Understanding the migratory orientation program of birds: extending laboratory studies to study free flying migrants in a natural setting

For many years, orientation in migratory birds has primarily been studied in the laboratory. Although a laboratory-based setting enables greater control over environmental cues, the laboratory-based findings must be confirmed in the wild in free-flying birds to be able to fully understand how birds orient during migration. Despite the difficulties associated with following free-flying birds over long distances, a number of possibilities currently exist for tracking the long distance, sometimes even globe-spanning, journeys undertaken by migrating birds. Birds fitted with radio transmitters can either be located from the ground or from aircraft (conventional tracking), or from space. Alternatively, positional information obtained by onboard equipment (e.g., GPS units) can be transmitted to receivers in space. Use of these tracking methods has provided a wealth of information on migratory behaviors that are otherwise very difficult to study. Here, we focus on the progress in understanding certain components of the migration-orientation system. Comparably exciting results can be expected in the future from tracking free-flying migrants in the wild. Use of orientation cues has been studied in migrating raptors (satellite telemetry) and thrushes (conventional telemetry), highlighting that findings in the natural setting may not always be as expected on the basis of cage-experiments. Furthermore, field tracking methods combined with experimental approaches have finally allowed for an extension of the paradigmatic displacement experiments performed by Perdeck in 1958 on the short-distance, social migrant, the starling, to long-distance migrating storks and long-distance, non-socially migrating passerines. Results from these studies provide fundamental insights into the nature of the migratory orientation system that enables experienced birds to navigate and guide inexperienced, young birds to their species-specific winter grounds.

Off-Duty Resilience: Re-orienting Tourism, Leisure and Recreation in the US Army BOSS program

Understanding how US imperial strategy is sustained by tourism and militarism requires an account of how American soldiers learn to understand themselves in relation to a variety of marginalized others. This paper explores how the US Army’s ‘Ready and Resilient’ (R2) campaign constructs soldier / other relations by mobilizing off-duty time through the ‘Better Opportunities for Single Soldiers’ (BOSS) program. BOSS’s first two platforms of ‘Well-Being’ and ‘Community Service’ feed into the R2 agenda by producing highly-skilled leaders (who govern a disengaged rank and file) and benevolent humanitarians (who provide charity for abject civilians). When these dispositions are transposed into BOSS’s third platform of ‘Recreation and Leisure’, soldiers turn away from the goals of leadership and humanitarianism to reveal the privileged narcissism underscoring the R2 agenda. This self-focus is intensified by familiar power relations in the tourism industry as soldiers pursue self-improvement by commodifying, distancing and effacing local tourist workers. Using the BOSS program as a case study, this paper critically interrogates how the US Army is assimilating off-duty practices of tourism, leisure and recreation into the wider program of resilience training.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.