logo
'Ignorance' Is Most Pressing Issue Facing Ocean Conservation, Says Sylvia Earle

'Ignorance' Is Most Pressing Issue Facing Ocean Conservation, Says Sylvia Earle

Yahoo05-06-2025
Credit - Erika Larsen
Marine biologist Sylvia Earle could easily rest on her laurels. In a career that began in the 1950s, she has become a pioneer in ocean exploration and conservation. She holds the record for the deepest walk under the sea and was the first female chief scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But on the cusp of her 90th birthday this August, she has no plans to slow down—and believes that the problems currently facing our oceans now have never been more urgent. Her most recent venture, Mission Blue, aims to create a worldwide network of marine protected areas known as 'Hope Spots.' As of June 2, this includes the Chesapeake Bay. TIME spoke to Earle in May after a dive she made in the country's largest estuary.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Read more: Fishing Communities in the Philippines Are Fighting for their Future as Waters Rise
TIME: You have been involved in ocean conservation work for decades. What changes have you noticed since you first started this work?
EARLE: We have learned more about the nature of the ocean, of the planet as a whole, and even about ourselves.
When I was a child, no one had been to the moon, no one had been to the deepest part of the sea. The internet did not exist. Think about the things we did not know, even about the microbial world, and how influential that is on everything and every one. That was just missing in our understanding of how the world functions. [We've learned more about] the magnitude of our climate and what our role has been in bringing about change. In many cases, we've lost more than during all preceding history.
What do you feel is the most pressing issue facing our oceans now?
Ignorance, complacency, lack of awareness that the ocean is essential to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Every breath we take, every drop of water we drink, we are connected to the ocean.
Our very existence depends not just on the existence of rocks and water. 97% of Earth's water is ocean, and ocean is essential to life, but what really matters is that the ocean has populated with creatures who preceded us, not just by centuries or millennia, but hundreds of billions of years, fine tuning rocks and water into a habitable planet.
It just seems perverse that we take so much for granted and are so casual about consuming nature [when] you realize how long it has taken for the natural systems to come to a state where we actually can not just survive here, but thrive here.
We know what to do. We just need, in this really critical crossroads in time, to use the knowledge we have and to come together. Everybody is, without exception, vulnerable to the state of the planet, the habitability of Earth. If you can't breathe, nothing else quite matters. Or if you don't have water, if you don't have food. All of the basics anchor back to [the idea that] we've got to take care of what keeps Earth, our home, safe in a universe that is really inhospitable. For those who want to go to Mars and set up housekeeping, I say, good luck. It's a great vision. I think we'll get there for a small number of people, for small periods of time, but it's not an alternative to Earth. We are of the Earth. Actually, we are of the ocean, because it's the ocean that makes our existence possible.
As someone who has led more than 100 expeditions and logged more than 7,000 hours underwater, what's one thing you wished more people knew about our oceans?
I wish people could understand [that the ocean] is not just a massive amount of salt water, but rather it's a living system. What we put into the ocean changes the chemistry of not just the ocean, but of the planetary functions as a whole.
T​​he consequences to planetary chemistry, to planetary security, are right now facing us with the prospect of the sharp changes that we won't be able to control if they get to that tipping point. The good news through all of this, I think, is that the world has not tipped yet into a state from which we cannot recover. We've got all the warning signs, the rapid increase temperature, the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the rapid loss of forests on the land, and the consequences of clear cutting forests, disrupting the carbon cycle, clear cutting the ocean of fish, of squid, of krill from Antarctica, all of this. We know what we need to do.
A big part of Mission Blue's work is identifying 'Hope Spots' in the ocean. When much of our ecosystems are under threat, why is it important to you to highlight these areas?
The real purpose underlying the Hope Spot concept is to ignite public awareness and support for protecting nature. The Hope Spot is a means to a broader end, to get people to be aware of why the ocean in particular matters. Land and sea together, the whole world is one big, mostly blue hope spot, but [we want to] energize individual champions, communities, institutions, to come together with a common purpose of protecting a place that they know and love.
And this is meant to highlight and enforce and support everybody else who's trying to do something to turn from declined to recovery, one hope spot, one community, one champion at a time. And it is contagious. People want to know, what can I do to make a difference?
You are almost 90 years old—what keeps you diving?
Why not? I think it's important to keep doing the things you love as long as you can. How can I resist when most of the areas on Earth where life exists have yet to be explored. I want to keep doing it as long as I can breathe. Don't you want to do the same thing?
Read more from TIME's Ocean Issue
The World Isn't Valuing Oceans Properly
Meet the Marine Biologist Working to Protect Our Oceans from Deep-Sea Mining
Geopolitical Tensions are Shaping the Future of our Oceans
Write to Simmone Shah at simmone.shah@time.com.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In the Loop: Is AI Making the Next Pandemic More Likely?
In the Loop: Is AI Making the Next Pandemic More Likely?

Time​ Magazine

time4 days ago

  • Time​ Magazine

In the Loop: Is AI Making the Next Pandemic More Likely?

Welcome back to In the Loop, TIME's new twice-weekly newsletter about AI. Starting today, we'll be publishing these editions both as stories on and as emails. If you're reading this in your browser, why not subscribe to have the next one delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to In the Loop What to Know If you talk to staff at the top AI labs, you'll hear a lot of stories about how the future could go fantastically well—or terribly badly. And of all the ways that AI might cause harm to the human race, there's one that scientists in the industry are particularly worried about today. That's the possibility of AI helping bad actors to start a new pandemic. 'You could try to synthesize something like COVID or a more dangerous version of the flu—and basically, our modeling suggests that this might be possible,' Anthropic's chief scientist, Jared Kaplan, told me in May. Measuring the risk — In a new study published this morning, and shared exclusively with TIME ahead of its release, we got the first hard numbers on how experts think the risk of a new pandemic might have increased thanks to AI. The Forecasting Research Institute polled experts earlier this year, asking them how likely a human-caused pandemic might be—and how likely it might become if humans had access to AI that could reliably give advice on how to build a bioweapon. What they found — Experts, who were polled between December and February, put the risk of a human-caused pandemic at 0.3% per year. But, they said, that risk would jump fivefold, to 1.5% per year, if AI were able to provide human-level virology advice. You can guess where this is going — Then, in April, the researchers tested today's AI tools on a new virology troubleshooting benchmark. They found that today's AI tools outperform PhD-level virologists at complex troubleshooting tasks in the lab. In other words, AI can now do the very thing that forecasters warned would increase the risk of a human-caused pandemic fivefold. We just published the full story on can read it here. Who to Know Person in the news – Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare. Since its founding in 2009, Cloudflare has been protecting sites on the internet from being knocked offline by large influxes of traffic, or indeed coordinated attacks. Now, some 20% of the internet is covered by its network. And today, Cloudflare announced that this network would begin to block AI crawlers by default — essentially putting a fifth of the internet behind a paywall for the bots that harvest info to train AIs like ChatGPT and Claude. Step back — Today's AI is so powerful because it has essentially inhaled the whole of the internet — from my articles to your profile photos. By running neural networks over that data using immense quantities of computing power, AI companies have taught these systems the texture of the world at such an enormous scale that it has given rise to new AI capabilities, like the ability to answer questions on almost any topic, or to generate photorealistic images. But this scraping has sparked a huge backlash from publishers, artists and writers, who complain that it has been done without any consent or compensation. A new model — Cloudflare says the move will 'fundamentally change how AI companies access web content going forward.' Major publishers, including TIME, have expressed their support for the shift toward an 'opt-in' rather than an 'opt-out' system, the company says. Cloudflare also says it is working on a new initiative, called Pay Per Crawl, in which creators will have the option of setting a price on their data in return for making it available to train AI. Fighting words — Prince was not available for an interview this week. But at a recent conference, he disclosed that traffic to news sites had dropped precipitously across the board thanks to AI, in a shift that many worry will imperil the existence of the free press. 'I go to war every single day with the Chinese government, the Russian government, the Iranians, the North Koreans, probably Americans, the Israelis — all of them who are trying to hack into our customer sites,' Prince said. 'And you're telling me I can't stop some nerd with a C-corporation in Palo Alto?' AI in Action 61% percent of U.S. adults have used AI in the last six months, and 19% interact with it daily, according to a new survey of AI adoption by the venture capital firm Menlo Ventures. But just 3% percent of those users pay for access to the software, Menlo estimated based on the survey's results—suggesting 97% of users only use the free tier of AI tools. AI usage figures are higher for Americans in the workforce than other groups. Some 75% of employed adults have used AI in the last six months, including 26% who report using it daily, according to the survey. Students also report high AI usage: 85% have used it in the last six months, and 22% say they use it daily. The statistics seem to suggest that some students and workers are growing dependent on free AI tools—a usage pattern that might become lucrative if AI companies were to begin restricting access or raising prices. However, the proliferation of open-source AI models has created intense price competition that may limit any single company's ability to dramatically increase their costs. As always, if you have an interesting story of AI in Action, we'd love to hear it. Email us at: intheloop@ What we're reading 'The Dead Have Never Been This Talkative': The Rise of AI Resurrection by Tharin Pillay in TIME With the rise of image-to-video tools like the newest version of Midjourney, the world recently crossed a threshold: it's now possible, in just a few clicks, to reanimate a photo of your dead relative. You can train a chatbot on snippets of their writing to replicate their patterns of speech; if you have a long enough clip of them speaking, you can also replicate their voice. Will these tools make it easier to process the heart-rending pain of bereavement? Or might their allure in fact make it harder to move forward? My colleague Tharin published a deeply insightful piece last week about the rise of this new technology. It's certainly a weird time to be alive. Or, indeed, to be dead. Subscribe to In the Loop

Today's AI Could Make Pandemics 5 Times More Likely
Today's AI Could Make Pandemics 5 Times More Likely

Time​ Magazine

time4 days ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Today's AI Could Make Pandemics 5 Times More Likely

Recent developments in AI could mean that human-caused pandemics are five times more likely than they were just a year ago, according to a study of top experts' predictions shared exclusively with TIME. The data echoes concerns raised by AI companies OpenAI and Anthropic in recent months, both of which have warned that today's AI tools are reaching the ability to meaningfully assist bad actors attempting to create bioweapons. Read More: Exclusive: New Claude Model Triggers Bio-Risk Safeguards at Anthropic It has long been possible for biologists to modify viruses using laboratory technology. The new development is the ability for chatbots—like ChatGPT or Claude—to give accurate troubleshooting advice to amateur biologists trying to create a deadly bioweapon in a lab. Safety experts have long viewed the difficulty of this troubleshooting process as a significant bottleneck on the ability of terrorist groups to create a bioweapon, says Seth Donoughe, a co-author of the study. Now, he says, thanks to AI, the expertise necessary to intentionally cause a new pandemic 'could become accessible to many, many more people.' Between December 2024 and February 2025, the Forecasting Research Institute asked 46 biosecurity experts and 22 'superforecasters' (individuals with a high success rate at predicting future events) to estimate the risk of a human-caused pandemic. The average survey respondent predicted the risk of that happening in any given year was 0.3%. Crucially, the surveyors then asked another question: how much would that risk increase if AI tools could match the performance of a team of experts on a difficult virology troubleshooting test? If AI could do that, the average expert said, then the annual risk would jump to 1.5%—a fivefold increase. What the forecasters didn't know was that Donoughe, a research scientist at the pandemic prevention nonprofit SecureBio, was testing AI systems for that very capability. In April, Donoughe's team revealed the results of those tests: today's top AI systems can outperform PhD-level virologists at a difficult troubleshooting test. Read More: Exclusive: AI Outsmarts Virus Experts in the Lab, Raising Biohazard Fears In other words, AI can now do the very thing that forecasters warned would increase the risk of a human-caused pandemic fivefold. (The Forecasting Research Institute plans to re-survey the same experts in future to track whether their view of the risks has increased as they said it would, but said this research would take months to complete.) To be sure, there are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of the results. Forecasting is an inexact science, and it is especially difficult to accurately predict the likelihood of very rare events. Forecasters in the study also revealed a lack of understanding of the rate of AI progress. (For example, when asked, most said they did not expect AI to surpass human performance at the virology test until after 2030, while Donoughe's test showed that bar had already been met.) But even if the numbers themselves are taken with a pinch of salt, the authors of the paper argue, the results as a whole still point in an ominous direction. 'It does seem that near-term AI capabilities could meaningfully increase the risk of a human-caused epidemic,' says Josh Rosenberg, CEO of the Forecasting Research Institute. The study also identified ways of reducing the bioweapon risks posed by AI. Those mitigations broadly fell into two categories. The first category is safeguards at the model level. In interviews, researchers welcomed efforts by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to prevent their AIs from responding to prompts aimed at building a bioweapon. The paper also identifies restricting the proliferation of 'open-weights' models, and adding protections against models being jailbroken, as likely to reduce the risk of AI being used to start a pandemic. The second category of safeguards involves imposing restrictions on companies that synthesize nucleic acids. Currently, it is possible to send one of these companies a genetic code, and be delivered biological materials corresponding to that code. Today, these companies are not obliged by law to screen the genetic codes they receive before synthesizing them. That's potentially dangerous because these synthesized genetic materials could be used to create mail-order pathogens. The authors of the paper recommend labs screen their genetic sequences to check them for harmfulness, and for labs to implement 'know your customer' procedures. Taken together, all these safeguards—if implemented—could bring the risk of an AI-enabled pandemic back down to 0.4%, the average forecaster said. (Only slightly higher than the 0.3% baseline of where they believed the world was before they knew today's AI could help create a bioweapon.) 'Generally, it seems like this is a new risk area worth paying attention to,' Rosenberg says. 'But there are good policy responses to it.'

Time Is Three-Dimensional and Space Is Just a Side Effect, Scientist Says
Time Is Three-Dimensional and Space Is Just a Side Effect, Scientist Says

Yahoo

time28-06-2025

  • Yahoo

Time Is Three-Dimensional and Space Is Just a Side Effect, Scientist Says

A fringe new theory suggests that time is the fundamental structure of the physical universe, and space is merely a byproduct. According to Gunther Kletetschka, a geologist — not a physicist, you'll note, but more on that later — from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, time is three-dimensional and the dimensions of space are an emergent property of it, a press release from the university explains. "These three time dimensions are the primary fabric of everything, like the canvas of a painting," Kletetschka said in the blurb. "Space still exists with its three dimensions, but it's more like the paint on the canvas rather than the canvas itself." Three-dimensional time is a theory that has been proposed before, though generally in pretty inaccessible terms. Similarly to the explanation for three dimensions of space — length, width, and depth — 3D time theory claims that time can move forward in the linear progression we know, sideways between parallel possible timelines, and along each one of those as it unfolds. Yes, it's a pretty mind-blowing concept — but scientists have long theorized that time, as the fourth dimension in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, is less intuitive than it seems in everyday reality. While other 3D time theories rely on traditional physics, Kletetschka suggests that his may help explain the many outstanding questions accepted physics still harbors. In a somewhat grandiose manner, the geologist even claims that his 3D time proposal could operate as a grand unifying theory or "theory of everything," the Holy Grail of quantum mechanics that would explain how the universe works on a sweeping level. "The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself," the scientist said. "This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework." Obviously, there are an astonishing number of caveats to consider here. For one, Kletetschka is not a theoretical physicist — he's a geologist, and according to his university bio he also has some experience in astronomy. Extraordinary claims all call for extraordinary evidence. And the claims here are already stirring controversy: as an editor's note added to the end of the press release cautions, the scientist's theory was published in the journal Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, a "legitimate step," but one that isn't remotely sufficient to take it out of the realm of the fringe. That journal, the note adds, is "relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals." "The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny," the note concluded, "and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication." Still, it's a fascinating concept to consider — especially because we still don't know exactly how time works, anyway. More on fringe theories: Physicists Say We Were Completely Wrong About How Gravity Works

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store