1 . The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.

It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.

Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.

The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.

In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.

Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.

My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.

2 . HANDSTITCHED WORLDS: THE CARTOGRAPHY OF QUILTS

Quilts (床罩) are a narrative art; with themes that are political, spiritual, communal, or commemorative, they are infused with history and memory, mapping out intimate stories and legacies through a handcrafted language of design. Handstitched Worlds: The Cartography of Quilts is an invitation to read quilts as maps, tracing the paths of individual histories that illuminate larger historic events and cultural trends.

Spanning the nineteenth to twenty-first centuries, this insightful and engaging exhibition brings together 18 quilts from the collection of the American Folk Art Museum, New York, representing a range of materials, motifs, and techniques from traditional early-American quilts to more contemporary sculptural assemblages. The quilts in Handstitched Worlds show us how this too-often overlooked medium balances creativity with tradition, individuality with collective zeitgeist. Like a road map, these unique works offer a path to a deeper understanding of the American cultural fabric.

Number of Works:18 quilts

Organized by: American Folk Art Museum, New York

Approximate size:175-200 linear feet

Security: Moderate security

Participation Fee: Please inquire

Shipping: IA&A makes all arrangements; exhibitors pay outgoing shipping costs within the contiguous U.S.

Booking Period:12 weeks

Tour: June 2021—August2024

Contact: TravelingExhibitions@ArtsandArtists.org

Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum, Wausau, WI

June 12, 2021—August 29, 2021

Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma, WA

September 17, 2021—January 23, 2022

Utah Museum of Fine Arts, Salt Lake City, UT

February 19, 2022—May 14, 2022

Fort Wayne Muesum of Art, Fort Wayne, IN

June 18, 2022—September 11, 2022

AVAILABLE

October 2022—January 2023

Dane G. Hansen Memorial Museum, Logan, KS

February 17,2023—May 14, 2023

AVAILABLE

June 2023—December 2023

Lauren Rogers Museum of Art, Laurel, MS

January 30, 2024—April 21, 2024

AVAILABLE

May 2024—August 2024

All tour dates can be customized to meet your scheduling needs. Please contact Traveling Exhibitions @ Artsand Artists.org for more information.

3 . I was at the Gathering for Science in Boston, on 22 April 2017, as were 70.000 other scientists. We were there to stand up for facts and truth.

Where are the crowds of scientists now? Since then, harms from science denial have only increased: global suffering has grown owing to inaction on climate change, and some epidemics have risen along with vaccine skepticism.

I've been out there talking to the science deniers, and I've asked my scientist friends to come with me. “Those people just aren't worth talking to.” they'll say. “I wouldn't make a difference anyway.” What's wrong. Those people can and do change their minds, although it requires someone to put in the time to overcome distrust.

To be sure, many experts have launched themselves against misinformation, enduring abuse on social media and even threats to their safety. But when scientists turn down my invitations, it's not because of fear. Most often, their excuses are grounded in the “backfire effect”, a questionable 2010 finding that people sometimes embrace misconceptions more strongly when fared with corrective information, implying that pushing back against falsehoods is counter-productive. Even the researchers whose results were exaggerated to popularize this idea do not embrace it anymore, and argue that the true challenge is learning how best to target corrective information.

In fact, evidence is growing that rebuttals can he effective. Science deniers all draw on the same flawed reasoning techniques: cherry-picking evidence, relying on fake experts, and engaging in illogical reasoning. A landmark 2019 study showed that critiquing the flawed techniques can contain the spread of misinformation.

So how does “technique rebuttal” work in practice?

Arnaud Gagneur and his colleagues at the University of Sherbrooke conducted more than 1.000 20-minute interviews in which they listened to new parents' concerns about vaccinations and answered their questions. Those parents' children were 9% more likely to receive all the vaccines on the schedule than were those of uninterviewed parents whose babies were delivered in the same maternity ward. One mother told him: “It's the first time that I've had a discussion like this, and I feel respected, and I trust you.” It is self-evident in science communication that you cannot convince a science denier with facts alone; most science deniers don't have a lack of information, but a lack of trust.

So what should scientists do? Even non-experts can use technique rebuttal. A geologist can engage a neighbor who is vaccine hesitant. A protein biologist can coach an aunt or uncle who wants “more evidence” that climate change is real. Instead of shilling to more comfortable conversations, engage in respectful exchange. If you spend more time asking questions than offering explanations, people will be more likely to pay attention to the explanations that you do offer.