I watched the launch from across the street from the house. One of the (few) benefits of living in south Florida.
Category Archives: Science And Society
Evolutionary Benefits
…of religion.
I don’t know whether or not I’ve blogged on this subject before, but it’s a common notion that while not everyone requires a supreme lawgiver to be good, most people perhaps do, and that a retributive religion promotes a better society. Similarly (and perhaps it’s a corollary, as pointed out in the link), while dying sucks for an individual, some view it as a good for society and the species, by getting the fogeys out of the way and making room for fresh blood and ideas. At least in the latter case, I think that the cure is worse than the disease, and I’d like to have the problems associated with indefinite lifespan, and look for solutions to them, than die without getting the chance to tackle them. Of course, one of those solutions is space migration.
A Stone-Age Phrase Book
I’m a little skeptical that this would actually work. But the researchers have the luxury that there is no chance that they would ever be able to test it.
[Update early afternoon]
Got Medieval makes short work of this.
I Am Not A Doodler
I’ve never had any urge whatsoever to do it. But apparently, it improves memory.
But even if it does, it doesn’t seem to be a strong enough effect to motivate me to doodle.
Philip Jose Farmer
RIP. I actually only read the Riverworld series, and hadn’t kept up with his later stuff.
Scientists, Engineers And Futurists
Some thoughts on the audacity of technological hope, from JoSH.
More OCO Fallout
Alan Boyle has a story on the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, with an amusingly stupid comment in his comments section:
When did NASA become so political? Oh right, when the neocons filled it with “scientists” who don’t like science that refutes the Bible (that is to say, all science). F-ing crazy people. This is what happens when the cornerstones of our civilization fall before the onslaught of religion: our future falls into the ocean. Adios homo sapiens.
Yes, there was never any politics at NASA before those evil “neocons” came along.
Seriously, WTF is this person talking about? When did NASA get “filled” with “scientists” who “don’t like science that refutes the Bible”? And how did they manage to infiltrate Orbital Sciences? Did I miss that?
The Democrat War On Science
John Tierney has some useful thoughts on the politicization of science in the new administration:
Most researchers, Dr. Pielke writes, like to think of themselves in one of two roles: as a pure researcher who remains aloof from messy politics, or an impartial arbiter offering expert answers to politicians’ questions. Either way, they believe their research can point the way to correct public policies, and sometimes it does — when the science is clear and people’s values aren’t in conflict.
But climate change, like most political issues, isn’t so simple. While most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences (like the condition of California’s water supply in 2090). And while most members of the public want to avoid future harm from climate change, they have conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today.
A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.
But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”
“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”
My concern with Chu and Holdren is that they are Club of Rome types who seem to be anti-technology. I’m sure that they would say that they are in favor of “appropriate” technology (yet another leftist theft of an intellectual base, like “progressive”), but it amounts to having no faith in our descendants to come up with technological solutions to today’s burgeoning problems. That inability to account for technological improvement is at the heart of apocalyptic predictions like world-wide famine and California agriculture drying up from lack of water. It’s that same blindness (and ignorance of basic economics) that resulted in Holdren and Ehrlich losing their bet with Julian Simon
Not to say, of course, that famines and droughts can’t occur, but if they do, it will be a result of foolish (or evil) government policies, not an overabundance of carbon in the atmosphere.
A Gene To Grow Teeth?
Weight-Loss Drugs
The current state of play.
[Update a while later]
Here’s an interesting article on progress in anti-aging. I found this part particularly interesting:
The study will also give more confidence to people who are trying to extend their lives by severely restricting their food intake. Such extreme dieting, popularized by the late Roy Walford, has grown into a movement.
“I’m not going to get on the diet-restriction bandwagon,” Morimoto said. “But a little less consumption would be good for us. If you fast for 12 hours, that’s enough to send the right signals to your system.”
I sometimes do go a while without eating. I often skip breakfast, and since I (literally) don’t break my fast, I can end up going twelve hours or more. It’s nice to know that it could be good for me. It also indicates that breakfast may not be the most important meal of the day, and could in fact be harmful. In any event, it’s harder for people who are susceptible to blood-sugar swings to do this.