- Email: [email protected]
Taxing gluttony
Letters– No case for ID
Drugs in sport
Evolution’s botched job
From Leigh Jackson After reading Francis S. Collins’s religious apologia The Language of God, Steve Fuller is persuaded he was right to testify for the defence in the Dover debacle in Pennsylvania last year (26 August, p 48). Judge Jones’s verdict shredded the defence case that intelligent design (ID) is science, not religion, and should be taught alongside evolution in school biology classes. Fuller’s criticism of Collins amounts to saying that ID is better religion than Collins’s theistic evolution. In saying this, isn’t he implicitly admitting that the defence in that trial was a sham? Are we to take it that the ID movement thinks it is right to compel parents, school education boards and courts to accept religion in science classes in contravention of the US constitution? Is it something intrinsic to the nature of the ID movement that it can contemplate forcing change on such a grand scale? Fuller accuses Collins of being mired in confusion but he is no less mired in it himself. To imagine that the animalrights movement has any more respect for or understanding of the science of evolution than ID reveals his own confusion in stark fashion. Fuller suggests that the animal rightists are “good Darwinians” (but not good Christians) because they don’t put humans “on top”. But they cannot appeal to evolution in support of their view that the use of animals as models for humans is impossible, a priori. Just the opposite is true. Evolution positively invites us to investigate their possible usefulness as human models. Far from consisting of good Darwinians, the animal rights movement has no concern for the science of evolution. In this it is similar to the ID movement – and it is similar to Fuller too. London, UK
From Steve Lockwood Michael Le Page argues that the controlled use of drugs in sport creates a level playing field and that this is the best way to resolve the doping crisis that many sports find themselves in (19 August, p 18). It is naive to suppose that athletes will be content with a level playing field. Athletes are not only driven to take drugs by their own will to win: there are the coaches, managers and medical advisers who are willing to put aside ethical constraints and engage actively in the process of drug use, including supplying masking agents. Moreover, those who participate in cheating are not driven by a desire to achieve fairness for the athletes they “support”; the motives are more often financial and the greatest rewards come to those that produce winners. The only way to attack the problem of drugs in sport is to unpick the infrastructure that supports it. This won’t be achieved by a few random drug tests. Recent police investigations
From Chris Lowes “If it is such a good idea, why has evolution not built us that way?” is the question Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg say must be asked before we try to enhance human capabilities (26 August, p 25). Evolution didn’t “build” us at all. It can only play the hand mutation deals it. If no mutation occurs giving rise to a particular characteristic, no matter how much of a “good idea” that characteristic is, it will not arise. We, however, have the capacity for foresight and so can finetune some of evolution’s less elegant solutions. Morpeth, Northumberland, UK
22 | NewScientist | 16 September 2006
060916_R_Letters.indd 22
and investigative journalism have done more to bring the problem to the surface. To attempt to solve the problem by condoning it and thereby opening the door to greater and more dangerous levels of cheating is not the answer. The incentive to exceed the permitted levels will always be there. Le Page’s “level playing field” will become a dangerous battleground. Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, UK
From Andrew Hart Unless they believe that evolution in humans has reached its ultimate conclusion, the fact that we are not more intelligent than at present does not mean that there is no evolutionary advantage in being more intelligent or that evolution could not boost our capacities in the same way that certain drugs or technology may be able to. Given that evolution’s timescales are measured in millions of years, the obvious conclusion is that evolution takes time and we are still on the journey. A more interesting observation would be that humans have, uniquely, become the most significant agent of their own evolution. This appears to me to be an exciting and wonderful position to be in, and one to be welcomed, not feared. Of course, what is good for humanity is not necessarily good for the individual. Personally I think I’ll stay un-augmented and leave others to advance human evolution. London, UK
Taxing gluttony From Samantha Davenport If food were priced according to calorie content, only rich people
would be fat (19 August, p 6). More seriously, why not give all food a health value, then price it accordingly? Fresh organic apples would be 10 pence each, but doughnuts would be £10. Perhaps wines could be exempt, though… Cambridge, UK
From Janet Cavanaugh So now economists are recommending clear price signals in relation to unhealthy foods. The Australian government did the exact opposite when it replaced the previous 22 per cent wholesale tax on soft drinks with a 10 per cent retail Goods and Services Tax in 2000. Soft drinks became significantly cheaper overnight, sending the wrong signal to the market. Whiporie, New South Wales, Australia
Search engines’ bias From Derek Storkey To say that search engines are biased is to state the obvious (19 August, p 24). Their job is to be biased, in favour of maximum usefulness to the user. The value they provide lies in increasingly sophisticated algorithms for trying to evaluate usefulness. They raise money through advertising, and their search results have to reflect this. To impose laws that interfere with this process would slow or stem the stream of technical innovations that benefit us all, and damage one of the most dynamic parts of the information www.newscientist.com
8/9/06 4:06:23 pm
Drugs in sport
Evolution’s botched job
From Leigh Jackson After reading Francis S. Collins’s religious apologia The Language of God, Steve Fuller is persuaded he was right to testify for the defence in the Dover debacle in Pennsylvania last year (26 August, p 48). Judge Jones’s verdict shredded the defence case that intelligent design (ID) is science, not religion, and should be taught alongside evolution in school biology classes. Fuller’s criticism of Collins amounts to saying that ID is better religion than Collins’s theistic evolution. In saying this, isn’t he implicitly admitting that the defence in that trial was a sham? Are we to take it that the ID movement thinks it is right to compel parents, school education boards and courts to accept religion in science classes in contravention of the US constitution? Is it something intrinsic to the nature of the ID movement that it can contemplate forcing change on such a grand scale? Fuller accuses Collins of being mired in confusion but he is no less mired in it himself. To imagine that the animalrights movement has any more respect for or understanding of the science of evolution than ID reveals his own confusion in stark fashion. Fuller suggests that the animal rightists are “good Darwinians” (but not good Christians) because they don’t put humans “on top”. But they cannot appeal to evolution in support of their view that the use of animals as models for humans is impossible, a priori. Just the opposite is true. Evolution positively invites us to investigate their possible usefulness as human models. Far from consisting of good Darwinians, the animal rights movement has no concern for the science of evolution. In this it is similar to the ID movement – and it is similar to Fuller too. London, UK
From Steve Lockwood Michael Le Page argues that the controlled use of drugs in sport creates a level playing field and that this is the best way to resolve the doping crisis that many sports find themselves in (19 August, p 18). It is naive to suppose that athletes will be content with a level playing field. Athletes are not only driven to take drugs by their own will to win: there are the coaches, managers and medical advisers who are willing to put aside ethical constraints and engage actively in the process of drug use, including supplying masking agents. Moreover, those who participate in cheating are not driven by a desire to achieve fairness for the athletes they “support”; the motives are more often financial and the greatest rewards come to those that produce winners. The only way to attack the problem of drugs in sport is to unpick the infrastructure that supports it. This won’t be achieved by a few random drug tests. Recent police investigations
From Chris Lowes “If it is such a good idea, why has evolution not built us that way?” is the question Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg say must be asked before we try to enhance human capabilities (26 August, p 25). Evolution didn’t “build” us at all. It can only play the hand mutation deals it. If no mutation occurs giving rise to a particular characteristic, no matter how much of a “good idea” that characteristic is, it will not arise. We, however, have the capacity for foresight and so can finetune some of evolution’s less elegant solutions. Morpeth, Northumberland, UK
22 | NewScientist | 16 September 2006
060916_R_Letters.indd 22
and investigative journalism have done more to bring the problem to the surface. To attempt to solve the problem by condoning it and thereby opening the door to greater and more dangerous levels of cheating is not the answer. The incentive to exceed the permitted levels will always be there. Le Page’s “level playing field” will become a dangerous battleground. Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, UK
From Andrew Hart Unless they believe that evolution in humans has reached its ultimate conclusion, the fact that we are not more intelligent than at present does not mean that there is no evolutionary advantage in being more intelligent or that evolution could not boost our capacities in the same way that certain drugs or technology may be able to. Given that evolution’s timescales are measured in millions of years, the obvious conclusion is that evolution takes time and we are still on the journey. A more interesting observation would be that humans have, uniquely, become the most significant agent of their own evolution. This appears to me to be an exciting and wonderful position to be in, and one to be welcomed, not feared. Of course, what is good for humanity is not necessarily good for the individual. Personally I think I’ll stay un-augmented and leave others to advance human evolution. London, UK
Taxing gluttony From Samantha Davenport If food were priced according to calorie content, only rich people
would be fat (19 August, p 6). More seriously, why not give all food a health value, then price it accordingly? Fresh organic apples would be 10 pence each, but doughnuts would be £10. Perhaps wines could be exempt, though… Cambridge, UK
From Janet Cavanaugh So now economists are recommending clear price signals in relation to unhealthy foods. The Australian government did the exact opposite when it replaced the previous 22 per cent wholesale tax on soft drinks with a 10 per cent retail Goods and Services Tax in 2000. Soft drinks became significantly cheaper overnight, sending the wrong signal to the market. Whiporie, New South Wales, Australia
Search engines’ bias From Derek Storkey To say that search engines are biased is to state the obvious (19 August, p 24). Their job is to be biased, in favour of maximum usefulness to the user. The value they provide lies in increasingly sophisticated algorithms for trying to evaluate usefulness. They raise money through advertising, and their search results have to reflect this. To impose laws that interfere with this process would slow or stem the stream of technical innovations that benefit us all, and damage one of the most dynamic parts of the information www.newscientist.com
8/9/06 4:06:23 pm