For the facts, check out the greatest scientist writers
Michael Marshall’s piece on non-fiction science books that aren’t fact-checked had me nodding faster than a windscreen nodding toy. I work as a writer and editor and have been a journalist, so I understand and value objective truth and the importance of fact-checking. If you read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan (among many others), you should get sufficient grasp of the science to spot howlers, hyperboles and unjustified generalisations in works by untried authors (19 October, p 21).
I have learned not to spend time and money on a new book by someone who isn’t qualified in the science in question without a little test reading, if possible. Online booksellers make this possible, as do bookshops. The worst titles aren’t always returned after buying, having suffered too much damage in collision with the waste basket.
From Richard Brown, Huntly, Aberdeenshire, UK
A Hong Kong government department I worked with had to fact-check documents and certificates. Errors were common. Once, to our surprise, we received a document that was perfect. It came from Buckingham Palace. We later found that its documents had to cross three desks before issue.
Hold the Arctic ice geoengineering
You suggest that geoengineering is now essential to save the Arctic’s ice based on the results of a recent sea ice restoration trial, arguing that “to buy us time and to buttress this delicate habitat from a warming world, geoengineering is probably our only hope” (Leader, 28 September).
If this were an early-stage trial for a new treatment of a serious disease, I would be surprised if you would so quickly advocate for its use. Instead, I would expect a promising result to be highlighted along with the potential risks and uncertainties. Time is indeed short, but if the aim is to limit harm to Arctic ecosystems, then we shouldn’t rush into understudied climate fixes without better understanding the inevitable trade-offs involved.
Free energy: Perhaps Le Chatelier got there first
It seems to me that the free-energy principle (FEP) is little more than a restatement of the principle put forth by chemist Henry Louis Le Chatelier: “If a system is subjected to stress, the system will respond in a manner that tends to mitigate the effect of the stress.” I can’t see that the fuzzy notions of the FEP offer anything beyond this (19 October, p 32).
On artificial pets, Furbys and how to raise a robot
Rowan Hooper’s musings on future robot pets brought to mind two things. The first was the Furby, an electronic “pet” developed in the late 90s. It could respond to a variety of inputs with changes to its facial expression and speech. All its abilities were programmed into it and the Furby wasn’t connected to outside sources of information. This is different from Hooper’s robo-pets, which also aren’t connected to the internet but can learn different behaviours by the way their owners treat them, very much like real pets (12 October, p 22).
It is in line with author Eve Poole’s idea of developing relationships between humans and robots by considering how we might “bring up” robots in the same way as we bring up children.
Don't knock TV, a glass of wine and a plate of cheese
The idea that we should strive to find more effortful leisure pursuits won’t suit everyone (5 October, p 39).
Many of us have very physically or mentally effortful jobs and some, sadly, don’t particularly enjoy much of that effort. The last thing they need is to feel guilty for decompressing with TV, music, a trashy novel or other “non-productive” activity. Even those lucky enough to get satisfaction from work effort need downtime.
When my partner retired from a stressful teaching job, she spent a lot of time trying to find a worthy structured activity. It took her a while to realise that this was just causing anxiety. Now, she doesn’t worry about how much time is spent gardening, reading, drawing, doing yoga, looking after family, chatting in the pub or zoning out in front of the TV with a glass of wine and a plate of cheese!
Solar sails on the ISS is a great idea
I applaud Eric Kvaalen’s idea of using solar arrays on the International Space Station as solar sails that might keep it in orbit. Few places would be better suited to testing designs for solar sails. As for the favoured plan to bring down the ISS, I deplore the mindset of those who would scrap a valuable asset because they can’t presently see a future for it (Letters, 19 October).
This scheme is best for tackling wealthy emitters
The richest 1 per cent of the US population is responsible for more carbon emissions than the entire lowest-income 50 per cent. Your article on this advises more climate policies targeting those responsible for the largest emissions, with inheritance and wealth taxes. But there could be a fairer, clearer way to hit them straight in the carbon pocket (28 September, p 19).
A carbon fee and dividend (also called climate income) puts a price on carbon at source, increasing the price of all fossil fuels, so that running private jets, superyachts and the like gets really expensive.
But here is the key: the revenue is distributed equally to all citizens, with a regular dividend payment. This system is really progressive, benefiting lower earners most. Middle-income earners benefit or break even. Wealth from the 1 per cent will be redistributed to everyone else just by targeting their carbon use.
Could AI one day win the greatest prize, an Ig Nobel?
I have three easy tests for whether artificial intelligence has become our scientific equal. It should be able to instigate research, get a paper accepted for publication and, lastly, win, or get nominated for, an Ig Nobel prize. This last task needs an understanding of humour, irony and, sometimes, double entendre (19 October, p 13).