Scientists do not have to be nerds

In a recent issue of the New Scientist (23 July 2011, p.22) Laurence Krauss, director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, complains that science is under attack from a shortage of funding. It has been estimated that the cumulative cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is something approaching $4 trillion while, Krauss maintains, warlords thrive, political freedom ranks low and ethnic and gender segregation continue.

At the same time, he observes, the US economy is in trouble. Both practical and purely academic projects are in danger and both categories contribute to the quality of life.

He adds that ‘we need to ask what the next generation of bright minds will lose. The remarkable images captured by Hubble have inspired a generation of people to dream about the universe and its myriad possibilities.’

Whether the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, with all the errors of strategy imposed on the military, achieved nothing is an open question (my own answer would be that overall they did achieve something and that they had little choice if civilisation, including  Islamic societies, was to be protected against a destructive minority). However, Krauss is right about the funding threat. For this reason scientists need to make sure that the population as a whole value and respect them, rather than consider them as clever nerds filled with hubris and asserting that all human beings are brought into being by the chance juggling of chemicals produced by a universe which was created by a universe-generating system which spontaneously came into being out of existential nothingness and, just in case you didn’t get the message, that life is totally pointless and meaningless.

People outside of science hear the most inane theories being talked about by those who purport to be logical and it must turn young thinking people away in droves. Fortunately, there are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe to such philosophical materialism, but, less fortunately, they are rarely given prominence in the media.

For instance, there is a theory that ‘our’ universe is one of an infinitely large number of ‘universes’ in which all things are possible and which happens to look miraculous. This is not only unprovable metaphysical speculation but totally outside the realm of logic. A professional philosopher could not possibly take it seriously.  

Why? Because if there were an infinite ensemble of universes there would have to be one in which there were no other ‘universes’. Why spend time and money even talking about such a paradoxical hypothesis? How much effort would you be willing to devote to a book purporting to prove that black is white? And would the writer of such a book be worthy of a research grant?

Hopefully, such inanities will gradually fade into oblivion so that real science can get the recognition and resources it deserves and needs if the West is not to fall to the forces of disorder that Krauss rightly recognises.

So rise up,you non-nerdish scientists, and make yourself heard!

John

Author, 2077 AD

China's economy may be faltering

Europe and America, operating largely on free market principles, are trying to cancel their huge debts. The only way they can do this safely, i.e. without hyperinflation (which could mean creditors getting back less money in real terms than they lent) is by real economic growth. This would generate profits, capital growth and tax revenue.

So far this is not happening and the hope was that China, with its state capitalism, would manage to keep growing fast and so buy exports from other countries, thereby stimulating their economies. It was also hoped that Chinese foreign currency reserves might be used to buy European and American government bonds. The money from this would help western governments (not only Greece but larger indebted economies) to avoid huge public spending cuts and to stimulate economic growth.

Doubts that either of these lifelines will materialise are beginning to surface.

The rate of GDP (i.e. economic activity) growth in China looks likely to fall considerably. An article in the New York Times section of the UK’s Observer (Oct 9) quotes an estimate of only 5% p.a. for the coming year. Over the last decade China has been expanding at close to 10% p.a., although recently it has been closer to 8% p.a.

So China is slowing down.

 Its stock market’s Hang Seng index has declined by 30% over the last year and property prices have stopped rising in 54 out of 70 cities. Chinese savers had been investing in property because of fears about inflation eroding their savings as it reached double the interest rates. But the bubble is deflating.  Government restrictions on lending by banks are causing a shortfall in loans to small businesses and there is rising unemployment.

The foreign currency reserves of China are large but this is not spare money free of obligation. It belongs to the Chinese savers and they are not likely to be happy about using it to rescue prolific spending governments and western banks burdened with gambling debts.

If there is widespread unemployment in China, a country where economic success means everything and where hopes have been raised unrealistically, and if savers find their money disappearing, it could cause social unrest and undesirable consequences for us all as the world economy contracted, although it would slow down greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps the world would be forced to find a way of growing in knowledge and spiritual fulfilment, while ensuring that everyone has enough food, water, shelter and medical help.

John

Author, 2077 AD

cosmik.jo@gmail.com

Longevity: a solution rather than a problem

It is becoming increasingly common to encounter thinly disguised views that old people are a burden on the young and healthy.

 As the sanctity of life is attacked by philosophical materialists, as life spans in the world increase, as people feel it is their ‘right’ to have an enjoyable life, and as the cost of caring for the elderly grows, how long before it becomes respectable to talk about encouraging people to terminate their lives when they feel themselves to be a liability, so that anyone refusing to take this option is put under ‘moral’ pressure to do so?

From the little I understand of modern molecular biology and medical science the possibility of very long life spans is by no means a fantasy. I even heard of one group at Cambridge seriously proclaiming a target longevity of 1000 years. The progress in understanding structure and function of biological life is also allowing people to stay active, mentally and physically, to within a short time from death.

Why is this a problem? If we can continue to learn, to enjoy our existence, to cherish and help others, why should we not prolong our earthly existence? (I see this as using the gift of science that God has given us to make Earth as much like heaven as possible – ‘Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven’, although this is incidental to our spiritual mission, if indeed the spiritual can be separated from the material.)

There are two obvious questions concerning the wisdom of increasing life span, even supposing we could stay well right up to the end.

• Population growth.  The population would grow even faster than it is already and become unsustainable. The earth’s ecosystem would collapse.

• Stagnation. New ways of living and evolving depend on the death of each generation. As the recently departed  Steve Jobs observed, death makes way for new life.

But do these problems necessarily follow from longevity?

Population would not necessarily grow.  Should small families become associated with longer lifespan (voluntarily, there is no other way) the population would fall dramatically. A one-child limit for the rest of this century would reduce China’s population to one tenth of its present 1.4 billion by the year 2100 (EconomistOnline, 2 August 2011). However, the limit must be voluntary if humanity is to be retained.

A life measured in centuries could be richer culturally, deeper spiritually and more pleasurable. There would be less tendency to live in a frenetic, consumption-driven, wealth-seeking, pleasure-obsessed way.  Such a change in values and life style looks likely to be forced on us anyway -by environmental  pressures and resource shortages. In the future it could be that art, music, writing, craftsmanship, anthropology, archaeology, antiques, sport, walking, travel, space exploration, linguistics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, science, mathematics, engineering, agriculture and innumerable other endeavours could occupy us, rather than consumption and wealth generation, according to our strengths and interests.

Technology could remove the drudgery. Such unpleasant work as remained beyond the capabilities of robots could be done for a short part of one’s life on a citizen’s rota basis. With a life expectancy of 300 years and drudgery removed there would be abundant time

The second danger – stagnation – need not occur either. Why should death always be needed for progress? With individuals living much longer and more healthily and having all the advantages of modern technology to enhance learning and communication, they may well be able to achieve  innovation to a degree not hitherto possible. The diversity of concepts that could be assimilated by the brain in a human lifetime would be so much larger and this could lead to more fusion of diverse ideas into totally new ones with who knows what consequences for technology and the progress of science.

The big question here is what would drive such a society forward? If pursuit of wealth became irrelevant because all material needs could be so easily secured and if accumulation of wealth above a certain level came to be widely regarded as pointless, I suppose people would be driven by curiosity or a sense of achievement or a need for adventure  – e.g. expeditions to other planets could provide all three. Probably the human weakness of status-seeking would remain common.

Overall, then, increased lifespans  could be part of a move to a lower energy, less polluting and more fulfilling way of life, and a whole universe rich with multilayered and fractal mystery to explore.

In my novel 2077 AD people have the option of Life Extension to 300 years and this naturally leads to the need for a natural successor to the nuclear family, one of which, the Kinship Circle, is proposed merely as a possibility to provoke discussion.

As always, this Blog is also to provoke discussion, so please come back to me if you have anything to say.

John

Author, 2077 AD

cosmik.jo@gmail.com