<description>&lt;p&gt;As Artificial Intelligence continues to expand rapidly, some people have raised concerns about its potential environmental impact - in particular its use of water, which is used to cool both data centres and the power generators that supply them with electricity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One recent book on AI contained the alarming prediction that AI could consume between 4 and 6 trillion litres a year by 2027. Could this eye-popping figure be right? If not, what is the correct figure, and is it a big number?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The devil, as ever, is in the detail, and with the help of expert Alex de Vries-Gao, the More or Loss team has taken a deep dive to get to the truth about AI and water consumption.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you’ve seen a number in the news and you think More or Less should take a look, email the team on moreorless@bbc.co.uk&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Producer / Reporter: Nathan Gower
Series Producer: Tom Colls
Programme Coordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Dave O’Neil
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

We take a deep dive into AI’s water consumption

As Artificial Intelligence continues to expand rapidly, some people have raised concerns about its potential environmental impact - in particular its use of water, which is used to cool both data centres and the power generators that supply them with electricity.One recent book on AI contained the alarming prediction that AI could consume between 4 and 6 trillion litres a year by 2027. Could this eye-popping figure be right? If not, what is the correct figure, and is it a big number?The devil, as ever, is in the detail, and with the help of expert Alex de Vries-Gao, the More or Loss team has taken a deep dive to get to the truth about AI and water consumption.If you’ve seen a number in the news and you think More or Less should take a look, email the team on moreorless@bbc.co.ukPresenter: Charlotte McDonald
Producer / Reporter: Nathan Gower
Series Producer: Tom Colls
Programme Coordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Dave O’Neil
Editor: Richard Vadon

How much water does AI consume?

<description>&lt;p&gt;Paul Ehrlich’s bestselling book The Population Bomb opens with an apocalyptic paragraph. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;“The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” it states. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Professor Ehrlich, who died last week, made a simple argument. The global population was outrunning our capacity to produce enough food to feed everyone. Famine, disease and nuclear Armageddon would follow if the population was not controlled.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The book made him a celebrity, and he regularly spoke in public, warning of the imminent threat to humanity. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes his warnings were quite vague in terms of the timescale, but other times not - he was reported as saying in 1968 that if current trends continued, by the year 2000, the UK would be a “small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people". 
"If I were a gambler," he was quoted as saying, "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000".&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But the UK did not collapse, the global death rate did not increase, and we have more food per person now than when he wrote the book. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, what went wrong with Paul Ehrlich's predictions of a population apocalypse?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you’ve seen a number or claim that you think More or Less should look at, email moreorless@bbc.co.uk
 
CONTRIBUTORS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vincent Geloso, Assistant Professor of economics at George Mason University&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Darrell Bricker, global CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and co-author of Empty Planet, the Shock of Global Population Decline&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peter Alexander, Professor of Global Food Systems at the University of Edinburgh&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;CREDITS:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Series producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound mix: Dave O’Neil
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Why Paul Ehrlich’s dire predictions about a population collapse failed to materialise

Paul Ehrlich’s bestselling book The Population Bomb opens with an apocalyptic paragraph. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” it states. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”Professor Ehrlich, who died last week, made a simple argument. The global population was outrunning our capacity to produce enough food to feed everyone. Famine, disease and nuclear Armageddon would follow if the population was not controlled.The book made him a celebrity, and he regularly spoke in public, warning of the imminent threat to humanity. Sometimes his warnings were quite vague in terms of the timescale, but other times not - he was reported as saying in 1968 that if current trends continued, by the year 2000, the UK would be a “small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people". 
"If I were a gambler," he was quoted as saying, "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000".But the UK did not collapse, the global death rate did not increase, and we have more food per person now than when he wrote the book. So, what went wrong with Paul Ehrlich's predictions of a population apocalypse?If you’ve seen a number or claim that you think More or Less should look at, email moreorless@bbc.co.uk
 
CONTRIBUTORSVincent Geloso, Assistant Professor of economics at George Mason UniversityDarrell Bricker, global CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and co-author of Empty Planet, the Shock of Global Population DeclinePeter Alexander, Professor of Global Food Systems at the University of EdinburghCREDITS:Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Series producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound mix: Dave O’Neil
Editor: Richard Vadon

Paul Ehrlich: The man who bet England wouldn’t exist by the year 2000

<description>&lt;p&gt;In most sports, men compete against men and women compete against women. That is generally considered fair, because men are faster, more powerful and have greater endurance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But there is an ongoing controversy about transgender women - people who were born male and now identify as women. Is it fair for them to compete in the women’s sport category or do they have an advantage?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine recently added to the debate with an analysis that found the strength and fitness of transgender women is “comparable” with that of women.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;More or Less looks into the research to explain what it does, and does not, say.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Contributors:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Professor Alun Williams, Manchester Metropolitan University&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Credits:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Reporter: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Gareth Jones
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Investigating a scientific paper analysing the strength and fitness of transgender women

In most sports, men compete against men and women compete against women. That is generally considered fair, because men are faster, more powerful and have greater endurance.But there is an ongoing controversy about transgender women - people who were born male and now identify as women. Is it fair for them to compete in the women’s sport category or do they have an advantage?A study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine recently added to the debate with an analysis that found the strength and fitness of transgender women is “comparable” with that of women.More or Less looks into the research to explain what it does, and does not, say.Contributors:Professor Alun Williams, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityCredits:Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Reporter: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Gareth Jones
Editor: Richard Vadon

Transgender women in sport: Does ‘comparable’ mean ‘equal’?

<description>&lt;p&gt;On Saturday 28th February, the US and Israel launched a military attack on Iran, targeting the country's missile infrastructure, military sites and leadership.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In response, Iran launched a wave of strikes across the region, including on Israel and the Gulf states.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Iran has a stockpile of ballistic missiles, which it’s firing at neighbouring countries. These countries in turn are using interceptor missiles to try and shoot them down.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But is it clear who will run out of missiles first?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Contributor:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kelly Grieco, senior fellow at the Stimson Center&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Credits:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Series producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Tom Brignell
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

What we know about missile stockpiles following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran

On Saturday 28th February, the US and Israel launched a military attack on Iran, targeting the country's missile infrastructure, military sites and leadership.In response, Iran launched a wave of strikes across the region, including on Israel and the Gulf states.Iran has a stockpile of ballistic missiles, which it’s firing at neighbouring countries. These countries in turn are using interceptor missiles to try and shoot them down.But is it clear who will run out of missiles first?Contributor:Kelly Grieco, senior fellow at the Stimson CenterCredits:Presenter: Charlotte McDonald
Series producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound Mix: Tom Brignell
Editor: Richard Vadon

US-Israel war with Iran: Do the gulf states have enough interceptor missiles?

<description>&lt;p&gt;Have a million new species just been discovered?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That’s the claim made by Dr Oliver Vince, co-founder of a company called Basecamp Research, who are collecting genetic data to train AI systems. The hope is that they’ll be able to use this to discover new medicines.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But is this number a good one? Rob Finn, from the European Bioinformatics Institute, explains what is being counted and how you go about counting them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Credits:
Presenter and producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound mix: Dave O’Neill
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Investigating whether Basecamp Research found hundreds of thousands of bacteria species

Have a million new species just been discovered?That’s the claim made by Dr Oliver Vince, co-founder of a company called Basecamp Research, who are collecting genetic data to train AI systems. The hope is that they’ll be able to use this to discover new medicines.But is this number a good one? Rob Finn, from the European Bioinformatics Institute, explains what is being counted and how you go about counting them.Credits:
Presenter and producer: Tom Colls
Production co-ordinator: Brenda Brown
Sound mix: Dave O’Neill
Editor: Richard Vadon

Has a company really discovered a million new species?

Tim Harford explains - and sometimes debunks - the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life

More or Less

Details

Recent Episodes