Maybe it is time to ditch the smartphone (1)
When people ask me (usually in a shocked tone) why I don’t carry a smartphone, I answer, half-joking, “because I teach cybersecurity”. Amanda Ruggeri’s excellent piece on data harvesting is a stark reminder of how this technology is being abused in the name of profit, which makes me feel a little less like a member of the tinfoil hat brigade (26 August, p 32).
Many people think that “you can’t do anything these days without a smartphone”. This is a myth. Internet access may be required for a lot of things, but you can get that from a secured personal computer. Basic mobile phones are still available for on-the-go communication.
I find it ironic that people sharing conspiracy theories about tracking chips in vaccines probably did so on a device monitoring their existence in detail. Why aren’t those covered by the General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) shouting about violations from the rooftops? Makes you wonder who first circulated those ideas. Please hand me the tinfoil…
Maybe it is time to ditch the smartphone (2)
We have all contributed to, and been a witness of, the birth of a now deeply entrenched business model that makes its profits from the creation, use and exploitation of our personal data.
To deal with this we need governments to legislate, laws to be enforced, the media to explore, academics to research and civil society to engage. Alone, these influences have limited impact, but together they can lead to sustainable change. This matters in ever more profound ways to all of us, impacting freedoms, rights, democracies and the environment. We all need to care more and do more, individually and collectively.
Let's leave species names as they are (1)
We shouldn’t mess with species names for the sake of 2023 ideas of virtue. As a coastal engineer, I was “house trained” by an ecologist friend and collaborator and learned a heap of names for coastal marsh plants and their ecology. Then some international body changed them all, reducing my ability to interact with botanists and other scientists involved in coastal protection (26 August, p 22).
Such change also impedes the use of historical data by younger scientists trained in the new nomenclature.
Let's leave species names as they are (2)
Regarding the fate of the genus name Brontosaurus. The specimen described as Brontosaurus excelsus in the 1870s was later reclassified as Apatosaurus, to many people’s disappointment. But, in 2015, .
Climate change: so many wasted decades
Your climate special gives us some hope that we are on the way to decarbonisation, but also leaves an impression that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. You have to ask yourself why politicians haven’t done more. For instance, a couple of decades ago, they could have ended financial incentives to fossil fuel companies and invested this money into renewable energy. We would now be well past peak carbon output and be watching carbon in the air begin to decline (19 August, various pages).
The other reason why JFK was a television winner
I enjoyed your look at “the hidden powers of gesture”. However, regarding the puzzle posed at the beginning 鈥� that people who listened to a debate between the US presidential nominees Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy felt Nixon won it, whereas those who watched felt Kennedy won 鈥� there may be an explanation other than the power of gestures: Kennedy was far better-looking (19 August, p 34).
We need to rethink modern wildfire strategies
The story on the impact of ancient wildfires was interesting. When it comes to the threat today, most of what we do aims to stop them happening. This preserves fuel for when a wildfire does get going, making it potentially worse. We must think more strategically (26 August, p 9).
Perhaps permanent settlements shouldn’t be built so close to risky areas and facilities like cabins and adventure parks be mobile, to move when needed. Or maybe owners must accept their possible destruction in an “allowed burn”.
Why ocean heat may not be a good energy source
Glenda Dixon asks why we can’t use warming oceans as a power source. Inevitable waste heat is the problem. Back in the 70s, a system used the warmth of surface water to vaporise a refrigerant and drive an electricity-generating turbine. The gas was then pumped to the cold depths to liquidise. The result is that heat is transferred from the surface to the depths, warming places not normally exposed to varying temperatures, possibly destroying ecosystems (Letters, 26 August).
Please leave the spiderlings alone
So spiderlings kept in starvation eat siblings faster than those that are fed. No surprise! What is the purpose of such predictable research? It seems unnecessary and, surely, unethical (19 August, p 18).
On the dilemma of crops that use a lot of water (1)
Graham Lawton mentions foods that use most water (26 August, p 36). Vanilla beans are at the top of the list. A lot are grown in Madagascar, a place where many people live in poverty. This raises a dilemma: should I be supporting their livelihoods or reducing my water consumption?
On the dilemma of crops that use a lot of water (2)
You stress the thirstiness of coffee, chocolate, tea and vanilla plants, but they are grown in rainforests or in countries with monsoons providing water from rain rather than irrigation. Growing thirsty plants such as almond trees in deserts is bizarre, but taking advantage of abundant rainfall seems like a good idea.
For the record
Felicity Callard at the University of Glasgow, UK, is lead investigator of the rest test (2 September, p 32).