Why sci-fi tends to put humans front and centre
I’m a fanboy of Annalee Newitz and hesitate to question anything they say about science fiction. But one aspect of their recent column has me scratching my head (27 December 2025, p 16). Can they really be mystified by why humans are far more interested in anything a member of their species does in space than anything a robot does?
I don’t think people are fascinated by going into space themselves because of sci-fi stories. It’s the other way around: sci-fi stories are focused on humans (and humanoids) because they were created by master storytellers 鈥� like Newitz. They know what readers want. The US paid a significant percentage of its federal budget on the Apollo programme because it grabbed the imagination of the entire planet.
Sci-fi isn’t primarily read because of the science. It’s about humans 鈥� who we are, how we got that way and where we’re headed. For untold aeons, humans have been seeking out new territory. It’s in our DNA. Humans want to boldly go where no one has gone before.
Musings on our relationship with nature (1)
Richard Smyth says the growing trend of seeing our relationship with nature as a spiritual thing is a mistake. But “existential” or “mysterious” are surely better words to describe it than “spiritual”. Bertrand Russell, the great atheist philosopher, famously said: “We know very little, and yet it is astonishing that we know so much, and still more astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power.” A sense of awe and mystery is shared by all human observers of nature (10 January, p 19).
Musings on our relationship with nature (2)
Smyth is absolutely right that there are no lessons to be learned from nature. Morality and meaning cannot be obtained from nature or its study; their true source is elsewhere. It is hard not to feel that the deification of nature is a substitute for traditional religious belief. The fundamental question is: is nature 鈥� the material universe 鈥� all there is?
Here's a design for an improved solar panel
Paul Whiteley points out that 75 per cent of the sunlight hitting solar panels is lost as heat, but roof-top solar water heaters convert 95 per cent into hot water. So let’s combine the two! Have a layer of water between the solar panel and a glass plate, as in a solar water heater. The sunlight passes through the glass and water, and some 20 per cent of it is turned into electricity. The rest becomes heat, most of which is captured by the water. Install enough of these versions to provide your hot water, plus some normal panels to obtain more electricity if needed (Letters, 10 January).
The odds of alien life are better than you think (1)
Bryn Glover gives a negative assessment of the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe. This is based on a 快猫短视频 article stating the odds of the formation of the last universal common ancestor from a soup of chemicals as “less than 1 in a billion” (Letters, 3 January).
Of course, we cannot be absolutely certain that a soup of chemicals is required, that DNA is necessary, that life must be protoplasmic, etc. All of these theoretical possibilities must raise the likelihood by offering other pathways. However, using the same argument, an estimated total of 1 septillion stars divided by the quoted odds of less than 1 billion still provides much room for optimism!
The odds of alien life are better than you think (2)
Decades ago, 快猫短视频 ran a feature about Rupert Sheldrake’s hypothesis of morphic resonance, which posits that once something comes into being, recurrence becomes easier. He used crystallisation as an example: once accomplished, it becomes subsequently easier to do. We are in the universe; the universe is in us. All is one. As far as we know, the universe is vast. Chances are that life happens in more than one place. It is just that instances of life aren’t within our hailing distance.
Trying to solve the meteorite mystery (1)
After reading Alex Wilkins’s article on the mystery of the missing meteorite, I asked Google’s AI assistant whether you can make a pigment for painting rocks using iron meteorites, and whether iron objects look shinier in low morning or midday light. Its answer to both questions was yes. If accurate, this may indicate that Gaston Ripert was honest when he claimed that, after travelling all night, he had seen a large metallic rock in the desert that local people referred to as the “iron of God”. But, far from being metallic, the rock was only coated with iron-based paint. This would explain the lack of success by later investigators, who attempted to find the rock using magnetometers (3 January, p 32).
Trying to solve the meteorite mystery (2)
Regretfully, I must strongly assert that there is no giant “iron of God” meteorite. If ever there had been, there would be widespread legends about it, artefacts made from it and religious rituals or taboos involving it. If we accept that Ripert was an honest observer and truly saw something, consider that desert mirages are a common phenomenon and often involve what seem like reflective, shiny pools of water that are sometimes greatly enlarged, usually with inverted scenery.
A reminder of the importance of rocks
In the article “Rapa Nui statues may have been built by small groups”, the important materials utilised for the construction of these numerous and impressive stone statues are referred to only as having originated from “one quarry supplying the rock” (6 December 2025, p 17).
Perhaps this is of no concern to most readers, but to a geologist, the significance of the specific physical attributes of the rocks is clear. Not many other rock types could have retained the carved details of the figures, lots of which originally faced towards the open ocean and did so for hundreds of years. Omitting this detail is rather like eating the cake without enquiring about a piquant ingredient!
For the record
The record X-ray pulse produced by LCLS-II in 2024 carried a terawatt of power (10 January, p 15).