- Email: [email protected]
What if… The world turns against science?
special issue 6 0 t h a n n i v e r s a ry
13
What if…
the world turns against science? AFTER the polymath John von Neumann died in 1957, his friend and collaborator Stanisław Ulam wrote a tribute to a man who did more than almost anyone to advance science and technology in the post-war world. Ulam recalled that von Neumann worried about science losing public support: “The interests of humanity may change, the present curiosities in science may cease, and entirely different things may occupy the human mind in the future.” Von Neumann was far too pessimistic: the past 60 years have seen staggering scientific and technological progress (see “What a difference 60 years makes”, page 33 onwards). But times change and
public attitudes are fickle. Could his prediction come true in the future? “I do worry that public opinion might turn,” says Jack Stilgoe of University College London, who researches the impacts and perception of science and technology policy. “If people feel that innovation is benefiting the wrong people, making the rich even richer and overlooking other social needs, then they may well get disenchanted.” Will we still love technology when robots have taken our jobs, or when insurance companies demand huge premiums because humans are the most dangerous drivers on the roads? Will people smash up self-driving taxis, just as Luddites
What if…
attacked automated looms? In some small, angry pockets, the backlash is already in full swing. Former mathematician Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, has just published a book called The Anti-Tech Revolution. “He seems to think that the only way around this is to radically scale back our scientific and technological ambitions, even if that involves a violent downshifting in human lifestyles,” says sociologist Steve Fuller at the University of Warwick, UK. “The book is quite sane. It’s written like he’s instructing a revolutionary cell how to stop science and technology from destroying the planet.” Stilgoe is sceptical. “Societies in rich countries have become
14
exquisitely dependent on science and technology, so there really is no possibility,” he says. But if it did happen, the consequences would be terrible. “A change in public mood that discourages all forms of scientific research would produce technological and economic stagnation,” says Harvard University historian of science Matthew Hersch. “We would face technical and financial ruin.” The social ramifications would be horrific too. “When the faculties of colleges and universities stop learning new things, the education they provide atrophies and degrades into dogma, half-truths, and untested assumptions misremembered from error-ridden texts.” Michael Brooks
there’s a nuclear war? Sabres are rattling again between Moscow and Washington, not to mention India and Pakistan, feuding over Kashmir. China’s nuclear arsenal is growing. Some still fear the nuclear intentions of Iran. North Korea is a nuclear power. The cold war may be over, but the weapons and geopolitical flashpoints are still there. Could nuclear war happen sometime in the next 60 years? The world still possesses around 10,000 nuclear warheads, overwhelmingly in Russia and the US. But let’s assume these two nations do not press the button, and that tensions eventually explode between India and Pakistan. 46 | NewScientist | 19 November 2016
Most people away from South Asia might imagine such a conflict would not threaten them too much. Think again. The two countries have just over 200 relatively small nuclear warheads between them. Suppose they unleash half of them, a hundred 15-kilotonne weapons the size of Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The carnage from the blast, as well as firestorms and radiation in megacities like Karachi and Delhi, would kill millions. But that would be just the start, according to simulations by Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey and Michael Mills at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado. The fires would send about 5 million tonnes of hot black smoke into the stratosphere, where it would spread round the world. This smog would cut solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface by 8 per cent – enough to drop average winter temperatures by a startling 2.5 to 6 °C across North America, Europe and much of Asia, and not just for a few days. It would take around five years for the impacts to peak, and the repercussions would still be felt strongly after a decade. Besides a nuclear winter, climate models predict that rainfall would be reduced as
13
What if…
the world turns against science? AFTER the polymath John von Neumann died in 1957, his friend and collaborator Stanisław Ulam wrote a tribute to a man who did more than almost anyone to advance science and technology in the post-war world. Ulam recalled that von Neumann worried about science losing public support: “The interests of humanity may change, the present curiosities in science may cease, and entirely different things may occupy the human mind in the future.” Von Neumann was far too pessimistic: the past 60 years have seen staggering scientific and technological progress (see “What a difference 60 years makes”, page 33 onwards). But times change and
public attitudes are fickle. Could his prediction come true in the future? “I do worry that public opinion might turn,” says Jack Stilgoe of University College London, who researches the impacts and perception of science and technology policy. “If people feel that innovation is benefiting the wrong people, making the rich even richer and overlooking other social needs, then they may well get disenchanted.” Will we still love technology when robots have taken our jobs, or when insurance companies demand huge premiums because humans are the most dangerous drivers on the roads? Will people smash up self-driving taxis, just as Luddites
What if…
attacked automated looms? In some small, angry pockets, the backlash is already in full swing. Former mathematician Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, has just published a book called The Anti-Tech Revolution. “He seems to think that the only way around this is to radically scale back our scientific and technological ambitions, even if that involves a violent downshifting in human lifestyles,” says sociologist Steve Fuller at the University of Warwick, UK. “The book is quite sane. It’s written like he’s instructing a revolutionary cell how to stop science and technology from destroying the planet.” Stilgoe is sceptical. “Societies in rich countries have become
14
exquisitely dependent on science and technology, so there really is no possibility,” he says. But if it did happen, the consequences would be terrible. “A change in public mood that discourages all forms of scientific research would produce technological and economic stagnation,” says Harvard University historian of science Matthew Hersch. “We would face technical and financial ruin.” The social ramifications would be horrific too. “When the faculties of colleges and universities stop learning new things, the education they provide atrophies and degrades into dogma, half-truths, and untested assumptions misremembered from error-ridden texts.” Michael Brooks
there’s a nuclear war? Sabres are rattling again between Moscow and Washington, not to mention India and Pakistan, feuding over Kashmir. China’s nuclear arsenal is growing. Some still fear the nuclear intentions of Iran. North Korea is a nuclear power. The cold war may be over, but the weapons and geopolitical flashpoints are still there. Could nuclear war happen sometime in the next 60 years? The world still possesses around 10,000 nuclear warheads, overwhelmingly in Russia and the US. But let’s assume these two nations do not press the button, and that tensions eventually explode between India and Pakistan. 46 | NewScientist | 19 November 2016
Most people away from South Asia might imagine such a conflict would not threaten them too much. Think again. The two countries have just over 200 relatively small nuclear warheads between them. Suppose they unleash half of them, a hundred 15-kilotonne weapons the size of Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The carnage from the blast, as well as firestorms and radiation in megacities like Karachi and Delhi, would kill millions. But that would be just the start, according to simulations by Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey and Michael Mills at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado. The fires would send about 5 million tonnes of hot black smoke into the stratosphere, where it would spread round the world. This smog would cut solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface by 8 per cent – enough to drop average winter temperatures by a startling 2.5 to 6 °C across North America, Europe and much of Asia, and not just for a few days. It would take around five years for the impacts to peak, and the repercussions would still be felt strongly after a decade. Besides a nuclear winter, climate models predict that rainfall would be reduced as