Apathy Sketchpad

Today’s g2 contains a dull and ill-thought-out article about whether or not animals feel grief, by Justine Hankins, who used to be the Guardian’s “pets editor”. It’s perhaps to be expected, then, that she is eager to think animals have human feelings. It’s nice to see her questioning the rest of the media for taking this too far, but personally, I’m not sure she’s quite got the hang of it yet…

Photographs of Gana, an 11-year-old gorilla in Munster Zoo, holding the lifeless body of her three-month-old infant… have prompted headlines such as “Heartbreaking” and “A Mother’s Grief”. … Are we too quick to project human feelings onto animals, particularly our closest ape relatives?

…René Descartes believed that… animals are no more capable of higher emotion than a clock. But, as anyone who has been watching Richard Dawkins’ Channel 4 series The Genius of Darwin will recall, evolution favours any species with strong enough parental instincts to see their young through infancy. Animals invest time, energy and genetic material into their young, just as we do, and they naturally want them to survive.—

Let’s be careful with the word “want”. Once you say “want” you’re kind of begging the question: anything that “wants” has emotions. I think you’re being too quick to project human feelings onto our closest ape relatives again. If you start bandying words like “want” about then before you know it you’re going to say something like

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that they would also feel loss when their young die?

Yes.

Evolution probably doesn’t care too much what happens to mothers of dead infants. Evolving to stop caring for dead children is probably low down the genetic priority list, several items beneath keeping the children alive in the first place. There’s no reason to imagine that the gorilla’s behaviour is the result of grief. It could just as easily be well-meaning genes misfiring. Grief is totally unnecessary to explain any part of gorilla behaviour that I’m aware of.

Of course, they might. I don’t know. Hankins’ argument has utterly failed to convince me, but I really have no idea how gorillas work. I’ve not, say, been observing wild baboons in Namibia for years, but that’s probably why there’s a quote from a man who has, and he’s “reluctant to describe this as grief in the human sense”. That’s that settled, then, presumably…

Gana has a history of neglecting her young, and the infant’s death may have been a result of her poor parenting. So perhaps it’s not so much grief as guilt she’s exhibiting. Or maybe that’s an anthropomorphic step too far.

Yes it damn well is! Why must you persist in this? You’ve started by trying to explore quite a complex question in a 300-word column, and ended up saying nothing except “maybe”, and posing another, almost identical question. What possible use is that?

The article frustrated me mostly because it was 300 words of nothing, beyond raising a question that could have been just as easily posed in fifteen. The opening paragraph made it sound interesting, but there was no worthwhile discussion around the theme at all — a fact made even more annoying since she’d clearly interviewed someone who could have provided some. Hankins started out by observing that journalists liked to ascribe human feelings to animals and spent the whole column indulging in exactly the same wooly thinking.

Might as well have let Gana write the column for all the content we’d have missed out on.

from: KEN KUBE
reply-to: mr_ken@mail.ru
to:
date: 13 July 2008 20:46
subject: FROM: Mr. Ken Kube.

FROM: Mr. Ken Kube.
Good Day,
Please Read.
My name is Mr Ken Kube, I’m the credit officer in International Credit Bank Ouagadougou Burkina Faso.
I have a business proposal in the tune of $5.5m, (Five Million Five hundred Thousand only) after the successful transfer; we shall share in ratio of 40% for you and 60% for me.
Should you be interested, please contact me through my private email (mr_ken@mail.ru) so we can commence on all arrangements and I Will give you more information on how we would handle this project.
Please treat this business with utmost confidentiality and send me the
Following information:
(1) Full names:
(2) Private phone number:
(3) Current residential address:
(4) Occupation:
(5) Age and Sex:
Kind Regards,
Mr. Ken Kube.
Note: Strictly reply through my private email account if interest is shown.

This is my reply:

from: Andrew Taylor
to: mr_ken@mail.ru
date: 13 July 2008 22:20
subject: Re: FROM: Mr. Ken Kube.

2008/7/13 KEN KUBE <mr_ken35@biz.by>:

FROM: Mr. Ken Kube.
Good Day,
Please Read.
My name is Mr Ken Kube,

No, it isn’t. Don’t be ridiculous.

That didn’t get a response.

We all know about Islam in Turkey. But turkey in Islam seems also to be a big thing, at least if the halal-only Subway stores are anything to go by.

I can understand the idea behind halal chicken and so forth. It’s the fact they sell a halal ‘ham’ option that puzzles me. Pigs are considered “unclean” in Islam, so the ham comes from a turkey. That’s daft enough to begin with, but the turkey breast sub is still there. So you have a choice of two distinct turkey-based subs. In fact, it’s better than that, because Subway also offer bacon, which again is made from turkeys in the Halal stores. This means that the turkey breast and ham sub is now turkey and turkey, and the Subway Melt becomes turkey, turkey and turkey, so there are four subs with different combinations of turkey on them, and two options — double meat and ‘add bacon’ — to increase your turkey intake yet further.

It seems to me that a far more sensible approach would have been to leave regular ham and bacon from pigs on the menu for non-Muslims who might want to eat it, and trust the Islamic community not to break their own rules and then complain about being given the opportunity to do so.

Or just design an entire halal menu that isn’t bloody stupid.

Tonight my brother showed me 2D physics-based game Fantastic Contraption, more-or-less a Flash version of The Incredible Machine, but for adults. You have a small area to build a machine, and you have to effect some goal outside that area. I rapidly found my style of play.

Here are my solutions. I may have got some of the level names wrong.

• The Grabber (Back and Forth) — similar to this solution, really.
• Flailey Tank (Up The Stairs) — as you can see, by now I was getting pretty into building little carts to move stuff about.
• Spatula Tank (Big Ball) — tanks made this level easy. Other players went for speed. Some went for Sling It And Hope. I went for Power!
• Serious Tank (Awash) — Serious Tank will take all comers.
• Kamikaze Tank (Mission to Mars) — I had done this in the Normal Boring Way, but that didn’t involve nearly enough tanks for me to get really excited by it.
• Short Work Tank (The Wall) — Short Work Tank rolls over the wall with such consummate ease that the Chinese government will probably block this link.
• Train Tank (Full Up) — I’m sure I was supposed to do this by knocking the big ball into the hole, but instead I built another tank.
• Oil Thing (Higher) — I did this using a tank as well, but this is so much better.
• Junktank (Junkyard) — About half of Junktank is pointless, but why on Earth would I remove it?
• Hill Tank Light (Up the Hump) — I did remove about half of Hill Tank. The big square block was Man enough for this.
• Scorpion (Down Under) — There are hardly any tanks at all in this one. But there are more than there are in this player’s solution. This one is also good (no tanks, though).
• Uptank (Tube) — Which isn’t really a tank at all, but if I call it “tank” it may become one. (Tanks are only called tanks because they were originally disguised as tanks of water.)
• Freight Tank (Handling) — This calls for flexibility and precision. The obvious solution is therefore another tank.
• Tank on a Chain (Unpossible) — Nothing is unpossible if you have a large enough tank.
• Slavedriver (Four Balls) — This is the only level I didn’t manage to complete using at least one tank. But don’t think that means I’m going easy on it. I’m getting Ancient Egyptian on its ass, Ancient Egypt apparently being the theme for this evening. I did consider this approach, but couldn’t get it to work.

[BPSDB] On my various travels through PubMed, Medline, Ovid SP (which is like the old Ovid but with a backlight) and Google Scholar, I come across a number of papers that really aren’t what I was looking for. Some of them are fascinating, though, so I’ve now got a 11MB folder full of PDFs that range from interesting through arcane to downright silly.

These include a paper¹ whose principal conclusion “is that the regional distribution of the incidence of violent injury is related to the regional distribution of the price of beer”, one about restoring torn up documents², a mildly terrifying study in which scientists managed to work out what someone was looking at by reading the information from their brain with electrodes³, and a fantastic paper in which someone built a device that can rotate objects without touching them using angular momentum carried by sound waves⁴ — and somehow managed to resist the geek temptation and so rather boringly called it an “acoustic spanner” (and people say that the science in Doctor Who is unrealistic).

But my current favourite is one entitled “Housing in Pyramid Counteracts Neuroendocrine and Oxidative Stress Caused by Chronic Restraint in Rats”⁵. The gist is: take 52 rats, and split them into 4 equal groups (or suits). One group is left well alone, the other three are put in “restrainers” in smaller groups of 3 or 4. This is designed to piss them off. Then, you put one group’s restrainers inside a Pyramid. The pyramid is a wooden affair two and a half feet tall, with a window and a hole for ventilation.

The four triangular sides of the pyramid angled upwards at nearly 51° to the base and met at the apex of the pyramid.

My word, the triangular sides met at the apex? So it was a pyramid, then. They even have a picture, in case you’re somehow still unsure what a ‘pyramid’ might be:

Figure 1: Ratiphar had very feeew cares…

Another group’s restrainer is left in normal conditions (in a presumably-non-pyramidal laboratory), and the last is left in a square box about the same size as the pyramid, because this is a strangely well-conducted seeming study considering how completely fucking mental you have to be to imagine that a pyramid shaped box can reduce stress in rats simply by being pyramid-shaped. They even made sure to align the square box due north, as if that made any difference. The rats (in their restraining cages) were even put on little stools in the boxes, because

Maximum effect of the pyramid is believed to be exerted at one-third the height of the pyramid from its base.

I would have thought maximum effect would be at the apex, since that’s where you’re in the most pyramids. But what do I know of Pyramid Power?

The whole thing looks like ‘cargo-cult science’ to me, right down to the extensive list of references — of which there are fifty-four, although quite a lot of them come from the same couple of books, and at least one is a Geocities page which apparently no longer exists (presumably due to being stored in an insufficiently-pyramidal server room). This latter is cited to support the sentence “Pyramid exposure is believed to put the mind into an alpha state”. This comes hot on the tails of the even better sentence “Research has shown that the energy field within the pyramid can act as antistressor and thus protect the hippocampal neurons from stress-induced atrophy (10)”, in which the promising-sounding Reference 10 is a PhD thesis (not apparently available online) from the same university that ran this study. Probably one of the authors’ luckless students. Another few references discuss “bioresonance”, apparently as something reasonable, to ground the pyramid theory in something people will accept, which would work if bioresonance wasn’t also a load of made-up shit.

The strange thing is, though, that despite all the made-up woo in the discussion section, and despite the rather preposterous premise being tested, it looks like a basically okay experiment. I’d have liked to see it run as a crossover, so we could make sure it was the pyramid rather than the rats being tested, and the square box was three times the volume of the pyramid because they matched base area and height, so there’s a chance the pyramid rats got less air than the controls, but it’s not at all a bad design. Ooh, a control group not aligned to the compass would have been good, too.

And yet, apparently, it worked. The rats in the pyramid were about as stressed as the rats in ordinary cages, whereas all the other rats that had been put in restrainers were pretty pissed off about it. Apparently this is reproducible because reference 11 is an almost identical study to this (right down to the main author) without restrainers.

Of course, I’m not about to convert to pseudoscience and declare that therefore pyramid power is real, partly because the odds of even a hundred p<0.05 results coming up on the trot are still far, far higher than the odds that the shape of a pyramid works “at a hormone level”, and also a bit because the most reproducible result in science is one you just make up.

But this is still interesting — because if this is genuine research, then on some unconscious level these researchers have conspired to rig this experiment very subtly, and I for one would very much like to find out how they did that. The endless lies and deceptions that the human brain pulls on its hapless owners is infinitely more fascinating than the crystals and dowsing and pyramids that result.

Read the rest of this entry »

Professor Ken Smith has a plan. It’s a rubbish plan, but a plan nonetheless. He wants to reduce the amount of errors students make. How? By reducing the number of things that are considered errors:

Teaching a large first-year course at a British university, I am fed up with correcting my students’ atrocious spelling. Aren’t we all!?

But why must we suffer? Instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I’ve got a better idea. University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell.

Let’s mention now that the course he teaches is in criminology and not English. Don’t assume he has any particular understanding of the language at all. Make him demonstrate that by clever writing*.

The spelling of the word “judgement”, for example, is now widely accepted as a variant of “judgment”, so why can’t “truely” be accepted as a variant spelling of “truly”?

Let’s mention now that as I write this Firefox’ British English spellchecker has chosen to underline “judgment” in red†. It has done this because ‘judgement’ is not so much a variant spelling as it is the principal (and to many, only acceptable) spelling. Not going so well for his demonstration so far. Still, here are some of his suggestions for words whose common misspellings should be adopted as variants:

Ignor for ignore

Well, sure, maybe, but only if we also accept ‘ador’, ‘bor’, ‘cor’, ‘deplor’, ‘for’, ‘gor’, ‘whor’, ‘lor’ and so on. Because otherwise people might think ‘ignor’ was pronounced like ‘elevator’ or ‘Bangor’. There are rules in place for a reason, dammit. Adding any more exceptions will only make life harder, especially for English-as-a-second-language speakers who will see this variant spelling and have utterly no idea what it is. This would seem to have the opposite effect to Smith’s implicit aim. Sure, it’ll be easier to write, but what use is that if it’s harder to read? Text is written once and read many times: the writer should accommodate the reader, not vice-versa. Writing well is hard, that’s inevitable; reading should be easy. If it’s not then the flow of the text is interrupted and that means the writer has failed whether he’s technically checked all the boxes or not. Of course what that means you should do depends on your audience, but the point stands: I moderate internet forums and I routinely have to tell people off for typing like they would in a text message. It’s inconsiderate: they’ve saved themselves maybe 10 seconds by missing out a few vowels, but between everyone who reads that post a good ten minutes more will be spent decoding it than if they’d just typed properly — and generally they’re the ones asking for help!

Occured for occurred. There is no second “r” in the words “occur” or “occurs” and that is why nearly everyone misspells this word. Would it really upset you to allow this change, and if so why?

That’s right, there is no second ‘r’ in ‘occur’ or ‘occurs’. But there’s no second ‘r’ in ‘mar’, ‘bar’, ’scar’ or ‘tar’, either, and they all get double ‘r’s in the past tense. Once again, the variant spelling goes against all standard usage rules. Also, “occured” implies the pronunciation ‘a-cured’, because that’s how the language works. I’m not against accepting new variants per se, of course. His suggestion of “speach”, for example, makes perfect sense to me. I see no particular reason why ’speak’ and ’speech’ should use different letters for the same sound. (Possibly, though, there is a shining good reason for this that I’m ignorant of. This is why you shouldn’t trust physicists and criminologists to prescribe changes to languages.) But I think that adopting variant spellings that go against established rules of the language will serve only to make the formally accepted form of English more complex, and it will dilute the meaning of the letters: what good is it to me knowing the difference between ‘planning’ and ‘planing’ if both are accepted as variants of the other? It’s unimportant, you might say, when we’re talking about words whose misspellings aren’t already other words, but I use it when I meet a new word: generally speaking, I can pronounce it without looking it up to see which letters are real and which are errors accepted by lazzez-faire editors at the behest of ignorant criminologists. Other variants he proposes that would be pronounced strangely if read according to the usual rules of English include “opertunity”, “arguement” and “que” (for ‘queue’). Oh, and these:

Thier for their … and all those others that break the “i” before “e” rule (weird, seize, leisure, neighbour, foreign etc)

Now first of all, because we’re constantly berating Creationists for doing exactly this to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the “i before e” rule in full goes “‘i’ before ‘e’, except after ‘c’, when the sound is ‘ee’”. The sound (at least, in Britain) in ‘leisure’, ‘foreign’, ‘neighbour’ and ‘their’ is clearly not ‘ee’, so those are not exceptions to any rule. Again, his proposed spellings would be unphonetic and, well, weird. What the hell is a nigh-ber? And can I covet theer ass?

Truely for truly. We don’t spell the adverb “surely” as “surly” because this would make another word, so why is the adverb of “true” spelt “truly”?

Maybe because ‘truly’ isn’t another word? I could just as easily (not ‘easyly’) argue that since ‘wholly’ isn’t spelt ‘wholely’, “truely” shouldn’t be accepted either. I’m unsure what the usual rules are here, as I honestly can’t think of another adjective ending in a vowel sound and then an ‘e’, so I can’t think of an ideal example to prove or disprove his point (although there’s a strong case for using ‘argument’ in the meantime — which you’d think he’d have spotted since he proposed accepting “arguement” in its stead). But whether he’s right or wrong, his argument for “truely” is still rubbish: the ‘e’ in ‘true’ isn’t needed in ‘truly’ because the ‘-ly’ ending modifies the ‘u’ in the same way; the ‘e’ in ’surely’ is needed to modify the ’s’ and stop the word becoming ’surly’. I don’t think ’sure’ is a very systematic word in any case, but this one is:

Twelth as twelfth

There is, it turns out, a lot more to spelling than mere phonetics. If there wasn’t, then the argument over “thier”/’their’ would go away: that word, as well as ‘they’re’ would be spelt ‘there’. Why not? That’s how they’re pronounced. But ‘twelfth’ is the ordinal version of ‘twelve’; you can’t just drop the ‘v’ just because you’re talking about a position now. That would be crazy. Okay, so it runs into the ‘th’ sound somewhat when you say it, but the consistency is elegant and informative. Okay, so it’s become an ‘f’ somewhere along the line, but that happens in ‘leaves’, ‘dwarves’, ‘hooves’ and ‘halves’ when you only have one of each, so I don’t think we should be complaining too much about that either. In fact, ‘twelfth’ is a perfectly simple word to spell — it follows the same rules as ‘fifth’ — and anyone who can’t spell it has been short-changed by English teachers who concentrated too much on rote learning of common words and not enough on how the language fits together (or, I suppose, naturally grasp language phonetically and have a problem with spellings). Most of the words on Smith’s list are ones whose spellings could be predicted by anyone who understands the language properly.

I just worry that if you adopt his suggestion of accepting the 10 most common errors as variants, there will still be 10 most common errors, and the errors are getting dumber but it’s getting easier to find example words spelt the same way because you allowed them in the last batch, and before you know it you’ll be writing like Shakespeare (only, you know, not so well).

I could support him if his thesis was “we should stop worrying so much about spelling in criminology exams”, but he wants to lower the bar for everyone to accommodate bad spellers, and I just can’t see how that’s remotely helpful. Aside from anything else, if you’re not proposing to change the official language in dictionaries, then why the most common errors? It doesn’t make sense to ignore mistakes on the basis of how many people make them — unless of course you’re just lazy.

For balance, here is another British secularist Andrew expressing the opposite opinion. I reckon that’s some pretty shit-hot balance right there.

---

*And don’t trust me, either — my spelling is hardly great and I’m a scientist, not a language… er… guy. Make sure I provide examples.

†It’s also underlining “Firefox” and “spellchecker” so I’m not sure who coded it…

Apparently, tomorrow George W Bush is going to give a big speech at the Republican convention, a pointless bit of formality that has to be done before McCain will be allowed to run for President under a Republican banner. On Tuesday, McCain will seek to downplay the association with Bush (lest any of us notice that he’s borrowed all Bush’s pulicies) by associating himself with someone else: he’s naming his running mate.

I can’t see how this could help him. Since, if elected, John McCain is definitely going to die in office, he’s basically naming his Gordon Brown. Unfortunately, he only has two options. He can pick someone nobody’s heard of, in which case he’s basically pitching an unknown quantity against a far more popular unknown quantity, or else he can pick a high profile Republican, the problem there being that they’re all mental.

It’ll be interesting to see who he picks, but there’s no way it should ever make any difference.

A few days ago, a friend of mine told me about a thing called the ‘Joe Cell’. Apparently it’s yet another attempt to build a device that puts out more energy than you put in. I’ll be honest, I’ve seen so many that this one didn’t interest me at first, but then I read the website, and it really is delightfully and repeatedly demented. You can tell he’s a crank because the website has this at the bottom:

For the rights to republish information or theories from this website, please contact: hamish@thejoecell.com

Only cranks ever imagine they can own information or theories and legally stop people disseminating them.

First things first. A Joe Cell is a series of tins of water, arranged in a Russian Doll formation, kept at low pressure. Then you ‘charge’ it: hook the inner-most and outer-most metal cylinders up to a voltage and leave it for a bit. When you’re done, it becomes a never ending battery (which may explain why “Joe Cells are reportedly… prone to dying for no apparent reason”). But then they also say that you can test it by checking the pH of the water, which is just downright silly because it’s chemically impossible to make any pH above or below 7.0 using whole, pure water, because pH is a measure of how many H⁺ an OH⁻ ions there are and water is H₂O. That’s one of their saner ideas — they go on to say

Some people have claimed that the Joe Cell harnesses some type of magical life force energy referred to as Orgone. Others believe that it pulls energy straight from the very fabric on the universe – the aether.

That presumably being the same æther that was proven not to exist in the late eighties? Of the 19th century?

The website says the cell is “essentially a capacitor”, but one that doesn’t lose its charge as it, er, releases charge. This isn’t even bad science by this stage; this is a violation of basic maths. But the real genius lies on the “references” page. Highlights include Cold Fusion patent with similaries [sic] to Joe Cell.doc, Positive Electricity (doc), which explains that if you line up a load of protons, then “the positive charge of the hydrogen nucleus - a proton - passing rapidly down the chain by relay, without the proton actually moving down,” which is a lot like saying you can move the weight of a rock without moving the rock, and Water Car Instructions (PDF), which is just what it sounds like.

You should be careful when filling the Joe Cell, because

The Cells are reported to function only when a strong vacuum is created within the cell. For this reason, adding a pressure gauge is recommended. For the Cell to function properly, around 15 psi of vacuum will be required.

For reference, atmospheric pressure is a little over 14psi, so you will need some amount of negative gas in the cell. How you stop the water in there from instantly vaporising and thereby creating pressure I don’t know. I didn’t know atmospheric pressure in psi, of course. I read that claim and thought it sufficiently likely he’d just made the number up to warrant me looking it up on the off-chance. It paid off. Who knows how much of the rest of his site is nonsense I’m too ignorant to spot — or similar guesses that happened to be plausible?

Of course, what makes all this really perverse is that it’s designed to power a car. Even if they’d really discovered a way of getting more-than-100% efficient electricity, cars run on fucking petrol. They wouldn’t run better with a Joe Cell for the same reason that you don’t get a boost of energy when you swallow a AA battery and your car doesn’t run if you fill the petrol tank with brie. Even if it worked, it would only replace the car battery, and you won’t run a car long on batteries and no petrol (unless of course it’s an electric car). If you don’t put petrol in a car, it won’t drive from the starter motor until the battery runs out, it just won’t go. And if you modified the engine so it did, the motor would be destroyed before you hit second gear. Their “clean, green technology” is petrol. If this thing worked, he’d hook up eight of them to a copper and zinc electrode pair and run his entire house on a lemon.

In fact, he suggests having two in your car for “redundancy”, the idea presumably being that if the laws of physics don’t allow you to build a perpetual motion device, try try again. Apparently,

It would make sense to mount then on opposite sides of the engine bay, to reduce them interfering with each other’s magnetic field.

Hang on, what? What magnetic field? Beyond the same tiny field you get from any electrical current, I can’t see any part of the Joe Cell that would have a magnetic field, much less be influenced by one. He goes on to say that the water has to be utterly and completely pure. This is pretty well impossible, but he’s got an answer. Apparently you can mke 100% pure water using a device called a “conditioning cell”. Furthermore,

A conditioning cell is the same as a Joe Cell except it separate from the vehicle.

You’re just being deliberately silly now, aren’t you? Anything else it can do? Can it bringeth the rains to provide the water in the first place?

Because the Joe Cell is creating a cloud like condition on the ground, it makes sense that it could influence weather conditions.

Alright then.

Here’s a great bit explaining how to avoid interference. Also, it’s good advice for anyone who thinks the Joe Cell doesn’t yet look sufficiently ridiculous:

The charge state within the cell can be affected by electromagnetic interference from other electrical devices and power sources. This interference can be minimized by using insulating material to prevent shorting. Wrapping the Cell in Burlap (Hessian) and placing it in a plastic bucket, held in place with blocks of wood is recommended.

I love cranks. I can’t help but.

In a Comment is Free article today, Arthur Scargill (who of course has no vested interests) has issued a challenge to George Monbiot:

I challenge George Monbiot to test out which is the most dangerous fuel - coal or nuclear power. I am prepared to go into a room full of CO2 [sic] for two minutes, if he is prepared to go into a room full of radiation for two minutes.

Okay, let’s try that. He can stand in “a room full of CO₂” for two minutes, and then, when the paramedics have resuscitated him and explained that you can’t breathe carbon dioxide, we can discuss what “a room full of radiation” might be.

Presumably he has in all his years seen at least one dimmer switch. He might like to explain at what point the room becomes “full” of light. Because you could easily endure a small amount of radiation for two minutes with no ill effects. You do exactly that every two minutes of your life. In the same way, you can endure a small amount of carbon dioxide.

So first we need to work out exactly how much of each thing each room will need to be “full”. Then we need to decide if Scargill will be allowed to supplement his CO₂ with any oxygen — bearing in mind that if there’s room for oxygen, it can’t really be “full” of CO₂ now, can it?

We should also decide what kind of radiation to use. We could use alpha, beta, gamma, or anything we like from the EM spectrum including long-wave radio, heat or visible light.

After we’ve done that, and Scargill and Monbiot have spent the required minutes in their respective rooms — personally I vote to up Scargill’s sentence to five minutes as it’s by no means unheard of for people to simply hold their breath for two and that’s cheating — we can discuss what the hell any of that was supposed to prove because CO₂ is dangerous because a sodding greenhouse gas, not because it’s poisonous.

Scargill’s challenge is like the NRA saying guns are safe and proving it by standing in a room full of bullets for two minutes and failing to die. Or a company showing their new Arsenic Sandwich is safe by sitting in a room with it for two minutes. Or Dan challenging the claim that cigarette smoke is more toxic than car exhaust fumes by challenging me to inhale thousands of times more of the latter than he willof the former.

Another interesting bit of his article is this:

…we live on an island with more than 1,000 years of coal reserves from which we can provide all the electricity, oil, gas and petrochemicals that people need, without causing harm to the environment.

I was going to mock him for this too, but I’ve looked into it, and it turns out he’s right. Modern coal-fired power stations are really quite clever. You don’t actually need to burn the coal. Instead, a kitten gently caresses the coal, and the coal starts to give off heat. This is used to drive a turbine and create electricity. Meanwhile magical pixies suck any CO₂ the kitten may have exhaled into magic pixie bottles, which then vanish in a puff of pure joy. It’s true.

I’ve just read two articles on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website. One is by AC Grayling, who likes secularism, and the other is a response by Soumaya Ghannoushi, who doesn’t, or more accurately, doesn’t like what she terms “militant secularists”:

This brand of puritanical secularism is little more than inverted religion. It substitutes reason for god, science for theology, relentless progress for original sin and human fall. Its followers see secularism not as mere separation of religion and politics, or as state neutrality vis a vis matters of faith and belief. To them, it is a set of dogmas to be embraced willingly or imposed coercively by the force of the state.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of the “militant secularism” I know, but I shall ignore that. I think the major problem stems from a disagreement about what the new headscarf reforms in Turkey mean: Grayling says that “Turkish Islamists are encouraging more women to hide that automatic trigger of unbridled male lust, the tresses on the female head”, whereas Ghannoushi says “those genuinely committed to civil liberties and individual freedoms would applaud the relaxing of an oppressive law that denies women their basic right to decide their dress”. Personally, I’m not going to comment on who is right — pretty clearly the ideal is that women should be allowed to wear whatever they like, but there’s every chance that without the headscarf ban 95% of wearers would be wearing them against their will, and in that situation I think a ban can be justified easily.

Grayling’s thesis was really much more wide-reaching than that:

If the Brian-sandalistas cannot succeed by direct assault, they will do it by constant nibbling and encroachments: prayers in American publicly-funded schools, headscarves in Turkish publicly-funded universities, a little bit of anti-evolutionary biology there, a little alcohol ban there – and if that doesn’t work, they try more robust means. So it goes: creep creep, whisper, soothe, murmur a prayer with the kids in assembly, ecumenicalise, interfaith-schmooze, infiltrate, subvert, complain, campaign, scream, threaten, explode.

And that’s the point. It’s all well and good Ghannoushi saying

This crude interventionism practised in the name of secularism in Turkey and France, and religion in Iran and Saudi Arabia can only be described as despotic. Individuals’ minds and bodies are not part of the state’s jurisdiction. The state is only the manager of citizens’ public affairs, not a judge of their consciences, appearances, habits, and preferences.

but in a society like Turkey, with a 99% Islamic population, if you have completely open democracy then there’s a very real possibility that people are going to vote for an alcohol ban, the death penalty for apostasy, a ban on dogs as pets, legalisation of forced marriage, and yes, a mandate to women about what they can wear on their heads, because what unites the people is their irrational conviction that a load of nonsense in a rather silly book, as well as a lot of other nonsense that even Mohammed never thought of, handed down by word of mouth, is How You Absolutely Should Live. And before you know what’s happening, you’re living under Sharia law in an Islamic state in all but name. And then they’ll vote to change the name. Because that’s what Islam is:

“Islam is not like Christianity. It doesn’t just aim to be practised in the realm of belief but also to regulate and rule the state,” — Omer Faruk Eminagaoglu, “chairman of the association of judges and prosecutors (Yarsav) and deputy to Turkey’s chief prosecutor”

The aim of a secular democracy then, cannot be to do what the people want, but to do what the general underlying values of the people dictate — just as in this country I don’t want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what the people think he should do; I want him to do what the people would think he should do if we were smarter and in possession of all the information and a good working knowledge of economics. Otherwise there’s no point in having anyone remotely qualified doing the job. You end up with lowest-common-denominator politics and the country’s de facto run by the editor of the Sun. (Frankly “tabloidism” can be treated as a religion for all practical purposes.)

The problem is, though, that if you have a large majority of one religion, it stands to reason that any candidate for government office would do well to make a big deal of subscribing to that faith. If they say things like “my religion guides my values and my values guide my politics” then he’ll do well in an election because he’s playing to something that’s seen as very important by the majority of the electorate — lowest-common-denominator again — but he’s just promised to act totally unsecularly. (That’s a word. Don’t say it isn’t.) And you end up living in a theocracy, no matter how secular the values enshrined in your law may be. You only have to look to America to see how strong this effect is. That Ghannoushi refers to this as “the neutral soft secularism of the United States” baffles me.

But what can you do? You can’t simply not tell the electorate what religion the candidates are; that would never even nearly work, and in any case it wouldn’t stop a candidate championing the teachings of their religion explicitly. You can’t demand that only atheists stand for office (or only atheists vote); again it’s unenforceable (unless perhaps you make the ballot out of ham) and it’s not exactly liberal. You can’t expect religious people, either government or voters, to set their faiths aside when making decisions, because it’s too big a part of who they are.

The problem isn’t secularism; the problem is that the religion exists in the first place. You can’t justly govern lunatics without recourse to the sane, and in a population 99% Islamic, you really have no baseline level of sanity to refer back to. Don’t get me wrong, in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society like Britain religion is mostly harmless and I think any attempt to stamp it out would fail and end up doing far more harm than good. The issue, though, is that if one of the many religions present in a society is somehow ‘fitter’ than the others, it will prosper. It’s easy to imagine a large majority of Muslims or Evangelical Christians establishing itself in such a society, feeding off the good-will towards faith that the other religions have fostered.

I believe that the only solution to this problem is to make sure that children are not indoctrinated with dogma. By all means they can be taught the various customs and traditions of their parents’ religion. But threats of eternal damnation or literal Earthly punishment, for breaking stupid and arbitrary rules are not okay. Of course we can’t legislate how parents raise children. (I have no particular ethical problem with that — it just wouldn’t work.) But we can grant them all the fundamental human right to an objective, neutral and secular education. With that in place, there’s not much parents can do to stop their children becoming tolerant and balanced members of society.

Religious parents will object to this, of course. Some non-religious ones will as well. They will say that they have a fundamental human right to raise their child any way they like. I say no. I say they don’t have the right to fuck up a child’s mind any more than they have the right to fuck up the child’s body. You can very easily totally ruin someone’s life before it’s even begun if you teach them to live in an imaginary version of the real world. They grow up and experience agonising dilemmas caused by a conflict between what they want and care about and some made-up rule implanted by their parents when they were small. I’ve seen it happen. But I think that children’s rights must always trump parents’ rights because they are in every way more vulnerable (although since parents can vote and children can’t this isn’t perhaps a view shared by everyone in government). So give them a decent secular education and I think they will, in the vast majority of cases, grow up to be balanced, liberal, tolerant people — even if they do still pay mostly-harmless lip-service to their faith. They’ll be a people who can be justly governed by democracy without religion taking over. Is that “crude interventionism”? Maybe. But I think it’s a good goal and a practical and fair means by which to achieve it.

See, Odone? I’ll see your choice of “faith schools or terrorism”, and I’ll raise you a choice of “secular education or Sharia law”. They’re both false dilemmas, of course, but I’d rather live in a secular democracy that gets bombed periodically than the peace that comes with the brutality of Sharia.