Skip to main content

Gaia’s Web - Karen Bakker ***

Sadly deceased in 2023, Karen Bakker combined geographical, environmental and technology interests, a crossover that she presented in her last book, Gaia’s Web. The idea here is to make use of the abilities of modern information technology, from machine learning to specialist sensors and satellite data to monitor both the state of the environment and those who are misusing it.

As such there is some fascinating material here. Bakker shows the power of digital eco-surveillance to protect the environment from everything from overfishing to forest fires, but emphasises rightly the accompanying danger that the same technologies can be used for surveillance by states. But Bakker sometimes undermines her own powerful arguments by taking a simplistic academic’s ‘capitalism bad’ approach that fails to recognise that without capitalism we wouldn’t have all this wonderful technology. There’s hypocrisy here. 

This leads to the (highly confusing) sentence: ‘Researchers have raised concerns that some contemporary discourses about conservation conflate security and environmental concerns; in some cases, conservation agencies become use [sic] violent force against people they identify as poachers, counterinsurgents or terrorists.’ It’s not really clear what is being said, but is the argument that taking action against poachers is good, but not against terrorists?

In an effort to remain approachable, some of the text can be oversimplistic to the point of being inaccurate. As something of a fan of Nagel’s famous ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ paper, I am uncomfortable with level of anthropomorphism used in the opening story about orcas. Much of the text is effusive, sometimes leading to hyperbole such as ‘digital trackers are affixed to the tiniest of insects’. Actually it’s only possible with midsized insects. Tiny insects like thunder flies are still far too small as yet.

Topics outside the author’s direct areas of interest can feel under-researched. Sadly, we get one of the most commonly wheeled out incorrect history of science clichés: no, Ada Lovelace did not ‘write the first computer program’. Another frequently used doubtful piece of information, stated as if it were fact, is that ‘ even a handful of Google searches used significant energy - equivalent to boiling a kettle to make a cup of tea’ - but the source is the Daily Telegraph, not the original researcher behind this 2009 story, who didn’t say that, and whose figures are way out of date. (To be fair, Bakker does point to the way IT companies are reducing carbon footprint, though rather spoils this by suggesting it’s just to look good. That has to be part of it, just as it is when academics posture, but most of the IT people I speak to genuinely care for the environment.)

The problems with the book are irritating because Bakker’s message is largely right. There’s a lot that’s interesting in this book, yet it could have been so much better.

Hardback:   
 
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