LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  September 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE September 2004

Subject:

science-based conservation gets downright anthropic

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:34:46 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (181 lines)

        This Astronomer Royal Rees is, relatively, a Johnny-come-lately (in
the Thatcher era) to the science-based conservation which has largely
supplanted Communism as the pet hate of thoughtless right-wingers.  When he
first got interested, he set out to examine nuclear power and how it could
be replaced as a source of electricity.  He had little difficulty with
that, on paper  -  wind was his main suggestion (a good one)  -  but
reported (in Nature) he had been forced to admit windmills would not be
favoured because they fail to produce plutonium.
        Never forget that fission reactors were invented for the sole
purpose of creating plutonium for A-bombs.  Other uses are mere
rationalisations _post facto_.

        It is not so surprising that this astronomer has yet to catch up
with the hazards of GM.  The movement for control of GM is now roughly at
the stage where the antinuclear movement was ca.1970.  Respectable
scientists could see only Art Tamplin (who ended up managing a strip joint
in DC) and good old John Gofman (a good scientist, & medico), and a few
other scientific critics who could be suppressed from the 'radar screen' on
excuses like lowly rank plus making quite a few errors which, tho' not
material to their conclusions, undermined confidence in them.  Ho is a
clear example today of this category of rebel scientist.  The intoxicating
feeling of rebellion evidently overwhelms scientific caution.
        By the mid-1970s Henry Kendall of MIT, founder of UCS, had raised
the level of debate.  Frank von Hippel of Princeton, and an avalanche of
others, by the end of that decade were declaring thru UCS that fission
reactors are an inferior, dangerous way to generate electricity.  But the
role of so-called power reactors in creating plutonium continued, crazily,
especially in France & UK & USSR.

        The gloomy outlook of Rees, on the assumption that current business
trends continue, is essentially what non-scientists like Goldsmith pointed
out in the 1960s.  Scientists such as the Ehrlichs, Holdren, & many others,
have been presenting this approximate picture for 3 decade now. I have
devoted my career all that time to applied ecology.  Yet ecology is still
very much marginalised in politics.  Us humans sure are stupid!

R


June 21, 2004  scientific american

Doom and Gloom by 2100

Unleashed viruses, environmental disaster, gray goo -- astronomer Sir
Martin Rees
calculates that civilization has only a 50-50 chance of making it to the 22nd
century

By Julie Wakefield


Death and destruction are not exactly foreign themes in cosmology. Black holes
can rip apart stars; unseen dark energy hurtles galaxies away from one another.
So maybe it's not surprising that Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal,
sees mayhem down on Earth.  He warns that civilization has only an even chance
of making it to the end of this century.  The 62-year-old University of
Cambridge astrophysicist and cosmologist feels so strongly about his grim
prognostication that last year he published a popular book about it called Our
Final Hour.
The book (entitled Our Final Century in the U.K.) represents a distillation of
his 20 years of thinking about cosmology, humankind and the pressures that have
put the future at risk.  In addition to considering familiar potential
disasters
such as an asteroid impact, environmental degradation, global warming, nuclear
war and unstoppable pandemics, Rees thinks science and technology are creating
not only new opportunities but also new threats.  He felt compelled to
write Our
Final Hour to raise awareness about both the hazards and the special
responsibilities of scientists.

As one himself, Rees was among the first to posit that giant black holes power
quasars, and his work on quasar distribution helped to refute the theory that
the cosmos exists in a steady state. Rees directed Cambridge's Institute of
Astronomy until 1992; he then served for a decade as a Royal Society Research
Professor before assuming the mastership of Cambridge's Trinity College. Since
1995 Rees has also held the honorary title of U.K. Astronomer Royal, once an
active post based at Greenwich Observatory and first held by John Flamsteed and
then Edmond Halley.

Astronomers are well positioned to ponder the fate of humanity, Rees insists,
because they have a unique vantage point in terms of the vast timescales of the
future. "Astronomers have a special perspective to see ourselves as just a part
of a process that is just beginning rather than having achieved its end," he
says.  "And perhaps this gives an extra motive to be concerned about what
happens here on Earth in this century."

Innovation is changing things faster than ever before, and such increasing
unpredictability leaves civilization more vulnerable to misadventure as well as
to disaster by design.  Advances in biotechnology, in terms of both increasing
sophistication and decreasing costs, means that weaponized germs pose a huge
risk. In a wager he hopes to lose, Rees has bet $1,000 that a biological
incident will claim one million lives by 2020.  "In this increasingly
interconnected world where individuals have more power than ever before at
their fingertips, society should worry more about some kind of massive
calamity, however improbable," Rees states.

In calculating the coin-flip odds for humanity at 2100, Rees adds together
those
improbabilities, including those posed by self-replicating, nanometer-size
robots.  These nanobots might chew through organic matter and turn the
biosphere
into a lifeless "gray goo," a term coined by nanotech pioneer K. Eric Drexler
in the 1980s.  Gray goo achieved more prominence last year after Prince Charles
expressed concern about it and Michael Crichton used it as the basis for his
novel Prey.

It's not just out-of-control technology that has Rees worried. Basic
science can
present a threat.  In July 1999 Scientific American ran a letter by Princeton
University physicist Frank Wilczek, who pointed to "a speculative but quite
respectable possibility" that the Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) could produce particles called strangelets.  These
subatomic oddities could grow by consuming nearby ordinary matter. Soon after,
a British newspaper posited that a "big bang machine"--that is, RHIC--could
destroy the planet.

The ensuing media flurry led then Brookhaven director John H. Marburger to pull
together an outside panel of physicists, who concluded that the strangelet
scenario was remote, about a one-in-50-million chance of killing six billion
people. (Another panel, convened by CERN near Geneva, drew a similar
conclusion.)  In Our Final Hour, Rees noted that the chances can be expressed
differently--namely, that 120 people might die from the RHIC experiments.  He
thinks experts should debate in public the merits and risks of such work.

Some researchers were not pleased with Rees's position.  Subir Sarkar, a
University of Oxford cosmologist who considers Rees a true "guru" for his
wide-ranging perspective and contributions to astrophysics and cosmology,
contends nonetheless that Rees was "irresponsible in making a big deal of the
negligible probability" connected with the particle collisions at RHIC.  Rees
acknowledges that other doomsday scenarios rank much higher in terms of a "risk
calculus." Yet he maintains that if the safety criteria used for nuclear
reactors are applied--in terms of maximum acceptable probability of deaths
multiplied by number at risk--the probability of global catastrophe from any
particle acceleration experiment would need to be below about one in a
trillion.

Perhaps more important than his Our Final Hour arguments is Rees's ability to
popularize technical subjects. "He is, by any account, one of the clearest and
most readable expositors of current science to the general public," asserts
friend and colleague Peter Meszaros, a Pennsylvania State University
astrophysicist. Rees has written six books for the lay reader (as well as
several Scientific American articles).

It's possible to tip the balance to civilization's advantage, Rees concludes,
believing that environmental and biomedical issues should be higher on the
political agenda. To raise the debate above the level of rhetoric, however, the
public must be better informed. He looks to the U.S. to take a leadership role.
But so far he finds its handling of the controversies over stem cell research
and global warming to be wanting: the U.S. "has been rather remiss in tackling
issues that are taken more seriously elsewhere in the world, especially
environmental problems."

If humanity loses, would it really matter to the rest of the universe? Life
exists thanks to a happy combination of physical constants.  Tweak a few, and
life as we know it becomes impossible.  Those who ponder whether we were meant
to be here or whether our universe is part of a multiverse, consisting of
universes with different physical parameters, sometimes invoke the anthropic
principle. It basically states that the universe must be able to spawn
intelligent life because we are here to observe it.  "Anthropic reasoning will
be irrelevant if the 'final theory' defines all the constants of physics
uniquely, but unavoidable if it doesn't," Rees states.  "The latter option is
favored by an increasing proportion of theorists"--in other words, science may
be able to explain the numbers only with an anthropic argument.

Anthropic reasoning would seem to cast a supernatural pall over science. But
Rees doubts that revelations from cosmology will ever resolve the controversy
between science and religion.  For a start, he sees no qualitative change
in the
debate since Newton's time: scientific explanations remain perpetually
incomplete.  "If we learn anything from the pursuit of science, it is that even
something as basic as an atom is quite difficult to understand," Rees declares.
"This alone should induce skepticism about any dogma or any claim to have
achieved more than a very incomplete and metaphorical insight into any profound
aspect of our existence."  Or nonexistence, depending on the coin flip.





>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager