ᠰᠢᠨ᠎ᠡ ᠰᠢᠨᠵᠢᠯᠡᠬᠦ ᠤᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨᠲᠠᠨ ᠰᠡᠳᠬᠦᠯ ᠤᠨ 2019 .5.25 ᠤ ᠬᠤᠭᠤᠴᠠᠭ᠎ᠠ᠂ ᠳᠡᠯᠡᠬᠡᠢ ᠶᠢᠨ ᠬᠡᠪ （ᠠᠩᠭ᠍ᠯᠢ ᠬᠡᠪᠯᠡᠯ） New Scientist International Edition.pdf

Smart technology does more than take selfies. From helping pilots avoid turbulence to making cars more intuitive to reinventing retail, IBM is working behind the scenes to change the way the world works. Find out how at ibm.com/smart/ukNo3231 £4.95 CAN$7.99 9 770262407312 21 TEENY TINY UNIVERSES Mini big bangs might be happening all the time CONTAMINATED BLOOD Could more have been done to prevent deaths? RETURN TO J UPITER Mysteries of the solar system’s majestic giant THE TRUTH ABOUT LIE DETECTORS They don’t work and never have. Why still use them? WHY PARENTING DOESN’T MATTER (Or not as much as you think) PLUS SEA OTTERS V GREAT WHITE SHARKS / SCREAM SCIENCE / PLUTO’S OCEAN / CHIMP INNOVATORS / HYPERSONIC FLIGHT WEEKLY 25 May 2019As with all investing, your capital is at risk. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Orbis Investments (U.K.) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority Conventional wisdom has been around for ages, but people forget to challenge what it means. Or why we continue to repeat it. At Orbis, we’ve always questioned common thinking to avoid sleepwalking into common results. Watched pots do eventually boil, and they’ve served our clients well. Ask your financial adviser for details or visit Orbis.comWatched pots do boil 25 May 2019 | New Scientist | 3 This week’s issue On the cover 15 Sea otters v great white sharks 12 Scream science 10 Pluto’s ocean 11 Chimp innovators 11 8 Teeny tiny universes Mini big bangs might be happening all the time 34 Return to Jupiter Mysteries of the solar system’s majestic giant 14 Contaminated blood Could more have been done to prevent deaths? Coming next week The early bird What was Archaeopteryx really like? News Views Features 10 Abortion laws US legislation puts abortion rights in jeopardy 11 Inventive chimps Rethinking the role of culture in the evolution of tool use 12 Eating CO 2 Can we divert captured carbon into our food chain? 23 Comment Populist election gains are a problem for the planet 24 The columnist Graham Lawton on why we must talk about population 26 Letters The origins of language may not be with hunters 28 Aperture The kilogram is dead, meet the new kilogram 30 Culture Myriad ways to celebrate the moon in all its glory 51 Maker Make your own traffic light 52 Puzzles Cryptic crossword, a quiz and a doorway dilemma 53 Feedback Liquid Death and cookie logic 54 Almost the last word Earth’s magnetism and currents: your queries answered 56 Me and my telescope Sophie Scott enjoys studying laughter – and thermostats 34 Return to Jupiter The solar system’s largest planet may have enabled life on Earth 39 Does parenting matter? Robert Plomin says we have little effect on our kids’ success 42 Recipe for disaster Antibiotics pumped into Indian rivers pose a global health risk The back pages 15 Cannabis evolved on high Plant’s origins traced to Tibetan plateau Vol 242 No 3231 Cover image: Vanessa Branchi 39 Why parenting doesn’t matter (Or not as much as you think) 18 The truth about lie detectors They don’t work and never have. Why still use them? BOTTOM: IVAN MIKHAYLOV/ALAMY; TOP: BRIDGEMAN IMAGES NewsCATCH THE SUMMER LIGHT WITH NIKON Photographer: Alina Rudya Get instant discounts on selected Nikon cameras and NIKKOR lenses. Save today! 15th May 2019 until 15th August 2019. nikonpromotions.co.uk 25 May 2019 | New Scientist | 5 NINE days, three elections – and a confusing mix of messages about what constitutes meaningful action on climate change. Start in Australia, where the ruling Liberal-National coalition won a surprise re-election last Saturday (see page 7). The result followed sustained questioning of the cost, in money and in jobs, of the opposition Labor party’s plans to nearly double planned cuts to carbon emissions. In India, meanwhile, exit polls as New Scientist went to press suggest that the world’s largest democratic contest will have delivered another term as prime minister for Narendra Modi. Significantly, for the first time, the manifestos of both Modi’s BJP party and the opposition Congress party promised significant action on environmental issues: expanding renewables, reversing deforestation and cleaning up India’s polluted rivers and foul urban air. Move to the European Parliament elections between 23 and 26 May. These seem likely to deliver big gains for populist parties using climate-change denial as part of their anti-establishment messaging (see page 23), but also for pro-environment Greens. New Scientist doesn’t endorse any candidate or party. But we do endorse a sustainable future for the planet. And this week’s results fit a pattern. Nations on the up such as India and China see green issues as compatible with their development – indeed, advantageous for it. Meanwhile, greying Western economies are stuck in the mud, polarising into pro and anti camps. The West should take heed. Dealing with climate change comes with a cost, that is clear. But not making the necessary adjustments to our lifestyles comes at an even bigger cost. Nowhere is that clearer than in Australia, with its recent record of extreme weather. The cognitive bias of hyperbolic discounting, which makes us favour a smaller reward sooner over a bigger one later, is well known. Pandering to it may bring short-term benefits – but longer term, no one gains. ❚ Blind to the truth Election results show many politicians are still in denial on climate change The leader People in 30 countries have been going to the ballot box ANTHONY BRADSHAW/GETTY EDITORIAL Executive chairman Bernard Gray Chief executive Nina Wright Finance director Jenni Prince Chief technology officer Chris Corderoy Marketing director Jo Adams Human resources Shirley Spencer Non-executive director Louise Rogers HR co-ordinator Serena Robinson Facilities manager Ricci Welch Executive assistants Sarah Gauld, Lorraine Lodge Receptionist Alice Catling MANAGEMENT CONTACT US newscientist.com/contact General BOTTOM: REX/SHUTTERSTOCK The test is different to the polygraph because all the options are part of the same overall question. And if a person says they have no knowledge of the crime, but the test indicates they do, you can infer they are probably lying. It has been used for years by police in Japan to help direct enquiries in the early stages of investigations. Although the CIT rests on solid foundations, it isn’t a perfect memory detector. A 2014 meta- analysis of about 100 studies of CITs did uncover a significant statistical difference between the results of people with guilty knowledge and without it. Y et, at best, a person who does have such a memory would be about 90 per cent more likely to get a higher skin conductance reading than someone who doesn’t. That might sound high, but a test with that success rate is likely to produce false negatives: results suggesting that people don’t have knowledge when they actually do. Linda Geven, a legal psychologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands says this shows why the CIT shouldn’t be relied on in court as the sole proof of guilt. “Y ou would use it more in the investigation stage, ” she says. “For example, to work out if the police should look at one suspect more closely than the others. ” Even then, what CIT does detect may not always be a relevant “memory trace” , as Geven calls them. For example, interviewees might recognise a suspect from news reports, even when they don’t really know them. She is researching whether asking more specific questions could get around this. More recently, it has emerged that the CIT may reveal not just whether people have a memory Working hypothesis Sorting the week’s supernovae from the absolute zeros Lie detectors (above), which track pulse, blood pressure and breathing, were often used on The Jeremy Kyle Show (below) ITVT HE UK’ s most senior military officer recently set out the dangers emerging in the 21st century. “The threats to our nation are diversifying, proliferating and intensifying rapidly, ” said General Nick Carter, the Chief of Defence Staff. “The character of politics and warfare is evolving rapidly, driven by the pervasiveness of information and the rate of technological change. ” These changing technologies include artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, new materials and information technologies. These sophisticated advances have improved lives but they are also open to exploitation. The more we depend on them, the more vulnerable we become. That has big implications for our defence. “Our competitors have become masters at exploiting the seams between peace and war, ” said Carter. Information technologies are a particular threat. Cyberattacks result in losses of over $400 billion to the global economy every year. The US government has warned that physical infrastructure such as power grids and transport systems are as exposed as online systems to such actions. Earlier this month New Scientist, in association with BAE Systems, held a televised debate with a panel of experts in front of a hand-picked studio audience to discuss these important issues and the threats that new technologies pose to our way of life – and how we might defend ourselves from them. On the panel were David Palmer, director of technology at Darktrace, a global AI company specialising in cyberdefence; Kavitha Kishen, deputy director of national security science and research at the UK Department of Transport; David Short, director of technology at BAE Systems; and Trevor T aylor, who heads a research programme on defence, industry and society at the Royal United Services Institute in London. All the panellists agreed that perils in the digital age are dramatically different to those of twenty years ago. One reason is that we spend so much of our time online, and are highly dependent on interconnected, autonomous systems for our energy, transport, communications and other needs. Another is that cyber-weapons are relatively cheap, which makes it possible for anyone with sufficient motivation and know-how to cause far- reaching damage. “T o produce a tank or a military aircraft or a nuclear weapon is Advertising feature The emerging threats from disruptive technologies New technologies have always influenced the delicate balance of power between nations and the people within them. Last month, New Scientist gathered a group of defence experts to discuss how disruptive technologies are creating a new set of threats for society The New Scientist panel: Justin Mullins (chair); Dave Palmer (Darktrace); Kavitha Kishen (Department of T ransport); Dave Short (BAE Systems) and T revor T aylor (Royal United Services Institute) DONALD IAIN