On the gender gap in STEM subjects
Maria Rossini writes that ingrained attitudes limit girls’ engagement in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) at school (21 May, p 27). It seems to me an unstated assumption that these subjects are where the power lies, so we need more women in STEM to ensure that power and influence are shared more equitably.
I have seen proponents of this view fall back on the argument that women are sufficiently different from men that they find other subjects more attractive than STEM-as-it-is, and that therefore STEM needs to change. These people will also say that school textbooks need to distort the history of under-representation of women in these fields to give greater prominence to contributions by women.
Perhaps it is more to do with an over-representation of men. At my university, men avoid history of art like the plague. Is that a problem? In the life sciences, women are quite well represented and several recent Nobel prizes are a tribute to that. Perhaps it is time for a much more nuanced look at the different areas within STEM, to see why men and women make different choices. We could also ask whether that actually matters so much.
Attitudes of privileged can be economically irrational
The finding that privileged people, like me and probably many of your readers, would rather not deploy policies to promote resource equality, even if those policies have a neutral or positive effect on their own access to resources, such as jobs or money, is unsurprising (14 May, p 18).
The point of being privileged isn’t entirely to do with comfort 鈥� otherwise, why would some well-off people strive for more wealth when it doesn’t improve quality of life? The point of privilege is more to do with the knowledge that one is a member of a minority group, in a better position than the majority. The more exclusive the group, the higher the satisfaction.
To have something that others don’t, regardless of its utility, is known as a positional good. The reality of such things is why most economic theories that rely upon individuals acting in their own best interests are inherently futile.
Could concrete help slow the loss of Antarctic ice?
You report that groundwater beneath Antarctic ice can impact its flow to the ocean, perhaps causing faster movement and break-up of the ice sheet (14 May, p 23).
That being the case, it may be worth injecting a coarse concrete mix through a drill hole in the side of a small glacier. I imagine this could cause roughening of the bedrock under the ice.
By doing this to a narrow glacier, I speculate that any slowing effect would be more noticeable, and could offer at least a temporary solution to some glacial melting. If the method works, it could be extended to larger glaciers.
When is a demon not a demon?
The version of “Maxwell’s demon” that you covered, which seemingly defeats the second law of thermodynamics to create a perpetual engine, appears to be no more than a simulation of life, which itself is no more than the local defeat of entropy (21 May, p 15). The means are different, the situation is the same. And the energy powering it has to come from somewhere.
Go for a full ban on large, polluting vehicles
Andrew Simms’s call for a ban on adverts for SUVs in his comment article shows a paucity of ambition (7 May, p 27). Given the nature of the climate emergency, surely it is better to actually ban these vehicles and their like, at least for the vast majority who have no real need for them.
Don't insulate with old clothes and empty plastics
Barry Cash asks whether recycled clothing and plastic containers could be used for home insulation (Letters, 14 May).
My simple response is: don’t go there. The materials mentioned are usually highly flammable. Worse, they are likely to generate toxic fumes when burned. Due to this, I would be very surprised if building regulations allow the use of such materials.
Could there be ways to save the bird brain lab?
I was very sad to read that the Comparative Cognition Lab in Cambridge, UK, which studies the intelligence of corvids, may close (21 May, p 14).
Could there be a way to save the day? Maybe crowdfunding for a documentary about the work carried out there, or even the chance to visit the centre? In addition, if there were any experiments relating to corvid intelligence that people could carry out in their gardens, they might be willing to pay for instructions or the chance to send results back to the lab.
You are right, Australian mammals get a bad rap
Jack Ashby is spot on in his observation of dismissive attitudes towards native Australian mammals (14 May, p 27).
As an example of this, I remember an interview with the daughter of the owner of Beaumaris Zoo in Hobart, Tasmania, who overheard the disappointment in a local’s voice on seeing the last living thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger 鈥� “Oh, it’s only a Tasmanian animal” 鈥� before rushing off to see the more “interesting” exotic animals.
This is even more poignant given that the unique thylacine was hunted to extinction to preserve the rarest of non-native Australian animals, the sheep!
Sweet tips for growing your own sweetcorn
Clare Wilson gives useful tips on growing sweetcorn (30 April, p 51). It is worth pointing out that each plant, though it might be up to 2 metres high, will usually yield only one ear of corn.
When I first started growing it, I thought I must be doing something wrong, so asked some farmers about it. They said that is just the way it is 鈥� one ear per plant. So you need to grow enough plants to allow for that.