Krakatoa's Child

Every once in a while, I come back to a previous post with an update.  I posted about the famous eruption of the volcano Krakatoa on August 27, 1883 a few years ago (see "Krakatoa").  Krakatoa was actually an archipelago located in the Sunda Strait between the islands of Java and Sumatra in the modern day country of Indonesia.  Krakatoa became increasingly active with a series of small eruptions occurring from May 20-October 21, 1883.  However, the volcano more or less "blew its top off" on August 27, 1883, destroying nearly 70% of the island and surrounding archipelago, which collapsed into a caldera.  The eruption was one of the deadliest and most destructive eruptions in recorded history.

Krakatoa's eruption was heard almost 3,000 miles away by scientists on the island nation of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean.  The accompanying pressure (blast) wave circled the world at least 7 times.  Massive tsunamis that occurred in the aftermath caused most of the 36,000 reported deaths.  There were multiple reports of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of pumice stone hundreds of miles away from the eruption, some of which washed up on the shores of the east coast of Africa up to a year after the eruption.  

The eruption itself caused a volcanic winter as temperatures dropped by an average of 0.4 °C in the northern hemisphere.  Global weather patterns changed, with some areas reporting record rainfalls and widespread flooding, while other areas experienced severe drought.  The ash darkened the skies and changed the character of the setting sun as far away as the United States.  Krakatoa's eruption served as inspiration, albeit indirectly, for the famous painting The Scream by the artist Edvard Munch and the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

Here is the update to this story!  The smaller island (also a volcano) of Anak Krakatoa (which is Indonesian for "Child of Krakatoa") formed after the 1883 eruption.  I mention Anak Krakatoa now, because the volcano began to erupt just this past Friday (September 4, 2026).  More than a quarter million airline passengers have been stranded over the weekend, due to the closure of several airports in the region caused by the ash cloud.  So far, there haven't been any tsunamis, and I haven't seen a reported death toll either.  Regardless, Anak Krakatoa continues Krakatoa's legacy and provides us with yet another reminder of nature's power!

The word of the day is...arbejdsglæde

I mentioned the term "arbejdsglæde"  in a recent post (see "The Trust Hormone").  It's actually a Danish compound word that is made up of the word "arbejde" meaning work and "glæde" meaning happiness.  Together, the two words form the word "arbejdsglæde" which literally means happiness at work.  There is no English word equivalent.  Perhaps that is one simple explanation for why Denmark is consistently ranked amongst the highest countries in the world - they actually have a word to describe happiness at work, where most people spend up to a third of their lives!  For example, in the 2026 "Happiest Countries in the World" survey conducted by the World Population Review, Denmark ranked second (behind Finland and ahead of Iceland and Sweden) as the Happiest Countries in the World survey.  For context, the United States of America ranked 24th (see also "The Nordic Exceptionalism: What explains why the Nordic countries are constantly among the happiest in the world").  

The core pillars of "arbejdsglæde" focus on:

1. Flexible (and reasonable) working hours: According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average American works 1,790 hours per year, while the average Dane works only 1,540 hours per year.  Danes tend to leave work at a reasonable hour on most days, and they get five to six weeks of vacation per year, several national holidays, and generous maternity and paternity leaves.

2. Low power distance: A high power distance tends to reflect a highly centralized, hierarchical power structure where the manager/boss sits at the top of the pyramidal organization chart.  Here, decision-making occurs at the top levels of the hierarchy.  A low power distance suggests a more flattened organizational structure, where decision-making tends to occur throughout the hierarchy.  According to Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede, the average power distance in the United States is 40, compared to an average power distance of 18 in Denmark (the lowest in the world).  Apparently, there is a Danish law that states that any workplace with more than 35 employees has to open up seats on the Board of Directors for employee representatives, who are elected by their peers and serve on an equal footing with the same voting rights as the other members of the Board.  

3. Generous employee benefits: Danish workers enjoy a very generous benefit package compared to American workers.  For example, Danish companies provide unemployment insurance at 90% of original salary for up to two years.  In addition, Danish workers receive constant education and training to upskill jobs.  The so-called "Nordic model" provides free healthcare and subsidized education, which do not exist to nearly the same degree in the United States.  Notably, these benefits do come at a cost - the Danes are taxed at a much higher rate than Americans, though they happily pay these higher taxes.

4. A focus on happiness: The Danes focus on happiness - they literally have a word for "happiness at work", whereas the United States does not.  At least the United States doesn't have a word like "karoshi", which in Japanese means "death from overwork".  Denmark, similar to the other Scandinavian countries, focus on work-life balance and psychological safety in the workplace.

I am not saying that the Danes have figured everything out.  However, perhaps there is something that we can learn from Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark.  We hear a lot about "happiness" in the United States these days, mostly because people seem less happy.  Perhaps at least part of the answer is right their in front of our eyes - in Denmark...

Magnifica Humanitas

I don't think a day has gone by for at least the past year that I haven't read or heard something mentioned about artificial intelligence (AI) in the media or during conversations at work.  I recently attended the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin (Epic Systems Corporation is a privately held healthcare software company and currently the largest electronic health record vendors by market share in the world), and just about every session mentioned AI.  There's no question that AI is transforming the world literally in front of our eyes!

It's not often that some form of technological innovation changes society to the degree that we are experiencing with AI.  There was of course the invention of the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the microchip, and most recently, the Internet.  AI is the latest in a long line of technological innovations that have changed the world as we know it.  Even if AI is not a disruptive innovation in the truest sense (and I mean, according to Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation), there's no question that AI is going to - for better or for worse - "disrupt" our lives.  Scott D. Anthony, Professor of Business Administration at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business wrote a book last year, Epic Disruptions and listed generative AI as one of eleven major innovations that shaped our modern world (some of Anthony's innovations make sense, others, including Julia Childs' The Art of French Cooking and disposable diapers were surprising to me).

I continue to be fascinated by the back-and-forth discussion on the impact of AI on productivity and employment (see two recent posts on this topic, "Will we get replaced by AI?" and "Fewer jobs, more machines").  I am by no means an expert on this topic (not even close), but I hope to re-visit this topic in a future post soon.  Today, I want to talk about Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas.  The encyclical was published on May 25, 2026, and given the topic ("Safeguarding the human person in the age of artificial intelligence"), I read it shortly after its release.  Notably, the date of the encyclical's publication was selected to fall on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Rerum novarum, the landmark encyclical regarding industrialization and its impact on humanity, written by Pope Leo XIII.  "Rerum novarum" is Latin for "revolutionary change", so the juxtaposition of these two encyclicals is as intentional as it is appropriate.

Pope Leo XIV starts off his encyclical by stating, "Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible.  Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world."  He argues that society today faces a monumental choice between constructing a "new Tower of Babel" or building "the city in which God and humanity dwell together."  Recall that the Tower of Babel is a biblical story in chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis, in which a united human race all speaking the same language decide to build a tower that was tall enough to reach heaven.  The God of the Old Testament watches them closely and, remarking on humanity's power in unity, suddenly makes them all speak different languages so that they can no longer understand each other.  He then scatters them around the world, and the tower goes unfinished.  Pope Leo writes, "When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other.  The result is not unity, but dispersion.  Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God's blessing."

Pope Leo goes on to contrast the Tower of Babel story with another story from the Old Testament - the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which appears in the Book of Nehemiah.  The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Babylonians and had lay in ruins for over 150 years.  The Israelites return to Jerusalem to rebuild the ancient city.  They are led by the prophet Nehemiah, but Nehemiah does not lead by authority (as Pope Leo states, "He did not impose solutions from above").  Here we have yet another great example of the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise", but I digress.  Instead, he charges all the families to each work to rebuild a different section of the wall.  Nehemiah coordinates their efforts, so that everyone, together, rebuilds the wall.  Pope Leo writes, "The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all."

It's an apt metaphor.  With AI, we have the power to collectively transform all of society.  It's not a choice between "yes" and "no" to AI, but instead, whether we use AI to construct a metaphorical Babel or the metaphorical walls of Jerusalem.  Pope Leo writes that the choice is one "between a power that claims to dominate the heavens" versus one in which we all work together "to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence."  AI has the power to unite us or separate us.  AI has the power to build or destroy.  We should avoid at all costs what Pope Leo calls the "Babel syndrome", which he describes as "the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language - even a digital one - can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance."

 

Pope Leo has two major concerns with AI.  First and foremost, he is worried about AI replacing human persons, and I don't mean from a labor standpoint.  He writes, "The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom.  Important and sensitive decisions - concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person's reputation - risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know 'compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,' and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion."  He expands on this point, "If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool 'to be used well,' since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person.  For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it."  

Pope Leo is increasingly concerned that the design (and governance) of AI is increasingly being placed in the hands of just a few.  He writes, "When such power [referring here to the power to design AI, including what data and models are used in that design] is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities."  Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner from The Wall Street Journal reported that Pope Leo said, "Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed, freed from the logic that turned it into an instrument of domination, exclusion and death...It must be at the service of all, and of the common good."  His solution is to place the design and governance of AI in the hands of the public (by which he means the government).  While I share his concerns, I do not believe that government-run technology is the answer.  

John Thornhill from The Financial Times agrees to some extent with the Pope and writes, "AI systems may present themselves as objective but they reflect and reinforce ideological bias and power structures.  Given the concentration of corporate power and the possibilities of exploiting personal data to create a new form of digital colonialism, the pope rightly fears that innovation can become an accelerator of injustice."  The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal wrote a review and opinion piece entitled "Pope Leo's AI Manifesto" shortly after the encyclical became public.  They emphasize that the pope's concerns are real and perhaps legitimate, but his faith in the state to regulate AI and technology is misplaced.  

Pope Leo's second major concern involves what he calls the "dignity of work" - here is where he argues against AI replacing human workers.  He writes, "Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives.  It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfillment...While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work."  His concerns are legitimate, and as I have shared in previous posts, I have these same concerns.  However, I do not think that the question of whether automation technology and specifically AI will result in loss of employment has been fully or adequately answered.  Pope Leo further writes, "The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good."

I will end today's post by suggesting that Pope Leo's first encyclical makes for an interesting and compelling read.  I don't think we can know for sure what lies ahead, but it is good that these concerns are voiced and further studied.  We owe it to ourselves, and ultimately, to society at large, to make sure that AI is leveraged for the common good.

The Odyssey

Several people who know me really well have been telling me that I need to go see the Christopher Nolan movie, The Odyssey, starring Matt Damon as the main character, Odysseus, along with an incredible all-star cast!  About a week or so ago, I was attending the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin, and I took the opportunity to finally see the movie with our son (who lives in Verona) on the night before the conference started.  It was well worth it - the movie truly lived up to all of the hype!

While Nolan took some poetic license in his version of the story (much to the chagrin of Emily Wilson, among others, who published a highly praised translation of Homer's epic poem in 2017), I do think that he stayed true to some of the major themes in the original work (at least in my humble and admittedly non-expert opinion).  At its most basic, The Odyssey is a story of a man who has lost his way and who eventually finds his way back home.  In Nolan's version of the story, Odysseus is lost almost by choice.  He feels guilty about the fact that he was the one that came up with the idea of the Trojan Horse to "trick" the people of Troy to let the Greeks in through the gates of their city and eventually destroy it.  

Eliana Dockterman writes in her Time magazine review, "Odysseus, much like the father of the atomic bomb millennia later [is] wracked with guilt for conjuring something that destroyed not just one city but, in his mind, an entire civilization: the Trojan Horse. In creating the vessel in which the Greeks hid to penetrate the walls of Troy and massacre its citizens to ultimately win the war, Odysseus believes he violated what characters throughout the movie refer to as Zeus’ Law. In doing so, he then gave tacit permission for others throughout the Mediterranean to break the rules that long held this ancient civilization together."

It is this violation of the ancient Greek law known as xenia that is the source of Odysseus' guilt.  Xenia means hospitality, and refers to the moral obligation to treat even complete strangers as guests in your home.  Xenia was known as Zeus' law, because Zeus was the patron god of strangers.  His law dictated that strangers must be welcomed with food, shelter, and respect.  If you consider that ancient Greece was really comprised of several islands and city-states, a law like xenia makes perfect sense.  If you ever found yourself stranded on one of those islands, you would want to be treated with kindness and offered food and shelter.  Bear in mind that the ancient Greeks believed too that the gods often mingled among the people, even showing up as strangers at the door to someone's home.  Treating a stranger kindly (unkindly) could earn a divine reward (punishment).  

The Golden Rule from the Christian tradition sounds very similar to xenia and states, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  The ancient Greek law of hospitality took things even one step further.  Guests were expected to reciprocate that kindness, trust, and respect that was showed to them.  Guests were also prohibited from taking advantage of the hosts' kindness.  Those who violated Zeus' law received divine punishment.  Odysseus felt his punishment for violating xenia was to wander for 10 years in search for home.  It is only after he forgives himself and then asks for forgiveness from the goddess Athena, that Odysseus finds his way back home.  

One additional theme that recurs throughout the movie is that of loyalty.  Odysseus wife and son, Penelope (played by Anne Hathaway) and Telemachus (played by Tom Holland) stay true to Odysseus, hoping and expecting that he will return, even after 10 years without hearing anything about him.  Both fight off Penelope's treacherous suitors, who constantly plot against them in an attempt to usurp Odysseus' throne.  Odysseus swineherd, Eumaeus (played by John Leguizamo) helps them both and remains loyal to Odysseus until the very end, as does Odysseus beloved and faithful dog, Argos, who dies after seeing his master one last time.

Leadership is a lot about trustworthiness, loyalty, perseverance, resilience, and ultimately, xenia.

"Live a Little"

Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence starred in the 2016 movie "Passengers" as two passengers on an interstellar spacecraft carrying thousands of people to a colony on 120-year journey from Earth.  Everyone on board is suspended in hibernation for the duration of the voyage, and the spacecraft runs more or less on auto-pilot.  Unfortunately, due to a malfunction, Pratt's character, Jim wakes up from suspended hibernation about 90 years too early.  He is all alone on the spacecraft.  

Jim eventually wakes up Jennifer Lawrence's character, Aurora, because he is lonely.  They fall in love, get in a fight, rescue all of the passengers, and eventually, by the end of the movie...I won't spoil it.

There's a scene in the movie where Pratt's character is talking to an android bartender, named Arthur.  He's feeling sorry for himself, and Arthur gives him some really good advice.  It's advice that we all should take to heart (check out the video clip here).  Here's the transcript (and I am paraphrasing slightly to shorten it up):

JIM: I'm your only customer, but you're always polishing a glass.

ARTHUR: Trick of the trade.  Makes people nervous when a bartender just stands there.

JIM: Okay.  Lay some bartender wisdom on me.  I'm lost in space here.  

ARTHUR (as he is polishing a glass): You're not where you want to be.  You feel like you're supposed to be somewhere else.  Right?

JIM: You said it.

ARTHUR: Well, here's the thing.  Say you could snap your fingers and be wherever you wanted to be.  Back on Earth, or on Homestead II.

JIM: Okay.

ARTHUR: I'll bet even if you got your wish, you'd still feel this way.  Not in the right place.  Supposed to be somewhere else.  The point is, you can't get so wrapped up in where you'd rather be that you forget to make the most of where you are.

JIM: What are you telling me?

ARTHUR: Take a break from what you can't control.  Live a little.

Jim starts to learn the lesson.  Of interest, at least in the original script for the movie, it took Arthur a couple of times to teach Jim the lesson that he needed to hear.  When Jim first encounters Arthur in the bar, shortly after figuring out that he woke up far too early, he says, "I am in trouble. I'm screwed.  I am completely, ridiculously screwed."

Arthur responds by telling Jim, "That's a lot of self-pity."  

Of course, Jim replies, "Self-pity?  I'm going to die of old age on this ship!"  He will never see Homestead II.

To which, Arthur replies, "Jim, we all die. Even androids end up on the scrap heap. It's not dying that matters, it's living. This is your life. Are you going to live it or lie down and die?"

It's an important message for all of us, and one that I need to be reminded of every once in a while.  Nothing is perfect.  Even if things were perfect, we would likely be wanting more out of life.  The key point is to be happy and content with the life that you have.  As Arthur says, "You can't get so wrapped up in where you'd rather be that you forget to make the most of where you are."  Once again, here's another great example of learning an important lesson from the movies.  Great advice for leaders, and really, for all of us...

"The Case of the Cashiered Lieutenant"

I recently finished reading the science fiction novel Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein for the second time.  It's a great book (much better than the 1997 movie of the same name, even though I liked the movie too).  I was reminded of a story that I had apparently forgotten, "The Case of the Cashiered Lieutenant" (the title of an article appearing in the Minnesota Historical Society's journal, Minnesota History, almost sixty years ago).  When used in this context, "cashiered" refers to the ritual dismissal of an officer from military service as punishment for a breach of duty.  The specific case refers to an incident that happened on June 6, 1813, during the War of 1812 (which despite its name, lasted from 1812-1815), when the USS Chesapeake lost a battle with the HMS Shannon off the coast of Boston.

Notably, the Chesapeake was one of the original six frigates built in the early days of the United States Navy, as brilliantly told in the book Six Frigates by the historian Ian W. Toll.  The battle was brief, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes, ending when sailors from the Shannon boarded the disabled Chesapeake and captured her.  The Chesapeake's commanding officer, James Lawrence, was killed during the battle, uttering his now famous words shortly before succumbing to his wounds, "Don't give up the ship!"

William Sitgreaves Cox was serving as  "third lieutenant" in charge of gun crews during the battle.  When Captain Lawrence was mortally wounded, Cox took him below deck.  Unbeknownst to Cox, all of the other officers had been seriously wounded, incapacitated, or killed, which technically made him the ship's acting commanding officer by default, though it's not known whether Lieutenant Cox was aware of this fact.  Technically, then, as the acting commanding officer, even if by default, Cox should have remained on deck to lead the battle.  

During the time that Cox was below deck, British sailors boarded the Chesapeake.  Cox returned to the deck and fired the last cannon round at the Shannon.  There were just too many wounded and not enough men left to fight off the British boarders.  The Chesapeake was taken and Cox became a prisoner.  After a prisoner exchange, Cox was promoted to third lieutenant permanently.  

Everyone in America at the time felt that the defeat of the Chesapeake was a major catastrophe.  Something must have happened, as the public believed that Captain Lawrence ("Don't give upt the ship!") could never have been defeated in a fair fight.  Commodore William Bainbridge of the Navy Department perhaps said it best when he wrote, "The well proved courage and skill of Captain Lawrence, and the bravery of the officers and crew, justify a full belief that the loss of the Chesapeake has been entirely owing to some fortuitous event happening on board of her, and not to any superiority of skill and bravery in the enemy."  In other words, there had to be somebody to blame.

The public demanded an explanation, and the Navy Department convened a Court of Inquiry in February 1814 to further investigate the defeat of the Chesapeake.  Lieutenant William Sitgreaves Cox would be the scapegoat that everyone was looking to blame.  Lieutenant Cox was brought before the court on April 15, 1814 and formally charged with cowardice, disobedience of orders, desertion from quarters, neglect of duty, and unofficer-like conduct.  He was convicted on the charges of dereliction of duty and unofficer-like conduct for abandoning his watch station while under fire from the enemy.  He was cashiered from service and left the Navy in disgrace.

Of course, there was another side to the story.  Second Lieutenant George Budd survived his wounds and testified that he and Cox had a conversation while they were being held prisoner by the British in Halifax.  Budd reported that Cox told him that Captain Lawrence had not asked for assistance to be carried below deck and had been angry that Cox had left his post in order to help him.  That apparently was sufficient to find him guilty.  Cox would try in vain to be cleared of both charges, though the guilty verdict was upheld by then President James Madison.  He entered a business career and died in 1874.

Apparently, Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his book, The Naval War of 1812 that Lieutenant Cox had acted "basely" during the Chesapeake-Shannon battle.  One of Cox's descendants protested so vigorously that Roosevelt later apologized and removed the word from subsequent editions. For a period of 138 years, Cox's descendants fought to clear his name.  They argued vehemently that Cox was simply helping a wounded leader and that he had no idea that he was the acting commanding officer.  In 1952, Congress passed a resolution to clear his name, and President Harry Truman officially restored Cox's honor and rank posthumously.  Cox's story was told in an issue of Time magazine (see "The Case of Lieut. Cox" from the April 6, 1952 issue), the New Yorker magazine (see "Scapegoat" from the May 3, 1952 issue), and the Proceedings of the Naval Institute (see "Scapegoat of the Chesapeake-Shannon Battle" from the May 1953 issue).

I think this particular story is a great example - and I believe this is why Robert Heinlein used the story in his novel, Starship Troopers - of what happens when you hold leaders accountable for something that they have no authority to control (see in particular my posts "The accountability-authority matrix", "Sell ice cream!", "You have to hold people accountable...", and "Necessary companions, but often strangers").  I don't think it was justified to blame Lieutenant Cox for deserting his post as acting commanding officer, particularly when his actions during the actual battle suggest that he acted courageously.  Accountability is important - leaders should be held accountable for their decisions ("The buck stops here"), but only when they have the necessary authority to actually make those decisions.  

Now, Heinlein argues in Starship Troopers that, fair or unfair, Lieutenant Cox was, in fact, the acting commanding officer and should have been held accountable for the defeat of the Chesapeake.  I do not agree, and I believe history has appropriately vindicated Cox.  But I think the lesson here is an important one for all leaders, not just those in the military.  As the unnamed "Museum Sage" of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum wrote in The Daybook publication, "Just when does blame begin when something goes wrong?"  We are often too quick to ask the question, "Who is to blame when something goes wrong?"  I would argue that we would be better off investing time in trying to answer the question "Why did something go wrong?" or "How did something go wrong?" as opposed to answering "Who is to blame?"

Are tropical birds returning back to Guam?

I've posted a lot about our family's experience living on the Pacific island of Guam in the past (see in particular, my posts "Abandon all hope ye who enter here...", "Summer break is over!", and "It's an island thing!").  It was a memorable experience and one that I think we all cherish.  I've also posted about the Brown Tree Snake, an invasive species that was accidentally introduced to the island during World War II and which unfortunately wiped out most of the native species of exotic birds on the island (see "Is this another April Fool's joke?" and "The law of unintended consequences").

I was excited to see the newest development on this particular story.  No, there has not been any more attempts at parachuting dead, acetaminophen-stuffed mice into the jungle canopy in an attempt to control the Brown Tree Snake population!  Apparently, there has been an active captive-breeding project involving a few of the Guam indigenous bird species at several zoos around the U.S. in the past couple of years.  The latest involved the Cincinnati Zoo (and about four others) and the Guam Kingfisher, also known as the Sihek.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported earlier in July that the Cincinnati Zoo currently has 17 Kingfishers, including two on exhibit and six in the nursery.  The Guam Kingfisher is being reintroduced into the wild on the Pacific atoll of Palmyra, which is located just south of Hawaii.  The program reintroduced nine Kingfishers to Palmyra in 2024, and so far everything is going great!  The birds have started breeding, and the first egg was spotted in April 2025 - the first Guam Kingfisher egg laid in the wild in over 40 years!  It's an exciting development for sure!  The project will re-introduce nine new birds to the island each year for the next several years.  The plan is to eventually return these beautiful birds back to their home island of Guam, if protected areas can be established and the threat of the Brown Tree Snake is eliminated or better controlled.  Let's keep our collective fingers crossed!

If you want to keep up-to-date on the Guam Kingfisher project, check out the website for the Sihek Conservation Program here.  And if you want to see a cute video of a newly hatched Guam Kingfisher chick, check out the Facebook page for the Cincinnati Zoo!

As an aside, I realize that this post doesn't have much, if anything, to do with leadership.  However, anytime I can provide an update from older posts, I try to do so, especially when it involves two places where I've spent a lot of time during my life, Guam and Cincinnati, Ohio!