Letter: Astrology is bunk, but just maybe it did have a heyday

From Neil Wickens, Uraidla, South Australia

I have to agree that astrology can only be regarded as nonsense. How can the behaviour of any particular one-twelfth of the world’s population be governed by the position of the stars at birth(24 August, p 10)?

However, please consider the following: it is a fact that a mother’s behaviour, living conditions, diet and so on can influence the development of the fetus during pregnancy. If we go back to when living conditions were seasonally dependent, then it is clear that a child conceived in, say, October in the northern hemisphere – where astrology developed – would gestate during a time of cooler weather, a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables, inhalation of smoke from open fires and so on, whereas a child conceived in, say, April would gestate during months with an abundance of healthy food.

This could lead to the children appearing to have characteristics depending on their date of birth and, hence, the position of the stars. There could be subtle variations spread over the year.

So, perhaps star signs weren’t altogether nonsense at the time.