I was again planting forest today and I listen to podcasts while doing that. As a nice follow-up to yesterday, I very much enjoyed this one about ending factory farming for chickens.

Many insights into when it makes sense to antagonize and campaign against the people doing the things you consider bad, versus working with them to improve the situation. In this example, chicken farmers in the US are often stuck in a bad system that they do not approve of themselves, which opens the door for win-win situations.

Overall another great interview by @robertwiblin!

About two thirds done with planting 4000 saplings on 2.5ha of forest area. The colored lines are GPS-tracks of how I walked (a bit incomplete), which is mostly determined by terrain.

Imagine what would happen if we had a magic wand that could solve climate change. Should we wave it?

Apparently, most people answer no. Mark Lynas and Yascha Mounk discuss why. Recommended 45 minutes to listen! Transcript available.

I agree with most of what they say, and like the idea of the new movement of ecomodernism. Finding pragmatic solutions to environmental problems and working on a positive vision of the future make so much more sense than trying to get people to reject the benefits of technological development.

Lynas' story about how he helped banning GMO in Europe and how he now thinks this was a mistake is a harrowing example of doing great harm with good intentions. I get chills when I imagine having to live with that. Luckily, I have never been sure enough about anything to become an activist.

I recently watched Terminator 2 from 1991. Twice. Don't ask. I had almost forgotten how good this one is; one of the rare exceptions of 80-90s action films that hold up really really well. If you haven't seen it in a while, I highly recommend you do.

Just a few of the reasons why it is great:

• Sarah Connor is a total bad-ass. Modern films sometimes pretend female action heroes are a new thing. Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley are prime counter-examples.
  • She is not getting rescued from the mental asylum, she's on the way out by herself when the heroes meet up with her.
  • She is prepared, methodical, needs no extra time to react to crazy situations - a real pro!
  • At the same time she gets to show how broken she is, without weakening her.
  • She's less sentimental than even robot-Arnie in the final scene.
• Her son John is a rare example of a character that is introduced as a spoiled brat but gets to redeem himself. The things one gets to know about his upbringing totally explain him being messed-up. And the late-eighties slang he teaches Arnie is soo quaint!
• Arnie got to to do the same role as in T1, but with a sense of humour and irony this time, which makes it endlessly entertaining - that smile when he finds the mini-gun! Both the interactions with John and the exposition dialogues are written and executed well; there are very few moments to roll your eyes at.
• Robert Patrick as the liquid-metal villain is also fantastic, mastering the cold stare of a machine.
• The action scenes themselves still look great today and they are plenty, but with enough of down-time in between to make them feel intense. The pacing of the film is very good and the story relentlessly presses on.

I am repeating myself, but go watch T2! The first part is worthwhile too, if you feel like it, but I don't like it as much myself. The sequels T3 - ∞ are not worth anyone's time, unfortunately.

I spent most of the day planting trees in the forest and I'll do the same tomorrow. This video (in Swedish) shows how it's done.

Three more YouTube-videos I enjoyed recently:

• xkcd's "Map Projections", animated
• Duct tape space suit
• Robin Hanson discusses his model of grabby aliens with folks from FHI, including Nick Bostrom.

The planting of the forest has begun. 200 down, 3800 to go.

So this is what 4000 saplings look like; I was quite unsure how many boxes this would turn out to be. They were delivered yesterday, in frozen state, and now they have to thaw in the shadow for a few days before the boxes get opened and the seedlings planted as quickly as possible. It looks like there is a rainy week coming up, which should be perfect.

I am as quick in dismissing anything that sounds like a conspiracy theory as anyone. But I also recognize that the perceived consensus is oftentimes just that, perceived.

This is also true for science. While we often claim that everybody tries to disprove everyone else to gain recognition, the reverse is more often true. Going againt the mainstream opinion is costly, it damages reputations and funding; after all it is others in the same field who get to decide what is good science, and what is bad.

Which brings me to this article, which argues that a lab origin of the COVID virus it is not as unlikely as generally believed. The author shows that the pieces that very much shaped the consensus are not very convincing, that virologists know this but have no strong incentives to make this opinion heard. That the lab-origin claim is associated with Trump does not help.

As a layman I have no strong opinion on this, of course. But dismissing any possible origin of the Coronavirus out of hand does not sound right to me. Needs more research!

Is the level of competition among researchers in astronomy dialled in to the right amount? This is a question that came up among collegues yesterday. It was formulated less general, more like "Is there too much competition?"

I think I am not alone in having the gut reaction of answering "of course, it is too much!". I generally avoid competition and don't think I am good at it. In addition though, it is bad taste to admit being competitive and we sure want to appear pleasant to our peers, so how much can we trust the answers to such a question? I don't even have intentional deception in mind here, but the disconnect between the truly-believed positive self-image and actual behaviour.

In any case, there was a little ad-hoc questionnaire sent around and I might as well put my answers here as well, in bold and as comments below.

A small questionnaire on Competition in Science

There is a considerable, and probably strengthened, competition in science today as regards getting jobs, as well as in financing and getting other resources for research projects. Among scientists there are different opinions on the effects of this [... and] I would need some guidance from you as regards this, and therefore I ask you to fill in this questionnaire.

Jobs. The competition in the career for jobs is

• much too tough
• tough
• adequate
• too mild
• COMMENT: This is not a monotonous scale; the two I marked are both true at the same time.

Resources (financing etc). The competition for resources is

• much too tough
• tough
• adequate
• too mild
• COMMENT: Same as before. For both jobs & resources the equilibrium depends not on absolute funding, but on how many are made to share the pie. Less competition means somehow allowing fewer to succeed so that the ones who do have more of the pie left. So our willingness to work in poor conditions and salaries (because of intrinsic motivation/interest) means the opposite, more share the pie and compete for limited resources.

Effects of competition. The present competition

• guarantees that the quality of science is high, smaller competition would lower it
• lowers the quality of science, smaller competition would increase it
• generates considerable cheating, forgery of data, plagiarism, etc.
• no effect on quality if competition changes
• COMMENT: Cannot answer. Strongly depends on how “smaller competition” would look like. Also the third option is less a function of “amount” of competition than of its “kind” (e.g. if you only count H-factor, then ppl will optimize it by salami-tactics).

The competition

• affects the wellbeing of most scientists negatively
• affects the wellbeing of most scientists positively
• COMMENT: It might still be worth it though.

The competition

• attracts good young scientists
• scares good young scientists away from science
• does not affect the recruitment positively or negatively
• COMMENT: The two first are true at the same time again. Different people get selected, both “kinds” can be good.

OTHER COMMENTS?

The sociology of scientists is not well understood by ourselves. We are as unwilling to admit to being motivated by “wanting to look good” in the eyes of peers as anybody else, but everything is shrouded in the code of pretending that scientific results are the only thing that matters.

Chesterton’s fence comes to mind also. One should only be allowed to change something if one first understands why it is the way is right now. I think most of us have a too simplistic and personally-coloured picture on this topic to pass that criterion.

Today is one of those days that make it hard to write even a single line. I had several attempts during the morning but found my mind to be too preoccupied with other things, from work to all kinds of nonsense, to even think of something I could attempt.

This is however exactly why I try to keep the habit, no matter what. Getting over the threshold and putting out these few words will lower the hurdle in the long run. At least that is the hope and I have to remind myself because today it does not feel like it works. Oh well.

Apropos preoccupations, observing how little control one generally has over what the own mind occupies itself with, is a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, noticing and admitting this fact must certainly be the first step towards changing something, or even decide if change is desirable. On the other hand, even after a small amount of practice in meta-awareness, it is laughable how easy it is for certain thoughts to take over awareness and jerk it around. I blame the default mode network.