Subscribe now

Letters archive

Join the conversation in New Scientist's Letters section, where readers can share their thoughts and opinions on articles and see responses from experts and enthusiasts across a range of science topics. To submit a letter, please see our terms and email letters@newscientist.com


15 January 2025

Mixed views on the push to suck carbon from the air (1)

From From David Muir, Edinburgh, UK It was good to read about the advances in direct air capture of carbon dioxide. However, the purchase of offset carbon credits by large corporations on the back of this strikes me as nothing more than a licence to pollute. Such firms should be doing more at source to …

15 January 2025

Mixed views on the push to suck carbon from the air (2)

From Andrew Benton, Flourtown, Pennsylvania, US

Scaling up direct air capture (DAC) raises many questions. How will the giant new plant be powered? In other words, how much carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere to power this plant? What's more, how long will such plants need to operate to remove the same amount of CO 2 that was released …

15 January 2025

Mixed views on the push to suck carbon from the air (3)

From Martin van Raay, Culemborg, Netherlands

Considering that the world's terrestrial vegetation absorbs some 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, wouldn't it have been better to not invest in this plant, but to grow more trees instead? Also, let's stop burning existing trees – allow them to live a full life, then turn them into useful products, so this CO …

15 January 2025

Concern over welfare of AI chatbots is misplaced (1)

From Zoë Jewell, Durham, North Carolina, US

I was struck by the juxtaposition of the article on the use of CRISPR technology to create disease-resistant pigs and another piece urging us to consider the welfare of AI chatbots. This highlights a troubling inconsistency in our ethical priorities. On the one hand, we are developing tools to intensify pig production, perpetuating a system …

15 January 2025

Concern over welfare of AI chatbots is misplaced (2)

From John Kitchen, Kettering, Northamptonshire, UK

No one has yet proven that artificial intelligence in its true sense even exists. In fact, there are many reasons to say that it doesn't, including the fact that no "AI" has yet demonstrated critical reasoning. Starting to talk about the rights or welfare of AI is therefore utterly ridiculous.

15 January 2025

Shower far less? Try a bath once a fortnight

From Emily Wolfe, Bristol, UK

In your ultimate guide to skincare, David Robson says that showering a few times a week may suffice to keep the body's outer layer in good condition. Speaking as an older reader who didn't encounter a shower in someone's home until the age of 18, I can assure him that showering zero times a week …

15 January 2025

Not all weight loss is a good thing

From Penny Jackson, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK

If weight loss were to occur as a side effect of using semaglutide to treat heart disease, that might not always be a good thing. I am talking about for treating older people, who may be severely underweight already. Weight loss wouldn't be healthy there ( 11 January, p 19 ).

15 January 2025

Two takes on talk of society's breakdown (1)

From Wai Wong, Melbourne, Australia

Cities like Singapore, Tokyo and Hong Kong enjoy relatively low crime rates and long lifespans despite population densities 100 times the planet's average – hardly evidence of a John Calhoun-style breakdown due to population growth. There are problems due to overpopulation, but not of the sort he predicted ( 14/21 December 2024, p 52 ).

15 January 2025

Two takes on talk of society's breakdown (2)

From Murray Upton, Canberra, Australia

It is wrong to claim that Calhoun's forecast of social breakdown in an increasingly crowded world "hasn't (for the most part) materialised". It seems to me that Earth's population is indeed in the middle of its "behavioural sink" and unfortunately appears likely to destroy itself.

15 January 2025

Many reasons to say no to a Mars colony (1)

From Brad Elliott, Sydney, Australia

A lunar colony would be far preferable to one on Mars. Its foundation is within the ambit of modern technology, and it could be rapidly serviced from Earth. The moon has many valuable resources, including water, which could be used alongside excellent solar power generation, unaffected by dust storms as it would be on Mars. …

15 January 2025

Many reasons to say no to a Mars colony (2)

From Martin Welbank, Cambridge, UK

Keeping a Mars colony going as a useful backup for humanity would be astronomically expensive, and you would need to continue this for thousands of years, just on the off-chance of something truly awful happening on Earth. It is a childish distraction from the less glamorous but more important problem of adapting to live on …

15 January 2025

Philosophers don't always get facts right

From Gabriel Carlyle, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, UK

We are urged to try the writing of philosophers, such as the "impeccable logic" of Bertrand Russell, as a remedy for poor fact-checking in popular science books. Turning to Russell's 1948 book Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits , we read that "helium... has a nucleus consisting of four protons and two electrons" ( Letters, …

Issue no. 3526 published 18 January 2025

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop