Comments
clonedspork t1_j19typa wrote
This is the correct answer...........
TheArcticFox444 t1_j1agma6 wrote
>Texas is a big market for school books .
Texas has "cornered the market" on textbooks sold all over the country!
The_Lawn_Ninja t1_j15x7ll wrote
Climate change itself may not fall under the classification of biology, but living things do not exist in a vacuum.
The impact of climate change on ecological and biological systems is vast and extremely relevant. Any college level text that doesn't include it is by definition lacking important contemporary context.
AdagioExtra1332 t1_j1a3fv4 wrote
Ecology has very much been a standard part of good introductory biology curriculums, and climate change in that context is absolutely relevant.
RSN_Kabutops t1_j15fflz wrote
"Textbooks not responsible for covering material are not covering material"
uninstallIE t1_j16fofz wrote
Climate change has biological impacts and biological causes. The biology of many of our agricultural and industrial practices (i.e. the flora and fauna involved and impacted) is the primary driver of climate change. The way that changes in temperature will impact flora and fauna, and indeed us as well is also vitally important to know.
​
EDIT:
Here's a very basic example. Temperatures can impact reproductive frequency, behavior, and the physical sex of many species. If you are studying biology as it relates to an average temperature that no longer exists on earth, you are not studying biology as you need to understand today.
vinbullet t1_j19k54y wrote
That's more ecology than biology imo. They definitely teach how temperature affects such things as reproduction and sex, which I would expect most high schoolers to be able to connect to changes in climate.
5LadiesInMy4Seater t1_j19wnrb wrote
For my own understanding, do you think Ecology is a higher level science that should be taught in a collegiate setting, or should we be exposing student to this subject (and climate change) in public schools?
uninstallIE t1_j19qqxh wrote
All professionals in all disciplines need to understand climate change and make it part of their practice because it impacts everything. A medical doctor needs to understand how changing climate will impact their patients, for example.
[deleted] t1_j17a463 wrote
[removed]
KaelthasX3 t1_j18xort wrote
IDK, back when I was in school, climate in general was under geography lessons, not biology.
uninstallIE t1_j19qyee wrote
It impacts everything. It's worth including in everything
Swarna_Keanu t1_j16ia3w wrote
As others already mentoned there is a huge overlap between the effects of climate change and biologiy - from species distribution to ecology to even what happens to whole strata of species. Small example - some sea turtles gender ratio is linked to the temperature of the ocean and is shifting more and more as temperatures rise - with an increased risk of extinction. There's loads of that interaction.
But Climate Change also is relevant to near any academic topic: From engineering (most of our infrastructure is not climate change ready) to social and political science (it has and will continue to have massive impacts in both areas) to psychology (that we don't act is a psychological issue - not one of the natural sciences) to medicine to forestry to animal husbandry and soil science to ...
There is no area of what is true and factual and real about our world that will not be altered in some way as our atmospheric systems change.
kslusherplantman t1_j16wd9t wrote
Based on that reasoning, we should be learning about waves from physics in biology since they are important to biology…
Chetkica t1_j17a2f8 wrote
Thats an utterly false analogy. We are talking about changing ecosystems (due to climate change), and pupils learning wrong outdated information, not adding geophysics to bio class.
No injections from other sciences are being added (not learning geophysics there) just ecology being adapted to the times and context being added. Otherwise you're learning not ecology but paleoecology
kslusherplantman t1_j17bmgx wrote
Oh, but they don’t study ecosystems in every biology class…
So THATS a false analogy in your own right!
Chetkica t1_j17e5kh wrote
what are you even saying.
kslusherplantman t1_j17eojw wrote
Using your own words against you…
do they study ecosystems in every biology class? Nope!
So therefore expecting to have that in EVERY biology class is also a false analogy.
I was being hyperbolic to prove a point.
Chetkica t1_j17jv2m wrote
Climate change and anthropogenic pollution have impacts worth mentioning beyond just ecology: e.g. evolutionary pressures of climate change (evolutionary biology), impacts of microplastics on the human body or corals (human and marine biology), degree and speed of extinction of different species, changes to biomes (biogeography), plastic eating microbes (microbiology) and so on and on.
No idea what kind of inner conflict this rambling is symptomatic of but i think our time can be better spent than this nonsense.
GhostRobot55 t1_j17ty29 wrote
But what's the point of your point, or are you just being contrarion because why not?
Shocking that your main reddit activity is growing drugs. I don't even have a problem with drugs, but you seem juvenile.
Chetkica t1_j179sjp wrote
??
ecology has so so so many intersecting points w the climate, you can remark on the changing effects of climate change on the ecosystem every page
Ecology is an entire semester in 4th grade of high school bio class in my country.;
1st year: basic biochem, biomolecules, codones, blabla
2nd: taxonomy, the tree of life and various groups of animals
3rd: human biology and plant biology
4th grade: genetics, genomics + ECOLOGY
guynamedjames t1_j16fpbw wrote
I'm not sure how climate change wouldn't be relevant in the context of biology. Sure something like microbiology or cellular biology aren't going to change much but every ecosystem out there is changing or about to start changing. I'm sure a book on artic wildlife would feature climate change extensively, the fact that others aren't just means they're behind the ball.
Michigan_Forged t1_j16uzf1 wrote
As it so happens, microbes have a massive impact on climate change.
Chetkica t1_j17bayr wrote
Cellular biology slightly less so, But microbiology is massively impacted by climate change, plastic pollution, and other human made phenomena
[deleted] t1_j17uk6m wrote
[removed]
just-cuz-i t1_j16gfhv wrote
^ person that doesn’t understand science criticizing science
mrlolloran t1_j168l5p wrote
Awful headline but also frankly maybe a worse article.
Basically they’re concerned that there is less information about climate change in the books than there used to be. While I agree with people in thread saying it belongs in Biology but is nowhere near the focus I want to say this is a problem but the problems comes with how they’ve quantified it. They go by amount of sentences. They got up to 50 sentences in the average Biology textbook but it’s now down to 45.
I’m not saying they’re moving in the right direction but I don’t think this is a big deal. Especially since the thing they were most concerned about was that actionable remedies to climate change were removed, but that content doesn’t really belong in Biology. You need to understand some climate change basics to understand certain changes in a species biology but how to end climate change seems to primarily belong to another area of science IMO
edit: a word
Swarna_Keanu t1_j16ivex wrote
There's no one solution how to sequester carbon back out of the atmosphere. But healthy ecological systems are among the most cost-effective and likely to work.
That is to say - biology and ecology are a major, probably the only reliable, way to solve this. All technological solutions are unproven, highly expensive and would require a huge amount of energy.
mrlolloran t1_j16v85y wrote
I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about. Leads me to believe this is studied elsewhere in a specialized way but maybe I’m looking at it wrong
Swarna_Keanu t1_j18pcti wrote
You misunderstand the statistics. An average of 50 sentences could mean that one book had 200 sentences and three others nothing. It doesn't tell you anything about the individual books. Which isn't what is important for their methodology.
They wanted to see if, on average, the topic is covered more or less. As climate change has a huge impact on biodiversity but also distribution of species, ecosystems, etc - it's an increasingly important topic to understand what happens out in the real world. If it's covered less across the books used they miss the mark of what needs to be communicated.
As I mentioned previosuly climate change is interdisciplinary. It ought to appear in textbooks everwhere it matters - from the perspective of that discipline. Unless / until climate change becomes a specific seperate subject in the curriculum - but that's evidently not the case, either.
mrlolloran t1_j18pztl wrote
Wow, implying I don’t understand what the word “average” means is incredibly insulting.
Swarna_Keanu t1_j18rr0b wrote
I didn't imply that.
>I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about.
I responded to this - where you took the average as an absolute. You can't know - from the data - if there ever was an entire chapter on this in the books they're talking about.
mrlolloran t1_j18sgxc wrote
If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so. It seems so obvious that that information would have been included in here that I cannot even fathom why it it would be omitted. I mean think of how much more weight the article could have. The only way that makes sense to me if it’s in the study but not the article about it and that frustrated the editor, who then editorialized the headline to match what they considered to be the importance of the study. Almost, but admittedly not quite, an ad absurdum fallacy to me given the lack of context.
It also would have been useful to include the average chapter length but maybe I either missed that or it’s in the more detailed study
Swarna_Keanu t1_j18sx4h wrote
>If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so.
'Cause it's not what they measured. Happy to debate if that was good methodology or not ... but the study just is what it is. :)
mrlolloran t1_j18to4r wrote
Studies usually have conclusions. I’m not actually a trained scientist, and I haven’t read this study, but that doesn’t mean I’ve never read a study. They looked at under 100 books, they could have and should have checked the table of contents, it would be all too easy to check this stuff. Frankly if they didn’t then I’d call it really bad methodology.
Swarna_Keanu t1_j196ejt wrote
:) Welcome to the nonsense that happens due the the "publish or perish" mantra.
It's still informative in that the average sentences decreased. But you know - that's all it says, and all they checked. Would need to dig into the data for more. Might be that there'll be a follow up study in a couple years. And another, and another, which is when it becomes more of a useful data set.
Swarna_Keanu t1_j19haew wrote
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278532.g001
And that graph makes it really clear how far the spread of coverage was - with some books doing substantially more.
It also makes clear that the OPs press release mixed up average with mean - which happens so often.
Chetkica t1_j1797s9 wrote
Sequestered carbon in the form of Forests is back in the atmosphere with the first wildfire. And boy will there be many ,many, many. The Mediterranean and Siberia have been burning up for years.
Carbon offsets and similar stuff are distractions to keep consumption at unsustainable levels, and plain ole scams; and then you have both the big emissions that were supposedly "offset" and the additional carbon in trees burning up (thats when corporations actually do anything and arent just "planting" their offsets in the Australian desert...)
Now we should keep finding new ways, but defo wouldn't count on trees, and such sabotaging scams as carbon offsets
Sayin Just in case.
Swarna_Keanu t1_j18of2n wrote
I wasn't talking about offsets. That's greenwashing nonsense. As is focusing on technological solutions.
I am not talking about forests. I am saying we need healthy ecosystems. So - appreciate the comment, but missed the mark of what I was indicating.
We need to alter how we interact with the environment. That's social science and psychology mainly.
[deleted] t1_j15bojc wrote
[removed]
Discount_gentleman t1_j15uwro wrote
The idea that you could cover general biology at a college level without discussing climate change is educational malpractice.
Dipteran_de_la_Torre t1_j18d9fm wrote
I teach intro bio every year and zero of the planned content is climate change. Students will see that in other parts of our overall curriculum. My job is to get them understanding cells and genes.
anotheralpaca69 t1_j15yo7b wrote
They do discuss it. It just doesn't meet the study's fabricated definition of adequate.
Discount_gentleman t1_j161vl2 wrote
I was responding to your claim that is not their job to discuss it.
anotheralpaca69 t1_j165fju wrote
> without discussing
And I was clarifying they do discuss it.
Rpanich t1_j17iq4j wrote
But you said
> Because it is not the job of a biology book to discuss climate change?
Dipteran_de_la_Torre t1_j18deez wrote
It is not the job of every biology book.
anotheralpaca69 t1_j18gcxs wrote
Okay? What I said doesn't change their material.
Moont1de t1_j15clak wrote
In the context of ecological changes it is, but climate change itself is a geography subject
party_benson t1_j15wdho wrote
Not if the school board is run by Republicans who chose the textbooks
zweet_zen t1_j166lpr wrote
Why must a science sub always resort to political hatred?
party_benson t1_j167qr6 wrote
Because Republicans vote against education, science, research, technology, and progress.
Yotsubato t1_j16e13l wrote
> Looks at DARPA funding for MIT. NASA, Military branches and tech….
Everything you love about robotics, astronomy, mechanical engineering, aerospace, nuclear engineering, etc. was funded in part by the military industrial complex which is heavily supported by Republican politicians.
party_benson t1_j16fjob wrote
Yeah, bipartisan spending is interesting that. I specifically said what they vote against. Which is funding education. The point was missed by you.
[deleted] t1_j16u42f wrote
[removed]
zweet_zen t1_j168kyu wrote
Sure, and Democrats are saints that have all your best interest in mind. If you really think any politician has you in mind when they do anything you are a fool. But please keep up with the hate filled rhetoric, it's good for your soul... Again this is a science sub, shouldn't be the political crapfest.
And please with all your wisdom become a politician, and do the right things for everyone. Or just hide behind your device and spread the hate you consume because you have nothing to add to the real conversation.
Rpanich t1_j17j0zi wrote
You notice how whenever someone mentions the republicans doing something wrong, the go to response is always “yeah, but the dems aren’t perfect either and they’re doing the same thing!!!”
No one’s claiming they’re perfect except you?
Science shouldn’t be political, but only one party consistently votes against world wide scientific consensus.
Evolution, climate change, vaccines, basic virology. These shouldn’t be political issues, but one party understands and supports the science, and the other actively fights against the science.
[deleted] t1_j18v398 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j16t68q wrote
[removed]
Chalkarts t1_j160uf7 wrote
We should be planting trees, not corn.
Yotsubato t1_j16e6tj wrote
Lumber farms are actually lousy for diversity
Chalkarts t1_j16eyxx wrote
Go natural. Just let a forest take over the fields.
xAfterBirthx t1_j16dbo0 wrote
Yes, and then we will eat them.
Moont1de t1_j15cii4 wrote
Climate change is geography… but in the US geography is not in the SATs so students don’t care about it
Discount_gentleman t1_j15uohj wrote
This refers to college level textbooks
Moont1de t1_j15v374 wrote
Weird, in Brazil we learn about climate change in middle school
Discount_gentleman t1_j15vir4 wrote
In the US, many states either frown upon any discussion of climate change in public school textbooks. If publishers can't get the textbooks approved for important segments of the public school market, they won't bother publishing them at all.
Mirrorflute88 t1_j168gup wrote
Biology isn’t on the SAT either. Students definitely care about subjects that aren’t on the SAT because that’s everything outside of English and math.
xAfterBirthx t1_j16do5e wrote
Yes, if anything most people do care as much about the subjects on the SAT haha
SophiaRaine69420 t1_j16er0e wrote
Climate change is also biology. Different temperatures = different environmental factors = encouragement of growth of cells not native to current temps/environments
[deleted] t1_j15ksea wrote
[deleted]
DukeLukeivi t1_j17atlx wrote
Actually it's electromagnetic physics intersecting with molecular structures. Everything else is accessory after the fact, but not enough focus is given to the physical facts that are the basis of the idea.
Can you actually describe what happens -- CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and then what? How does it make things warmer?
Moont1de t1_j17b2aq wrote
The origin of the current degree of climate change we are observing is anthropogenic, ergo geography.
The mechanism is secondary to that.
DukeLukeivi t1_j17c833 wrote
That's a bizarrely obtuse classification you're using, human action is compounding the physical basis of the concept, so the physics don't matter? Saying "people does it," is meaningless without being able to explain how.
Climate change should feature pretty prominently in physics, chem, bio, as well as geography; all branches are effected/contributory.
Moont1de t1_j17cc9h wrote
I never said the physics do not matter, my recommendation is you actually read what I wrote instead of being outraged about what you imagined.
DukeLukeivi t1_j17cici wrote
The physical basis isn't secondary in any way tho, and it of course isn't solely the concern of geography.
Moont1de t1_j17cmj8 wrote
I didn’t say it was solely the concern of geography, but it is primarily a geographical phenomenon.
DukeLukeivi t1_j17d109 wrote
No it's geography built on biology built on chemistry built on physics and understanding at all the levels is important, what with the drastic ramifications to the entire geosphere.
Moont1de t1_j17d32a wrote
I agree that understanding at all levels is important
qviki t1_j17hpbu wrote
Yeah, let's blame biology books.
SpaceFace11 t1_j15v8i3 wrote
Text books are meant to be sold, not educate.
Justwant2watchitburn t1_j16apdp wrote
Thats the american way!
[deleted] t1_j16lh84 wrote
[removed]
Cainso t1_j15viqh wrote
It's almost like textbooks as a medium for knowledge has been obsolete for a while. I remember learning calculus and thinking that the textbook was confusing as hell, so I went and watched a free online video for it and they explained everything 1000x better.
Dipteran_de_la_Torre t1_j18dh8z wrote
Textbooks are merely one tool for learning. They are great at laying out the broader field in a way that lets you see the forest through the trees. They are good at being comprehensive. There’s nothing wrong with textbooks.
Cainso t1_j19w1mb wrote
A web page can do the exact same thing except it is far cheaper or outright free, and it can be updated and deployed to people instantly. In many fields a textbook can become outdated in literally just a few months, and now you wasted your money. But professors don't care because they're usually making money off of them.
Textbooks drain the already strained finances of countless students and are found to give old or flat out wrong information all the time. There is literally nothing a textbook does that an online alternative cannot, it's only negatives.
[deleted] t1_j19x7rx wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j158wu5 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j15m2h8 wrote
Yes, print more paper to warn of climate change
duck_one t1_j15r8o3 wrote
Yep, folks don't need no learnin they can't get from the Facebook.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j169w0k wrote
Do you not see the irony in cutting down trees to warn people about the environment?
AtLeastThisIsntImgur t1_j16hre1 wrote
Do you not see the irony of exhaling CO2 when talking about the environment?
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j16ioxl wrote
Do you see the irony in putting ice in your water? Why don't we just make our glaciers more bigger?
duck_one t1_j16bmpf wrote
No? Forestry is fully sustainable, thanks to the USDA. Sustainability is also a requirement for international trade, so no paper products sold in the US (or most of the world) are from environmentally detrimental sources.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j16ijrh wrote
Yes forestry is sustainable in America and other countries but not all countries, right?
duck_one t1_j16mofl wrote
Now I see why you took my first post personally.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j16ngzc wrote
You didn't answer the question, which is a legitimate one. The USDA controls the import of all paper products to make sure they're sustainable?
duck_one t1_j16ooxn wrote
My name isn't google dude. Man, you are weird.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j16otds wrote
I thought you knew something more because you sure were talking like you did.
SophiaRaine69420 t1_j16eb7b wrote
I vote we move back to the old paper standard using papyrus over pine
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG t1_j16ilez wrote
I vote for only old growth paper.
[deleted] t1_j16djlu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j16t8nn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j16sgwy wrote
[removed]
pete_68 t1_j16y7fv wrote
Odds of finding it in a textbook in Texas or Florida is certainly going to be pretty slim.
candornotsmoke t1_j16yvrd wrote
Who is actually suprised by this????? People think what they believe means more than facts or science.
ChrisDoom t1_j172itm wrote
I really wish I could find this story(I think it was NPR?) that interviews the writer of a college economics text book, talking about how his publisher forced him to include a chapter presenting outdated/debunked information about inflation as fact because they knew who they had to sell the text book too: old conservative department heads with outdated understandings of economics.
This article just takes me back to that. It’s not about making the best text book for the students, it’s about selling text books to schools.
Chetkica t1_j178ouh wrote
School books are like that because relevant petrochemical corporations keep paying to the editors of said textbooks.
It is absolutely intentional
[deleted] t1_j178rmo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17fk26 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17i0rf wrote
[removed]
rookiebasegod t1_j17pf0k wrote
Everyone act surprised!
[deleted] t1_j17psbp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17q070 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17rc04 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j17tcpn wrote
[removed]
HalensVan t1_j17uek5 wrote
I was going to write up this thing about the flow of information being too fast to keep up, and if you are relying on textbooks, your going to behind anyway blah blah blah
And then I read
"included less information about climate change than they did in the previous decade " Thats way more concerning.
Coffee_Chief t1_j1855yr wrote
Given the price of text books, I'm surprised that they can't keep them up to date.
studyhardbree t1_j18fi2y wrote
It’s 2022. Give students ebooks and change the data as needed. What’s hard about this?
[deleted] t1_j18jyl4 wrote
[removed]
akascot t1_j18nixc wrote
Because that’s Earth Science not Biology
akascot t1_j18nmk2 wrote
Geology text books are keeping up
riodoro1 t1_j18x3hj wrote
At some point we just have to give up, don’t we?
It’s gonna be bad and we’ll do nothing about it, because it’s not our call. The illusion will work for 10 more years at best and then they’ll just tell us we should’ve bought our own apocalypse arks.
We’re already living the end of the world, it’s just taking longer than Hollywood made us believe.
[deleted] t1_j19w8i9 wrote
[removed]
Awellplanned t1_j175kee wrote
Stop printing the books then, that would also help the environment.
dontcareitsonlyreddi t1_j16io43 wrote
“Textbooks aren’t indoctrinating youth as fast as we want it too”
FIFY
[deleted] t1_j16tbxe wrote
[removed]
FindTheRemnant t1_j17b26p wrote
They won't be satisfied until every class is 100% pushing the agenda.
[deleted] t1_j162qsb wrote
[deleted]
WonderWheeler t1_j1646py wrote
Texas school boards are notoriously conservative and they are also beholding to petrochemical companies. Texas is a big market for school books .They do not want updated text books because of the doom and gloom they will expose.