The path to domesticated wolves could be short
It is proposed that the exact process of the domestication of wolves by our species isn’t clear, so here’s my take on how it might have gone(9 August, p 34).
Any tribe consists not only of adults, but children too, and they have a propensity to like small, fluffy things. A young wolf cub adopted from the wild would be fascinating to them, and children would have time to play with it, habituating it.
Children are notorious for their pester power. (“If Johnny has a wolf cub, why can’t I have one?”) Multiple cubs may then grow up within a tribe. As cubs mature faster than children, they would then mate and cubs would be born entirely within that tribe. This, I argue, would quickly bring about wolves that knew of no other existence.
'Funerals' for animals, great and small
Why are many scientists sceptical that an animal (in this case, the hominin Homo naledi) could respond to the death of a fellow animal by special treatment of the body 鈥� burial 鈥� as proposed by Lee Berger? Like most pet owners, I have seen one animal mourn another by inspecting and even prodding the body, then carrying a toy or garment with the scent of the deceased pet for a few hours(26 July, p 38).
More dramatically, in an outer suburb of Sydney, I once observed a “funeral service” for a firetail finch that had flown into a large plate-glass window that was a few metres from dense bushland. Two dozen of these little birds examined the body, then formed a ring around it and slowly circulated, bobbing up and down. The whole performance, from the flock gathering to the inspecting and dancing, took about 10 minutes. If birds can do that, surely so could H. naledi.
Two more views on talk of species de-extinction (1)
I look at de-extinction this way: people interested in wildlife regret extinctions, especially human-caused ones. They would like to atone. Attempts have already been made to produce, for example, aurochs-like cattle just by selective breeding. If de-extinction results in creatures that resemble extinct species and can live and thrive in the present, there is no harm done. Such animals may differ less from the extinct species, in terms of expressed genes, than one breed of dog differs from another(9 August, p 7).
Two more views on talk of species de-extinction (2)
What are people going to do with animals that are de-extincted? They obviously aren’t going to dump such valuable specimens in wild, unbounded habitats. No, they will be confined, possibly in a zoo, where they will be gawped at 鈥� sorry, marvelled at 鈥� by endless streams of humans. They will be poked, prodded, measured and thoroughly studied by scientists, until they lie down and die. Would you do this to your dog?
To some very large numbers, and beyond (1)
Visualising 1 脳 1090 as the number of particles in the universe was seen as a sort of upper limit for all practical purposes for numbers(9 August, p 28). Why bother with infinity?
I think we are capable of visualising much bigger numbers, but do they have a place in reality? Imagine a 4000-by-4000-pixel monochrome screen with 256 brightness levels. Cycle through every combination of every pixel and brightness level and the result appears to be 1.37 脳 10514. Most combinations would be noise, but the output would also contain every possible image of everything that exists or could exist that could be represented at this resolution.
Now imagine a civilisation that could examine every combination for meaning. Why? Because the secrets of the universe will be hidden among the images. I don’t have a problem grasping this. The information level of the universe is perhaps a more useful very big number than a measly 1 脳 1090.
To some very large numbers, and beyond (2)
1 脳 1090 seems very small compared with the useful numbers used to generate cryptography keys. Given that such numbers are routinely involved in calculations with practical real-world applications, physical reality is no constraint to going full steam ahead further towards infinity.
Are gift-bearing orcas more like playful dogs?
Maybe orcas were indeed being altruistic and bringing us gifts. Some cats leave mice, birds or gophers on their owners’ doorsteps, which sounds like a gift of food. But a dog (or cat) dropping something at your feet may be asking you to play fetch. What’s more, the story explains that the orcas played with the prey before presenting it to the humans, and that they lingered for a moment after doing so(12 July, p 19).
I would love to see a follow-up where the gift is accepted, then tossed gently away. Does the orca chase it? If so, does it encourage more gifting (bringing it back again) or less (due to the gift being unappreciated and “throwaway”)?
Rocks made of garbage, what a legacy!
Now we have realised that we messed up Earth by changing the climate and overpopulating the planet, we cling to the thought that we have left some traces that will tell future alien visitors or intelligent cockroaches about us: we created the Anthropocene, even if it is just radioactive waste, microplastics and rocks formed from garbage(19 July, p 24). What a legacy!
Yes, human milk is great, but formula has its place
While I am aware that breastfeeding has many benefits, as highlighted in your story, I am a living testament to the alternative. I was entirely bottle-fed as a baby, my mother having had quite enough after feeding my three siblings, especially in the climate in Singapore where I was weaned. Sixty years on, I am in good health(9 August, p 10).
Perfect read while waiting for a bowel movement
Keeping the latest 快猫短视频 in my toilet/loo/john helps my constipation. There is no better way to relax while waiting for my bowels to spring into action(9 August, p 38).