Using animals as sport symbols reflects the integration of biodiversity into cultural identity and the transmission of collective values. This raises the possibility that the economic muscle of the sport industry could translate its symbolic capital into tangible commitments to biodiversity conservation.
Those who have had the privilege of travelling in remote areas might have come across an unexpected scene: a football pitch in the middle of the Amazon rain forest or on the slopes of the Andes, a basketball court on the side of a Buddhist temple, or an ice hockey rink on a snow-ploughed lake in remote northern Canada.
Sport is a global industry that generates identity, belonging, education, and shared emotions for both athletes and their avid spectators (1). Sporting affinities now rival the sense of nationhood once shared by citizens during warfare (2).
Now in our heavily monetised world, sport clubs rely on their fans through tickets and merchandising, and indirectly through television rights and advertising. In this both emotional and commercial relationship, expressions such as being true to the badge reflect the central role of corporate symbols in building bonds between a club and its supporters (3).
In professional sport such as football, clubs increasingly function as brands (4) where even traditional logos are modified to enhance a team’s commercial value and strengthen audience loyalty (5). In this process, biodiversity becomes relevant because the iconography of many sport organisations incorporates representations of plants and animals.
Sport fauna
To quantify this phenomenon, Ugo Arbieu and collaborators analysed the presence of animals in club names, crests, and fan nicknames among 10 professional team sports across 50 countries (6). They found that 727 teams use 161 different animal species in their corporate imagery. Football and basketball lead in the number of species represented due to the large number of clubs worldwide, but American football, rugby and baseball display greater symbolic fauna diversity per club. Mammals and birds are the most common, particularly carnivores and raptors.
This pattern is not coincidental, for it reflects the historical bias of science and conservation towards large, charismatic vertebrates (7), but also the uneven availability of biological information and our social preferences for certain species (8). These preferences are even reflected in the animal emojis we share regularly on social media (9).
Arbieu’s study also revealed that clubs tend to favour images of threatened fauna (6), possibly due to their higher symbolic impact and media visibility (10). Moreover, although clubs in Europe and the Americas more often depict exotic animals, native species dominate in Africa, Asia, and Oceania (6). This suggests that the choice of an animal as an emblem is the product of not only aesthetic or symbolic criteria, but also of cultural roots and the historical relationship of societies with their local fauna.
Read the rest of this entry »
(Originally posted by 
Measuring educational performance is difficult at any stage, especially since most school-level performance indicators are based on ‘standardised’ tests of a few select students in particular years. But if you think that is questionable, you can rest assured that it is a hell of a lot more objective and better quantified than 
ConservationBytes.com 
The very worn slur of “neo-Malthusian”
7 09 2021After the rather astounding response to our Ghastly Future paper published in January this year (> 443,000 views and counting; 61 citations and counting), we received a Commentary that was rather critical of our article.
We have finally published a Response to the Commentary, which is now available online (accepted version) in Frontiers in Conservation Science. Given that it is published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), I can repost the Response here:
In their comment on our paper Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future, Bluwstein et al.2 attempt to contravene our exposé of the enormous challenges facing the entire human population from a rapidly degrading global environment. While we broadly agree with the need for multi-disciplinary solutions, and we worry deeply about the inequality of those who pay the costs of biodiversity loss and ecological collapse, we feel obligated to correct misconceptions and incorrect statements that Bluwstein et al.2 made about our original article.
After incorrectly assuming that our message implied the existence of “one science” and a “united scientific community”, the final paragraph of their comment contradicts their own charge by calling for the scientific community to “… stand in solidarity”. Of course, there is no “one science” — we never made such a claim. Science is by its nature necessarily untidy because it is a bottom-up process driven by different individuals, cultures, perspectives, and goals. But it is solid at the core. Scientific confluence is reached by curiosity, rigorous testing of assumptions, and search for contradictions, leading to many — sometimes counter-intuitive or even conflicting — insights about how the world works. There is no one body of scientific knowledge, even though there is good chance that disagreements are eventually resolved by updated, better evidence, although perhaps too slowly. That was, in fact, a main message of our original article — that obligatory specialisation of disparate scientific fields, embedded within a highly unequal and complex socio-cultural-economic framework, reduces the capacity of society to appreciate, measure, and potentially counter the complexity of its interacting existential challenges. We agree that scientists play a role in political struggles, but we never claimed, as Bluwstein et al.2 contended, that such struggles can be “… reduced to science-led processes of positive change”. Indeed, this is exactly the reason our paper emphasized the political impotence surrounding the required responses. We obviously recognize the essential role social scientists play in creating solutions to avoid a ghastly future. Science can only provide the best available evidence that individuals and policymakers can elect to use to inform their decisions.
We certainly recognise that there is no single policy or polity capable of addressing compounding and mounting problems, and we agree that that there is no “universal understanding of the intertwined socio-ecological challenges we face”. Bluwstein et al.2 claimed that we had suggested scientific messaging alone can “… adequately communicate to the public how socio-ecological crises should be addressed”. We did not state or imply such ideas of unilateral scientific power anywhere in our article. Indeed, the point of framing our message as pertaining to a complex adaptive system means that we cannot, and should not, work towards a single goal. Instead, humanity will be more successful tackling challenges simultaneously and from multiple perspectives, by exploiting manifold institutions, technologies, approaches, and governances to match the complexity of the predicament we are attempting to resolve.
Read the rest of this entry »Share:
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: commentary, complex adaptive system, consumption, critique, human population, Malthusian, neo-Malthusian, over-population, overshoot, Population
Categories : agriculture, anthropocene, biodiversity, climate change, demography, economics, education, Endarkenment, environmental economics, environmental policy, extinction, food, governance, human overpopulation, poverty, science, societies, sustainability