Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
How to survive social distancing according to science
Social distancing won't be easy, but science shows us how to make it more manageable.
- Social distancing asks us to repress our evolutionary desire for human contact and interaction.
- Experts worry long periods of the practice will have unforeseen consequences on our mental health.
- We look at seven ways to help us mitigate social distancing's harmful effects.
In response to the COVID-19, government and public health officials have asked us to steer clear of each other. Called "social distancing," the idea is to limit the transmission of the disease by lessening the contact we have with people.
To meet this goal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended postponing or canceling all mass gatherings; more than 30 states have shuttered school doors; and many cities have closed bars and restaurants.
Experts agree social distancing will help us slow COVID-19's spread, but as reported by Science, others worry it may have unforeseen consequences.
Over an extended period, loneliness and social isolation can increase stress and depression. They can exacerbate physical health problems such as heart diseases. And like coronavirus, they target the older cohorts of our population to injurious effect.
"The coronavirus spreading around the world is calling on us to suppress our profoundly human and evolutionarily hard-wired impulses for connection: seeing our friends, getting together in groups, or touching each other," Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, told Science. "Pandemics are an especially demanding test…because we are not just trying to protect people we know, but also people we do not know or even, possibly, care about."
Social distancing will be our way of life for several weeks, maybe months. Here are seven ways to help us survive this new paradigm.
Understand social distancing
Despite the name, social distancing is really a form of social solidarity.
Most people who catch the disease will have mild to moderate symptoms—including fever, dry cough, fatigue, and sputum production—and they soon recover. Only an estimated 6 percent of people become critically ill and fewer still die. Even so, that leaves millions of people at risk of developing a debilitating case.
To protect these people, we practice social distancing to curb the disease's multiplying factor. As Lou Bloomfield, a physicist at the University of Virginia, explains:
At present, each person with COVID-19 transmits coronavirus to an average of about two to three people. With such a large multiplying factor, we have rapid exponential growth. Because it takes about five days for COVID-19 to develop, the cases are doubling every two or three days. If there are 100 cases today, there will be 200 cases in a couple of days, and a thousand cases in a little over a week. In a month, it will be almost a million cases. Not good.
Those near million cases would then swarm the public health system, severely draining resources and personnel.
To give a sense of how detrimental that could be, the United States only has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 citizens—a figure that represents every bed, not just the free ones. Other resources at risk of overuse include ventilators and respirators.
Through social distancing, we can flatten the curve. That doesn't mean that fewer people will get sick; however, the timeline of people contracting the disease elongates. In turn, the health system has more time to treat critical cases before new ones arrive.
"It is better to operate under the pretense that there is transmission in your community already," Syra Madad, a pathogens specialist, told Vox. "There's going to be disruption to daily life, but we want people to feel empowered by this. The decisions you make will ultimately affect the trajectory of this disease."
Keeping a sense of social solidarity in mind, alongside what philosopher Peter Singer calls the expanding circle of moral concern, may help us weather social distancing better than if we feel punished thanks to some abstract graph's extra spiky curve.
The 2009 swine flu pandemic lead to mass hysteria, according to a study conducted at the University of Michigan. The study found that people perceived H1N1 to be even deadlier than the Ebola outbreak in Africa. The truth was the opposite.
The results suggested that as the perception of risk increased—regardless of the change in actual risk—so did feelings of fear and anxiety. And this fear could lead to dangerous social or personal behavior.
"This is dangerous when the virus doesn't exist like with most mass hysteria cases, but it's even more dangerous when we're talking about a real virus that does exist," Jamiee Bell writes for Big Think. "The fear and paranoia around catching the virus lead to panic-purchasing and the spread of misinformation, which furthers the anxiety and fear in the general public."
Already with COVID-19, people have squirreled away doomsday preppers' supplies of toilet paper, paper towels, and hand sanitizer. Worse, snake oil salesmen have begun peddling fake cures that prey on people's fears.
To combat panic, we need to prioritize reason and realism. A good way to manage that is to filter our information ecosystems.
Prioritize expert-driven, reputable sources of information. The best sites for such information include the CDC's coronavirus page, your local health department's website, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. These should be your primary sources for information on what's happening and what steps to take.
Reputable news outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are good sources, but limit your exposure. The availability heuristic shows us that we make snap judgments based on how easily information comes to mind.
An oversaturation of news gives us the faulty sense that rare events occur with more frequency than they do. Primary news-driven examples include terrorist attacks, plane crashes, and, of course, pandemics.
Our sense of the world must be balanced by facts and statistics that, while less eye-catching than a front page headline, are in line with reality.
Retrofit your habit loop
With offices closed and schools shuttered, our daily routines are out of whack. This state can leave creatures of habit aimless, anxious, and stir crazy. Thankfully, you can hijack your pre-establish habit loop and retrofit it for social distancing.
Journalist Charles Duhigg has spent much time researching the science of habits. As he explains, the habit loop comes in three parts:
There's first a cue, which is a trigger for behavior. Then the behavior itself, which we usually refer to as a routine, or scientists refer to it as a routine. And then there's the reward. And the reward is actually why the habit happens in the first place, it's how your brain sort of decides, "Should I remember this pattern for the future or not?"
If you now work remotely, stick to your old cues of waking, showering, and putting on pants. Contrary to popular belief, most people who exclusively work at home manage those feats daily. After work, be sure to reward yourself with something that connects your new routine to a sweet dopamine hit.
As a bonus, you can now substitute your morning commute with something more relaxing. A cup of coffee and a good book, perhaps?
Or if you are homeschooling children, develop a schedule that incorporates routine and reward. Follow an hour of reading and workbook immediately with snack time or educational TV. Don't forget to reward lots of indoor work with outdoor excursions on sunny days.
Get outdoors and exercise
Yes, you can still take the little ones outdoors. Remember: the coronavirus spreads person-to-person through respiratory droplets. The high-contact surfaces that those droplets collect on—think tabletops, door handles, elevator buttons, etc.—are noticeably absent on interurban trails.
The outdoors provides a bevy of benefits to offset social distancing's mental cramps. Frequent contact with nature makes people happier, improves their concentration, and helps them heal. It supplies a wholesome regimen of Vitamin D, too. Doctors recommend 120 minutes of nature every week, and you can shoot for this goal in the weeks to come.
The outdoors also provides a people-free gym for those worried about losing their gains. And experts agree: Avoid the gym.
However, as Dr. Neha Chaudhary told the New York Times, you'll want to avoid high-traffic public places whether they are outdoors or not. Unfortunately, these include playgrounds and popular parks.
Make connections how you can
The CDC defines social distancing as avoiding congregate settings and maintaining a distance of approximately 6 feet from others. That's a broad guideline with a lot of wiggle room.
In an interview with the Atlantic, Carolyn Cannusicio, director of research at the Center for Public Health, translates that guidelines as follows: "I would recommend that people minimize social contact, and that means limiting all social engagements. That includes intimate gatherings among friends." However, she notes that there are exceptions:
I think the exception is if two households are in strict agreement that they are also going to reduce all outside contact and then those two households socialize together, to support one another. I can see social and mental-health advantages to that kind of approach.
Similarly, the King County Health Department points out that "social interaction is still vitally important to the mental health of young people." It recommends playdates of 10 or fewer children if children are healthy, physical contact is limited, and the play area isn't crowded.
Others take a more hard-line approach. As Lindsay Thompson, a pediatrician of the University of Florida, told NPR: "I'm personally taking a really strict line. I would say that playdates inherently have a risk—I don't know how big or small. But if we can put them off for a few weeks and replace it with family time, it would be better."
All experts agree that if you are sick, isolation is the best policy. If you must make in-person contact, be mindful of the risks, keep your distance, and follow CDC guidelines for washing your hands, not touching your face, and sneezing in a tissue you immediately throw away.
Many scientific studies have shown a strong correlation between altruistic activities and improved health, happiness, and well-being. A study in Nature Communications found that participants who spent money on others reported greater happiness than a control group who did not. Others have found that regular giving reduces depression while enhancing emotional regulation. Another found that patients reported ameliorated pain after volunteering.
"So much of public health is rightly focused on environmental toxins and the control of epidemics. However, a positive vision of public health must nurture benevolent affect and helping behavior," writes Stephen G. Post.
Social distancing may limit our opportunities for altruistic behavior, but we can get creative. We could, for example, help a high-risk relative or neighbor by offering to do their grocery shopping with our own. This keeps the high-risk individual away from crowded stores, while also lessening the number of people congregating through the aisles.
We could also form a pact with fellow parents to share homeschool responsibilities—provided, as Cannuscio recommends, everyone is healthy and parents maintain a strict agreement to reduce contact elsewhere.
And, of course, there are the traditional donations of time, money, and resources to nonprofits helping others during this difficult time.
Manage your stress
During a pandemic, stress can manifest in many ways, all harmful. Worry about ourselves and loved ones turns into ubiquitous anxiety. Changes in sleep patterns or increased alcohol use can make us tired and irritable. And underlying health conditions can worsen.
We'll need to sharpen our stress management techniques to keep our lives in balance. The CDC recommends setting aside time to unwind, exercise, and engage in activities you enjoy. Be cognizant of your eating habits, substitute alcohol for tea, and connect with others. And when you do have free time, don't spend it glued to breaking news or social media hubs (again, Don't Panic).
The CDC also recommends practicing deep breathing and meditation, which have been shown to have concentration and stress-reduction benefits. As psychologist Daniel Goleman explains:
The good news is that there's a dose-response relationship in meditation. Apparently from what we can tell the longer you do it the more benefits you get. For example, right from the beginning, there are intentional benefits, there are stress benefits, you're more resilient under stress, but we see this even more strikingly in people who have been longer-term meditators.
If your stress-reduction techniques typically involve leaving the house, you may be to escape virtually. Many museums are offering virtual tours to keep homebound minds sharp. The same goes for live performances. The Metropolitan Opera will stream free opera productions while its curtain is down.
Social distancing will prove a trial by fire. Neither humans nor our societies are built with the intention that we live as small, distant lightyears from each other constellations. In addition to the above, we have another strength to draw upon: optimism.
In one study, researchers looked at the "positive health" of the longest detained American POWs of the Vietnam War. The researchers concluded that optimism predicts "positive physical and psychological health" and provides "long-term protective benefits."
And that's a bonus tip for surviving social distancing in the weeks to come.
- The next pandemic is inevitable. Are we prepared? - Big Think ›
- Scientists calculate incubation period of coronavirus - Big Think ›
- Social Media Plays a Big Role in Long-Distance Relationships - Big ... ›
- Loneliness and anxiety is increasing during the pandemic - Big Think ›
How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.
- A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
- It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
- While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
Tribalism and discrimination<p>One question the "Genetic Pressure" series explores: What would tribalism and discrimination look like in a world with designer babies? As designer babies grow up, they could be noticeably different from other people, potentially being smarter, more attractive and healthier. This could breed resentment between the groups—as it does in the series.</p><p>"[Designer babies] slowly find that 'everyone else,' and even their own parents, becomes less and less tolerable," author Eugene Clark told Big Think. "Meanwhile, everyone else slowly feels threatened by the designer babies."</p><p>For example, one character in the series who was born a designer baby faces discrimination and harassment from "normal people"—they call her "soulless" and say she was "made in a factory," a "consumer product." </p><p>Would such divisions emerge in the real world? The answer may depend on who's able to afford designer baby services. If it's only the ultra-wealthy, then it's easy to imagine how being a designer baby could be seen by society as a kind of hyper-privilege, which designer babies would have to reckon with. </p><p>Even if people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can someday afford designer babies, people born designer babies may struggle with tough existential questions: Can they ever take full credit for things they achieve, or were they born with an unfair advantage? To what extent should they spend their lives helping the less fortunate? </p>
Sexuality dilemmas<p>Sexuality presents another set of thorny questions. If a designer baby industry someday allows people to optimize humans for attractiveness, designer babies could grow up to find themselves surrounded by ultra-attractive people. That may not sound like a big problem.</p><p>But consider that, if designer babies someday become the standard way to have children, there'd necessarily be a years-long gap in which only some people are having designer babies. Meanwhile, the rest of society would be having children the old-fashioned way. So, in terms of attractiveness, society could see increasingly apparent disparities in physical appearances between the two groups. "Normal people" could begin to seem increasingly ugly.</p><p>But ultra-attractive people who were born designer babies could face problems, too. One could be the loss of body image. </p><p>When designer babies grow up in the "Genetic Pressure" series, men look like all the other men, and women look like all the other women. This homogeneity of physical appearance occurs because parents of designer babies start following trends, all choosing similar traits for their children: tall, athletic build, olive skin, etc. </p><p>Sure, facial traits remain relatively unique, but everyone's more or less equally attractive. And this causes strange changes to sexual preferences.</p><p>"In a society of sexual equals, they start looking for other differentiators," he said, noting that violet-colored eyes become a rare trait that genetically engineered humans find especially attractive in the series.</p><p>But what about sexual relationships between genetically engineered humans and "normal" people? In the "Genetic Pressure" series, many "normal" people want to have kids with (or at least have sex with) genetically engineered humans. But a minority of engineered humans oppose breeding with "normal" people, and this leads to an ideology that considers engineered humans to be racially supreme. </p>
Regulating designer babies<p>On a policy level, there are many open questions about how governments might legislate a world with designer babies. But it's not totally new territory, considering the West's dark history of eugenics experiments.</p><p>In the 20th century, the U.S. conducted multiple eugenics programs, including immigration restrictions based on genetic inferiority and forced sterilizations. In 1927, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped didn't violate the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough." </p><p>After the Holocaust, eugenics programs became increasingly taboo and regulated in the U.S. (though some states continued forced sterilizations <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/" target="_blank">into the 1970s</a>). In recent years, some policymakers and scientists have expressed concerns about how gene-editing technologies could reanimate the eugenics nightmares of the 20th century. </p><p>Currently, the U.S. doesn't explicitly ban human germline genetic editing on the federal level, but a combination of laws effectively render it <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo</a>. Part of the reason is that scientists still aren't sure of the unintended consequences of new gene-editing technologies. </p><p>But there are also concerns that these technologies could usher in a new era of eugenics. After all, the function of a designer baby industry, like the one in the "Genetic Pressure" series, wouldn't necessarily be limited to eliminating genetic diseases; it could also work to increase the occurrence of "desirable" traits. </p><p>If the industry did that, it'd effectively signal that the <em>opposites of those traits are undesirable. </em>As the International Bioethics Committee <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, this would "jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfillment of the wish for a better, improved life."</p><p><em>"Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps"</em><em> by Eugene Clark is <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank">available now.</a></em></p>
It's hard to stop looking back and forth between these faces and the busts they came from.
- A quarantine project gone wild produces the possibly realistic faces of ancient Roman rulers.
- A designer worked with a machine learning app to produce the images.
- It's impossible to know if they're accurate, but they sure look plausible.
How the Roman emperors got faced<a href="https://payload.cargocollective.com/1/6/201108/14127595/2K-ENGLISH-24x36-Educational_v8_WATERMARKED_2000.jpg" ><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NDk2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTUzMzIxMX0.OwHMrgKu4pzu0eCsmOUjybdkTcSlJpL_uWDCF2djRfc/img.jpg?width=980" id="775ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="436000b6976931b8320313478c624c82" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="lineup of emperor faces" data-width="1440" data-height="963" /></a>
Credit: Daniel Voshart<p>Voshart's imaginings began with an AI/neural-net program called <a href="https://www.artbreeder.com" target="_blank">Artbreeder</a>. The freemium online app intelligently generates new images from existing ones and can combine multiple images into…well, who knows. It's addictive — people have so far used it to generate nearly 72.7 million images, says the site — and it's easy to see how Voshart fell down the rabbit hole.</p><p>The Roman emperor project began with Voshart feeding Artbreeder images of 800 busts. Obviously, not all busts have weathered the centuries equally. Voshart told <a href="https://www.livescience.com/ai-roman-emperor-portraits.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Live Science</a>, "There is a rule of thumb in computer programming called 'garbage in garbage out,' and it applies to Artbreeder. A well-lit, well-sculpted bust with little damage and standard face features is going to be quite easy to get a result." Fortunately, there were multiple busts for some of the emperors, and different angles of busts captured in different photographs.</p><p>For the renderings Artbreeder produced, each face required some 15-16 hours of additional input from Voshart, who was left to deduce/guess such details as hair and skin coloring, though in many cases, an individual's features suggested likely pigmentations. Voshart was also aided by written descriptions of some of the rulers.</p><p>There's no way to know for sure how frequently Voshart's guesses hit their marks. It is obviously the case, though, that his interpretations look incredibly plausible when you compare one of his emperors to the sculpture(s) from which it was derived.</p><p>For an in-depth description of Voshart's process, check out his posts on <a href="https://medium.com/@voshart/photoreal-roman-emperor-project-236be7f06c8f" target="_blank">Medium</a> or on his <a href="https://voshart.com/ROMAN-EMPEROR-PROJECT" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">website</a>.</p><p>It's fascinating to feel like you're face-to-face with these ancient and sometimes notorious figures. Here are two examples, along with some of what we think we know about the men behind the faces.</p>
Caligula<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NDk4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MzQ1NTE5NX0.LiTmhPQlygl9Fa9lxay8PFPCSqShv4ELxbBRFkOW_qM/img.jpg?width=980" id="7bae0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ce795c554490fe0a36a8714b86f55b16" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="992" data-height="558" />
One of numerous sculptures of Caligula, left
Nero<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NTAwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTQ2ODU0NX0.AgYuQZzRQCanqehSI5UeakpxU8fwLagMc_POH7xB3-M/img.jpg?width=980" id="a8825" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9e0593d79c591c97af4bd70f3423885e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="992" data-height="558" />
One of numerous sculptures of Nero, left
To understand ourselves and our place in the universe, "we should have humility but also self-respect," Frank Wilczek writes in a new book.
Debating is cognitively taxing but also important for the health of a democracy—provided it's face-to-face.
- New research at Yale identifies the brain regions that are affected when you're in disagreeable conversations.
- Talking with someone you agree with harmonizes brain regions and is less energetically taxing.
- The research involves face-to-face dialogues, not conversations on social media.
There are two kinds of identity politics. One is good. The other, very bad. | Jonathan Haidt<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f0e52833af5d35adab591bb92d79f8e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l-_yIhW9Ias?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Unsurprisingly, harmonious synchronization of brain states occurred when volunteers agreed, similar to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764116_Creativity_and_Flow_in_Surgery_Music_and_Cooking_An_Interview_with_Neuroscientist_Charles_Limb" target="_blank">group flow</a>—the coordination of brain waves that hip-hop and jazz musicians (among others) experience when performing together. Coordination exceeds the social, into the neurological. As the team writes, "talking during agreement was characterized by increased activity in a social and attention network including right supramarginal gyrus, bilateral frontal eye-fields, and left frontopolar regions."</p><p>This contrasts with argumentative behavior, in which "the frontoparietal system including bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and superior temporal gyrus showed increased activity while talking during disagreement."</p><p>Senior author Joy Hirsch notes that our brain is essentially a social processing network. The evolutionary success of humans is thanks to our ability to coordinate. Dissonance is exhausting. Overall, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210113090938.htm" target="_blank">she says</a>, "it just takes a lot more brain real estate to disagree than to agree," comparing arguments to a symphony orchestra playing different music. </p><p>As the team notes, language, visual, and social systems are all dynamically intertwined inside of our brain. For most of history, yelling at one another in comment sections was impossible. Arguments had to occur the old-fashioned way: while staring at the source of your discontent. </p>
People of the "left-wing" side yell at a Trump supporter during a "Demand Free Speech" rally on Freedom Plaza on July 6, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Credit: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images<p>Leading us to an interesting question: do the same brain regions fire when you're screaming with your fingers on your Facebook feed? Given the lack of visual feedback from the person on the other side of the argument, likely not—as it is unlikely that many people would argue in the same manner when face-to-face with a person on the other side of a debate. We are generally more civil in real life than on a screen.</p><p>The researchers point out that seeing faces causes complex neurological reactions that must be interpreted in real-time. For example, gazing into someone's eyes requires higher-order processing that must be dealt with during the moment. Your brain coordinates to make sense of the words being spoken <em>and</em> pantomimes being witnessed. This combination of verbal and visual processes are "generally associated with high-level cognitive and linguistic functions."</p><p>While arguing is more exhausting, it also sharpens your senses—when a person is present, at least. Debating is a healthy function of society. Arguments force you to consider other viewpoints and potentially come to different conclusions. As with physical exercise, which makes you stronger even though it's energetically taxing, disagreement propels societies forward.</p>In this study, every participant was forced to <em>listen</em> to the other person. As this research was focused on live interactions, it adds to the literature of cognitive processing during live interactions and offers insights into the cognitive tax of anger. Even anger is a net positive when it forces both sides to think through their thoughts and feelings on a matter. As social animals, we need that tension in our lives in order to grow. Yelling into the void of a comments section? Not so helpful. <p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
In a joint briefing at the 101st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, NASA and NOAA revealed 2020's scorching climate data.