As important as Darwin
Aug 13th 2009
From The Economist print edition
In praise of astronomy, the most revolutionary of sciences
MEPL
FOUR hundred years ago our understanding of the universe changed for ever. On August 25th 1609 an Italian mathematician called Galileo Galilei demonstrated his newly constructed telescope to the merchants of Venice. Shortly afterwards he turned it on the skies. He saw mountains casting shadows on the moon and realised this body was a world, like the Earth, endowed with complicated terrain. He saw the moons of Jupiter—objects that circled another heavenly body in direct disobedience of the church’s teaching. He saw the moonlike phases of Venus, indicating that this planet circled the sun, not the Earth, in even greater disobedience of the priests. He saw sunspots, demonstrating that the sun itself was not the perfect orb demanded by the Greek cosmology that had been adopted by the church. But he also saw something else, a thing that is often now forgotten. He saw that the Milky Way, that cloudy streak across the sky, is made of stars.
That observation was the first hint that, not only is the Earth not the centre of things, but those things are vastly, almost incomprehensibly, bigger than people up until that date had dreamed. And they have been getting bigger, and also older, ever since. Astronomers’ latest estimates put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years. That is three times as long as the Earth has existed and about 100,000 times the lifespan of modern humanity as a species. The true size of the universe is still unknown. Its age, and the finite speed of light, means no astronomer can look beyond a distance of 13.7 billion light-years. But it is probably bigger than that.
Nor does reality necessarily end with this universe. Physics, astronomy’s dutiful daughter, suggests that the object that people call the universe, vast though it is, may be just one of an indefinite number of similar structures, governed by slightly different rules from each other, that inhabit what is referred to, for want of a better term, as the multiverse.
sábado, 15 de agosto de 2009
Whatever happened to the food crisis?
Whatever happened to the food crisis?
Jul 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
It crept back
MULUALEM TEGEGN bought a donkey last year. As a hard-working Ethiopian farmer, aged 58, he saw the purchase of the beast as a return to better times after several seasons in which drought and high prices had forced him to sell his livestock and take his grandchildren out of school to work on the farm. This year, he will have enough grain left to buy a goat or two, and the donkey will help the children make the long trek again to school. This is how things are supposed to be.
World food prices soared in 2007-08, pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. But—said people at the time—there was a silver lining: high prices would be good for farmers, especially smallholders in poor countries such as Mr Tegegn. Higher returns would suck money into farming, leading to higher yields, bigger harvests and stable or falling food prices. Eventually, the argument ran, farmers and consumers would all be better off.
This happy state of affairs seemed to be coming to pass in the second half of 2008. Ethiopia reported a record cereals harvest this January, up 10% on the previous year. Across the world, the picture was similar. After the price spike in the first half of 2008, farmers harvested 2.3 billion tonnes of cereals in 2008/09, the biggest crop ever seen. Big exporters began lifting the trade bans they had imposed to keep local prices from rising, so more food became available to world markets. The sharp fall in the price of oil, which occurred at the same time, increased food supplies further because, by making oil cheaper than ethanol, it encouraged farmers to sell for feed the maize they would otherwise have turned into biofuels. As food supplies surged (and demand, hit by the global recession, stagnated), prices plummeted. Between its peak in July and a trough in December 2008, The Economist’s index of food prices fell by 40%.
All that seems fairly rational and hopeful. But this year’s changes have been more puzzling. Between December and mid-June, the food index rebounded by a third, even though this year’s total cereals crop is expected to be another bumper (2.2 billion tonnes, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, second only to 2008/09, see chart left). Meanwhile, soyabean and sugar prices have risen by nearly half from trough to peak—see chart below—and the index of “non-food agriculturals” (plants such as cotton or rubber) also rose by a quarter between December and mid-June. Prices have been increasing at a time of plenty
Jul 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
It crept back
MULUALEM TEGEGN bought a donkey last year. As a hard-working Ethiopian farmer, aged 58, he saw the purchase of the beast as a return to better times after several seasons in which drought and high prices had forced him to sell his livestock and take his grandchildren out of school to work on the farm. This year, he will have enough grain left to buy a goat or two, and the donkey will help the children make the long trek again to school. This is how things are supposed to be.
World food prices soared in 2007-08, pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. But—said people at the time—there was a silver lining: high prices would be good for farmers, especially smallholders in poor countries such as Mr Tegegn. Higher returns would suck money into farming, leading to higher yields, bigger harvests and stable or falling food prices. Eventually, the argument ran, farmers and consumers would all be better off.
This happy state of affairs seemed to be coming to pass in the second half of 2008. Ethiopia reported a record cereals harvest this January, up 10% on the previous year. Across the world, the picture was similar. After the price spike in the first half of 2008, farmers harvested 2.3 billion tonnes of cereals in 2008/09, the biggest crop ever seen. Big exporters began lifting the trade bans they had imposed to keep local prices from rising, so more food became available to world markets. The sharp fall in the price of oil, which occurred at the same time, increased food supplies further because, by making oil cheaper than ethanol, it encouraged farmers to sell for feed the maize they would otherwise have turned into biofuels. As food supplies surged (and demand, hit by the global recession, stagnated), prices plummeted. Between its peak in July and a trough in December 2008, The Economist’s index of food prices fell by 40%.
All that seems fairly rational and hopeful. But this year’s changes have been more puzzling. Between December and mid-June, the food index rebounded by a third, even though this year’s total cereals crop is expected to be another bumper (2.2 billion tonnes, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, second only to 2008/09, see chart left). Meanwhile, soyabean and sugar prices have risen by nearly half from trough to peak—see chart below—and the index of “non-food agriculturals” (plants such as cotton or rubber) also rose by a quarter between December and mid-June. Prices have been increasing at a time of plenty
domingo, 2 de agosto de 2009
THE SCIENCE OF SMILES
THE SCIENCE OF SMILES
By Larry Greenemeier in 60-Second Science Blog
Jul 30, 2009 04:45 PM Scientific American
How does your smile rate on a scale of zero to 100? If you worked for Japan's Keihin Electric Express Railway Co., you'd know—on a daily basis.
The Tokyo-based train company is using a "Smile Scan" system to evaluate the grins of its 530 station staffers at 15 stations when they report to work each day, Japan's Mainichi Daily News reported earlier this month. The smiles (including eye movements, lip curves and wrinkles) are scored on a scale ranging from zero (scowling=irritado) to 100 (glowing) using a camera and computer provided by Kyoto-based Omron Corp., with low scores earning employees automatically generated advice such as, "You still look too serious," or "Lift up your mouth corners."
The railway network covers 87 kilometers and serves an average of 1.2 million passengers daily. The idea is for workers to print out and carry around an image of their best smile in an attempt to remember and replicate it as they encounter customers throughout their shifts.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ pidjoe
By Larry Greenemeier in 60-Second Science Blog
Jul 30, 2009 04:45 PM Scientific American
How does your smile rate on a scale of zero to 100? If you worked for Japan's Keihin Electric Express Railway Co., you'd know—on a daily basis.
The Tokyo-based train company is using a "Smile Scan" system to evaluate the grins of its 530 station staffers at 15 stations when they report to work each day, Japan's Mainichi Daily News reported earlier this month. The smiles (including eye movements, lip curves and wrinkles) are scored on a scale ranging from zero (scowling=irritado) to 100 (glowing) using a camera and computer provided by Kyoto-based Omron Corp., with low scores earning employees automatically generated advice such as, "You still look too serious," or "Lift up your mouth corners."
The railway network covers 87 kilometers and serves an average of 1.2 million passengers daily. The idea is for workers to print out and carry around an image of their best smile in an attempt to remember and replicate it as they encounter customers throughout their shifts.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ pidjoe
A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain
A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain
We each have two parents, but their genetic contributions to what makes us us are uneven. New research shows we are an amalgam of influences from mom and dad
By Melinda Wenner From the July 30, 2009 Scientific American Mind
• When passing on DNA to their offspring, mothers silence certain genes, and fathers silence others. These imprinted genes usually result in a balanced, healthy brain, but when the process goes awry(errado), neurological disorders can result.
• Imprinting errors are responsible for rare disorders such as Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes, and some scientists are beginning to think imprinting might be implicated in more common illnesses such as autism and schizophrenia.
• Even typical brains are the result of asymmetric contributions from Mom and Dad. Higher cognitive function seems to be disproportionately controlled by Mom’s genes, whereas the drive to eat and mate is influenced by Dad’s.
We each have two parents, but their genetic contributions to what makes us us are uneven. New research shows we are an amalgam of influences from mom and dad
By Melinda Wenner From the July 30, 2009 Scientific American Mind
• When passing on DNA to their offspring, mothers silence certain genes, and fathers silence others. These imprinted genes usually result in a balanced, healthy brain, but when the process goes awry(errado), neurological disorders can result.
• Imprinting errors are responsible for rare disorders such as Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes, and some scientists are beginning to think imprinting might be implicated in more common illnesses such as autism and schizophrenia.
• Even typical brains are the result of asymmetric contributions from Mom and Dad. Higher cognitive function seems to be disproportionately controlled by Mom’s genes, whereas the drive to eat and mate is influenced by Dad’s.
Imaginary Friends
Imaginary Friends
Television programs can fend off loneliness
By Fionnuala Butler and Cynthia Pickett July 28, 2009 |Scientific American
By yourself, but not alone Flickering friends count for something
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night’s rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?
New psychological research suggests that loneliness can be alleviated by simply turning on your favorite TV show. In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction.
For decades, psychologists have been interested in understanding how individuals achieve and maintain social relationships in order to ward off social isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of this research has focused on relationships between real individuals interacting face-to-face. Recent research has widened this focus from real relationships to faux, “parasocial” relationships. Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend.
In a recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jaye Derrick and Shira Gabriel of the University of Buffalo and Kurt Hugenberg of Miami University test what they call the “Social Surrogacy Hypothesis.”
Television programs can fend off loneliness
By Fionnuala Butler and Cynthia Pickett July 28, 2009 |Scientific American
By yourself, but not alone Flickering friends count for something
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night’s rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?
New psychological research suggests that loneliness can be alleviated by simply turning on your favorite TV show. In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction.
For decades, psychologists have been interested in understanding how individuals achieve and maintain social relationships in order to ward off social isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of this research has focused on relationships between real individuals interacting face-to-face. Recent research has widened this focus from real relationships to faux, “parasocial” relationships. Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend.
In a recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jaye Derrick and Shira Gabriel of the University of Buffalo and Kurt Hugenberg of Miami University test what they call the “Social Surrogacy Hypothesis.”
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
