A less-than-helpful app
I wonder if I’m the only one to raise an eyebrow at the directions technology sometimes strays into, or ponder the uncritical manner in which such things are sometimes reported?
I read in the Out There section of BBC Focus (December, p100) that there is now an app called Pplkpr, which can tell me who I like, who I don’t, and that I might be happier if I kept company with the former and avoided the latter. I’m guessing that this app might remove some of the difficulty in managing interactions with those we don’t really care for, but surely learning to deal with those we don’t unequivocally like is part of becoming a functioning social being?
Removing the need to acquire such a skill is potentially detrimental. I think Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park got it right in suggesting that people get too wrapped up in whether they ‘could’ do something to ask the simple question as to whether they ‘should’!
Simon Bartlett, via email
MSG’s no good for me
I found your feature on monosodium glutamate (November, p101) to be of great interest, as I am allergic to this substance and it is dangerous to me. If I ever eat a Chinese meal, my eyes start to water and my throat closes over to a dangerous extent. I have no other allergies and this one is listed on my hospital notes.
I may be in a small minority, but this substance is not harmless. I miss my favourite takeaway, but I won’t risk such a HTKIJVGPKPI GZRGTKGPEG |
Bill Leahy, via email
Why north?
I very much enjoyed your article on the proposed British spaceport in Scotland (November, p76). The story was missing one important element, though, in my opinion. That is, what is the logic/benefit, specifically in terms of the rotation of the Earth, of siting a space launchpad so far to the north?
You rightly mention Cape Canaveral in the USA. One reason the Americans chose that site was because it’s about as far south as you can go in the USA. The benefit, of course, is that the closer you are to the equator, the faster the surface of
You’re quite right. It’s difficult to predict the social and psychological consequences of automating parts of our lives that we would otherwise consider consciously. Exhibits like Intimacy at the Science Gallery Dublin, where this app was showcased, present radical ideas in a forum where we’re primed to consider them critically – it’s probably here that such ideas belong.
– Helen Glenny, Out There editor
the Earth is travelling at that latitude, due to the law of preservation of angular motion (I think that’s what it’s called!).
The same principle is used as a plot device in Andy Weir’s recent book Artemis, where Kenya becomes a leader in the space industry simply because it is geographically close to the equator. Basically, harnessing the centrifugal force generated by Earth’s spin as a natural boost to put a rocket into space reduces the amount of work required of the chemical reaction of the thrusters.
Anyway, I’m sure you understand the science behind it. My point is, why was this not mentioned at all in the article? It’s surely a fundamental consideration in where to site a spaceport.
Rob Kaczmarek, via email
As mentioned in the article, the location in northern Scotland is a great spot for a spaceport. It is ideally placed to launch satellites into polar orbit, which is an increasingly popular practice.
– Daniel Bennett, editor
Not that clever
I would like to take issue with your article on recreating the Neanderthal mind (November, p42), which contains three statements that I find pretty arrogant! The offending lines are “Many academics believe our ancestors outcompeted Neanderthals by being smarter”; “finding out why Homo sapiens survived while Homo neanderthal en sis died out"; and “archaeological evidence tells us that we had burial rituals, cave art and tools that surpassed anything created by the Neanderthals”. Homo sapiens started to move out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago. It was once thought we appeared in Europe around 35,000 years ago, and we coexisted with Neanderthals after that. The article states that the Neanderthals were successfull for 250,000 years , so if we coexisted for a few thousand years, maybe they taught us a trick or two how to survive? What’s more, if my maths is right, we have to survive another 215,000 years before we can really start to brag about being smarter!
In the meantime, in the 35,000 years we’ve been here, it is not only the Neanderthals that disappeared – more and more species are disappearing on our watch.
Arie Elberse, Ireland