Copenhagen Zoo kills 4 lions, weeks after shooting giraffe

A Danish zoo that made international headlines last month when it killed a healthy giraffe is once again in the news after it killed four lions to make way for a new male.

The lions were killed Monday, said Tobias Stenbaek Bro, a spokesman for the Copenhagen Zoo.

Two of those were young lions that were not old enough to survive by themselves and would have been killed by the new male lion if it had the chance, Bro told CNN. He said the zoo had tried to place them elsewhere, "but unfortunately there wasn't any interest."

The other two are the youngsters' parents, described by the Copenhagen Zoo as a "very old" breeding pair.

The new male lion was brought from Givskud Zoo, also in Denmark, to form a breeding group with the Copenhagen Zoo's two 18-month-old females, born on site in 2012.

The zoo had to put down the old lions and their young offspring "because of the natural structure and behavior" of the lion pride, the Copenhagen Zoo said in a prepared statement.

The newcomer is about 3 years old, large for his age and healthy, the zoo said. After he's had a few days to adjust to his new surroundings, visitors will be able to see him.

"He is a beautiful young male and I am certain he will be an impressive ambassador for his species," zoo chief Steffen Straede is quoted as saying.

He said the three young lions would "be the foundation of the zoo's next lion era."

Public anger

The decision by the Copenhagen Zoo to shoot dead its giraffe, named Marius, in February to prevent inbreeding sparked widespread outrage.

The killing of four healthy lions has prompted further dismay.

Some questioned why the lions weren't sent elsewhere if the Copenhagen Zoo no longer had space.

"Why are people visiting this abhorrent animal slaughter house," said a message posted on a Facebook page that calls for the closure of the zoo.

The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria -- a body governing 345 institutions -- said that the Copenhagen Zoo had not broken its codes of conduct and that it "has been consistent in its approach to animal population management, and high standards of animal welfare."

The zoo supports natural cycles of reproduction and cub rearing, it said, and its lions are not part of a breeding program.

"While EAZA regrets the death of the animals in question, we recognize the right of Copenhagen Zoo to humanely cull them in line with their policies," it added.

Such culling is not uncommon, although large animals are less likely to meet that fate.

European Association of Zoos and Aquaria spokesman David Williams-Mitchell told CNN that across the European zoos governed by the body, about 3,000 to 5,000 animals are killed each year under programs to manage zoo populations.

This includes "everything from tadpoles and insects up to charismatic megafauna like giraffes and lions," he said, adding that it represents only 0.06% of the zoos' overall animal population.

Exact figures are hard to come by, but a few hundred of those killed by the zoos each year would be large animals, he said.

Williams-Mitchell added that members of the public and animal rights groups tend to object only when zoos kill "cute, storybook animals," rather than rodents or tadpoles.

Giraffe backlash

Marius the giraffe was shot by a veterinarian and dismembered in front of an audience that included children, before being fed to the zoo's lions, tigers and leopards.

Addressing criticism after that killing, Bengt Holst, the zoo's scientific director, told CNN the decision was made for the greater good of the giraffe population.

"Our giraffes are part of an international breeding program, which has a purpose of ensuring a sound and healthy population of giraffes," he said.

But the explanation did little to appease public anger.

The backlash prompted another zoo in Denmark to reverse course. Jyllands Park Zoo had said it was considering culling one of its male giraffes if a female was brought in to breed. But it backtracked.

Scrap metal find turns out to be $33 million Faberge golden egg

A $14,000 jumble sale find turned into millions of dollars for a man who'd been thwarted in his attempts to turn a quick profit by selling the tiny ornament to scrap metal dealers.

The man, who hails from the Midwest but wishes to remain anonymous, had been left financially stretched after he apparently overestimated what the tiny golden egg would be worth once melted down. He'd been hoping to make $500.

In a fit of desperation one night last year, he typed "egg" and the name engraved on the clock it contained -- "Vacheron Constantin" -- into Google.

His search brought up a 2011 article in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper describing a "frantic search" for the object: the Third Imperial Easter Egg, made by Faberge for the Russian royal family and estimated to be worth 20 million pounds ($33 million).

Far from being a financial millstone around the scrap metal trader's neck, it appeared the golden egg might live up to its fairy-tale namesake and avoid the furnace with just a few scratches -- to assess its gold content -- to show for it.

The man contacted Faberge expert Kieran McCarthy and flew to London to visit McCarthy's workplace: Wartski jewelers in Mayfair, where the egg will be displayed to the public for only the second time, from April 14 to 17.

'Holy Grail of art and antiques'

McCarthy said he had no warning about the visit.

"A gentleman had walked in wearing jeans, a plaid shirt and trainers. His mouth was just dry with fear," McCarthy said, to the extent that he could barely speak. "He handed me a portfolio of photographs, and there was the egg, the Holy Grail of art and antiques."

Though he had not handled the egg itself, McCarthy said, he was "buzzing from top to toe." He flew to the man's home to see the object in person and confirmed that it was indeed the Third Imperial Egg.

The finder "just can't believe his luck," McCarthy said. "It's almost an affirmation of his existence that this happened to him."

11 intriguing things owned by wealthy Russians

Intrinsic value

McCarthy said the man had overestimated the value of the egg's materials -- which were worth about what he'd paid for it -- but underestimated its value as a work of art.

"He didn't look upon a work of art at all. He saw that it was pretty and it was nice, but he was buying on intrinsic value. He bought and sold. ... This was quite a considerable outlay for him," he said. "The essence of Faberge's work is craftsmanship. It's the beauty of design and the conceiving of that object."

Pre-revolutionary Russia had seen "this last gasp of imperial patronage colliding with craftsmanship," he said, as the tsar and tsarina had everything they wanted.

"Their daily lives were lived at such a height of luxury that you couldn't really excite them with anything of intrinsic value. It was always about the craftsmanship. This is what that object is about, this craftsmanship and demonstration of skill. If you're not looking for it, you won't see it," McCarthy said.

"It's a very delicate and small object, and people never anticipate that Faberge eggs can be that size," he said, instead imagining them to be "the size of the Empire State Building, with diamonds the size of footballs."

But the eggs were a celebration of Easter and love tokens, "so in a way, they are quite modest."

Missing eggs

The finder was far removed from the art and antiques world and so had not recognized the object's true value. After reading the article, he could hardly believe what he was in possession of, McCarthy said.

"He was just getting frantic. He couldn't sleep; he couldn't eat; he couldn't think about anything else."

Until the 1916 overthrow of the tsar, Carl Faberge's jewelery workshop made 50 Easter eggs for the family, each taking a year or more to craft. According to Faberge, designs were produced in the greatest secrecy, "the only prerequisite being that they contained a surprise."

The egg on the brink of being melted down for scrap in the U.S. had been the third made: Tsar Alexander III's 1887 Easter gift to his wife, Tsarina Maria Feodorovna.

The 8.2-centimeter (3.2-inch) egg is on an elaborate gold stand supported by lion paw feet. Three sapphires suspend golden garlands around it, and a diamond acts an opening mechanism to reveal the Vacheron Constantin watch inside.

The egg was thought to have been lost after the Soviets listed it for sale in 1922 as part of a policy of turning "treasures into tractors," but in 2011, Faberge researchers recognized it in a 1964 auction catalog, reviving hopes it had survived and prompting the Telegraph article.

After the revolution, 42 of the imperial eggs made their way into private collections and museums. Eight, including the Third Imperial Egg, were thought to have been lost. Two others are thought to have survived, though their locations remain a mystery.

The other five were almost certainly destroyed, McCarthy said, with no reference to them after the Revolution.

The Third Imperial Egg has been purchased by a private collector who has allowed the public to glimpse it at Wartski before it disappears from general view again.

Ash Wednesday 2014: History, Dates, Traditions Of Lent's First Day Of Fasting

Ash Wednesday is observed on March 5, in 2014. The Christian holy day marks the beginning of Lent, a 40-day season of fasting that is considered preparation for Holy Week and the celebration of Easter.

Although there is no Biblical reference to Ash Wednesday or Lent, scholars of Christianity date the tradition of a 40-day fasting period back to 325 A.D.

Lent mirrors Jesus’ own 40-day period of fasting, described in the book of Matthew. Observers have ash placed on their foreheads in the shape of the cross as the words from Genesis 3:19 are spoken: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Fasting requirements for Catholics are outlined by the Code of Canon Law, and include eating no meat on the Fridays during Lent, as well as fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. (Fasting in this case refers to eating just one full meal a day.)

Many Christians will make personal vows of abstinence during Lent, which could include anything from refraining from eating candy, meat, vowing not to gossip, or being less selfish. Others will make a vow to do more for others including volunteering and working for social justice. All are expected to spend more time in prayer and reflection as Lent is considered by many to be an opportunity for spiritual transformation.

Lent is the opportunity to change what we ought to change but have not...Lent is about becoming, doing and changing whatever it is that is blocking the fullness of life in us right now... Lent is a summons to live anew...Lent is the time to let life in again, to rebuild the worlds we've allowed to go sterile, to "fast and weep and mourn" for the goods we've foregone. If our own lives are not to die from lack of nourishment, we must sacrifice the pride or the sloth or the listlessness that blocks us from beginning again. Then, as Joel (2:12-18) promises, God will have pity on us and pour into our hearts the life we know down deep that we are lacking.

How to Solve Obamacare’s Youth Enrollment Problem

When the first Obamacare enrollment numbers were released, there was nervousness that only 24% of those signing up were in the important 18 to 34 age category. Those who initially signed up through the Affordable Care Act tended to be older and potentially less healthy, and that kind of population didn’t bode well for premiums—or the law’s economic viability. So the question at hand was this: How do we get more young people to enroll?

Currently Obamacare uses financial penalties to get people to sign up. The result is either resentment or just plain avoidance. Young people in particular are upset because they know they’re paying for their elders. But a new quantitative science, called social physics, shows us that the key isn’t just to make it in their economic self-interest, but to make doing so benefit their own circle of people.

Social physics is a new quantitative science that not only describes how networks of people behave, but also accurately predicts patterns of human behavior and influences those patterns. It harnesses big data to radically change our ideas about why people decide to change their behavior, and how new ideas reach them and move them.

For instance, in one community experiment, my MIT research group offered people financial rewards for healthier behavior. The result was a small improvement, but one that disappeared as soon as the experiment ended. However, in a second community, we gave people rewards only when their neighbors or members of their workgroup improved. The improvement was up to eight times greater, and, perhaps just as important, the pattern of healthier behavior continued even after the experiment’s money ran out.

What explains the difference? Social network incentives raise community awareness and create social pressure to work together. Individual incentives are just that: They engage only the individual and miss the power of community engagement. When people interact in small groups, the ability to punish or reward peers is effective at promoting trusted cooperative behavior.

The social physics approach to getting everyone to cooperate focuses on changing the connections between people rather than getting individual people to change their behavior. Social network incentives act by generating social pressure around the problem of finding cooperative behaviors; people experiment with new behaviors to find ones that are better. The social pressure generated is a function of the cost of the behavioral mismatch between the behavior of the individuals, the value of the relationship, and the amount of interaction. All this means that the most effective network incentives should be focused on the people who have the strongest social ties and the most interaction with others.

You can also use social physics in online environments. For instance, with colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, we encouraged  buddy groups within a digital social network around energy use: When someone saved energy, then gift points were given to his or her buddies. This social network incentive caused electricity consumption to drop by 17%, twice that seen in earlier energy conservation campaigns and more than four times more effective than the typical energy reduction campaign. Just as in the health experiment, behavior change was most effective when it leveraged the strength of the surrounding social ties.

So how can the Obama administration use social physics to increase outreach to young people ahead of National Youth Enrollment Day on Feb. 15?

The simplest example would be to offer discounts to young people in workgroups or in the local neighborhood—but only if everyone signs up. If you offered each person $5 a month if everyone were to sign up, it would be a real topic of conversation among young people. If you offered $50 up front, it would be something they would have to do, because otherwise they would be ostracized by their peers—even though $50 is less than $5 per month. Using social physics, rather than economics, could drive young people to sign up in droves.