Skip to main content

The Future of Geography - Tim Marshall ****

Geography is a strange subject. Parts of it - physical geography - are definitely scientific in nature. The rest - political and social geography is far more removed from anything that could be described as hard science. What Tim Marshall, an expert in foreign affairs, covers here is a strange hybrid - it's all about the political side, but because Marshall is here not considering geopolitics but astropolitics, it has a science and technology aspect. The Future of Geography (Astropolitics in the US) is about the politics that applies in space, and space inevitably comes with plenty of STEM baggage.

The majority of the book is a very effective exploration of how different space-going blocs - notably US, China and Russia, plus significant others like the EU and UK - are likely to take on the potential benefits and risks of space over the next 30 years or so. There is a relatively short consideration of the commercialisation of space (I would have liked a little more on this), but the heart of the book is on the military and governmental attitude to space, both in its ability to contribute to earthbound peace keeping and war - from surveillance to weapons - and also, most dramatically, in conflicts in space.

As Marshall points out, the current treaties on what is allowed in space are vague, contradictory and not universally accepted. He presents a couple of chilling scenarios involving disabling of each other satellites and encroaching on each others' moon bases. This sounds like something straight out of science fiction - and there is probably too much focus on the Moon here, where significant bases may well be another example of space organisations promising more than they can deliver - but especially when considering satellite interactions and attacks, the prospects are chilling. Marshall's writing style is surprisingly light considering the topic. Sometimes this veers into wit, or even whimsy. After mentioning Jeff Bezos's vision of 'giant domed cities' orbiting Earth, Marshall comments 'That's domed, not doomed.' In more whimsical style we get 'If you had a car that could drive through space at 100 km/h it would take 228 years, and many a "Are we there yet?"'

So far, so good - and I do recommend the book strongly because of this main part. The book starts with some history of astronomical and space science, which is perhaps rather too summary give a clear picture (the political machinations around Galileo's trial, for example, are distinctly over-simplified). Similarly at the end there is some speculation about future technologies that doesn't emphasise enough how much ideas such as warp drives, or teleportation of anything more than a handful of particles, are unlikely ever to have any impact on space travel. The reality is, for the purposes of this topic, space is the solar system (certainly as far as the asteroid belt).

Don't let this put you off, though: the central content on the political and military ramifications of space is thought provoking and worrying in equal measures. 

Now in paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on