Watching "Nature" on PBS as I type this, and I am struck by something that never occurred to me before.
David Attenborough is talking about fruit bats in the Congo. Each year, vast hordes of them converge in one forest neighborhood for a 6-week mango feast, and convivially gorge until the trees are stripped of their fruit. Then, per Attenborough, they "fly into the vast forest of the Congo" and make the trip back home. (Amazingly, we have no idea how they work the whole thing out and accomplish it.)
The entire "Nature" series is wonderful. And it's pretty consistent in tone. There is much talk of vast wild spaces, and wilderness. There are stunning shots of magnificent beasts roaming across the tundra, hunting under the ice in an immensity of chilly blue, or prowling the mysterious nighttime forest, probing under tree bark for for fat, succulent grubs. There are deliriously adorable close-ups of family favorites like meerkats. There's heart-tugging footage of baby seals "whoo-ing!" for Mama, and suckling while a terrible blizzard howls around them.
You and I both know why, of course. "Nature" isn't just informational - it's designed to instill awe and wonder at the immensity of our amazing planet, the myriad ecosystems and creatures on it, and the dazzling array of food webs and intersections among and between our fellow travelers and their environment.
The problem is that, if you come to such a program with an uncritical eye, you would not be faulted if you came away entertained, dazzled, drunk on the sumptuous beauty and wonder of it all - and completely unaware that any of the featured creatures were in danger of extinction. Or that the "vast forest of the Congo" might more accurately be described as "under pressure from human civilization," and "no longer quite so vast."
More below the vermilion vermiform arabesque!
Please believe me when I tell you that I do not mean to be a Debbie Downer. I support such exceptional nature programming. I am 100% behind the dedication of the cast and crew and scientific advisers who labor over shows like "Nature" and "Blue Planet" and the like. This amazing programming fills a MUCH NEEDED niche in a television landscape that includes a channel - TLC - that was once known as "The Learning Channel" and now features salacious, dubious documentaries about Quiverfull cult members and striving country singers with a family that appears to be purpose-bred to advance their show-business ambitions. Oh - and fashion. And bridal shows. And the like.
We need "Nature!"
But we also need a LOT more information about climate change and environmental degradation that is aimed at viewers who are consuming what I'll call "science entertainment." We need that science entertainment to unabashedly include FACTS about climate change, environmental degradation, habitat loss, and pollution, recounted without hedging or preamble about some fictitious "debate" or "national conversation." And we need it inserted - matter-of-factly and without apology - into programming that is aimed squarely at "just folks" audiences.
We can't continue to paint a pretty picture of untainted vastness and thriving populations of unmolested, carefree creatures. That's not what's out there. That's no longer reality. We can make science entertainment that instills wonderment and a desire to learn more without pretending that the world isn't changing - dangerously quickly and for the worse - as we sit on the couch, swill diet Coke, and munch on Tostino's pizza rolls.
Here's my perspective. There's limited (very limited) time to make a move to change the course of anthropogenic global warming. There are only so many hours in the day for people to consume information. We need to be seizing every available opportunity to introduce the topic, educate, and exhort people to take action.
The producers of science entertainment are presumably "on the side of the angels." If they were to accept the challenge of talking about climate change at every opportunity - on an accessible, matter-of-fact, and factual level - it would go a long way toward normalizing the concept of AGW, closing down the spurious "debate" so beloved of a squishy, pandering media that loves controversy, and introducing the American people to the reality that is facing us all.
What do you think?