Are academics environmental hypocrites?

A lot of my friends on social media are academics - mostly scientists - and it sometimes seem they spend more time jetting around the world to conferences or other events than they do in the lecture theatre or undertaking research. I find this odd, as they are, on the whole, also the kind of people who are concerned about the environment. Of course, they will always come up with justifications for these jaunts, but do those excuses really stack up?

As far as I can there are broadly five reasons for flying off to distant parts:

Attending conference lectures/seminars
Poster sessions
The ability to network with other academics
To undertake onsite research (e.g. an astronomer viewing an eclipse, a marine biologist visiting a coral reef, or an archaeological going for a dig)
A free jolly to somewhere exotic

Let's see how each of these stacks up as justification for the massive carbon footprint that goes with being a jet-setting academic.

Attending lectures - Oh, come on. I attended conferences in my youth. You'll get one or two good talks and the rest will be dreary drones where the incompetent speaker reads his or her ludicrously over-crowded Powerpoint slides. Badly. Ridiculously easy to replace with videos/shared Powerpoints.

Poster sessions - I must admit, these didn't really exist to the same extent when I went to conferences, but I have been to a couple, and again, a virtual online poster session could work much better. You could be guaranteed to have interaction with the poster owner via an online conversation, when at the event you often can't get to the popular people to speak to them.

Networking with other academics - For me, this is probably the only justified reason for conferences. Online networking is definitely second-best. However, given environmental concerns, I'd say this is not a good enough reason for all that flying. I network with authors around the world, some of whom I've never met in the flesh, very effectively online. And when we do get a chance to meet up, because someone's in another country anyway, it's a great bonus. There's no reason why academics can't do the same.

Undertaking onsite research - This may seem to be the one there's no getting around. Except it's perfectly possible to do so. Remember, we are undertaking research on Mars without scientists taking trips there. But that's an unfair example. In some cases remote technology is well-established already. Most astronomy observations are remote these days. Is there really any need to to travel to see (say) a partial eclipse? (See illustration - incidentally, I'm not singling out this individual, it's just the first Facebook post of an academic trip I came across.) In other cases like the archaeology dig or the marine biology you probably do need a human doing the job - but why not let local academics collect the data and work with it remotely? Unless, of course, you hold the view that local academics are not up to your standards - which seems rather worrying. (Of course you could always move to a local university yourself - one-off travel is less of an issue.)

A free jolly - Ahem.

Have I oversimplified things? Certainly. There will always be good reasons for some academic travel. Nonetheless, the majority of current travel is arguably unnecessary and I suspect that most academics don't give enough consideration to the environment when making their travel plans.

This has been a Green Heretic production.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog