New Voice

One hundred and fifty years, exactly yesterday, since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and I finish off the final words to peer, literally awestruck, at the breadth of Darwin’s thesis: there really are no words to sufficiently define the extent to which this work captures the utter power of nature. There are many things you can say about Darwin’s argument, not least that it was controversial, but I don’t think that the controversy really explores the vision within the story he unwinds. And I do mean this; above all else this book is to my mind a story: one that encapsulates the entire planet, her life forms, and their coexistence together. I read around the work to ensure I understood the period in which the book was written (being a ludicrously involved history buff, this was straight-forward) which I would highly recommend, as it gives a comprehensive context. Many sciences were still newly burgeoning fields during this period, including biology, however, the understanding in the physical sciences was high – so much so that many believed Darwin’s ultimate theory was a century or so later than it should have been. I’m not converted to this view, I think that this theory is novel in every way imaginable; indeed, its consistent opposition (slight, but there) over the past 150 years is representative of its ingenuity. (continue reading…)

There are whole masses of positive news items circulating the science media. When you read around, the collection is not always particular to the fear-mongering I discussed in an earlier post. When I sat down a few months ago to begin these selections on the new science that may impact on climate change, I always imagined it as a positive approach to a vastly ominous situation. I think that this positivity is expressed in the media, with multitudes of blogs and news sites discussing the effects of climate change but through the prism of significant counter-action from the global community. I think in my posting I may have got side tracked in my last two pieces and begun the tremulous fixation of the ‘deer in head lights’, as the all powerful wonder of nature became all too clear in my readings. Partly, this was the blame of my picking through that mighty tome of a work, On the Origin of Species, which has enamoured my mind for the past while. Given the timing (2009, one hundred and fifty years since it was first published) it seemed an apt period to finally embrace the book and see if it was (in my opinion) as comprehensively argued as it is understood to be. Having completed the work, it seems there is no question but that it makes its point; rather well if I might say. (continue reading…)

There are reams of words. Whole spillages of words delivered into the ether of the internet acknowledging the fear of humanity at our capacity to wreak lasting damage on our society. Just read the pages of the climate project or the climate count down. Whole earthquakes of tiny words. Such is the embrace of the people and the fear. Bill Bryson, in his revelatory work of simple genius – A Short History of Nearly Everything – discusses at length the shocking power of the earth to unleash damage on the surface of the planet. In fact it incorporates a number of chapters. There is as seriousness to that power. I think that it is always present, and can never be fundamentally shifted. Utilised, though, is another thing entirely. (continue reading…)

Reading a science blog isn’t always the most comforting of past times. Many hours are subjected to the ignominy of bumbling theories and negative exposition. This is not to say, though, that such time is lost on the reader. Often the indulgent wording, and overly dramatic use of the exclamation point, embellish facts that are required reading; that are necessary points made to the ongoing debate. Regardless of whether that debate is climate change or the use of animals in drug testing, for instance. I have read recently a number of blogs that appear to have sprung up in an endeavour to reach the public on matters of pro or anti global warming merits. Their infusion in the debate is attributable to their opposition to the ‘other sides’ series of points, or blatant misrepresentation of certain facts. When reading some of these I was reminded continuously of a certain referendum that is currently in debate here in Ireland; and the ongoing difficulty for each side to approach the topic in a positive fashion. The thing is there is a consistent battle to reach the public and only finite room to make an impression. And in the absence of sufficient time, negative (and hence alarming) suggestions appear to receive greater attention. (continue reading…)

You might recall from a while back my look at some of the new technologies being introduced to tackle the global issue of climate change. Maintaining that focus I thought I would comment on the continued expansion of biofuels, of which so many potential sources have be found that it would take a veritable ocean of web space to begin to mumble around the fringes of this tumultuous field.  Needless to say, one specific element has piqued my interest.  A number of years ago (the eighties, a shockingly interesting time for novel scientific endeavour with sadly many of the original ideas produced petering out by the end of the decade), some scientists noted that algae (an awful looking autotroph, most of us would know them as seaweed) was a possible candidate for renewable energy given its photosynthetic machinery, and its tough and resilient nature.  How they could operate it as an energy source was derived from the fact that algae produces oil, during its processes, which, not being fossilized, is clean of carbon. But, as was the way of the period, this theorizing failed to gain enough credence and by the end of the decade with little material investment the energy source failed to acquire backing.  As time passed and the requirement for alternative energies became notably stronger and all potential biofuel sources received further attention, it seems that algae was viewed as too difficult, and expensive, to develop. Until some far-reaching science was manufactured that changed its potential. (continue reading…)

Is war a guaranteed consequence of humanity? I think most people would consider it is, given the planets consistent, and extremely long-term infatuation, with war – and all other forms of violence. But is it really in our nature to be violent? I read an article recently in which scientists examined the human propensity for war craft. Archaeologists have confirmed that civilization itself had only commenced before weaponry is known to have come into increasing use: archaeological remains seem to tie the strong arrival of warlike tendencies to movement of our ancestors from hunter gather status to farmers; which makes sense since farming forms a connection to the land, and hence there then exists something to fight to control. Though violence would have existed before this point, it seems not to have been more than individuals, as opposed to large numbers of organised participants. But apparently it does not stop there: it has been noted extensively in chimpanzees that some contain a violent disposition – say a member of one grouping clubbing to death a member of another grouping (2001: A Space Odyssey style), for no noticable gain. This illogical violent nature leads some to believe that war is part of our biological heritage. (continue reading…)

The End of the Road

At the turn of the twentieth century an eminent chemist announced his belief that physics, and to similar degree science as a whole, had concluded its most significant leaps of discovery. His thesis argued that little else could be contributed to the field of physics that could be as unique and peerless as those that had occurred in the previous three centuries. Indeed, the nineteenth century alone was an explosive era for scientific change. Most of the major branches of the sciences saw particular advancement; however, it was the introduction of whole new fields of study that proved the most celebrated events.

Scientific fields such as palaeontology and archaeology absorbed the most abundant intellects of the period, as intense new discoveries were formed and ever more expansive theories introduced. The period’s advancement was of such a revolutionary pace that some scientists began to envisage the potential for a complete understanding of the natural world, including the laws that govern its existence. It was in this transitional climate of ingenuity that voices became prominent with claims that extreme scientific discovery had come to an end. (continue reading…)

Weeks have passed since the discovery of the fossil Ida was made public; and the world has moved with the media scramble for her justification as the missing link in primate evolutionary history. Countless pages have be addressed with supposition regarding the relevance of the link and the possibilities that it is a fundamental confirmation of evolution; a question I would consistently consider, if I did not already feel that evolution does not require any further confirmation. But having said that, science is continuously strengthened by discovery, and is thus open to any amendments that can be made by novel scientific endeavour. (continue reading…)

At the risk of stating the obvious – Ireland is an island. Sat flush in the north Atlantic this country exists in a swirl of oceanic force which pummels our shores and floods our rivers. With our island’s isolated status comes the fog of miserable low pressured weather patterns, which haunt our winters and, often, our summers. This low pressure coincides with the constant drift of warm water from the Gulf Stream to impact on our island in exponential showerings of bursting wind and wave. (continue reading…)

To my mind, Biomass has long been hailed as a standard bearer for the renewable energy world. Allowing the comprehensive destruction of dead materials with an output made up of distributable energy, its use in our high-energy-demand world is both logical and consistent – and indeed comprehensive. Though not specifically a carbon free scheme (roughly one half of the burnt matter contains carbon) it sits well as a renewable energy source. Its problems, as is irritatingly the case with so many renewables, lies in the amount of energy needed to complete the manufacturing process: in the case of Biomass – far too much to warrant significant use. Be that as it may, in a world floundering in the impact of too much carbon, technology is needed to find alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels, and hopefully, to burn a source clean and free of pollutants. A goal I feel is vitally important over the next twenty years. (continue reading…)