Science of morals
To describe moral values as unscientific, as you report Edward Slingerland doing, is ridiculous (10 November, p 6). Morals plainly developed as people needed to live together. There is no reason why this can’t be studied scientifically. He also seems confused about human rights. With the world in the state it is, nobody can possibly claim that human rights are universal. Have a word with the people in Burma.
We may believe that human rights should be universal, but that is plainly not the same thing.
Once more with feeling
When I was a third-year physiology undergraduate I saw a cane toad that had had its brain and brain stem destroyed respond to dilute hydrochloric acid placed on its flank by scratching at the exact spot. The movement can only have been controlled by the spinal cord, which cannot feel.
If a vertebrate like a toad can do this without a functioning brain, why do we need to conclude that shrimp need to feel pain to respond similarly (10 November, p 14)? This conclusion seems to rely on wishful thinking and the fallacy of the argument from incredulity: “I cannot conceive of X, therefore X cannot be.”
Forbidden fruit
You quote experiments done at Yale University designed to elicit conflicting thoughts in 4-year-old children and Capuchin monkeys (3 November, p 14). It seems to me, however, that the procedure described does not elicit cognitive dissonance, rather the “forbidden fruit response” (FFR) 鈥� a subset of the “greener grass response” common to many species and particularly strong in humans.
In the experiments you report, one sweet (or sticker) is withheld by an external influence. The FFR model predicts that the optimum second choice has to be the previously forbidden one, to investigate why it was withheld.
There is an evolutionary advantage in this behaviour since one of the reasons why a competitor might withhold something could be because it has some competitive advantage.
From my observations, this sort of behaviour is widespread, even among non-primates. Try playing with a dog and its toys: the one it wants is almost always the one you are holding, even if its favourite toy is lying next to it.
OK computer
I was dismayed at the lack of recognition Michael Bond, reviewing David Levy’s Love and Sex with Robots (10 November, p 76), gave to the subset of people who find social relationships baffling and have difficulty with the nuances of social interactions. Such people find particularly puzzling any relationships that rely heavily on non-literal speech or that use outright deception, such as romance or politics.
The people I have in mind are those with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders (ASD). People with ASD have been found, in several empirical studies, to prefer computers to people (presumably because they are predictable and literal), and to be over-represented in computer science, engineering and maths. The “Anthony” to whom Levy dedicates his book is clearly one.
I am confident that neurotypical people will continue to prefer the utter confusion, nuance, ambiguity and mystery of real human lovers. Those who find social interactions bewildering might not. Different strokes for different folks.
Levy says that love and marriage between robots and humans will occur by 2050, and that this is inevitable.
Accepting the human side of the equation for the purpose of argument, what exactly does the robot get out of this relationship? A gradually ageing, increasingly decrepit person, while the robot continues with its “life” unchanged. Even assuming that robots could be programmed to have emotions, this must be one of the sillier predictions.
Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Mutual aid
Charles Darwin was not the only early proponent of group selection (3 November, p 42); another was Peter Kropotkin, whose was published in 1902. He gave numerous examples of biological groups whose evolutionary success is clearly dependent on their cooperation. This is so obvious that one wonders how alternative theories such as Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society” could ever have taken hold of a large part of the scientific establishment.
Is it because Kropotkin was an anarchist that, despite his scientific background, he still is not taken seriously and didn’t get a mention in your article?
On the other hand, because of her position in the hierarchy, Thatcher has been widely quoted, and not only in anger.
The lesson is that the social sciences, far from being unbiased, generally reflect the ruling ideology in society.
Isn’t it time to look seriously at anarchism?
For the record
鈥� The University of R茅union is not, as we implied in our story about gas emitted during earthquakes (17 November, p 16), in Saint Denis, metropolitan France, but on the French island of R茅union in the Indian Ocean.
鈥� Poyang Lake, mentioned on our map of the state of the Chinese nation (10 November, p 50), is the largest freshwater lake in China, but not the largest in the world. Similarly, outside China there are larger saltwater lakes than Qinghai Lake.
Trauma treatment
Paula Caplan’s contempt for the medicalisation of the psychological effects of trauma is ill-founded and dangerous (17 November, p 56). While it is true that amplified emotions of anger, shame and guilt are normal reactions to the trauma of war, empirical evidence shows that vulnerability to severe forms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 鈥� which can include depression, suicidal thoughts, psychosis and dissociation 鈥� is arbitrary and selective at best.
Furthermore, trauma is now so widely experienced through terrorism, road traffic accidents and the accompanying media coverage, that the once widely-held dictum of PTSD being an “ordinary reaction to extraordinary events” has been reversed; post-traumatic stress is now an arbitrary response to a common phenomenon.
Ascribing a diagnosis and validating an individual’s distress 鈥� even if using an imperfect psychiatric construct 鈥� gives military personnel some succour in the form of post-conflict care, compensation and the sensitive handling of their distress.
Paula Caplan argues that soldiers aren’t crazy 鈥� war is. But, at least in the US and the UK, all soldiers are professionals who chose to become soldiers. Surely those who deliberately choose to engage in such a “crazy” activity must be somewhat crazy themselves.
However culpable the politicians who start wars might be, the people who offer to fight those wars must take some of the responsibility for what happens to them as a result.
Chandler’s Ford, Hampshire, UK
鈥� The US remains a racist and classist society in which many have few options for earning a decent living or getting through college, especially when the economy is ailing. As I learned from working with people who joined the military and then left, huge numbers did not sign up because they wanted to fight. Some say their recruiters lied, telling them that: they would not end up in combat; they would get the terrific job training they sought; they should not mention existing depression or severe anxiety. Some signed up immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, believing they would be stationed at airports and shipping ports.
Separation anxiety
Marcus Chown reports on a study of how haphazard urban planning and poor transport links can isolate neighbourhoods from other parts of a city (3 November, p 8). He says researchers point to such geographical isolation as a prime cause of social deprivation, economic inactivity and crime 鈥� not least by reducing opportunities for commerce and engendering a sense of isolation in local residents.
But what of cases in which isolation is the result of planned actions, such as the building of the Berlin Wall, or the “Peace Lines” in Belfast and Derry? Consider the current construction by Israel of a so-called separation barrier in the Palestinian West Bank. Chown’s article would seem to suggest that such a barrier will cause further economic hardship and exacerbate crime and social deprivation in the Palestinian territory.
Going green
Fred Pearce asks why you or I should bother going green, but then considers in detail a different question: what would happen if all or most of us went green (17 November, p 34)? The subtle difference is the reason why legislation must be a major part of the solution. I am only willing to pay income tax at the necessary levels because I know that everyone else does too, by law. We need similar national and global frameworks for carbon emissions 鈥� and fast.
As Pearce notes, the UK government is looking at carbon rationing. I believe the Irish government is considering an alternative system called “cap and share” (), which is similar to the “Sky Trust” idea. Both do the same job as carbon rationing, with no need for personal carbon “debit cards” because they act where fossil fuels enter the economy. These ideas are relatively simple, effective, cheap, equitable, have a positive psychology and, crucially, can be implemented swiftly. We really don’t have much time to spare.
I heat my house using traditional light bulbs. I tried the energy-efficient ones but the house became too cold and I had to start using the central heating. But that heats all the rooms, regardless of whether anybody is in them, whereas lights are generally on only if someone is in the room.
Every time I read an article suggesting the switch to energy-saving light bulbs, I look to see whether the extra carbon emissions that result from the increased use of central heating have been allowed for 鈥� and they have not. Even if you have thermostats in every room, or leave all the lights on, the overall effect on emissions of switching to energy-efficient bulbs must be nearly neutral, in winter at least.
This seems like another example of failing to take a system-wide view when working out how to reduce our personal CO2 footprints.
Farnborough, Hampshire, UK
Fred Pearce missed an important way of reducing the carbon emissions created by air travel. Stopping all flying would work, but is too drastic for many people. However, about 40 per cent of the CO2 from long-haul flying is due to business and first class passengers, so if some of these passengers were to switch to economy class, they could cut as much as 80 per cent of their carbon emissions 鈥� and the airlines would soon add more economy seats. Why not print the carbon footprint of each passenger’s flight on tickets and boarding cards?
Baldock, Hertfordshire, UK
Fred Pearce recommends buying a wood-burning stove to reduce CO2 emissions, but ignores a possible downside. Some maintain that these stoves are sources of harmful PM10 pollutants 鈥� particles less than 10 micrometres across 鈥� which have the potential to reach the furthest parts of lungs.
I found seemingly authoritative data online showing that burning wood is nearly as bad for people’s health as burning coal. Is it a matter of choosing between a rise in sea level long after I’m dead or lung disease which could hasten my death?
Kettering, Northamptonshire, UK
Going green
Fred Pearce suggests changing to a wood-burning stove as a way of reducing one’s carbon footprint. Is this feasible on a national scale without importing wood in huge quantities (17 November, p 34)?
I have an estimate from a textbook that a typical UK household uses about 60 gigajoules (GJ) a year for heating and hot water, and also that a “good yield” for a biomass crop in northern Europe might be 200 GJ per hectare per year. With about 25 million households in the UK, this gives a total land requirement of 75,000 square kilometres 鈥� about one-third of the total area of the UK.
As they enjoy the thermal and ethical glow from their carbon-neutral heating system 鈥� presuming the wood used is sustainably produced 鈥� wood-burners need to be aware that not everybody is going to be able to do the same as there won’t be enough wood to go around. So when I use a wood-burning stove, I prevent someone else from doing likewise, and thus bear some of the responsibility for their carbon emissions. We are all in this together.
A similar argument applies to the use of biofuels in vehicles.
Fred Pearce states that it is greener to drink from glass bottles than from cans. There are a number of reasons to doubt this statement.
First, glass containers weigh a lot more per volume of drink than cans, and canned drinks tend to pack closer together than glass bottles. As a result more carbon dioxide is produced transporting glass bottles than cans. Second, the demand for recycled aluminium is much higher than that for glass: the UK is a net importer of green glass and so, even if we recycle glass bottles, the glass may never be used again. We should also consider the energy used when melting the glass or aluminium for reuse 鈥� glass has a melting point of around 1500 掳C whereas aluminium melts at around 660 掳C. Combined with the extra weight of glass bottles, it is clear that far more energy must be used to recycle a glass bottle than a can. Overall it seems more green to drink canned drinks than glass bottled drinks.
An easy way to reduce your carbon footprint through what you drink is to avoid office water coolers. The water is needlessly transported from hundreds of miles away and then refrigerated (both producing substantial amounts of CO2) when we could just get water from a tap instead.
Fred Pearce’s feature “Why bother going green?” is all very well, if the carbon emissions that are the cause of our problems were solely originated by civilian society. He makes no mention of military emissions. What are the emissions of the UK’s Royal Air Force and the US air force, compared with EasyJet, say? Are tanks and military personnel vehicles powered by biofuels?
If a full breakdown is published as authoritative it needs the military figures, from Iraq and Afghanistan, and from all the other wars going on around the world, from the military training exercises, and so on. Can we be given these so as to make our judgements, please?
Reason or religion
There are two aspects of religion which scientists should study (10 November, p 6).
One is religious accounts of the formation of the universe and its contents, including the development of life on Earth 鈥� and there is no scientific evidence whatsover to support religious claims. All of the evidence is to the contrary, and New 杏吧原创 ought to be unequivocal and vocal about this.
The second is religion as a social phenomenon. There is clearly much to study. It is this and only this that you should regard as a proper subject for scientific inquiry.
Human sacrifice, the Crusades, the Inquisition, jihadist suicide bombers, extensive paedophilia and intelligent design do not commend organised religions to many of us. However, like art, music, farming, city building and scientific inquiry, any large-scale, organised human behaviour that persists for millennia is highly likely to have been selected for its adaptive value to the populations demonstrating that behaviour.
The palette of evolved neurological responses from which such complex behaviours emerge are probably similar in kind across most higher-level animals. For example, chimps do not (often) kill each other, they share food in an organised manner and groom each other. If they suddenly developed written language and we handed one a tablet that said “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, “Thou Shalt Share” and “Thou Shalt Groom Thy Neighbour As Thyself” I suspect most chimps would resonate deeply with the “wisdom” and “rightness” of these truths which would feel so deeply true (since they would echo ancient evolved behaviours) that it would not be surprising if they attributed to the author’s supernatural insight.
And the church of Thou Shalt Fly South in The Winter would probably attract quite a flock.
Humans’ innate proclivity to feel and believe that we are something more than animals appears to have had strongly adaptive value. This is probably because feelings that we are more than simply creatures that want to eat, have shelter and mate, have facilitated our ability to create larger, more prosperous cooperative groups.
Shaker Heights, Ohio, US