ريتشارد دوكنز's Blog, page 681
September 25, 2015
Want Your Kids To Learn Another Language? Teach Them Code
Photo credit:
Coding: it’s just another language to learn at school. Flickrabg_colegio, CC BY
Among Malcolm Turnbull’s first words as the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party, and hence heading for the Prime Minister’s job, were: “The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative.”
Diesel Fumes And Your Health: VW Cover-Up Shows We Need To Test Local Cars
Photo credit:
Quka/Shutterstock
Volkswagen has been systematically fixing its diesel cars to be clean during vehicle testing in the United States and then pollute more heavily when on the road. This allowed its vehicles to pass rigorous emissions tests, giving customers maximum driving performance at the cost of the environment and our health.
September 24, 2015
Dixon, Not Darwin
Back in 2014, there was a controversy in Arizona surrounding John Huppenthal, then the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. It was alleged, and subsequently confirmed, that Huppenthal pseudonymously posted a bunch of comments—variously characterized in the media as harsh, inflammatory, and even racist—on various political websites over the course of several years. Darwin was apparently among Huppenthal’s targets. The Arizona Republic reported that in 2013, he posted, “It was Darwin, not Hitler, who named Germans the master race…It was Darwin who expressed approval of eliminating both Jews and Africans.” Huppenthal subsequently admitted to making the comments and offered a quasi-apology: “I sincerely regret if my comments have offended anyone.” It apparently wasn’t enough to mollify his constituents: he was defeated in his bid for the Republican nomination for superintendent in 2014 and was duly replaced by Diane Douglas in January 2015.
Huppenthal’s mention of Darwin attracted my attention in 2014, but his comment was so inane that I wasn’t able to muster any interest in blogging about it. I was interested, however, in a claim, found in a comment on a report on the controversy, that in one of his pseudonymous outings Huppenthal quoted the following viciously racist passage:
Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the Continent of Africa—rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrow-head worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lives as his fathers lived—stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape!
According to the commenter, Huppenthal attributed the passage to Darwin. The strategy of portraying Darwin as a vicious racist certainly chimes with the authenticated comments from Huppenthal reported in The Arizona Republic, but I was unable to find any evidence that Huppenthal in fact posted such a comment, so I let it go.
I was a little disappointed to let it go, though. I’ve been aware of the misattribution for a long time, but I’ve never been able to find it in a published source, and I found it hard to convince myself that it would be worthwhile to discuss it in detail in the absence of a published instance to examine. (I don’t advise that you search on-line for instances of the misattribution, because what you’ll find is plenty of white supremacist websites.) But I now feel entitled to devote a little time to it, because someone recently saw fit to post it as a comment on NCSE’s Facebook page. Replying to the comment there, I cut to the chase, saying (I quote from memory): “The passage you quote is not from Darwin; it is from Thomas F. Dixon Jr.’s novel The Clansman (1905).” (If brevity were not so valuable in Facebook comments, I might have added the subtitle of the book—An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan—or observed that the novel was the basis for D. W. Griffith’s 1915 silent movie The Birth of a Nation.) There was no reply.
Since the text of The Clansman is available on-line, and since Darwin’s works and letters are largely available on-line, it seems to me that today it would take a diligent act of will to avoid the evidence that Darwin didn’t, and Dixon did, write those hateful words. (In the novel, the words are spoken by Richard Cameron, a doctor who is the father of the hero Ben Cameron, who becomes the Grand Dragon of South Carolina’s Ku Klux Klan, as he argues with the villain, Austin Stoneman, a Radical Republican member of Congress who moved to South Carolina for his health. It seems clear that they represent Dixon’s own views as well.) Even without the texts at hand, anyone with a familiarity with Darwin’s writing would surely recognize that the passage is more overwrought and purple than anything Darwin ever produced. And of course, as Adrian Desmond and James Moore document extensively in their Darwin’s Sacred Cause (2009), Darwin was remarkably progressive for his time on matters of race: the misattribution is ridiculous on its face.
By the way, although the white supremacist websites that misattribute the passage from The Clansman to Darwin are apparently eager to claim the imprimatur of evolution for their racism, the actual author of the passage wasn’t crazy about evolution. Before he started to write novels, when he was serving as a Baptist pastor in New York City, Dixon (above) wrote Living Problems in Religion and Social Science (1889), according to which, “Even granting, for the sake of argument, that evolution is an established scientific fact, the working hypothesis of the theory of evolution involves three miracles.” To accept evolution, in his view, is to accept three unexplained, indeed unexplainable, and thus miraculous transitions: from non-life to life, from “the vegetable” to “the animal,” and from “the whining brute” that is the monkey to “the proud, erect, God-like man.” So I’ll end in the style of a political advertisement, if I may: Thomas F. Dixon Jr.: wrong on race, wrong on evolution, wrong for America.
Sustainable Development Goals Offer Something for Everyone–and Will Not Work
SA Forum is an invited essay from experts on topical issues in science and technology.
Let’s be honest: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the United Nations is expected to formally approve this week, are a mess. As they currently stand, the goals neither organize nor prioritize global efforts to improve the human condition while serving as stewards of the planet. As a result, they risk becoming an empty exercise that empowers business as usual in the field of global development.
Under their current structure, the SDGs comprise 17 goals that will be measured through 169 targets, which are, in turn, meant to be measured through 304 indicators. Whereas the U.N. attempted to create an open, participatory process for identifying the SDGs, a real effort to set sustainable development goals requires difficult decisions. The SDGs currently eschew these politics, and the result is a laundry list of goals largely irrelevant to how we think about the actual work of development in an era of climate change.
I’ll offer a small illustration of this challenge by citing the example of a single development initiative: providing weather and climate information to farmers. After years of study of one such program in Mali, my lab and I have found that although weather and climate information has tremendous potential to transform the lives of farmers in this part of the world, most of them cannot use the information. Simply put, farmers without draught animals and plows cannot respond to time-sensitive advice about when it is best to prepare or plant their fields. Therefore, to deliver climate services that live up to their lofty potential, we must first find means of addressing these asset deficits. Reality on the ground suggests that agricultural development comes first, followed by climate adaptation, which has implications for funding.
If we scale this problem to the level of the SDGs, their flaws become obvious. The noble effort to make the design of the SDGs open and democratic has instead produced a set of goals that protects everyone’s current interests, except perhaps those of the global poor. For example, alleviating global hunger (proposed SDG 2) sits alongside the goals of ensuring sustainable water and sanitation (SDG 6) and reducing inequality within and among countries (SDG 10). It is not clear, however, that we can achieve universal food security without the short-term (at least) drawdown of fresh water supplies or the production of new patterns of economic inequality as some farmers benefit from new agricultural opportunities more than others. If achieving all three of these goals concurrently is unlikely, which of them should we prioritize—and why? Which path gets us to the achievement of all three goals fastest, and most reliably?
The same problem exists for targets within goals. Again, take SDG 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture. To achieve this goal, one target (2.3) aims to double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers. Another relevant target (12.2) buried under a different goal states that we should, by 2030, reduce by half global food waste, including production and postharvest losses. Which of these is most likely to result in better food outcomes, both in particular places and at the global scale? Which of these should we focus on first with our limited aid resources? Picking production empowers one set of interventions and technologies whereas focusing on waste empowers another. Picking neither ensures that everyone engaged in this arena can continue as they have before, now arguing that their work is in service of an SDG and likely failing to move us to the achievement of any SDG in an expeditious manner.
The SDG process is too far along to start over. We now have our goals—and with some minor editing, we have our targets as well. But we can salvage this mess of a project and assure that the SDGs are more than a publicity exercise by pushing for leaders who will demand the process make choices and set priorities for these goals and targets, and who have the clout to ensure their standards are met. Realistically, this leaves us with the bilateral donors, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.K.’s Department for International Development (DfID), Germany’s German Corporation for International Cooperation (GiZ) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) as well as perhaps the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. All of these organizations have the political clout to be heard, and the donor funds to use as a carrot or stick to ensure such demands are addressed. Whether anyone steps into this role either now or in future remains to be seen, but the outcome will determine whether the SDGs are valuable or another exercise in business as usual cloaked in platitudes.
How Progressive Allies Hurt Marginalized Muslims and Ex-Muslims
Depression: Pedaling With The Brakes On
Evidence Of Earliest Ritualized Decapitation In The Americas Discovered
Photo credit:
The skull was found in rock shelters in eastern Brazil, which have been occupied for at least 12,000 years. LEEH USP
The ritual of decapitation among the indigenous Americans has a long and deep history. Historical evidence for this practice has been found across both North and South continents. And until now, the oldest reports were from archeological remains discovered in the Peruvian Andes, which date to around 3,000 years ago. But a new discovery from Brazil now pushes the date back for the first known ritualized decapitation of humans in the Americas by an incredible 6,000 years.
New Bid to Cut Natural Gas Pollution Falls Short
In the race to head off the most dangerous impacts of climate change, a solution to the methane emissions problem is lagging. Although carbon dioxide is a major source of air pollution from power plants that burn coal or natural gas, methane—the main component of natural gas—is a more potent climate change contributor over the short term than CO2. A halt to the release of raw methane from oil and gas operations is critical to combating global warming. The Obama administration in January set an aggressive methane reduction goal of achieving a 40 to 45 percent decrease in oil and gas methane emissions from 2012 levels by 2025. In support of that target the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed new methane pollution regulations for the oil and gas industry. Yet it remains unlikely that the nation’s natural gas industry will plug all of its methane leaks anytime soon.
On the surface, control of methane emissions seems like an easy, win–win proposition: Oil and gas companies capture lost product, thereby yielding more to sell, while also combating climate change. That victory, however, remains out of reach. Although cheap and simple technology exists to prevent many methane leaks, its use is insufficiently widespread to eliminate the problem. And a slow regulatory process, disagreements over the best approach for methane capture and a number of technical factors are holding back more comprehensive action.
The EPA’s proposed regulations released last month are an important step toward dealing with the methane issue but they will not be finalized until mid-next year at the earliest. Even then additional regulations will need to be crafted in order to fully address the problem. This lag is unavoidable because the EPA rules proposed in August only cover new sources of methane emissions, meaning any wells, pipelines or other infrastructure that are built going forward. Existing oil and gas equipment—which accounts for the lion’s share of total industry-related emissions—is unaddressed by the proposed rule. Yet, 90 percent of methane emissions from natural gas are expected to come from existing, not new, sources over the coming years, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The EPA acknowledges this shortcoming and already is working with industry on a voluntary reduction agreement to tackle existing sources of methane emissions, says Laura Allen, an EPA spokesperson. Feedback currently is being sought on a framework for a flexible project, called the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, that could cost-effectively address existing methane emissions sources while providing transparency into company-level progress on the issue, she says.
The oil and gas industry favors that kind of collaborative approach to address both new and existing methane emissions sources over enforceable regulations. Industry argues it is doing a good job reducing methane emissions on its own and says additional regulations are not required even for new emissions. “The [emissions] reductions [to date] were achieved collaboratively with an existing regulatory framework,” says Dan Whitten, a spokesperson for America’s Natural Gas Alliance. “We are disappointed that EPA did not choose to continue that collaboration [for new emissions], and instead proposed unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory mandates.”
Still, some experts maintain that voluntary programs are insufficient. “It’s clear that voluntary programs, although an important complement to regulations, are not a substitute,” says Mark Brownstein, vice president of the EDF’s Climate and Energy Program. “In order to reach the national goal some combination of federal and state rules will be required.” The environmental community argues that too few companies will participate in a voluntary emission-reduction arrangement to make a difference. So regulations are required to ensure the most effective results. Even if the industry supported additional regulation—which it rarely does— it would take precious time to draft, perfect and finalize any new rules for existing sources.
Meanwhile, although tools to fulfill any state or federal regulations, including the new EPA rules, already exist, technical limitations prevent them from being applied to every methane leak. Recent research has shown that leaky long-distance transport pipes and equipment are a major source of emissions. Indeed, some have called methane generated from oil and gas operations a plumbing problem that can be mitigated to a large extent using existing technology.
The installation and maintenance of vapor recovery units, for instance, could go a long way to addressing the methane emission issue at both new and existing oil and gas facilities. Such units can collect 95 percent of the vapors from storage tanks that would otherwise be released directly to the atmosphere.
Leak detection and repair technology is also particularly effective at identifying specific points along the oil or gas supply chain, from the field to consumers, where methane escapes. Research indicates that quarterly programs where technicians inspect infrastructure using infrared cameras and sensors could reduce methane emissions by roughly 60 percent. Monthly inspections could achieve methane emission reductions of 80 percent. Research has also shown this technology to be affordable, particularly because the captured methane can be sold rather than simply wasted. Some relatively simple fixes can both improve profits—and clean up the air.
Source: ICF International, Economic Analysis of Methane Emission-Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Industries, March 2014.
Although the cost of this technology appears manageable, technical barriers currently prevent its rollout across a company’s whole operation, which can often span several states. A lot of oil and gas infrastructure is located in remote or rural locations where there is no access to the electricity needed to power VRUs or infrared cameras. Additionally, rig-mounted equipment such as infrared cameras or sensors require some degree of customization because every rig is slightly different.
Progress has been made on the oil- and gas-related methane emissions issue in a relatively short time but work on a comprehensive solution continues. The main ingredients are at hand and now the challenge will be striking an optimal balance of regulation, voluntary industry participation and technical means in fairly short order before the most dangerous climate change impacts are realized.
No Exoskeleton, No Brain Surgery: Paralyzed Man Walks Again Using Brain Waves
Photo credit:
Maciej Bledowski/Shutterstock
It’s days like this that make you proud to be human. Using the power of the patient's mind, scientists have enabled a man completely paralyzed in both legs to walk again. And this astonishing feat didn’t involve the help of an exoskeleton or robotic limbs, and no brain implants were required, making this a first for rehabilitation.
September 23, 2015
When Is a Denier not a Denier?
One of these is a real addition to the AP Stylebook. Which do you think it is?
To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.
Climate change is preferable to global warming since flat earthers find the latter offensive.
Don’t refer to creationism, as creationists feel it makes them sound like fundamentalist loons. Instead, use intelligent design.
Scientists prefer to call those who reject heliocentrism geocentrists. Those who reject accepted astronomy say the term has the ring of self-centered arrogance, so prefer Copernicus doubters.
Yes, according to a new update to the Associated Press Stylebook, a climate change denier is merely a “climate change doubter,” or at most “someone who rejects mainstream science” (perfect for pithy headlines).
The AP explains:
Scientists who consider themselves real skeptics–who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry–complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.”
Since I previously applauded the statement by actual skeptics urging people not to misuse that proud label to refer to deniers, I’m pleased to see the AP taking heed of it here. But I wish that the AP had also heeded the skeptics’ further recommendation about terminology, instead of writing:
That group prefers the phrase “climate change deniers” for those who reject accepted global warming data and theory. But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.”
I’ve previously rebutted the claim that the term “denial” is connected to the term “Holocaust denial,” and it’s hard to see why anyone should accede to the ill-founded complaint that “denial” connotes Holocaust denial.
The AP advises:
To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.
(Emphasis in original.)
I fear “doubter” fails to capture the mendacity inherent in outright “rejection of mainstream science.” Calling it “denial” is accurate, and has a strong basis in scholarship and is even preferred by some deniers. If deniers find the term offensive, they’d do far better to change their behavior than complain about terminology, and the AP shouldn’t humor them by adopting a term that’s less clear.
ريتشارد دوكنز's Blog
- ريتشارد دوكنز's profile
- 106 followers
