We go—307 million of us each year—into our national parks, representing all races, religions, political affiliations, and nationalities. And for a short while, we share a common experience. We may think we go for the scenery, but there’s more to it than that.

Award winning author Terry Tempest Williams says we need these places more than ever—for our mental health but also to find common ground.


As the U.S. Park Service celebrates its 100th anniversary, Williams, a writer, naturalist, and activist hailing from Utah, has released her newest book, The Hour of Land: A Personal Topography of America’s National Parks. Williams herself admits it isn’t the exuberant ode to national parks she first envisioned. Instead, The Hour of Land delivers a complex web of stories as varied as the parks themselves. And yet, her gift in this book is her insistence that despite the darker stories and despite the clear tension dividing America today—there is hope in our public lands. As she says, we need them—for our sanity and to understand who we are as a country.

Williams is the author of 15 books, including the environmental literature classic Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place. We caught up with her in the middle of her book tour, just north of Yellowstone National Park, in Livingston, Montana.

You thought this was going to be an easy enjoyable book to write. But it wasn’t?

The Hour of Land asked everything and more of me. I am not a historian. I am not a scientist. I am a storyteller. And the stories within the history of the National Park Service are not all about goodness and light. When you really look at the shadowed history we have with our national parks, when you look at how we have mistreated native people and mismanaged wildlife, it’s a very complex story. …

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]The stories within the history of the National Park Service are not all about goodness and light.[/quote]

Early on with one of the early drafts, my editor said, “You know, this is not a feel-good book.” But our history in the United States of America is often not a feel-good history. Given that, I still found a strand—what I would call a subversive strand—where brave and courageous men and women meant well by wanting to protect these magnificent landscapes for the greater good—people like John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in the Grand Tetons and Marjory Stoneman Douglas in the Everglades.

When I say that there’s a shadow side to our national parks, there’s a shadow side to us as human beings. I didn’t want to turn away from that; I did not want to avert my gaze from the very hard issues that we’re still facing as Americans. The joy for me was to be able to go into those deeper recesses of the hour of land and come out into an open meadow, appreciating the ecotones of the landscape and the ideas surrounding our public lands.

You say that our parks are an evolving idea?

I think the most important idea for me, as a writer, in this book was when Wallace Stegner, who was a mentor of mine, said “America’s National Parks are our best idea.” I would argue that our national parks are an evolving idea and when you look at the history of displaced people, in Yosemite, for example, and you now look at the state of Utah, where we have the Bears Ears National Monument on the table—supported by the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, and Ute tribes, alongside 25 other tribes in the American Southwest, who are asking to have their native lands protected—it’s so moving. And I think a new land ethic is now evolving in Utah, of all places, as a result of the leadership of the tribes.

Your book talks about the direct challenges—oil drilling, climate change, land management—the parks face today. But there’s also this sense that being in those parks is a reflection of some of the more complicated conflicts we face as a nation—war, violence, race, political divides.

I think the most poignant part for me—and I kept going back and back to wrap arms around it—was Gettysburg National Military Park. As a westerner, in my ignorance, I thought that’s the South’s war, that’s the North’s war, the Confederacy and the Union. What became so clear is that it’s America’s war, and it’s not over. We are still a divided nation. When I was talking to the reenactors, who were artillery men for the Confederacy, I asked, with all sincerity, what were the causes of the Civil War. He said, “If you think I’m going to tell you slavery, forget it. It’s states’ rights. It’s the federal government getting in our way.” And as he spoke I thought, I know this rhetoric. This is the rhetoric I’m hearing in Utah, the rhetoric that was behind the Bundy separatists at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. And the most chilling thing, which I wrote in the book, was in the end, he said, “Slaves. Guns. It’s the same issue, just different items.” That’s chilling. So there are issues of race and violence and gun control, and oppression, right here, right now, as both part of our history and where we find ourselves now.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]There are issues of race and violence and gun control, and oppression, right here, right now, as both part of our history and where we find ourselves now.[/quote]

One of the things that I admire about the Obama Administration and Secretary Jewel, is that I think they’ve really made an effort to focus on diversity in our national parks, both in race and class. Every fourth grader now gets a family pass and can go to the national parks for free. I think President Obama’s choices of the new national monuments and parks that he’s created illustrate this: Certainly, the César Chavez National Monument, honoring Latino rights and the struggles and successes of the United Farm Workers, or the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument or the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument that honors women’s equality—all of these new monuments speak to an evolving consciousness of a more inclusive history.

I was in Yosemite National Park last month when President Obama spoke. … And it was so moving. He spoke about coming to the mainland from Hawaii, with his mother, as an 11-year-old boy. And one of the first places they visited was Yellowstone National Park. There, he said, was, “the first time I saw a moose in a lake, the first time we drove over a hill and saw a field of deer, the first time I saw a bear and her cub.” And he said, “That changes you. You’re not the same after that experience.” And that’s when he said, I want to make sure every kid has the opportunity to feel that. … At the end of his speech, he just said, you know these national parks remind us that there’s something so much bigger than ourselves.

What has it been like to go on a book tour promoting this book in the context of recent current events—with so much violence and political divide?

It’s been really powerful. Because I think all of the things that we’re seeing played out nationally, internationally—whether it’s racism or violence, or the dominance of one story that demands to be told when other stories are crying out to be held—this is all part of the conversation of the hour of land. I gave a reading just last week in Grand Teton National Park, and the first question was: What do we do about the GOP platform, where the first issue in the natural resources platform is “to dispose of all federal lands,” to get rid of our national parks and monuments? And I asked, just out of curiosity, “How many of you are Democrats, and how many of you are Republicans?” It was completely split down the middle, and everyone agreed our public lands are our inheritance as American citizens. And granted they were in the national park. But I think this is an incredibly unifying topic.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]Everyone agreed our public lands are our inheritance as American citizens.[/quote]

We were talking to some gentlemen not long ago and both of them were adamantly opposed to climate change: doesn’t exist. They were all voting for Donald Trump. I am not. I thought okay, where are we going to find some common ground here? … And I finally asked the gentleman from Alabama, “So what are you in Utah for?” And he said, “My wife and I and children have just traversed 3,000 miles looking at National Parks.” And the rest of our conversation was about love. I have this friend in Turkey, she’s a Turkish naturalist and educator … And every day she posts a flower, or an insect, a bird, or a tree. Something beautiful. And when the Turkish coup took place just a few days ago, she posted a dead katydid, and she said “This is the only image I will give credence to regarding the death of our country.” And then the next day, a wildflower, a wild rose, a feather. And I just think there’s something about the embrace of beauty that keeps us whole.

I just finished reading an extraordinary book called The Battle for Home, by a Syrian architect, Marwan Al-Sabouni. She refused to live in a country ravaged with gore. … And she said, “My personal act of defiance is to reject ugliness; it is to embrace beauty, to protect beauty, to create beauty.” And I feel that way about our national parks in this country; it’s a stay against violence.

During this book tour, you’re visiting a lot of national parks very briefly. Yesterday you were at the visitors’ center at Old Faithful in Yellowstone. Does that change your experience or your lens through which you see the parks?

… Hanging out in Old Faithful between eruptions for four hours is anything but a calm experience. But I still found it miraculous. I still stood in awe each time Old Faithful erupted. And I stood with two of the rangers. One of them was a woman, Joanne, who’s been there for 22 years, and had tears in her eyes still. … And they spoke of how earlier that morning they’d seen a grizzly at the Old Faithful Overlook, watching. How can you not be moved by that? … I don’t care how many people are there, I’m still in awe, standing right there with them.

These are processions, pilgrimages, and it’s the closest thing we have in this country to sacred sites. And I love that people are coming. Visitation in our national parks has never been higher, and that says to me they are filling a need and a void. Each time I enter a national park, I meet the miraculous. We were just in Grand Teton, and this summer thunderstorm draped over the Grand with bolts of lightning flashing throughout the range. How many times have I watched that? But you still just want to fall to your knees. Thousands of people experienced this, as well. It becomes a moment of humility.

You talk about the idea of land being sacred, that these parks are important for the soul of America …

… Just as the national parks are an evolving idea, I think as human beings are evolving, seeing the land as part of us, not apart from us … How many thousands of people we saw in Yellowstone yesterday … people were encountering awe. People were encountering wonder. People were talking to each other. I saw one gentleman and he said, “My blood pressure has just dropped ten points.” In today’s world everyone is so distracted and “busy” (a word I have removed from my vocabulary), we forget what is essential. Land is essential. Solitude is essential. And that state of reverence is crucial if we are going to become our highest and deepest self. So I think that when we enter a national park, we enter a state of listening that has become uncommon to us. Stillness, solitude. The sound of rushing water. Wind. Bird song. And the quality of our listening changes. That, to me, all circles around the notion of sacred.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Land is essential. Solitude is essential. And that state of reverence is crucial if we are going to become our highest and deepest self.[/quote]

Despite the difficulty of some of the things you encountered as you wrote this book, do you feel, in the end, more hopeful?

I’ve always been hopeful. I mean, what is hope? Hope is the belief we will be able to move forward with dignity. And we are moving forward, and I think with a proposal before us like Bears Ears National Monument—that I do believe will become a reality and a peace offering between the United States government and the tribes—how can we not be hopeful? President Obama has taken this evolving idea of our national parks and moved it forward. In the aftermath of the Orlando murders, we saw the establishment of the Stonewall National Monument in New York, an honoring of the struggle and triumphs of the LGBT community. This, too, is the legacy of America within our national parks. They house our histories, both human and wild. As Wallace Stegner said, our public lands are “our geography of hope.”

Interview has been edited and condensed for length.

  • Therapist shares why Justin Bieber’s duet with 13-year-old self was so incredibly moving
    Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons & FlickrJustin Bieber performs onstage (left) and at a Nintendo store in 2009 (right).

    Taking the stage at Coachella, singer Justin Bieber gave fans something unique: singing along to a YouTube video of himself at just 13, he harmonized on songs like “Baby,” “Never Say Never,” “With You,” and others.

    Blake Roberts, a licensed therapist and self-proclaimed “dude,” shared his perspective on Bieber’s performance. While reactions to the appearance may be mixed, Roberts found it courageous.

    Therapist finds Bieber’s performance incredibly moving

    “From the perspective of a therapist and dude, I have to talk about this Justin Bieber-Coachella thing,” Roberts said in an Instagram Reel. “If you’ve ever done any amount of inner child work, you can appreciate what that moment was.”

    “That little boy was artistic and creative. Just doing his thing. Probably got made fun of a bunch, and then he gets thrown into this industry. And he loses parts of himself, and people probably take advantage of him,” he added.

    Roberts turned the performance into a learning experience, discussing a form of therapy known as inner child work:

    “Like we watched this man’s trauma, and yet he still shared a moment with us. Like a peek inside what it looks like to do inner child work. What looks like to look back at the younger versions of ourselves who have been rejected, who have been abused, who we ourselves have left behind. And to look at them with compassion and see them from the purity that they were.”

    Mixed reactions to Coachella performance

    Bieber’s performance relied heavily on nostalgia and early-career callbacks. A review in Entertainment Weekly described the set as “lacking some swag.” For much of the performance, Bieber sat at a desk onstage, scrolling through viral videos of himself.

    Despite negative feedback on his set, some fans appeared to be very appreciative of Bieber. One fan commented on Roberts’ Instagram post, saying, “I loved it so so much, aaaand now I’m crying again.”

    Regardless of whether people admire what the artist did, Roberts saw an opportunity to highlight recovery and the value of therapy. Bieber’s duet with his younger self could be seen as a meaningful act of openness and vulnerability. Roberts reflected, saying, “I thought it was pretty crazy. I could feel it.”

    Bieber’s challenges scrutinized by the public

    For those unfamiliar with Bieber’s personal life, he has faced some rough patches, as rumors have circulated about a struggling marriage and financial difficulties.

    The obstacles began to appear in 2017, when Bieber pulled out of a world tour due to mental exhaustion. In 2022, he posted on Instagram about the challenges of dealing with Ramsay Hunt syndrome. The illness occurs when the chickenpox virus reactivates later in life, causing facial weakness. Bieber said he was experiencing facial paralysis on his right side, which led him to cancel his tour again.

    There have also been allegations, including claims of drug use and questions about Bieber’s friendship with Sean “Diddy” Combs dating back to his youth. Clips have resurfaced showing Bieber as a teenager spending time with the music mogul. However, Bieber has not made any clear, on-the-record statements about that time.

  • City animals act in the same brazen ways around the world
    Photo credit: Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images A monkey swipes a soda in Thailand.
    ,

    City animals act in the same brazen ways around the world

    Why squirrels, monkeys and ibises get bolder in cities.

    The urban monkeys in New Delhi are so bold they’ll steal the lunch right off your plate. If you’ve spent time in New York, you’ve probably seen squirrels try to do the same. Sydney’s white ibises got the nickname “bin chickens” for stealing trash and sandwiches.

    This brazen behavior isn’t normal for most species in the countryside, yet it shows up in urban wildlife, and not just in these cities.

    Studies show that animals living in urban environments around the world exhibit common sets of behaviors. At the same time, these urban animals are losing traits they would need in the wild. This process of urban animals’ behavior becoming more similar is known as “behavioral homogenization,” and it accompanies the loss of species diversity with urbanization.

    A man reads his newspaper in New York's Central Park as a squirrel rifles through his bag on the bench beside him.
    Squirrels in New York’s Central Park have no qualms about rifling through your belongings and stealing your food. Keystone/Getty Images

    We study animals in urban settings to understand how humans can help wildlife thrive in an urbanizing world. In a new study, we explore the causes and the long-term consequences of these behavior changes for urban wildlife.

    What makes animals in cities similar?

    Cities, despite their local differences, share many of the same features worldwide: They are warmer than the surrounding countryside, noisy, polluted by light and, most importantly, dominated by people.

    New York’s squirrelsNew Delhi’s monkeysgulls in coastal cities of the U.K. and other urban wildlife have learned that people are a source of food. And because people typically don’t harm the animals, city-dwelling animals learn not to fear people.

    Cities drive evolution as well. Humans and the changes we’ve brought to cities have led to the survival of bolder animals, and those bolder animals pass on their traits to future generations. In genetics, scientists refer to this as the environment “selecting” for those traits.

    It’s not just sandwich-stealing that is more common among city wildlife; urban birds also sound more alike.

    Why? Cities are loud and filled with traffic noise, so those who can effectively communicate in that environment are more likely to survive and pass on those traits.

    For example, urban birds may sing louder, start singing earlier in the morning or at higher frequencies to avoid getting drowned out by low-frequency traffic noise.

    Cities select for smart individuals and species because that’s what it takes to survive.

    Animals may behave similarly in cities because they learn from each other how to exploit novel human food sources. For instance, the cockatoos in Sydney have learned to open trash bins. In Toronto, the raccoons are in a race to outwit humans as urban wildlife managers try to design animal-proof trash bins.

    The buildings and bridges in cities become home to batsbirds, and other urban dwellers, at the cost of learning to use more natural nesting sites. Roads and culverts modify how and where animals move.

    While rural animals may forage at a variety of places and eat a variety of foods, urban animals may concentrate on garbage bins or rubbish dumps where they know they can find food, but they end up eating a potentially unhealthy diet.

    Consequences of similar behaviors

    The loss of behavioral diversity is happening everywhere that humans increase their footprint on nature. This is worrisome on several levels.

    At the population level, behavioral variation may reflect genetic variation. Genetic variation gives species the ability to respond to future environmental change. For example, for animals that have evolved to breed at a specific time of the year, urban heat islands can select for earlier breeding.

    Reducing genetic variation leaves populations less able to respond to future changes. In that sense, having genetic variation resembles a diversified investment portfolio: Spreading risk across a variety of stocks and bonds lowers the risk that a single shock will wipe out everything.

    A large white bird with a black head and curved black beak picks through a trash bin along a waterfront area.
    An ibis picks through a trash bin in Sydney. Greg Wood/AFP via Getty Images

    Moreover, as animals become tamer, new conflicts between animals and humans may emerge. For instance, there may be more car crashes, animal bites, property damage and zoonotic disease transmission. Such conflicts cost money and may harm both the animals and humans.

    Losing behavioral diversity is also troubling for conservation.

    When a species loses behavioral diversity, it loses resilience against future environmental change in the wild, making reintroducing urban animals to the wild harder.

    Losing behavioral diversity also risks erasing socially learned, population-specific behaviors, such as local migration routes, foraging techniques, tool-use traditions or vocal dialects.

    For example, Australia’s regent honeyeater populations have been shrinking and are critically endangered. The isolation of having fewer of their own species around has disrupted normal song-learning behavior, making it harder for male birds to sing attractive songs that help them find mates and breed successfully.

    Ultimately, behavioral homogenization is making wildlife in cities such as Los Angeles, Lima, Lagos and Lahore behave in similar ways despite living in different environments and having different evolutionary histories.

    Many of these behaviors influence survival and reproduction, so understanding this form of diversity loss is important for successful wildlife conservation, as well as future urban planning.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Health care sticker shock has become the norm, but talking to your doctor about costs can help you rein it in
    Photo credit: National Cancer Institute on Unsplash, CC BYA doctor at the National Cancer Institute talks with a patient.

    As health care costs rise, patients aren’t just shouldering higher bills. They’re bearing more and more responsibility for getting information.

    Americans are facing a health care affordability crunch on multiple fronts. In 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a sweeping tax law that scaled back premium subsidies for Americans accessing care through the Affordable Care Act starting in 2026. As a result, millions on ACA plans now face much higher premiums, with many dropping out or expecting to drop out and risk going uninsured as premiums surge. By March 2026, about 1 in 10 people on ACA plans had dropped out, and that share is expected to rise.

    Meanwhile, high-deductible insurance plans have become more common, requiring patients to pay thousands of dollars before coverage fully kicks in. The rise of those plans, along with surging drug prices and the growing share of Americans who are under- or uninsured, means that medical debt remains a leading source of financial strain.

    Nearly half of U.S. adults now report difficulty affording health care. Together, these shifts are accelerating the “consumerization” of health care. Patients now have the ability to comparison shop, evaluate options and manage costs – but often without clear pricing. In this environment, knowing how to ask the right questions may be one of the most important tools patients have.

    We are professors who study how perceptions of health care costs shape patients’ decisions about their care. Our research examines how factors such as price-transparency regulations influence patient choices. Across our work, we consistently hear from patients about rising costs and how conversations about price with their providers too often never happen.

    Why speaking up about cost matters

    When one of us took our child to the doctor for pink eye, the pediatrician quickly sent a prescription for antibiotic drops to the pharmacy. At the pickup, the pharmacist dropped the news that the drops would cost more than US$300. A follow-up phone call to the doctor’s office, however, yielded important information: A generic version of the same medication offered the same treatment and the same results, but at a fraction of the price.

    That quick phone call saved her a lot of money. It also raised a broader question: Why don’t more people have these conversations about cost? In fact, one study shows that cost conversations occur in only about 30% of medical visits.

    These discussions aren’t just for medications. They can be crucial when a recommended procedure has multiple alternatives; when out-of-pocket costs might affect whether you follow through on care; or when a sudden medical bill could create financial strain. Speaking up about price can help patients stay healthier and avoid the all-too-common trade-off between medical care and household expenses.

    The study mentioned above also found that doctors and patients identified ways to reduce out-of-pocket costs – such as switching to a generic drug or adjusting the timing of care – in nearly half of those cases. Importantly, these conversations were typically brief and did not compromise the quality of care, the researchers found.

    Patients actually prefer doctors who bring up costs, other research has found. Still, most patients remain hesitant. While a majority say they want to discuss cost, only a minority actually do, often waiting until a bill arrives – often when it’s too late to consider alternatives. That’s why it’s important that consumers feel empowered to ask the right questions. Here are three that can help make care more affordable.

    A close-up of a person's hands, with pen in one, going over a complicated medical billing form.
    A patient works on a medical billing form. Mael Balland on Unsplash.CC BY

    Is there a generic or lower-cost alternative?

    One of the simplest ways to reduce drug costs is to ask whether a less expensive option is available. Brand-name medications can cost significantly more than generics, even when they are equally effective. One industry survey estimated that 90% of all prescriptions filled in 2024 were generic or biosimilar, but these accounted for only 12% of drug spending.

    In many cases, physicians can substitute a generic drug or recommend a similar treatment that achieves the same outcome at a lower price. And when no direct generic exists, there may be therapeutic alternatives worth considering. For example, if a brand-name eye drop or inhaler isn’t available in generic form, doctors can often prescribe a different medication in the same class that works just as well but costs far less. Research on physician–patient cost conversations shows that switching to lower-cost, clinically similar alternatives within the same drug class is a common strategy for reducing out-of-pocket spending without compromising care.

    Is there any financial assistance available?

    Some hospitals and large health systems have specific programs aimed at making care more affordable for lower-income patients. In many states, government programs address this same goal. These programs often offer discounts on care, but they can be complex to navigate and require significant paperwork. Many health care offices have staff who are knowledgeable about these programs and can help patients determine eligibility and sometimes even assist with applications, although the Trump administration has cut funding.

    Patients can often find these programs through hospital or health system websites, which typically include financial assistance or “charity care” pages outlining eligibility and how to apply. State Medicaid offices and insurance marketplaces are also key entry points for coverage and subsidy programs. Nonprofit organizations and patient advocacy groups may also offer or list assistance tailored to specific conditions or medications.

    It’s also important to remember that for prescription medications, what you’re quoted isn’t always the final price. Many medications come with options to reduce costs, including manufacturer coupons, copay assistance programs and patient assistance programs. Doctors’ offices and pharmacists may also know practical ways to save money, such as using a different pharmacy, switching to mail order or adjusting how a prescription is written. Asking about these options can uncover savings that aren’t immediately obvious.

    What will this cost me, and are there other options?

    Health care pricing is often opaque, and costs can vary widely depending on where and how care is delivered. Asking up front about your expected out-of-pocket cost can help you avoid surprises later.

    This question also opens the door to alternatives. For example, patients may be able to choose a lower-cost imaging center, opt for outpatient rather than hospital-based care, or delay nonurgent services until insurance coverage improves.

    Speaking up is part of taking care of your health

    Health care decisions shouldn’t feel like a choice between your well-being and your wallet. A brief, honest conversation about cost can lead to more affordable and more sustainable care.

    Physicians can’t address financial concerns they don’t hear about, and most want to help their patients access care they can realistically follow through on. As costs continue to shift toward the patient’s burden, asking these questions isn’t just helpful – it’s essential.

    The next time you’re handed a prescription or a referral, remember: One simple question about price could make all the difference.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Ethics

A connection to nature fuels well‑being worldwide, according to a study of 38,000 people

Health

A shocking scientific study says water isn’t actually the best way to get hydrated

News

Hero son’s split-second warning saves sunbathing mom’s life

Science

20 enormously funny photos of animals in the wild