Philadelphia Zoo welcomes baby tortoises born to 100 year-old parents
Two critically endangered, nearly 100-year-old Galapagos tortoises at the Philadelphia Zoo have become first-time parents. The pair welcomed four hatchlings, a first in its more than 150-year history.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@ 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. 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. 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. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael A. Little, Binghamton University, State University of New York Read more: The problem with pronatalism: Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a Ponzi scheme The dip in the US birthrate isn't a crisis, but the fall in immigration may be A country can never be too rich, too beautiful or too full of people Michael A. Little does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone?
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) 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. Sudden change could follow a catastrophe 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. 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. Heading toward 10 billion people 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. Declining birth rates 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. Neanderthals went extinct 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. 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. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
Forbes
30-05-2025
- Forbes
The First Female CEO Of National Geographic-Lindblad Is Making Big Changes
Natalya Leahy, CEO of Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, traveling in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. In the cruise industry, there are corner office CEOs. And there are 'in the details' CEOs. Natalya Leahy, the new Chief Executive at National Geographic-Lindblad Expeditions, is squarely in the latter category. Whether she's running full-tilt with passengers trying to make it back to a ship on time, spontaneously ordering pistachio baklava from the best local bakery to be delivered in each cabin, or navigating zodiac boats around the Galapagos, she's not just running the business by the numbers—she's knee deep in the water with a work phone in her pocket, making sure excursions go the way she wants them to go. Since she left her role as President of the luxury cruise company Seabourne, and officially took the helm at the publicly-traded Lindblad Expeditions Holdings in January, it's become abundantly clear: She's here, she's in charge and she wants to win. 'Our guest profile is an affluent person who is highly educated, looking for truly authentic experiences of the world in places that very few will ever go. We can really serve the needs of these guests, 360, with our portfolio of [six] brands. We haven't even scratched the surface to truly understand the scalability of that,' Leahy said in a recent interview. The National Geographic Endurance in the Bourgeouis Fjord, Antarctica Her entrance makes some people, who are life-long fans of (and investors in) Lindblad since Sven Lindblad founded the company in 1979, a bit nervous. Among generations of travelers, he's earned trust as an environmental steward and pioneer of tourist expeditions. Sven's father, Lars-Eric Lindblad, brought private citizens to Antarctica for the first time in history more than five decades ago. Today, the company is a global operation, with a fleet of 23 owned and chartered medium-size ships (ranging from 28 to 148 passengers) that it operates in destinations like the South Pacific, the Galapagos islands, and the Mediterranean. But it's still best known for its navigation know-how in Antarctica, largely because it employs and retains remarkable people like the 'Ice Master' Leif Skog, VP of Marine Operations, who is one in about ten people in the world who have mastered both arctic navigation and mission-built ship design. If you're navigating the Drake passage, he's who you want at the helm. Captain Leif Skog on the bridge of the ship National Geographic Endeavour with guests It's also benefiting from a new co-branding deal with National Geographic (owned by Walt Disney Co.) that was inked before Leahy came onboard. The agreement grants Lindblad Expeditions global rights to the National Geographic brand for expedition cruises until at least 2040. Upon the announcement, Sven Lindblad said: 'We will be demonstrating the power of this new co-brand and improved name recognition, which will be vitally important as we expand our footprint in key growth markets around the world.' It's a pretty big deal, because it means Lindblad can leverage Disney's powerful sales channels and joint marketing campaigns to its advantage—which it needs. The company faces intense competition from operators like HX (formerly Hurtigruten Expeditions), andBeyond, Silversea Expeditions, Seabourne Expeditions, Aurora Expeditions, Antarctica21, and even new luxury cruise lines like Explora Journeys. Though Explora's ships are not ice-class vessels nor are they equipped with Zodiacs for landings in polar regions, demand for what they do means they can still steal market share. Because the term 'expedition' is not protected IP. 'We have competitors that carry 500 people and call it an expedition. This is bollocks,' says Lindblad's Captain Oliver Kruess, claiming that a true expedition ship hosts less than 200 passengers. Regardless, the race to dominate the fastest-growing segment in the $8 billion cruise industry is on. And while most operators cannot afford to build brand-new ships, they're getting ever-more creative with the ships they've got. Cruise analysts say companies that can balance luxury, adventure, and sustainability are likely to see the strongest growth. Guests explore waterfalls by Zodiac in Gothul Bay, South Georgia. Lindblad's expeditions are conducted in partnership with National Geographic's team of 'naturalists'—environmental scientists, historians, photographers and cultural experts—who bring their expertise onboard, joining the standing crew of captains, engineers, technicians, kitchen and cleaning staff who keep things running like a luxury hotel-at-sea. The deep scientific knowledge these people bring to programming, in the way of daily lectures and in-the-field lessons, makes the experience of sailing with Lindblad practically incomparable to what the uninitiated might think of as a 'cruise.' Sure, there are tour buses and the odd fanny pack, depending on the day's excursions. But these expeditions trade on the notion that you're going much further into remote destinations and delving deeper into the natural world than you could ever hope to reach on a sightseeing pleasure cruise. In spirit, it's much more lean-forward than laid back. And the clientele, many of whom are tenured University Professors, military veterans, ex-Navy seals, or otherwise adventurous retirees with means, mirrors that fact. 'They're all geeks! They're all nerds,' joked Maggie Godbold and Steven Bershader, a retired couple in their 70s who sailed on Lindblad's recent Endurance voyage to the Azores islands. They're avid travelers; the kind who would book a flight to witness a solar eclipse. 'I'm not interested in gambling or shopping,' said Godbold. 'That's not why I'm here. I don't consider this a cruise ship. This is an exhibition ship. We've done so many Lindblad trips, we've lost count.' (The company is known for having a high rate of repeat guests). Basically, if you want to not just understand but physically feel the impact of climate change on oceanography (the Azores sail featured 15-foot swells), taste the mineral content of a volcanic hot spring (did you know iron rich water can turn tea purple?), or learn about the chemical composition of lichens, the sound production of sperm whales, the mating habits of Emperor penguins, or the art of telephoto lens photography — you've come to the right place! Natalya Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, traveling in Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. While there have been female CEOs in the broader industry, such as Christine Duffy at Carnival Cruise Line and Lisa Lutoff-Perlo at Celebrity Cruises, Natalya Leahy's appointment marks the first time a woman has led Lindblad Expeditions. Her career arc is a tale of grit, determination and perseverance. She grew up in Soviet Uzbekistan, studied finance at University, and at 17, talked her way into her first gig working in a two-person finance department at the Meridian Hotel in Termez. She then went on to work for the procurement department for Coca Cola, served as United Nations Country Manager for Uzbekistan and eventually earned her MBA from Michigan State. She entered the cruise industry with Holland America Group, where she served as Chief Operations Officer and Chief Financial Officer for about eight years. Then the 'big break' came. As President of the luxury cruise operator Seabourne, when I first met her, she was orchestrating a nearly 40% increase in women ship officers in a classically male-dominated field. She is, after all, a mother of two daughters. Importantly, she has the backing of Sven Lindblad himself, who clearly hired her for her financial experience and publicly demonstrates his support for her in this video filmed in the Galapagos islands. What they don't mention in the video is the difficult financial picture Leahy is inheriting, while Sven still serves as Co-Chair of the Board. Per its first quarter 2025 financial statements, Lindblad has more debt than equity. So, Leahy must either lower debt or increase equity. Typically, you increase equity by generating profits and either use those profits to grow the business or pay down the debt. Shareholders often demand a combination of both, which is easier said than done. Though Lindblad's revenues have rebounded from COVID lows of $147 million in 2021 to about $670 million in 2025, given their very high cost base, they have not turned a profit in five years. As CEO, Leahy needs to get this company to a position of profitability. The good news is its day-to-day business is generating more cash than it did last year. And they have $235.2 million in cash as a liquidity buffer. There are other signs that she's headed in the right direction. As any CEO knows, success can very much depend on the team you assemble. To that end, Leahy made a key hire by tapping the young Harvard MBA grad, CFO Rick Goldberg, who will help Leahy expand their portfolio of ship and land-based expeditions internationally. For example, Leahy claims they're already working on expanding their footprint in Australia. Meanwhile, the company just announced the launch of European river expeditions, beginning April 2026. Two new eight-day itineraries involve sailing along the Rhine from ports in Amsterdam to Brussels and Cologne to Basel, all aboard the 120-guest Connect (constructed in 2025). The company has never offered river expeditions in Europe before, but chartering the latest in modern river ship design seems like a smart move. Expanding access to private charters is another lever to pull, as hard as they can. 'Our private charters program is going to be a huge strategic focus area. Because we have a very unique set of ships that are much smaller, more intimate, and perfect for private groups and corporate events. The smallest ship we just launched a month ago is a 16 passenger yacht, and she's sailing in the Galapagos. That's the perfect ship for a private family event, right?' adds Leahy. 'So we really are driving resources to grow the charter program.' The notion of 'family' cannot be glossed over here. Lindblad must attract younger guests, and become known for 'multi-generational travel' in order to thrive long term. Hence, programs like the Nat Geo Explorers-in-Training for kids, and lower pricing for shoulder and off-season sails. Which is now an industry-wide norm. But, there's something else up her sleeve that she refused to divulge, because it isn't yet a done deal. I first got an inkling of what's-to-come from the Ice Master Leif Skog in April, who—without revealing the details—says he's working on planning new destinations and itineraries for Lindblad that would require serious maritime gymnastics to pull off. Leahy confirmed this, at least in intention: 'This company's collaboration between ship experts, expedition experts and deployment experts is phenomenal… I had a dream for a while that no other company could really do. That's where Captain Leif is heavily involved, because we have the right vessels. If we are able to do it right, it will be a very different bucket list experience.' Different, meaning unprecedented. So says the girl from Uzbekistan who at 17 decided not to accept a receptionist position, and instead forged her own path in finance. In our first sit-down interview last year, she recalled her pivotal moment: 'It was my first year in University, and I desperately needed a job. I came to the [Meridian] hotel, and said: Who is your head of finance? I must have sounded so confident, the way you sound before you know what's appropriate… I knocked on his door, and he said: Do we have an appointment? I said no, but I am looking for a job in your finance department. What kind of finance experience do you have? I don't have any experience, but I started studying finance in this great, prestigious University. And he said: Go downstairs, we have a lot of openings in reception or in food and beverage. I was super scared because I really needed this job, but I told him: "I will never be your best receptionist, but I will be the best finance person you ever hired.' And she wasn't content to stop there.
