United Academics Magazine Oct. 2011 by United Academics

MURDER BY NUMBERS cold war & game theory INTERVIEW AL BARTLETT Stop reproducing, please

APOCALYPSE NOT 1

Credits

Editor-in-Chief Anouk Vleugels Executive Editor Mark Fonseca Rendeiro Editorial Wouter van Cleef Simon Verwer Daphne Wiersema Danielle Wiersema Design Michelle Halcomb Advertisement Send an e-mail to advertising @united-academics.org Questions and suggestions Send an e-mail to redactie @united-academics.org Address Warmoesstraat 149, 1012 JC Amsterdam Website www.united-academics.org 2

EDITORIAL

Camping has had enough. The 21st of October did not hold the Universe’s destruction by God. Again. So after more than three decades of falsely predicted judgement days, Harold Camping decided to throw in the towel. Last year, 90-year-old Harold Camping said that on May 21, 2011, Jesus Christ would return to Earth. The righteous would then go straight to heaven, while the rest of us would have to endure five months of fire, brimstone and plagues. Those who would survive still had Judgement Day to look forward to: October 21st . May 21st came and went. No one flew up to heaven. No one got trapped in eternal hell fire. Harold Camping was a bit confused. So were Family Radio’s listeners. Did he miscalculate? No, the numbers were correct. After careful consideration, he decided that it had something to do with God and his mysterious ways. The Lord probably did not want his people to suffer for five months, so he would just take them out in one go, Harold Camping

told the audience. And that would definitely, maybe, happen on October 21st. As the date was approaching, Harold Camping began to feel a bit anxious. What if he was wrong again? To tone things down a bit, Harold Camping warned that “the end was going to come very, very quietly.” It was the last time we would ever hear from him. But when the big day arrived, Harold Camping still barricaded his front door. To keep both Satan and the gloating reporters out. And very, very quietly, Armageddon did come. So quietly, that you might not have even noticed it. Anouk Vleugels, Editor-in-Chief

INTERVIEW ALBERT BARTLETT “ It’s politically incorrect to talk about overpopulation”

TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB

Cold war & Game Theory

10 ROADS TO HUMAN EXTINCTION

SHARE YOUR SCIENCE Hellas Reborn

SEAPOCALYPSE

Fish Trouble

Book & Review

Remarkable Research

B 5

M A LT H U S I A N M I S E R Y Forget supervolcanoes and megatsunamis, when Armageddon hits, it’ll have nothing to do with the whims of nature, but rather with our own unbridled urge to reproduce. From a mathematics point of view the answer is clear: we should stop having so many babies. If we don’t, we will run out of everything by 2050.

is not a new idea. And its most important advocate is not that new either. Emeritus Professor of Physics Albert Bartlett (1923) has been lecturing various audiences on the subject of overpopulation since 1969. In his talk ‘Arithmetic, Population and En-

ergy,’ he explains how the arithmetic of steady, exponential growth results in enormous numbers in a modest period of time. Apply that to population growth and you’ll get the message: we will outgrow our natural resources someday soon. So,when will the Apocalypse come knocking on our doorstep? Earlier than you might expect. In the 1972 book Limits to Growth, a model of the world economy was made to see how things like population growth, food supplies, pollution and energy would interact over time. The researchers started their graphs in the year 1900 and ended them in 2100. No matter how they adjusted the parameters, everything collapsed in the middle of this century. Only one scenario resulted positively, which involves adopting an immediate two children per family policy, leading to a significant reduction in energy consumption per capita. So in order to survive, the reduction of the world population is essential. But try telling that to the public. “Today, it is politically incorrect to talk about overpopulation.”

www.adriankenyon.com

Sustainable growth, when applied to material things, is an oxymoron. Could you explain why? “Here’s the problem: when we talk about ‘sustainable,’ we mean ‘for an unspecified long period of time.’ Next, we must acknowledge the mathematical fact that steady growth (a fixed percent per year) gives very large numbers in modest periods of time. For example, a population of 10.000 people growing at 7% per year, will become a population of 10.000.000 people in just 100 years. From these two statements we can see that the term ‘sustainable growth’ implies ‘increasing endlessly.’ But the finite size of resources, ecosystems, the environment, and the Earth, makes it impossible for a material quantity to grow endlessly.”

Albert A. Bartlett is Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Physics at Colorado University at Boulder. He has been a member of the faculty at the University of Colorado since 1950. He was President of the American Association of Physics Teachers in 1978 and in 1981 he received their Robert A. Millikan Award for his outstanding scholarly contributions to physics education.

Obviously, this also covers population growth. Why don’t we all know that? “Because although many people understand arithmetic, they don’t apply it to everyday situations. An example: years ago, when I was giving my talk somewhere, a man came up to me and introduced himself as a banker. ‘This arithmetic you’re talking about’, he said, ‘is the same as compound interest, isn’t it?’ So I told him yes. ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘I knew it applied to dollars, but I didn’t know it also applied to people.’ Well, it does.’” People just don’t want to hear about population growth? “Apparently not. Today, it is politically incorrect to talk about overpopulation. Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth for instance, that was released simultaneously with the movie, starts by addressing the problem of overpopulation and its effects. But the last chapter, ‘36 things you can do to reduce global warming’ only mentions standard

things as ‘buy more efficient light bulbs.’ Nothing on how to reduce population growth. I thought that was very disappointing.” Which solutions should it have addressed in your opinion? “How to educate people on family planning. We should do this worldwide, so that every child born is a wanted child. If we could reduce the birth rate to 2.1 children per woman, the population would be stable. But according to global agricultural scientist David Pimentel, the world’s carrying capacity is approximately around two billion people. So in order to get there, the world population has to decline. Therefore a negative birth rate (less than 2.1 children per woman) would be best.” That’s the case in most European countries right now, which causes the problem of population ageing. “That’s the downside, yes. But having a declining population is the only way towards more sustainability in the long run, so which one would you prefer? It pains me that European prime ministers urge their citizens to get back into production, claiming it’s necessary. It’s not.” Did China come up with a better solution by establishing an one-child policy? “Well, when the Chinese instituted that policy 30 years ago, they justified it by saying that population growth interferes with economic development. And as it turned out, they were right. If a nation has to spend all its resources to accommodate the growing population, there’s no energy, time and money left to build better lives for the people. Unfortunately, we haven’t learned that yet.” So should we all institute a similar policy? “No, because a coercive policy like that doesn’t work in democratic societies. That’s why education is our only option.”

Most countries depend on current- or future - technological solutions to cope with scarcities. Do you believe technology could help save the planet? “No, because most of these solutions are being proposed, without knowing what the long term effects will be. Some geo-engineers for example, have now proposed to release sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere, in order to reflect out the sunlight and therefore reduce global warming. But we have no idea what could happen if we do. Journalist Eric Sevareid once said: ‘the main source of problems is solutions.’ And that’s very true. We try to come up with all sorts of technological solutions for our problems, instead of focusing on what caused these problems in the first place.” According to your own statistics, you’ve been giving your lecture once every 8,5 days for 41 years now. Aren’t you tired of it? “No, not yet. I feel like an evangelist, trying to convert the heathens. But it’s hard sometimes. I try to sound optimistic in the hope that education can do the job, but as I watch politicians ignore the facts, I become more and more pessimistic. I don’t know any political leaders who understand the problem.” Will we reach zero population growth one day? “Oh yes, definitely. Human life cannot sustain without necessary resources like space, water and food. So at some point, population growth has to stop. That means that either birth rates have to drop, or death rates have to rise. The question is: will we wait and let nature run its course, and see the riseof another epidemic like AIDS or The Plague, or take care of it ourselves and limit our births? I hope it’s the latter.”

BY ANOUK VLEUGELS 9

B TO BOMB or NOT TO BOMB

IT’S A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ON SOCIAL SCIENTISTS’ MINDS FORAGES: WHY DON’T WE JUST ALWAYS ATTACK THE PEOPLE WE FEAR, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO KEEP THE PEACE? This issue was particularly acute during the Cold War. In this tense period, entire continents could 10

have been reduced to rubble at the flick of a button in Moscow or Washington. Even though the world came close to a nuclear encounter on a number of occasions, the Cold War never turned into an allout shooting war. Military strategists and politicians turned to academia to understand strategic situations and find ways out of the nerve-racking status quo. Game theory, a sub discipline of economics and mathematics, provided decision-makers with a useful lens with which to look at world politics. But politics is more than mere calculations. Therefore, compromise and a human touch were equally essential to maintain an armed peace.

John Nash Schizophrenic mathematician John Nash, who was depicted in the 2001 Hollywood blockbuster movie A Beautiful Mind, was one of the most important and colourful game theorists. During the 1950’s game theory was used by some Cold War analysts, but ignored by most other scientists. Today neuroscientists peer into game players brains, anthropologists play games with people from primitive cultures, biologists use games to explain the evolution of human language, and mathematicians exploit games to better understand social networks. John Nash won the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics for pioneering research published in the 1950s on game theory.

Life on the brink Two years after the end of World War II, the world was yet again faced with a new threat. The new rivalry between the communist Soviet Union and the free-market oriented United States and their respective allies, became the dominant theme in world politics. Mutual distrust, expansionist intentions, and a massive arms build-up prevented world peace from becoming a reality, despite the establishment of the United Nations. Both the US and the Soviets rapidly developed a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. The two adversaries kept each other –and the European continent caught in between– at permanent gunpoint. Neither side could afford to be seen as weaker than the other. This resulted in a decades-long nuclear weapons race. To peace advocates this dynamic of ever increasing nuclear arms stockpiles was considered insane and revolting. But their opposition failed to turn politicians around; Moscow and Washington understood they had to maintain a balance of power. Without the perceived equal capabilities to wreak devastation onto the enemy, war would be inevitable. This balance of power was essential to global security, but it was also fundamentally unstable. Slight misunderstandings over the other’s intentions could frustrate the fragile equilibrium, sending political tensions sky-high. As presidents and

generals struggled to work with this complicated strategic situation, they turned to a new branch of science to analyse global politics. Game theory, an academic discipline combining insights from economics, sociology and mathematics, which became very popular in those dark days of the Cold War. Newly-developed scientific insights provided decision makers the tools to understand this political predicament. Serious gaming To understand the ongoing insecurity of life in a world dominated by a high-stakes game, the Pentagon asked top-level researchers to analyse this deadly embrace. Academics simulated both sides’ options. Game theory notions helped develop a model that described the strategic situation. It presented politicians with a framework for understanding and forecasting the actions of their counterparts. As game theory featured prominently in public discourse, math became an almost military doctrine. Since game theory presents a simplified version of reality, models require basic assumptions. First, players in ‘the game’ act rationally in pursuit of their goals, i.e. they aim for best the possible results for themselves. Whether the players can communicate or not is irrelevant, even when they talk - as Soviets and Americans did - one player can trick the other. Thus, mutual trust trumps

talking. Furthermore, the games players rely on the principle that no other actor can influence decisionmaking, so they are free to act according to their own preferences. In Cold War terms, this means that the Soviets and the Americans both competed for dominance, with no global policeman able to enforce binding rules on them. Two strategic situations during the Cold War illustrate how game theoretical reasoning brought us close to the brink, but never pushed us to a nuclear doomsday. Stuck in a matrix The nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviets is an example of what game theorists call a prisoner’s dilemma game. Two wholly independent players can either choose to cooperate, or defect in a strategic situation with each other. In a prisoner’s dilemma, two rational players would opt to defect, with negative consequences for both players. When applied to Cold War politics, the dynamics of the prisoner’s dilemma would be much more disastrous. In the classic scenario, two bank robbers are arrested and separately interrogated. The police have insufficient information for a conviction. Therefore, the two criminals are offered the same deal: if suspect A testifies against his partner suspect B (defects), and B stays mum (cooperates), the betrayer (suspect A) walks free and the co-operator 13

receives a full one-year sentence. If both decide to remain silent, A and B both get a one-month jail term for a minor charge. If A and B both ‘betray’ the other, each receives a three-month sentence. The prisoners individually decide whether to betray the other or to stay silent, there is no communication between them. Suspect A and B understand they have to solve this dilemma: trust the other suspect to work with the other to reduce both jail sentences, or distrust the other so there is a chance to walk-out free. When making up their minds, players use a numerical value to rate each outcome in a pay-off matrix. On the basis of these numbers they choose a rational strategy. In this dilemma, each rational player prefers freedom over one month in prison and three months jail time over one year imprisonment. So both suspects will end up defecting, landing both in jail for three months – a suboptimal outcome. In nuclear politics, Moscow and Washington faced the same dilemma: do we trust the other not to attack us? With a lack of mutual confidence, an instant attack would be the rational strategy for both sides. The Soviets would win (5 imaginary points) if it decided to attack, while the US loses 5 points. However when both parties choose to attack, as this model suggests, both end up with minus 3 points. In this outcome, the USSR and USA will be reduced to rubble with no clear victor and two 14

losers. Paradoxically enough, this never happened. Why? To paraphrase singer-songwriter Sting: because Soviets and Americans loved their children. With both powers capable of avenging an attack with doomsday weapons through a second-strike, the adversaries had to think of the day after nuclear doomsday. If Moscow decided to launch nuclear weapons at the United States on a Monday, America would strike back on Tuesday. The realisation by both sides that they would be entirely obliterated in nuclear war became a deterrent against nuclear attack. American and Soviet political leaders understood: one side’s aggression will cause both parties to go under, thus we are better off not attacking first. Though the number-crunchers sent chills down decisionmaker’s spines, politicians realised they had to look into the future before launching the forces of Armageddon. Cuban chicken Another application of game theoretical models in the Cold War came in a sudden rise in tension during the Kennedy-administration. During the 1962 Cuba crisis, the United States discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, easily within striking distance of US territory. A dramatic distortion of the balance of power, necessitating a tough American response.

Kennedy and Krushchev kept the world on edge for days, both sides’ nuclear forces were on high alert. In essence, the Cuba Crisis resembled a game of chicken. In a classic chicken game, two boys drive their cars towards each other at full speed. They can either choose to be a chicken and swerve, or to drive full-speed ahead. The player who doesn’t swerve, but drives straight on wins. If both players are keen to win, their cars will crash into each other at high speed – both die. Thus, the best individual outcome is not to swerve but hope the other will avoid a crash and chicken out. The chicken will obviously lose face to those watching; an outcome no player can afford. Who would chicken out in Cuba? Should the US attack, or just accept Soviet aggression? If Moscow decided to withdraw its missiles from Cuba, it would chicken out and lose face. But if it kept them in position, the US might attack Soviet installations causing a full-scale nuclear war. An outcome both parties wanted to avoid at all costs. Thus, Kennedy and Krushchev essentially had two options: be a chicken and return to the status quo

to reduce tensions, or continue full-speed ahead risking nuclear war. Kennedy could not merely accept this Soviet escalation. Therefore, America imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, avoiding a reckless armed response and preserving world peace. Moscow understood the severity of the situation and withdrew its nukes from Cuba, after convincing the US to do the same in Turkey. Both sides eventually lost some face, but most importantly nuclear war was avoided. Barely. After the Cuba crisis, Soviet and US leaders understood the world couldn’t afford to allow this level of tension to continue. Communication and trust were essential. Confidence between Moscow

and Washington would remain an illusion for decades, but an open communication line was easily set-up. The infamous ‘hotline’ connected the White House directly to the Kremlin to prevent future tensions from spiralling out of control. Moving away from the brink The rational game played by the Soviets and Americans during the armed peace of the Cold War kept the world relatively safe for half a century. Though phone lines established after the Cuba crisis proved vital in preventing mishaps, the risk of nuclear war only receded when trust between the US and Russia increased. The 1989 the fall of the Berlin Wall heralded a new era – competition made way for cooperation. The dynamics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and Chicken Game had been overthrown. Game theory provided decision-makers with a tool to understand strategic decisions they struggled with. Models like the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Chicken Game were essential to simulate and understand actors’ behaviour. Politicians and generals alike experienced the constraints contained in the matrices when making tough decisions. Escaping from the dynamics of a rational game seemed almost impossible. Though the rational models were an important tool for policy analysis, they had limited predictive value. The strength of game theoretical models –the reduction of complex situations to easily understandable numbers and matrices– also proved its weakness. Overly rigid rational models denied human factors like the ability to come to a painful comprise to save the planet for another day. Eventually it wasn’t the power of a nuclear explosion, nor the dead-cold numbers of game theory that paved the way for a reduction of nuclear arms. Basic psychology – an increase in trust, a feeling of mutual confidence that can hardly be found in numbers – had the real power to move the world away from a nuclear doomsday.

BY WOUTER VAN CLEEF 15

STRANGELETS During the construction of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in 2003, physicists suggested that it could create a ‘strangelet’; a hypothetical microscopic lump of ‘strange matter’ containing almost equal numbers of particles called up, down and strange quarks. This Midas-material converts everything it touches into hyperdense strange matter, which will rapidly shrink the planet until it’s about a 100 meters wide. However, strangelets were never formed. But what about the more powerful LHC that is being built today? Again, we have nothing to fear. Models indicate that strangelets are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures. Since the LHC’s proton beams produce ‘hotter’ events than the RHIC, it is again extremely unlikely that strangelets will be formed. 16

TO H IT’S THE END

MEGATSNUNAMI A megatsunami is exactly what you think it is: an extremely big tsunami. Experts say that a massive landslide on a volcanic island will most likely be the future cause of a megatsunami. The size and power of a wave generated by such means could produce devastating effects, travelling across oceans and inundating up to 25 kilometres inland from the coast. Fortunately, the geological record suggests that megatsunamis are rare: the most recent one, which is known to have had a widespread impact which reshaped an entire coastline, occurred approximately 4,000 years ago on RĂŠunion island, to the east of Madagascar.

TEN ROADS HUMAN EXTINCTION OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. OR IS IT? LETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S EXPLORE SOME OPTIONS.

SOLAR STORMS A solar flare occurs when magnetic energy that has built up in the solar atmosphere is suddenly released. Solar activity works on an 11 year-cycle, with solar flares and eruptions occurring hundreds of times throughout the cycle. Most of them are harmless to us. However, occasionally the sun sends highly magnetized atomic particles (plasma) towards the Earth. The resulting solar storm could cause a geomagnetic storm, knocking out electricity grids around the world for hours, days, or even months, sending our high-tech society back to the 18th century. No preservation of food, no heating and no Angry Birds.

NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST The possibility of nuclear warfare has haunted humanity for more than 60 years now. And it still isn’t as far-fetched as one might think. Nine countries are believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, including some ‘unstable’ regimes, such as Pakistan and North Korea. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are not what they used to be. The Hiroshima bomb, that basically incinerated the whole city, exploded with a force of about 13,000 tons of TNT. A modern thermonuclear weapon is almost a 1,000 times as powerful, meaning that in comparison, it would kill 66 million people at once. To get a better the idea of what this means: that’s almost the entire population of France. 19

GREY GOO Almost every new technology evokes some kind of end-of-the-world scenario. In case of nanotechnology, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;grey goo,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; means trouble. How? In the future, we will use nanobots, which are the size of molecules, to build things. They will do this by collecting raw material from the natural world (atoms, molecules) and convert it into the building blocks of the desired product. In order to do so, the nanobots would have to reproduce themselves -also using raw material from the natural world- in massive numbers. Grey goo is what would happen if one of the nanobots went crazy and never stopped replicating itself. According to some calculations, it would then take the nanobots only two days to replicate themselves to that extent that they would fill up the entire Earth.

GAMMA-RAY BURSTS Gamma-ray bursts are high-energy beams of radiation that shoot out from the magnetic poles of a star during a supernova explosion. Scientists have speculated that in the past, mass extinctions on Earth may have been caused by GRBs, and if a GRB happened today it could easily wipe humanity from the planet. However, the chances we will experience one are quite limited. A 2009 study shows that a significant gamma-ray burst is likely to go off within range of Earth every billion years or so, provided that a stream of radiation would be lined up just right to affect the planet. To quote one of the study’s authors: “there’s a similar chance I might find a polar bear in my closet in Bowie, Maryland.” 21

COSMIC COLLISIONS We know it happened once before, so it could probably happen again: mass extinction as a result of a collision with a comet or asteroid. Many options have been proposed: Planet X (a hypothetical planet); Nibiru (another hypothetical planet) ; and Elenin (a comet). The first two do not exist. Elenin does, but will stay at a distance of 36 million kilometres. Nothing to worry about. However, a few Russian scientists are warning that asteroid Apophis will hit a gravitational â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;keyholeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that will pull it onto a collision course and hit our planet on April 13, 2036. But rest assured, according to NASA, the chance this will happen is one in 250,000.

ALIEN INVASION Last year, cosmologist Stephen Hawking warned us not to make contact with civilizations outside our world. “If aliens visit us,” Hawking said, “the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.” Although Hawking’s theory is not supported by most of his colleagues, many physicists do seriously consider the possibility of extra terrestrial life. The invasion scenario is less plausible, however. If aliens would be interested in our natural resources, why didn’t they exploit them already? If they do invade, physicist Michio Kaku says it would be a “Bambi vs. Godzilla battle.” “Hollywood always shows Aliens who are about a hundred years more advanced than we are. In reality, it would be more plausible that they would be millions or billions of years more advanced, In that case, we couldn’t even conceive of their technology.”

SUPERVOLCANOES There is no strict definition of a supervolcano, but they are larger and much more powerful than the eruptions that we know from recorded history. A supervolcano spits out more than a thousand cubic kilometers of material such as ash, rocks and magma, which can effect the atmosphere for decades. When sunlight gets blocked for an extended period of time, a ‘nuclear winter’ sets in. Results can include drought, famine, and even the occurrence of a mini Ice Age. And it gets worse: some super volcanoes are basically ready to burst at any moment. The one underneath America’s Yellowstone park, for example, is way overdue: scientists believe it erupts once every 600.000 years. Last time it erupted was 640.000 years ago.

GLOBAL PANDEMIC With viruses such as influenza mutating all the time, it is not unlikely that a new pandemic will appear within the next couple of decades. Last century there were three pandemics. The worst one, the 1918-20 Spanish flu, killed around 40 million peoplemore than the first world war. There is no regular cycle governing pandemics, but the long gap since the last one is making experts jumpy. And since the last epidemic in 1968, air travel has become more common, making it possible for a pandemic virus to spread around the globe more quickly. The global economy would shut down, international vaccine supplies and health-care systems would be overwhelmed, and panic would reign.

1 1

IN “SHARE YOU SCIENCE”, WE PUBLISH YOUR RESEARCH. THIS MONTH:

HELLAS REBORN Although Greece may be at the outskirts of Europe’s geographical border, it’s at the very heart of its cultural identity. In this short article I want to focus attention on the fascinating historical and problematic background of modern Greece, one which resonates strongly in the debate concerning the Greek debt crisis. This article is not about good or bad, right or wrong. My main point is that the Greek attitude towards institutions like the EU, IMF and the World Bank, could be better under26

stood by paying attention to the complex, historical relationship between Europe and Greece. Lazy, corrupt and uncivil Modern Greece is a young country with a very old soul. Its formation was part of a wide range of new nation-states that established themselves during the first decades of the 19th century. Before becoming a proper state, the Greek speaking population was part of the Ottoman empire for centuries, due the Great Schism in the 11th century. As part

of the so-called millet system which was based on religion, most Greeks were part of the Orthodox community. Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire Greeks were seen as inferior, lazy and unreliable in trade by their British, German and French counterparts. As a Scottish traveller wrote about the Greekspeaking habitants he met during his voyage in his notebook around 1609: â&#x20AC;&#x153;They are wholly degenerate from their ancestors in valour, virtue and learning. Universities they have none and civil behaviour is quite lost: formerly in derision they termed all other Nations Barbarians: a name now most fit for themselves, being the greatest dissembling liars, inconstant, uncivil people of all other Christians in the world.â&#x20AC;?

This negative national image was widely spread for several centuries but started to shift during the 17th century, also known as the Enlightenment. Greek regeneration Although more and more attention was directed to Ancient Greece during the Renaissance, it was mostly during the Enlightenment that the described negative national image of modern Greece began to shift, leading up to a true philhellenistic movement. Philhellenism, which literally means The Love of Greek Culture, was an intellectual and political ideology held by Europeans at the turn of the 19th century. The Philhellenes were sympathetic to the Greek people and many of them felt strongly connected to the destiny of their spiritual counterparts. This change was mainly due to two related 27

Another Athens shall arise, And to remoter time Bequeath, like sunset to the skies, The splendour of its prime; And leave, if naught so bright may live, All earth can take or Heaven can give

Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1822)

developments in the history of ideas during the 18th century. First of all the natural, God-given status quo was no longer seen as a fact but open for change and improvement. The French philosopher Helvétius wrote: “La position physique de la Grèce est toujours la même: pourquoi les Grecs d’aujourd ‘hui sont-ils si différents des Grecs d’autrefois? C’est que la forme de leur gouvernement a changé.” [the geographical position of Greece has always been the same: why are the Greeks of our age so different then the Greeks from other times? It’s because the form of their government has changed.] Secondly, the idea of the nation as the defining political community became popular. Nation-formation was a broader historical development but Greece had something special. As one historian wrote: “during the Enlightenment era, the philosophers saw history as the unravelling of human progress. Within this framework, the ancient Greeks were looked upon as ‘fathers’ of civilisation. Reason, philosophy, and freedom to shape one’s personal destiny were the central future of ancient Greek culture. “ Could Hellas be Reborn? Hence, with an idealised, nostalgic image of Hellas in their minds, the classically schooled French and Germans up North came to believe that the poor state of the Greeks could be reversed. They openly dreamed about a renewed Greek polis with all the virtues of classical civilisation. Within this respect, an anonymous traveller wrote in his journal around the start of the 19th century: “The Greek character, at the present moment, is unjustly said to be innately bad; it is rather like a tract of rich uncultivated land, where numbers of noxious weeds shed their baneful influence on all around, owing their destructive luxuriance even to the excellence of the soil which they injure. Greece has never been well governed. “

This idea of change – or improvement - was firmly stated by philosophers and poets and was adapted by Greek expatriates, part of an intellectual elite who lived in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna. New ideas on politics and authority were thus transferred via a Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment from mostly France into the Greek peninsula via the minds of young, well-educated Greeks. Moisiodax (c.1725 - 1800), Feraios (1757 - 1798) and Korais (1748 - 1833) all contributed in one way or another. In many historiographies, this development eventually lead to the Greek war of independence (1821 – 1830). The War on Greek independence When the War of Greek Independence started, sympathy and ideology became stronger than ever before. The war became a symbol for Europe’s main essence which was Civilisation. Well-educated men from all parts of Europe could not wait to enter the battle and liberate Greece. The issue was breaking news, not in the least because of the interference of the major European powers (Russia, UK and France). In 1822 independence was declared as a symbolic act. There was no such thing as a central state organisation or leadership. A great number of rivalries and rebellions followed, while throughout the decade the Ottomans remained generally in control. In 1824 international attention was attracted to the issue by Eugene Delacroix, who’s painting Le Massacre de Chios was showed at a Gallery in Paris. Atrocities were committed by both sides but this powerful visualisation of Ottoman soldiers slaughtering Greek civilians made Europeans declare their solidarity and demand similar declarations from their governments. Other big confrontations followed – e.g. in Missolonghi – as opposition forces were supported by so called ‘sympathy committees’ which sent money and materials from North-West European cities. As this went on, pressure on governments grew stronger and, mostly due to internal affairs, the European powers decided to get involved actively. The Treaty of London was signed by Russia, UK and France on July 6, 1827 and naval forces were 29

Paintings explained

Simon Verwer studied Philosophy, European Studies and French Language & Culture in Amsterdam and Paris. He was a participant of Teach First (Eerst de Klas) and works in education and business. Read Simon’s thesis here.

sent to the Pelopennese, at first only to impress the Ottomans. However, due to a misinterpretation of an exercise around Navarino, war erupted earlier than planned and the Ottomans were swept away. The Greek kingdom was born in 1830. The power of ideology Despite the heroic description of a one-sided victory of enlightenment over darkness, there is much more to this story. The Greek War of Independence was most of all an issue of Realpolitik during the Restoration period where power had to be divided between the Holy Alliance members. The other side of the story, which been forgotten most of the time for obvious reasons, is most relevant to the current day situation in Greece. In this last part of the article, I’ll explain why and make the connection to the current situation. At the beginning of the 19th century, life in what we today call Greece was basic, rural and the large majority of people were illiterate. The main oppositional force during the war were the Klephts, bandits who lived in the mountains whom were much more busy gaining personal wealth than any well-defined political cause. The discourse that was surrounding the rise of an autonomous Greek 30

1. Thomas Phillips, Lord Byron in Albanian dress (1835) 2. Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix, The Massacre at Chios (1824) 3. Theodoros Vryzakis, The Bishop of Old Patras Germanos Blesses the Flag of Revolution, 1865 (1852) 4. Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix, Combat of the Giaour and the Pasha (1827) 5. Theodoros Vryzakis, Greece personified as a woman, with revolutionaries who participated in the Greek War of Independence (1858)

community, however, was that of European Philhellenism Evidence describing the gap between the romantic image of Greece and the harsh reality of Mediterranean life in that period originates from European sources. For example, in 1822, the second year of the war, many young idealists wandered around port cities of France like Marseille, waiting for an opportunity to travel by boat and fight. Many would die, not used to such harsh conditions, among them the famous poet Lord Byron. Those who did survive would often end up disillusioned. As one of those ideologically motivated young men, Prussian officer L. de Bolleman, stated in a notice in 1822: “Jeunesse Européenne, les grecs d’autrefois n’existent plus; l’aveugle ignorance a succédé à Solon, à Socrate, à Démosthène, et la barbarie a remplacé les sages loix d’Athènes.” “Youth of Europe, the Greek of ancient times do not exist any longer: blind ignorance has succeeded, to Solon, to Socrates, to Demosthenes, and the barbarian has replaced the sacred laws of Athens”]

CARTOON BY CAPATTE / PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

Understanding Greek resistance What we can learn from history is that the national image of Greece has always been defined by the North on its own terms, mostly on the basis of Greece’s unique position in European history. I believe that this is one (emotional) source of resistance which we can be observed in the streets of Athens today. In this respect, cultural analyst Stathis Gourgouris in his book Dream nation: enlightenment, colonization, and the institution of modern Greece has powerfully written about the colonisation of the modern national image of Greece by Europe. He writes: “Since Philhellenism never quite surrendered its idealist colonisation of ancient traces, the nativists attempts to articulate an independent national-cultural discourse, themselves inexorably given over 32

to ancestral belief, never succeeded in disengaging the internalized circuit of Philhellenic Desire.” What we see today is felt by some Greeks as a second war of independence. Maybe, the mass resistance of the Greek people today towards institutions like the EU, IMF and the World Bank, could be better understood by paying attention to the complex, historical relationship between Europe and Greece. In many media, Greek civilians have referred to the Troika as colonisers, removing their autonmy and independence for the benefit of these financial situations. Although at first this comment may sound absurd, it makes more sense when understood within this historical and ideological context. Because it may well be that their “disgraceful reaction” to the aid from the Troika originates from old memories, in which its cultural identity is once again defined by ‘the other’.

Finally. Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve finished your thesis, received your degree and ... your work disappears on a shelf somewhere. Was it all a waste of time?

NO.

United Academics Magazine brings it back to life. Your thesis in our magazine? Contact us. 33

seapocalypse 34

The research debate over the state of our ocean ecosystem and fisheries is not a pleasant one. Is a massive fisheries collapse eminent? In 2006 many researchers and respected institutions presented research and predicted the worst. The United Nations, renowned Fisheries Researchers, and even Prince Charles got on board and warned the world that unless radical changes were adopted, our oceans would be doomed. Since then came the technical and conceptual critiques from within the science community. Climate change skeptics and anti-conservation groups smell blood in the water. 35

IIn the 2006 article ‘Impacts of biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services,’ Marine Biologist Boris Worm and colleagues warned that if trends in global fishing and ocean related activities were to continue, we would soon see the major collapse of fisheries, which would have profound effects on people throughout the world. The disappearance of many marine species, means there would not be enough food for ever growing coastal populations. Such a collapse would also make the idea of recovery untenable; forget being able to restore the ocean ecosystem. Many non-governmental organizations, international media, and leaders throughout the world took note of these warnings, which would become the smoking gun in the case for reforming fishing policies. The problem was unrestrained over-fishing and the depletion of numerous types of marine life. The aforementioned researchers, at the conclusion of their article, recommended adopting “sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and the creation of marine reserves,” in order to avoid the looming global disaster for the world’s oceans (Worm 2006). A recommendation that was echoed two years later by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in a report entitled ‘In Dead Water’(Nelleman 2008). In it they focused on the effects of climate change which had further added to the breakdown of the ocean ecosystem caused by over-fishing and pollution. Since the publication of research showing an eminent and massive crisis if no major changes occur in the commercial fishing sector and governmental policies, numerous critiques of that research have also come forward. Their loudest grievance is with how data has been used to bring this issue to the forefront. One recent article, “Apocalypse in World Fisheries? The Reports of their Death Are Greatly Exaggerated,” aims to show how such research has been both “conceptually and technically” flawed (Daan 2011). That is not to say that unsustainable fishing practices aren’t a problem, but rather, as the title suggests, as researcher Niels Daan explains, “we did not state in our article that the situation in the world fisheries is not to worry 36

about. There is overexploitation and many stocks have collapsed. We only degraded a method used to convince the public that an apocalypse is imminent.” The method Daan is talking about is an algorithm that researchers have used that results in the total collapse of global fisheries (Pauly 2009). Along with his colleagues, Daan shows that this algorithm is flawed as it cannot, for example, identify improvements in fishing stocks which have been made by nations adopting a smaller catch policy. “Interestingly, the algorithm does not allow for any improvement through management actions. Even when the international fisheries would be completely forbidden (no catches), the algorithm would say that all stocks would be collapsed.” So while the criticism by fellow researchers of studies that point to an ocean apocalypse is not suggesting that there is no major problem that requires action, groups that wish to halt the push for sustainable fishing and environmental protection have sought to make use of them. Criticism of an algorithm to them has turned into their own proclaimed smoking gun that all the fuss about fishing is mistaken and unnecessary. Or as Daan puts it: “We were thinking of the errors found in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, which did not affect the main conclusions, but which have been used by the climate change skeptics to publicly undermine the procedures.” Representatives of the Commercial Fishing Industry such as the National Fisheries Institute in the United States actively work to publicize any critique of research that points to the mass extinction of marine life. As part of their PR and Lobbying effort they even have a section on their website called “The Truth Squad”, where there is a section dedicated to politely discrediting Boris Worm’s research as “bad science.” They also mention Greenpeace and Oceana as extremist groups with an erroneous message. In 2006 Boris Worm explained to the BBC what he and his colleagues had concluded: “What we’re highlighting is that there is a finite number of stocks; we have gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest.... we’re learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly linked to

each other - probably more so than on land”. Methods and time tables may continue to be disputed and picked apart by scientists, it is, after all, part of their job. Theoretically when evidence consistently points to a major disaster that must be averted in order for people and the planet to survive, this should affect what strategies are adopted by policy makers and the industry. But this is not necessary happening in the halls of government. Needed changes still go unaddressed or under addressed in many parts of the world. New research with any sort of critique of existing research is subject to be used as a tool to justify making to changes to business as usual. But the reality is that even the critical minds of marine life and ocean research are in agreement, sustainable fisheries management is needed because the risk of oceans becoming dead zones is real. The future scenario where people can no longer live off of the products of the sea, where the essential function of the marine ecosystem is damaged beyond repair, is possible without some significant change in the status quo. Yet even with all this evidence and agreement among the experts of this field, research does not always manage to be translated into policy. Limited or lack of political will when it comes to fishing regulations continues from actors who have a major role in global fisheries. Somehow, time and again, politics trumps science as we move ever closer to an ecological point of no return. BY MARK RENDEIRO 37

REMARKABLERESEARCH PSYCHOLOGY

MEN ARE FUNNIER THAN WOMEN, SO THEY THINK.

One of the most persistent stereotypes around is that men are funnier than women. The evolutionary explanation to this difference says that men’s humor functions to attract women; funny men attract more women opposed to men who are not endowed with a great sense of humor. In this sense, male humor is similar to a peacock’s tale. However, new research suggests that men are only a tiny bit funnier than women. Moreover, it were the men who thought they were funnier while the difference in ratings of male versus female humor was smaller when women did the ratings. 38

The research was performed by Laura Mickes, an associate professor at US San Diego Psychology Department, and her colleagues. They had 16 female and 16 male participants write the captions for 20 New Yorker cartoons in 45 minutes. Participants were instructed to be as funny as they could. In the second part of the experiment, 34 male and 47 female undergraduate students rated the cartoons. One cartoon image was displayed with two random captions and the students had to decide which one displayed the best sense of humor. The process was repeated, with new captions each time, until all possible combinations were judged by the audience and only 16 captions remained. These 16 cartoons were then pitted against each other. The number of rounds that a caption survived in these rounds (from 0 to 5) was taken as the score. The captions were anonymous which ensured that participants were unaware of the sex of the author. Over 90% of participants agreed with the stereotype that men are funnier than women. However, this stereotype was almost wholly absent when they rated the captions. Although captions written by men were judged as funnier than those written by females, this difference was only marginal (0.11 on a 5-point scale). Furthermore, this difference was larger in the ratings of male participants (0.16) compared to the female participants (0.6). This implies that men believe their own jokes to be funnier, while women don’t really care whether humor is ‘male’ or ‘female’. When looking at these findings from an evolutionary

perspective, one wonders if making jokes really helps to attract the ladies. There’s one consolation: if a guy fails to humor a woman into bed, he is still able to entertain his friends.

HEALTH NEW PHENOMENON IN STUDENTS: DRUNKOREXIA

It is well-known that students consume a lot of alcohol. According to the Core Institute, 73% of US students drank alcohol on a regular basis in 2010. Furthermore, 25% of young adults (18-34 years) binge drink (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Binge drinking is more common among men (21%) than women (10%). As a result, many attention has been given to alcohol consumption in prevention programs. While the risks of drinking too much are known to most students, new research suggests that it is the combination of heavy drinking and restricted calorie intake that is most dangerous. Like alcohol misuse, eating disorders are quite common amongst teenagers

and students. The combination of eating disorders such as anorexia, and heavy alcohol consumption –termed ‘drunkorexia’- has destructive long-term health effects. While most health information targets alcohol consumption and eating behavior separately, this research suggests that health advocates should focus on the combination of the two behaviors. The research was performed by Victoria Osborne, assistant professor of Social Work and Public Health at the University of Missouri. She found that 16 % of the participants she studied reported to restrict eating in order to ‘save calories’ for drinking. The motivations they had for this behavior were ‘preventing weight gain’, ‘saving money’ (which could be spent on buying alcoholic beverages later on) and ‘getting intoxicated faster.’ Drunkorexia was three times more frequent among women than men. The combination of restricted eating and alcohol misuse can have dangerous cognitive, physical and behavioral consequences. For instance, by depriving the brain of nutrition and drinking large amounts of alcohol, people run the risk of developing short-term and long-term cognitive problems. These problems include having difficulty in making decisions, studying and concentrating. Besides, people who engage in restricted eating and alcohol misuse also have an enhanced risk for more serious eating disorders and addictive behaviors. Because women metabolize alcohol differently than men, they are more prone to these risks than men. Women can get sick faster when binge drinking than men which can cause damage to their organs. It is important for health promotion programs which target at students to pay attention to the combination of restricted eating and heavy drinking. 39

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND RELIGION COMPUTER DETERMINES NUMBER OF AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE

Scholars have been trying to find out who wrote the holy books (Bible, Torah, Koran) for ages. They suspect that a book such as the bible was not written by one author, but that many authors contributed to it. While researching the holy books and their authors, until now the focus has always been on content-analysis. For instance, in this method passages on law are attributed to a different source than passages on holy rituals. However, professor Nachum Dershowitz of Tel Aviv University’s Blavatnik School of Computer Science and his colleagues have taken a wholly different approach to find out how many authors contributed 40

to these holy books. Instead of analyzing the books themselves, they let the computer decide on how many sources the Torah was based. The problem with content-analysis, which focuses on genre or subject, is that it is subjective. The person who analyses has to decide. Another means to identify different contributors, is by looking at the writing style. Indeed, irrespective of content every author has its own unique style. This could be a preference for certain words (for example, preferring the word ‘investigating’ over ‘looking into’), a preference for certain type of words (such as the frequency of using ‘function’ words or synonyms). These characteristics of a writer are very hard to register with the eye because they are often very subtle. However, a computer algorithm could do the work a lot faster and – when the algorithm is right - more accurate. Furthermore, by focusing on writing style instead of content, the researchers have added a new way to identify different authors. Dershowitz and colleagues wrote an algorithm and tested it by scrambling passages from the two Hebrew books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and asking the computer to separate them. The computer was able to sort the passages with a 99% accuracy. The algorithm was able to categorize by synonym preference, the usage of common words, and to distinguish ‘priesty’ materials (those dealing with issues such as religious rituals) and ‘non-priesty’ passages. Unfortunately, the algorithm is not advanced enough to tell us exactly how many authors contributed to the Bible. However, it does well in identifying transition points where there probably was a transition of one author to another. This will help scientists to count the number of contributors.

CALL FOR ARTICLES BIOGRAPHIES & BOOK REVIEWS January 2012: ‘Integration, Assimilation and Cooperation’

UAJSS is a refereed online journal which publishes new research by postgraduate and post-doctoral academics. Deadline: 5th of January 2012 See our journal for submission guidelines Email: elke.weesjes@ unitedacademics.org

www.united-academics.org 41

BOOK & REVIEW The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Steven Pinker

With violent uprisings in the Middle East, a massacre in Norway and riots in the streets of London it might be difficult to believe that our current age is probably the most peaceful time in the history of man. In his latest book ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined’ Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and two-time Pulitzer finalist, offers a refreshingly positive outlook on the 21st century against the ‘gloom and doom’ of the global media. Pinker has come at his subject from all angles, producing ample evidence for the diminish of violence in over a hundred graphs and maps, arguing that the ‘better angel’ at our shoulder (our conscience) is prevailing over the ‘bad angel’. If we as a species today are morally ‘better’ than our ancestors is an interesting question for sure, with global politics, economic stability, media exposure and human rights movements all working to promote world peace. Slavery has been abolished, child abuse is condemned and the UN are ever watchful with regards to oppression of people. You might not always agree with Pinker’s line of reasoning but this book will definitely challenge the way you think about our society and human nature. GET IT HERE 42

The Swerve: How the World Became Modern

Stephen Greenblatt

‘The Swerve: How the World Became Modern’ is one of those rare books that, however crammed with ideas and stories, continues to fascinate the reader with its entertaining eloquence. The book relates the story of the 15th century monk Poggio Bracciolini who discovered a copy of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things, a radical Roman text. Lucretius beautiful poem describes a dangerous idea: that the universe functions without the aid of gods, that religious fear is damaging to human life, and that matter is made up of very small particles in eternal motion, colliding and swerving in new directions, 2000 years before the atom was discovered. Harvard Professor Steven Greenblatt explores how the dissemination of these ideas through 15th century Europe spurred the Renaissance, inspiring artists such as Botticelli and thinkers such as Giordano Bruno, Gallileo, Freud, Darwin and Einstein. The origin of our Western culture’s foundation, the free questioning of truth, argues Greenblatt, would not exist had it not been for Bracciolini’s discovery. Thus illuminating the rich Renaissance history with a score of surprising and sometimes funny details, this book leaves the reader with an inspired understanding of human civilization and the greatness it can achieve. GET IT HERE

About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang

The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean

In this fascinating and highly accessible book author Adam Frank succeeds in explaining the abstract concept of ‘time’, it’s role in cosmology (the study of the Universe) and the impact ‘time’ has on our lives. The first part of About Time covers the scientific progress in cosmology, which has enabled scientists to peek behind the Big Bang, before the beginning of time and existence, as we know it. Up until now, time has been measured with the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago as starting point. How will the discovery of time before this moment affect our idea of time and history? The second part of the book deals with the changes in human perception of time: from our ancestors measuring time in day/night and seasons, up to the Industrial Revolution with artificial light and working hours and finally our current society in which atomic clocks, gps and e-mail rule our lives and make us feel that there isn’t ‘enough’ time. Now that researchers at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) on 22 September 2011 proved that particles can travel quicker than light, in theory, it would be possible to travel in time. We certainly live in exciting times.

David Abulafia takes us on a journey through the human history of the Mediterranean. Starting with the cave dwellers on Gibraltar, exploring the travels of Odysseus, and following the expansion of the Roman empire and the trails of merchants and pirates, Abulafia celebrates the Great Sea as the ultimate place on earth where people, culture and trade have mixed and flourished. Any differences in language, religion and law have not prevented vigorous interaction between the different societies, albeit it might not always have been friendly. Not surprisingly, the centrally located islands of Sicily, Crete and Cyprus play an important part in this process as they were occupied more often than not by numerous societies. Harbours such as Venice and Alexandria grew rich on trade, thus attracting artists, scholars and scientists. Empires rise and fall, Christians, Muslims and Jews migrate across the sea in search of religious freedom and all the while merchants continue to sail the Great Sea despite the goings-on of the political powers that be. Tinged with humour, a keen eye for details and the human stories of which history is inevitably made up, the nearly 800 pages never cease to grip and evoke a sense of wonder about the tenacity and inventiveness of mankind.

GET IT HERE

Adam Frank

David Abulafia