What amazing networks formed by overground trees and underground fungi and the symbiotic exchange between the two for the benefit of both. In fact these networks are studied to find out the shortest and best ways, most economic ways, to serve the furthest away trees/fungi and how to do so if main nodes are down. Man does learn from nature.
That some species of fungi are parasitic and not mutualistic does not undermine the abundance of species of fungi and plant-life which *are* engaged in a complex mutualism, much of which we depend upon for our global environment to be livable at all. Even the parasitic species inhabit their own ecological niche, and were they to disappear, despite their visible damage to certain species w/in that same local environment, could induce a trophic cascade that threatens the sustainability of the whole of the local ecosystem itself. She certainly left out much of the background science, which would have been helpful communicating her point (though there *were* time constraints), as well as oversimplifying some conceptual errors with equating the Earth's fungal network to our brain activity, but there really is excessive deforestation occurring, and it really *is* amazing that the beauty and complexity of these forest systems, which it took the Earth billions of years to form and upon which we very much depend, is being deincentivized and destroyed in an instant so readily by industry-first ideologies. Her emotional charge here, despite being a scientist, is not misplaced.
Interesting topic. Her audience seem to include children so that explains much of her presentation but i would have wanted just a little bit more explanation of the science rather than social networks.
I just heard this on NPR, and I googled her because the segment sounded extremely unscientific, and I cannot find any information on her formal education, undergrad degree major or graduate degree. Has anyone found otherwise?
Unless we stop using paper, recycle all cardboard waste etc. There's not really a solution. We are the ones causing deforestation, eventhough we're not physically cutting down the trees. The number of consumption must go down dramatically for them to reduce the rate of deforestation. Just think about the packaging you buy and furniture, flooring, decking etc. Rather plant trees then put dead ones all over your house. This subject is tragic and the fact we think we need these wooden items is the problem. They are our life, the air we breathe and the beauty of the world. She was annoying really.
Yes ... as is the product of intelligent design she studies. But to remain in the club and be credible, deference must be given to the dogma of faith in blind evolution.
Too much huggy kissy and not enough science! This talk comes across more as a political statement than an educational piece. Explain how you determined that they were a "tree family" and how you determined what the fungi and tree's worked together in a symbiotic relationship. It wouldn't hurt to add credibility by explaining the non-symbiotic fungi relationships like root rot that actually kills trees. Lots of feel good fluff and very little substance.
I agree. Just an over zealous tree hugger. Spouting information without scientific backup. Site some sources for your information lady. She also need to read the latest iformation about CO2 and global warming indicating that global warming has stopped even though CO2 continues to rize. She also needs to study current logging techniques. What she showed was not clear cutting, if it was the entire mountain side would be cleared.
Well, I don't know where were people searching for 'scientific literature' on the topic, but a mere 15 seconds on google found me a term 'Mycorrhizal networks'. Even the wikipedia article should give you a headstart. :) Now, TED should be for the 'pure ideas'. The degree of 'science' you or I might be comfortable with might very and the same can be said about the language the speaker uses to deliver the message, as long as the message it positive. Many people seem to have their 'Dawkinsian shields' high up even at times where a person is appealing them for saving the old growth forests.
This was clearly a one sided lolly pop version of reality, I would like to hear how she expects wood harvest to be done to minimize impact. I get the feeling she thinks all trees should be spared and honestly that's not a realistic expectation. There was actually a TED presentation that stated that cutting trees for construction purposes actually helped remove CO2 from the environment. So if she is going to make wild accusations about how harmful the timber industry is the for crying out load offer a solution and some science to support it.
Are you claiming to be more of an 'expert' on the topic than the speaker ? Are you claiming to be knowing more about the audience or the purpose of the talk than the speaker ? Do you expect a short UA-cam video to present ALL sides of a tricky issue, specially when the target audience seem to be young kids ? Are you somehow 'scientifically offended' by the emotions expressed by the speaker ? Some interesting questions there to ponder.
Nope don't pretend to be any of those I just know a one sided appeal to emotion when I see one. If it were for kids that's even worse it's was an attempt to indoctrinate and not explain.
I don't think she is an expert on greenhouse gases (Neither am I, and I agree with her on the effects of human produced CO2 on the Earth's climate, but there are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, such as methane) She was very involved with the hand movements (too involved I think) and although she tried hard to reach the obvious younger audience with references to family and social networking, her topic simply isn't something that would reach to kids (If she had given the talk to an adult audience or even a teenage audience she could've made the very same topic 10 times more interesting, but no, she gave it to kids). What I did like was her passion for forestry and the environment, and I'm sure that she put a lot of effort into her research, but this talk was so uninteresting it literally would have caused the crickets to cease chirping and the room go silent.
37 seconds in: no ma'am, forests are survival of the fittest. that you happen to see beauty is just you. not that i dont appreciate it as well, but dont make it more than it is.
This is the worst least scientific TED video in a long time. Its okay that this is important and cool stuff, but I enjoy more the other videos that are more accurate.
Wouldn't say the worst, but I kind of agree. I believe she tried to make this less complicated and more fun by removing the science bit and comparing the idea with something the audience can relate to (Social networks).
Okay, maybe I should have avoided absolutes, but she is still removing the wrong things from her talk. :/ There are lots of other talks that simplify without distorting.
Those kids look bored as hell. Anyone else noticed this? Just look at their faces. I don't think it's the particular speech because I've noticed this already in many TED talks with school kid audiences. I'm not sure. There seems to be something wrong with this. The strategies of education in general? Maybe. Certainly very different to your ''classic'' TED talk, where what you have is (I'm assuming correctly, I think) a mayority of people personally interested in the subject matter, being scientists and what not. Not so, not at all with these kids. Will they take something out of it? Sure, it's possible. But is this the only way education can work? Even the comfortable seats don't seem to help, they are helping them fall asleep. They are certainly not engaged. Maybe one or two of them, sure, but not in general. With kids it should be interactive, that would help them engage, well it would probably help any age engage. Ok, I could go on and on I guess, so I won't. Obviously you need to do some actual research on this matters, otherwise you are left just with hypothesis, naturally. But again, they sure don't look like they want to be there. To any educators reading/watching this: come on people, we can do better than this. TED talks used to be fascinating (to the audience, I mean, and not just the presenter). Let's not settle for boredom. Otherwise you might just as well let them go out and play. They would be better off.
I noticed :) Suzanne has another more recent talk on the Ted site. The audience are engaged and it's a great talk. (as is this one) www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other#t-469966
I see nothing here. I appreciate and understand the main message - protect forests. I agree, but I don't see any science here and absolutely no research just hippie mumbo jumbo . I certainly don't appreciate a Ph. D. using the the phrase "magical symbiosis".
Hi there just wanna make some points about the "science" here and since I'm just a student it's just gonna be some general concepts. Let me know if this is the kind of science ur looking for or it's too basic. That magical stuff, such as the most commonly known mycorrhizal fungi, can provide trees with nutrients, defend pathogenic fungi for the trees, help with communications among trees, etc., which are beneficial to production value(less loss=more yield of wood=more efficient, zero side effects, and highly efficient if well researched compared to fungicide or the other chemical approaches), aesthetic and conservational values(overall more healthy forests). So I think it's pretty cool! Let me know how u think about it if u want, ignore me if u found my comment annoying lol, but hopefully not
Travis E Cross Clearly your mind has become blinded by the materialistic world before you . You must pull yourself out of this illusion and understand the true world you live in , world of nature and life . Protect your home and learn to love your home. That's all she was saying.
I believe that a male can be a mother too. Motherhood is the feeling. Not the gender... A guy can be a good mother... And I know, a lot of girls out there have felt that in their husbands and lovers... :)
thanks Dr Simard and i like this, except, the biggest greenhouse gas is not CO2. H2O is the major greenhouse gas which contributes to the warming on Earth. H2O is not mentioned as the major greenhouse gas because it is not poisonous to breathe, as is CO2. Increased CO2 results in more H2O gas= warming. My target is to plant 20000 trees. If many people aimed to plant 50 trees/ yr, for 20 years, we could capture a lot of CO2. Ocean acidification is an EMERGENCY, caused by CO2 absorbed in the sea water= Carbonic acid.
+GEZZA1 technically, but I always think of steam as water in the air. Like I don't think of clouds as gas, but back to the comment, so steam (not much in nature naturally) is responsible for warming?! Water existed in the air for a long time so why starting to blame it now?!
+Think_Care water has always evaporated quickly at the tropics to create the humid 'greenhouse effect' in tropical zones. With the temperature increasing 2 or 3 degrees celcius, these tropical conditions are occurring in the mid latitudes now. Along with CO2 pollution being absorbed into the oceans, which causes acidification and changes to ocean currents. We are seeing the changes to 'el nino' and 'la nina' cycles. These are complicated cycles, but the water cycle is the most dominant force here.
Really? What about this evidence based presentation offends you? This isn't even new, and it's such a great realization for conservation and sustainability. Like hunting? Fishing? Food? This is Paramount.
Awe-inspiring talk, you can tell how much she loves her work - and nature.
Suzanne Simard you are amazing!
What amazing networks formed by overground trees and underground fungi and the symbiotic exchange between the two for the benefit of both.
In fact these networks are studied to find out the shortest and best ways, most economic ways, to serve the furthest away trees/fungi and how to do so if main nodes are down. Man does learn from nature.
The chemical transfer of communication and networking that the trees perform with other parts of its environment are pretty amazing.
That some species of fungi are parasitic and not mutualistic does not undermine the abundance of species of fungi and plant-life which *are* engaged in a complex mutualism, much of which we depend upon for our global environment to be livable at all. Even the parasitic species inhabit their own ecological niche, and were they to disappear, despite their visible damage to certain species w/in that same local environment, could induce a trophic cascade that threatens the sustainability of the whole of the local ecosystem itself. She certainly left out much of the background science, which would have been helpful communicating her point (though there *were* time constraints), as well as oversimplifying some conceptual errors with equating the Earth's fungal network to our brain activity, but there really is excessive deforestation occurring, and it really *is* amazing that the beauty and complexity of these forest systems, which it took the Earth billions of years to form and upon which we very much depend, is being deincentivized and destroyed in an instant so readily by industry-first ideologies. Her emotional charge here, despite being a scientist, is not misplaced.
Great work, Suzanne!❤
I found out my online school still uses this video from my little sister. This brings back memories.
Doing our best here in North west Tasmania. See La Poinya forest defence.
chillin in her class watching her ted talk
She's got a lot of passion and enthusiasm to educate people on this.
Interesting topic. Her audience seem to include children so that explains much of her presentation but i would have wanted just a little bit more explanation of the science rather than social networks.
I love forests!
Save our world with your wisdom. thank so much
The forests really can defend themselves but in other time-dimensions from the people ones. And in the other sense-dimensions from the people ones.
The forest can definitely only do so much to protect itself. Definitely not able to protect themselves when humans come in and cut down trees.
Hemp can replace lumber in every arena. Grow hemp and allow the forests to recover.
This video was great .
Anyone reminded of the trees in Avatar?
YES
She is a lovely person and teacher.
Thanks to Suzanne Simard. Thanks to Ted-Ed for the posts.
Thank you ! thank you ! thank you thank you !
I really enjoyed that.
nice concept "wired for healing" ;)
passionate.
Suzanne: thank you
U go girl
We´re wired for healing, hubs wiring, wired as you do. Thank you.
Fascinating Stuff~~|!!
MARAVILHOSO...
Great speech! The only thing I disagree is the naiff way she thinks we can protect forests.
This was a talk for kids. She is far from naive. Do you know anything about her work?
Reduce the rate of consumption to reduce the rate of deforestation!
Does that mean we only need to water one tree
🌳🌧️🙏
patricia from the overstory
We need to build molten salt nuclear rectors en masse pronto.
I just heard this on NPR, and I googled her because the segment sounded extremely unscientific, and I cannot find any information on her formal education, undergrad degree major or graduate degree. Has anyone found otherwise?
Pretty sure this is a lecture for kids
Unless we stop using paper, recycle all cardboard waste etc. There's not really a solution. We are the ones causing deforestation, eventhough we're not physically cutting down the trees.
The number of consumption must go down dramatically for them to reduce the rate of deforestation. Just think about the packaging you buy and furniture, flooring, decking etc. Rather plant trees then put dead ones all over your house.
This subject is tragic and the fact we think we need these wooden items is the problem. They are our life, the air we breathe and the beauty of the world. She was annoying really.
Yes ... as is the product of intelligent design she studies.
But to remain in the club and be credible, deference must be given to the dogma of faith in blind evolution.
Too much huggy kissy and not enough science! This talk comes across more as a political statement than an educational piece. Explain how you determined that they were a "tree family" and how you determined what the fungi and tree's worked together in a symbiotic relationship. It wouldn't hurt to add credibility by explaining the non-symbiotic fungi relationships like root rot that actually kills trees. Lots of feel good fluff and very little substance.
I agree. Just an over zealous tree hugger. Spouting information without scientific backup. Site some sources for your information lady. She also need to read the latest iformation about CO2 and global warming indicating that global warming has stopped even though CO2 continues to rize. She also needs to study current logging techniques. What she showed was not clear cutting, if it was the entire mountain side would be cleared.
Well, I don't know where were people searching for 'scientific literature' on the topic, but a mere 15 seconds on google found me a term 'Mycorrhizal networks'. Even the wikipedia article should give you a headstart. :)
Now, TED should be for the 'pure ideas'. The degree of 'science' you or I might be comfortable with might very and the same can be said about the language the speaker uses to deliver the message, as long as the message it positive. Many people seem to have their 'Dawkinsian shields' high up even at times where a person is appealing them for saving the old growth forests.
This was clearly a one sided lolly pop version of reality, I would like to hear how she expects wood harvest to be done to minimize impact. I get the feeling she thinks all trees should be spared and honestly that's not a realistic expectation. There was actually a TED presentation that stated that cutting trees for construction purposes actually helped remove CO2 from the environment. So if she is going to make wild accusations about how harmful the timber industry is the for crying out load offer a solution and some science to support it.
Are you claiming to be more of an 'expert' on the topic than the speaker ? Are you claiming to be knowing more about the audience or the purpose of the talk than the speaker ? Do you expect a short UA-cam video to present ALL sides of a tricky issue, specially when the target audience seem to be young kids ? Are you somehow 'scientifically offended' by the emotions expressed by the speaker ? Some interesting questions there to ponder.
Nope don't pretend to be any of those I just know a one sided appeal to emotion when I see one. If it were for kids that's even worse it's was an attempt to indoctrinate and not explain.
I don't think she is an expert on greenhouse gases (Neither am I, and I agree with her on the effects of human produced CO2 on the Earth's climate, but there are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, such as methane) She was very involved with the hand movements (too involved I think) and although she tried hard to reach the obvious younger audience with references to family and social networking, her topic simply isn't something that would reach to kids (If she had given the talk to an adult audience or even a teenage audience she could've made the very same topic 10 times more interesting, but no, she gave it to kids). What I did like was her passion for forestry and the environment, and I'm sure that she put a lot of effort into her research, but this talk was so uninteresting it literally would have caused the crickets to cease chirping and the room go silent.
Avatar is real
I'm a mother tree
37 seconds in: no ma'am, forests are survival of the fittest. that you happen to see beauty is just you. not that i dont appreciate it as well, but dont make it more than it is.
I hate men like you.
This is the worst least scientific TED video in a long time. Its okay that this is important and cool stuff, but I enjoy more the other videos that are more accurate.
Wouldn't say the worst, but I kind of agree.
I believe she tried to make this less complicated and more fun by removing the science bit and comparing the idea with something the audience can relate to (Social networks).
Okay, maybe I should have avoided absolutes, but she is still removing the wrong things from her talk. :/ There are lots of other talks that simplify without distorting.
+Ziggurat She was trying to get the kids interested. It was too scientific for them.
FUNGI
Those kids look bored as hell. Anyone else noticed this? Just look at their faces. I don't think it's the particular speech because I've noticed this already in many TED talks with school kid audiences. I'm not sure. There seems to be something wrong with this. The strategies of education in general? Maybe. Certainly very different to your ''classic'' TED talk, where what you have is (I'm assuming correctly, I think) a mayority of people personally interested in the subject matter, being scientists and what not. Not so, not at all with these kids. Will they take something out of it? Sure, it's possible. But is this the only way education can work? Even the comfortable seats don't seem to help, they are helping them fall asleep. They are certainly not engaged. Maybe one or two of them, sure, but not in general. With kids it should be interactive, that would help them engage, well it would probably help any age engage. Ok, I could go on and on I guess, so I won't. Obviously you need to do some actual research on this matters, otherwise you are left just with hypothesis, naturally. But again, they sure don't look like they want to be there. To any educators reading/watching this: come on people, we can do better than this. TED talks used to be fascinating (to the audience, I mean, and not just the presenter). Let's not settle for boredom. Otherwise you might just as well let them go out and play. They would be better off.
+Luis Pellegrini Too much info for them. Kids that age need to do stuff but I liked it.
I noticed :) Suzanne has another more recent talk on the Ted site. The audience are engaged and it's a great talk. (as is this one)
www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other#t-469966
I see nothing here. I appreciate and understand the main message - protect forests. I agree, but I don't see any science here and absolutely no research just hippie mumbo jumbo . I certainly don't appreciate a Ph. D. using the the phrase "magical symbiosis".
Hi there just wanna make some points about the "science" here and since I'm just a student it's just gonna be some general concepts. Let me know if this is the kind of science ur looking for or it's too basic. That magical stuff, such as the most commonly known mycorrhizal fungi, can provide trees with nutrients, defend pathogenic fungi for the trees, help with communications among trees, etc., which are beneficial to production value(less loss=more yield of wood=more efficient, zero side effects, and highly efficient if well researched compared to fungicide or the other chemical approaches), aesthetic and conservational values(overall more healthy forests). So I think it's pretty cool! Let me know how u think about it if u want, ignore me if u found my comment annoying lol, but hopefully not
I guess stan found your comment annoying ;-)
I appreciate your thoughtful response Chen.
Travis E Cross Clearly your mind has become blinded by the materialistic world before you . You must pull yourself out of this illusion and understand the true world you live in , world of nature and life . Protect your home and learn to love your home. That's all she was saying.
Mother Trees? No "male"trees in this speech.
I believe that a male can be a mother too. Motherhood is the feeling. Not the gender... A guy can be a good mother... And I know, a lot of girls out there have felt that in their husbands and lovers... :)
Sadly these kids looked bored as hell. Perhaps TED-Ed should find a more entertaining way to reach the kids.
thanks Dr Simard and i like this, except, the biggest greenhouse gas is not CO2.
H2O is the major greenhouse gas which contributes to the warming on Earth.
H2O is not mentioned as the major greenhouse gas because it is not poisonous to breathe, as is CO2.
Increased CO2 results in more H2O gas= warming.
My target is to plant 20000 trees. If many people aimed to plant 50 trees/ yr, for 20 years, we could capture a lot of CO2.
Ocean acidification is an EMERGENCY, caused by CO2 absorbed in the sea water= Carbonic acid.
+GEZZA1 I think H2O is water not a gas.
+Think_Care water exists as a solid - ice; a liquid; and as a gas - steam/ clouds- greenjouse gas.
+GEZZA1 (greenhouse not greenjouse!)
+GEZZA1 technically, but I always think of steam as water in the air. Like I don't think of clouds as gas, but back to the comment, so steam (not much in nature naturally) is responsible for warming?! Water existed in the air for a long time so why starting to blame it now?!
+Think_Care water has always evaporated quickly at the tropics to create the humid 'greenhouse effect' in tropical zones. With the temperature increasing 2 or 3 degrees celcius, these tropical conditions are occurring in the mid latitudes now. Along with CO2 pollution being absorbed into the oceans, which causes acidification and changes to ocean currents. We are seeing the changes to 'el nino' and 'la nina' cycles. These are complicated cycles, but the water cycle is the most dominant force here.
Pandora bullshit.
Really? What about this evidence based presentation offends you? This isn't even new, and it's such a great realization for conservation and sustainability. Like hunting? Fishing? Food? This is Paramount.
Damn... she's pretty built...muscularly.