Entries by tag: evolution
“The state of flow, like the path that bears its name, is volatile, unpredictable, and all-consuming. Flow feels like the meaning of life for good reason. The neurochemicals that underpin the state are among the most addictive drugs on earth. Equally powerful is the psychological draw. Scientists who study human motivation have lately learned that after basic survival needs have been met, the combination of autonomy (the desire to direct your own life), mastery (the desire to learn, explore, and be creative), and purpose (the desire to matter, to contribute to the world) are our most powerful intrinsic drivers—the three things that motivate us most. All three are deeply woven through the fabric of flow. Thus toying with flow involves tinkering with primal biology: addictive neurochemistry, potent psychology, and hardwired evolutionary behaviors. Seriously, what could go wrong?”
—Steven Kotler in The Rise of Superman; Decoding the Science of Ultimate Human Performance, p158, in Ch10 entitled The Dark Side of Flow.
I have come to suspect that we have not evolved to the point that our cognitive processes consistently overrule our animal instincts. The idea that we can base our choices on verifiable information appears damned. Civility is superficial and short-lived. Democracy fails in the face of the self-righteous greed of our kind. The solution of course would be a benevolent dictator, but the problem with those is that they are human too and the majority are not benevolent.
Please, America, prove me wrong.
Cheetah population crashes, raising threat of extinction
The world's cheetah population is crashing, leaving the world's fastest land animal approaching extinction, according to new research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday. There are now about 7,100 cheetahs left in the wild, the report said, down from an estimated 100,000 at the end of the 19th century. Cheetahs once roamed Africa and Asia, but they have lost an estimated 91 percent of their habitat. Most of the remaining cheetahs are in Africa, with about 50 remaining in Iran. In Africa, 14 of 18 groups studied were decreasing. Zimbabwe's cheetah population has fallen from 1,200 to 170 in 16 years. [USA Today, CNN]
SOURCE
The Week at http://theweek.com/10things/662478/10-things-need-know-today-december-27-2016
My thought: I'm still reading Sapiens and the first section, about how humans absolutely devastated the megafauna of every continent and island, is still reverberating through my consciousness. The extinction of many species, including the wooly mammoth and the sabre tooth tiger, immediately followed the introduction of our species to a land mass. We are still causing extinctions. You would think that we'd make an effort to sustain at least token populations of the more charismatic species. Instead it appears that the great white hunter would rather have one on his wall than to keep them alive in the wilds. As the political reality in the US turns even uglier, I have less and less respect and care for my own species. We may extinct ourselves, but that would be good for many other species.
--Yuval Noah Harari in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 2015, p74.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/jaw-on-the-floor-entire-chunk-of-feathered-dinosaur-discovered-in-amber/
The first step of DOING science is to ask a question about the world. The question doesn't have to be complicated, it just has to reach into the unknown. Once you have your question, it is a good idea to snoop around and see if anyone else has already answered it, or tried. Learn everything you can about the variables that might influence the answer. Once you've studied up on it, you're qualified to make a guess---a "theory" in science terms---as to what the answer might be, and why. A true scientist knows that a theory is just a theory--it has to be tested repeatedly by people who agree and by people who disagree. A true scientist is not heartbroken when the data shows that his theory was bunk. That is useful information. Time to come up with a new theory.
This testing is the experiment. There can be many different ways to test any one theory. The most useful experiments are often the simplest, changing only one variable between two groups of test subjects. Scientist use many different methods to approach the same question, and this diversity adds richness to the picture painted by the results. We might know that B follows A three quarters of the time, but until we know WHY they are correlated, and what other variables contribute to the correlation, we do not understand. A--->B at a rate of 75% is enough to know that there is a connection, but it is not enough to say that A causes B. We don't know that. Something else could be causing it. We take our results from that experiment, share them with the other scientific thinkers in the world, and update our theory if possible. Usually an experiment brings up new questions, which indicate new possible experiments that need to be done to understand.
So science does NOT discover causality. It discovers correlations. Correlations can have multiple contributing variables so more experiments are needed. Sometimes someone repeats the same experiment and gets the opposite result. This is evidence that there was something operating in the system that was not being measured. This is a sign that the original theory was based in deeper ignorance than perhaps we thought at first. This is hard to admit, even for scientists.
Just because an experiment gets peer reviewed and published in an journal does not make it the truth. There are many false conclusions that have been published. Egostists who call themselves scientists publish more books than all the real scientists put together. Real scientists tent to be intraverts who'd rather stay out of the limelight and just keep digging into these interesting questions. Every experient needs to be repeated from a variety of angles before a result is accepted as Truth.
So there is a basic primer on the scientific method. My area is mostly medicine, though I am fascinated by all science. Medical science is more than double blind placebo controlled studies. It includes the careful evaluation of population outcomes and biochemical mechanisms and every other factor that could influence the answer. Science is a process of asking questions and trying to figure out if our theories about the answers are right or not. A theory is just a theory.
Evolution, by the way, has been proven in so many ways by so many different experiments, that it is not a theory anymore.
What's distinctive about Sanders is not (or not simply) that he's an ideological purist who refuses to think pragmatically but that he just doesn't know or care very much about the details of how the world works, how to affect concrete change, and what the possible unintended consequences of major changes is likely to be. He'd rather rally the troops and give a rousing speech.
--Damon Linker in the Week, here: http://theweek.com/articles/617065/bernie-sanders-hollow-aspirational-politics
I share this quote because I disagree. I think that Bernie sees the writing on the wall, that this crash will either happen sooner and in an intentional way, or later in an even more devastating way. Take apart the banks, or watch them take us apart. Re-establish human decency or take care of just yourself. This crossroads leads one way, the other way is inconceivable. You just can't change directions when there is so much momentum. Not without a crash. Bernie knows that many people will die in the process, that poor people will loose the game, and that over generations rich people will be able to relocate to wherever they need to go to survive and propagate. Idiocracy will come to pass if tRump is any indication of wealthy breeding.
I thought since the beginning that this polarity between tRump and Bernie is representative of the deepest cultural fissure in this nation. It has been fascinating to watch it play out.
To assert that Bernie doesn't know how the world works is a pretty low blow. He knows. His heart broke a long time ago. Now he's trying to do something to change it. I appreciate his efforts and I wish that he'd team up with my old buddy Ron Paul (he's not too old) and connect the political circle. If anybody knows what's going on, it's these old dudes.
DONOHUE-LEVITT HYPOTHESIS = The theory that legal abortion reduces crime by reducing the number of unwanted births, neglected and abused youth. As the theory goes, those troubled children grow up to be the next generation of criminals. Research shows that children of women denied an abortion require more public assistance including psychiatric services and foster homes, and engage in more criminal and antisocial behavior than their wanted counterparts.
Most crimes are committed by males aged 18-24. Roe versus Wade (legalizing abortion) was passed by SCOTUS in 1973, and 18 years later the country experienced a significant decrease in crime. One of the justices had offered the rationale that a family unready to support a child should not be required to have one. States that had already legalized abortion had earlier reductions in crime, and higher abortion rates correlated with greater reductions in crime. Australian and Canadian studies have detected a correlation between legalized abortion and reduced crime overall. Of course all of these interpretations have been challenged, and more research is needed. Among other possible contributors to decreasing crime is the removal of lead from gasoline in the same year as Roe vs Wade. Lead ingestion lowers intelligence and increases impulsivity and aggressive behavior.
Even childless I want to give something to new generations, because it seems so sad to send young people out into the world without direction or inspiration. Where parents fail, family or community sometimes steps in. I see the baseball teams training in the park and the kids there are learning something useful. Coordination. Teamwork. I see a strong young woman on the tennis court who is obviously an ace, but who is toying with her two competitors, and idly watching me who is watching her. Will she have children? Perhaps not. Today I heard the daughter of a coworker say that she won't have children. Why not? Will she regret not having children? What will be her creative work in this world, if not baby making?
In many cultures a woman is of little or no use if she does not serve to birth and raise a brood of offspring for a man. Put the food on the table. Clean. What is a woman if she does none of this?
*new tag: legacy
- Current Mood:
pensive
Comments