26 | New Scientist | 16 January 2021
Editor’s pick
Perhaps evolution
has squared that circle
19/26 December 2020, p 50
From Rachel Mckeown,
Aberfan, Mid Glamorgan, UK
You wonder why animals haven’t
evolved wheels. It is worth noting
that the body of an organism isn’t
the boundary of its phenotype.
Richard Dawkins introduced
the “extended phenotype”
concept in which a cascade of
causality ultimately stemming
from genes can eventually lead to
non-biological products, examples
being architectures like beaver
dams. Could the wheel similarly be
considered an extended phenotype
of humans, constructed once
evolution had invented sufficiently
advanced intelligence?
Non-biological materials
don’t face the same inherent
limits as living tissue, such as the
blood supply requirement. When
phenotypes are expanded according
to Dawkins’s framework, the design
book for evolution to explore could
massively expand.From Ian Flitcroft, Dublin, Ireland
The arguments cited against
the evolution of wheels in living
things include the problem of the
environment not being smooth
and the challenge of supplying
blood to a biological wheel.
Maybe there are exceptions.
Tumbleweed lacks blood, but has
evolved a rolling solution that is
perfectly suited to its flat, desert
environment. Its “wheeled” design
has a clear advantage, allowing
distribution of the plant and its
seeds over a wide area.
It is sometimes suggested that
we are the only creature to have
invented the wheel. I think dung
beetles may have beaten us
by millions of years, “inventing”
a way to get collections of dung
larger than themselves uphill:
rolling them.From Martin Jenkins, London, UK
Michael Marshall’s article on
why animals don’t have wheelscorrectly addresses the issue that
they are only useful on firm, flat
surfaces, which are rare in nature,
but perhaps misses the question:
how did such surfaces come to be?
In other words, in terms of human
technological evolution, which
came first, the wheel or the road?Handshakes may be
gone for a generation
11 November 2020, p 41
From Roy Murchie,
Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
There is much talk of the
impact of covid-19 on how we
greet one another. Perhaps the
flu pandemic that followed the
first world war gives clues to
how our behaviour on this
may change long term.
I am 88 and my parents, born
in 1907 and 1909, were averse
to any physical displays when
greeting strangers. There was very
little handshaking or kissing on
meeting anyone. Of course, they
grew up through the 1918 flu
pandemic and their behaviour was
like that of their contemporaries.When it comes to aliens,
N may be large after all
Letters, 28 November 2020
From Liz Berry,
Lydbrook, Gloucestershire, UK
In discussing the Drake equation,
which estimates the likelihood of
the existence of intelligent alien
cultures, Tim Stevenson assumed
that N – the number of advanced
civilisations in our galaxy – was
low, as we haven’t heard from
any such aliens.
With tongue in cheek, may I
suggest that such civilisations may
not want “developing” ones such
as ours to communicate with the
advanced worlds around them.
They could be perfectly capable
of stopping communication bothfrom and to us. When we are
considered “advanced”, maybe
we will be invited to join them.Our feral horses can’t
be controlled that way
19/26 December 2020, p 12
From Jamie Pittock,
Canberra, Australia
While it would be nice to have a
simple solution like birth control
for feral horse populations, or to
redefine them as beneficial, this
risks exacerbating environmental
degradation and loss of species.
In Australia, our flora and fauna
(for example, the corroboree frog)
haven’t evolved to cope with the
many effects of large, hoofed
herbivores. Research I am involved
in shows that trapping and birth
control are impractical methods
to reduce the approximately
25,000-strong feral horse
population in the Australian Alps.Eyes also betray when
a right hook is coming
28 November 2020, p 13
From Mark O’Shea, York, UK
You reported how changes in our
eyes occur before the decision to
initiate strenuous activity. This
is one of the first things a novice
boxer is taught: “Don’t look at the
opponent’s hands. Look at their
eyes. They will tell you when the
real attack is about to start.”Maybe combat AIs
will just declare a truce
12 December 2020, p 14
From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard,
North Yorkshire, UK
The clear message from your piece
on military robots is that AIs will
provide clearer and more logical
decisions in warfare than their
human minders could offer.
To extend the argument, we canimagine both sides in a conflict
having such weaponry, with AI
pitted against AI. As warfare is –
by any sensible assessment – an
irrational and illogical way to
resolve conflict, can we assume
that AIs left to their own devices
would reach that conclusion and
end hostilities? In such a case, AI
can only be seen as a good thing.Guts of a computer help
me search for stardust
19/26 December 2020, p 53
From Gerald Legg,
Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex, UK
When it comes to hunting for
micrometeorites that land on
my roof, I have often dredged
my gutters with a magnet from
a computer hard drive in a plastic
bag. Remove the sludge adhering
to the bag, wash in a Petri dish and
examine under a microscope.Do distant worlds warm
as they feel the squeeze?
5 December 2020, p 44
From Thomas Collins,
Ifold, West Sussex, UK
Apparent volcanic activity even
on the most remote worlds in our
system raises the question of the
source of its internal energy.
I wonder if, as planets and
moons cool and their outer layers
solidify, there is a compression
of internal material by shrinkage
of the outer layer. Could this
raise the temperature and be
a source of energy for this
distant volcanism?Essential reading in
these challenging times
From Michael Scott,
Lochcarron, Highland, UK
I wanted to thank New Scientist
editor Emily Wilson and all the
team, especially Adam Vaughan,
Graham Lawton, Michael Le Page
and Clare Wilson, for keeping
me so well informed about
coronavirus over the past
tumultuous year. Your coverage
has been fascinating, enlightening
and always informative. ❚Views You r le t te r s
Want to get in touch?
Send letters to [email protected];
see terms at newscientist.com/letters
Letters sent to New Scientist, 25 Bedford Street,
London WC2E 9ES will be delayed