- Email: [email protected]
Space enough?
OPINION LETTERS Getting naked From Keith Walters In her article “Not even a theory to cover our nakedness”, Elaine Morgan explores possible reasons why humans lost their thick body hair (19 September, p 28). Surely the simple answer is because we could. Hair is biologically expensive. It requires valuable protein and energy to make, a lot of maintenance, and can harbour parasites. While the insulation it provides may repay these energy costs by keeping the animal warm when its surroundings are cold, it limits the amount of strenuous activity possible for finding food when the animal is hot. Uniquely among animals, we have the intelligence to produce workable substitutes for body hair, such as clothes, houses and fire. No other animal even comes close to such a convenient insulation strategy. Riverstone, New South Wales, Australia From Eric Wynter It seems to me that Homo sapiens became hairless to save time. All
hairy and feathered species spend large chunks of the day grooming themselves or each other. Primate society in particular revolves around grooming, which is vital in maintaining the health of their body cover. Early Homo sapiens had an entirely different kind of life to other primates. With hunting, gathering and questioning there would have been neither the time nor the numbers in the social group for satisfactory grooming.
Consequently, health could be compromised. Selection pressure would therefore work in favour of hairlessness, and with it a substitute for hair’s protective powers: subcutaneous fat and
sweat glands to suit the new lifestyle. Fortune favoured the bald. Peregian Beach, Queensland, Australia From Iain Fenton While reading Morgan’s essay, I was surprised to find that you did not make more of the fact that Alister Hardy chose New Scientist to publish his article “Was man more aquatic in the past?” (17 March 1960, p 642). Instead, it made reference only to an “aquatic idea”; not a theory, nor even a hypothesis. Let’s face it, the aquatic theory is the only game in town. No other theory even begins to explain the oddities of human evolution. I have never heard a plausible argument in favour of the savannah theory, yet I am still frequently confronted with it. When is the aquatic ape theory going to be given the acceptance it deserves? Morgan deserves a Nobel prize for her perseverance in the face of derision – which is all the opponents can do – as well as for her work in this field. Alva, Clackmannanshire, UK
Space enough?
Enigma Number 1566
Consistently older RICHARD ENGLAND Yesterday was Harry’s birthday and also Tom’s birthday. Harry is the older. Harry’s current age, Tom’s current age and the difference between their ages are each the product of two primes. The six primes are all different. Before Harry reaches the age of 90, there will be three further years during which his age, Tom’s age and the difference between their ages will again each be the product of two primes, the six primes all being different. What is Harry’s current age?
WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 11 November. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1566, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to [email protected] (please include your postal address). Answer to 1560 Alphabetically: The numerical value of ALPHABETICALLY is 81378406928115 The winner W. Day of Orpington, Kent, UK
26 | NewScientist | 10 October 2009
From Stephen Ashworth, Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society Your feature on population growth and sustainability missed two important issues: the possibility of space colonisation and the likelihood that a medical breakthrough in human ageing could lead to another surge of growth through extended lifespans (26 September, p 34). These are, in fact, closely linked, as the medical problems of life in space are similar to those of old age. Space colonisation would be far more likely if private companies were to break the global space agency monopoly on crewed space flight. Equally, it will only happen with continued high consumption of the Earth’s natural resources.
If space colonisation becomes possible, then the carrying capacity of the solar system for human and posthuman life is clearly many orders of magnitude greater than that of Earth alone, putting the future development of our species into a somewhat different perspective. Oxford, UK From Mike Bleaney In the “Big thinkers, big ideas” section of your “Blueprint for a better world”, I was astonished to read J. Richard Gott lending his name to the notion of colonising Mars (12 September, p 35) when there are other arid and inhospitable areas that could be made habitable more cheaply and safely: the Earth’s deserts. Our long-term survival prospects would be more effectively improved by spending money repairing the damage that we have inflicted on the Earth rather than exporting our foolishness to other planets. Binalong Bay, Tasmania, Australia
Temeing From Ivan Erill Susan Blackmore’s article (1 August, p 36) describes “temes”, as the third replicator, the first being genes, the basis of biological evolution, and the second memes, the basis of cultural evolution. Following Blackmore’s own logic in The Meme Machine, digital information is in fact a natural extension of memedriven evolution. She postulates a difference between memes
hairy and feathered species spend large chunks of the day grooming themselves or each other. Primate society in particular revolves around grooming, which is vital in maintaining the health of their body cover. Early Homo sapiens had an entirely different kind of life to other primates. With hunting, gathering and questioning there would have been neither the time nor the numbers in the social group for satisfactory grooming.
Consequently, health could be compromised. Selection pressure would therefore work in favour of hairlessness, and with it a substitute for hair’s protective powers: subcutaneous fat and
sweat glands to suit the new lifestyle. Fortune favoured the bald. Peregian Beach, Queensland, Australia From Iain Fenton While reading Morgan’s essay, I was surprised to find that you did not make more of the fact that Alister Hardy chose New Scientist to publish his article “Was man more aquatic in the past?” (17 March 1960, p 642). Instead, it made reference only to an “aquatic idea”; not a theory, nor even a hypothesis. Let’s face it, the aquatic theory is the only game in town. No other theory even begins to explain the oddities of human evolution. I have never heard a plausible argument in favour of the savannah theory, yet I am still frequently confronted with it. When is the aquatic ape theory going to be given the acceptance it deserves? Morgan deserves a Nobel prize for her perseverance in the face of derision – which is all the opponents can do – as well as for her work in this field. Alva, Clackmannanshire, UK
Space enough?
Enigma Number 1566
Consistently older RICHARD ENGLAND Yesterday was Harry’s birthday and also Tom’s birthday. Harry is the older. Harry’s current age, Tom’s current age and the difference between their ages are each the product of two primes. The six primes are all different. Before Harry reaches the age of 90, there will be three further years during which his age, Tom’s age and the difference between their ages will again each be the product of two primes, the six primes all being different. What is Harry’s current age?
WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 11 November. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1566, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to [email protected] (please include your postal address). Answer to 1560 Alphabetically: The numerical value of ALPHABETICALLY is 81378406928115 The winner W. Day of Orpington, Kent, UK
26 | NewScientist | 10 October 2009
From Stephen Ashworth, Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society Your feature on population growth and sustainability missed two important issues: the possibility of space colonisation and the likelihood that a medical breakthrough in human ageing could lead to another surge of growth through extended lifespans (26 September, p 34). These are, in fact, closely linked, as the medical problems of life in space are similar to those of old age. Space colonisation would be far more likely if private companies were to break the global space agency monopoly on crewed space flight. Equally, it will only happen with continued high consumption of the Earth’s natural resources.
If space colonisation becomes possible, then the carrying capacity of the solar system for human and posthuman life is clearly many orders of magnitude greater than that of Earth alone, putting the future development of our species into a somewhat different perspective. Oxford, UK From Mike Bleaney In the “Big thinkers, big ideas” section of your “Blueprint for a better world”, I was astonished to read J. Richard Gott lending his name to the notion of colonising Mars (12 September, p 35) when there are other arid and inhospitable areas that could be made habitable more cheaply and safely: the Earth’s deserts. Our long-term survival prospects would be more effectively improved by spending money repairing the damage that we have inflicted on the Earth rather than exporting our foolishness to other planets. Binalong Bay, Tasmania, Australia
Temeing From Ivan Erill Susan Blackmore’s article (1 August, p 36) describes “temes”, as the third replicator, the first being genes, the basis of biological evolution, and the second memes, the basis of cultural evolution. Following Blackmore’s own logic in The Meme Machine, digital information is in fact a natural extension of memedriven evolution. She postulates a difference between memes