Futurology

In an earlier post I mentioned that many of scientific news published today are not really new discoveries, but future previsions. What I did was analyze a specific issue of the magazine Science News, and found that just three news, out of 18 it contained, corresponded to concrete findings.

At the suggestion of one of my readers I made a more meaningful analysis, by reviewing, not just a single magazine, but 40, of four different years, to see if the effect stays constant or changes with time. The results were as follows:

Year	Nr. of articles	% Futurology
1990	176	32
1995	162	33
2001	177	47
2006	167	40
2008	161	48

Catastrophes and catastrophism

Chernobyl disaster

From time to time catastrophes occur, usually unforeseen, sometimes causing tremendous damage. Let's look at some relatively recent ones:

• July 28, 1976: Tangshan Earthquake (China), intensity 7.5 on the Richter scale. The official death toll was 249,419, though some say it was actually three times as big.
• December 3, 1984: Bhopal disaster, a leakage of methyl isocyanate from a pesticide factory that caused some 20,000 deaths and affected about 600,000 people.
• 26 April 1986: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster, which caused 31 direct casualties. It is estimated that the number of deferred deaths due to the effects of radiation could approach 80,000, although the estimates may not be reliable.

Permanent economic growth is unsustainable

2009 World Economic Forum Meeting

Politicians and economists often tell us that job creation requires a GNP growth above 2 or 3%. According to them, the optimum situation and the end of the crisis will be reached when a permanent growth is achieved above these figures, the higher the better. Not many seem to be considering whether such a situation is possible in the long run.

Let us take the simplest case: assume that it were possible to achieve a cumulative annual growth of 3% GNP, indefinitely continued. Would we have achieved utopia, would we be living in the best of worlds?

Maybe, but not for long.

Numerical equality or equal opportunities

It is common to hear concerns about the fact that women do not want to study technical careers and prefer to pursue other professions, such as in health sciences, psychology or the humanities, where they usually make the majority. In contrast, in technical schools there is usually a high percentage of male students. For example, at the Higher Polytechnic School of the Autonomous University of Madrid, during the 20 years between 1992 and 2012, in our degree in Computer Engineering, two-thirds of the students were male, just one-third were female. And between 2003 and 2012, in the degree in Telecommunications Engineering, the proportion of women was even lower: there were three men for each woman.

Why polls and surveys fail

Polls and opinion surveys often predict results that never happen. Is there a scientific reason that can explain it? I think so. The problem could be that the mathematical theories behind the polls are misapplied.

A branch of statistics is called sample theory. It was invented to solve the problem of estimating whether the products of a factory are well made or defective, without having to analyze them one by one, which would be too costly.

Let us say, for example, that a factory produces one million screws a day. In theory they should be checked one by one, but since that is impossible, only one part is analyzed. Which part? This is what sample theory tries to solve.

Suppose we analyze just 2000 screws, and find that one of them is defective (0.05%). Can we extend this result to the million screws and assert that in that population there will be approximately 500 defective screws?

What is immortality

Pieter van Lint - Allegory of immortality

Immortality is in fashion. Every few weeks, the media publish news or interviews related to this matter. In addition to the one I mentioned in an earlier article, let's look at two others, quite recent:

•         We will live 1000 years (Aubrey de Gray, May 1, 2016).

•         Man is about to attain immortality and artificial intelligence, which will turn him into Homo Deus (Yuval Harari, September 11, 2016).

But first we must define what we mean by immortality; otherwise, we will hardly know what we are talking about. As one reader pointed out in my previous article, living 1000 years is not the same as being immortal. If you live 1000 years and then die, you are not immortal, you have just lived longer. This applies, whatever the duration of life. Living 1000 million years and then dying would not be the same as being immortal.

Those who believe that someday we will be immortal do not put all the eggs in the same basket. In recent years, three different ways have been proposed to achieve immortality:

The three trunks of the tree of life

The tree of life

As time goes by and more and more genomes of living beings of very different types are sequenced, we are learning a lot about the tree of life. This is a summary of what we know:

• From the fact that all current living things use the same genetic code (with very minor variations) it follows that all the living beings we know, current or extinct (including viruses), descend from a single ancestor, unknown, of course, because there is no trace of in the fossil record, and if we found it, we would not recognize it. This hypothetical common ancestor has received the curious name LUCA, the acronym of Last Universal Common Ancestor. The first living creature should be placed at the very origin of the tree of life (in the root). Many biologist also think that this common ancestor appeared over 3000 million years ago, near the hydrothermal vents found on the mid-ocean ridges that separate the plates of the earth’s crust, where the magma in the mantle tends to rise to the surface.