Editor's pick: War is a fairly recent part of human history
Kenneth Payne offers an important and illuminating discussion of the problems that artificial intelligence presents in the military sphere (15 September, p 40). He opens by stating that “archaeological and ethnographic evidence suggests that warfare among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was chronic”.
This claim has been promulgated by some high-profile writers recently. But not everyone agrees. For example, in 2013 , a review of the issue by archaeologists, anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, primatologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and social scientists, drew the opposite conclusion. They said archaeological evidence reveals war as a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging from the Neolithic period onwards.
We have much to learn about what drives societies to fight. But the idea that war is inherent in human nature relies more on cherry-picking the data to support a cultural bias than any objective overview of the evidence.
Sense of self in science, Shakespeare and trout (1)
Sofia Deleniv describes self-awareness as an illusion, and on your cover you call it a “delusion” (8 September, p 28). What wasn't discussed was its power to turn the whole world as we view it into “illusions” by the process of forming abstract concepts and ideas about it. By developing and interconnecting these abstractions, we have produced our various sciences. Through them we have achieved enormous power over ourselves and the natural world.
Self-awareness may yield this great power, but it also results in the broader illusion – held by many – that this world of abstractions is more real than the natural one. In this world of concepts, individuals have become just another concept and so are dehumanised.
Recognising this as the most dangerous delusion may help defend our humanity.
Sense of self in science, Shakespeare and trout (2)
My self-awareness thoroughly enjoyed Deleniv's article. Her conclusion, however, seems to relegate human self-awareness to a by-product of the humming of our neural engine, not essentially different from, for instance, the 3D echolocation modelling that goes on in a bat's brain. And if self-awareness doesn't require a higher order of consciousness, but is the running of a simulation in our brains, consciousness may not necessarily have a function.
This line of thinking reminds me of William James's 1890 . In it, he argues that if we fully understood Shakespeare's nervous system, we could account for every word and alteration of the manuscript of , without having to acknowledge the existence of thoughts in Shakespeare's mind.
Having reduced the argument to absurdity, James moved on to consider consciousness.
Sense of self in science, Shakespeare and trout (3)
Deleniv suggests self-awareness is an extension of the challenge of dealing with the minds of others: prey, competitors or members of your social group. Territoriality should not be underestimated as an example of such a challenge.
If you put two trout in a small tank, they will skirmish. The loser will change to a dark colour and sulk at the bottom. It “knows” it has been beaten and not to “try it on” until the top trout goes away. It may not have a demonstrable “this is me” mode, but surely this is where individualisation starts – with a kind of awareness of one's own situation.
First class post 鈥� 06 October 2018
What about all the species that rely on mosquitoes as a food source?
Marjorie Meldrum to wiping out the insects using a “gene drive” method (29 September, p 10).
Is this the Anthropocene or the Plasticene epoch?
Jeffrey Harte suggests that a stratum of “plastiglomerate” might geologically delineate the Anthropocene – or as I prefer to call it, the Plasticene – epoch (Letters, 8 September). Plastic persists long enough to cause havoc in our oceans, but it will not withstand geological heat and pressure on geological timescales.
Plastics are mostly carbon and hydrogen, and ultimately could be converted into coal and oil. Maybe a new civilisation millions of years hence will mine these and start the whole cycle over again.
A defining moment for global-scale renewables
Michael Le Page discusses the potential of very large-scale desert solar and wind farms to increase local rainfall and hence vegetation (15 September, p 16). And UN secretary-general AntÓnio Guterres declared on 10 September that we are at a defining moment for avoiding runaway climate change.
It seems we have a critical need and opportunity for a global project, led perhaps by the UN and World Bank, to make global-scale investments in several very large-scale desert-based solar and wind farms. I am sure there are many pension and other major investment funds looking to invest securely and responsibly, but wary at present of divesting from oil, gas and other destructive production sectors. Perhaps this would tempt them.
Such schemes would be bigger than any energy projects yet undertaken. Many countries would have to be involved in the science and engineering, and the projects must balance the interests of communities, contractors, manufacturers, investors, governments and other potential beneficiaries.
What is the true impact of electric cars? (1)
Alice Klein reports hydrogen-powered cars competing with electric cars on environmental grounds (8 September, p 20). I question if either are that green.
Say an electric car's batteries are charged with electricity from a gas-fired power station with a carbon footprint of (kWh). Say losses in transmission are 14 per cent and the car uses 0.15 kWh per kilometre: its carbon dioxide emissions are about 70 grams per kilometre. Some petrol-powered hybrid cars . If coal is used instead of gas, an electric car emits more CO2. The figures for hydrogen cars are similar, unless the hydrogen is made using only renewable electricity.
This will remain true until all existing electricity demand has been satisfied by low-carbon generation and there is some spare capacity. When do we think that is going to happen? Never, unless we focus on the real issues: more solar panels, more wind and maybe more nuclear power.
What is the true impact of electric cars? (2)
At present, the UK government gets about £34 billion in and from road transportation. The incentives to move to electric vehicles include little or no vehicle tax on them and recharging at home bearing the 5 per cent Value Added Tax rate for domestic electricity, a lot less than the tax rate levied on petrol and diesel. If a lot of electric vehicles go on the road, the government stands to lose a considerable amount of tax.
So what are its plans for later increasing revenue from electric vehicles to bring the future cost of electric motoring in line with the present cost of using petrol or diesel, where the greatest part of the fuel cost is tax? The cost of on-street recharging could include an “electric fuel” tax. Will charging at home require separate smart-metering to levy an E-fuel charge including tax?
Acoustic levitation might get water from desert air
Yvaine Ye reports on using sound pressure to create a bubble from a levitating droplet (22 September, p 19). Five years ago Jacob Aron described similar levitation using sound, creating a standing sound wave in which gravitation and acoustic forces cancel (20 July 2013, p 10). Levitated objects could be moved along the line at which the forces cancel and mixed by varying the strength of the sound waves.
Maybe this could become more than a clever trick. Around a third of Earth's land area is desert. In many places, the only fresh water is collected by adapted plants from morning mists blown in from the sea. There have been many suggestions over the years of how to trap this source of fresh water for human use.
Might it be possible to set up a high-frequency acoustic standing wave between an emitter and a reflector to move water droplets from fog downwards to collect at the base of the device?
We have created the conditions for superbugs
I read with interest Michael Le Page's account of science waging a war of attrition with evolution (1 September, p 28). We seem to forget that our survival depends on Mother Nature's ability to bounce back after all the terrible things we keep doing to her. Once we have killed the soil biome with chemicals, we will have no other option but to farm chemically. We are removing the natural balance, and that is why we will have to continually compensate with yet more chemicals. Pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies stand to gain.
Destroy the natural fertility of the soil, and we are dependent on artificial fertilisers, the manufacture and use of which worsens another problem, that of greenhouse gas emissions.
We have created the conditions for superbugs, both insect and bacterial, in monocultures – in our guts, in the soil, in fields, in forests, in hospitals, in intensive farming, even the oceans – that create the conditions where the things we fear most can thrive. Conveniently, these conditions require us to spend more and more on chemical intervention, both medically and agriculturally.
Fuming on planes, trains and maybe latrines
Lara Williams's comment on vaping on public transport reminded me of conversations back when smoking was allowed on buses, trains and aeroplanes (1 September, p 22). The person in the seat next to you might ask, “Do you mind if I smoke?” and perhaps add, “Just a bad habit. Can't shake it.” The appropriate reply was, “Not at all. Do you mind if I fart? Just a habit I have. Can't seem to shake it.”