Category Archives: opinion

48% of Americans are either ignorant, stupid, or insane

Newsweek just published a survey about Americans and faith. Among their results were the following:

  • 48% of Americans do not believe that “evolution [is] well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community”.
  • 34% of college graduates accept the Biblical story of creation as fact.

Richard Dawkins once said: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”.

A typically controversial statement from Dawkins. I think that most people who deny evolution are indeed ignorant, but there are other important motivations too.

Gravity is ‘just’ a theory

If you drop something – say an apple – it will fall right? But how do you know that it will fall? In fact, you don’t actually know that it will fall – but every other time you dropped something it fell, so you are pretty sure that this time the apple will fall too.

This is a (very) simplistic example of how humans have been gaining knowledge for thousands of years. Basically we follow a simple process:

  1. We observe things in the world around us. Every time I drop something, it falls to the ground.
  2. We propose a hypothesis explaining what we see. I propose that every time I drop something it will fall. (As an aside this is not the theory of gravity*)
  3. We make predictions according to the hypothesis. I predict that every time I drop something… down it will go.
  4. We use the predictions to create and repeat experiments. Drop a bunch of things to check that our prediction holds.

One day we could disprove the theory by dropping something that doesn’t fall. But, no matter how many experiments we conduct, we can never prove our theory. We just amass a lot of evidence that we are right, but the point is our idea remains a theory. It could be proven wrong at any time.

Evolution is also ‘just a theory’ – but so is gravity, and our theory about dropping things. And like gravity, evolution has a HUGE amount of evidence behind it. Don’t dump it because it’s just a theory – otherwise you should be dumping everything that humans have learned over the last 13,000 years!

* The theory of gravity, at a very simple level, states:

  • Any two objects will attract each other. For example the earth exerts a force of attraction on you – and you exert a force of attraction on the earth.
  • The force of that attractions is proportional to the mass (size) of the objects. The earth is really massive so the force between you is enough to hold you down!

Should we use geo-engineering to escape global warming?

Geo-engineering is the practice of using technology to alter the properties (in this case climate) of the planet. We have actually been doing it inadvertently for centuries – global warming itself is an example of geo-engineering. When plants first populated the earth they geo-engineered the planet by increasing oxygen levels (albeit over millions of years).

As a response to global warming, quite a bit of interest is being generated into intentional geo-engineering. There are two options for dealing with global warming:

  1. Prevention – stop/slow the emission of greenhouse gasses like carbon-dioxide;
  2. Amelioration – use geo-engineering to counteract the effects of global warming.

Some of the ideas (most of which sound crazy to me) are:

  • Pump particles into the upper atmosphere to block out some of the sun’s rays.
  • Building a shield out of thousands of mirrors in space – again to block out some of the sun’s rays
  • Build autonomous, wind-powered ships which would create reflective marine clouds by blasting droplets of sea water into the air (see image).

Autonomous ship designed to create reflective marine clouds

I believe that some of these ideas could actually work (I think the one about cloud forming ships is cool). In some cases these ideas might even be cheaper than reducing emissions sufficiently.

However, I also feel that geo-engineering solutions have some very serious weaknesses:

  • Most plans have known and, more dangerously, unknown side effects.
  • If greenhouse gas levels were to continue increasing, we would have to continue ramping up the geo-engineering -> more side effects.
  • In almost all cases, the geo-engineering does not solve the other problems associated with high greenhouse gas levels.

Geo-engineering is a cool concept, but I really don’t think we should be experimenting on the planet.  Lets try to make Mars habitable instead!

Network Neutrality

I suppose that if you aren’t a geek (like me) you may not have heard of the “Net Neutrality” debate. I think that it’s actually quite an interesting (and important) argument.

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is the principle that network operators (like Telkom or AT&T) should give equal treatment to all the traffic on their networks.

Currently, the internet blindly delivers data packets regardless of what they contain. The network just gets data and passes it on – no matter what is in there. This is what makes the internet flexible – anyone can send anything they want.

In the US the telecoms firms (AT&T, Verizon, etc) want to be allowed to charge content providers (e.g. Google, BBC, any web site) a fee for providing their content on a faster connection. In effect, they plan “express toll lanes” alongside the internet’s existing highways.

They are promising to leave the normal traffic as it is – they just want to have special lanes for people who pay more. Sounds fair(ish).

There are a few reasons why I don’t like this idea:

  • Why would the operators upgrade the normal networks if they could be making more money by upgrading the expensive ones?
  • This would tilt the internet toward the big sites. Little sites like www.alistairpott.com are going to be much slower than the big boys.
  • Once a few sites pay up they will all be sucked in. If Google pays for faster delivery then Yahoo! will have to follow.

So I don’t like the idea of allowing operators to violate network neutrality. But, I hate over-regulation so I don’t think that over-strict rules should be put in place the preserve neutrality. As usual, I think the guys at The Economist have got the right idea:
“A minimal set of rules to protect net neutrality would still leave room for operators to experiment with new premium services.”

Google’s stance on net neutrality

Game theory model of the effects of removing network neutrality