Lower Decks is the best Star Trek of any kind since Deep Space Nine finished. It's not even a fair contest. The Lower Decks writers understand Trek. Yes, it's a comedy. But it's not "star trek COMEDY", it's "STAR TREK comedy" if you take my meaning. The heart and soul, the drive to explore, to help, to learn.

William Boimler's rant in the second-to-last episode about multiverses being essentially rehashes of stale ideas had me in tears of laughter, as did his apathetic behaviour about the problem. I'm with you, man.

I am so fucking happy that William Boimler didn't turn out to be some Section 31 prick doing nefarious shit. He was a good man. I have a suspicion that he was given that job by his bosses because he wouldn't do the unethical stuff. So they had him doing something "boring" and career-killing that no-one else wanted to do.

Harry Kim's lack of promotions being elevated from a fandom joke to a serious in-universe issue was something I never expected, but absolutely love.

Hearing one Kim ask another what his crew did with their Tuvix made me choke on a drink.

I'm happy that Tendi got better as season 5 went on, because she was insufferable at the start of the season in her overprotective mode.

Seeing the Klingon ship shift into a sailing ship was one of the most low-key horrifying moments in all of Trek. It's all fun and games until you see another ship's crew die horribly because they don't have the shielding that you have but is just barely working so you're an instant from potential death at all times.

Nerdy engineer Mariner is absolutely adorable. Tawny Newsome is an incredible voice actor, she pulled off that subtle difference flawlessly.

Bashir and Garak... fuck yes. That the production team could get the original actors to reprise their roles was the icing on the cake. This is Robinson and Siddig metaphorically giving big middle fingers to bigots.

Rutherford's decision to have his implants removed was very sweet and very interesting.

Ransom being promoted to captain surprised me a little. But he really is a good and intelligent leader. He's got depth.

The design of the USS Beagle is very reminiscent of the first starship USS Enterprise. Not Captain Kirk's ship, not even Captain Archer's ship, but the very first one in Trek's timeline. The moment I saw the mystery reality-hopping ship I knew that it was going to be a peaceful Earth ship and it was all an accident and misunderstanding.

Seeing the Cerritos shift from class to class was fun, but seeing a Galaxy-class USS Cerritos boldly charging into a dangerous anomaly actually made me teary-eyed, because the TNG series finale was all about a Galaxy-class starship boldly charging into a dangerous anomaly. It was so beautiful. I grew up on original-run TNG. I was just enough enough to follow longer stories when TNG started. That series is just hardwired in my brain.

I loved the little touch of one of the shifts being Miranda-class. Mirandas were the Californias of their era. Not the most prestigious assignment, not the most modern equipment, but workhorses of the fleet.

“When we look at forest gardens, they’re actually enhancing what nature does, making it much more resilient, much more biodiverse—and, oh yeah, they feed people too,” says Armstrong.

The paper may be the first to quantify how Indigenous land stewardship can enhance what ecologists call functional diversity—a measure of how many goods an ecosystem provides. It joins a growing scientific literature revealing that Indigenous people—both historically and today—often outperform government agencies and conservation organizations at supporting biodiversity, sequestering carbon, and generating other ecological benefits on their land. Leaving nature alone is not always the right course, scientists are finding—and the original land stewards often do it best.

This is, of course, a claim that Indigenous groups have long made. Western scientists, by contrast, have often written Native people out of forests and other ecosystems they helped create. An increasing number of scientists are now questioning this practice—and in the process, forcing ecology and conservation to undergo what some would say is a long-overdue reckoning.

“Western science for too long has embraced the idea of primordial wilderness,” says Jesse Miller, an ecologist at Stanford and Armstrong’s coauthor. “We’re seeing this paradigm shift to recognizing how much of what was thought of as primordial wilderness were actually landscapes shaped by humans.”

[This paper looked at gardens made by natives more than 100 years ago in the Pacific Northwest, and compared their current output with the surrounding untended land]

Compared to forest plots, gardens had roughly 1.3 times as many total plant species and 1.5 times as many plants with seeds spread by animals. Species in the gardens produced seeds that were on average twice as large as those in forest plots, making the gardens far better at feeding animals—a measure of functional diversity. Hazelnuts, fruit-bearing shrubs such as cranberry and elderberry, and edible understory plants like wild ginger and northern rice root were all more common in gardens than in surrounding forests, which were dominated by conifers that produce fewer foods for humans or animals.

“Functional diversity is kind of a hot topic in ecology,” says Miller. Many ecologists see it as a better measure of an ecosystem’s health and resilience than the simple species counts that go into conventional biodiversity metrics. That resilience may be why the forest gardens have survived so long without maintenance, Miller and Armstrong suspect.

Armstrong says publication of the study is only a first step toward helping First Nations revitalize their plant-based cultures. “The goal is to apply what we learn to bringing these gardens back” by helping Indigenous communities use them again, she says.

To that end, Charlie is working to create trails to the gardens and to get village members—especially young ones—to use and maintain them again. He says that studies like Armstrong’s can help with that.

The disconnect between Indigenous knowledge and Western science has deep roots. By the time ecology became organized as a scientific discipline, in the early 1900s, European colonizers had displaced Indigenous groups throughout much of the world. So the landscapes that scientists interpreted as “natural” or “pristine” often, in fact, once had human residents who carefully managed them.

Erasing Indigenous land stewardship also fed into a “fortress conservation” model under which removing people from an area was seen as essential to conserving it. A prominent example is Yosemite National Park, whose development included the eviction of Native people.

“In the conservation movement, we’re so used to thinking about ‘anthropogenic’ as a synonym for bad,” Miller says. “We often ignore Native American land management.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, as Indigenous groups in the United States and elsewhere gradually gained self-determination, many of them asserted that they had rights to manage the land they had once owned according to traditional practices.

That often collided with both government policies and the scientific establishment. For example, supposedly science-backed fire suppression policies made it nearly impossible for Indigenous communities to burn land for ecological and cultural benefits. When ecologist and Potawatomi Nation member Robin Wall Kimmerer arrived at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in the 1970s to study botany, as she recounts in her 2013 book Braiding Sweetgrass, she encountered an academic establishment ill prepared to consider traditional ecological knowledge or beneficial interactions between humans and other species.

“Ecologists wanted to study ‘natural’ systems, which they defined as absent of people, so they would try to seek out places where people weren’t,” says Don Waller, a retired ecology professor at the University of Madison-Wisconsin, who was also starting his career at that time.

But discoveries revealing that the supposedly pristine Amazon rainforest had actually been profoundly shaped by people for thousands of years began to change researchers’ minds. More recently, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization surveyed more than 300 previous studies and found that areas in Latin America occupied by Indigenous people had lower deforestation rates and higher carbon stores than other places, including government-protected areas. A 2019 study found that Indigenous lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada had comparable vertebrate biodiversity to government-protected areas.

And just this week, researchers reported that Indigenous people inhabited and shaped three-quarters of Earth’s land for thousands of years, but that biodiversity loss accelerated only with global colonization.

In the 1980s, Waller became aware of an exceptional forest belonging to the Menominee Nation of northeastern Wisconsin—a mostly rectangular, 365-square-mile forest so dense and green that it pops out from the surrounding landscape in satellite images. Since the 1800s, the tribe has harvested wood only as fast as their forest can regrow; in 1992, it became the first in the U.S. certified as sustainable.

With permission, Waller began collecting ecological data from the reservation and other forests around the state. In a 2018 study, he and a coauthor reported that Wisconsin forests owned and stewarded by the Menominee and Ojibwe perform as well or better than any others in Wisconsin, including Forest Service- and Park Service-owned forests, on five different metrics of forest volume and health. Those include number of tree seedlings, understory plant diversity, and deer populations closer to historical baselines.

A new generation of ecologists and anthropologists is increasingly asking similar questions not just about how humans might harm ecosystems, but also about how people can enhance them. A few years ago, Marks-Block collaborated with Indigenous forest scientist Frank Lake of the U.S. Forest Service to study the impact of fire by the Yurok and Karuk tribes of northern California on hazelnut, an important species for both food and basketry.

In February, the team reported that compared to not burning, traditional fire practices produced 13 times more hazelnut stems that basket makers could use and decreased the distance they needed to travel to gather stems by nearly a factor of four.

Beyond hazelnut, Native people of the area used fire to manage a sophisticated rotation of oak trees, burning at the right time to kill insects that might otherwise cause acorns to spoil and become inedible, says Bill Tripp, director of natural resources for the Karuk tribe. Since fire was suppressed in the late 1800s, most oak savannas have been taken over by conifers like Douglas fir, making the overall landscape both less diverse and less edible.

Outcomes of scientific studies such as Marks-Block’s often affirm what Native people already know from tradition and experience, but that doesn’t mean the studies aren’t useful, Tripp says.

“We knew what the outcome was going to be,” he says. “But nobody listens if it isn’t written down like that.”

Being able to cite scientific literature may be especially important as Indigenous groups push for more rights, especially on territories they still claim but no longer own. For example, Karuks want more burning rights on Forest Service land, while neighboring Yuroks are pushing to co-manage and conduct controlled burns in Redwood National Park. With Deb Haaland recently confirmed as the first Native Interior Secretary, many tribal leaders are cautiously optimistic that the time for such change has arrived.

I've maxed out the character limit but the article continues a bit more lol