannot compete with its blistering first.

But that first section is a barn burner. Mukherjee starts Choice with the story of Ayush, an editor at a prestigious London publishing house, whose obsession with the climate crisis lands somewhere between religious fervor and emotional disorder—especially as far as his kids are concerned. Ayush and his economist husband, Luke, have twin children, Masha and Sasha, and his portion of Choice is a beautiful, horrifying, detailed, and messy evocation of parenthood, full of diapers and dirty dishes and “Can you help Daddy make dinner?” It also presents having children as a moral crisis, a stumbling block Ayush can’t get past. He tries bitterly to lessen his family’s consumption—we see him measuring the exact amount of water in which to cook the twins’ pasta, boiling it in the electric kettle because he’s read that it uses less energy than a stovetop pot —but he can’t get away from the belief that Masha and Sasha are “not going to have a future anyway.” His conviction that they’re doomed weighs more and more heavily on his parenting decisions, eventually convincing him that he can no longer parent at all.


Readers meet Ayush in a scene nearly too painful to read. Home alone with his kindergarten-age twins, Ayush skips their bedtime story in favor of a documentary about an abattoir. Mukherjee describes this moment in vivid visual detail, contrasting the children’s sweet bedroom decor (cherries on the bedding; sea creatures on the night-light) to the laptop screen, which shows slaughtered pigs on a floor “so caked with layers of old solidified blood and fresh new infusion that it looks like a large wedge of fudgy chocolate cake.” Unsurprisingly, the twins sob hysterically as the video plays; their distress upsets Ayush so acutely that he cannot talk. But rather than comfort them once he regains speech, he doubles down on the decision that he has to teach them about cruelty to animals—and about their complicity in it. He puts his children to bed not with an apology or a lullaby, but with the stern reminder that “what you saw was how our meat comes to us.”

[Read: The books that help me raise children in a broken world]

Ayush seems like a monster in this scene—and not an unfeeling one, which signals to the reader that he may be as much tortured as torturer. Mukherjee swiftly makes it apparent that this is the case. We see him begging Luke to help teach their too-young children to weigh the morality of “things that don’t appear to be choices,” such as eating meat; Luke, in turn, begs Ayush to examine the roots of his unhappiness and anxiety, his compulsion to conserve energy far beyond what could reasonably be useful. Ayush yearns to “shake off his human form” and become one with nature—or, more ominously, vanish into it. At one point, Ayush takes his children to explore some woods outside London, an activity that many parents might relate to: He wants to share the wonder of the natural world with his children, both as a bonding activity and as a lesson in ecological stewardship. But he can’t focus on Masha and Sasha. What he hears instead is that the “great trees are breathing; Ayush wants to still his heart to hear them.” Mukherjee only implies this, but it seems that all Ayush’s experiences lead to this paradox: His love for the Earth makes him want to erase himself from it.

Ayush’s relationship with his children is also shaped by a desire to remove himself, as well as a significant amount of attendant guilt. He is the twins’ primary parent, despite the fact that he never wanted children—a revelation that Mukherjee builds to slowly. Ayush’s anxieties about choosing parenthood are legion. He’s upset by the ecological impact of adding to the Earth’s human population, and believes that his twins will face a future of walled cities and climate refugeeism. Having grown up South Asian in Britain, he’s frightened of exposing children to the racism he’s faced his whole life; he also has a half-buried but “fundamental discomfort about gay parenting,” of which he is ashamed. Most of all, before having children, he didn’t want to have a baby who could become like him—“a consumed, jittery, unsettled creature.” His own unhappiness, he feels, should have precluded him from having children. Yet he acquiesced, a choice he partly disavows by suppressing his memory of why he did. Not only does he go along with having children; he takes daily responsibility for raising them.

On the surface, this is the case because Ayush earns less than Luke, a dynamic the novel explores with nuance. In straight partnerships, the question of who parents more is very often gendered, which Mukherjee acknowledges: At one point, Luke, who has a big job and generational wealth, dismisses Ayush with a sexist reference to the “pin-money” he earns in publishing. But there are more layers here. Ayush, it seems, takes responsibility for his children in order to atone for not having wanted them. Luke, who pushed for fatherhood, is the more patient and affectionate parent, while Ayush is busy fretting over the environmental impact of disposable diapers. Luke is also much kinder and more open to Ayush than Ayush is to him: Although Luke is an economist, with a genuine belief in the rationality that undergirds his discipline, he’s motivated far more by his emotions than his ideas.

Ayush believes himself to be the opposite. His domestic decisions are often logical (or logical-seeming) responses to climate anxieties, but this impulse becomes more disturbing as it influences his child-rearing. Sometimes, he seems to care more about raising Masha and Sasha as environmentalists than he does about any other aspect of their upbringing—almost as though he wants to offset having had them to begin with. He doesn’t necessarily want to be this way: After the somewhat-failed forest outing, Ayush takes the twins on a walk around London and teaches them to come up with similes and metaphors to describe what they see, making a game of comparing dandelions to egg yolks and lemons. Here, he successfully keeps his attention on his children, but he still spins a tender moment into one of moral exigency. “Will this remain in their memory,” he wonders, “make them look up and out, make them notice, and, much more importantly, notice again?” For Ayush, this qualifies as optimism. He’s trying to control his children’s way of seeing the world, but he is also trying to offer them the gift of coexisting, happily, with the Earth.

[Read: The book that captures my life as a dad]

Mukherjee does give Ayush one way of communing peacefully with nature: his relationship with his dog, Spencer. The writer Joy Williams has said that any work of fiction should have an “animal within to give its blessing,” which Spencer certainly does in Choice. Mukherjee describes Ayush’s devotion to his dog in lush detail; the book’s most beautiful passages have Spencer in them. Ayush’s heart breaks when he realizes that Luke does not see “you, me, and the dog” as family enough; it breaks far more deeply when Spencer grows too old to “bound to the door … surprised by joy, impatient as the wind, when any member of his family comes in.” Among Ayush’s most treasured memories is a spring morning with Spencer: Then a puppy, he had rolled in wild flowers so that his “silky golden throat and chest had smelled of violets for a brief second, then the scent had disappeared. Ayush had sat on the ground, sniffing Spencer’s chest for another hit of that elusive perfume, but it was gone.”

Ayush plainly sees Spencer as his child, and yet the dog also gives him a way to experience the “elusive perfume” of a pleasurable connection with the planet. As Spencer ages and that link is harder to sense, Ayush’s unhappiness grows. He understands that he is grieving preemptively for Spencer, but the approaching loss of his dog—an event he cannot control or avoid—does not motivate him to snuggle with Spencer or prepare his children for the loss. Instead, it makes him want to leave his family when Spencer does—as if, without the connection to nature that the dog offers, he can no longer bear to be caged in his family home.

By the end of his section of Choice, Ayush has completely lost the ability to make rational decisions. He betrays Spencer in a scene perhaps even more painful than the book’s opening, thinking that he’s doing his beloved dog a service; he also betrays his children, his husband, his life. All of his efforts to control his family’s ecological impact, to do the right research and calculations, to impart all the right moral lessons, lead directly, maybe inexorably, to this tragic point. At the novel’s start, he tells Luke that he wants their kids to understand “choices and their consequences.” But it ultimately becomes clear that he can’t accept the consequences of his choice to have children. He can’t save the planet for his children; nor can he save it from them—and so, rather than committing to guiding them into a future he can’t choose or control, he abdicates his responsibility for them.

Mukherjee leaves Ayush’s family behind rather than linger on the aftermath of these betrayals. He moves on to two narratives the reader will recognize as parts of books that Ayush edited: first a story about a young English academic who begins meddling in—and writing about—the life of an Eritrean rideshare driver, then an essay by a disillusioned economist who describes the misery that ensues when an aid organization gives a Bengali family a cow that is meant to lift them from poverty, but radically worsens their situation instead. Mukherjee imbues these sections with a propulsive mix of anger and grace, but neither is especially complicated. Emily, the academic, has no one who depends on her, and her odd choices concerning the rideshare driver, Salim, have no real consequences for anyone but herself. Sabita, the mother of the family that gets the cow, is so wholly at the mercy of her material conditions that choice is hardly a relevant concept to her—something that she understands, though the cow-providing “people from the city” do not.

Emily’s section primarily serves as a portrait of choice amid abundance. Sabita’s, meanwhile, underscores the central idea of Ayush’s: that our efforts at control are, by and large, delusions. For parents, this can be especially painful to accept. We want our choices to guarantee our children’s safety, their comfort, their happiness. For Ayush, who believes fervently that his twins will grow up to inhabit a “burning world,” the fact that he can’t choose something better for them drives him away from them. By not showing the consequences of Ayush’s actions, Mukherjee leaves incomplete the book’s exploration of parenting. What his abdication means to Masha, Sasha, and Luke is hidden. What it means to the reader, though, is clear. In Choice, there is no such thing as a perfect decision or a decision guaranteed to go right. There are only misjudgments and errors—and the worst of those are the ones that can never be undone.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

In Alaska’s Warming Arctic, Photos Show an Indigenous Elder Passing Down Hunting Traditions

An Inupiaq elder teaches his great-grandson to hunt in rapidly warming Northwest Alaska where thinning ice, shifting caribou migrations and severe storms are reshaping life

KOTZEBUE, Alaska (AP) — The low autumn light turned the tundra gold as James Schaeffer, 7, and his cousin Charles Gallahorn, 10, raced down a dirt path by the cemetery on the edge of town. Permafrost thaw had buckled the ground, tilting wooden cross grave markers sideways. The boys took turns smashing slabs of ice that had formed in puddles across the warped road.Their great-grandfather, Roswell Schaeffer, 78, trailed behind. What was a playground to the kids was, for Schaeffer – an Inupiaq elder and prolific hunter – a reminder of what warming temperatures had undone: the stable ice he once hunted seals on, the permafrost cellars that kept food frozen all summer, the salmon runs and caribou migrations that once defined the seasons.Now another pressure loomed. A 211-mile mining road that would cut through caribou and salmon habitat was approved by the Trump administration this fall, though the project still faces lawsuits and opposition from environmental and native groups. Schaeffer and other critics worry it could open the region to outside hunters and further devastate already declining herds. “If we lose our caribou – both from climate change and overhunting – we’ll never be the same,” he said. “We’re going to lose our culture totally.”Still, Schaeffer insists on taking the next generation out on the land, even when the animals don’t come. It was late September and he and James would normally have been at their camp hunting caribou. But the herd has been migrating later each year and still hadn’t arrived – a pattern scientists link to climate change, mostly caused by the burning of oil, gas and coal. So instead of caribou, they scanned the tundra for swans, ptarmigan and ducks.Caribou antlers are stacked outside Schaeffer's home. Traditional seal hooks and whale harpoons hang in his hunting shed. Inside, a photograph of him with a hunted beluga is mounted on the wall beside the head of a dall sheep and a traditional mask his daughter Aakatchaq made from caribou hide and lynx fur.He got his first caribou at 14 and began taking his own children out at 7. James made his first caribou kill this past spring with a .22 rifle. He teaches James what his father taught him: that power comes from giving food and a hunter’s responsibility is to feed the elders.“When you’re raised an Inupiaq, your whole being is to make sure the elders have food,” he said.But even as he passes down those lessons, Schaeffer worries there won’t be enough to sustain the next generation – or to sustain him. “The reason I’ve been a successful hunter is the firm belief that, when I become old, people will feed me,” he said. “My great-grandson and my grandson are my future for food.” That future feels tenuous These days, they’re eating less hunted food and relying more on farmed chicken and processed goods from the store. The caribou are fewer, the salmon scarcer, the storms more severe. Record rainfall battered Northwest Alaska this year, flooding Schaeffer’s backyard twice this fall alone. He worries about the toll on wildlife and whether his grandchildren will be able to live in Kotzebue as the changes accelerate.“It’s kind of scary to think about what’s going to happen,” he said.That afternoon, James ducked into the bed of Schaeffer’s truck and aimed into the water. He shot two ducks. Schaeffer helped him into waders – waterproof overalls – so they could collect them and bring them home for dinner, but the tide was too high. They had to turn back without collecting the ducks. The changes weigh on others, too. Schaeffer’s friend, writer and commercial fisherman Seth Kantner grew up along the Kobuk River, where caribou once reliably crossed by the hundreds of thousands. “I can hardly stand how lonely it feels without all the caribou that used to be here,” he said. “This road is the largest threat. But right beside it is climate change.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Changes to polar bear DNA could help them adapt to global heating, study finds

Scientists say bears in southern Greenland differ genetically to those in the north, suggesting they could adjustChanges in polar bear DNA that could help the animals adapt to warmer climates have been detected by researchers, in a study thought to be the first time a statistically significant link has been found between rising temperatures and changing DNA in a wild mammal species.Climate breakdown is threatening the survival of polar bears. Two-thirds of them are expected to have disappeared by 2050 as their icy habitat melts and the weather becomes hotter. Continue reading...

Changes in polar bear DNA that could help the animals adapt to warmer climates have been detected by researchers, in a study thought to be the first time a statistically significant link has been found between rising temperatures and changing DNA in a wild mammal species.Climate breakdown is threatening the survival of polar bears. Two-thirds of them are expected to have disappeared by 2050 as their icy habitat melts and the weather becomes hotter.Now scientists at the University of East Anglia have found that some genes related to heat stress, ageing and metabolism are behaving differently in polar bears living in south-east Greenland, suggesting they may be adjusting to warmer conditions.The researchers analysed blood samples taken from polar bears in two regions of Greenland and compared “jumping genes”: small, mobile pieces of the genome that can influence how other genes work. Scientists looked at the genes in relation to temperatures in the two regions and at the associated changes in gene expression.“DNA is the instruction book inside every cell, guiding how an organism grows and develops,” said the lead researcher, Dr Alice Godden. “By comparing these bears’ active genes to local climate data, we found that rising temperatures appear to be driving a dramatic increase in the activity of jumping genes within the south-east Greenland bears’ DNA.”As local climates and diets evolve as a result of changes in habitat and prey forced by global heating, the genetics of the bears appear to be adapting, with the group of bears in the warmest part of the country showing more changes than the communities farther north. The authors of the study have said these changes could help us understand how polar bears might survive in a warming world, inform understanding of which populations are most at risk and guide future conservation efforts.This is because the findings, published on Friday in the journal Mobile DNA, suggest the genes that are changing play a crucial role in how different polar bear populations are evolving.Godden said: “This finding is important because it shows, for the first time, that a unique group of polar bears in the warmest part of Greenland are using ‘jumping genes’ to rapidly rewrite their own DNA, which might be a desperate survival mechanism against melting sea ice.”Temperatures in north-east Greenland are colder and less variable, while in the south-east there is a much warmer and less icy environment, with steep temperature fluctuations.DNA sequences in animals change over time, but this process can be accelerated by environmental stress such as a rapidly heating climate.There were some interesting DNA changes, such as in areas linked to fat processing, that could help polar bears survive when food is scarce. Bears in warmer regions had more rough, plant-based diets compared with the fatty, seal-based diets of northern bears, and the DNA of south-eastern bears seemed to be adapting to this.Godden said: “We identified several genetic hotspots where these jumping genes were highly active, with some located in the protein-coding regions of the genome, suggesting that the bears are undergoing rapid, fundamental genetic changes as they adapt to their disappearing sea ice habitat.”The next step will be to look at other polar bear populations, of which there are 20 around the world, to see if similar changes are happening to their DNA.This research could help protect the bears from extinction. But the scientists said it was crucial to stop temperature rises accelerating by reducing the burning of fossil fuels.Godden said: “We cannot be complacent, this offers some hope but does not mean that polar bears are at any less risk of extinction. We still need to be doing everything we can to reduce global carbon emissions and slow temperature increases.”

A Deadly Pathogen Decimated Sunflower Sea Stars. Look Inside the Lab Working to Bring Them Back by Freezing and Thawing Their Larvae

For the first time, scientists have cryopreserved and revived the larvae of a sea star species. The breakthrough, made with the giant pink star, gives hope the technique could be repeated to save the imperiled predator

A Deadly Pathogen Decimated Sunflower Sea Stars. Look Inside the Lab Working to Bring Them Back by Freezing and Thawing Their Larvae For the first time, scientists have cryopreserved and revived the larvae of a sea star species. The breakthrough, made with the giant pink star, gives hope the technique could be repeated to save the imperiled predator Juvenile sunflower sea stars at the Sunflower Star Laboratory in Moss Landing, California. At this phase, each is less than an inch wide, but they can grow to be more than three feet across as adults. Avery Schuyler Nunn Key takeaways: Recovering sunflower sea stars by freezing them in time Ravaged by infectious bacteria, sunflower sea stars literally wasted away across the Pacific coast of North America—and their resulting population crash destabilized kelp forest ecosystems. Scientists pioneered a cryopreservation technique on the closely related giant pink star, raising hopes that a bank of frozen sunflower star larvae could one day be thawed in the same way and released into the wild. Along a working California harbor, where gulls wheel over weathered pilings and the old Western Flyer—the ship John Steinbeck once sailed to the Sea of Cortez—sits restored in its berth, researchers buzz about in a modest lab tucked between warehouses and boatyards. Inside, amid the hiss of pumps and the faint smell of brine from seawater tables, a scientist lifts a small vial from a plume of liquid nitrogen, its frosted casing holding the tiniest flicker of hope for a species on the brink. Each of the 18 vials contains between 500 and 700 larval giant pink sea stars. At this stage, they are tiny specks suspended in seawater, invisible to the naked eye. These particular larvae have been cryopreserved and stored at roughly minus 180 degrees Celsius since March. At the Sunflower Star Laboratory (SSL) in Moss Landing, California, scientists thawed the larval pink sea stars and coaxed them to successfully develop into juveniles this summer—a first for any sea star species. In October, the scientists thawed another batch of larvae from the same cohort to test larval growth and survival under different freezing conditions and thawing protocols. The breakthrough, however, isn’t really about the giant pink star, a species that’s common in the wild. Instead, these larvae serve as a crucial stand-in for the far more imperiled sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides)—a vanishing species for which larvae are precious, limited and increasingly difficult to obtain. Perfecting cryopreservation methods on pink stars—ensuring they can survive freezing, resume feeding and grow into juveniles—lays the scientific groundwork for facilitating a return of Pycnopodia. The contents of a thawed vial are placed under a microscope to assess viability of the larvae. Avery Schuyler Nunn The discovery arrives at a precarious time, as sunflower stars have disappeared at a pace rarely seen in marine ecosystems. As a mysterious pathogen ravaged their population along the western shores of North America beginning in 2013, the creatures collapsed from an estimated six billion individuals to functional extinction in parts of their range—all within just a few years. Their loss left kelp forests with dramatically fewer predators, destabilizing ecosystems across the Pacific coast and allowing urchins to proliferate and graze formerly lush underwater canopies into barren rock. Now, scientists hope that “freezing” their larvae will offer a new avenue for bringing the species back. “Cryopreservation is particularly important on the population level when thinking about recovery for this endangered species, because it had major population losses,” says Marissa Baskett, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the project. The process lets scientists preserve the sea stars’ existing genetic diversity for future reintroduction to the wild, she adds. “Especially given the uncertainty about different disease outbreaks, having that stock to return to is incredibly valuable.” A mysterious and “complete collapse” Sunflower sea stars have long lived in abundance up and down the rugged Pacific coast—from Alaskan archipelagoes to Baja California. The 24-limbed echinoderms sprawled across the seafloor in shades of ochre, crimson and violet. Among the fastest-moving and largest of all sea stars—capable of stretching nearly three feet across—these radiant predators coursed through kelp forests, voraciously hunting purple sea urchins and preventing them from over-grazing on the holdfasts that root towering golden canopies of kelp. An adult sunflower sea star has 24 limbs and can be more than three feet wide. This one was photographed off Point Dume State Beach near Los Angeles. Brent Durand via Getty Images “In Northern California and Oregon, there historically would have been multiple keystone predators within the kelp forest ecosystem who are punching on purple urchins and keeping their population in check,” says Reuven Bank, board chair of SSL. “But the southern sea otter was extirpated across its historic range, so we were left with sunflower stars being the last major keystone predator of purple urchins across over 100 miles of coastline.” “And sunflower stars didn’t just eat urchins, they scared them,” Bank adds. “Urchins can smell a sunflower star approaching, and in healthy kelp forests they hide more and graze less. Even without consuming them, sunflower stars helped keep urchin behavior, and therefore kelp forests, in balance.” Then, in June 2013, tidepool monitors along Washington’s Olympic Peninsula documented an unprecedented sight. The once-sturdy sea stars had turned soft, pale and contorted, their arms curling and detaching from their bodies. By late summer, the same mysterious affliction had surfaced in British Columbia, and it began sweeping both north and south with startling speed. The emerging epidemic, which caused the invertebrates to literally disintegrate, would soon be known as sea star wasting disease. An infamous marine heatwave—nicknamed “The Blob”—had settled over the Pacific by 2014, thrusting the coast into a fever. Ocean temperatures spiked, likely speeding up the disease progression in already stressed sea stars and leading to higher mortality. In the warm, stagnant water, infected sunflower stars dissolved at an eerily rapid pace, leaving behind ghost-white films of bacterial mass where the vibrant predators had been just days before. “You’d have apparently healthy stars basically melt away into puddles of goo within 48 hours,” says Andrew Kim, lab manager at SSL. “It happened so quickly, and I don’t think folks were prepared for the ensuing ecosystem shift. You don’t often expect diseases to come through and totally reshape ecosystem dynamics within such a short period. But that’s what we saw.” Without sunflower sea stars to keep those spiny purple urchins in check, the balance began to falter, setting the stage for an unprecedented chain reaction. Urchin populations skyrocketed, grazing on kelp without limits, and once-thriving underwater forests collapsed into barren rock. A dense group of purple sea urchins, which exploded in population after the sunflower sea stars disappeared, photographed near Mendocino Headlands State Park, north of San Francisco. Brent Durand via Getty Images In California, with 99 percent loss, sunflower sea stars are now considered functionally extinct. “Even though there may be a few remnant individuals left, they can no longer fulfill their historic role in the ecosystem,” Bank says. As sunflower stars unraveled in the wild, another species—its thick-armed cousin, the giant pink star—offered an unexpected foothold for hope. The pink stars share a nearly identical geographic range and life history with sunflower stars, and crucially, their larvae can be raised in aquaria. If scientists could learn to freeze and revive the pink star in its early life stages, they wondered, could that knowledge become a lifeline for the sunflower star? That’s where the small team in Moss Landing stepped in. Freezing sea stars for the future What these scientists did was something no one had ever pulled off with a sea star. Working with giant pink stars, researchers spawned adults at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California, fertilized their gametes to produce thousands of larvae, and shipped those microscopic bodies to the Frozen Zoo—a cryopreserved archive of creatures operated by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. There, reproductive scientists plunged the larvae into liquid nitrogen, cooling them to extremely low temperatures and pausing their cells’ biological activity. The larvae, essentially frozen in time, were shielded from ice crystal damage with special cryoprotectant mixtures. Sunflower Star Laboratory researchers remove a vial of pink star larvae from an insulated cooler at around minus 180 degrees Celsius in preparation for thawing. Avery Schuyler Nunn After months in this suspended state, the larvae were sent to the Sunflower Star Laboratory where Carly Young, a San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance scientist who advances cryopreservation and reproductive-rescue tools, led the team in thawing the vials. She had fine-tuned the ideal way to keep the larvae alive as they returned to real-world temperatures, carefully testing more than 100 “recipes” with various warming rates, cryoprotectant dilutions and rehydration steps. The pink star larvae not only survived thawing, but have thus far lived all the way through metamorphosis into juveniles. Scientists watched the little stars settle spontaneously along the bottom of their beakers just 19 days after revival. The success prompted the team to apply the same cryopreservation protocols to sunflower star larvae from the Alaska SeaLife Center. The larvae will be frozen in perpetuity, creating the first-ever cryopreserved archive of the species—like a seed bank, but for the baby sea stars. “A famous quote from the ’70s, when the Frozen Zoo in San Diego was established, was, ‘You must collect things for reasons you don’t yet understand,’” says Ashley Kidd, conservation project manager at SSL. “We don’t know when the other shoe is going to drop and what populations are going to look like as the planet changes. So, rather than chasing ghosts around the ocean floor, we really focused on what we can do with animals that are currently under human care somewhere.” While cryopreservation itself isn’t a ready-made restoration tool, it opens the door to conserving genetic diversity of a species and banking rare lineages for potential reintroduction to the wild. In the 1970s and 1990s, researchers began testing cryopreservation of marine invertebrates with sperm and larvae, establishing the basic protocols that this team could apply to sea stars. The breakthrough doesn’t restore kelp forests by itself, but the SSL scientists note that cryopreservation creates something the conservation community has desperately needed: time. Time to hold onto genetic diversity, time to refine captive rearing and time to prepare for future reintroduction at scales big enough to matter. The ultimate test, the researchers say, will be translating the thawing process to sunflower sea stars. Carly Young, at the Sunflower Star Laboratory, looks for movement in the young sea stars. Avery Schuyler Nunn Just this summer, scientists uncovered a piece of the puzzle that had eluded them for more than a decade: the pathogen behind sea star wasting disease. In a four-year international effort, researchers traced the outbreak to a strain of the marine bacterium Vibrio pectenicida. When cultured and injected into healthy sea stars, it reproduced the telltale symptoms—softening arms, rapid disintegration and death within days. The finding, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution in August, gives recovery teams a way to test for the pathogen in labs and hatcheries, tighten quarantine measures and understand disease risks before returning captive-bred sea stars to the Pacific. “It’s massively important to know what to look for, and the fact that we are now able to test for this disease is going to be critical in advancing our ability to move forward with reintroductions and continuing the research,” notes Kim. “We’ve already been able to take fluid samples from all of our stars and get them analyzed for the presence of Vibrio pectenicida, so we’ve mobilized very quickly on the heels of development.” Paired with this new diagnostic clarity, advances in cryopreservation offer a second front in the effort to save the species. Frozen larvae can be stored for decades and offer flexibility for selective breeding of disease-tolerant traits, notes the team. Cryopreservation adds another tool to the scientists’ toolbox as they fight to prevent the species—and, in turn, its ecosystem—from wasting away. “Bringing back sunflower stars,” Bank says, “is the single-most important step we can take toward restoring kelp forest balance.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge

Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 10, 2025 9:59 a.m. The pits are evenly spaced around a large circle. University of Bradford In 2020, archaeologists in the United Kingdom made a surprising discovery. At Durrington Walls, a large Neolithic henge not far from Stonehenge, they found more than a dozen large, deep pits buried under layers of loose clay. The pits are mysterious. Each one measures roughly 30 feet wide by 15 feet deep, and together they form a mile-wide circle around Durrington Walls and neighboring Woodhenge. They also appear to be linked with the much older Larkhill causewayed enclosure, built more than 1,000 years before Durrington Walls. For the last few years, archaeologists have been puzzling over their origins: Were they dug intentionally by human hands? Were they naturally occurring structures, like sinkholes? Or is there some other possible explanation for the existence of these colossal shafts? Quick fact: The purpose of Durrington Walls While Stonehenge is thought to have been a sacred place for ceremonies, Durrington Walls was a place where people actually lived. In a new paper published in the journal Internet Archaeology, archaeologists report that they have a much better understanding of the pits’ purpose, chronology and environmental setting. And, now, they are confident the shafts were made by humans. “They can’t be occurring naturally,” says lead author Vincent Gaffney, an archaeologist at the University of Bradford, to the Guardian’s Steven Morris. “It just can’t happen. We think we’ve nailed it.” Chris Gaffney, an archaeologist at the at the University of Bradford, surveys the ground near Durrington Walls. University of Bradford For the study, researchers returned to the site in southern England and used several different methods to further analyze the unusual structures. They used a technique known as electrical resistance tomography to calculate the pits’ depths, and radar and magnetometry to suss out their shapes. They also took core samples of the sediment, then ran the soil through a variety of tests. For instance, they used optically stimulated luminescence to determine the last time each layer of soil had been exposed to the sun. They also looked for traces of animal or plant DNA. Astonishing' Stonehenge discovery offers new insights into Neolithic ancestors. Together, the results of these analyses indicate humans must have been involved, which suggests the pits could be “one of the largest prehistoric structures in Britain, if not the largest,” Gaffney tells the BBC’s Sophie Parker. Researchers suspect the circle pits were created by people living at the site over a short period of time during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago. They were not “simply dug and abandoned” but, rather, appear to have been part of a “structured, monumental landscape that speaks to the complexity and sophistication of Neolithic society,” Gaffney says in a statement. For example, the pits are fairly evenly spaced around the circle, which suggests their Neolithic creators were measuring the distances between them somehow. “The skill and effort that must have been required to not only dig the pits, but also to place them so precisely within the landscape is a marvel,” says study co-author Richard Bates, a geophysicist at the University of St Andrews, in a statement. “When you consider that the pits are spread over such a large distance, the fact they are located in a near perfect circular pattern is quite remarkable.” Researchers used multiple methods to investigate the pits at Durrington Walls. University of Bradford But who dug the pits? And, perhaps more importantly, why? Archaeologists are still trying to definitively answer those questions, but they suspect the shafts were created to serve as some sort of sacred boundary around Durrington Walls. Their creators may also have been trying to connect with the underworld, per the Guardian. “They’re inscribing something about their cosmology, their belief systems, into the earth itself in a very dramatic way,” Gaddney tells the BBC. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Is red meat bad for you? Limited research robs us of a clear answer.

We’d all appreciate more definitive guidance. Eating a varied diet is a wise move while we wait.

Over and over, we ask the question: Is Food X good or bad for you? And, over and over, belief in the answer — whether it’s yes or no — is held with conviction totally out of proportion with the strength of the evidence.Today’s illustration: red meat. It has become one of the most-disputed issues in food. It’s so polarizing that some people decide to eat no meat at all, while others decide to eat only meat. It’s poison, or it’s the only true fuel.The latest salvo in the Meat Wars was kicked off by a new report that outlines the optimal diet for both people and planet. The EAT-Lancet Report comes down hard on red meat; its recommended daily intake is a mere 14 grams — that’s half an ounce.Read on, and the news gets worse: “Because intake of red meat is not essential and appears to be linearly related to higher total mortality and risks of other health outcomes in populations that have consumed it for many years, the optimal intake may be zero.”Note that word: “related.” It’s the source of the problem with the report and its recommendation.The EAT-Lancet report, by researchers from 17 countries, bases its recommendation solely on observational data. When you do that, meat comes out looking pretty bad. In study after study, people who report eating a lot of meat have worse health outcomes than people who eat little. Meat-eating correlates with increased risk of heart disease, some cancers and all-cause mortality.But, as always with observational research that attempts to connect the dots between diet and health, the key question is whether the meat itself, or something else associated with a meat-heavy lifestyle, is actually causing the bad outcomes.That’s a hard question to answer, but there are clues that people who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat a little.Let’s look at a study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, cited by the EAT-Lancet report; it has a convenient demographic summary. According to it, people in the top one-fifth of meat eaters are different from people in the bottom fifth in a lot of important ways: They weigh more, they’re more likely to smoke, they’re not as well-educated, they get less exercise, and they report lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fiber. On the plus side, they report drinking less alcohol. But other than that, we’re looking at a litany of markers for a lifestyle that’s not particularly health-conscious.So, to suss out whether it’s the meat that’s raising disease risk, you have to somehow correct for any of the differences on that list — and most of that information also comes from observational research, so even the confounders are confounded.Then there are the things you can’t correct for. Sleep quality, depression and screen time, for example, all correlate with some of the same diseases meat correlates with, but most studies have no information on those.All this confounding explains one of my all-time favorite findings from observational research. It comes from the same study the demographics came from (analyzed in a 2015 paper). Sure enough, the people who ate the most meat were more likely to die of cancer and heart disease, but they were also more likely to die in accidents. And the biggest difference came from the catchall category “all others,” which invariably includes causes of death that have nothing to do with meat.Basically, there’s a very simple problem with relying on observational research: People who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat less of it. The meat definitely isn’t causing the accidental deaths (unless, perhaps, they’re tragic backyard grill mishaps), and it isn’t causing at least some of the “all others” deaths, so we know that heavy and light meat-eaters are different in all kinds of ways.That’s where controlled trials come in.In a perfect world, we could figure this out by keeping a large group of people captive for a lifetime, feeding half of them meat, and seeing what happens. Okay, maybe that’s not a perfect world, but it would be the best solution to this particular problem.Instead, we have trials that are short-term (because of logistics and cost), and necessarily rely on markers for disease, rather than the disease itself. For that to be useful, you need a marker that’s a reliable indicator. For a lot of diseases — including cancer — those are hard to come by. For heart disease, we have a good one: low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. So, most of the controlled trials of meat-eating focus on heart disease.If you spend some time reading those trials (and I did, so you don’t have to), you find that most of them show some increase in LDL cholesterol, although it’s generally small.A 2025 analysis of 44 controlled trials on meat found that the only ones showing positive cardiovascular outcomes had links to the meat industry, and even then, only about one in five came out positive. Of the independent studies, about three-quarters showed negative outcomes, and the remaining one-quarter was neutral.This isn’t surprising. Red meat contains saturated fat, and we have countless trials that demonstrate sat fat’s ability to raise LDL. But if the meat you eat is relatively lean, that effect is going to be small.The lesson here is that we don’t have a lot of good evidence on meat and health. The observational evidence is hopelessly confounded, and the evidence from clinical trials is woefully limited. There’s so much we simply don’t know. There may be other ways meat raises risk (leading to over-absorption of heme iron and stimulating the production of TMAO, or trimethylamine N-oxide), but there’s little definitive evidence for them. And, of course, there’s the question of what you eat instead. If you’re eating red meat instead of, say, instant ramen, that may be an improvement. If, instead, you’re cutting back on your lentils, not so much.As always, the single-most important thing to remember about nutrition is that what we know is absolutely dwarfed by what we don’t know. Which means that, if you’re making decisions based on what we do know, you could very well be wrong.So what’s an eater to do? Meat is a nutritious food. In fact, animal foods are the only natural sources of a vitamin we need — B12 — which is an indication that we evolved with meat and dairy as part of our diet. It’s very hard to know whether eating some lean meat leads to better outcomes than eating no meat, but I think some meat is a good hedge against all that uncertainty. (The ethical and environmental concerns are also important, but for today let’s focus on health.)But plant foods are also nutritious. And eating a wide variety of them is also a good hedge against uncertainty. Which means the carnivore diet — all meat, all the time! — is a pretty bad bet.Unfortunately, “uncertainty” is not a word that features prominently in the Meat Wars. Instead, we have an unappetizing combination of nastiness and sanctimony, with each camp convinced that the truth and the light are on their side.Not that this is a metaphor for our times or anything.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.