- Email: [email protected]
Instant annihilation
For more letters visit www.NewScientist.com/topic/letters ■ Darwin was right ■ Truth or pare ■ Wrong heretic wrong ■ Instant annihilation ■ Immoral advances ■ Anaesthetic mystery
flashbacks – until such time as exhaustion overtakes me. Upon waking from my restless sleep, disturbed by nightmares borne of terrible memories, I turn immediately to the Tetris I keep on my bedside table, which provides further relief until I pass out once again. Ferring, West Sussex, UK
Groove to the beat From John Gordon Your piece on babies’ sense of rhythm (31 January, p 15) made me wonder why rhythm is so attractive. Could it be connected to a fear of uncertainty? When immersed in rhythmic music, the beat tantalises us with the illusion of near-certainty of what – in terms of sound – is about to happen in the next few moments. For those few minutes the future holds no fear. Reacting to rhythm may be the only human activity that provides such a sense of precognition for an extended period. Datchworth Green, Hertfordshire, UK
Carbon-lined cloud From William Hughes-Games The New Zealand coal industry recently announced that it will cut production by 20 per cent due to a 30 per cent decrease in overseas steel manufacture. Is this part of a world trend? It will be interesting to see this year’s figures for the levels measured at the carbon dioxide sampling centre at Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
This little economic wrinkle just might give us the breathing space to get our act together in time to avoid an ecological crash that would make us look back on 2009 with nostalgia. Waipara, New Zealand
Gravities From Jan Giezen The problem accounting for the anomalous motions of interplanetary probes under gravity could be resolved if there were more than one gravity (20 September 2008, p 38). Until not very long ago, matter was considered as more or less one stuff, forming different elements. Now we know better. Baryons (protons and neutrons) can be thought of as a different kind of matter from leptons (electrons and positrons). On top of that, the origin of gravity, the one-of-a-kind type, still defies explanation. So perhaps there is more than one gravity. If baryon gravity and lepton gravity really differ on our planet, it would mean that our understanding of gravity was starting on the wrong footing, because the stuff that makes up the Earth is atypical of the mass in the universe. The main mass in the universe, including our sun, is hydrogen. While the proportion of baryons to leptons in the sun is slightly more than 1, for our planet it is well above 2. If baryon gravity and lepton gravity really differ, this may have subtle effects on the motion of interplanetary satellites. Maassluis, The Netherlands
Cyberbeasties From Vivian Unger Dan Jones writes that people often find scientific research ethically objectionable due to fear of the unknown or the “yuk response”
(10 January, p 29). I had a yuk response of my own. I couldn’t believe he made no mention of a very recent, morally repugnant invention: the cyborg animal. These are animals whose movements are controlled via electrodes in their brains, effectively turning them into robots (8 March, p 40). Surely to completely nullify a living creature’s will in this way is to attain a new level of evil? It appears to me that in his desire to ensure that worthy scientific research isn’t stopped by faulty ethical arguments, Jones misrepresents what arguments do exist to make them appear weaker. Perhaps he needs to read his own quotation of Nick Bostrom: “It is very dangerous to try picking and choosing which truths we dare acknowledge.” Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
In the red From Gillian Briggs Frans de Waal asks “Why do humans blush?”, and states that we are the only primate to do so (31 January, p 41). How does he know? Would blushing be visible in hairy primates or, for that matter, in dark-skinned humans? Maybe research has answered these questions. If so, it would be interesting to know what methods were used. Highgate, South Australia From Gwilym Colman Frans de Waal asks why humans blush visibly when embarrassed or caught in a lie when this gives away their true feelings and makes it harder to manipulate others. In both cases the facts of the situation have already become apparent so dishonesty at this stage is unlikely to help matters. It might, though, be worthwhile to try to limit the possible unpleasant consequences by another form of manipulation –
could blushing have evolved as an appeasement display? Rochester, Kent, UK
Whither the wit? From Robert Bennie Pedro Ferreira, reviewing Graham Farmelo’s biography of Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man, says “he comes across as a truly unpleasant man. I am surprised that people put up with him” (10 January, p 43). To me, Dirac came across as hilarious. His “When I say ‘Yes’, it does not mean that I agree; it means that you should go on” is a barb worthy of Oscar Wilde. I applaud a bloke who doesn’t gossip about matters terrifying to all: scientists of the day were releasing the energy of the atom. I think the dry-witted Paul Dirac would have made an honoured guest at any Australian gathering. Melbourne, Australia
For the record ■ The correct DOI for the paper by Caroline Ummenhofer and colleagues on El Niño ( 7 February, p 16) is 10.1029/2008GL036801 Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
21 February 2009 | NewScientist | 25
flashbacks – until such time as exhaustion overtakes me. Upon waking from my restless sleep, disturbed by nightmares borne of terrible memories, I turn immediately to the Tetris I keep on my bedside table, which provides further relief until I pass out once again. Ferring, West Sussex, UK
Groove to the beat From John Gordon Your piece on babies’ sense of rhythm (31 January, p 15) made me wonder why rhythm is so attractive. Could it be connected to a fear of uncertainty? When immersed in rhythmic music, the beat tantalises us with the illusion of near-certainty of what – in terms of sound – is about to happen in the next few moments. For those few minutes the future holds no fear. Reacting to rhythm may be the only human activity that provides such a sense of precognition for an extended period. Datchworth Green, Hertfordshire, UK
Carbon-lined cloud From William Hughes-Games The New Zealand coal industry recently announced that it will cut production by 20 per cent due to a 30 per cent decrease in overseas steel manufacture. Is this part of a world trend? It will be interesting to see this year’s figures for the levels measured at the carbon dioxide sampling centre at Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
This little economic wrinkle just might give us the breathing space to get our act together in time to avoid an ecological crash that would make us look back on 2009 with nostalgia. Waipara, New Zealand
Gravities From Jan Giezen The problem accounting for the anomalous motions of interplanetary probes under gravity could be resolved if there were more than one gravity (20 September 2008, p 38). Until not very long ago, matter was considered as more or less one stuff, forming different elements. Now we know better. Baryons (protons and neutrons) can be thought of as a different kind of matter from leptons (electrons and positrons). On top of that, the origin of gravity, the one-of-a-kind type, still defies explanation. So perhaps there is more than one gravity. If baryon gravity and lepton gravity really differ on our planet, it would mean that our understanding of gravity was starting on the wrong footing, because the stuff that makes up the Earth is atypical of the mass in the universe. The main mass in the universe, including our sun, is hydrogen. While the proportion of baryons to leptons in the sun is slightly more than 1, for our planet it is well above 2. If baryon gravity and lepton gravity really differ, this may have subtle effects on the motion of interplanetary satellites. Maassluis, The Netherlands
Cyberbeasties From Vivian Unger Dan Jones writes that people often find scientific research ethically objectionable due to fear of the unknown or the “yuk response”
(10 January, p 29). I had a yuk response of my own. I couldn’t believe he made no mention of a very recent, morally repugnant invention: the cyborg animal. These are animals whose movements are controlled via electrodes in their brains, effectively turning them into robots (8 March, p 40). Surely to completely nullify a living creature’s will in this way is to attain a new level of evil? It appears to me that in his desire to ensure that worthy scientific research isn’t stopped by faulty ethical arguments, Jones misrepresents what arguments do exist to make them appear weaker. Perhaps he needs to read his own quotation of Nick Bostrom: “It is very dangerous to try picking and choosing which truths we dare acknowledge.” Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
In the red From Gillian Briggs Frans de Waal asks “Why do humans blush?”, and states that we are the only primate to do so (31 January, p 41). How does he know? Would blushing be visible in hairy primates or, for that matter, in dark-skinned humans? Maybe research has answered these questions. If so, it would be interesting to know what methods were used. Highgate, South Australia From Gwilym Colman Frans de Waal asks why humans blush visibly when embarrassed or caught in a lie when this gives away their true feelings and makes it harder to manipulate others. In both cases the facts of the situation have already become apparent so dishonesty at this stage is unlikely to help matters. It might, though, be worthwhile to try to limit the possible unpleasant consequences by another form of manipulation –
could blushing have evolved as an appeasement display? Rochester, Kent, UK
Whither the wit? From Robert Bennie Pedro Ferreira, reviewing Graham Farmelo’s biography of Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man, says “he comes across as a truly unpleasant man. I am surprised that people put up with him” (10 January, p 43). To me, Dirac came across as hilarious. His “When I say ‘Yes’, it does not mean that I agree; it means that you should go on” is a barb worthy of Oscar Wilde. I applaud a bloke who doesn’t gossip about matters terrifying to all: scientists of the day were releasing the energy of the atom. I think the dry-witted Paul Dirac would have made an honoured guest at any Australian gathering. Melbourne, Australia
For the record ■ The correct DOI for the paper by Caroline Ummenhofer and colleagues on El Niño ( 7 February, p 16) is 10.1029/2008GL036801 Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
21 February 2009 | NewScientist | 25