Friday, November 7, 2008
I was in the air between Washington and Seattle when the election was
decided; I learned the result from a taxi driver, an immigrant from the
republic of Georgia with children to educate. He clearly enjoyed being
the one to tell me. He had the same enthusiasm for change that I sensed
in the long line when the polls opened that morning. The agent for change
today, as always, is science, but throughout the tedious election campaign
neither camp displayed much interest in a science debate and the idea
died. But what was it we wanted to know? We already knew that neither
candidate had any background in science. We knew we didn't need more
Freedom Cars running on hydrogen or corn ethanol. Nor do we need to
defend the human rights of stem cells, or put up with barriers to buying
Plan B, or for our children in science class to be taught "both sides" of
the creationism issue. Even less do we need old-fashioned crap like
sending human astronauts back to the Moon in an age of automation. What
we need to know is who Obama will turn to for advice. As President, he
can call on any scientist in the country, and the time to do it is right
now. We'd feel even better if Obama were to signal his intention to
elevate his science advisor to cabinet rank. We could suggest about a
thousand scientists who would do a good job, but it wouldn't help if Obama
ignores his science advisor.
Most people think London has enough water, but the city is forced to build
a desalination plant to accommodate population growth. It's not the
fecundity of native Londoners that has risen; as in all of Europe,
immigration is on the rise with inevitable cultural conflict. Expect more
such problems around the world as the demands of the green revolution
reduce clean water, and excess population spills out of Muslim nations
that can no longer feed their people as oil revenues decline.
Many of my students admit that they were drawn to science by reading
science fiction novels, and one of the authors mentioned most frequently
is Michael Crichton. I am grateful for the students he sent me, but the
irony is that his works were intensely anti-science. Consider Jurassic
Park, which was also made into a blockbuster movie. The brilliant
explanation of how the dinosaurs were cloned was the only treatment of
evolution to which many fans had ever been exposed. Perhaps that
overshadows his plot of using this great advance in science to build an
amusement park. That misuse of science was at the heart of Crichton
novels.
By contrast with Crichton, Richard Dawkins forces people to confront
reality. With his help a campaign has raised the money to pay for a
message on the side of buses: "There is no God. Now stop worrying and
enjoy your life." The pity is that the world sees truth as "shrill and
strident." The truth is the truth, nothing else. Retirement, of course,
does not require one to stop writing. A world without the prospect of
another book by Dawkins would a sadder place.
|
