Robot wars
Helen Greiner’s call to design practical robots really hit the nail on the head (21 January, p 20). I was an early pioneer in autonomous human-scale robotics. My friends often ask me why I’m no longer “in the game”, building walking, talking robots.
I tell them it’s because the world does not need humanoid robots. Humans are far more versatile, abundant and cost-effective for executing most tasks than a robotic counterpart would be, at least within my lifetime.
Yet there are some very specific tasks that autonomous robots can and should do. Those that are well defined, dangerous, dirty or highly difficult for humans. Your examples of cost-effective cleaning and nuclear reconnaissance are perfect ones. Research dollars should focus on such practical tasks rather than on the dancing and bicycling variety.
Researchers may argue that dancing robots encourage creative development of new technology, but I would suggest the trend has got out of hand.
Capture crucial
The article on the Durban climate talks was a useful synopsis of the current state of affairs (17 December 2011, p 8), but the diagram analysing the gap between the projected emissions of 55 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2020 and the environmentally desirable goal of 44 gigatonnes suffered from a gap of its own.
Like many, you have called for a more rapid switch to renewable energy and improved efficiency, but a closer look at the state of the global energy system reveals the need for an enhanced approach.
Arguably we are in a time where underlying global energy demand outstrips supply. This means that increased use of renewables and greater efficiency will not cut overall fossil fuel consumption, as “surplus” fossil fuels are merely redirected to meet energy gaps elsewhere. This condition may persist for decades.
So CO2 emissions do not fall. But there is a solution – carbon capture and storage (CCS). Independent experts such as the have said that if CCS demonstration projects can start quickly, CCS could offset around a fifth of cuts in the CO2 emissions needed by 2050, and that without a clear focus on CCS the cost of tackling climate change could be 70 per cent higher.
There is, therefore, an imperative for policymakers to support CCS projects this coming decade, with a view to widespread commercial deployment of the technology beyond 2020.
Save our helium
Commercial travel to near space in helium-filled balloons (24/31 December 2011, p 46) is to be deplored. Helium is a non-renewable commodity in demand for superconducting magnets in medical and science applications.
Even if the envelope of the balloon is recovered, the gas will be lost, which cannot be justified for such a frivolous purpose as the entertainment of the rich.
If hydrogen were used, with its greater lifting power, the project would be worth considering. With care, the flammability problem could be overcome and the balloon would be jettisoned for return by parachute as your article suggested.
Michael Le Page replies:
• The company involved, Zero2Infinity, is looking into hydrogen mixtures for its balloons, but will not talk about them for commercial reasons.
Fashion victims
It is fascinating to read that cognitive differences may have played a big role in modern humans seeing off Neanderthals (14 January, p 26). I’ve also read that Neanderthals may not have invented sewing needles, so were unable to sew well-fitting and warm leather garments, unlike Homo sapiens.
Neanderthals’ neophobic attitudes would have made them resistant to adopting changing fashions – unlike modern humans. A huge leap forward in our development coincides with use of adornments, jewellery, body paints and so on.
Incidentally, is there any way of finding out how much Neanderthal DNA an individual might have? Or should we just look out for the really badly dressed ones?
Art needs a heart
Creativity is a many layered thing. Your feature on non-human art showed that a computer may compose a score (14 January, p 42). Crucial to our appreciation, however, is the interpretation of the musician, the subtleties of their pauses, breathing, emphasis and so on.
I wonder how many shades of pressure Aaron the painting robot has in its arm. Does it have a tremor, or subtle muscular strengths or weaknesses in its fingers, wrist, elbow and shoulder?
I am fairly confident I could tell the difference between a painting done by a robot and one done by a person. Art that lasts is art that moves us and does not require lots of words to explain it. Human art generally combines competence with meaningful, emotional content and many personal gestures accrued from a lifetime of mark making, living, feeling and making associations.
From Clarissa Daisy Huntsman
The point of science is to find answers to the questions we all ask, and there is no reason to believe that creativity is unique to humans and therefore cannot be explained.
People usually follow formulae when creating new pieces of work; DJs remix popular music, artists borrow styles from those who were popular in the past and directors decide to remake old films. We all very much stand on the shoulders of giants when creating new work. No doubt many of us act like robots. Let’s admit this and embrace this artificial creativity. It may allow us to express ourselves better.
Perhaps the new software featured will help with the democratisation of creative ability so that more people find their voice – just as Auto-Tune has helped those who sing badly.
The human touch is not obsolete; we can use our creative prowess to enhance artwork rather than create it from scratch. And I absolutely love the curvy painting created by Simon Colton’s software the Painting Fool. I hope we will see more of its work in galleries.
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Symbolic atoms
Paul Root Wolpe asked for a single symbol to represent all of science (7 January, p 24). Around 400 BC, Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus proposed that the world is made of atoms.
More recently, physicist Richard Feynman suggested the atomic hypothesis when asked for a statement containing the most scientific knowledge in the fewest words: “All things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.”
We know electrons do not orbit a nucleus like the planets of a solar system. Still, I think we could find no better symbol for science than the schematic of an atom.
From Dan Richardson
I propose a single “x” to symbolise the unknown (variable) and humankind’s incessant attempts to measure and describe, to analyse and understand, and to quantify and explain. I believe this includes all aspects of science and would unite the field under a single letter.
Glasgow, UK
Multitalented
In his letter, Steve Hibbert (7 January, p 29) asks if any present-day actresses have been active in cutting-edge research.
Natalie Portman co-authored two papers. Her 1998 high school paper “, written with Ian Hurley and Jonathan Woodward, was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search. She was a semi-finalist.
In 2002, during her psychology studies at Harvard University, she contributed under her birth name of Natalie Hershlag to a study on neuroimaging called ().
Knowing our limits
David Comerford’s letter talked of economists’ reservations about The Limits to Growth (28 January, p 32). Traditional economics and The Limits to Growth reach different conclusions because they start with different assumptions. The question is, which assumptions describe reality?
In Limits, the consumption of resources does not change as limits are approached, so there is no intrinsic, timely adaptation. In some model worlds some limits were simply bypassed, to test the result – but as long as there was still one limit left, disaster struck unless growth stopped.
It will not help us much to make yet more models that assume either that everything will be fine, or equally that we cannot anticipate limits and adapt in time. We need to make hypotheses about how the world really behaves – then validate them against observed reality.
Our survival may depend on understanding the limits we face, free from dogmatic, unrealistic assumptions. We need the honesty and humility to face the truth about limits, and about meeting them. Science is an essential part of this.
Unorthodox thoughts
“Forbidden reactions” told of five chemical reactions that scientific orthodoxy of the day said couldn’t happen (21 January, p 30).
What is worrying is that terms such as “asked to leave”, referring to the treatment of quasicrystal researcher Dan Shechtman, and “holy war”, describing Herbert Brown’s stand against non-classical ions, appear in an article on chemistry. I wonder how many seemingly impossible results are hidden in the backwaters of scientific thought because researchers feared a backlash.
This tendency to unthinkingly defend any particular scientific orthodoxy not only fuels the belief that scientists are “no better” than their religious fundamentalist opponents, it also tends to confirm maverick thinker Charles Fort’s assessment of scientific consensus as being no more than “the proper thing to wear, for a while”.
For the record
• The ruffed grouse makes a drumming noise by beating its wings while standing on a log (21 January, p 14). It does not strike the log. Ringo Starr can relax.
• The DOI in the story of an artificial brain developing approximate number sense (21 January, p 9) should have been 10.1038/nn.2996.
Enigma Number 1683
A lottery draw, which is televised, uses balls numbered 01 to 39, from which five winning balls are selected and displayed in a row. By the magic of the producer’s graphics software, they are then rearranged into ascending order from left to right, to make checking easier.
One week, two of the winning balls had values less than 10, and the number obtained by reading (from left to right) all 10 digits as a single number was exactly 10 times the number similarly obtained after the balls had been rearranged.
What were the numbers of the five balls, in their original order?
WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 7 March. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1683, 91av, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to enigma@newscientist.com (please include your postal address).
Answer to 1676 The answer and winner will be announced next week