The Ten Most Disturbing Scientific Discoveries
Scientists have come to some surprising conclusions about the world and our place in it. Are some things just better left unknown?
- By Laura Helmuth
- Smithsonian.com, May 14, 2010, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 3)
4. Things that taste good are bad for you.
In 1948, the Framingham Heart Study enrolled more than 5,000 residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, to participate in a long-term study of risk factors for heart disease. (Very long term—the study is now enrolling the grandchildren of the original volunteers.) It and subsequent ambitious and painstaking epidemiological studies have shown that one’s risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, certain kinds of cancer and other health problems increases in a dose-dependent manner upon exposure to delicious food. Steak, salty French fries, eggs Benedict, triple-fudge brownies with whipped cream—turns out they’re killers. Sure, some tasty things are healthy—blueberries, snow peas, nuts and maybe even (oh, please) red wine. But on balance, human taste preferences evolved during times of scarcity, when it made sense for our hunter-gatherer ancestors to gorge on as much salt and fat and sugar as possible. In the age of Hostess pies and sedentary lifestyles, those cravings aren’t so adaptive.
5. E=mc²
Einstein’s famous equation is certainly one of the most brilliant and beautiful scientific discoveries—but it’s also one of the most disturbing. The power explained by the equation really rests in the c², or the speed of light (186,282 miles per second) times itself, which equals 34,700,983,524. When that’s your multiplier, you don’t need much mass—a smidgen of plutonium is plenty—to create enough energy to destroy a city.
6. Your mind is not your own.
Freud might have been wrong in the details, but one of his main ideas—that a lot of our behaviors and beliefs and emotions are driven by factors we are unaware of—turns out to be correct. If you’re in a happy, optimistic, ambitious mood, check the weather. Sunny days make people happier and more helpful. In a taste test, you’re likely to have a strong preference for the first sample you taste—even if all of the samples are identical. The more often you see a person or an object, the more you’ll like it. Mating decisions are based partly on smell. Our cognitive failings are legion: we take a few anecdotes and make incorrect generalizations, we misinterpret information to support our preconceptions, and we’re easily distracted or swayed by irrelevant details. And what we think of as memories are merely stories we tell ourselves anew each time we recall an event. That’s true even for flashbulb memories, the ones that feel as though they’ve been burned into the brain:
Like millions of people, [neuroscientist Karim] Nader has vivid and emotional memories of the September 11, 2001, attacks and their aftermath. But as an expert on memory, and, in particular, on the malleability of memory, he knows better than to fully trust his recollections… As clear and detailed as these memories feel, psychologists find they are surprisingly inaccurate.
7. We’re all apes.
It’s kind of deflating, isn’t it? Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can be inspiring: perhaps you’re awed by the vastness of geologic time or marvel at the variety of Earth’s creatures. The ability to appreciate and understand nature is just the sort of thing that is supposed to make us special, but instead it allowed us to realize that we’re merely a recent variation on the primate body plan. We may have a greater capacity for abstract thought than chimps do, but we’re weaker than gorillas, less agile in the treetops than orangutans and more ill-tempered than bonobos.
Charles Darwin started life as a creationist and only gradually came to realize the significance of the variation he observed in his travels aboard the Beagle. For the past 151 years, since On the Origin of Species was published, people have been arguing over evolution. Our ape ancestry conflicts with every culture’s creation myth and isn’t particularly intuitive, but everything we’ve learned since then—in biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, even chemistry and physics—supports his great insight.
8. Cultures throughout history and around the world have engaged in ritual human sacrifice.
Say you’re about to die and are packing some supplies for the afterlife. What to take? A couple of coins for the ferryman? Some flowers, maybe, or mementos of your loved ones? If you were an ancient Egyptian pharaoh, you’d have your servants slaughtered and buried adjacent to your tomb. Concubines were sacrificed in China to be eternal companions; certain Indian sects required human sacrifices. The Aztecs slaughtered tens of thousands of people to inaugurate the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan; after sacred Mayan ballgames, the losing team was sometimes sacrificed.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (228)
+ View All Comments
Why do so many Christians who disagree with everything written here still read the articles and comment? I'm just curious. Posted by kiernan on January 29,2013 | 02:57 AM Kierman, Its because those who agree with certain aspects of this article are most likely NOT Christians. What about death? Is the E.T. dead too? Therefore, the answer to this question comes from the One who Fashioned us for this very purpose: 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5 New International Version (NIV) Awaiting the New Body 5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Posted by Jeff on February 7,2013 | 08:38 PM
Darwin? Darwin did you say? Poppycock and feathers, I say. Be off with him already!
Posted by Thom McCan on February 7,2013 | 07:46 AM
E=mc² is from Poincaré
Posted by bud on February 7,2013 | 05:05 AM
I'd like to think that dark matter and dark energy will, somehow, become sufficiently understood that they can be a solution to some of our problems.
Posted by Nicholas on February 6,2013 | 09:18 PM
My Question: Will the melting of Arctic ice change the balance of the world? Will it wobble? Will it move? Will the changing of the seasons be gradually altered by this? Will Chinese, Thorium LFTR and Thorium fission technologies really "Alter The Gobal Energy Maps Forever"?
Posted by Uncle B on February 6,2013 | 09:12 PM
Very interesting piece! However, I must point out that #7 regarding Darwin's evolution theory has yet to be proven as fact and there is much evidence to support the theory that modern humankind was created through genetic manipulation of an earth hominid/ape like creature by advanced extra terrestrial visitors using their own DNA. Ancient records, worldwide creation stories, out of place artifacts and our own unique DNA and chromosomal structures lend credence to this theory. We will never find that missing evolutionary link - there never was one. Also, dire climate change being created by humans (#9)is likely not true either. Ancient historical records, pre- historical stories handed down orally by peoples all over the world and actual geophysical evidence on the Earth point to repeating and regular earth cataclysms every 3,600 years caused by what many believe is either a comet or a planet orbiting our sun's brown dwarf twin that passes close enough to earth for geomagnetic and electrical plasma reactions to occur between them. Keep your minds open and do your own research. I think you'll be amazed.
Posted by Rose on February 4,2013 | 10:02 PM
@Don I wonder why whenever we drill down into ice, to see what the air was like when it was trapped in the falling snow, we always see the CO2 levels have spiked dramatically in the last 200 years. http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide.asp When you consider that we create about 26 400 000 000 000 kg of CO2 per year that must be a rather large volcano that you are thinking about. Unfortunately for your theory Olympus Mons is on Mars and so probably does not affect our atmosphere. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html While the human contribution to the total CO2 produced per year is not that large when compared with all biological processes. Our little nudge has pushed a stable system 30% further from its balance point than it has been in a half million years. So the question becomes what if we push the system to far and it topples into a new balance point. The problem is that no one really knows the answer. Which is why it is probably a good idea to do some research so we can make a better guess of how much trouble we are in. My best guess is that in the 1st world it will probably only mean a tightening of the belts (both proverbially and figuratively). In the 3rd world where people are living closer to the edge it probably means that lots of people will starve.
Posted by James on February 4,2013 | 01:24 PM
I like the article, but I was hoping an organization as vernerable as the Smithsonian wouldn't be ignorant enough to blame climate change on Man. I mean, ONE vulcano eruption releases more Co2 into the atmosphere than man has since he walked upright. At the VERY least, global warming, or manmade climate change, or whatever you call it now to make the facts fit your theory, is unquestionably unproven. It should no tbe presented as fact. WEAK.
Posted by Don McCoy on February 4,2013 | 11:21 AM
I can't help but be amused by the disturbing "fact" that we can see only 4% of the Universe. This may not be the case. Mathematician Donald Saari has derived a model that treats galaxies as though they are composed of rigid bodies (aka stars and planets) rather than as "star soup". This model doesn't account for all the matter we see--but it's likely that we see 90% of the universe, rather than 4%. Of course, this new model is rather controvertial: mathematicians and physicists tend to think it's reasonable, but astrophysicists tend to dislike it.
Posted by Alpheus on February 2,2013 | 01:05 AM
Why do so many Christians who disagree with everything written here still read the articles and comment? I'm just curious.
Posted by kiernan on January 29,2013 | 02:57 AM
According to the scientist in Programming Of Life by the scientist Johnson, Miano and Ortenzi evolution is operationally impossible. "Scientist generally consider anything with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 70 power operationally impossible." "The probability that life, a single cell, evolving by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000 power." That's just one cell, think about it.
Posted by terrence on January 27,2013 | 09:37 PM
#10 is a bit odd, since we can see so little of the cosmos, of course we can't see most of it. If it dosen't glow radiation then it's invisible. I"d suggest replacing it with Hubbles' discovery that they Universe is expanding and the Discovery that it is doing so at an increading rate of speed. Not jsut big discoveries but, they also prove that Einstein's Relativity Theory is wrong, since Big Bangs violate it, and the expanding cosmose provs a Big Bang happend. Also, #9. Henry David Thoreau, was born and grew up during the Little Ice Age. You may hav heard of it, it lasted from approxiamately 1352 to 1855 AD. The COLDEST period of the Little Ice age was its last 60 years [1795 to 1855]. This period is known as the Mauder Minimum. It saw the coldest temperatures in Europe and Nothern America ever recorded by mankind. So yes girls, during the Little Ice Age's coldest period, spring did come later. However, never fear, the Little Ice Age ended, and the earth has gotten back to warming up as our planet gets nearer to the Sun do it it's wobbly orbit. A gift from that asteroid that smacked into the earth 65 milliion years ago and killed off the last of the surface dynosaurse.
Posted by Bill Masters on January 27,2013 | 01:11 PM
There are many eminent scientists alive today who will not and could not subscribe to Darwin's still unproven theories. These are taught in schools as facts. I can tell you why: We have rebelled against our Creator and will do/say/believe anything rather than have Him rule over us. In Six Days is a book I have heard about, love to read it soon, unfortunately haven't got it yet so content myself with the greatest Book of all
Posted by Maureen Leigh on January 23,2013 | 10:01 AM
Up until 8 some of the facts seemed credible, and plausible and although some of these facts are true, once a problem is found the rest of the hypothesis crumbles down regardless of whether the rest is true or not. " 8. Cultures throughout history and around the world have engaged in ritual human sacrifice. ... after sacred Mayan ballgames, the losing team was sometimes sacrificed." Check your facts here, I was born in Mexico, I was born in a family that travelled a lot in Mexico before traveling outside of it. I have probably gone to 90% of the most common ruins for Aztecs and Mayan cultures, as well as a great amount of non common ones. Ball players in Latin America I.e. Mayans, Aztecs, sacrificed the winners of the ball games. Not the losers. It was a great honor to win and be sacrificed. Your article may have started very nicely redacted with credible facts and to ignorant people it may all be good sport. But this kind of misinformation is what will keep us from ever knowing what is true and what is fiction/lies.
Posted by Latin Lover on January 17,2013 | 12:40 AM
+ View All Comments