Ever heard of the cryosphere? Well, neither had we. Apparently its all the frozen water in the world: glaciers, polar caps that sort of thing. Enjoy it while you can, because it may not be around for much longer, reports the Guardian
With stories like the following it is easy to fall into laddish prurience or puritanical dismay. But the whole point of this blog is that we confront data with our feelings suspended and it is in that spirit we offer the following story from the eminently respectable El País
“When the facts change I change my mind” so said the great Economist JM Keynes But actually, this is the distinguishing thought process of Science, as this piece A triumph of scientific self correction” from Nature Briefing shows
In his new book The Ends of Race, humanities scholar Geoffrey Galt Harpham chronicles how people attempted touse science to justify racism in the nineteenth century — and the scientific pushback. “Ultimately, the discrediting of the concept of biological race emerged as a triumph of scientific self-correction,” writes journalist David Silverberg in his review.
If you really want to control a disease, strike at the cause not the symptoms we say So this new work on the origins of the cancer promoting protein KRAS and the enzymes that facilitate it seems to offer another avenue of hope as this excellent report from Technology Networks makes clear
Are we really a happy bunch of co-operative happy monkeys, or a nasty gang of ultra violent killer apes locked in a nihilistic struggle for food and mates? Today we throw the blog open to two articles from impeccable journals, both adducing works of impeccable scholarship, And then you make your own minds up, gentle readers: you’re a pretty bright lot. One is Nature, revisiting the work of the indefatigable Richard Dawkins, whose The Selfish Gene has now hit 50, incredible as that may seem. The other, by David Kaposi for the Conversation on the famous Stanford Prison experiment, coupled with the obedience studies of Stanley Milgram.
Not knowing the answers ourselves, we fell back on a few things we do know. Both Dawkins and the Psychologists(is that a band?-ed) were incredible controversial in their day-and have remained so. But that is the mark of original thinking. Both changed the way we look at the world. But that only proves the truth of Keynes’ doctrine. “when the facts change I change my mind!” That the questions both sets of work raised are actually very ancient, and still seem utterly incapable of resolution. If we dared to hint at an opinion, it might be this: are words an adequate tool to understand human behaviour anyway? Might it be time to create entirely new tools based on the mathematics of something Complexity Theory and statistics? That’s us done:over to you
50 years on, go beyond the Selfish Gene
The idea set out in Richard Dawkins’s 1976 book The Selfish Gene — that bodies are just genes’ way of making more of themselves — “seemed pretty harmless”, writes historian of science Nathaniel Comfort. Today, “the determinism baked into the ‘gene’s-eye view’ in the book troubles me, as does the passivity of the organism in Dawkins’s telling”. Comfort dives into modern efforts to synthesize ecology, evolution, genetics and developmental biology to create “a less gene-centred view” that “is more accurate — and infinitely more satisfying”.
One thing we’ll say for Jonathan Haidt-he writes well. Not only is his masterwork The Righteous Mind [1]one of those books everyone should read, it’s one of the few on that list you actually can read with pleasure. But that’s exactly the problem, gentle readers, For Professor Haidt writes so clearly, so learnedly, so elegantly that he has utterly destroyed our world view(and we haven’t even finished yet) Allow us to explain.
Astute readers will recall our proud boast that this is a Whig website. You know the score-heirs of the Enlightenment, one day Reason and Learning will triumph over the brutish simian instincts of the human psyche, and we will all move forward to sunlight uplands-all white buildings, big lawns and everyone living to 100 and discussing Philosophy, that sort of thing. Not so fast, cautions Professor Haidt. In fact he pretty conclusively demolishes that worldview and still has time for some good puzzles. For him, the relationship between the two bits of the mind is like that between a huge powerful elephant (the unconscious) and a rather nervous little rider (the rational educated bit) whose principal job is to explain reasons to justify why the unconscious bit has just made its latest blunder (think sex ,food and heavy drinking) or got into its latest scrape(think wearing a blue jacket with jeans) “Is this the end?” we cried-did Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Bacon, Spinoza and Bertrand Russell all live in vain? Are we now condemned by our own nature to a life of burning witches, eating at fast food joints and committing unspeakable blunders in the way we vote in certain referendums?
And suddenly we thought-someone else worked out a survival plan for all this over one hundred years ago-and that man was PG Wodehouse.[2] For what is Bertie Wooster if not the elephant: an impulsive, pleasure seeking socially anxious but basically decent sort of chap-the powerful one with the money, but “mentally negligible” in the words of Jeeves, his faithful manservant and amanuensis? Who is the thinking one, the planning one, the one with foresight who manages to extract Bertie (and chums) from scrape after scrape, and somehow keep the show on the road. And at that point we ceased to worry: its been riders and elephants all along, or at least Berties and Jeeveses (is that a correct plural?-ed) And we’re all still here.
So maybe Haidt is our own Jeeves, for the rational community as t’were. And in the long run, it’s always better to learn the way things really are, rather than how we would like them to be. Haidt is a very good guide to that-right up there with Wodehouse in fact.
[1]Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012
[2]Wodehouse, P. G. The World of Jeeves. London: Arrow Books, 2023.
Could AI transform the lives and prospects of the world’s poor so quickly that they reach the standards of advanced countries in decades, rather than the centuries needed according to many gloomy predictions? The indefatigable Heather Stewart of the Guardian reports on a study by the World Bank [2] which suggests it just might.[1] According to the Bank’s Chief Knowledge Officer (can we get him for thequiz team?-ed), if AI is adapted correctly:
“……… economic development in the countries ……. that could have taken centuries …… the potential is there for …… economic development now to happen within decades,”
He (and Heather) channel the example of poor Indian farmers, for whom locally adapted AI on their phones could substitute for the kinds of advisors, scientists and agrarian experts they would never expect to meet in a lifetime. We have no doubt that readers as alert as you will now have no trouble spotting many more such possibilities.
Because we think that there’s something much more profound going on here. Veteran readers will recall our earlier blog Solar Power a Ray of Sunshine in dark Times(LSS 3 9 26) showcasing the work of FT journalist Simon Kuper who pointed out how solar power was allowing African countries to leapfrog decades of development by allowing them to bypass all the immense power grids and communication networks and all the other immensely expensive hardware which the G7 countries spent most of the twentieth century installing. But it wasn’t just pylons: they built a whole network of universities, agricultural ministries, and many other such institutions which powered their economies ahead. If solar power and now AI can allow that massive investment to become unnecessary, then the poorer economies could catch up in decades indeed.
And what a day that might be, gentle readers! Suddenly there would be no need for mass migrations, because who would choose to leave one rich country for another? New markets of prosperous consumers would open around the world: people will still buy something, even if it’s not sugary foods and high-pollution cars. And all the evidence convinces us that as prosperity rises, fertility falls, meaning vast areas could be turned over again to planet-resuscitating rewilding. We hope this Chief Knowledge Officer really does know his stuff. If he does, and if Heather Stewart’s optimism is justified, then this could be one of the most encouraging stories we have read for some time.
One of the most fascinating questions in biology is how multicellular life — all plants, fungi and animals — first arose. Single‑celled organisms had been around for thousands of millions of years, at least from about 3.5 billion years ago, just ~1 billion years after the Earth formed at 4.5 billion years. Bacteria and archaea were already present over 4 billion years ago, quietly running the planet’s chemistry long before anything with limbs or leaves appeared. There are hints of multicellular organisms at around 1.4 billion years – red algae are a possible candidate- but that’s still quite late considering the time available. The brutal truth is that wasn’t until about 600 million years ago that truly multicellular organisms begin to show up in the rocks. How, why and when the Great Organising took place is a mystery still buried deep in time.
One possible clue lies in the kingdom of the archaea — those bacteria‑like beings that are not actually bacteria. A particular branch, the Asgard archaea, may hold the key to how complex cells — and eventually multicellular life — emerged. Today’s Nature Briefing has a short, elegant piece called Meet the Parents on the latest findings, and it offers some intriguing hints about how a bunch of free swimming cells learned to co-operate and thereby sparked the great leap to complexity. Is there a lesson for today in there somewhere perhaps?
Microorganisms from which all complex life might be descended — the Asgard archaea — were discovered in 2015 from DNA in sediments plucked from the bottom of the North Atlantic. Since then, researchers have been painstakingly culturing these exotic organisms and finding lots of surprises along the way.Nature | 11 min read
Photo by u0410u043bu0435u0441u044c u0423u0441u0446u0456u043du0430u045e on Pexels.comPhoto by Bru00e1ulio jardim on Pexels.com
According to a leading AI safety researcher there is now a 10% chance that humanity might be wiped out by Artificial Intelligence, [1] A delicious irony we say, considering that humans created it. OK, it might happen, it might not (90% still seems a big safety margin), but if it does we need to consider: what music will be most appropriate to our final hours on this planet which we have done so much to destroy? Intelligent readers will immediately suggest the sombre theme from James Cameron’s superlative Terminator series of films: but that’s too easy. So our challenge was to find ten others which might fairly join its chiliastic tones Here are our possibilities, in reverse order
10 The DoorsThe End Strong and portentous on lyrics, it nevertheless needed Coppola’s visual effects to deliver that final thanatocratic punch between the eyes. Makes the cut-just.
9 SchubertPiano Trio in E-flat, D.929 Credit where it’s due-it was the excellent Griffin Johnson of Armchair Historian fame[2] who used this to accompany the French army on its final fatal march to Sedan in 1870.Nothing in our view so well captures the queasy sense of outward splendour and pride masking internal rottenness and decay. Schubert people, hold on-your boy is coming up again.
8 David Bowie Five Years When Bowie wrote this glam rock tribute to forthcoming apocalypse he was probably thinking more of nuclear Armageddon than a self-inflicted IT crash. Still relevant, as are many of the works of a man who was as much trenchant social critic as musician.
7 KraftwerkThe Robots. Well, this one had to go in somewhere-so why not number 7?
6 Nine inch NailsThe Day the World went Away Nothing in our view so captures the mood of the camera panning over a rubble strewn wasteland after its creators have vanished: a small masterpiece of harmony and deeply nihilistic lyrics.
5 SchubertSymphony No 8in B minor “Unfinished” It’s the first movement we reference here, with its disquieting sense of a man near the end, recounting his few happinesses and his many more regrets and sorrows. Refugees from the 1970s will be disappointed to learn that Schubert did not leave this one unfinished in order to drink a pint of a well known brand of cold lager.
4 MahlerSymphony Number 1, 3rd/4th movements. For us, the steady drumbeat that begins the third movement originally suggested the march of the barbarians on Rome( we were big on that Empire once) But now the whole development suggests a much wider civilisational crash, combined with haunting yearnings for the better days of the past. As our personal choice, it narrowly nicks it over the Adagietto from No 5. Close run thing though.
3 The Talking HeadsLife during wartime When the AI machines make the final push, there’ll probably be a bit of fighting. We think certain scenes from the Terminator franchise may capture much of the essence of the situation. In which case Byrne’s brisk lyrics about no more parties and discos, combined with its harsh throbbing beat, sum up matters rather well, in our humble opinion.
2 MozartRequiem in D minor, Confutatis and Lacrimosa Not only is this the one which firmly puts the Man from Salzburg into the same top three category as Bach and Beethoven, its plea for forgiveness and redemption may implore God to listen to our final lament, even if the machines don’t.
And the winner is:
1 Gary Numan —Are ‘Friends’ Electric Nothing in our view quite captures the steady rhythmic march of unstoppable machines towards their sinister destination. Every time we hear about The Deadly Threat from Artificial Intelligence, this is the one that really springs to mind, a glittering harbinger of apocalyptic destruction. And a worthy winner of our top slot.
But this is just our opinion, gentle readers, our modest little choices. If you can think of something better, or someone we have missed, please let us know. Just remember to do it quickly.
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.comPhoto by u0404u0432u0433u0435u043du0456u0439 u0421u0438u043cu043eu043du0435u043du043au043e on Pexels.com
Poor old Economists! Back before the financial crash they seemed to run the world. They certainly seemed to staff half of all the Banks, Governments, Political parties and NGOs across most of it. Peace and order are what you want, they told us. Free markets, the lowest possible taxes, the lowest possible barriers to the free flow of goods, capital and movement. In this they were essentially following the doctrines of Adam Smith whose Wealth of Nations [1]was the founding principle of their Science. And rightly so: because it all seemed like pretty good advice at the time, didn’t it?
Trouble came on two fronts. The first is causal. The really profound shifts in human wealth are created by new discoveries in Science and Technology. (LSS passim) At the very time that Smith was writing his masterwork, technologists like James Watt were creating new machines of such fundamental power that they absolutely transformed the wealth of the nations that adopted them. However much you argue about taxes, multipliers and currency reserves, none of this can hold a candle to the economic leap unleashed by Maxwell’s equations or the work of Watson and Crick in Biotechnolgy. Goal down to the economists. Even worse these days: no one is listening to them. Intellectually, their prescription of how to get to a better life is impeccable. But in a world inhabited by Homo sapiens, the ethnic identity card will always trump the economic prosperity one. It’s a point we have often made here: and the evidence for it has been overwhelming ever since 2016. Are the poor practitioners of the “dismal science” doomed like so many Cassandras [2] to ever prophesy the truth-and be for ever ignored? Economists nil, Humanity 2 : game over?
But before we really go on to call for the abolition of a profession which has actually nurtured some of the brightest minds in History (Ricado, Keynes, Hayek, Stiglitz………) remember this. The technological changes we talked about take many years, decades even, to be fully adopted. Meanwhile, there’s still and economy to run, so you are going to need a few experts who can tell you what is happening here and now. Who can provide a reality check tell you that adopting ethno-nationalist and populist policies are never good for the long term health of an economy, however good they feel at the time. If you want some detail, this report contains abundant evidence[3] We prefer to offer the example of that Uber ethno nationalist Adolf Hitler: his policies didn’t exactly lead to prosperity much for anyone, neither at home nor abroad, did they? Perhaps we really need more economist not less. Especially in countries which are now adopting ethne nationalist solutions with relentless enthusiasm
[1] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by R. H. Campbell, A. S. Skinner & W. B. Todd. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. ISBN: 978-0865970069 (two‑volume set).
[2] Aeschylus The Oresteian Trilogy Penguin 1959
[3]Funke, Manuel; Schularick, Moritz; Trebesch, Christoph. “Populist Leaders and the Economy.” American Economic Review113(12) (2023): 3249–88. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20202045.
We’ve always been big fans of primates large and small. So we hope you’ll be as cheered as we were by this piece Can AI help stop the next pandemic disease? from that redoubtable site Nature Briefing. Because we couldn’t help thinking-if can work for gorillas it can work for humans too. It’s an interesting story in itself: but it made us think much deeper about the true transforming power of AI, upon which we shall riff a little below-after you have read it, gentle readers:
Researchers are harnessing the ability of AI tools to identify patterns in large data sets to try to predict spillovers — the transfer of pathogens between species — before they happen. In Uganda, the approach is showing early promise in protecting endangered mountain gorillas, as well as the livestock and people who interact with them. Other researchers are trawling through databases to identify new zoonotic viruses in samples that were not necessarily collected for that purpose.
So what do we really think? Ostensibly its another good news science story (especially of you’re a gorilla) And it obviously has hopeful implications for when the next pandemic strikes-another LSS old favourite. But-we hope you will indulge us with our own take, because we think there’s something deeper going on. Look at the gap in technique compared with COVID -wracked 2021, the last real pre-AI year. Back then, researchers would only have been able to compare one data set at a time: logs on gorilla movements, human settlements, genomes, weather, livestock………you name it. Now our invisible chums do the lot for us simultaneously, in real time. And to make predictive ecological models, construct counterfactuals and many other things, all based on real time integration of field data. Quite a step change, isn’t it?
Five years is a short time for a new world to be born. But it is such, for it carries the true characteristic of a new world-there’s no going back. And somehow its this story that has finally brought it home, at least to this Editorial Board: this AI thing is as big as the advent of metals, or the Industrial Revolution. What do you think? We’d love to know.
Is Birth order Destiny? We’ve long been intrigued by the thought that your birth order-whether you’re a sibling or an older child, older brother, younger sister,etc-affects your personality and life chances. Latest twist in the saga is this piece about disease from the Independent:Study suggests first-born children are more likely to develop neurological conditions and second-born are more prone to substance abuse
Recalcitrant Fungus “A drug-resistant fungus that kills thousands of hospital patients in the U.S. every year survives on human skin by hijacking the body’s immune response, scientists have just discovered.” declares Newsweek. So it’s not just bacteria then?
Is all this heat doing in your brain? A few years ago we published a blog speculating that extra carbon dioxide from global warming may be affecting our health (LSS 2 11 20) Well that may or may not be the case: but all that extra heat may well be affecting our brains, as this article from The Conversation makes clear indeed
Yet more quantum complexity As if quantum physics wasn’t already difficult enough to follow, what with all those bosons, muons hadrons and quarks, Nature Briefing has just made our life a little more difficult with this piece about the Gluon How are we meant to remember all this?
A team of physicists says it has observed strong evidence of a mysterious ‘glueball’, a particle made up of force-carrying gluons. The team says that a particle known as X(2370) is mostly made up of these glueballs — clusters of the gluons that bind quarks to form protons and neutrons and hold them inside the nucleus of an atom. There is no single smoking gun that proves that this particle is made of glueballs, says particle physicist Bruce Yabsley. But the findings are “quite persuasive”, he says. The group presented their results at the International Conference on High Energy Physics in Natal, Brazil, last week.
Why won’t ET phone us? Normally our Friday purpose is to bring you short snappy pieces before Cocktail Hour. But this Guardian Long Read on why those pesky aliens have never shown up is so very good that we felt it our duty to bring it to you nevertheless
India’s day in the Sun If there’s one nation that is making huge leaps-commercial, technological, scientific- it is India. Proof if you want more comes from this admirable solar mission Aditya L1, admirably reported by the BBC
Over the years we’ve enjoyed bringing you good‑news cancer stories. Only a fraction of what’s available in the wider media, of course, but we try to showcase the ones that matter. And we think you will agree, gentle readers, that the overall direction of travel has been encouraging. Immunotherapy, CAR‑T, genomic sequencing — these are just a few of the leaps and bounds of the last decade. Compared with the situation in 1996, or even 1966 when tobacco was almost de rigueur, you might reasonably feel a measure of satisfaction.
Except, of course, for the truly intractable and life‑wasting tumours that still hover over all our lives. Poised and ready to strike, like a swarm of sinister angels from hell.
Our personal list might include Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC), pancreatic adenocarcinoma, glioblastoma, and certain forms of ovarian and liver cancer. This handy list from ScienceDirect offers an excellent jumping‑off point for anyone who wants to learn more. [1] At which point the Reflective Reader might conclude: “More research to be done.” And there’s the rub, as Shakespeare would have it.
For over those same ten years we have drifted into an age when Science, Research and Investigation are increasingly at a discount rather than a premium. Attacks on climate science, vaccination, and epidemiology are nothing new — but they have increased in fury and frequency, and have afforded licence to dispute the findings of any reasonable and learned experts. Recall the vitriol poured on economists who challenged the latest popular fads in constitutional or economic matters, or sociologists who advocate a more rational approach to any number of issues around crime, the family and poverty. For a broader survey of these attacks on the physical sciences in general, see this link to The Skeptical Inquirer.[2], although for the sociological and economic tropes we have alluded to you’ll have to look elsewhere.
But it is not the specific assaults on rationality that matter so much as the intellectual climate they create. Facts are selected, conclusions jumped to, and the passion is for triumph rather than knowledge. Research is a human, social phenomenon, and it is as sensitive to the social trends around it as winds are to a warming climate. Some people may feel they gain by refusing to reason. But they will pay a long price in untreatable cancers, incurable epidemics, and broken economies.
How to remind them they still have time to make a choice?
