The empty
Peter Watson concludes that introspection as a way of knowing “the truth” “hasn’t worked” (27 August, p 42). “Looking in…”, he writes, “…we have found nothing, nothing stable anyway, nothing conclusive, because there is nothing to find.”
With these words, Watson has unwittingly, but very accurately, articulated the central Buddhist (one of the introspective traditions he condemns) tenet of emptiness. Within Buddhist psychology emptiness is a property of everything, but it is particularly emphasised in relation to one psychological construct which Watson deploys freely without any apparent questioning. Can Watson please provide us with the scientific evidence which justifies retaining the word “I” in the social, psychological and cognitive sciences he so wishes to release from the constraints of imagination and introspection?
For the record
鈥� Our story “CO2 figures break Kyoto vows” (8 October, p 7) may have given the impression that the Kyoto protocol sets a global target for CO2 emissions. However, only rich countries that ratified it are committed to cuts. Also, although developing countries such as China are catching up with rich countries, their contribution to global warming per head of population is still much lower. The average Chinese, for example, emitted 3.4 tonnes of CO2 in 2004 compared with 20 tonnes from the average American.
鈥� We stated in the 1 October issue (p 6) that Surveyor 1 made the first soft landing on the moon in May 1966. While Surveyor 1 was a first for the US, the Soviet Luna 9 made the first ever soft landing on the moon about four months earlier.
Scrap the database
Geoff Lane suggests that a central database is necessary if ID cards and biometrics are to be useful (1 October, p 18). However, an alternative ID card scheme proposed by a team at the London School of Economics would not require a central database. In this scheme, biometric data would be stored on the card itself and the card would be validated by a trusted third party.
This scheme would offer many benefits over the system the UK government is proposing. Personal information would remain under the individual’s control, thus reducing the security risks and potential breaches of privacy associated with a central database. Eliminating the database would also drastically reduce the complexity (and hence the cost and likelihood of failure) of the project.
The proposed National Identity Register, with its intrusive audit trail recording every occasion on which the card is used, would fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state. Getting rid of the central register would minimise the loss of civil liberties entailed by the introduction of ID cards.
From Simon Sellick
Duncan Graham-Rowe’s response to Geoff Lane’s letter misses the point. The supposed purpose of the identity card is to prevent someone fraudulently passing themself off as someone else. The biometric data from the carrier’s body need only be compared against the record of the identity claimed, not the other 5 billion records in the database as Graham-Rowe implies. There is no need for the ID card to carry anything other than a number to avoid the carrier the necessity of remembering it. A piece of paper should suffice.
Evesham, Worcestershire, UK
Duncan Graham-Rowe writes:
鈥� It is worth noting also that the ID card is intended for non-government services that many people may genuinely want 鈥� such as accessing bank records or retail loyalty schemes. To simply present a biometric from your body and give your name and date of birth would indeed work without a card, but it would require absolutely every terminal to be hooked up to a remote database, an expensive and often impractical option. Having an ID card actually makes it possible to avoid having a database at all.
Come out and talk
We agree wholeheartedly with Fiona Fox when she calls for open and honest debate between animal rights protestors and scientists (24 September, p 22). The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection often criticises the government for failing to open a public and unbiased inquiry into the results of animal testing, and for not making any attempt to open the gates of animal testing laboratories to public scrutiny.
However, the animal research community, aided by the UK government, does everything to stifle debate on animal testing by opposing the release of meaningful information about what is done to animals in laboratories, or why it is done to them. They say this is because of fear of violent reprisal but Fox herself says there is no evidence that “speaking out” is the spark for intimidation and attacks.
The Home Office fiercely resists applications from responsible organisations for anonymised information under the Freedom of Information Act. They will only publish very brief summaries of licences, written by the researchers themselves, concealing more than they reveal, and downplaying the suffering involved.
However, in suggesting that such debate only lies between scientists and animal rights “extremists” Fox is out of date. We want an open debate between researchers who use animals and the increasing number of scientists who consider animal experiments as flawed science.
Only three weeks ago, the Financial Times reported on “human micro-dosing”, a method that can test “whole body” effects of drugs in humans, bypassing the use of animals. And on 26 September the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Manchester unveiled the microfluidic circuit, a chip containing areas of cells representing different parts of the human body, linked by tiny channels that circulate nutrients between them. It is designed to assess the effects of a potential new drug compound on humans, and gives human-specific data, in contrast to misleading and dangerous animal data that cannot be extrapolated to humans. Surely, it is “new science” like this that New 杏吧原创 should be covering.
From Colleen McDuling
Fiona Fox is absolutely correct in saying that scientists should speak out on animal research. The only problem I have with her article is that I am ineligible to participate. According to the article, those taking part in the debate are clearly either animal rights extremists (who oppose animal testing), or scientists (who favour it). What about those of us who are neither? Are they automatically excluded? I happen to be a medical scientist who is opposed to animal research, but I am not an animal rights extremist.
While those scientists who argue for animal experimentation may be lauded by their peers, those who are against it are likely to be persecuted for their stance, if they make their views publicly known. They hide in the background wanting to speak out, but are too afraid to do so. I know full well what it is like to endure this persecution and ridicule. And yet, those of us who are not extremists also have a right to make our voices heard. We are law-abiding, and oppose violence in any form.
There is a powerful scientific, as well as ethical argument, to be made against animal testing. Not only are animals so biologically different from humans such that results from them cannot in any way be extrapolated safely to humans, they are sentient and highly emotional beings with some basic feelings similar to our own. Thus they should be afforded the same respect that we would give to our fellow humans.
I would therefore respectfully ask Fox to acknowledge people such as myself when writing similar articles in the future, lest the general public be left with the notion that all who support animal research must be law-abiding scientists, while all who oppose it are violent extremists.
Sevenoaks, Kent, UK
People power
Robert Alcock and Maureen Evershed effectively dismiss the value of individual action in protecting the environment on the grounds that it is futile because, public apathy being what it is, only a few will do it (1 October, p 18). Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of argument that encourages such apathy, with its unstated corollary that we can all blithely carry on as usual until the government “does something”.
It also omits a vital factor, the only one that can really save us, namely the massive talent and clear-sightedness inherent in the general public. This is not readily measurable, but I see it as being like the unknown “dark energy” and “dark matter” that physics is happy to assume make up most of the universe. People being people, for every 10 who recycle and install solar panels, there will be one with a brighter idea, and for every 10 of these there will be someone with an even better idea.
The practical reality is that the government will do nothing. We must do it. Individual action is everything and there is a need now for strong evangelism in this cause 鈥� some faith in the “dark energy” of the people. When enough of us do something, the government will be dragged along behind. If we do nothing, neither will they.
From Andrew Laing
Your excellent article brings out powerfully the point that individuals really can take effective action on greenhouse emissions 鈥� and by doing that can lead communities in an area where politicians have not made much progress. We do not have to sit in our chairs wringing our hands with frustration. There are many things we can do without special skill and without major expense.
You will see that I am writing from Australia 鈥� a “serious offender” alongside the US. One of the good features of life here, as well as the weather, is the effective guidance which makes clear that the first steps in improving the greenhouse performance of a house are very easy.
If you are still using conventional incandescent lights in your house, go out now and buy compact fluorescent replacements which save 80 per cent of the electricity, last much longer and pay back their cost quickly. And don’t be put off by memories of fluorescent tubes which made the butter look green. The technology has come a long way since then.
If you are taking baths or showering under an old shower head, switch to an efficient shower head with a flow of around 10 litres a minute. This saves water (important in itself) and saves the cost and greenhouse emissions of heating all the extra water you were using.
Go and buy a washing line. Every time you by-pass the tumble dryer you have made another significant contribution.
None of these things costs much or requires much skill to make it happen. Each of them makes a real contribution. If enough of us do these things we can shut a power station down 鈥� and watch our washing fluttering in the cleaner breeze.
Williamstown, Victoria, Australia
Leap second launches
It is not true that the European Space Agency doesn’t launch rockets in months when leap seconds are inserted (1 October, p 5). Giotto was launched by Ariane on 2 July 1985, one day after a leap second was inserted.
The launch window for an interplanetary launch is seldom open for longer than a month. A Mars mission, for example, would not be postponed for more than two years simply because of a leap second.
Incidentally, the next leap second will be inserted at the end of the day on 31 December 2005 鈥� seven years after a leap second was last inserted.
Cosy Kurzweil
Ray Kurzweil’s latest book The Singularity is Near: When humans transcend biology does a thorough job of explaining how 21st-century technologies such as nanotech, reversible heatless 3D computing, one bit per atom memory storage, femtosecond switching, quantum computing and so on will result in the creation of what I call “artilects” (artificial intellects) with mental capacities literally trillions of trillions of times above human levels (24 September, p 32). What is missing from his book is a political analysis on whether humanity will accept becoming the number two species on the planet, and how the rise of the artilect will play out in the streets.
It is interesting to see how two people can come to wildly different conclusions based on the same data. On the technological side, Kurzweil and I make the same projections that massive artificial intelligence is coming this century. However, in my book The Artilect War, I predict there will be a major conflagration over this “species dominance” issue, killing billions of people in the latter half of this century. Kurzweil on the other hand, is all sweetness and light, despite the fact that last century, humanity managed to kill off about 200 million people for political reasons, none of which, I contend, will compete with the bitterness engendered by differences over whether human beings “should build gods or build our potential exterminators”.
From Jim Penman
It would be great to believe that technological growth is logarithmic (24 September, p 32), but it isn’t. Information processing and biotechnology have certainly made great strides in recent years, but many more areas are stagnant. Our space launch technology has hardly advanced in 40 years, after the costly fiasco of the shuttle. We were supposed to have colonies on Mars by now. We’ve actually retreated back from the moon.
Our transport system is largely based on the century-old internal combustion engine, despite the desperate need for something better. After decades of effort, we haven’t worked out a cost-effective way of getting electricity out of sunlight. As far as economics is concerned, we can’t predict 鈥� much less cure 鈥� economic recessions. Billions of dollars haven’t succeeded in pulling even one African country out of poverty. And there doesn’t seem to be any better treatment for depression or mental illness than talking to people, a “technology” that is probably at least 100,000 years old.
Compared with the bright dreams of my youth, 40 or so years ago, the truth is that technology in the 21st century is a sad disappointment.
Mooroolbark, Victoria, Australia
From Charles Hughes
The dates quoted for computing paradigms should be earlier. Vacuum tube computing, as developed at the UK Post Office Research Station was used for code breaking from 1943 in the form of the “Colossus” machine. The earlier relay machines (“bombes”) were developed from the ICL calculating machines that had been used for several years for accounting purposes and relay operated number translators had been used in telephone switching since the 1930s.
Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK
From Andrew Fiddian-Green
Ray Kurzweil’s thesis of Human 2.0 is enchanting. But it overlooks the sorry experience of software releases where nothing ever works right until it hits version 3.0
Cham, Switzerland
Now you see them…
I read with interest your article on Rindler particles 鈥� particles that come into existence when an observer’s acceleration creates an event horizon 鈥� and constructed a thought experiment (1 October, p 48). Imagine a planet with a centre of mass that moves in an inertial frame, that is at a uniform velocity. This will mean that light from every part of the universe can reach the planet and there is no event horizon. The planet should therefore not see Rindler particles (the situation seen by Alice in the original explanation).
Imagine now that Bob is in a windowless box that is sitting on the surface of the planet. According to the equivalence principle, Bob can’t distinguish whether he is in a gravitational field created by a massive object, or is in fact accelerating, and as he can’t look outside he has no way of telling. However, if he is accelerating a horizon will exist and he will see Rindler particles (at least those that can penetrate the box). On the other hand if he is in the gravitational field of a planet moving at a constant speed a distant event horizon won’t exist and he will not see Rindler particles. Do Rindler particles then provide a method of allowing an observer to differentiate between a gravitational field and an acceleration? What would Einstein say about this?
The editor writes:
鈥� According to Einstein’s equivalence principle, if acceleration creates particles by forming an event horizon, then a gravitational field that creates an event horizon should create particles as well 鈥� and this is exactly what happens at the horizon of a black hole. Known as Hawking radiation, these particles are precisely the same phenomena. Bob would not be able to tell whether he was accelerating in Rindler space or in the presence of a black hole. Particles are also created when space itself is accelerating, rather than an observer, which is exactly what is going on in our universe right now. So, Rindler particles don’t violate the equivalence principle; rather, they reveal a whole new aspect of it which Einstein, his discomfort with quantum theory aside, would undoubtedly find very exciting.
Catch the caller
Your article on the use of cellphones in aircraft reveals that illegal calls are being made throughout flights (10 September, p 44). I suggest that a picocell base station on the plane would be invaluable in identifying illegal phone use (in addition to its designated function of limiting the phones’ output power levels). The picocell need make no network connections to the outside world, but simply generate an initial warning to the offender, then record details of the offence if further action needs to be taken.
From Chris Knight
While the use of a mobile phone was a possible factor in the crash you describe in your article about mobile phones on aeroplanes, I would suggest the pilot’s lack of necessary flying experience was a significant factor.
“Flying the needles” 鈥� only following the glide slope/localiser indicator 鈥� is an elementary mistake. Industry sources expressed the opinion that the circumstances of the accident may indicate poor training and supervision, insufficient management and reporting procedures and testing by aviation authorities.
If a pilot prepares correctly, flies the instrument approach in accordance with procedure and carries instrument approach charts, then a number of factors would alert him to the fact he is flying too low. In this case, a cross check of instruments, assuming one is done, specifically the altimeter together with radio aids, would have clearly indicated an impending predicament.
The most striking aspect of the case was that the pilot was flying below the altitude at which the runway must be visible prior to attempting a landing. The visibility minima are normally 300 to 500 feet above ground level for an instrument rated pilot.
Cellphones may cause interference to some avionics. However, aircraft are fitted with various duplicated systems operating on different frequencies or, in the case of altimeters, air pressure.
Otego, New Zealand
Walking on water
The final lines of Ehsan Masoud’s article on the Dead Sea give exactly the wrong idea: “Some scientists reckon that as the waters continue to recede, the concentration of salts will become so high that evaporation will stop. If that happens, Bromberg points out, you won’t have to be Jesus to walk across the Dead Sea” (17 September, p 14).
If those scientists are right (and they are), then the Dead Sea will never become solid salt. I worked on the subject of evaporation of Dead Sea brines for years, and the fact is that evaporation will stop when the concentration gets high enough. Even though the density would be higher than now, a person in such a brine would still sink up to his chest.
The article does raise an interesting question. How will water from a desalination plant help biodiversity along the Dead Sea’s shore, where the vegetation is in any case watered by fresh water from local springs and streams?
And by the way, Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee.