If Science Is to Save Us

by Martin J. Rees

There has never been a time when 'following the science' has been more important for humanity. At no other point in history have we had such advanced knowledge and technology at our fingertips, nor had such astonishing capacity to determine the future of our planet.

But the decisions we must make on how science is applied belong outside the lab and should be the outcome of wide public debate. For that to happen, science needs to become part of our common culture. Science is not just for scientists: if it were, it could never save us from the multiple crises we face. For science can save us, if its innovations mesh carefully into society and its applications are channelled for the common good.

As Martin Rees argues in this expert and personal analysis of the scientific endeavour on which we all depend, we need to think globally, we need to think rationally and we need to think long-term, empowered by twenty-first-century technology but guided by values that science alone cannot provide.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics

ebook

Published September 7, 2022

About the author

Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born June 23, 1942 in York) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on December 1, 2005.

Reviews

[Dan'S_mind]

There has never been a time when ‘following the science’ has been more important for humanity. At no other point in history have we had such advanced knowledge and technology at our fingertips, nor had such astonishing capacity to determine the future of our planet.

But the decisions we must make on how science is applied belong outside the lab and should be the outcome of wide public debate. For that to happen, science needs to become part of our common culture. Science is not just for scientists: if it were, it could never save us from the multiple crises we face. For science can save us, if its innovations mesh carefully into society and its applications are channelled for the common good.

As Martin Rees argues in this expert and personal analysis of the scientific endeavour on which we all depend, we need to think globally, we need to think rationally and we need to think long-term, empowered by twenty-first-century technology but guided by values that science alone cannot provide

[Voyt · Rating 1 out of 5]

I stopped at page 20 at "The climate and energy crisis". Poor brainwashed Martin Rees !
Here is a sample of his rambling:
"Climate science is complex (that is true obviously, and he has no clue about this complexity), involving a network of intermeshing effects (what a pile of banality).
But there is one fundamental piece of evidence, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than it's been for 2 millions years, and it is inexorably rising, mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels". ..more 'blah, blah'.
He does not make any attempt to provide current numbers (0.04% currently, and at 0.02% plants would die, human beings create only 3% of that 0.04%), nothing about 2 millions ago.
There is no proven connection between 'climate change' and CO2, period.

Dr. John Clauser recently: "In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."

Martin Rees should stick to writing about stars because we have a true crisis in theoretical cosmology and the Universe model.
Save your time on reading this shlock, most likely concocted being encouraged by "warmers" in order to spread propaganda. Try to look past the 'climate religion' scientology, learn from independent scientists and journalists.

[Kris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping this would be broader or give some new perspectives but it felt like a compilation of Guardian articles.

[Barrett · Rating 1 out of 5]

A couple of insightful and unexpected ideas. Lots of average observations not justifying a book. Keep it an article.

[caitlin adams]

I read this book the first time through today and will use it as a reference guide throughout the rest of my biology/public health undergraduate degree. It’s not a deep dive into any particular aspect of scientific innovation; it reads more like a sampler of many topics to spark a lay person’s interest or help science students (i.e., me!) brainstorm an assignment idea from a creative angle.

While I’ve been over most of what Rees covered in much greater depth in my courses, this book gave me a chance to revisit the common controversies put into simple terms and mentally rehearse how I would argue my opinions on these topics with a classmate. Sometimes, this format was frustrating as I found myself filling in the blanks more than I expected to, but such is the reality of reading for pleasure about what you study full-time. I was most frustrated by the brevity of the section on GMOs and the glossing over of strategies to feed a growing population (there was no discussion of food waste!), but again, this is a reflection of what I study. I would have learned a LOT from this book had I read it earlier, and it still provoked my inner debater!

[Hans Loedolff]

An insightful and informative read overall, but I object against the author's agism. On page 97 of the hardcover: "What we get worst at as we age is absorbing new influences and mastering new techniques". This statement shows a bias against age. It's entirely possible that some people get better at absorbing new influences and mastering new techniques as they grow older. On p. 131 the author calls the Japan Academy "geriatric" and he cites the appointment of an 84 year old president as evidence, and then immediately concludes that such an academy "...can't plausibly influence their country's policies". You are mistaken Mr Rees. Someone's age does not by itself determine their ability to have influence. All else being equal, in some cases an older person may have more influence, not less.

[Yates Buckley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good sense of the world of science from an insider, but the book is missing spice and insights. If is a bit too cautious and diplomatic to help understand what forces shape science, research and development. It would have been a similar but more interesting book with the aid of questions posed by peers and journalists.

Nevertheless huge respect for the work the author has done for science over the years, and a worthwhile read.

[PRJ Greenwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well written but highly discursive in places and I don't think the author has quite made the point he thought he was. I agree with another reviewer that this book comes across as a collection of newspaper or magazine articles.

[Eric Williamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good summary of the challenges facing our species, and a well-thought-out set of recommendations to address them. Not too much depth to be found, though, in any of the topics the author writes on.

[Bruce Stephenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Astronomer Royal Martin Rees shares his insight and experience as he states his case for science as a means to help us solve important issues we all face as humans living in a complex technological society. In the first part of the book, Rees adeptly outlines important facets of science, how it has been at times misinterpreted and how things must change in order for science to actually have a chance of saving us. I found this first half more relevant and interesting as the latter half deals with suggested changes to education and how scientists need to communicate and work together - topics which I felt were of concern only to academics. Overall, while Rees' writing style is clear and concise, he doesn't have the same 'grace of narrative' as authors like Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson. His knowledge and experience is substantial however, and I feel like he articulated the nuances of certain issues very well.