Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Jeremy Andrew wrote:
Which reminds me of a comment my son made on the weekend. He told me to vote for Bob Simcock, "cause the other guy's too hairy, and I don't want a hairy mayor".
The age of prophets is not yet passed, Jeremy. I don't want to sound overdramatic, but from my intensive studies of the Bible, I think it's entirely possible that your son could be the Messiah reborn!
I direct you to Genesis 27:11-12:
And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man. My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing."
It seems to me (both from my intensive studies of the Bible, and my many personal experiences with hair) that your son's words are no co-incidence.
-
Bart Janssen wrote:
You are of course getting into chicken and egg discussions about which came first... I think you are probably right but possibly skipping over the issue that several factors have to combine before significant changes occur... I think one factor in development that you're skipping is the development of memory and language. It's one thing to have fire available but it's another to be able to communicate from generation to generation the methods of handling required and the importance of fire.
An interesting argument (as always), Bart.
I was taking hominids with memory (as per other large animals) as a starting point. I'm not actually sure that language was necessary for the use of fire. For example, I understand that there is debate about what degree of language fire-using Homo erectus possessed. One can certainly envisage the use and importance of fire being passed from one generation to the next by imitation rather than spoken language. It's fascinating to speculate whether language led to fire, or fire (through the evolutionary de-emphasis of those league-player skulls) led to language. That would be your chicken-and-egg argument, I guess.
The application of energy released by the burning of plant biomass is, by definition, tool use -- so rudimentary tool use is obviously a critical element in the harnessing of fire -- but beyond that it's difficult to see what would have been possible without fire. It's hard to imagine that Homo sapiens could have spread out of the tropical regions if they didn't have the ability to use fire.
You make a good point about several factors combining to enact significant change. For example, the development of agriculture requires suitable crops and/or animals for domestication; the development of metals requires the right sort of ore to be locally available. But in terms of the human side of the equation (i.e. what humans had to do to exploit the available resources) it's hard to imagine any subsequent important technological development being possible without the 'chain reaction' of energy from fire (and/or one of the other non-food energy sources). The only exception that springs to mind is the ability to 'store' language through writing -- although, in practise, this followed rather than preceded agriculture (which, as you point out, depended on fire -- in fact, it 's been argued that writing first originated from agricultural commerce).
Very interesting about Cassava... I had no idea it was quite so toxic in its raw form. By any chance do you know how it moved from South America to Africa -- another trade good of those cunning Polynesians?
At any rate, I'll be expanding upon the importance-of-energy theme in subsequent episodes...
Charles Mabbett wrote:
I've come to this series a little late but I want to say it's been brilliant so far... The thesis that human civilisational development takes a leap forward when a new energy source is an interesting view. I'd buy that. Seems obvious really.
Glad that it makes sense so far, Charles... (and you're not too late -- still another ten episodes to go!)
It seems obvious to me too, but my historian friends would certainly argue that energy is only one of several important elements (I agree, but would argue that it's the one essential element, of course).
And my economist friends maintain that our current energy sources are no different from mineral resources like copper, etc. They certainly see economic growth as a cause of additional energy usage -- not a consequence.
-
Part two of a twelve-part series looking at energy. This week: Palaeolithic Fire...
NOTE: References, further information, and a complete transcript of this week's episode are available here.
This episode of Public Address Science was originally broadcast on Radio Live, 8th September August 2007, 5 pm - 6 pm.
Public Address Science dedicated RSS feed and story archives.
-
Bart Janssen wrote:
Always presuming he actually did climb that tower?
Bart, I believe you would be termed a radio-presenter-climbs-Skytower denier. It was (ahem) over a year ago, so the first sentence was added in afterwards, but I did it all right (and with measurements -- see graph in transcript).
I refer you to an extract from my diary of that day...
I was slightly disconcerted when Sally (the Skytower manager) asked some detailed questions about my medical history. She finished off by saying: "But I suppose you’ve been training for weeks to do this?"
Me: Um, not exactly... [then to reassure her] but I've climbed stairs before.
The possibility that I might have underestimated the amount of physical fitness required was underscored by Graham -- the chap who was delegated as my minder for the climb -- who asked if I wanted to do stretching exercises beforehand.
Graham looked young and extremely fit, and mentioned casually that he spent an hour at the gym every day. I had unhappy visions of him telling his family about how he took some fat guy up the Skytower, who walked at the rate of a sloth, and died of a heart attack half-way up. And they would all have a big laugh about it.
But, happily, he was a wreck by the end of the climb, and had to go home to recover in bed. And surprisingly –- despite a lifetime of zero physical activity and a pint-a-day habit –- I felt pretty good. So good that I ran up the last three flights of stairs just to see if I could.
-
Deborah wrote:
I'm going to attribute that to my mind being addled by eclipse watching.
Fair enough, dude! My mind was so addled by a screaming baby (so loud that even hardened Plunket nurses cover their ears and go: "Oh my God, that's loud") that, alas, I didn't even manage the eclipse.
By the way, did anyone see the 'Campbell Live' piece on the lunar eclipse -- where the journalist interviewed an astrologer. I believe this is the worst piece of television journalism I have ever seen. It makes me think that death penalty advocates might actually have a point (in the case of TV3 journalists, at any rate).
-
E=mc^2
It's the equation that tells you how much you get if mass is converted into energy (or vice versa). I seem to remember that the mass of the original atomic bomb was one gram less following explosion (i.e. if you gathered together all the bits of exploded bomb and weighed it) -- that gram of mass having been converted into energy.
In other words, you get a very large amount of energy from a very small amount of mass.
[But, actually, I was (jocularly) referring to the definition of energy given in my programme. In which case, you guys fail my listening comprehension test (just kidding).]
-
From the PA Radio discussion thread...
Emma Hart wrote:
I may be shallow, and I am, but I really wanted visuals for this.
Well, I can't help but agree that it would make life a lot easier. Science/engineering is totally visual for me, so it really gives me gyp to try and do it on the radio.
However, bonus visuals are actually available in the transcript.
Andrew Feltoe wrote:
David this is brilliant -- I was reliving my high school physics classes through your podcast. Keep it up and well done.
Dude, if it was anything like my high school physics class -- then my sincere apologies!
... although it does give me an idea for my next programme: "Can anyone remember the definition of energy? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?", etc.
But very glad if it all made sense...
-
Emma Hart wrote:
I may be shallow, and I am, but I really wanted visuals for this.
Well, I can't help but agree that it would make life a lot easier. Science/engineering is totally visual for me, so it really gives me gyp to try and do it on the radio.
However, bonus visuals are actually available in the transcript.
Andrew Feltoe wrote:
I was reliving my high school physics classes through your podcast.
Dude, if it was anything like my high school physics class -- then my sincere apologies!
... although it does give me an idea for my next programme: "Can anyone remember the definition of energy? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?", etc.
But very glad if it all made sense...
-
Part one of a twelve-part series looking at energy. This week: What is Energy, Anyway?...
NOTE: Further information and a complete transcript of this week's episode are available here.
This episode of Public Address Science was originally broadcast on Radio Live, 25th August 2007, 5 pm - 6 pm.
Public Address Science dedicated RSS feed and story archives.
-
Having just got back to PA after a few busy days...
Skinny:
I very much enjoyed your blog. The photo of the West Coast barber's shop is brilliant!
Ian Cousins:
Likewise I enjoyed your account from the other side of the barbers' chair. A sports-free zone would suit me -- I generally focus my conversation on politics and potatoes with Arthur.
Question: Ian... can you shed any light on the NZ barber-as-condom-supplier mystery?