Mirror on morality
One hesitates to question A. C. Grayling on his own ground, but there seems to be a crucial gap in his argument from mirror neurons to morality (3 May, p 50). He says the discovery of mirror neurons shows us that our capacity to understand and “recognise what helps or distresses others” is built into the very structure of our brain. But he moves straight from that perfectly reasonable point to saying: “This means that the ultimate basis for moral judgement is hard-wired.”
Knowing, thanks to neurology, that we all know how others feel is better than merely believing it, as we have done for millennia. However, knowing what another feels has no direct relationship to knowing how one should act towards him or her; if it did, surely we would have had a universal morality long ago.
Hovering somewhere in the background seems to be the idea that reciprocity, often expressed as the Golden Rule or “treat others as you would like to be treated”, is a consequence of our hard-wired empathy and the basis of a scientifically sound universal morality. I would like that to be true, but I can’t see it on the page and it is a logical step I can’t make unaided.
Fountain of youth
Richard Weller, describing the problems faced by retail chemists Boots should its cosmetic cream Protect and Perfect be reclassified as a drug, fails to take account of how drugs are sold, at least here in the UK (3 May, p 18).
As an example: ibuprofen is for most people a safe, effective painkiller, but to a few people, such as myself, it is a dangerous drug. Small quantities of 200-milligram tablets are available from supermarkets; larger quantities of 400-milligram tablets are available only from pharmacies and [sometimes] only after a third-degree grilling. Doctors also prescribe both 200-milligram and 400-milligram tablets. Several other drugs are sold in a similar way.
It would be a simple matter for Boots to get Protect and Perfect on the same list as ibuprofen, repackage it as a drug with a warning leaflet, and create a stronger version for sale only in pharmacies and prescription. Sales might well then increase.
Everyone's a loser
Phil Stracchino makes the assumption that voters will be reasonably satisfied if their second choice is elected (3 May, p 20). This will not always be the case. Consider a hypothetical election in which the candidates are Mcbain, Oblama and Rader.
Forty per cent of the electorate (give or take a few per cent) think Oblama would be wonderful, Rader incompetent and Mcbain a disaster. Forty per cent think Mcbain would be wonderful, Rader incompetent and Oblama a disaster. The remaining 20 per cent think Rader would be wonderful and either of the others equally disastrous 鈥� and so pick their second choice, if any, at random.
There is no possible outcome 鈥� given this highly polarised electorate 鈥� in any voting system that would not leave the majority of the voters disgruntled.
Surplus requirement
As Bryn Glover describes (26 April, p 20), there is a reverse correlation between the monetary rewards and the social usefulness of paid individuals. But what is true of individuals is not necessarily true of populations.
Useless rich are vastly outnumbered by useful poor so, for instance, a firm employing 20,000 assembly-line workers could give a 拢100,000 bonus to a failed director at only half the cost of giving the workers a bonus of 拢10 each.
It seems likely that the injustice of “inverse differential rewards” is insoluble where rewards consist of money.
Needs must
Richard Dobson says that if the grain now fed to animals were used to feed people instead there would be plenty for everyone on Earth (26 April, p 20). He omits to say that for corn and wheat to be grown in the huge tonnages that are currently produced requires diesel-powered farm machinery.
The world is now passing through “peak oil”, so petroleum production will soon be declining. Liquid fuels such as diesel and petrol will become steadily more scarce and expensive. A farmer using liquid fuels is far more productive of grain than a farmer deprived of them. In addition, essential nitrogen fertiliser is made from natural gas, which is approaching peak production. Taking these factors together leads to the probability that in a few years’ time the world will have passed “peak grain” too.
Meat from animals fed on grass will be available to a small proportion of the world’s population, but the diminishing supplies of corn and wheat will soon be inadequate to feed everyone else.
From David Sandilands
Richard Dobson must surely realise there are not many real “needs” at all. I presume Dobson is a vegetarian (or is happy to become one), and that this is why he is able to dismiss meat as not being a need. I could equally dismiss travelling to work by car as not a need, since I am able to take the bus. Whether or not you value these things are to some extent lifestyle choices. But trying to strip people of these choices and dismissing their aspirations simply because they are not your own can only lead to them reacting defensively.
Instead, we should work on solutions that can meet people’s aspirations and be sustainable. Surely this must be the basis of progress in modern science.
Edinburgh, UK
Wind-power feedback
Feedback is puzzled by wind-generators that turn at a constant speed (26 April). Propeller aircraft often have constant-speed propellers, which change thrust by changing the pitch of the blades. They are particularly suitable for turbine engines, with their very narrow speed range.
Wind turbines are the same: some are constant speed, some variable. A constant-speed turbine is much easier to synchronise with the national grid, and is therefore better for systems which sometimes give and sometimes take power. It might be that, if there is no wind at all, they actually use power to keep spinning. But in a very light breeze, they will spin at the same speed as in a stiff wind.
Trust him, he's a lawyer
Shame on you Lawrence Krauss. I thoroughly disagree with Ben Stein’s apparent support for the idea that there is a “controversy” worth promoting in evolutionary education (26 April, p 50), at least as far as is supported by facts (beliefs are something different). However, to lead your piece with a description of Ben Stein as “an actor” and a “game show host”, thereby conjuring up images of a lightweight who is in over his head attempting serious intellectual work, is out of line.
Stein, as you should know, received a BA from Columbia University with honours, he was valedictorian at Yale Law School and, after several years prosecuting false and deceptive advertising cases, taught at the American University, Washington DC, the University of California and Pepperdine University law school. So he may be wrong, but if combatants usually lead with their best punch, yours missed and makes me wonder if you haven’t got a better argument.
Boxing clever
Feedback wonders what is in the box with the message “CAUTION: To be kept closed at all times” (3 May). The answer is Schr枚dinger’s cat, and the reason for not opening it is obvious.
From Mark Sewell
That box would be Pandora’s, wouldn’t it? I recommend following the instruction.
Halls Creek, Western Australia
For the record
鈥� In our report on India’s space agency having “sent 10 satellites into orbit on a single rocket” last month, we said incorrectly that this beat “Russia’s previous record of eight” (3 May, p 7). On 17 April 2007 Russia launched 14 satellites together.
What kind of god is that?
Andrew Cherry says that “God… is capable of creating evolution and natural selection as a mechanism for species development” (May 10, p 23). This is a very common claim among “progressive” theologians 鈥� that evolution is simply the means by which a god creates living things. To me this is like saying that electrostatic discharge is the means by which Thor produces thunder and lightning. The power of evolution as an idea lies precisely in the fact that it does away with the need for a god.
Even if it were the case that a god creates by means of evolution and natural selection, this fact would have implications for the nature of that god that believers may find hard to stomach. He, she or it would either be exceedingly cruel and wasteful, or else be wholly incapable of applying “intelligence” to the design process.
Fool cell
In his review of Lester Brown’s Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to save civilization, Fred Pearce writes “we already have most of the technologies needed to fix climate change. Some require a firm kick-start, such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars.” (26 April, p 48). George Monbiot, in his book Heat, thoroughly explored that option and declared it unworkable. On the other hand, cars powered by solar-charged batteries are eminently feasible.
Forecast fair
Your article, “We need better forecasts 鈥� and fast” (3 May, p 8), is written solely from a weather forecaster’s perspective rather than from the perspective of a climate-change researcher. This is unhelpful at best. It is not true to say that climate models “cannot reproduce El Ni帽os in the Pacific Ocean… nor the Atlantic storm tracks and blocking high pressure zones that determine whether western Europe is wet or dry”.
Most models, including those from the Met Office Hadley Centre, UK, do simulate these features. Climate models will never be able to reproduce features on the same scale as weather forecasting models, but they can still produce helpful results, using multiple model techniques to quantify the uncertainties. The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group 1 report assessed regional (but not local) climate change. It gives a clear indication of the level of uncertainty in current climate models.
The article suggests that the IPCC’s long review process means that its assessments are not up to date. However, the IPCC report had a deadline for journal acceptance of July 2006 鈥� and made use of papers with formal publication dates through to early 2007 鈥� not 2005 as stated. The process ensures all the scientific evidence, especially new research, is properly assessed before it is used to inform policy.
Finally, improvements in prediction require an increase in computing power as you state, but this has to be accompanied by a greatly improved understanding of cloud behaviour and the terrestrial biosphere. Until we have that improved understanding, any increase in computing power is best distributed between a number of centres. This maintains a diversity of approach, ensuring we can quantify the uncertainty and risk within our climate predictions.
From Bob Muirhead
You report James Hansen as saying that the Antarctic ice cap only appeared when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell to about 425 parts per million, 50 million years ago. He goes on to say that CO2 levels may now rise back to 425 ppm within two decades.
He then suggests that this will represent a tipping point that might trigger rapid loss of the Antarctic ice cap. However, it is unlikely that the state of the ice sheets at 425 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is independent of whether we approach that level from above 鈥� as was the case 50 million years ago 鈥� or from below, as now.
We are dealing with very complicated non-linear systems with many variables that are also changing in non-linear ways.
Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
For peat's sake
A diagram alongside Richard Lovett’s article on burying biomass to fight climate change (3 May, p 32) shows peatland restoration sequestering 77 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year and 98 t/ha per application for biochar incorporation. These figures are highly misleading.
You break the 77 t/ha/yr figure down into a reduction in emissions from soil of 17 t/ha/yr 鈥� which is in the range of figures reported by the IPCC 鈥� and 60 t/ha/yr of carbon incorporated by the restored peatland. This latter figure is simply untenable.
Northern peatlands have been shown to accumulate between 0.12 and 0.31 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Since plant biomass contains 45 to 50 per cent carbon by weight, the claimed accumulation rate of 60 t/ha/yr would require net primary production of dry plant matter up to 120 t/ha/yr, even assuming that none decomposes. Nowhere on Earth supports such productivity.
Biochar is a virtually inert form of carbon. Its carbon sequestration potential is simply equal to the rate at which it is added to the soil, so a rate per hectare per year is meaningless.
Carbon sequestration has a role to play in tackling climate change through reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and there are compelling reasons to improve the soil and to restore wetlands. But the claims made in Lovett’s article threaten to undermine the credibility of carbon sequestration.
No way back
David Fawthrop’s optimism that a collapse of our complex global civilisation might be only a temporary problem (26 April, p 20) could be misplaced.
The survivors of such a collapse would probably be forced to revert to a more primitive level of technology. If so, they would have great difficulty in accessing the fuels and raw materials they would need to rebuild a technological civilisation, since most of the easily accessible sources have been “mined out”, and what is left can only be extracted with the help of advanced technology.
Safe as houses?
I was shocked to read such a sensationalist piece on the supposed hazards of illegal meth labs (26 April, p 32). Anyone with even a little chemical knowledge will know that the chemicals referred to are unlikely to cause problems weeks or months after the drug lab operators have left.
Hydrogen chloride gas, for example, (readily available in solution from hardware stores) disperses rapidly and would have caused choking even at low concentrations. Any residual drugs or drug “precursors” would have been found and disposed of or reported.
My guess is that the new occupants of these houses, when they experienced health problems for whatever reason, latched onto the discovery that the place had once been a drug lab and used it to convince gullible and ignorant authorities to help them. The real danger would have been to the drug lab operators, from toxic fumes and solvent explosions during one of their methamphetamine “cooks”.