Correspondence

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The Number of our Ancestors. To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Youf correspondent who figures out that each of us had 1,424 ancestors ten generations ago must be an only child. It is so naive a statement to make that each person living has two parents and each parent had two, etc. He forgets that the figuring is more apt to be the other way. Ten generations ago a couple got married. They had four married childfen, and each child had two children that married, etc. Thus in the present generation there will be living 1,424 descendants of the original pair. When speaking of human beings, it is polite to say couple, and not pair, of course. According to his way of thinking, the world at some time in the past must have been densely populated. History does not show this. On the contrary, history tends to show that the increase in population is such that it very nearly doubles in each generation. Tie ancient wise men who considered that the population of the world started with one couple were simply men who observed and applied facts. Your correspondent runs away with himself, and a little sober thought would show how absurd some of his ideas are. Chicago, 111. ERNEST MCCULIOUGH.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American