Numbers Control Our Lives

Numbers control our lives, but how valid are they?

Are the numbers which rule us arrived at by science ,and are they updated with technical advances?

Numbers are involved in every aspect of life: the number of units of alcohol. The speed limits, age limits, health statistics. All are accepted as controlling numbers, but how valid are they?

We are told (by some) that we must drink two litres of liquid a day, but there does not seem to be any allowance made for the size and weight of the person drinking. Surely a six foot four inch athlete weighing 300 pounds will need to consume more than a five foot tall, 130 pound pensioner?

We are told that if our Body Mass Index is over a certain figure it is unhealthy, but does this allow for levels of daily exercise or what sort of diet we have?

In Britain, the most common speed limits are 30 miles per hour for built up areas and 70 MPH on main dual carriage ways and motorways. These do not seem to have a very scientific basis, and both were established when vehicle technology was very different from that available now. The 70 limit was initially imposed as an emergency attempt to reduce the nation's oil use when in a shortage situation. It was imposed in 1965 in response to claims of excessive speeds on the new motorways but sold to the public as an economy measure. We are no longer in that shortage situation and the fuel economy of the average vehicle is much better than when the limit was imposed; vehicle stopping and safety have been improved, and we now have a mandatory road safety check on every vehicle over three years old, but still, the limit remains unchanged. The 30 limit was establish by act of parliament in 1934, but now the average stopping distance for a vehicle is a small fraction of what it was when the limit was imposed, but still the limit stays.

Numbers have become an easy way to control the population. Statistics can be published to support all types of control mechanisms. Some of these statistics are misleading, and some may be well-intentioned, but they are biased in the direction set by the publishers opinions. The climate change debate is one of the most obvious examples of this. Both sides use numbers to convince, or may be confuse, the doubters. Some fly thousands of miles, stay in expensive hotels and gather in large numbers to present politicians with endless streams of statistics, all designed to cause control over the life styles of others. If these predictions, and every statistic or number, about any future event must be a prediction (fact can only be established after the event), then why isn't the UN in constant emergency session to work out what to do with all the people going to be displaced by rising sea levels? Or do they know something we don't? As some one who attempted to be self sufficient and environmentally neutral as possible back in the 60s and 70s, I do care about ecological issues, but the stream of misleading information disguised as statistics does not help. There is now an industry where a large number of people earn a very good living out claims that global climate change can be stopped. Since the global climate has been in a state of change since long before humans existed, this seems a strange thing to claim. Politicians know they can suggest the most outrageous controls over people in the name of the environment and the liberal left will unthinkingly support them.

Numbers claiming to be proof of some future situation should always be treated with skepticism. Astrology is derided by some, saying it is not science, but reliance on a future prediction is also not science. Not truly scientific. A hypotheses has to be turned into a theory, but that does not become an established scientific fact until after an event proving it. Go back in time to the time when mechanisms began to transform travel. It was predicted that any human travelling at over 30 MPH would die. Even now, we still have the statement “speed kills” trotted out by bureaucrats and politicians with no ability to think clearly when it is clear that fighter pilots come back alive from speeds over over 1000 miles an hour. Look up the staggering numbers for the speed of the surface due to the earth's rotation, add the speed of the orbit of Earth, think of the speed of the solar systems orbit, within our galaxy, etc.. and it is clear speed does not kill.

Numbers are used to control every aspect of our lives. They dictate when we go to school, when we go to work, when we can get our pensions, when we start voting, when we can legally start drinking alcohol; it is an endless list of numbers that control our lives and yet not one makes any allowance for the huge individual differences between people. Just take one example, voting. One day you are too young to have a say, then next, you are old enough to vote. This makes no allowance for how aware an individual is of political falsehoods. It makes no allowance for the ability to comprehend complex social issues, there is just an arbitrary number of years that must pass before you vote. You can not have a driver's license under a certain age; at no point is the individuals reaction speed related to the ability to anticipate, scientifically measured; so why this number for the age when you are allowed to drive? In Britain, education is compulsory between certain ages; these numbers make no allowance for the intellect of the individual.

Predicting the future is not a science; no real scientific researcher will claim their statistical predictions to be more than they are. If you are sure you have verifiable facts about a series of past events, then you can build a pattern that you can use to claim there is a likelihood of this pattern being continued in the future, but there can be no certainty. It is true that we can predict that dawn will follow night, but no scientist will claim this will always happen for eternity. The really serious scientists will always agree there is uncertainty, there are always things we do not yet know; what is accepted as fact today can be proved wrong in 100 years time. Using numbers to justify the imposition of one opinion over another is a perilous path. Modern politicians are not statistical geniuses, and very few have real scientific, or even engineering, training; they do not question those numbers which supposedly support their political views. They dismiss out of hand any which do not support their own pre-existing opinions. This is judgement, and so in some cases, government, by opinion, not by science.