Take the opening story. It comes across as a typical literary tale in which nothing much happens. Two academics become acquaintances after battling over secondhand book purchases. They share an interest in a book on 'liberty trees' - planted across both revolutionary France and post independence America. The book portrays the trees as a network and Stefano Mancuso points out in an actual forest the tree roots form a connective network and tells us that the trees are a superorganism like ants or bees. This is just throwing a thin sprinkle of facts into a self-indulgent story. It's not popular science. How does this network form? No idea. In a superorganism the individual insects are highly specialised - how do the trees specialise? No mention of this. In a superorganism, the individual insects can't survive alone - surely this isn't really true of trees? Is a forest not more like Facebook than a superorganism? Don't know. This is not science.
The second essay on plants, and particularly trees, in cities was much more effective - there was less of a memoir feel and a bit more science content, though it’s odd that with Mancuso's obsession with tree networks, he pretty much ignores the way IT networks are reducing the importance of cities as places to live. The story gives a strong argument for the wider greening of our urban spaces, particularly in the face of climate change. This is mostly about urban planning rather than any underlying scientific principles, but at least it’s interesting.
Most of the rest of the chapters are more like the second with at least a spot of scientific content, though it's often just a few words. So, for example, in a piece on the wood used in famous ancient violins like a Stradivarius there are maybe two lines on why a particular wood might be unusually good in the role. But the rest is atmospheric woffle. And there's a purely anti-scientific statement that blind testing showing these violins aren't better wasn't right in Mancuso's opinion - the only scientific test mentioned gets dismissed out of hand where it's clearly a case where only double blinding could give useful information.
I've no objection to this sort of book (though it's not one I would usually read), but it just doesn't do what it says on the tin.
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Comments
Post a Comment