Skip to main content

Goldilocks and the Water Bears - Louisa Preston ***

Although it made me cringe, don't be put off by the title - this is a book about the equally strangely named astrobiology (the author says it combines biology and space - i.e. the biology and environmental considerations of potential alien life, but strictly the name means the biology of stars), which is potentially a very interesting subject.

 The 'Goldilocks' part of the title, as most readers will recognise, refers to the Goldilocks zone - the region around a star where a planet would be not too hot, not too cold but just right for carbon-based, water-dependent life. As Louisa Preston makes clear, this is no longer given the significance it once was, as some of the best candidates for (low level) life in our solar system are the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which appear to have liquid water oceans under a thick ice crust. Even so, the concept is useful.

 As for the water bears, they were far and above my favourite part of the book - fascinating little 8-legged creatures that can go into a dehydrated state where they can be exposed to everything space can throw at them, from extreme low temperatures to radiation - and still come back to life when rehydrated at the right temperature. They are interesting in this context both as a type of life that could in principle support transport through space to seed a new planet and also as a model of some of the more extreme ways that life could survive in habitats that we might once have thought would never support it.

 Apart from the water bears, the book is at its best in is its survey of possible places life could exist and its enthusiasm for the concept of astrobiology. But there are some problems. Large chunks of the book consist of what Rutherford referred to as 'stamp collecting' - little more than listing details of the various possibilities. This comes across particularly strongly in the section on extremophiles - organisms that can exist in extreme conditions - on Earth (as a model for life elsewhere). For page after page we get lists of bacteria and other organisms that can survive in various conditions. There is also heavy repetition. So, for example, there are three separate sections talking about the possibilities for life in the water beneath the ice on the moon Europa, with big overlaps in content. This reflects a distinct lack of narrative structure to the book, which is probably why one of the most interesting questions in the subject - if life came into existence easily, why does it appear to have only done so once on Earth? - isn't covered.

 I'm sure Preston knows her stuff on astrobiology, but a science writer has to have a much wider knowledge and here she has the biggest problems. Every popular science book includes the odd error, but here there are so many, it's worrying. For instance, we are given the excellent movie The Martian as an example of a movie featuring aliens. Unless a martian pops up in the corner of a frame, or you count a potato grown on Mars as an alien, this could only be the result of simply looking at the title and assuming that it does without checking.

 Things get worse when we look back into history. We are told that the Ancient Greek Democritus 'realised that the Sun was just as star... in his wisdom, he understood that the planets revolved around the Sun and that Earth itself is a planet. He even theorised about exoplanets...' But he didn't. Democritus didn't have a heliocentric model - I can only assume this is a confusion with the later Aristarchus - nor did he realise all that clever astronomical stuff. He did support (but not originate) the idea of the pluralism of worlds, but this was not an astronomical theory, more like the parallel universes beloved of pulp science fiction. Worse still, we are told that Aristotle with dates given as 460-370 BC had Plato (428-327 BC) as a mentor. Plato was, indeed, Aristotle's teacher, but you don't need anything but basic logic to suspect that Aristotle wasn't 32 years older than Plato.

 Sadly, it's not just the history that is suspect - physics presents some issues too. We are told that 'deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen,  but holds two neutrons rather than just one in the nucleus'. Unfortunately hydrogen has no neutrons, and deuterium has just one. We are told there was no light before stars formed, which is unfortunate for the Cosmic Microwave Background, and we are told that the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms combine to make helium, which would make it rather underweight. And, yes, inevitably, we get the myth that Giordano Bruno was martyred for his idea that there were many suns with their own solar systems.

 The combination of this error rate and the lack of writing style means that overall things could have been a lot better. There is plenty of interesting material in here (though how it can be described as an 'expert romp' as it is on the cover, I don't know), but the book does not do the subject justice.
Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more