We can't let the solar boom use up agricultural land
You report that the boom in solar energy around the world has led to panels being installed on prime agricultural land. This is bad news, and there are many more sensible alternatives: most obviously barren desert land that can’t grow food (6 July, p 10).
Another option would be the roofs of buildings, such as homes and barns built to face the sun 鈥� this is very common in Germany. Best of all would be building on covered car parks, so that cars can be slowly charged directly during the day when the sun is shining. Indeed, France is requiring this for . Sacrificing prime agricultural land should be the last resort.
Will AI ever get to appreciate a film?
Moheb Costandi writes that artificial intelligence can analyse the neuronal activity of movie watchers and identify which scenes they were observing. While this shows we can map commonality in brain activity for AIs to tap into, we lack the ability to capture the phenomenological quality of the “experience”. For AIs to cross the divide into consciousness, we would need to be able to observe this objectively (29 June, p 9).
Making air conditioning better for the planet
You highlight problems with the growing demand for energy-intensive air conditioning in a warming world. How about updating building regulations so that new air conditioning installations must be accompanied by solar panels? Peak cooling demand (and electricity consumption) can be expected to correlate with daytime maximum solar radiation and maximum solar panel output (6 July, p 22).
More ways to unite world to a common purpose
I resonated strongly with Harvey Whitehouse’s point that “if we are to mature into a global tribe, capable of solving global problems, we will also need leaders capable of crossing existing tribal divisions”, and that this requires “ways that are grounded in science” to address our collective interests (22 June, p 36).
I believe another way of sharing our moral concerns would be for the world to recognise that our religions have all come from the same source, an unknown Creator that has continued to morally guide us. Thus, science and religion need to go hand in hand to help humanity recognise its oneness.
Fusion cash could have been put to better use
Our climate and biodiversity woes represent a threat greater than a world war. As we would with such a conflict, we need to spend our resources wisely on projects that will reap rewards immediately, or at least within the 20 years or so we have to make the biggest impact (6 July, p 13).
For example, the estimated 鈧�20 billion cost of the vast ITER fusion experiment, which I suspect is a vast underestimate, could have been used to subsidise the replacement of 8 million domestic gas boilers with heat exchangers in lower-income households. This would have led to energy cost savings for them, social security and healthcare system savings for everyone, large reductions in greenhouse emissions and a lessened reliance on despotic governments’ control of gas supplies.
It would also have created far more employment and driven down the cost of the technology, compounding the gains. If private concerns want ITER to continue, they should fund it, since they are the ones hoping to profit.
A very cool idea, but will it be recyclable?
The cool fabric for clothing that you describe may be rewarding for the scientists who designed it, but could it be damaging to the environment? Its three layers 鈥� wool or cotton, silver nanowires and polymethylpentene 鈥� could be a nightmare to recycle, particularly as many people wear fashionable items for a short period and then discard them. It would be fine to use this material in buildings, but not clothing (22 June, p 12).
No aspect of life is totally safe, including alcohol
I take issue with Dan Roach’s assertion that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. You could equally make the case that there is no safe level of driving or playing football or swimming. Perhaps there is no safe level of being alive, given it always seems to end badly (Letters, 6 July).
Launch of the great red dot friendship campaign
I have an idea related to David Robson’s look at scientific rules of connection that could improve your social life. One way for pubs, parks, libraries and other social spaces to help would be to paint a large red dot on the ground. This would be a place where people who want to develop new friendships could meet (1 June, p 40).
What we need to prove is absence of consciousness
Recent talk of consciousness in various organisms has got me thinking. Rather than trying to investigate whether organism X has consciousness, surely a more ethical standpoint would be to assume by default that they are all conscious, so any investigation should be reversed. I suspect it would be hard to prove the absence of consciousness (Letters, 6 July).
Would a Dyson sphere be a monumental own goal?
There are two problems with arguments in favour of Dyson spheres, massive structures that advanced alien species might build to capture all of a star’s energy. First, long before a civilisation could build one, the issue of hydrogen fusion would have been solved and so abundant energy would be available. Second, if the aliens’ star system were anything like ours, putting a Dyson sphere in place would lead to the extinction of all higher life, including them 鈥� which doesn’t seem like a bright idea(Letters, 29 June)!