Science and Inquiry discussion

That sounds like a great class. I would love to take it.

I'm starting Terra: Our 100-Million-Year-Old Ecosystem--and the Threats That Now Put It at Risk and looking forward to it. A friend of my gifted it to me and gave it a good review.

I finished The God Delusion and am SO not even questioning enough for this. Definitely written for Atheists or functioning Atheists.

Working on The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, and I like it thus far. I really wish Brian Greene were my physics teacher, he's great at finding examples that make perfect sense to me.

Y'know, is anyone wants God Delusion, we have two copies. In hardcover, even! (One was a gift.) I'm happy to send it to someone who'd like to read it.

Not that I particularly liked it.

Apart from a chapter at the end, I loved The God Delusion, but yeah, I guess the book is mostly preaching to the converted. That said, there were some interesting theories about human self-sacrifice and altruism in it.

I'm reading Unmasking Europa - the search for life on Jupiter's ocean moon by Richard Greenberg. I'm especially enjoying his (slightly whiny) asides on the politics of science. It's funny how some academic titles will often have a deeper human subtext.

I recently finished Earth Abides by George R. Stewart, which follows the last survivors of the human race after a virus has wiped out about 90% of the population. It was very interesting as Stewart looked at both the impact of civilisation and humanity and the ecology of what would happen if man's control was removed. I would highly recommend giving this a go, it was very interesting to see how the survivors coped and the different approaches and strategies used by each and how nature started taking back the land that man used for farming, building and amenity.

Alex wrote: "Grace, I've found Origin kinda difficult, actually. Dude uses a ton of commas! (Trust Patricrk over me, that dude is way smarter.) I bought this sick illustrated edition, which I ..."

My copy is not illustrated, so I'll probably be along this path when I start reading it. To be honest, I put Dennet aside for a while. Spring term on our campus means breakneck speed until the last day. For that reason I want books I don't have to think about, like a good fiction or history book.

Patty, interesting - I'm into Europa - though I'm not sure the slightly whiny bits would work quite as well for me. Depends on the quality of writing, although it sounds like you're saying the quality's pretty good.

And Sam, that sounds interesting too; sounds sorta like a fictionalized version of Weisman's great The World Without Us. Or like an update of Mary Shelley's The Last Man, which I've never read but plan to get to in the next month or so. I love Frankenstein.

I just finished this. Been reading it on the train journey in the morning and it's taken me since the New Year, which is not bad for me and physics. It's very accessible. The dog device basically works, though it feels a little whimsical in places. The final chapter about spotting crank science and con artists is great! I have no grounding in 'classical' physics (yet) - so maybe that makes quantum a bit easier. Or maybe I've just not grasped how truly weird it all is :-) I did get a bit lost when it got onto teleportation and entanglement. Recommended though.

It certainly seems along the same lines as those Alex and thanks for the comparisons, I now have a few more books I'd like to read :-D

The illustrated edition can be a great call.

I'm reading Unmasking Europa - the search for life on Jupiter's ocean moon by Richard Greenberg. I'm especially enjoying his (slightly whiny) asides on the politics of science. It's funny how some academic titles will often have a deeper human subtext.

I'm totally into learning about the solar system, so I'll be checking this one out.

I'm reading Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population. Anyone else read it? Man, does he get misinterpreted.

Alex, Kirsten,

There are certainly a lot of really good books available on the solar system and beyond. Pretty useful for the science fiction writer ;-)

Alex wrote: "I'm reading Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population. Anyone else read it? Man, does he get misinterpreted."

You inspired me. I downloaded it from the Guttenburg project and have finished the first chapter.

Oh cool Patricrk! Someone to discuss with! My initial thoughts are here, but I haven't finished it yet either. (I'm also reading Mathew Lewis's 1796 novel, The Monk, so that's published in the same year and has nothing to do with Malthus but it's totally hilarious.)

To summarize, I think Malthus's general idea - that we breed faster than we feed - is blaringly obvious, but humans don't work in a way that allows for anything else to happen. Science will save us, or it won't.

The best book on physics for the layman that I have ever read. Comprehensive and understandable. But be forwarned - it will require setting it aside for long intervals of thinking, which in my case does not always lead comprehension.

Alex wrote: "Oh cool Patricrk! Someone to discuss with! My initial thoughts are here, but I haven't finished it yet either. (I'm also reading Mathew Lewis's 1796 novel, The Monk, so that's publi..."

He mentioned that the America colonies population doubled in 25 years which implies a growth rate of about 72/25 or 2.9%. I was wondering what the maximum growth rate could be. 1/2 population male and can't have babies, 1/3 of female population is of child bearing age and health, spacing of babies is 1 every three years which gives a possible growth rate of 1/18 of 5.5% or a doubling every 72/5.5 or 13 years. That seems high as it doesn't allow enough time for females to reach sexual maturity and doesn't account for infant mortality. Can you imagine a society where half the population is 13 and under?

Also, a lot of immigration.

ETA: The "13 and under" - I think that was the case in Vietnam at some point after the war.

There are actually a lot of countries now that are approaching nearly half the population being 15 and under, especially countries where many adults are dying of AIDS.

Good point.

Kirsten wrote: "There are actually a lot of countries now that are approaching nearly half the population being 15 and under, especially countries where many adults are dying of AIDS."

That is very tragic. It isn't a case (excess adult deaths) that Malthus discussed in what I've read so far. He was more concerned with more children being born. I was thinking that the countries that subsidize and import large quantities of food, that don't engage in birth control, are setting themselves up for large population growth and the problems of having a large cadre of youngsters. Egypt is probably an example.

I believe I saw something at one point in the Egypt coverage earlier this year that a large proportion of the Egyptian population cannot remember any ruler other than Mubarak.

I was thinking that the countries that subsidize and import large quantities of food, that don't engage in birth control, are setting themselves up for large population growth and the problems of having a large cadre of youngsters. Egypt is probably an example.

No doubt. It's going to become a huge problem, because not only is there going to be a population spike now, it will expand greatly when the all the children being born all reach child bearing age, especially if nothing is done to introduce birth control practices (some nations have birthrates of 5-6 children per woman, and infant mortality rates are declining. Which is wonderful, but hard on the environment, their parents, and the children themselves) educate girls, and fix food supply problems.

As far as countries suffering from AIDS epidemics goes, it's extremely tragic. It's hard for those nations to have functioning economies to feed all the youngsters being orphaned due to great disruption in the labor forces.

Malthus was, to put it simply, wrong. His math was sound, but his conclusions do not take into account human ingenuity. We have avoided global mass famine for the past 200 years because in the 19th century we pioneered vast new agricultural areas (notably the Great Plains, steppes of Russia, and Australia); and in the 20th we figured out how to make chemical fertilizers from air and developed higher-yielding crop strains. According to United Nations estimates, global birth rates with stabilize by the middle of this century and then begin to fall -- in great part because people have fewer children when their incomes and quality of life improve. Population control is a good thing, but the world population is likely to top out at about 9 billion regardless of government policies. Of course it will be difficult to meet the needs of that size population (and to minimize the pollution it will cause) but it is possible with current technology. This is the subject of my next book -- please comment.

I dealt with exactly that in my review, Thomas: it was Engels who pointed out that science could save us from Malthus's dire choices, and he has proven to be right - temporarily. The Green Revolution allowed us to support more people than Malthus would've thought possible.

I have much less faith than you do in its continuing effectiveness, though. Modern farming techniques have devastated our soil; we may be headed for a worse reckoning, if science can't once again save the day. And while rising QOL can decrease birth rate, it will increase environmental pressures.

And I haven't heard that estimate from the UN; all the estimates I've seen have been much more pessimistic. Can you link me to something there?

Malthus failed to consider our own remarkable ingenuity, but whether that means he was wrong or just that he's going to take longer to be right remains to be seen.

What I learned is that there are three potential pathways for birthrates, CO2 emissions, and degrees of warming. The optimistic (highly improbable) one, the likely one, and the really pessimistic one.

Basically the first says we'd top out a bit under 8 billion, keep the warming to 2 degrees or less (pipe dream!), and keep the CO2 PPM under 350.

The second is the widely accepted version that says about 9 billion people, and between 2 and 5 degrees of warming with approx. 450 PPM CO2.

The last one is the zombie apocalypse version with upwards of 10 billion people, and 6 or more degrees of warming with CO2 at as many as 600 or more PPM.

Here is the projected population growth based on UN estimates: http://www.sos2006.jp/english/rsbs_su...

Here is the carbon projection from the IPCC: http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/...

If you guys are actually really interested in this stuff, I can pull up a bunch more charts/books/papers for your viewing pleasure. I spent 4 years intensively scrutinizing this stuff and am always extremely pleased to discuss/debate it.

Alex-excellent point about the soil. It takes 500 years to make a single inch of soil, so that may be our ultimate agricultural downfall, even with global climate change.

ETA: I just picked up The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future to start reading, and it starts off by discussing Malthus. Highly relevant accident I guess.

I like this discussion group a lot. People have been saying for two centuries that Malthus is just about to be proven right -- and it's true, of course, that he might be. He just hasn't been yet. Instead of starving, we're facing a growing epidemic of obesity (and by "we" I mean not only the US, but most of Europe, Australia, Mexico, and large parts of Asia). There are a lot of wild cards at play in any predictions about population growth and food -- climate change, of course, and also politics, economics, government policies, technological advances, changing agricultural practices, social evolution, etc. etc. In general I guess I'm what you'd call a techno-optimist, which is to say that my reading of history convinces me that humans are generally pretty good (especially since the scientific revolution) at making their lives richer, longer, and safer -- and finding clever ways to get ourselves out of the jams we create. True, our string of "informed luck" might run out at any time, but I'm hoping we squeak through this century in good shape.

Thanks Kirsten, for the info. I too, am interested in the topic, although I am not well read. While it may be true that Earth has the capacity to feed 9 billion, I wonder what those people will be eating. Will they be able to enjoy fish, crab, shrimp? It seems to me, just listening to the various interests in the Pacific Northwest point fingers at each other regarding wild salmon, that we may be about to reach the tipping point in terms of harvesting food from the sea. In terms of biodiversity it just feels like there are already too many of us. So many species are endangered because one of them isn't. Am I too negative?

Farming is about to take a hit with desertification, changing temperatures, and most of all, changing water availabilities. We have the ability to manage our water supplies now, but we may not have that option in the future.

Yes, we are VERY close to collapsing almost all the major fisheries we rely on for seafood. Over 90% of the tuna have been fished out, and with all species, there becomes a point of no return, a point where were cannot bring them back because there just aren't enough. With some species that's 30, and with some it's 3 million. Hard to say. If we don't fish out all the sea life, we may kill it with pollution and warming seas collapsing the lower trophic levels that support the whole system. I went to school in the Pacific Northwest, and the talking about salmon was endless. I had the great privilege of catching one, though (I threw it back).

Steve wrote: "Thanks Kirsten, for the info. I too, am interested in the topic, although I am not well read. While it may be true that Earth has the capacity to feed 9 billion, I wonder what those people will b..."

No, your not too negative. As oil prices rise the cost of transporting the food from the surplus area's to the negative area's will go up and the poorer area's will suffer far more than the richer area's. Malthus has a chapter about how equal food distribution scheme's are not going to work for very long. I saw that the usa's food reserve is at its lowest in years even with all the increase from GM crops.

Thanks Kirsten, very informative. Yes, the sportfishermen blamed the Native Americans, they in turn blamed the commercial fishermen and everybody blamed the forest products companies and real estate developers for the salmon problem. It all seemed too simple...too many people going after the same limited resource. Here in Mexico, where I live 7 months of the year, developers are destroying the mangrove swamps that shrimp larvae depend on.

There is yet another possibility for disaster. A moderately big volcano eruption could put many cubic kilometers of ash into the atmostphere. Worldwide illumination by the sun would take a nosedive, and deprive us of summertime, and cause massive crop failures. It has happened in the recent past (1815). This type of disaster is sudden, and unlike global warming, overpopulation, overdevelopment, bad farming practices and overfishing, cannot be anticipated.

David, very true, and we're due for one. It's been a long time since Krakatoa, and many geologists are wondering if Indonesia may be volcanically active again, due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. I find the Yellowstone volcano to be fascinating too, but that isn't expected (fortunately for the U.S.) to erupt anytime soon. One of the three sisters in the Cascades is expected to erupt sometime in the next century, probably near when the next big earthquake will hit, geologic events can be interconnected.

Steve, pretty much, yup. It just became a huge circle of blame, and in the meantime, really nothing useful is being done as the salmon disappear. It was shocking to see Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hoover and other dams and wonder how wildlife is supposed to win against that. I'm reading Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food right now, which may interest you if you are concerned about seafood. Mangrove swamps are beautiful, and hugely important ecosystems, sad to see them go. What part of Mexico?

Oh hey, are you digging Four Fish? I thought that looked interesting.

Yeah, I'm very concerned about the collapse of fish. It's already had a major impact, of course; I will never be able to eat whale, because we overhunted them. Bums me out, because those things look delicious.

I was reminded last night that Jared Diamond is also a "techno-optimist." At the end of Collapse, which is basically one big warning shout, he strikes a sortof out-of-context note of optimism.

I am a...I don't know what you'd call it. A fatalist? I think our drive to expand and innovate will always outstrip our capacity for sober reflection, and that will either work out or it won't. Wonderfully, we may never know whether it will or not; either we'll kill ourselves, or killing ourselves will still be an option. Can anyone imagine a time when we say, "Okay, I think we've got the hang of civilization; we're safe now"? Me neither.

Alex-I'm definitely digging it thus far. It's a tiny bit light on science and relies on personal antecdotes, but those can be an important part of science. I've only finished the Salmon chapter, but I recommend it.

Humans will never stop their drive to do more, I definitely agree with you there.

Kirsten, I live in Puerto Vallarta. There has been some destruction of mangroves here for marina and condo construction. However, I was thinking of Mazatlan where the mangroves are reputed to me a major nursery for shrimp, and where I am told much of them have been destroyed. I can't imagine Mexico without camarones.

"Life of the Bee" by Maurice Maeterlick. Presumably outdated, but a nice enough read, and free from google books because its in the public domain.

I think "Travels in Alaska" counts, loosely. (Its about a geological survey expedition, which is to say its about the expedition more than the survey, but its worth memtioning.) Also free, public domain. Pattern? Yes:)

... I like the writing style from that time period. No one had any concept of word ecomomy;)

Steve-Yeah, and that's another one of those "stop killing lower down on the food chain" things too. Also, Mangroves are really important in protecting the shoreline, which will become more and more important with the changes to come. Humans are incredibly short-sighted sometimes.

I just finished The Darwinian Tourist: Viewing the World Through Evolutionary Eyes. It's a beautiful book with lots of photographs that the author took in exotic locales. It's very well written. The theme of the book is the evolutionary history of animals and humans, and how scientists and naturalists have learned about their evolution.

Einstein's Cosmos by Michio Kaku. The book made Einstein's theories understandable for a lay person, like me.

Randy

Just purchased The Discovery of Jeanne Baret: A Story of Science, the High Seas, and the First Woman to Circumnavigate the Globe for my Kindle. It's about a botanist's assistant who disguises herself as a man so she can accompany him on a voyage of discovery around the world with Bougainville in 1740. Should be interesting. Combines my two loves, science and sailing.

That's very interesting, Steve. I've heard this story mentioned offhandedly a few times, but didn't realize there was enough info to write a book about it. Lemme know how it goes.

I finished The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos
How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming
Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food in the past week or so, and have started
North Pole, South Pole: The Quest to Understand Earth's Magnetism

Sheesh, Kirsten, how can you read three books simultaneously (or three that fast)? I'm planning to read the last one soon. Let me know how you like it.

I enjoyed Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It's a little dated, but probably still valid. It'd be good for a student to have handy so they could check the entries in there against wikipedia and other more dubious sites.

I read between 6 and 7 books at once, keeps me from getting bored.
North Pole, South Pole: The Quest to Understand Earth's Magnetism is a really quick read, not terribly long, either. Pretty interesting thus far, starts back in the time of the Greeks.

Steve wrote: "Just purchased The Discovery of Jeanne Baret: A Story of Science, the High Seas, and the First Woman to Circumnavigate the Globe for my Kindle. It's about a botanist's assistant who..."
This sounded fascinating, just the kind of story I like. I just one-clicked it for my Kindle. Thanks Steve, for mentioning it.

Steve-I definitely recommend North Pole, South Pole: The Quest to Understand Earth's Magnetism if you are interested in navigation, the history of science, magnetism, geology, etc. I'm almost finished with the book and I enjoyed it. Full review to follow shortly.

I've just read Packing for Mars. Absolutely hilarious!

I just finished The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future. It was good...but sometimes hard to tell what the point he was trying to make was exactly. Kind of a rambling collection of short chapter examples on why over population is bad, doom-sayers, and at the VERY end, he talks about carbon footprints etc. I only recommend this book to people who are VERY interested in the topic.

Next I plan to read Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. Looking forward to this one.

Kirsten wrote: "Next I plan to read Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. Looking forward to this one. "

That's a good book Kirsten--you will enjoy it!