The Need for the Natural Sciences

I just read an interview with the legendary Dr. Jane Goodall in the latest issue of the Sierra Club’s magazine and I felt simultaneously inspired and nostalgic. As a child, I grew up watching nature documentaries about her and other great naturalists and anthropologists, watching shows like “Nature” and David Attenborough’s “Life on Earth,” thinking that the world when I became an adult would be filled with people and a culture that loved nature, that put nature first. I loved my rock collections as a little girl, loved watching the bunnies in our yard, loved how my mother would point out birds in the ditches alongside the road. (Not surprisingly, my undergraduate degree was in Anthropology: Social Sciences, with a strong biological grounding.)

Sadly, I have found that it is not true, due to the advent of the Internet and an emphasis on the computational and mathematical sciences that have ensued. Everybody owns a smartphone, but how many people own a plant or belong to a nature organization or observe birds in the trees? Everybody wants to get rich quick not from dealing with plants or biology, but from the latest app or platform or computer technology in Silicon Valley. Think of all the expressions we have for people who are interested in nature, some more pejorative than others: “granola,” “tree-hugger,” “Nature Boy,” “eco freak,” et cetera. Technology and computer science are more quantifiable; they give us easier-to-classify results, quantitative data, can be understood by people all over the world with a minimum of common language. None of these are bad things, to be sure. The problem comes in that we are not putting nature first. We as a society are not deifying or idolizing (or at least putting as central) nature. Our natural world is looked on as somehow irrelevant or taken for granted. Surely that grass will grow and that squirrel is cute; now, gimme my Starbucks and I’ll send you a text. Look at the way universities have phased out natural science departments, as well as undergraduate requirements. The money is in computers, to be sure, because computers generate money and opportunities for money. It’s easier to shut your kid up with a DVD or iPad, but can you also get them to count the different varieties of birds in the yard?

Our hope lies in our future, in cultivating the love of nature in the very young. But, some might argue, children naturally gravitate toward nature. So then, let us revise our statement and say that is important to MAINTAIN the love of nature as children grow up into adults with other priorities. Should anyone think this is frivolous, I would direct him or her to numerous peer-reviewed studies by eminent scientists that point to the hard evidence of the tragedy of global warming and the shocking rise in natural disasters. We need to see ourselves as part of nature, and as mere keepers of nature for future generations.

Certainly, readers must appreciate the irony that I am blogging about this subject in front of my computer instead of being outdoors, and I must also confess that I do own an iPhone and various techno-gadgets. But these are not central to my life. To me, Mother Nature is top priority, the phenomenon for which I have the most respect. It is not a simple of issue of saying technology is bad and nature is good; in fact, we can forge links between the two (think Bjork’s Biophilia projects). Rather, to put it in Buddhist terms, it all starts in the mind, in our intentions, and there are a lot worse things to put in the center of our lives.

In the Spirit of NPR’s 50 Great Voices

NPR did a brilliant series on 50 great voices they chose from among some of the greatest artists in the world.  Naturally, there were many omissions, much to the chagrin of some listeners.  Being a singer myself, this inspired me to simply riff on the NPR program, to simply comment on, in an unscientific, completely random way, what it is we might find appealing or unique about a particular singer or artist, what makes each artist so unique?  Each type of voice conveys something, each style of performance (and very often it is just that, a performance or a stage persona) evokes certain emotions in the audience, and it just might be fun to talk about it in detail! 

Here is a list—-purely for fun—-of some well-known, well-loved performers, in no particular order:


-Mick Jagger.  That unmistakably guttural voice, leering, taunting, daring the listener to accept the lure to go to bed!  Jagger is unabashedly uninhibited, sexual, unhinged both as a vocalist and as a performer.  The famous strut, like a proud rooster, is all bravado and confidence.  And yet one never feels a dark or hard edge to Jagger’s sexuality—-he always seems to do it with a wink and a smile, a modern-day Don Giovanni with a warmly remorseless “Oh, baby, just had to do it, and I ain’t got no regrets” demeanor that has made him a legendary ladies man well into his 6th decade.

-Bjork.  Like a force of nature, like the wind.  Her voice comes from deep in her soul, and there is a particularly primal quality to it at its core, something she is expressing for us that we all feel at the very depths of our being.  It can be caressing as well, sweet, tender, and soothing, but it never loses its deeply affecting quality.

-Robert Plant.  Indeed the Golden God from the days of Zeppelin who has aged into an ever-evolving artist.  In his Led Zeppelin heyday, Plant whined, moaned, screeched and lamented with such passion that numerous people speculated that his (and his band members’) talent was not human, but unearthly, even demonic.  Plant is music itself, and whatever form his musicianship takes—-hard rock, ballads, rockabilly, Celtic, ethnically-influenced—-this musical chameleon is nothing but convincing.  He is a gifted musician who is (if you have seen him live) also very graceful, a hard-core musician who also happens to be a brilliant performer.  There are those who feel his tenure with Led Zeppelin was his best work, but Plant refuses to stagnate and always moves forward.

-Madonna.  To be eponymous signifies a lot—-that one stands on the trade of one’s given name.  Madonna is not sexy but sexual.  The distinction comes in that she is too aggressive to be desired.  Have no doubt that she is in control; she calls the shots.  But let her.  Has any artist ever captured your imagination so well?  Has any artist gone through as many incarnations (the exception being, perhaps, David Bowie)?  Is anyone a better chameleon?  Madonna is not about music: she is about pushing boundaries and getting you to think/see/feel in different ways.  Not to mention that she is a gifted dancer, a woman of boundless physical energy.  Madonna is an extremely clever businesswoman too; again, this boils down to her being in control, for she knows how to get things done.  There is indeed a vulnerable side to her, but what we love best is her strength.

-Pavarotti.  A voice like melted butter, a voice that never broke but simply flowed, flawlessly, with no chinks in his technique.  It was a warm voice, effusive and throbbing, expansive, just as the man himself became vastly more expansive in his later years.  The classic Italianate tenor sound, an expressive sound that always moved the listener.  He had you in the palm of his hand, he had you there.

-Sinatra versus Tony Bennett.  Is it fair to compare the two?  Both are (well, were, in Sinatra’s case) unique artists who have contributed greatly to jazz and popular music.  But a comparison is warranted simply for examining the differences between the two.  Sinatra is cool; there is a slight aloofness that lets you know he is the star, and he has his people.  Crisp, clean diction, a smooth voice, and a legendary personality that is associated with iconic people and places:  New York, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Kennedys, the Rat Pack, et cetera.  Sinatra was the consummate performer, equally famed for his acting, and was also known for his unsavory connections to the Mafia and other shady dealings.  But one cannot dispute his iconic status, culled from his involvement in so many facets of American life.

            Tony Bennett is, by contrast, associated with warmth.  He left his heart in San Francisco, and you truly believe him when he sings it.  He is known primarily for his singing (though he is a very accomplished painter), a sense of welcoming the listener and embracing you:  we don’t quite sense the aloofness from the audience in the way we do Sinatra.  There is always a smile, and a lack of a sense of the sinister, no matter his transgressions (like drug addiction).  After a lull in his career, Bennett was able to reinvent himself, so to speak, by embracing the younger generation of listeners and musicians.  His willingness to change and grow has always served him well, and though approaching 90, Bennett’s has proven that he will keep on singing and delighting generations of fans.

-Sinead O’Connor.  One of the most gorgeous voices ever to grace popular music.  That ethereal sound, the purity of her instrument, a voice that can by turns howl with rage or coo with sensuality.  Her stunning beauty as a young woman complemented her stunning voice, but equally important were her strong opinions and convictions.  Unfortunately, these overshadowed and sabotaged—-quite unfairly—-her artistic career.  Her “outspokenness” against the abuses in the Catholic Church caused her a huge backlash of hatred, and yet she was decades ahead of her time.  Her music is full of religious and symbolic references that are so integral to her work, and yet she is strikingly singular and unique.  As an artist, we admire her not only for her musical talents that make her famous, but also for her social consciousness and her willingness to speak her mind, come hell or high water.