Technology has become today’s most important religion. Much like pilgrimages in the past, people now demonstrate the same kind of devotion to hardware, lining up in front of stores for days or weeks just to buy the newest model. Not that there is a limited amount of them available for purchase. On the contrary. But the act of holding in your hands the newest iPhone seems to offer the same kind of “spiritual” experience as to touching a statue of Jesus after climbing up Scala Sancta on your knees.

Although technology is fulfilling most of the criteria of being a religion, it differs on one of the fundamentals – Divinity. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism worship a God, Gods and Goddesses, supreme beings from a supernatural realm. Technology holds a more corporeal attraction, stripping away the supernatural and putting divinity within the human grasp. Humans are now the divine. Humans are gods and life is something constraining from which they can break free. This new reality was strikingly evident at DLD 2013.

Before we go into the specifics, let’s just have a look at how the application of technology into our lives can be divided into three distinct categories.

SALVATION
The definition of salvation is the following: “Deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ / Preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss / A source or means of being saved in this way. The word comes from Latin salvare – ‘to save’.

That is exactly how we see technology today. We expect, hope and blindingly believe that it will deliver us from our sins. That it will correct and fix the damages created by our unsustainable lifestyle. We think there is no need to reassess how we do things and why we do them, but that the problem is only a question of application, of management. So if we can come up with the right solution, the right technology, everything will be alright. Therefore, we continue to plunder our way through, waiting for the silver bullet, just a like an addict gambler who gambles his last dollar, convinced that his luck will turn around.

UNFAIRNESS
Life is unfair and we anticipate the day when technology will correct this mistake. Our privileged upbringing in the Age of Invention leads us to intuit that natural selection is broken and flawed. Nobody should have to deal with birth defects or the loss of a limb. Nobody should have to live with unbalanced hormones or bad genetics. Everybody deserves to be “happy” and anything that infringes on that “right” needs to be corrected or eliminated. Whether it is a disease, our fear of ageing or our lack of self-esteem, nature is the enemy.

What we have been able “fix” so far is nothing compared to the scale of what we will be able to “repair” in the near future. Gattaca was science fiction in 1997 but today it is reality. No one will want to accept what life has given them, instead focusing on what they don’t have and how to get it. From the moment we are born we will start shopping to mend our undesired and unwanted bodies – hormones, surgeries, implants, electrodes, nano shots, etc. Technology will try to re-create the human body, making it more resilient, longer lasting, resistant to aging, smarter and stronger – so we believe.

FLAWED HUMANS
The evolution of society would teach us that not only is our body limiting us to achieve maximum potential, but it is above all else a source of great risk. While computers are consistent, logical, rational, fast and powerful, humans are – simply put – a pool of emotions always on the verge of breaking. Technology will make sure to correct this unpredictable, risky and unsafe situation by taking humans out of the equation – for the greater good of humanity!

Hugh Herr is an Associate Professor within MIT’s Program of Media Arts and Sciences, and The Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. His talk at DLD 2013 embodied to the core the “unfairness” mentality. He envisions a world free of injustice where bionics and machines “cure” us from our disabilities. He rejoices at the promise of a world where humans will be “fixed”. Himself victim of an accident that took away both lower legs, he professes how he has become a better athlete with his artificial limbs.

It is his moralistic view that worries me the most, that it is a human right to be born “perfect” and that machines and technology will be our way to perfection. He states:

“Over half of the world’s population suffers from a cognitive, emotional, or physical condition and because of poor technology, bad technology, these conditions often resolve in disability and poorer quality of life. It is my view that basic levels of cognitive emotional sensory and physical function should be a part of our human rights. Each person in the world should have the right to live without debilitating disabilities… Through fundamental advances in human machine interaction we can eliminate disability and set the technological foundation for an enhanced human experience. The mergence of humans with machines and the elimination of disability will be one of the great narratives of this century”

At the end of his presentation at DLD, Herr welcomed on the stage one of his climbing heroes Reinhold Messner for a chat. It was obvious that Messner was not so excited about the prospect of living in a world where our bodies would merge with machines – even going as far as to predict the death of our species. In response Herr admitted that there were great dangers on entering these treacherous waters, but believed that we would be able to manage and control the applications.

“… how depressed do you need to be to have an intervention? Do we want people to receive the intervention that are slightly depressed who producing great art or do we only want it to use when they are suicidal? These are very complex questions that we will have to address.”

In response I would draw a correlation to the plastic surgery industry – a medical advancement developed to help people in real need, but which has evolved into an industry which profits mainly from insecure egos. Towards the end of their discussion, Messner posited that in reality this technology would only be used by the rich and leave behind the poor, to which Herr answered that manufacturing would be done in such a way that local communities could build such high tech devices at very low costs, consequently allowing anyone to use it. Again, our record is not really optimistic, whether with medication (drugs) or healthcare. Our system is far from being an example of fair opportunities. It is flagrantly naive to believe that the proliferation of bionics will be any more altruistically managed by society.

Missy Cummings is an Associate Professor in the Aeronautics & Astronautics Department at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Director of the Humans and Automation Lab. She appeared on the Daily Show (part 1, 2, 3 of the interview) recently to discuss the technology behind drones and highlight their uses outside the battlefield. Cummings is a firm believer that humans are a risk and that the sooner we take them out of the equation, the better it will be for everyone.

“…80% of all aviation accidents, commercial and military, are due to pilot error, so the machines doesn’t make mistakes that we make…”

Pushing further, she suggested that technology had even been beneficial for gender discrimination

“… technology has kind of equalised the playing field because now the automation is a much better pilot no matter what gender there is [piloting]. It is not men vs women anymore, but Man vs Machine … machines are simply better pilots than humans.”

Stewart then worried that we were taking the “Art” of flying away and warned that even though computers were great, they still failed from time to time. Cummings replied that, just like anybody that works in technology, we would have the necessary structure in place to deal and contain any problems.

With both Herr and Cummings, there is a recurring theme, a word that constantly comes up with whomever presents or talks about technology – speed. Everything is going so fast these days, so fast indeed that the only way to keep up is by going faster. Hence the need for machines.

“… this technology is advancing at such a lighting speed it is ultimately only limited by the human ability to process the information… ” says Cummings.

This for me is the scariest and most worrisome aspect of the whole technology and future debate. The notion of pressing the gas pedal when you are about to loose control is the most illogical and arrogant argument ever.

When DLD audience member Elizabeth Taylor asked Peter Thiel, following his talk (check timecode 47:10), about his Acceleration Model and that perhaps we should decelerate since our quest for growth and constant acceleration has had tremendous consequences on the planet’s resources, Thiel answered that the past acceleration was one of collapse, which he states was not a proper acceleration, that we should focus on “good” acceleration. He concluded with

“… technological acceleration is absolutely critical at this point because the other three models (cycle, deceleration, collapse) are worst … the only way forward is through technological progress with all the risks that it entails … the current model is indeed not entirely sustainable but we have to actually move forward even faster…”

As if we hadn’t learned anything from the past, there is this utopian belief that we will be able to control, for the greater good of humankind, all technology to come. That all the past mishaps will not apply to the future because we are smarter and know better. This naive and false sense of control is troubling. We are simply drunk with our own god complex.

Life is not about perfection. It is not about the shortest point between two points. Ask anyone who travels – not for business trips, but to discover new places, new cultures, new experiences – and the most wonderful moments are the unexpected ones, the ones where you get lost and explore the unknown.

“… there is no better imagery to epitomize our life journey, than the river. It starts from a point, and ends at another. No matter how wild the river is, no matter how unruly it wants to be, it still has a direction, a purpose, to reach the ocean. It flows blindingly to a place where it will cease to exist. It will merge with something bigger, it will become one with the others. Young rivers are straight – giving more importance in the destination rather than the journey, often missing much of the world they flow in. Their banks offering no protection, the water rushes down, in a hurry. Old rivers meander, understanding that the journey is more important. They turn right and left, sometimes go back up, they explore and wander. There curves offer refuge to others and soon their banks and waters find themselves bursting with life.” – from a story I wrote in 2010 Rio Chubut

I am not against technology -believe me. I love my gadgets and all the convenience they bring me. But we need to be humble and remember who we are, and more critically, the limitations of the collective “We”. There are countless concrete past experiences, and stories, that we can go back to and realize that independently however much we think we are in control, we are not. And that our quest for perfection has consequences that are not worth it.

We need to take time to ask ourselves: “Is perfection something we should strive for? Or is imperfection the key for happiness?” Are we just a society in denial, buried in work, blinding ourselves with our capacity for the grandiose only to avoid our sickness? Any psychologist or therapist would say so. I do not believe that the key to our happiness and humanity is in our ability to go faster and embrace technology. I do not believe in fast food, diet pills, fake meat and running on the treadmill with glasses that projects a virtual trail. Instead I believe in opening a bottle of wine, inviting friends for a meal, slow cooking a nice roast and planning the next sailing trip!

“Nietzsche, who believed that every man should be a god to himself, saw the challenge of being human in a very simple phrase. He spoke of the human condition as being between the animal and the superman – that is the challenge of the human condition – what you make out of your endowment as an animal and how far you can go along the journey of becoming a god. But even himself, the philosopher against pity, the master of conceptualising everything, felt overwhelmed by the sight of a fallen horse in the street of Turin and rushed to its side, putting his arm around it. Nietzsche was able to express in one of his last gestures to the world, profound sympathy for living condition animals and humans share. Nietzsche’s last sane action had been to affirm his identity not as a god but as a man full of human weaknesses” BBC Documentary Nietzsche – Human, All Too Human

RECOMMENDED
Knowledge Our Achille’s Heel
Is Technology Creating a Generation of Bad Decision Makers?
Is Computer-Driven Trading Causing Market Spikes?
We are all cyborgs now by Amber Case
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Last December, Outside magazine published an amazing article written by Florence Williams titled “Take Two Hours of Pine Forest and Call Me in the Morning”. The text was about how now science is slowly understanding and capable of explaining the positive neurological effects spending time in nature does to your brain and body. Armed with a battery of machines and sensors, scientists are able to identify the causes and consequences of lets say a walk in the forest. As I rejoice myself with the obvious conclusion, I worry of what is to come next. Williams is also aware of the danger, pointing that our “modern world” will try to put nature in a can, “feel nature without even trying”.

“Nature hates calculators.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

“You must not know too much, or be too precise or scientific about birds and trees and flowers and water-craft; a certain free margin, and even vagueness – perhaps ignorance, credulity – helps your enjoyment of these things…” Walt Whitman

“I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order.” John Burroughs

Time in nature is more than chemical reactions. It is not just about our natural immune cells increasing every time we take a walk in the forest. Even if one day we are able to create a pill that will replicate the physical sensations of spending time on a beach, it will never do justice and bring the same benefits as the real experience. Nature is about breaking away from the chaos and anxiety we find ourselves so easily trapped in. It is a conscious effort of taking the time to relax. It is about making a choice of values and priorities. In this era of smart phones, computers, tablets, constant connection to the web and relentless solicitation to consume, these decisions to “disconnect” from this overbearing artificial stimuli does more than engage the neurones and immune systems, it is also one of the most rewarding sources of creativity.

And Kevin Charles Redmon writes precisely about this in his article: “Put Down the iPad, Lace Up the Hiking Boots”

The results, which appear this month in PLoS One, were striking. Students who took the test after a four-day immersion in the backcountry scored 50 percent higher than their coursemates. “The current research indicates that there is a real, measurable cognitive advantage to be realised if we spend time truly immersed in a natural setting,” the authors write.

The study’s sample size was small and would best be repeated across several hundred subjects, thoroughly randomised. More importantly, the design doesn’t allow Strayer and his colleagues to pinpoint what’s causing the burst in creativity: is it the interaction with nature, the disconnection from technology, or both? And is physical exercise somehow involved? (Or could it be a flash of green?)

… Just how permanent are the neural ravages of Twitter, Gchat, and Gawker? Is a week in the Canyonlands every summer enough to restore our atrophied attention spans—or are we, the meme generation, totally hosed when it comes to consuming art more complex than a GIF or longer than 140 characters?

I have written before about the lack of imagination in today’s children. The topic is nothing new. A quick search on the web reveals many studies and articles, whether in the Washington Post (Is Technology Sapping Children’s Creativity?) or Psychology Today (Children’s Freedom Has Declined So Has Their Creativity). Richard Louv is obviously well known with his “Last Child in the Woods” book, which has become close to a cult classic.

So my wish for 2013 is that we forget a little about trying to understand too much what happens when we go to nature and that we simply go because it feels good, because it does us good. I wish that we would stop this obsession to quantify everything and start just believing in common sense. I wish that each one of us makes a conscious decision to disconnect at least one day of the week or one day of the weekend, and go out – outside the city, go smell the fresh air, go Shinrin Yoku, go swim, go hike, go see the mountains, the beach, the forest, anything really, as long as you away from any screen.

Winter walk in the forest, Germany

Feet rejuvenating in the cold creek, feeling fresh!

Quick Sunset after a Cloudy Day in Germany

Happy Holidays & a Wonderful New Year

This year I am starting a new tradition. The holidays are meant to be spent with friends and family. They are meant to break away from the workload and disconnect from the ever consuming world of constant access to information. They are meant go outside and take long walks. It is the time of the year where in other words, we should all be away from the computer and from all social media, and instead cherish the moment, the people around us, face to face, without thinking about our social career. So for the first time and hopefully for all years to come, I will be offline for 2 weeks, starting tomorrow evening. I hope actually to start a hashtag named #OfflineForChritmas and invite you to disconnect for 2 weeks, go on a social media diet, take a book, go play outside, leave the online world behind, just for a little while, detox your head and mind from the clutter of our connected lives and go free. I know that I am! So on that note, let me repeat my card:

“What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. It is always the same step, but you have to take it.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

All these little steps we take, all these little changes we make, are like the rain drops that fall high up in the mountains and trickle down to the ocean, joinning with others and becoming fierce rivers. Lets all move towards a promising and positive future. One where nature will be a state of mind, where humility will be valued and where the prospect of a simpler life will be welcome and embranced. I will see you back in 2013!

HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY, A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A WONDERFUL HAPPY NEW YEAR!

The principles of the social media scene are nothing new. They have always existed. What is different is the scale on which they affect our lives and also their relationship with technology. Humans have always socialised, it is actually part of our evolutionary survival. Whether at work, at schools or in the streets, individuals seek to connect with others. Ten years ago, and for hundreds of years before, this process was done generally face to face. People had to meet in flesh to develop relationships. Today, we have created tools that facilitate the expansion of our “social” network. And this is the most important change in our social behaviour. These tools not only helped people to connect, but they have created their own world.

This “world” is now accessible to anyone, anywhere, and for little effort. The rules that applied to our social lives, now are carried on into a place that knows no boundaries. This 4th place – the concept of a virtual social surrounding (the 3rd place being one between home and work) now defines the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

The most important tool for the social world is the smart phone. This device allows for uninterrupted connection and permits people to satisfy their instinctive need of belonging wherever they are and whenever. The effect on our consumption of information is immense. Social Media has transformed the narrative by turning the reader into an active player, and even often becoming the main character. Everyone participates in the dialogue. Everyone wants to participate. This intricate web of personal human stories has become a pillar in our society.

Now, a crucial key of Social Media is RELEVANCY. In a world already saturated with junk information and countless parties competing for attention, a successful strategy will be one that is based on a long term approach. Brands have become “individuals” and people treat them that way. People are loyal to brands in the same way they are loyal to friends. A friend makes you a better person – it listens to you, it helps you when you need it. Contrary to family, you choose that friend. It is the same for brands. Gone are the days where companies had the freedom to impose their will. Today, they must engage with their client and contribute to its well-being. Not in a healthy sense, but rather in a holistic sense (characterised by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole). That is why Apple has become so successful. Their goal was always to make life better, not to make money. Therefore they created products with which people saw their needs being answered and even surpassed. Apple’s main objective was to create the ultimate experience. They didn’t see their mission as one of creating computers, but rather to design a way of living. Which allowed them to move from computers, to phones, to music and to books. Although we can’t expect each brand to do so, the principles stay the same. Today, the business is about “EXPERIENCES”. To create “these” experiences, a strategy must look into the following points:

BE RELEVANT: You certainly don’t want your friends to bore your about things that don’t matter to you. Know and anticipate your client. Don’t become “Social Noise”.

REPETITION: Friendship is maintained through regular or daily contact. You share experiences and live life together. If your friend moves away to another city, it is most likely, that your friendship will gradually fade out. It is therefore important to constantly and daily interact with your client.

EDUCATE: Being social is in evolutionary terms, a way to get smart. When knowledge is transferred from person to person, from generation to generation, chances are that it will increase the ability to adapt and thrive. Educate your client. Make him/her smarter by feeding him/her content that is relevant. Help him/her expand his/her knowledge.

BE SMART: Don’t dumb down the conversation! There is so much junk out there, don’t be part of it. It is super easy to become the “Flavor” of the day, of the week, of the month. But you will disappear as fast as you appeared. Your aim should not be to attract traffic, but to cultivate what you have. Quality versus quantity produce loyal relationships.

TAKE YOUR TIME: Don’t be in race to accumulate followers. Don’t be easy for anything. Let your people expand your network. Their network is the one you want. It is pointless to have thousands of followers and be relevant only to a few.

GLOBAL: Time zones don’t exist anymore. Your friend can be halfway around the world and as much attention should be given to him than the one next door. There are amazing tools now like Automatic Schedule from Hootsuite to help you efficiently schedule your posts.

BE SOCIAL: Don’t be afraid to quote people, just let them know. Be proactive and expand your network. Like with friends, nothing will be achieved if you wait for people to come to you. Go and make the first move. Take part in the conversation.

BE CONNECTED: Tag the people, companies or organizations you mention. Facebook, Google + and Twitter all have this feature now so use it. See below. That way your post will spread beyond your own circle and reach new audiences.

Example of a post on Facebook

Example of a post on Google +

BE GOOD: Etiquette has always been and will always be. It is too easy to steal content and disrespect others. People don’t mind having their work re-published, they just want to be acknowledged. Be polite and cordial when reaching out. Be respectful. Show the world that you REALLY care.

Then the world changed!

Gone are the days of institutional financial security. Due to many factors, but aggravated by its own insulation, the science community is today unable to fund its research the way it use to. Governments and schools dealing with their own budget cuts have had their treasury chocked. With their primary source of revenue gone, scientists must now turn to a new world to support their work – the public! Whether by the form of individual or corporate sponsorship or online fundraising like Kickstarter, science studies and projects have to find new ways of reaching out to what has been for them, a foreign audience. Jenny Rohn, founder of LabLit & Science is Vital is on the spot when she says:

“Scientists ignore ‘the outside world’ at their peril. The general public has the power to deny your funding or restrict your experiments. It’s important to reach outside your laboratories, offices and field stations to engage with the wider world, to show people that science is essential and that researchers are working hard to help address important issues — that they are the good guys, not the enemy.”

The task might sound fairly simple and straight forward but the reality could not be more different. The marketing world spends billions every year trying to learn how to reach efficiently their client’s audience, with many still failing. While the science community is just starting to understand the challenge it has at task, it is still far from grasping the meaning of it and what it entails. The biggest mistake it does is to believe it only needs to use the new media outlets with the same scientific jargon. They could not be more wrong.

Communication is first and foremost a system built on an intricate web of social and emotional realities. It is not a simple question of elaborating knowledge through words and pointing to what they believe to be quite self explanatory. The human species is complicated when it comes to explaining why we do what we do even if we know it is wrong and not in our best interest. I have written many times about how science needs to change its narrative, how it needs to leave its comfort and often pretentious secular zone. (The Need for a New Story, Knowledge, our Achilles’ Heel, The Climate Change Issue)

Kate Pratt from Katie Ph.D wrote in Soapbox Science that:

“They (scientists) often shrug off the latest miscommunication in the press as the fault of some lazy journalist who didn’t read the press release correctly. They do not consider that they are perhaps to blame, and, instead of trying to improve their communication skills with the lay-public, they withdraw quietly into the protective shell that is academia… and when these individuals make an effort to reach out: other scientists deride them for being attention-seekers, especially if they do so using platforms such as blogs or social media websites. These behaviours have to change. If they don’t, science will continue to be seen as a closed off and elitist realm, and the public will continue to feel shut out, disenfranchised, and suspicious. Science has too long ignored public relations, marketing, and personal branding, and it’s time for that to change.”

She is right! When the science community fails to communicate its message, it is extremely quick at putting the blame on the receiver’s end.

As if this was not complicated enough, the format of communicating has seen its foundation thrown in the air and the jury is still debating as to when and how it will land back. We like to believe that today’s technology has made communication easier and cheaper. While it might be true in theory, in reality the process has become quite complicated, overwhelming, frustrating and can become relatively expensive. The internet is in constant flux. Social media tools come and go like seasons. If they stay, their monthly design and interaction overhaul make life impossibly annoying to any media and design specialists. What were only a few platforms to work with has now evolved into a panoply of services, all just slightly different from one another. On top of everything, the delivery of the content keeps reinventing itself every couple of years. Every time it does, the public develops new habits and communication strategies have to be redone. Television and radio were pretty straightforward and consistent. Even though through time they became smaller, lighter and thinner, their concept and functionality stayed the same. But now we have smart phones, and tablets that not only become more powerful every two years but also constantly change the way we interact with them.

So what to do?

Three words – hire media specialists! Yes, that is correct. By this I DON’T mean hire a scientist to write blogs. I mean hire someone who doesn’t know much about science but is expert at reaching out to the public through videos, photos, and writings. A content producer, a person who knows how to manage and maximise social media. A person who can create a compelling multi media story around your project. Would you hire a public relation person to do an in-depth analysis of the chemical reaction created when supercritical fluids from hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean come into contact with salt water? No, my point! Focus on trying explaining the work and science to one person and let that person do its magic. There is only a handful of scientists in the world that are capable of doing science and translating it into a compelling narrative. Don’t assume that all scientists have the capacity to create captivating content. The days of long blogs with simple photos are gone. Today it is about videos, interviews, behind the scenes moments, strategic posts on Facebook, Google +, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest and it is about linking all these platform together. Kaite Pratt again on the topic”

“… they (scientists) rely, a lot of the time, upon active volunteers. We need to pay more heed to these ideas, fund them, and move them from the world of science communication and into the world of general public appeal. Of course there is a long road ahead, but it is time to acknowledge that this is the road we have to take. Science has a PR problem, and we need to fix it.”

Science can be fun. Science is fun! You don’t have to dumbed down the content to reach out to the public. Many have been really successful at doing it. Think of Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Think of the television show Nova on PBS. But understand that it might not be your cup of tea. Don’t be ashamed of it. You don’t have to like doing it or even understand it. But simply understand that communicating your work, studies or projects has become essential, not only for funding reasons but also because it is part of your mandate as a scientist to teach and educate the word.

Here are some interesting quotes

James Gleick: “I also believe that analogy is the way humans learn and explore our world. It’s true at some level that a physicist will say that the language of nature is mathematics, but I also believe that any physicist in creating his or her own understanding of the world is automatically thinking in terms of analogies. I believe that any scientific model or theory is a kind of analogy, which is to say imperfect, flawed by definition and at least incomplete. It’s a model, it’s not the world itself.”

Jonathan Foley, professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour and director of the Institute on the Environment: “Being on social media is essential for anyone who wants to turn their research and teaching into real-world outcomes. If you’re not using social media today, then you’re missing a great opportunity for broader education and engagement, which is part of our missions as a 21st century land grant university.”

Joshua Foer, author of Moonwalking with Einstein, “Ultimately, everyone in this room is on some level an entertainer. We are competing for readers’ attention against blogs, video games and movies. What I’m trying to do is tell stories that can take people from place A to place B, not just in a narrative arc but in terms of their understanding of a subject. It can be tremendously rewarding to be taken on a journey like that.”

Jeremy Yoder “It wasn’t that long ago that we were taught to write scientific papers in a passive voice. Social media demands a more personal touch…”

Jared Diamond, author of  The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: “Everyday you can read a scientist complaining that the public doesn’t understand science.That the federal government doesn’t invest enough money in science and science education. But what it comes down to is that most scientists and academics just don’t want to do the things that would help the public… Unfortunately, an occupational hazard of being an academic who writes for the general public is that you’re going to get flak from other academics who’ve spent their whole lives being told to write in the precise fashion for the five experts in their field. A theme as big as the differences between traditional societies and modern societies deserves a book that is 100,000 pages long but no one is going to read that.” 

INTERESTING READINGS
Science writing: how do you make complex issues accessible and readable?
Reaching Out: Science has a PR Problem
How scientists can reach out with social media
Follow me

Back in my early days, I used to be an agent for photographers and painters. From the talents I represented, it was clear to me that there were two categories of artists. The ones who believed that work would come to them and the ones who knew they had to go and get the jobs themselves. This reality also led me to understand one thing. The world is filled with talent and someone who might have less of it, but possesses great skills at promoting himself will fare better than the prodigy who is incapable of reaching beyond his studio. It is not always the ones with the greatest talent who become famous, but the ones who know who how to promote their work. The moral of the story I concluded was that it didn’t matter what you had, it didn’t matter if you were the best, it didn’t matter if you held the truth, it didn’t matter what you meant to say. What mattered was how the world perceived you and how people understood you. It is not what you say, but what people hear. It is not what you do, but how people feel about it. And this is something the scientists and environmentalists – and by the same token, the democrats or liberals, have still failed to understand.

Communication, according to the dictionary, is “the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium”. It is achieved when the receiving party processes the information with the same intent the emitter had when sending it. This means that if I say “Hello” to a friend, he or she will understand the polite gesture and therefore reciprocate with another “Hello”. This brief communication was a success since both agreed on the meaning of the word. If I say the same “Hello” to a total stranger walking down the street, my seemingly innocent gesture might be misinterpreted and suddenly the tone, what I wear, the location, the time of the day, my age, all will have an affect on how my simple salutation is going to be interpreted.

Communication is one of the most complex and difficult tasks in the world. Why? Because it is filled with innuendoes, interpretations, opinions and emotions. Add body language, culture, and religion to this, and you quickly find yourself with complete “miscommunication”. The US conservatives (Republicans or climate change deniers) realised a long time ago how to communicate efficiently. They have understood that the public doesn’t care about scientific facts. What people care about are jobs, the economy and security, in others words, their own priorities and personal values. Science is not this unbreakable knowledge. Some facts might be obvious but their interpretation varies extremely. But the scientists believe that simply giving people the facts will be enough not only to understand, but also to change the behaviour of an individual. In “Climate of Doubt” John Kerry (minute 33 in video) blames the loss of momentum in public perception about climate change because of a lack of money and lies:

“… as the campaign of fear built up people began to retreat they spent huge sums of money in a campaign of major dis-information that had a impact, a profound impact, and it has now made many people in public life very gun-shy because they are afraid of having those amount of money spent against them…” 

His view is not only wrong but also reinforces the evidence of total lack of understanding of the dynamics of communication.

For most people, climate change is an overwhelming and extremely confusing topic. In a post I wrote earlier this year, “Climate Change: A Pointless Debate, I argue that:

“Instead of attacking the source of the problem, our lifestyle, our values, our system and its obvious, concrete, and irrefutable consequences – pollution, ocean acidification, disappearance of fish stocks, total destruction of the environment – so obvious in fact that no one can argue about them, we have had to focus our attention and debate on something so conceptual and evolutionarily insignificant as the rise in temperatures on a global scale….it is also moving the most pressing issues away.”

The issue has a lot to do about perception. Climate change will be good for some, a great opportunity for others, bad for many and tragic for numerous. It all depends on which side you stand.

Polarising the debate has also been part of the problem. For many, there are only two parties – the ones accepting climate change and the ones who don’t. But in reality, there is a broad range of opinions in between. Through media and others campaigns, the debacle now insinuates that if you don’t support climate change, you are against nature and don’t care about the future of our children. If you do agree with climate change then you don’t care about jobs and the economy. Both statements are preposterous and extreme.

The strategy of the environmentalists and the Al Gore team has been to use the “Cane of Guilt” – meaning to bash people over their heads on how bad they have been and give them an ultimatum on how fast they needed to change. Anyone with a little bit of education will tell you that fear is not a good way to inspire people. After a while, people are simply tired of the negative narrative. This year’s article in the Washington Post “Young Americans less interested in the environment than previous generations” is no surprise:

“…Mark Potosnak, an environmental science professor at DePaul University in Chicago, has noticed an increase in skepticism — or confusion — about climate change among his students as the national debate has heightened. That leads to fatigue, he said.

“It’s not so much that they don’t think it’s important. They’re just worn out,” Potosnak said. “It’s like poverty in a foreign country. You see the picture so many times, you become inured to it.”

A lot of young people also simply don’t spend that much time exploring nature, said Beth Christensen, a professor who heads the environmental studies department at Adelphi University on Long Island in New York…”

Going back to communication. It is not the two words “climate change” that people have now come to avoid. It is what they mean to them and what they insinuate. It is because of how they have been presented to the public, that the world is simply fed up of the topic. It is not a question of money, but a failure of understanding the core of the problem. The “pro climate change camp” keeps telling the world that the issue is about saving the world. This egotistical view is greatly limited. Over time, planet earth has been subject to worse catastrophes than climate change and is likely to see worse in the future. Changes in temperatures have come and gone over billions of years. Of course we are participating in, and accelerating the current trend. Of course there will be dramatic consequences, but they are small compared to the garbage choking our waters, the acid killing the oceans, the relentless plundering of the planet’s resources, and a total lack of respect of the consequences of what we do and create. As with disease, the western culture has always been more concerned about the symptoms than the causes. Obesity is not just a question of exercising and eating more vegetables, it is about our total relationship with food and about consumerism. Our problem is our absolute pretentious and arrogant approach to the world around us which is simply unsustainable.

It is important to watch “Climate of Doubt” to understand why the momentum on climate change failed. Fred Singer, Myron Ebell, Rep. James Sensenbrenner and Lord Monckton are not stupid, nor bad people. I don’t agree with neither of them, nor should you. But they have been successful at communicating their message, whether it is the truth or not. I have said it before, science is NOT and should NOT be the horse we ride on. Conservationists and scientists need desperately to understand that.

John D. Rockefeller was a controversial man who swam in scandals. Despite the fact that he was cruel in business and bullied his way to become the richest person in history, he also got to be remembered as one of the most important philanthropists the world has seen. Andrew Carnegie, another man who certainly had his share of controversies while amassing his fortune, gave all his money away – close to 5 billion in today’s value. Wal-Mart, which makes money on spreading global grand scale consumerism all around the world, gave close to 350 million dollars in 2011 alone. Ray Kroc who started the fast food company McDonald supported research and treatment of alcoholism, diabetes, and other diseases. His third wife, Joan donated 225 million to National Public Radio. In 2011 J.P.Morgan gave 203 million, 10% more than in the previous year while Exxon gave 233 million, an increase of 17%. Margaret A. Cargill, from the Cargill family, known for their numerous scandals over environmental issues, contamination, and human rights abuses, gave away more than $200 million to the American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian and others while she was alive. After her death, all of her assets were liquidated and transformed into a 6 billion charitable trust and foundation. Khalid bin Sultan, the deputy minister of Defense and a member of the House of Saud of Saudi Arabia, who was involved in the Yemen bombing of 2009, is also using his personal yacht and fortune for coral reef research through his Living Oceans Foundation. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who has had his share of public scandals, was a critical founding member of WWF. More recently, John Paulson, a New Yorker infamous for his investments and losses, gave the Central Park Conservancy 100 million.

Nobody gets to build a fortune by being a gentle person. You don’t amass billions by being friendly and by playing by the rules. No one does. Philanthropy and sponsorship are products of the capitalist system. In social democratic countries like the one I grew up in, Canada, or in Europe, people pay a lot of taxes and it is the government that funds. There is a reason why the United States of America is a hotbed for innovation, technology, arts, and education. Elsewhere in the world, organizations and foundations struggle, entrepreneurship is tedious and extremely complicated, why? A lot has to do with the tax code, deductible donations and the psychology behind making money. Look at this list of the most notable philanthropists in the world and you will see that most are from the USA. No other country in the world gives as much as America. Yet no other country in the world consumes as much and has had as many involvements with wars than America.

Bob Marley once said, “Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I’m not perfect – and I don’t live to be – but before you start pointing fingers make sure your hands are clean!” Everybody has had their share of mistakes and has tasted the fruit of greed. No one can judge on the past, and certainly not when a person tries to leave a legacy that will benefit the lives of millions. Yes, maybe the desire for salvation might come through guilt, but so what! How many do you know who will walk that path of redemption? It takes a lot of courage to give money. Whether it is through fiscal loopholes, or to avoid taxes, donations are donations and they are the reason why so much good work is done at the other end.

Even we – explorers, conservationists, and environmentalists – have to deal with this reality. Our funds come from the same companies we often reprimand. Yet, it is the dance we all have to do, so that we can bring a balance. The companies know that and so do we.

I lift my hat to Paulson for donating such a large sum to Central Park. That money could have easily been kept in a secret account in a tax haven or invested in real estate. Instead, it will be put to the good of society.

“Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment, which alone can sustain all that, is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.” Andrew Carnegie

It is hard today to hear a conversation that doesn’t involve the belief that our technology will be the key to solve our problems. We truly trust that our salvation lies in our ability to invent and create. We think that the issues we see do not reflect a problem that lies at the core of our values, but rather simply needs an adjustment in its application. At pretty much any conservation summit (The World Ocean in Singapore, BLUE in Monterey, etc) the message is always the same – the problem is only a question of bad management. If we could only find out the missing pieces of the puzzle, if we could only know more about the planet, nature, and its resources, then, only then, would we be able to act accordingly and “save” what is left. Our understanding is that the destruction of the planet and the abuses we have been responsible for, have occurred only because we lacked the know-how. So now we look at the present and the future and conclude that we must know more if we want to change. This, to my opinion is the root of the problem.

We consider ourselves to be the most intelligent species ever to populate the planet. We look at the past and compare ourselves to what was before. The fact is that all previous cultures once thought of themselves as omnipotent, powerful and of being capable of ruling the world. Each empire thought of itself as better than the one before. And each fell to its demise. We continue to understand our role as “stewards” of this planet. We think it is our duty to protect it. We continually see ourselves at the top of the pyramid looking down over our dominion. We don’t believe we are part of nature, but rather that we stand above it, separated from it, since we are better than it. We think of nature as this disconnected thing that exists outside of ourselves.

Our obsession for knowledge has turned us arrogant and immature. We are addicted to our brain and its capacities. We get high on what we can do. Our society lives in a constant sugar rush, drinking the technology & knowledge “Kool Aid” without any filter. We have kicked wisdom out of our lives, deeming it boring and against progress. But it is not because the chocolate cake is on the table that we have to eat it. We don’t think about the long-term consequences. We don’t think about the social impact of our discoveries. We only focus on the short-term gains. We only look for quick personal individual gratification. Frankenstein’s tale was precisely about that. When Mary Shelley wrote the horror story of the scientist and a monster, she did more than creating a new genre. Her novel was a premonition to what is in store for our world.

From within our cities, sitting behind computers or staring down at our “smart” phones, we claim our superiority and gaze at the world around us in a conceited way. Detached from any realities, we think of aging as a disease, that good parenting means monitoring our children every single second, that consuming green will fix our consumerism, that the idea of implanting a device in our brain to fix an imbalance is pure genius, that people who gamble our savings have a right to do so, that Facebook is real, that the web brings us closer, that food is only a recipe of carbs, proteins, sugars, and fats, and that nature is only a resource that demands to be quantified and managed. What Richard Louv wrote in his book “The Last Child in the Woods” can’t be measured so it is hardly considered. So we go the opposite way and go crazy with our quantification. We have to put a value on Planet Earth (5,000 trillion dollars according to astrophysicist Greg Laughlin) and on the oceans (check the Ocean Health Index for an orgy of numbers) to understand their importance. If it doesn’t have a number, we can’t understand it, or more, we don’ know how to value it. Knowledge is indeed important but it should not be the horse we ride on.

We have lost the ability to see the big picture. Because we are so good a looking at everything on an anatomical level we have become blind at grasping the bigger perspective. William R Catton does an amazing job at explaining why in his books Overshoot and Bottleneck. I strongly recommend you read the two.

Knowledge is not the reason why people change. If it was so, no one would smoke cigarettes, everybody would pay their credit cards on time, no one would break the law, everybody would follow the rules, there would be no economic crash and every politician would always make decisions for the good of society. The reality is that our life structure is based on values. And values differ. If we want to change, we will have to understand how people come to truly value things, and unfortunately, it is not through knowledge. No one that cherishes nature do so because of numbers, they all got to care and love nature by spending time in it. And here is the core of the argument.

For people to change, for children to develop the love and care for nature, we will have to literally reconnect our society with life and the planet. First, there needs to be direct correlation between our lifestyle and the state of the environment. We can talk about garbage littering our beaches and polluting our oceans as much as we want to and for many years, the fact remains that each and one of us is totally disconnected with the amount of garbage he or she produces and its impact. Everyone takes their garbage to the curb and says goodbye – out of sight, out of mind. There are absolutely no incentives whatsoever for people to produce less garbage and to understand the consequences of their consuming habits. Something they can’t physically feel is simply impossible to understand and care about. How can we make society care about the state of fishing stocks when subsidies create an illusion that masquerades the tragedy? How can they grasp the seriousness of the situation when the price of fish at the market has barely risen over the years. Even if they hear about the problems, the reality doesn’t touch them. Our world lives in a bubble detached from any consequences. We are sheltered from the impact our lifestyle creates. For our society to change, we will foremost have to accept the blame and consequences of our actions. We will have to be open to the idea that the fundamentals of our society are no longer valid with the current state of the planet. Until that day comes, all we will be doing is keep drowning in our own arrogance.

Daniel J. Boorstin, in his book “The Discoverers” said: ”The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.” I think, today, it would be more accurate to say that “The greatest obstacle to discovering and living life is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge”.

First to receive the honour was Robert Ballard. Ballard has been diving the depths of the oceans for more than 40 years and is mostly known for the discoveries of the wrecks of the RMS Titanic, the battleship Bismarck, the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown and the wreck of John F. Kennedy’s PT-109. In 1990, he received the Academy of Achievement’s Golden Plate Award. He was the recipient of the Kilby International Awards in 1994 and of the Caird Medal of the National Maritime Museum in 2002. In 2004, Ballard was appointed professor of oceanography, and currently serves as Director of the Institute for Archaeological Oceanography, at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography.

The second to come to the podium was Sylvia Earle. Commonly known as “Her Deepness”, Earle is a legend in the ocean community. Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, leader of the Sustainable Seas Expeditions, council chair for the Harte Research Institute for the Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, founder and chairman of the Deep Search Foundation, and the chair of the Advisory Council for the Ocean in Google Earth, she was named  by Time Magazine as the first Hero for the Planet. She has led more than 60 expeditions worldwide with more than 7,000 hours underwater in connection to her research.

Next on the list was Marcus Erikson. Marcus, a Gulf War veteran made a in promise to another marine in 2003: ‘If we survive this war, lets float down the Mississippi River.” Which he did, with “Bottle Rocket”, floating 2000 miles in 5 months on 232 plastic bottles to the Gulf of Mexico. In 2007, along with Anna Cummins, he built a raft using 15,000 plastic bottles, and called it JUNK. He then sailed the raft from Los Angeles to Hawaii. Since then they founded 5 Gyres  an organisation dedicated to science, education and adventure, and sailed 25,000 miles into the 5 subtropical gyres to document the global distribution of plastic pollution.

Graham Kelleher became the first Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. He worked with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and became the first Vice-Chairman, Marine of its World Commission on Protected Areas. He has designed systems of marine protected areas in several countries and is at present a member of the Scientific Council for MPAs in West Africa. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand and of the Institution of Engineers, Australia. He was awarded Officer of the Order of Australia, Fred M Packard International Parks Merit Award, the Centenary Medal and investiture into the Hall of Fame, Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Wallace Nichols is known for his relentless work on turtles and for giving away blue marbles. He has done extensive work on proving the neurological benefits of the ocean, the colour blue and the positive power of giving. He is a Research Associate at California Academy of Sciences and founder/co-director of OceanRevolution. He has authored and co-authored more than 50 scientific papers and reports and his work has been broadcast on NPR, BBC, PBS, National Geographic and Animal Planet and featured in Time, Newsweek, GQ, Outside Magazine, Fast Company, Scientific American and New Scientist, among others. He is also the founder of BLUEMiND: The Mind + Ocean, an initiative, merging the fields of cognitive science and ocean exploration. Nichols took the stage and before thanking the audience went on to honour one of his most important mentors – Graham Kelleher. The moment totally took Kelleher by surprise and obviously touched him tremendously. The two embraced and reminded everyone one the importance of the work we do and the affect it has on younger generations. Make sure to read Wallace’s interview in Outside magazine.

The final honouree was Louie Psihoyos, producer of the movie The Cove. His first documentary has won over 70 awards globally including the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature in 2009. In 1980, at the age of twenty-three, he was hired by National Geographic and remained with the magazine for seventeen years. He has since received multiple awards for his photography, including first place in the World Press Contest and the Hearst Award. He has worked with magazines such as Smithsonian, Discover, GEO, Time, Newsweek, New York Times Magazine, New York Magazine, and Sports Illustrated.

Now that lunch was over, it was time for everyone to prepare themselves for the BLUE Carpet Awards ceremony and gala. Taking place at the Golden State theatre. The event felt more like an oceanic Oscar night, with photographers everywhere snapping shots of celebrities and of the directors/producers of more than 100 films. The big winner of the night was “The Island President”, but make sure to click here to see the list of winners. The BLUE Ocean Film Festival & Conservation Summit was a huge success this year and I think I can speak on behalf of everyone when I say that we are looking forward to the next one…. in Monaco maybe, 2013? We surely hope so. Stay tuned!

Although I had a full agenda – planning on seeing many talks, films and people, I had to put everything on hold for two days as I became the only photographer allowed to photograph one of the festival’s most prestigious guests, HSH Prince Albert of Monaco. The task, fairly easy, and on behalf of BLUE, was to follow the Prince during his two-day visit and capture on film key moments. Laura Orthwein, co-founder of BLUE, and Dan Laffoley from IUCN, were the two people from the festival and conservation summit, responsible to accompany him and manage his stay. The three of us quickly became best buddies as we manoeuvred our way through an exhausting 48 hours.

After the official introductions, the first stop was at the Monterey Bay Aquarium where Julie Packard, Executive Director and Vice Chairman of the Aquarium’s Board of Trustees and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator were waiting to give the group a private tour.

Built in 1984 and located on the site of a former sardine cannery, the Monterey Bay Aquarium exhibits some of the most stunning marine installations in the world. The Kelp Forest exhibit, a 28-foot (8.5 m) tall 333,000-US-gallon (1,260,000 l) tank is an impressive reproduction of the typical California Coast environment where shoals of pacific sardines mingle with leopard sharks, garibaldis and California sheepheads. The real long giant kelp in the tank grow an average of about four inches a day and require weekly underwater gardening by scuba divers. The Open Sea exhibit features a 1,000,000-US-gallon (3,800,000 l) tank with a 15-foot high and 90-foot across window that is simply breathtaking. Blue fin tuna, green sea turtles, ocean sunfish, dolphinfish, Pacific bonito, pelagic rays, sandbar and scalloped hammerhead sharks all swim in perfect harmony while a shoal of Pacific sardines moves around the tank in unison, often forming a giant hypnotising ball.

The visit was splendid. Besides the regular exhibits opened to the public, we were also shown the “behind the scenes”, the installations responsible for making this “Tour de Force” possible – what a treat is was! We even had the privilege of having one of the onsite scientists telling us more about the famous sea otter. For the occasion, one specimen was under anaesthesia so that we could have a first look at the marvellous creature.

With a sleepy sea otter

The visit was followed by the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and Conservation Summit. HSH Prince Albert was scheduled to appear on a panel discussion alongside Celine Cousteau, Dr Sylvia Earle, Dr. Greg Stone and Dr. Jane Lubchenco and discuss the issue of ocean sustainability. The Prince also took the occasion to visit some of the featured exhibitors. His first stop was at the Google Liquid Galaxy display where Jenifer Foulkes gave a wonderful presentation. Then famous National Geographic photographer Brian Skerry, who had his work exhibited, told the Prince the story behind some of his shots. The team at Catlin Sea Survey followed by showing him the technology responsible for creating some of these incredible panoramic underwater shots seen earlier at the Google Liquid Galaxy.

At the Google Liquid Galaxy with Catlin Sea Survey imagery

Meanwhile, on the floor at BLUE, plenty of action was happening! The day started with a keynote presentation of Dr.Sylvia Earle. At lunch time, Carl Safina’s movie “Saving the Ocean” played on the big screen. Legendary filmmaker Doug Allan talked to a captivated audience about his numerous adventures across the oceans and on both poles. If that was not enough, the International League of Conservation Photographer closed the day by holding their cocktail reception. Michele Westmoreland, Brian Skerry and Octavio Aburto were there to represent the organization. The event was called “12 SHOTS”, named after the number of photographs publications will generally allow to tell a story.

DAY 5

HSH Prince Albert started the day with an inspirational keynote speech. One of his main points was about the people who are in the position to influence the markets, whether they be celebrities, royalties, or corporate CEOs. They have a responsibility to do more so that the system can correct itself. The danger he said was that if they don’t use their privilege situation for the common good, nobody else will. Politicians certainly won’t!

The rest of the morning was filled with insightful presentations. Dr.Ingrid Vesser showed her film “The Woman Who Swims with Killer Whales” and reminded people to support her latest project – FreeMorgan, a tragic story of an orca recently sold to a private park in the Canaries. Google hosted a wonderful lunch at the Sardine Factory. Sea Rex 3D played on the big screen. The movie, produced by Pascal Vuong and Francois Mantello went up to won in the festival’s “Best 3D” category. One of the highlights of the day came right after lunch. Hosted by O-I Glass is Life, the panel, composed of Amber Valleta, Celine Cousteau, and Edward James Olmos, looked at how to leverage the power of celebrities for good causes. Also on stage were Patrick Ramage of Global Whale Programme, who works with Amber on various campaign, and Casey Ingle From Glass if Life, who reached out to Celine to become their ambassador. Olmos presented is latest involvement with the “Thank You Ocean” campaign. His public service announcement went on to win in the festival’s “Best PSA” category.

Later in the afternoon was the screening of Great Barrier Reef: Nature’s Miracle. Produced by James Brickell at BBC, the documentary is absolutely amazing. The host Monty Halls does a great job at delivering the material. It is always refreshing to see a host that is not self absorbed like so many currently out there. It is hard to pick my favourite part of the movie, but I suggest you read Halls’ interview in the Daily Mail to find what it was like to swim with minke whales and be on the beach when thousands of green see turtles marched up the beach to lay their eggs. The film went on to win in the festival “Best Presenter Lead” category

The evening was to be a grand night – the BLUE Legacy Awards! Hosted at the Monterey Aquarium, the evening was indeed nothing short of grandiose! First were the Awards. This year, Captain Don Walsh and James Cameron were the recipients of the BLUE Lifetime Achievement Award, in exploration and filmmaking respectively. Anatoly Sagalevich did the honour of giving Walsh his award while Dr.Sylvia Earle was full of wit celebrating her really good friend Cameron. Mike DeGruy, who unfortunately passed away in a tragic helicopter accident earlier this year in Australia, also was honoured. His wife Mimi, received on his behalf, the 2012 Dr.Sylvia Earle Award.

Capt. Walsh, Cameron & Dr. Earle

For the dinner, first the guests had to make their way pass the Jellyfish exhibit, displaying with a blue background, astonishing and fascinating species. Above the bar, anchovies swam in circle feeding on minuscule particles, their little jaws un-proportionally huge filtering the water. The dinner was set right in front of the Open Sea tank, only a few feet away from blue fin tuna swimming like giant bullets through the dark blue water. The scene was absolutely surreal. It was as if we were all dining in a giant glass submarine, in the middle of the open ocean, surrounded by stunning creatures. I was sitting next to Dan Basta director of the office of National Marine Sanctuaries at NOAA, and Dan Laffoley. On several occasions, our conversation got interrupted by a green sea turtle swimming by. Looking at us from across the glass, floating motionless, with its imposing size, as big as the table, it reminded us on how fortunate and privilege we were. Needless to say, the night was a huge success!

Dr.Sylvia Earle and myself discussing the ocean – copyright Jenifer Foukles

Bruce Robison, Dr. Earle, Chris Welsh, Capt. Walsh, Phil Nuytten, Anatoly, Cameron, Emory Kristof