135-Year-Old Tortoise Celebrates First Father's Day
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Goliath, a 517-pound Galapagos tortoise and the oldest animal at Zoo Miami, celebrated his 135th birthday and became a father for the first time, zoo officials announced in a post on Facebook.
Zoo Miami officials said they submitted an application to Guinness World Records to recognize Goliath as the world's "Oldest First-Time Father," and for Goliath and Sweet Pea as the "Oldest First-Time Parents." Their combined ages total more than 200 years.
"Not only is this the first offspring for Goliath, but it is also the first time in the history of Zoo Miami that a Galapagos tortoise has hatched, making this an historic event on multiple levels!" the post read.
Why It Matters
The Galapagos tortoise is listed as endangered, with population numbers once drastically reduced by direct exploitation and habitat disruption. Modern threats of climate change and ongoing habitat loss contribute to conservation urgency.
Found natively in Ecuador's Galapagos Islands, wild populations of the tortoise have suffered sharp declines because of human exploitation and invasive species introduction. The successful breeding of the species at Zoo Miami represents a significant win for conservation efforts in the United States.
Hatchling from one egg out of a clutch of 8 that was laid January 27th, successfully hatched on June 4th, 2025.
Hatchling from one egg out of a clutch of 8 that was laid January 27th, successfully hatched on June 4th, 2025.
Zoo Miami
What To Know
Goliath, who hatched on Santa Cruz Island in the Galapagos sometime between 1885 and 1890 according to varying official records, has resided in the U.S. since 1929 and at Zoo Miami since 1981. Although he has bred with several females, this is his first confirmed offspring in at least four decades of attempts, according to Zoo Miami.
The hatchling was born on June 4, 2025 after 128 days of incubation - the first of its species to be bred and hatched at the South Florida zoo, marking a milestone moment for conservation and the institution's history, according to the post.
The clutch, laid by Goliath's companion Sweet Pea on January 27, originally contained eight eggs but only one egg hatched successfully.
On this Father's Day, Zoo Miami's oldest animal will be celebrating his 134th birthday! His name is 'Goliath,' and he is a Galapagos tortoise that weighs 517 pounds! Up until this prior week, he had...
Sweet Pea is between 85 and 100 years old and has lived at Zoo Miami since 1960.
The parents live in a public habitat, while the energetic hatchling is monitored in a protected enclosure, the Zoo explained.
The oldest living tortoise known is Jonathan, a Seychelles giant tortoise living on St. Helena and estimated to be 191 years old, as noted by the Guinness Book of World Records.
What People Are Saying
Zoo Miami said in a post on Facebook: "Goliath is my hero, and I am sure he will soon be an inspiration to many others! He is living proof that where there is a will, there is a way and to never give up!"
What Happens Next
The hatchling will remain under care in a specially monitored enclosure at Zoo Miami. Meanwhile, the application for Goliath's potential world record is under review by Guinness World Records.
Zoo officials will continue their breeding and conservation programs with a focus on sustaining endangered reptilian species.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States With Highest Levels of Tiny, Toxic Air Pollution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California and Oregon are among the U.S. hotspots for dangerous submicron (PM1) air pollution—those with particles less than a micron, or a millionth of a meter wide—according to new research. Researchers at Washington University of St. Louis have been quantifying the amount of submicron particles in the air across the country over the last 25 years. The data, which calculated submicron estimates based on known rations of what makes up PM 2.5 particles (those less than 2.5 microns wide), suggest that many areas in the east of the contiguous U.S. contain hotspots. Because PM1 pollution is much smaller than PM2.5 (and at least six times smaller than human blood cells), it has the potential to lead to even worse health effects, as it is small enough to slip past the body's defenses. Parts of Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas all appear to have higher concentrations of submicron particulate matter, shown by darker red areas on the researchers' map, as below. A map of the U.S. showing the concentration of submicron particulate matter, with higher concentrations shown by darker red areas. A map of the U.S. showing the concentration of submicron particulate matter, with higher concentrations shown by darker red areas. Atmospheric Composition Analysis Group Conversely, parts of Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming appear to have far fewer dark patches on the map, suggesting much lower levels of submicron particulate matter. Parts of Arizona and New Mexico showed high concentration levels in some areas, and much lower levels among other regions of their respective state. Higher concentrations of PM1 were found in major urban and industrial areas and areas affected by wildfires, highlighting the role of combustion sources in producing harmful particles. This contrasts with lower concentrations being prevalent across the arid west. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that 99 percent of the global population breathes in air containing high levels of pollutants and exceeds the WHO guidelines. The combined effects of ambient air pollution with household air pollution are associated with 7 million premature deaths every year. Both outdoor and indoor air pollution can cause respiratory diseases, as the small particles are able to get deep into the lungs or potentially even into the bloodstream. Exposure to particle pollution can cause heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and difficulty breathing, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Chi Li, assistant research professor and first author of the study, the small particles identified tend to come from direct air emissions, such as black carbon particles from diesel engines, or the smoke from wildfires. PM1 can also form through secondary processes however, when sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides are spit out through fuel combustion and burning coal, Li noted. The significance of pollution regulation should not be overlooked, as the dataset reveals that PM1 levels dropped sharply from 1998 to 2022, as a result of regulations such as the Clean Air Act of 1970. Newsweek has contacted Li via email for comment. Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about air pollution? Let us know via science@ Reference Li, C., Martin, R. V., Donkelaar, A. van, Jimenez, J. L., Zhang, Q., Turner, J. R., Liu, X., Rowe, M., Meng, J., Yu, W., & Thurston, G. D. (2025). Estimates of submicron particulate matter (PM1) concentrations for 1998–2022 across the contiguous USA: Leveraging measurements of PM1 with nationwide PM2·5 component data. The Lancet Planetary Health, 9(6).
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Psychopaths and Other Dark Personalities Thrive in These Places
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. People living in societies with more corruption, inequality, poverty and violence are more likely to exhibit "dark" personality traits—like narcissism, psychopathy and spitefulness. This is the conclusion of a new study led by psychologist professor Ingo Zettler of the University of Copenhagen, which analyzed data on nearly 2 million people across 183 countries and all 50 U.S. states. "It is relatively well known that both genetic and socio-ecological factors shape individuals' personality. However, respective research has hardly considered ethically or socially aversive personality characteristics," Zettler told Newsweek. Given that we now have data from about 2 million people across the world who filled out our measure on the core underlying all aversive traits via our website, we thought it would be interesting to see whether adverse societal conditions contribute to the proliferation of selfish, egoistic, and other traits," Professor Ingo Zettler told Newsweek. A file photo of a young man looking directly at the camera. A study has found that people with "dark traits" are more likely to live in societies with more corruption, inequality, poverty and violence. A file photo of a young man looking directly at the camera. A study has found that people with "dark traits" are more likely to live in societies with more corruption, inequality, poverty and violence. istockphotoluis/Getty Images Previous studies have shown that the so-called "dark triad" of personalities can show on people's faces and can even make people appear more attractive. The new analysis, however, ties these personality types to specific social settings. In their study, to quantify societal adversity, the team used World Bank data on corruption (control of corruption), inequality (Gini index), poverty (headcount ratio at $6.85/day), and violence (homicides per 100,000 people). For U.S. states, the researchers used Census Bureau data on inequality and poverty, FBI homicide rates, and Justice Department corruption convictions. These metrics allowed consistent comparisons across global and state-level contexts to assess long-term societal conditions. Combining this data with the personality questionnaire results of more than 2 million participants, a clear relation appeared. "The more adverse conditions in a society, the higher the level of the dark factor of personality among its citizens. This applies both globally and within the United States," Zettler said. Analysis of the data found that countries like Indonesia and Mexico or U.S. states such as Louisiana and Nevada—which had higher levels of corruption, inequality, poverty, and violence—also have higher "Dark Factor" levels. "The more adverse conditions in a society, the higher the level of the dark factor of personality among its citizens." Ingo Zettler Meanwhile, people in countries with lower levels of societal corruption and inequality, like Denmark and New Zealand, or states such as Utah and Vermont, tended to have have fewer "Dark Factor" personality traits. Although the observed link between environment and personality was moderate, the authors emphasize its real-world consequences. "Aversive personality traits are associated with behaviors such as aggression, cheating, and exploitation—and thus with high social costs. Therefore, even small variations can lead to large differences in how societies function," Zettler explained. Zettler believes that the findings of this study could help shape views on societal reforms and the importance of building better societies. "Our findings substantiate that personality is not just something we are born with, but also shaped by the society we grew up and live in," he said. This means that reforms that reduce corruption and inequality not only create better living conditions just now, they may also contribute to mitigating aversive personality levels among the citizens in the future." Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about psychology? Let us know via science@ Reference Zettler, I., Lilleholt, L., Bader, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Moshagen, M. (2025). Aversive societal conditions explain differences in "dark" personality across countries and US states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(20), e2500830122.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How long would it take for humans to go extinct if we stopped having babies?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone? – Jeffrey Very few people live beyond a century. So, if no one had babies anymore, there would probably be no humans left on Earth within 100 years. But first, the population would shrink as older folks died and no one was being born. Even if all births were to suddenly cease, this decline would start slowly. Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed. As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. Eventually, civilization would crumble. It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. To be sure, an abrupt halt in births is highly unlikely unless there's a global catastrophe. Here's one potential scenario, which writer Kurt Vonnegut explored in his novel "Galapagos": A highly contagious disease could render all people of reproductive age infertile — meaning that no one would be capable of having babies anymore. Another possibility might be a nuclear war that no one survives — a topic that's been explored in many scary movies and books. Related: Could climate change make humans go extinct? A lot of these works are science fiction involving a lot of space travel. Others seek to predict a less fanciful Earth-bound future where people can no longer reproduce easily, causing collective despair and the loss of personal freedom for those who are capable of having babies. Two of my favorite books along these lines are "The Handmaid's Tale," by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, and "The Children of Men," by British writer P.D. James. They are dystopian stories, meaning that they take place in an unpleasant future with a great deal of human suffering and disorder. And both have become the basis of television series and movies. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people also worried that there would be too many people on Earth, which would cause different kinds of catastrophes. Those scenarios also became the focus of dystopian books and movies. To be sure, the number of people in the world is still growing, even though the pace of that growth has slowed down. Experts who study population changes predict that the total will peak at 10 billion in the 2080s, up from 8 billion today and 4 billion in 1974. The U.S. population currently stands at 342 million. That's about 200 million more people than were here when I was born in the 1930s. This is a lot of people, but both worldwide and in the U.S. these numbers could gradually fall if more people die than are born. About 3.6 million babies were born in the U.S. in 2024, down from 4.1 million in 2004. Meanwhile, about 3.3 million people died in 2022, up from 2.4 million 20 years earlier. One thing that will be important as these patterns change is whether there's a manageable balance between young people and older people. That's because the young often are the engine of society. They tend to be the ones to implement new ideas and produce everything we use. Also, many older people need help from younger people with basic activities, like cooking and getting dressed. And a wide range of jobs are more appropriate for people under 65 rather than those who have reached the typical age for retirement. In many countries, women are having fewer children throughout their reproductive lives than used to be the case. That reduction is the most stark in several countries, including India and South Korea. The declines in birth rates occurring today are largely caused by people choosing not to have any children or as many as their parents did. That kind of population decline can be kept manageable through immigration from other countries, but cultural and political concerns often stop that from happening. At the same time, many men are becoming less able to father children due to fertility problems. If that situation gets much worse, it could contribute to a steep decline in population. Our species, Homo sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct. Consider what happened to the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens. They first appeared at least 400,000 years ago. Our modern human ancestors overlapped for a while with the Neanderthals, who gradually declined to become extinct about 40,000 years ago. Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals. RELATED STORIES —What would happen to Earth if humans went extinct? —World's population could plummet to 6 billion by the end of the century, study suggests —How many people can Earth support? If humans were to go extinct, it could open up opportunities for other animals to flourish on Earth. On the other hand, it would be sad for humans to go away because we would lose all of the great achievements people have made, including in the arts and science. In my view, we need to take certain steps to ensure that we have a long future on our own planet. These include controlling climate change and avoiding wars. Also, we need to appreciate the fact that having a wide array of animals and plants makes the planet healthy for all creatures, including our own species. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
