Warley Woods Community (社区) Trust

    Welcome to our third news letter of the year!

    Our main activity for March is our Walk for the Woods fundraising events on Saturday, 17th March, starting any time between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. We will be walking the distance between Warley Woods and Tipperary. It is indeed a long way — 80 miles. The more people that you can get sponsor you, the more money we can raise to helplook after our beautiful woodland. More information is available at ourwebsite.

    The Sunday volunteers planted two beeches and an oak last week. This was thanks to the money from the Big Tree Plant and to Lisa and Gordon Whitiker, whose friends gave money forthe big trees instead of for their wedding presents. Thanks to everyone who took part.

    There were 15 volunteersat the Oral History Training Day which was led very ably by Julia Letts. The group will be meeting again and will start to interview the local people whohave offered to tell their stories. We are happy to hear from others who would like to be interviewed about their memories of the Woods for the project. If you or anyone you know is interested, please call Viv Cole at the office. This project is financed by Heritage Lottery Fund.

    There was a huge response to the Forest Schools activities held at half term. These will be held again during the Easter holidays on the following dates: 4th April from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. for over 8s. On 12th April form 10 a.m. to 12 noon, there will be a Teddy Bears' Picnic for the under 8s. All these must be booked in advance.

    Finally, don't forget the Easter Egg Roll on Bank Holiday, 9th April, staring at 11 a.m. Bring your ownhard-boiled and decorated egg to roll down the hill in the woods. The firstpast the finishing line will win a large chocolate egg! This year, due to popular demand, there will also be an Adults' Easter Egg Roll following the children's competition.

    We look forward to seeing you all soon, at one of our many events.

    In 1971 a young man who grew up very poor was traveling across the country, trying to make a new start for himself. Along the way he had completely run out of（用光了...） money and was forced to spend the night in his car. This continued until one morning, after a week of sleeping in his car, he walked nervously into a restaurant and ordered a big breakfast.

    After eating his first good meal in weeks, he found himself lying to the waiter, telling him he had lost his wallet. The waiter, who was also the owner, walked behind the chair where the young man had been sitting. He bent down, and came up with a $20 bill that looked as if it had fallen on the floor and said, “Son, you must have dropped this,”the owner said. The young man couldn't believe his luck! He quickly paid for the breakfast, left a tip, bought gas with the change, and headed West.

    On the way out of town, he began to understand what the owner did. Maybe nobody dropped the money at all.“Maybe that fellow just knew I was in trouble and he helped me in a way that didn't embarrass(使尴尬)me. So I just made a promise to help other people if I can.”

    Later, he worked very hard and became a rich man. Now he lives near Kansas City. Each year he gives away thousands of dollars. He is known as the “Secret Santa” because at Christmas time each year, he personally hands money out to those on the street and at restaurants. Last year, he gave more than $50,000 away in Kansas City.

    Children start out as natural scientists, eager to look into the world around them. Helping them enjoy science can be easy; there's no need for a lot of scientific terms or expensive lab equipment. You only have to share your children's curiosity. Firstly, listen to their questions. I once visited a classroom of seven-year-olds to talk about science as a job. The children asked me “textbook questions” about schooling, salary and whether I liked my job. When I finished answering, we sat facing one another in silence. Finally I said, “Now that we're finished with your lists, do you have questions of your own about science?”

    After a long pause, a boy raised his hand, “Have you ever seen a grasshopper （蚱蜢）eat? When I try eating leaves like that, I get a stomachache. Why?”

    This began a set of questions that lasted nearly two hours.

    Secondly, give them time to think. Studies over the past 30 years have shown that, after asking a question, adults typically wait only one second or less for an answer, no time for a child to think. When adults increase their “wait time” to three seconds or more, children give more logical, complete and creative answers.

    Thirdly, watch your language. Once you have a child involved in a science discussion, don't jump in with “That's right” or “Very good”. These words work well when it comes to encouraging good behavior. But in talking about science, quick praise can signal that discussion is over. Instead, keep things going by saying “That's interesting” or “I'd never thought of it that way before”, or coming up with more questions or ideas.

    Never push a child to “Think”. It doesn't make sense, children are always thinking, without your telling them to. What's more, this can turn a conversation into a performance. The child will try to find the answer you want, in as few words as possible, so that he will be a smaller target for your disagreement.

    Lastly, show; don't tell. Real-life impressions of nature are far more impressive than any lesson children can learn from a book or a television program. Let children look at their fingertips through a magnifying glass（放大镜）, and they'll understand why you want them to wash before dinner. Rather than saying that water evaporates（蒸发）, set a pot of water to boil and let them watch the water level drop.

    We may think we're a culture that gets rid of our worn technology at the first sight of something shiny and new, but a new study shows that we keep using our old devices（装置）well after they go out of style. That's bad news for the environment – and our wallets – as these outdated devices consume much more energy than the news ones that do the same things.

    To figure out how much power these devices are using, Callie Babbitt and her colleagues at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York tracked the environmental costs for each product throughout its life – from when its minerals are mined to when we stop using the device. This method provided a readout for how home energy use has evolved since the early 1990s. Devices were grouped by generation. Desktop computers, basic mobile phones, and box-set TVs defined 1992. Digital cameras arrived on the scene in 1997. And MP3 players, smart phones, and LCD TVs entered homes in 2002, before tablets and e-readers showed up in 2007.

    As we accumulated more devices, however, we didn't throw out our old ones. "The living-room television is replaced and gets planted in the kids' room, and suddenly one day, you have a TV in every room of the house," said one researcher. The average number of electronic devices rose from four per household in 1992 to 13 in 2007. We're not just keeping these old devices – we continue to use them. According to the analysis of Babbitt's team, old desktop monitors and box TVs with cathode ray tubes are the worst devices with their energy consumption and contribution to greenhouse gas emissions（排放）more than doubling during the 1992 to 2007 window.

    So what's the solution? The team's date only went up to 2007, but the researchers also explored what would happen if consumers replaced old products with new electronics that serve more than one function, such as a tablet for word processing and TV viewing. They found that more on-demand environment viewing on tablets instead of TVs and desktop computers could cut energy consumption by 44%.

    A few weeks ago, I called an Uber to take me to the Boston airport for a flight home for the holidays. As I slid into the back seat of the car, the warm intonations(语调) of the driver's accent washed over me in a familiar way.

    I learned that he was a recent West African immigrant with a few young children, working hard to provide for his family. I could relate: I am the daughter of two Ethiopian immigrants who made their share of sacrifices to ensure my success. I told him I was on a college break and headed home to visit my parents. That's how he found out I went to Harvard. An approving eye glinted at me in the rearview window, and quickly, we crossed the boundaries of rider and driver. I became his daughter, all grown up—the product of his sacrifice.

    And then came the fateful question: "What do you study?" I answered "history and literature" and the pride in his voice faded, as I knew it might. I didn't even get to add "and African-American studies" before he cut in, his voice thick with disappointment, "All that work to get into Harvard, and you study history?"

    Here I was, his daughter, wasting the biggest opportunity of her life. He went on to deliver the age-old lecture that all immigrant kids know. We are to become doctors (or lawyers, if our parents are being generous)—to make money and send money back home. The unspoken demand, made across generations, which my Uber driver laid out plainly, is simple: Fulfill your role in the narrative(故事) of upward mobility so your children can do the same.

    I used to feel anxious and backed into a corner by the questioning, but now as a junior in college, I'm grateful for their support more than anything. This holiday season, I've promised myself I won't get annoyed at their inquiries. I won't defensively respond with "but I plan to go to law school!" when I get unrequested advice. I'll just smile and nod, and enjoy the warmth of the occasion.

A recent study by UK researchers has shed light on a phenomenon termed "plant blindness," which contributes to the widespread but mistaken belief that plants are perceived as less vibrant or alive compared to animals.

It was not established that plant blindness is an innate trait; instead, the root cause appears to be the significantly diminished interaction with the natural world in societies that have become highly urbanized. The research indicates that a decrease in prior exposure to plants leads to a cycle of inattention.

Urban cultures exhibit a well-documented incidence of plant blindness. Children are often observed to regard plants as less significant than animals, especially during their early years, and they have difficulty recognizing a diverse range of plant species. Both educators and students have reported varying levels of knowledge about plants, with primary school teachers lacking a background in science being particularly affected. In contrast, older individuals tend to possess greater plant knowledge, likely due to their increased participation in outdoor activities.

Thirty-five studies have concluded that the process of urbanization or modernization has had a negative impact on people's understanding of plants. The value of plant gathering has diminished due to an increased reliance on urban services and a cash-based economy. Additionally, the time available for outdoor activities has been curtailed by work and school commitments. These factors have also reduced family time, which in turn has adversely affected the oral transmission of plant knowledge to younger and older family members.

Stagg has suggested that rather than a cognitive impediment to the visual recognition of plants, individuals residing in highly industrialized nations suffer from a lack of attention to plants due to a reduction in relevant exposure.

To disrupt the cycle of plant inattention, Stagg emphasizes the importance of exposing people to diverse ecosystems and demonstrating the direct benefits of plants to humans, as opposed to the indirect benefits derived from their industrial use or advantages to distant, traditional communities. Engaging with edible and practical plants in local settings can be instrumental in this regard. The level of botanical knowledge among younger generations is directly linked to their perception of the usefulness of such knowledge in their lives.