I receive updates from ASHRAE regularly, and I noticed a link to an interesting article in the New York Times – Reducing Carbon by Curbing Population. The article rightly points out that much of the conversation on Climate Change is linked to reducing emissions, but we don’t look past this to consider some of the reasons behind the emissions rates. It’s interesting that the article states that only half of the increase in food consumption is due to population growth, but the other half is related to improved diet and higher incomes. So lifestyle choices are another factor in this complicated scenario.
The article goes on to say that if the world’s population grew at a slower rate than that predicted, we could reduce carbon emissions by a substantial amount (of course, this seems to assume that we all continue to live our lives and consume resources at the same rate as today).
But at what cost do we control population size? The article mentions past population control measures that many see as inhumane, such as China’s one-child policy, and forced sterilisations in India. There are better means of achieving a stable population, such as providing improved healthcare and education, but as a nation becomes more developed, it generally consumes more resources through industrialisation and consumerism.
So how do we balance the two? And how do we balance the myriad issues that all interconnect to form the problem of anthropogenic climate change, and all the other damage to the environment that humans are responsible for? Maybe it’s not as simple as just turning the heating down one degree.
I’m a part-time student, so I don’t spend every waking moment in the postgrad village, unlike some of my compatriots. While I was away from my desk for a mere couple of days, some cheeky bastard harvested my PC for parts (no really, they actually went over to my clearly-occupied desk, unfastened the casing from the tower, and replaced their knackered monitor adapter with mine).
Just to make it even worse, they left the base exactly where it should be, to leave me pondering why my monitor had no input when I switched on this morning. Even more confusing was the loose monitor cable, with no port for it to connect to.
Infuriating. Rest assured, my revenge will be brutal. Or subtle. Maybe when I track down the culprit, I’ll disconnect something important and obscure, but leave it in place…. Mwhahahahahahahahaaaaa!
UPDATE 2014-09-29: During another of my absenses from the postgrad village, the IT support team located my PC and fixed it for me! Good news. When I told them of the problem, they said it was the most bizarre call they’d ever taken.
Although I work part-time in one of the Professions, it is still part-time, and not all engineering careers have lucrative salaries. So I welcomed any chance of overtime with open arms. I embraced the 9-to-9 lifestyle so wholeheartedly, that I haven’t been to university very much at all in, er, the past two months. Oops.
But it’s not just the promise of extra dosh that’s causing me to stray from my university home. I’ve been given more duties at work, and I’m hoping to get through the Chartership process a.s.a.p. All this extra responsibility and status doesn’t maintain itself, and it’s necessary to put in the extra hours. Oh, and I’ve started skating (roller derby) again, I do volunteer work, and I have a bustling social life. So finding time to eat and sleep, let alone study, can be challenging.
Anyway, it’s time to register for the 14/15 academic year, and as I went to fill in the requisite forms online, I took stock of the milestones that I had not reached. I thought “I don’t deserve to be here”. I went to see my tutor for Confession Time, and it actually turned out to be a very positive experience.
He did note that I have not been around for a lot of the time, but he was more concerned for my well-being than anything (awwwwwww).
I was honest with him about the total lack of work I had managed to do, and we agreed a timetable for me to get back to where I should be. I’m also taking a couple of weeks away from work-work to complete my literature review. So things are no longer insurmountable, and I’m feeling a lot better about my own abilities.
Last year, when I attended Winchester Science Festival, I had an unpleasant conversation with another attendee. Don’t worry, it’s not too scandalous, but it did make me consider other people’s perceptions of the ever-more public use of technology.
I was in one of the talks and I had two important tasks to carry out:
1. I wanted to tell my beloved about the cool things I was learning about during the day that he wasn’t there for,
2. I needed to fact-check something. As a skeptic, this is super-critical.
So I used my smartphone to do the above two tasks, and got pestered by some bloke sitting in the same row of the auditorium for not paying attention to the speaker. I was pretty annoyed, for many reasons, but mainly these three:
1. He spoke to me like I was a naughty child,
2. He clearly had no understanding of what I was doing. Ok, fair enough that technology changes rapidly and not everyone is as clued-up as the early adopters, but it was at a science festival in 2014. Get with the times!
3. I was disturbing no-one, literally no-one. The lights were on, my sound was off, and everyone else was doing it too!
And then I got to thinking of just how pervasive technology is in my personal life. On the second date with Mr Science Gentleman, we spent the entire evening on our phones playing Cards Against Humanity with strangers on the internet. Nowadays we do similar sorts of things. We are frequently out to dinner and glued to our phones playing Ingress. I’m sure the other diners think we hate each other.
But we define those rules. We know we’re not being rude, we just communicate differently. We are all cyborgs now.
There’s a cartoon from Robot Hugs that did the rounds recently, about how sexual harassment of women is a real thing, and explaining why it may go unnoticed and how society implicitly condones it. It’s a straightforward and reasonable consideration of the issue, with advice on prevention that no decent human being should find problematic or objectionable. I shared the cartoon on Facebook, as I had seen many of my friends (50+) do with only supportive outcomes. But my experience was different (identities obscured to protect the guilty):
Nicely summarised in this tweet from Bailey, but scarier:
Let’s look at the comments with a bit of context (Haha, probably the word people criticising sexual harassment least want to hear – “context” is a great tool for telling people that they just don’t understand or are being killjoys. Yaaaaaaawn. At least I’m not going to talk about banter. Yeeeesh.)
Anyway, I’m in red. All other commenters are male, and before you ask, no, I’m not critical of all of them. Here goes:
Comment 1 (blue): On the face of it, this looks like a noble sentiment. But it’s falling into the trap of saying that because everyone is capable of being unpleasant to everyone else, that we should ignore cries of sexism because we’ve solved that problem. Which detracts from the very real issue the comic is talking about. Dismissing the problem doesn’t make it go away.
Comment 3 (red) is me, and I may have overstepped the line a little here. I do believe that Mr Green was harassed, but perhaps I shouldn’t have asked (at least on a Facebook thread) about details. This might have implied that I didn’t believe him, and I’m sorry for that.
Comment 4 (pink) is really easy to dismiss as stupidity and/or wilful ignorance, but just take a look at the comments to any article or post on feminism on the internet, and these attitudes are everywhere. Why is that? Is it a lack of education / experience, or a desire for things to remain as they are? Personally I feel much of it is a misunderstanding of what feminism actually is (i.e. political, economic, and social equality for women and men), rather than a hatred of men. Some of it will be fear of change. This attitude is unacceptable but shouldn’t just be dismissed. Ignoring the disaffected leads to all sorts of problems, and completely fails to address the issue.
So let’s take the wildly imprecise figure of ‘tens of millions’, call it 50 million, and multiply it by 0.0002% – this gives us 100 deaths from dog bites worldwide, but as previously mentioned, this figure might as well have been plucked out of thin air. It might be more, it might be less. But it isn’t many. It seems that in countries where rabies is rare or non-existent, you are very unlikely to die as a result of canine activity. In a country where rabies is a problem, you have a better reason to be more wary of dogs.
But let’s get a bit of perspective. Being attacked by either a shark or a dog is a terrifying thought, but it is pretty unlikely to happen to you. In the UK you do have a virtually zero chance of being killed by a shark, but also only a 0.01% chance of being bitten by a dog in any given year. Dog attacks make for great newspaper stories, but we never hear about the many thousands of cases where a dog was perfectly well-behaved and injured no-one.
Worldwide the story is a little more complicated; your chance of dog-induced death depends on where you live, whether rabies is a problem there, and what your country’s healthcare system is like. However, there are plenty of things that are far more likely to kill you, such as cows and bees, an every year the newspapers run a story quoting statistics from RoSPA, with at least a smattering of human-interest-comedy-anecdotes to make it more readable (and hence, less boring). Did you know for example, that in 2002, 11,500 people in the UK were admitted to hospital with injuries sustained while trampolining
And don’t forget, that most accidents occur in the home. Statistically, you’re safer going for a swim in shark-infested waters (I’m really not advocating this).
Maybe one of the more interesting aspects to this is why we find certain animals and certain breeds of animal so scary in the first place, and why we would happy carry out relatively risky day-to-day activities without a second thought. Compared to the chances of other disasters befalling us, what is the risk really like? The reason why we are frightened of, say, dogs or sharks, is (apart from over-zealous media reporting), that these incidents happen frequently enough to be aware of some level of risk. Using the example of being struck by lightning, you have a 0.0003% chance of this happening to you. But multiply the global population of 7.186 billion by 0.0003% and you get just under 24000 people. Which is a substantial and visible number. Like Terry Pratchett said, “million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten“.
A peculiar thing happened to me recently, which highlighted the power of seeing what one expects to see. I’m frightened of dogs, but with one exception. I think pugs are very cute, and they’re not proper dogs, right? More like a really ugly cat.
So one morning I was leaving my boyfriend’s home, and encountered a pug in the lift down. So as I mentioned before, I am nervous around dogs. But this cheeky little animal was lively and funny, and didn’t have me clawing at the lift doors in order to escape.
Up until this point, things were going to plan. I was on time for my leisurely stroll to the office; the hilarious little dog was excited about the imminent outdoors-ness it would experience. And then the lift arrived at the ground floor.
The little dog became even more enthusiastic and downright refused to go on the lead. I couldn’t exit the lobby because the the sliding doors remain open for about 5 seconds after they are released, which is approximately 10 times longer than the average Pug Escape Time. So I steeled myself, helped the owner chase the manic creature around the entrance area, and held on to it while its lead was affixed. And it was actually quite fun. So much fun, in fact, that the situation could only have been improved if “Yakety Sax” had been playing in the building. And that was that.
And then I bumped into the pug and owner a few more times in the lift. I grew quite fond of the weird little dog and started to look forward to seeing it. I met them in the gardens, on the street, and on the way to the shops. It seemed that I was seeing an awful lot of them.
One day I got in the lift and there had clearly been an ‘accident’ on the floor. There was a moist patch and a, um, distinctive odour. Totally gross, I thought, but was it that darling little dog? [With hindsight, and subsequent knowledge of the place, it could just have easily been a human]
I realised that I was seeing more and more of this pug, and when I didn’t, I missed it a little. And I started to notice other pugs. Everything I saw was pug-shaped. Coincidence?
And then this appeared in my Twitter feed:
And then this!
OMG!!! PUGS R EVERYWHERE!!!
Well, no, they’re not. I’ve probably seen a number of pugs that is proportionate to the number of all dogs in Manchester that I would be expected to encounter, excluding the times when I’ve put myself in situations where I was more likely to be ‘stalked by pugs’. I hang around a block of flats where lots of people own small dogs, and I’ve been affected by one incident that sticks in my memory and makes me more likely to think of pugs, and hence pay more attention to the times when pugs are present.
This is how confirmation bias works. Results and research that confirm your opinions and beliefs are favoured over an objective assessment of all the information. It’s pretty harmless when applied to Pug Frequency. I can happily exist in my fantasy world where I dream of pugs all day long and disregard the Alsatians, Boxers, and Spaniels. But what about in the context of, say, politics? Science? The Media? Education? Healthcare? Justice? Here’s some Food For Thought from RJ Metrics.com. There are too many articles and examples for me to link them all. But seeing as I began by posting pictures of cats and dogs (what else is the Internet for?), here’s some fun graphs about causation not equalling correlation: Spurious Correlations
Last weekend (25th – 27th July 2014), I attended Winchester Science Festival, which was a special birthday treat that I had sort of been hinting I’d like to attend for the preceding couple of days or so (well, since about April). And so my wish was granted! Here’s an overview of the weekend; I might write on individual topics in more detail another time. Some of the topics have links to excerpts of the talks, so read on… The event was held in Winchester Discovery Centre, which is an awesome combination of library, exhibition space, and lecture hall. It’s way different from the quiet and bland public library I grew up with. And it’s a shining example of why public libraries are so important.
When I met the WSF organisers at QEDcon 2014, I was promised frogs, sex and robots. And I was not disappointed. First, the robots:
The Mantis hexapod was demonstrated outside the Discovery Centre – it’s an all-terrain vehicle with six legs that can be powered by a human sitting in the control pod, or remotely. We were given a demonstration of how the robot moves and deals with uneven surfaces, and a brief description of the science and mathematics behind the Mantis’s movement. It reminded me of this clip from American Dad, but for a demonstration of the real Mantis, click here.
There were three whole days of science-y wonderfulness, but I sadly missed the Friday. I had work to do and I wasn’t able to travel down until 8pm Friday night (not much sleep before Saturday!). I later heard that this day was more aimed at younger people, and I would have expected there to be a few school parties. Some of the Saturday talks had children in attendance, and the rocket guy especially (more about him later!) would be great for presenting to schools.
Here’s what happened on Friday (assuming they didn’t change their schedule at the last minute). The links below lead to the WSF home page, but also check out The Winchester Guide for additional info.
So, on to Saturday. I woke up after about 5 hours sleep (see my earlier musings on sleep for why this was especially troublesome for me), and left the hotel in a mad panic due to taking 45 minutes in the bathroom (hey it was my birthday and I therefore demand to exercise full Diva Rights). We were just in time for….
The Science Of Photography, with Andrew Pye & Dr Radu Sporea. This was a talk with loads of demonstrations and some audience participation (yay!). This was a discussion of how you can use science to take great photographs – but very accessible, explaining potentially complicated concepts in a succinct way. It was a great introduction to some of the methods that professional photographers use, but with the science to back it up. Highlights included using a jar of coloured ping pong balls to illustrate image quality, and how to use zoom correctly when taking a portrait to avoid unflattering effects (I would love to get some images of this on here but 1. I can’t find any videos of this talk online, and 2. I don’t think the audience guinea pig would be all that grateful for that moment being stored for posterity on the internet).
Carnival Of The Animal Senses, with Dr Helen Czerski. Helen is delivering this talk at the next Girl Geek Tea Party in Manchester, so I won’t give too much away. Northern Friends: You too can catch a glimpse of the awesomeness that was at WSF this year! It’s taking place at TechHub on 10th August. I learnt about some of the cool ways that animals perceive the world differently to us, and how they can detect things that humans can’t. The world looks so different for other beings, and we can see a fraction of it in comparison. Also that cuttlefish are my new favourite animals. I hope she talks about cuttlefish again. Dr Czerski is a really engaging speaker, who delivers her topic with passion. She’s also going to be presenting a related series on BBC2 soon.
The Rocket Guy was not the name of the talk or the person presenting it, but due to a last minute change to the schedule, I don’t have either to hand. Anyway, this talk gave a history of rockets from their use as military weapons, through to Wernher von Braun, to their development post-WWII. But most excitingly of all, this potted history of rockets was accompanied by demonstrations that focussed on setting fire to things and blowing them up. Hurrah! Many of the topics covered in this talk were expanded on in other talks over the weekend, which gave a nice flow to the content of the festival.
We Are All Star Dust, with Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell. This presentation was suitable for all ages, discussing how all matter in the universe was derived from stars and distributed to form other stars, planets, and eventually us. This was then followed by an interview with Dame Jocelyn, conducted by Neil Denny (of the little Atoms podcast – full interview available here). I could relate to so many of the things that were spoken about, especially regarding perceptions of women in science; as Dame Jocelyn acknowledged in her interview, many things have changed but more work needs to be done.
And then for something new… Human Genetic & Cultural Evolution was presented by Prof Mark Thomas. The theories presented here are at the cutting edge of research, so it was pretty exciting to be around to hear about work that isn’t commonly known about. The talk considered how culture affects human development, and how human development affects the emergence of culture. there are connections to population size, and the size of individual groups of humans. Apparently about 150 people is the right size for both producing cultural artefacts and the optimum number of Facebook friends.
Into Thin Air – Aviation’s Upper Limits, with Dr Andras Sobester. The cool thing about this talk was the mythbusting element, as well as the presenter’s humorous style of delivering a very dry subject. Lots and lots of statistics, and how they relate to incidents that have been in the news. And no, the air conditioning on a plane will not make you any more likely to catch a cold.
The Best Of Brightclub – Bright Club is a comedy troupe made up of scientists & researchers, and runs in about ten cities in the UK (including Manchester!). We were treated to an evening with three stand-ups plus the brilliant Jo Stephenson performing science and non-science based comedy songs accompanied by the ukulele – which made it just that little bit more fun!
And that was the end of Saturday – the best birthday I’ve ever had. Thanks to the WSF organisers, and my lovely boyfriend for making this possible.
Sadly, Science Gentleman had to leave early today to get back to work in the Grim North. After far too long saying our goodbyes in the hotel car park, I went for a pleasant stroll into Winchester via the B3404. The scenery was pretty decent, but not as dramatic as that in say the Peak District (sorry, Home Counties). I did get a great photo of a dying bee (right). Nature is both beautiful and cruel.
Anyway, back to the science:
Extreme Environment Physiology, delivered by Prof Mike Tipton. This was a great talk to start the day with, looking at the extremes the human body can handle, and how we can use technology to break past these barriers. The talk covered extreme scenarios from mountaineering, to deep-sea diving, to the conditions firefighters endure on duty. Interesting fact of the talk: If you take your goldfish (in its tank) for a drive, it will get carsick! Please, please don’t try this at home, not even in the name of science.
Plumbers Of The Brain: The Blood-Brain Barrier, with Prof Dareck Gorecki. This talk was pretty heavy-going, but really, really interesting. It explained how the B-BB works, what can get through, what can’t, and by what mechanisms. There were interesting discussions on how we deliver medicines to the brain, and how toxoplasmosis affects the brain. Interesting fact of the talk: mice infected with toxoplasmosis are attracted to cats. Makes you look at Tom & Jerry in a different light.
Emerging Technologies – A talk by Dr Peter Wagett from IBM on the development of computing and the increasing use of data. Very interesting, with an exceptionally long Q&A session – which was really enlightening too. Interesting fact of the talk (which, apparently, is common knowledge): HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey is thusly named because H-A-L is one letter ‘less’ than I-B-M.
It’s Only Rocket Science – with Dr Lucy Rogers. In this talk we built a virtual rocket and looked at the science behind getting it in the air. This talk was especially good for children, and had a good level of audience participation. Interesting fact of the talk: satellites in geostationary orbit occupy an altitude of 35,800 km.
Brilliant Brain Box: How The Skull Shaped Evolution with Paolo Viscardi. I was really looking forward to this talk, but got waylaid by a really interesting chat with a fellow attendee. Sorry Paolo! I have however heard that the talk was excellent, so I’m hoping someone posts it online soon…
And the final talk of the weekend was Secrets Of Sex, with Sally Le Page. This was a look at sex and evolution, and reproduction in the animal kingdom. Already an exciting topic, this was made more interesting by the humour used, a little bit of music and even a fairytale. Sally is an excellent presenter and I hope to go to more of her talks or events.
There was a final night of entertainment on the Sunday, by Being747. I really wanted to stay, but Sunday was a school night and I needed to get back to Manchester.
Some other things that happened:
There was a 3D Printing Workshop going on in the exhibition area, but I just didn’t get the chance to take a look – I was so busy attending talks that I never found a spare moment.
The University of Southampton Roadshow was located at the front of the Discovery Centre, where you just couldn’t miss them. We were fortunate enough to have glorious sunshine for the whole weekend, which makes it a gamble that was more likely to work in Winchester than Manchester.
So I met some old friends and new ones, and vowed to get more involved with WSF next year. So armed with my ‘VOLUNTEER’ t-shirt (yes, they adopted me as one of their own despite not even living in the same county as the team), a ton of stickers (right) and a laptop, I shall be blogging, tweeting, promoting and whatever else I can. Can’t wait for WSF 2015!
Right now, I’m just getting ready to start work. It’s 5.19pm on a Friday afternoon, which seems a bit of an unorthodox time to begin such things, but allow me to explain.
Firstly, I work two jobs at the moment. Monday to Thursday I’m an engineer; Friday to Sunday I’m a PhD researcher. So I have a little more flexibility at the weekend. I’ll probably work up until about 10pm tonight, and in bursts of activity over the next two days. I like the flexibility that I have in my studies, and because I have no set hours I can just get to work on an idea whenever it occurs to me.
The second thing is that I have a thyroid problem, which makes me s-l-e-e-p-y. Like, really sleepy. Much like the teenager who goes to school on time Monday to Friday, then sleeps half the weekend, I have a lot of catching up to do. I really struggle to be awake when societal constraints dictate that I should be, so I spend half the week fighting my body’s wishes, and the other half over-indulging them.
If left to my own devices I can happily sleep for over 12 hours. And last night that’s what I did. A full, glorious 14 hours. And I feel so refreshed. Now it’s time to do some work.
I attend the Manchester Armchair Philosophers group, and we meet once a month at the Royal Oak in Chorlton to discuss a preselected topic. The topics are varied, and often unconventional. This month’s discussion was on a topic that is a little more commonplace, but sure to get everyone’s attention.
I introduced our talk on Censorship, which posed the questions in the handout (right). As with many of these talks, the idea isn’t strictly to adhere to the prescribed questions and wording on the crib sheet, but to discuss the topic widely, and in whatever style or vein one desires.
The way the meetings work is that we all gather in a circle and the topic is introduced by the Chair. Then we break off into groups of 4 or 5 and discuss the topic amongst ourselves. We usually talk about the subject for, say, 45 minutes, and then we gather around the table again to share our thoughts and opinions with the whole group. We usually first nominate one member of each ‘team’ to describe the whole team’s discussion, and then we go round the circle individually to talk about something we learnt or feel strongly about. It’s really interesting to hear other people’s ideas, and you can learn so much from other people’s debates, as well as your own.
Usually, people gather in the bar downstairs after the debate, sometimes to carry on the discussion, and often to talk about completely unrelated (but still stimulating) things.
I don’t have the space (or memory) to go into everything that we spoke about here, but censorship is a massive topic that everyone has a view on. Some discussions can lead to groupthink, but this one really didn’t. Despite being in a large group of people with (seemingly) similar backgrounds and political preferences, the variety of viewpoints was very wide, and all over the spectrum. I was pleasantly surprised! I also got a lot of praise for introducing this topic, which felt pretty good. I hope to do another one sometime, but we seem to have topics chosen for a good few months yet.
Previous discussions have included: “Love”, “Is there such a thing as a truly altruistic action?”, and “Is there really any poverty in the UK?”. As you can see, we really have a lot to talk about.
NB: No formal philosophy training required. Most people who turn up don’t have any formal philosophy education, but we do love to explore philosophical subjects. The group is accessible and a great night out, no matter what your training.
This book (Do You Think What You Think You Think?) is a really manageable (and rather fun) pop introduction to philosophy. You’ll probably find it infuriating at first – I wanted to yell at this book in a similar way to how I shout at Question Time – but it’s just encouraging you to think critically about what you believe and what you say you believe. Sometimes it doesn’t seem to leave much room for manoeuvre, with quite rigid and simplistic ways of looking at an argument; but it gets you thinking, right?