Language is a virus
If a philosopher were to talk, would scientists understand him (or her, or
it)? 杏吧原创s and science journalists really should get out more and meet some
philosophers.
Having read New 杏吧原创 and similar organs for most of my
professional life, I conclude that many have a very strange view of what
philosophy is. Philosophers seem to be regarded as rather dogmatic and
anachronistic, engaged in “idle speculation” and perhaps, even, only one step
away from theologians.
To ask whether Wittgenstein was wrong to say “If a lion could talk, we could
not understand him”
(30 June, p 48)
in the context of animal
consciousness鈥攐r of interpreting the alarm calls of vervet
monkeys鈥攄isplays a woeful grasp of Wittgenstein’s point. He was discussing
the deep and still highly controversial question of how language may work within
an entire culture鈥攁nd how meaning, for example, is intimately tied to
one’s needs, interests and mode of being.
Topics such as animal consciousness would benefit from a mature dialogue
between scientists and philosophers, something New 杏吧原创 is well
placed to encourage.
Letter
I agree with Steve Plater that nuclear fission is not a green way to generate
electricity, but his argument misses the point. Nuclear fission would not be a
better option even if all the energy for its construction came from renewable
energy sources.
It is unsatisfactory for three reasons: 1. It is an intrinsically hostile
technology. The consequences of an accident are awful, and accidents will happen
from time to time. 2. It leaves a legacy for future generations in the form of
radioactive waste. 3. When all costs are taken into account, including the full
costs of dealing with any accidents and secure waste disposal for centuries to
come, it is expensive.
There should be no ceiling on the liability of owners of nuclear plants in
the event of an accident鈥攗nlike the situation at present. Renewable energy
sources are more than sufficient for all our needs, and the current high cost of
using them on a large scale is entirely due to the money needed to develop them
being diverted into other technologies, such as nuclear fission.
Ship shape
In the North Atlantic, in 1943, the Queen Elizabeth could hardly be described
as a “cruise liner”
(30 June, p 32).
Letter
Certainly the nuclear fuel cycle requires energy input, some of it from
fossil fuels. These inputs are well quantified, both by operators at various
stages, and by the utilities involved, typically probing well upstream in the
energy chain. The inputs Steve Plater refers to, plus enrichment鈥攚hich has
tended to be the most energy-intensive part鈥攁dd up to an energy input of
less than 2 per cent of lifetime output. In the worst case, with old enrichment
technology, that figure is still only 4.8 per cent of output on a thermal
basis.
Doing the sums for old enrichment plants in the US gives overall CO2
emissions per kilowatt-hour of about 40 grams for the nuclear fuel cycle,
compared with around 1000 g for coal. Swedish utility Vattenfall’s life-cycle
analysis came up with 6 g for nuclear, compared with 5.5 g for wind and 980 g
for coal. A similar exercise in Finland gave 10 g for nuclear, 14 g for wind,
472 g for gas and 894 g for coal.
Fission flames
Steve Plater is right to ridicule Tam Dalyell’s claim that “it is widely
recognised that nuclear is the greenest form of energy”
(14 July, p 52),
but only half right. Any rational assessment will reveal that nuclear is the form of
energy with the lowest environmental impact, but the rational approach is often
lacking, so it is wrong to claim that this conclusion is widely recognised.
Plater argues that wind power is greener, and goes on to demand an assessment
of how much fossil fuel is used to construct and support a nuclear power
station. If that’s the criterion, we should do the same for a gigawatt of
wind-power capacity.
Generating wind power on a gigawatt scale would be a mammoth manufacturing
and civil-engineering project. It would involve, for example, no fewer than a
million of the high-efficiency Croatian turbines described in the same issue (p
20). The amount of fossil fuel needed to manufacture, construct, maintain and
decommission these devices would, I estimate, dwarf that for an equivalent
nuclear facility.
It is a sad fact that as soon as renewable energy sources are scaled up to
meet a significant proportion of energy demand, they begin to have a large
environmental impact and attract opposition from greens.
It's a cat's life
Contrary to your story
(7 July, p 12),
people who “love cats” don’t advocate
the development of transgenic ones. They go to the animal refuge and offer a
loving home to an abandoned cat.
If one is allergic to cats and does not wish to take medication, here is a
simple five-point plan: 1. Make sure your home is well ventilated. 2. Use a wet
vacuum cleaner. These pick up shed skin and hair better than dry ones. 3. Have
someone else brush the cat gently and regularly, or do it yourself wearing
gloves and a face mask. 4. Feed the cat a nutritious diet to prevent excessive
hair shedding, and one with a little oil in it to prevent flaky skin. 5. Adjust.
Many people’s allergic reactions fade with time.
Too much effort? Then get a ready-made transgenic cat, also known as a “dog”,
from the dogs’ home instead. It’s too bad that the development of a human who
isn’t selfish and oblivious to the plight of animals is still science
fiction.
Letter
The question of animal consciousness was nicely put by a small boy of my
acquaintance who inquired, “Do birds know that birds are birds?”
Letter
Donald Griffin says he doesn’t really know why many scientists “are suffering
from `mentophobia’ that belittles non-human animals and robs them of any
possible claim to consciousness”. I think I can help. First, the discovery of
consciousness in any non-human animal would lead to inconvenient questions about
the way we currently inflict suffering, death and extinction on other species on
a gargantuan scale. Second, such a finding would undermine our cherished sense
of being unique.
If there are any reasons apart from these I would be interested to hear them.
We are, after all, only talking about investigating the possibility of animal
consciousness, so why the outrage about it?
Animal thoughts
The idea that animals are not conscious鈥攚hich Donald Griffin so stoutly
resists鈥攄oes not flow from science, though many scientists
apparently accept it. It is simply part of the 16th-century thinker Ren茅
Descartes’ notion that human consciousness is unique, flowing from a
supernatural soul that is alien to the body.
杏吧原创s originally welcomed this notion because it left the material world
soul-free for them to study. For biology, however, it is a disaster, totally
obscuring our relation to the life around us. We do not now need this
separatism. Post-Darwin, and especially given modern ethological studies, it is
surely scientifically indefensible.
Smell of fearless
Stench warfare holds no terrors for me
(7 July, p 42). Some years ago, I
sustained a head injury in which I permanently lost my sense of smell. My smell
sensors became disconnected from the olfactory lobe due to a skull fracture.
Although I miss many of the good smells, I am also safe from the bad ones. I
am quite sure I could walk through Bathroom Malodor or Who Me? without turning a
hair.
Perhaps I should turn this to my financial advantage by offering my services
as a leader of riots.
TB, or to do
Thank you for your extensive coverage of TB
(7 July, p 3,
p 6 and
p 28). Your
issue should be a valuable contribution to the fight against this entirely
preventable disease.
However, things may not be as bleak as the picture you painted. In Britain a
new charity called TB Alert (www.tbalert.org) was launched two years ago, to
raise awareness and funds for the fight. Governments and businesses are slowly
waking up to the problem, but we have a long way to go.
Steam fridge
I am surprised that your article on gas-powered radio
(7 July, p 50)
neglected to mention other applications of gas鈥攖he gas refrigerator and
washing machine.
We had such a refrigerator in our house as late as 1977. It was fitted to the
gas outlet that became available when we got rid of the gas washing machine. The
washing machine was a hybrid appliance using gas for the boiler and electricity
to power an agitator and a mangle.
The fridge used a pilot light to drive its absorption cycle鈥攁nd never
failed to puzzle visitors who wondered how a flame could produce coldness. Its
utterly silent operation makes me wonder why they are not still on sale
today.
Letter
Infuriated some years back by the wilful refusal of a computer printer to
live up to its name and actually print, even after hours of messing about with
printer drivers, I found myself in our bathroom in a state of rage unlike any I
had ever experienced. I took one look in the mirror, seized my razor and
instantly shaved off my 23-year-old moustache, as the only way of abating my
temper.
Friends later told me the change made me look much younger鈥攁 small
compensation.
Computer abuse
There are computer programs available that offer counselling for those who
are unable to control their urge to abuse computers鈥攁lthough this assumes
you can get the computer to work in the first place
(Feedback, 7 July).
I tried to use one some years ago. The program’s opening question was: “So
you think you have a problem?” I replied: “Not really.” This was followed by a
computer crash that required the attention of our data manager who, it turned
out, had a major problem with people who had no problem but created problems for
him.
Boom!
From Feedback
(7 July): “A recent issue of the South Wales Echo
reported: `Staff had to evacuate a South Wales truck firm after an electrical
fire threatened to ignite a carbon dioxide container at the company depot. Fire
crews using specialist equipment were called. . . Nobody was hurt in the blaze.’
We wonder what specialist equipment they used. The normal method of
extinguishing an electrical fire is to spray it with carbon dioxide.”
Are you daft? Exposing a tank of CO2 to fire does not create an
extinguisher, it creates a bomb.
Letter
Your feature on the global threat posed by the spread of TB is sceptical
about the potential for DOTS (directly observed treatment, short course) to get
to grips with the disease on its own. The fact is that TB is spreading now,
people are dying now, and we have a cheap, affordable treatment available
now.
DOTS may not be ideal, but it’s all we have. The $400 million the
World Health Organization says is needed to make DOTS work is relatively little
compared with the costs of developing and testing new TB vaccines from scratch.
And as your article points out, the drugs companies are unwilling to put up the
money.
Clearly, the only sensible course of action is for the international
community to follow the WHO’s recommendation and put the necessary funds into
DOTS. We can’t afford to sit back and wait for something better to come
along.
Wages of gloom
Regarding sad workers working better
(Feedback, 14 July), you may already
have heard the phrase “Treat ’em mean to keep ’em keen.” I don’t know its exact
source.
Might it, though, originate as an old chestnut among British management
consultants?