The legendary scientist Sylvia Earle explains why we need to take care of the ocean that takes care of us.

Perplexed, I drove back and forth along a stretch of Highway 1 in the Florida Keys, looking for a place I had been to many times, a shallow bay of clear water bordered by red mangroves. With mask and flippers, I had prowled through channels to reach a reef where staghorn coral, lavender sea fans, and giant barrel sponges were anchored on limestone. I was particularly interested in checking up on the slippery red algae and brush-like seaweeds that I had found there before, and looked forward to seeing the Nassau groupers that were always there, curious and watchful.


But I finally realized that the mangroves had been torn away, and the undersea meadows and reefs were smothered by gray torrents of water belched from a dredging platform. It was 1958, and the Florida Keys were experiencing a building boom that was transforming the lightly populated islands into a crowded mecca for visitors and thousands of new residents. To make way for them, former residents would perish: jewel-colored reef fish, great pink conchs, spiny lobsters, lumbering sea cucumbers, silver-sheathed barracudas, and billions of small plants and animals that together form the matrix of life in tropical reef systems.

The features that attracted people to the Keys in the first place-clear water, abundant wildlife, beautiful reefs, clean air, ineffable qualities of peace and plenty-somehow slipped away. Must it be that way? An ethic of caring for terrestrial ecosystems has developed in recent decades, gradually securing a network of protection for watersheds, forests, wetlands, and the wild creatures they embrace.

But what about the ocean?

In the 19th century, it became obvious that while space must be made for people to live, farm, build cities, and otherwise do what people do to prosper, certain places are so special in their natural state that they should be kept that way for the enduring benefit of humankind. As a consequence, the forests, wildlife, and unique geysers and boiling pools of Yellowstone became a park; the Grand Canyon was saved from commercial development. The National Park System has been called “the best idea America ever had.” Nearly 400 such areas, places of natural, historic, and cultural significance, are now within the U.S. National Park System, and thousands of similar areas have been established around the world-13 percent of all the world’s land is now protected.As population grew and demands for use of land, water, and wildlife increased, a new (and vitally important) role for protected areas came into focus: Parks were seen as havens for depleted and endangered species, and a source of critically important resilience in the face of swift changes in climate, weather, and planetary chemistry. They also serve as vital measures of how intact ecosystems function, providing us with models for the restoration of damaged areas as well.

Many question the need to protect creatures and ecosystems that appear to have no immediate practical value. They then readily transform pristine rivers into open sewers, entomb gopher tortoises alive in their burrows in their haste to put up new shopping malls, or convert shrinking prairie grasslands into monocultures of corn. It seems, at the time, to be the smart thing to do. But what serves short-term interests, financial or otherwise, can bring on catastrophic losses.

Concerned about the radical changes in 20th-century land, waters, and wildlife, Aldo Leopold asks, in his book Round River, “If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”

Natural systems are central headquarters for the cogs and wheels, the living assets, the genetic treasury that can easily be destroyed, but never replaced. In recent decades we’ve taken care of parts of the land throughout the National Park System, but the same cannot yet be said of our oceans.Among the most important discoveries of the 20th century is knowledge that the ocean is fundamental to all life on Earth. In short: no blue, no green. Water is the key. The ocean holds 97 percent of Earth’s water, but it is the fact that the ocean’s water is alive-with large, medium, and mostly very small organisms that shape planetary processes and chemistry-that makes it possible for us and the rest of life on the planet to survive. Half of the oxygen in the atmosphere is generated by phytoplankton that also extracts much of the carbon dioxide from the air. With every breath you take, every drop of water you drink, you are connected to the living sea.There is a widely held perception that the ocean is so large, so vast, and so resilient, that nothing humans can do can make a difference. However, another great discovery of the 20th century was that the ocean, like the land, is suffering from the impact of human beings, and we are suffering the consequences.

Since the 1950s, 90 percent of the commercially exploited species of fish, crabs, oysters, and clams have been taken. Half of the world’s coral reefs have disappeared, and hundreds of coastal dead zones have developed as a consequence of the flow of pollutants from upstream sources.

For the ocean as well as the land, networks of protected areas can make a difference-not just for marine wildlife, but for the prosperity, health, and security of humankind as well. Presently, less than 1 percent of the ocean has some form of protection. The bad news is that more than 99 percent of the planet’s blue heart is open for a wide range of uses that put all of us at risk. The good news is that nations worldwide are beginning to understand the critical importance of protecting the sea.

In 1972, legislation authorized the creation of National Marine Sanctuaries in the coastal waters of the United States. By 2008, more than 18,000 square miles of ocean were included in 14 marine protected areas, including most of the waters surrounding the Florida Keys.

Since 2006, the United States has protected 340,000 square miles of ocean in the Pacific as national monuments, places where the fish, lobsters, and shrimp are secure. Other nations have taken action, too, from Australia’s protecting the Great Barrier Reef to New Zealand’s protecting its fjords to the island nation of Kiribati’s securing more than 150,000 square miles of ocean around itself. Although most of the national monuments are small, more than 4,000 places in the sea now enjoy some form of special care. They have different names-“sanctuaries,” “reserves,” “marine protected areas”-but to me, every one of them is a “hope spot,” a place that inspires a vision of what can be done to take care of the ocean that takes care of all of us.

There is time, but not a lot, to secure overarching policies and a major network of protected places in the water of various nations as well as in the high seas-the 64 percent of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdictions. One way or another, all of the ocean needs to be cared for as if our lives depend on it, because, well, they do.

Learn about Sylvia Earle’s TED wish at tedprize.org/sylvia-earle.

  • Compared to driving, flying is extraordinarily safe – but why doesn’t it feel that way?
    Photo credit: RM Bulseco/Flickr, CC BY Millions of people fly safely every day, but when plane crashes do happen, they can be catastrophic.

    A commercial airplane crash can change how people behave long after the immediate tragedy. News outlets replay the images, people affected share their harrowing stories, and an extraordinarily rare event becomes easy to imagine. Some travelers cancel trips; others drive to their destination instead.

    These choices may feel cautious. Statistically, the alternatives people switch to may come with greater risk.

    Commercial airline crashes command attention because they are rare, catastrophic and beyond a passenger’s control. But the choice to avoid flying does not eliminate risk. As a new report from our research team at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University outlines, skipping a flight and opting to drive instead is typically much riskier, even if it doesn’t feel like it.

    Airline travel is safer than headlines suggest

    People tend to respond strongly to events that are vivid, while paying less attention to familiar hazards – the risks of which manifest more frequently but less visibly. As a result, efforts to avoid one danger can create another.

    In our recent peer-reviewed report, prepared with support from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Boeing Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety, we compared fatality risk in U.S. commercial aviation with other transportation modes, recreational activities, household hazards and occupational risks. While the Boeing Center receives some funding from The Boeing Company, it operates independently.

    We focused on commercial Part 121 airlines operating in the U.S. and analyzed data from 2016 through 2025. Part 121 carriers generally include large U.S. airlines and regional carriers that operate scheduled passenger service. Because fatal accidents are so rare, data from a single year would not have provided a stable risk estimate.

    Across several measures of risk exposure, including distance traveled, individual boardings, hours spent traveling, annual risk and lifetime odds, the data consistently shows that U.S. commercial aviation is exceptionally safe.

    For the same distance traveled, we estimated the fatality risk as about 626 times higher in a passenger car or truck than on a commercial airline. The risk associated with motorcycle travel was more than 22,000 times higher than commercial airline travel. Even highway bus travel, itself a relatively safe option, carried about nine times the risk of commercial airline travel over the same distance.

    When risk is measured per passenger boarding, the numbers remain striking. From 2016 through 2024, the long-run estimate was approximately one passenger fatality per 97.7 million boardings on commercial airlines.

    These numbers do not mean flying is risk-free, just that the risk is small enough that researchers need many years and enormous amounts of exposure to estimate it. Across the 10-year study period, 73 people died in accidents involving commercial airline travel in the United States.

    These findings complement earlier research. A peer-reviewed 2013 study comparing U.S. transportation modes examined data from 2000 through 2009 and also identified commercial aviation as the safest way to travel. A 2018 study using data from the same period similarly ranked commercial aviation as the safest mode.

    More recently, a 2022 study analyzed U.S. news coverage, travel patterns and accident data from 1996 through 2017. It found that increased news coverage of aviation accidents was associated with more road traffic and more fatal road accidents in subsequent months.

    The 9/11 aftermath and the risk of avoiding risk

    The aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks provided a powerful example of how behavior can shift risk from one setting to another. Air travel declined sharply after the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently, researchers were able to investigate whether fear of flying led to additional deaths on the road.

    Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer analyzed traffic patterns for the final three months of 2001 and estimated 353 excess road deaths nationwide. He characterized many people’s decision to drive rather than fly as an attempt to avoid a “dread risk”: a low-probability event in which many people could die at once.

    Four lanes of traffic on a highway
    After a high-profile plane crash, road traffic can increase. AP Photo/LM Otero, File

    Transportation researchers Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan later reanalyzed the period. They used road fatality trends from the first eight months of 2000 and 2001 to estimate how many deaths would normally have occurred during the final three months of 2001. They then compared that estimate with the number actually recorded in the past three months and calculated 1,018 additional road fatalities from October 2001 through December 2001.

    But their findings complicated the idea that people who avoided flying merely drove to the same distant destinations. Much of the increase occurred on local roads, not interstate highways, and pedestrians and bicyclists experienced a disproportionate share of fatalities. This pattern suggests that travel behavior may have changed more broadly after the attacks, perhaps because people canceled longer trips, stayed closer to home or changed their daily routines.

    It is hard to pin down how much of this increase was related to people changing their travel patterns in response to the 9/11 attacks, since these studies cannot track each individual’s transportation decisions.

    But both studies suggest that a collective effort to avoid a highly visible danger can increase exposure to ordinary hazards whose victims are less visible. When more people choose to drive rather than fly, the roads become busier and the number of traffic deaths can rise.

    The question shapes the risk estimate

    One reason discussions about risk become confusing is that there is no single way to measure it. The answer to the question “Is it safe?” depends on what you measure.

    How much risk does a person face for each mile traveled? What is the risk of one trip? How much risk accumulates during one hour of travel? What is the chance of dying from this cause in a year or over a lifetime?

    These are legitimate questions, but to make a valid comparison, you need to look at the same measure of risk for both types of transportation. Comparing the risk of one flight with the annual risk of driving, for example, mixes unlike quantities.

    A traveler deciding whether to fly or drive between two cities can compare the two modes over the same trip or distance. This comparison provides a clearer perspective than comparing a highly visible plane crash with a familiar daily routine.

    Time matters too. In our estimates, an hour in a passenger car or truck carried about 74 times the fatality risk of an hour aboard a commercial aircraft.

    Feeling in control is not the same as safety

    Driving gives people a steering wheel, a brake pedal and the belief that their skill can protect them. Flying asks passengers to place control in the hands of pilots, airlines, regulators, air traffic controllers and a complex technical system. Psychological research has linked a stronger sense of agency – the feeling that people control their actions and their outcomes – with greater risk-taking. That difference in perceived control helps explain why a rare aviation disaster can feel more threatening than routine road travel.

    A shadowed traveler pulling a suitcase through an airport, with the tail of an airplane visible out the window.
    Airline passengers don’t have the same sense of control over their vehicle as drivers, so flying can feel more uncertain and dangerous. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

    Media attention also matters. A major airplane crash is treated as news of national or international importance. Road deaths occur across many locations and at different times, so the public does not see the cumulative toll.

    The emotional intensity of coverage does not mean journalists are wrong to cover crashes. It just means audiences need context alongside the images.

    Crafting better risk communication

    Telling anxious travelers that flying is “safe” is rarely enough. Research on risk perception shows that people do not judge danger through statistics alone. Fear and vivid images also shape how risky an event feels. But providing more context about the risks from other forms of transportation can still help.

    Effective communication about risk does not minimize tragedy or dismiss the real fear people may feel. But it can help people understand that when millions of travelers shift from one type of transportation to another, the risk moves with them.

    For travelers, the practical question is not whether an option has zero risk. No option does. The question is whether a choice reduces their total exposure to risk or merely replaces a frightening, highly visible risk with a greater one that feels routine.

    To put the rarity of fatal airline events into perspective, an average of 2.48 million travelers passed through TSA screening each day in 2025. Modern commercial aviation in the United States has achieved a safety record that is difficult to grasp precisely because fatal events are so unusual.

    When fear leads people away from that system, the safest-feeling decision may not be the safest decision at all.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stressimprove mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • The tourism industry is slowly waking up to solo travelers’ needs
    Photo credit: Sebastien Goldberg on UnsplashAs more and more people live alone, solo travel is becoming increasingly popular.

    Solo travel is surging – and an industry still largely built for two is taking note.

    Google reported in April 2026 that online searches involving “solo travel” hit an all-time high this year, with queries for “women solo travel” reaching a 15-year peak. Hilton’s 2026 trends report found that 26% of travelers planned to take a trip alone this year, and that nearly half said they planned to add solo days to the front or back of a family trip.

    The issue isn’t new. In 1992, marketing researchers identified the solo consumer as an underserved market. But as tourism researchers have documented, the accommodation sector treats double occupancy as the default unit of consumption, which often slaps a “single supplement” charge on customers when they travel without a partner. The industry essentially penalizes travelers for arriving without a second body to fill the other half of a room they aren’t using.

    The reason why so many hotels, cruise lines and tour operators still base prices on double occupancy is that their costs – the room, the berth, the coach seat, the guide – don’t fall by half when the second person fails to materialize. But the supplement isn’t just a pricing convention. It’s the clearest signal the industry sends about who it built the product for.

    I’m a scholar who studies what I call the solo economy: how institutions and markets adapt, or fail to adapt, to the rise of single living. I’ve written before about how retail and restaurants still design for pairs.

    Travel is further along than most in recognizing this cultural shift. It’s also a useful case because the industry has started on the easy part of the problem but barely touched the rest.

    Demographics matter, but not the way you’d think

    The broader shift toward solo living is real. In 2025, 39.7 million Americans lived alone. That’s 29% of all households, up from 20% in 1975. Married couples, meanwhile, fell to 47% of households from 66% 50 years earlier.

    Those numbers alone don’t explain solo travel. Some of that decline went to people living alone; some went to unmarried couples, who are still a party of two on a booking page. Married people take trips alone. Single people travel with friends, siblings and parents, and plenty of them have logged serious hours as an extra wheel. Living alone and vacationing alone are different behaviors with different causes.

    What connects them is the erosion of a single assumption: that every adult arrives with a plus-one. That assumption is weakening at home, and it’s now encountering the booking page.

    Price is the easy rung

    One response by the travel industry has been to shave the single supplement. For example, the tour operator Tauck announced this year that it’s waiving the single supplement on a class of its riverboat cabins across more than 250 European river cruise departures and reducing it by up to US$600 on 105 land departures.

    Another touring company has taken a more committed approach to adjusting its offerings: Aurora Expeditions sets aside 10 dedicated solo cabins on every sailing across its three ships, with no single supplement, through its 2026 and 2027 seasons.

    Then there’s Norwegian Cruise Line, which was early to the shift. In 2010, it introduced Studio staterooms aboard Norwegian Epic: Small cabins designed for one passenger, sold at single-occupancy prices and arranged around a keycard-access Studio Lounge reserved for solo travelers. The trade-off is less private space, but at a price for one, with access to a room full of fellow travelers going it alone.

    Norwegian then expanded solo categories in 2024 from nine ships to its full 19-ship fleet. But on ships without Studios, much of the expansion was relabeling. Cruise Critic reported that standard double-occupancy rooms would likely be reclassified rather than retrofitted. And by Norwegian’s own account, the Studio Lounge is reserved for guests in Solo Studios – so the fleetwide solo categories come with the discount but not the room full of other solo travelers.

    That’s the difference between repricing and redesigning. The 2010 Studio was a purpose-built 100-square-foot (9 square-meter) cabin that cost Norwegian something to construct. The 2024 categories are, in many cases, the same rooms as before, with a new label and a discount. The solo traveler pays less than two people would, but it’s still more than half for a room sized and built for two. A cabin sold to one occupies the same space as a cabin sold to two, and the industry still counts berths.

    There’s a cleaner approach. Yotel sells a room type it calls Solo – 114 square feet (about 10 square meters) in New York City, maximum occupancy one, at the bottom of its price range. Nothing was subtracted to make it. It was built at that size, for that guest, and priced accordingly. That’s what designing for one looks like, and it’s rare enough that a tiny room counts as progress.

    At a long table covered by flowers and plates of food, a diverse group of travelers shares a meal.
    Many solo travelers seek control over their experiences and schedules, but they still seek a social component. Keriliwi on Unsplash

    Traveling alone doesn’t mean being alone

    A common mistake in designing for solo travelers is assuming that solitude is the product. It isn’t.

    In the same 2026 data showing record interest in solo travel, Google found that searches for “travel groups” and “tour groups” also hit record highs. A Mastercard survey of more than 15,000 consumers across 11 countries found that 39% of international travelers had already taken a trip alone — and 7 in 10 international leisure travelers were interested in solo experiences built to connect them with like-minded people.

    The contradiction makes sense when you acknowledge that privacy and isolation are two different things. A person can want total control over where to go, when to eat and when to return to the room – and still want company at dinner.

    The issue with double-occupancy pricing is that it assumes the customer brings their own company. But when only one person books, the operator has to address the pricing problem – whether or how to discount; and a product problem – how to supply a social component. Waiving a solo supplement solves the first issue, but it ignores the second. Norwegian understood this in 2010 by creating its lounge for solo travelers.

    The pitch is easier when the product is for one

    For all these changes, travel advertising often still runs on couples: two glasses of wine, two lounge chairs, two silhouettes against a sunset. Sandals Resorts built an entire resort category around the premise.

    When solo travel does appear, it gets a different script. The traveler is adventurous, on a journey of self-discovery. AARP’s current solo-travel guide emphasizes personal growth and self-reliance. Even Norwegian closes its solo pitch by reassuring the reader that “you’re pretty good company.”

    The effect is to mark solo travel as exceptional at precisely the moment it stops being exceptional. Nobody reassures a couple that they will enjoy the balcony. Calling a solo traveler “brave” can be a compliment, but it can also reveal the assumption that traveling alone is abnormal, even when that’s changing.

    That all said, parts of the tourism industry have taken big steps over the past 15 years. But treating solo travelers as an audience rather than an accommodation is harder. It’s about selling them what they have already said they want: control over the trip, and access to other people, on their own terms.

    Marketing researchers named this opportunity in 1992. Thirty-four years later, the industry is still learning to build for one. Meanwhile, the solo traveler is standing at reception, holding a credit card, waiting for someone to design a room.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Work

New York passes SAFE for Kids Act to protect children from social media addiction

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Internet

Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

Money Culture

Millions of Illinois residents wake up to find that $2.6 billion of their medical debt has been eliminated