Could a cyclical universe trump the multiverse?
In your interview with Roger Penrose, he points out that “nobody knows where the fundamental constants of nature come from”. The sheer improbability of their being so finely tuned for life has given rise to the multiverse hypothesis where, by a process you might call cosmological selection, life and consciousness only come to exist in universes that have “Goldilocks” constants. This requires that there are a large number of universes and, by random chance, one or more of them have the right values(19 November, p 46).
This prompts the question: why has the debate between an ever-expanding versus a cyclic universe focused on space rather than time? An ever-expanding universe can only do so once, in contrast to a cyclic one where, to use Penrose’s terminology, if the constants “get jumbled up” between aeons, there is a higher probability of life-supporting values emerging.
All other things being equal, that favours a cyclic cosmology, multiverse or not.
Let the oil giants fund loss and damage payments
Your article discusses the possibility of “loss and damage” payments by higher-income nations to lower-income ones suffering as a result of climate change. I fully support such reparations, but suggest they should be paid by fossil fuel firms(19 November, p 8).
These companies continue to plan expansion and further damage, have made huge profits from polluting our atmosphere and, in some cases, have funded campaigns to obfuscate their involvement and culpability. Plus, some have received large state subsidies for many years.
Why we may never get to grips with climate change
Almost all coverage of climate change ignores the horrendous reality that we will not and cannot manage this challenge. This is because we won’t make major sacrifices for future generations, whose interests have little to no place in our institutions, especially our legal systems(12 November, p 7).
It is in neither the political nor economic interest of political leaders to act in favour of future people, who don’t vote or spend, a truth that will damn humans to countless millennia of a climate that is hostile to our activities. This is a truth that will remain constant for generations, no matter how damaging the effects of climate change become. So we merely pretend, year after year, to care and to act in earnest, which is why there have been 27 COPs, rather than just one.
World population isn't sustainable as it is
If only sustainability in a world of 8 billion people were determined solely by food considerations. In fact, the desire to raise the standard of living to an acceptable and fair level will place impossible strains on many resources. Good-quality housing, clothing, personal transport and consumer goods, not to mention clean air and water and reliable green energy, should be available to all(12 November, p 14).
It is often said that for all to live like well-off Westerners, the resources of at least three Earths would be required, in which case a stable population of 3 billion may be barely sustainable.
Let's just scrap daylight saving instead
In your article on daylight saving, you suggest that by making daylight saving permanent in the US, excess human and deer deaths caused by the annual shift in clocks could be eliminated. This is possibly true, but I think eliminating daylight saving altogether would be a healthier and more sustainable option. It is very likely that both species would quickly re-adapt to the diurnal cycle that was, after all, normal on planet Earth for its entire history until extremely recently(12 November, p 13).
Red street lamps may not be so great, after all
Two recent letters have advocated using red LEDs for street lighting. There are two reasons not to do this. First, sodium lights are being replaced by LEDs because LEDs can give a white light that helps people to see things better at night, especially in their peripheral vision. Second, our eyes aren’t as sensitive to red light as they are to green or blue light, for the same amount of energy, in dim situations, such as under street lighting. Red LEDs, therefore, probably don’t provide as much light per watt as the white ones(Letters, 19 November).
Mealworms are an answer to 'compostable' plastics
I read your report on problems with compostable plastic. A friend of mine tried to compost such plastic and found it didn’t break down. I suggested adding some mealworms to his compost and the plastic was soon eaten. This is scalable, and perhaps the adult mealworms could be turned into pet food at the end of the process(12 November, p 16).
Time to pull the plug on big money for fusion
How is it that fusion research gets so much positive PR? I know that any research programme requires an element of optimistic taking of chances, but this whole field has the aroma of a lost cause about it – and yet we are still throwing money at fusion projects(22 October, p 38).
How many clean energy production and storage facilities, using proven technology, could we have bought instead? It is high time we consigned fusion research to the low-priority, low-funded fundamental research file until such time as we can’t think of better things to fund.
No drought needed for industrial revolution
You report the view that drought may have started the industrial revolution and the move away from water power. I don’t buy it. The switch to steam didn’t need a drought. Water power required a factory near a rivere. Steam power allowed factories anywhere, with flexible and expandable layouts. Once the economics became similar, no one would build a factory that used water power(5 November, p 20).