For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Matthew Nisbet is professor of communication at Northeastern University in Boston
these as new “features” of the universe and include them in our fundamental laws. Of course, the notion of a simulated universe gives rise to many philosophical questions, not least on free will. What if we are just unintended consequences in a simulation run for some other purpose? And what happens if the computer loses power? Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s. ■ Geraint Lewis is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Sydney
INSIGHT Olympic threat
MARIO TAMA/GETTY
damage, weakening efforts to create a sense of urgency over climate change. His candidacy has brought public discourse in the US to its ugliest level, as he trades in trash talk and outrageous insults, spreading falsehood and innuendo, fomenting bigotry and prejudice. His success emboldens far right and ultra-nationalist movements in the US and across Europe, risking destabilisation. At home, Trump’s promise to ban Muslims from entering the US, to build a wall at the Mexican border, and to deport millions of immigrants will spark widespread protest and civil unrest. Abroad, his bravado and reckless unpredictability, his vow to renegotiate trade deals and to walk away from security alliances will generate tensions with China, Russia and Europe, risking financial collapse and conflict. In the midst of such dysfunction and upheaval, the glimmer of hope offered by the historic climate change pact agreed to in Paris last year may fade forever. The stakes in a US presidential election have never been higher. ■
–Just weeks left to prepare–
WeneedtoZika-proof theRioOlympics Debora MacKenzie
to be going home to somewhere with the right mosquitoes. Critics of the WHO’s approach argue that the Olympics attract a richer national and social mix than the norm for air travel: almost every country sends people, and not all go home to the mosquito-proofed lives of typical jet-setters. That could make it more likely that one person could repeat what happened in Brazil in Dhaka or Addis Ababa. And August is mosquito season in the northern hemisphere. That said, the risk of catching Zika in Rio will certainly diminish between now and August. The southern-
SHOULD the Olympic Games go ahead in Rio de Janeiro, despite Brazil’s Zika epidemic? Last week, 200 health experts called on the World Health Organization to recommend moving the Games, or delaying them until the virus is under control. The WHO argues that Zika is already present in many countries, and people with the virus in their blood are already flying to uninfected nations that have the Aedes mosquitoes able to transmit it. Pregnant women should avoid Rio, says the organisation, but stopping other people from travelling to the “Should we delay or move Olympics won’t make a dent in the the Games? I suspect existing viral tourism. it won’t happen, so we This argument is weak. The DNA need to cut the risk” evidence shows the epidemic in Brazil was started by one traveller carrying Zika. That means just one person hemisphere winter will slow viral could cause an outbreak somewhere replication in mosquitoes: Zika petered else with the right mosquitoes. out in Rio last August. Many in the It doesn’t matter that Rio is only one state have also now been exposed to of many Zika-affected destinations – the virus, and their immunity will slow especially as many of the rest aren’t its spread. In addition, the campaign to nearly so badly infected. It may matter spray Rio with pesticide since February far more that travellers to the Games will have had some effect. are on average more likely than normal But the risk won’t be zero. So how
much is too much? The country has spent some $11 billion on the Games – a huge investment to lose, even in part, to address the unmeasurable risk of hastening Zika’s spread elsewhere. Brazil was on a roll when it bid for the Olympics, but has since been hit hard by falling oil prices, never mind the cost of the Games and of Zika itself. The WHO, and governments, have in effect covered their backs: visitors have been told how to avoid catching and spreading Zika, so now it’s their responsibility not to get infected. But everyone knows that insect repellent and condoms won’t be 100 per cent effective. Some Olympic visitors will get the virus, some could carry it somewhere vulnerable, and we can’t really say how likely that is. Should we delay or move the Games? I suspect at this point it just isn’t going to happen, so we need to cut the risk as much as possible. Someone – are you listening, World Bank? – should give Brazil several million small bottles of Deet-based mosquito repellent, to be handed out relentlessly at all Olympic venues. A donor could also boost diagnostic capabilities for Zika in countries where they are lacking, to keep a lid on any virus that does get away from Brazil or any of the other affected countries. And we won’t get ahead of this virus – or the next one – until we have a vaccine. If we spent as much on that as we do on the Olympics, we might not be having this problem. ■ 11 June 2016 | NewScientist | 19