There’s a good chance that you’re familiar with the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS), even if you don’t know it by name. Replaced in 2011 by the National Terrorism Advisory System, it was that color-coded notification system developed in the wake of 9/11 that ostensibly functioned to alert the public of a probable terrorist threat to the United States. Green indicated a low risk of attack; blue, a general risk; yellow, an elevated risk; orange, a high risk; and red, a severe risk. In spite of the supposed “generality” of the blue level, the advisory had not once been lower than an “elevated” yellow in its nine years of existence. Instead, it vacillated between yellow and orange for the most part, though it did strike red in 2006.
As I argued previously, reproductive variance was the first inequality—all other forms that matter to us, like income inequality, do so because they have historically been related to reproductive variance. Those with more resources, for instance, had more babies that survived to reproduce; when possible, those babies also tended to inherit their parents’ resources, starting the cycle anew. These chronic effects on reproductive success have imposed selection pressures on the human mind to compete optimally for resources.
As far as hot button issues go, income inequality is certainly having a moment. A worldwide, popular movement was spurred on by it, several Nobel-prized economists have damned it in no uncertain terms, Barack Obama made it a pillar of his presidency (though, on this, he may have begun to waver), and The New York Times has devoted a regular series to it.
In the midst of the financial panic sparked by the fall of Lehman Brothers, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from mid-1987 to 2006, shocked the American public. Testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 23, 2008, Greenspan had this extraordinary exchange with Representative Henry Waxman...
In my last post, I dismissed a common objection to the study of the genetics of behavior, political or otherwise: complexity—as in, development is too complex for genes to affect behavior. I hope that I managed to convey the certainty with which scientists have answered the question “does genetic variation affect behavior?” in the affirmative. There is a considerable body of evidence substantiating this claim, from the most basic (centuries of animal husbandry by domestication) to the most extraordinary (myriad knock out, knock down, knock in, and transgenic experiments). We are no longer dealing with correlations alone but with unambiguous cause and effect: polygamous voles turn monogamous, anxious mice relax, and heterosexual fruit flies become bisexual, all at the turn of a gene or three.
Cake is a marvelous thing. It comes in all varieties of shape and size, understated or ornamented, whole or tiered, vanillaed or chocolated or anything-ed in between, and it always seems to deliver. One especially satisfying feature of the mighty cake is that it presents itself to the taster as a unified whole, rather than as a mere assemblage of ingredients, baked at a specified temperature for a specified time.
The Evolution of Governance program at One Earth Future is a peculiar thing. As with the other research tracks at OEF, the aim is to develop a cohesive theoretical “blueprint” for good governance structures—ones that foster peace rather than foment conflict. Furthermore, much like the other tracks, this blueprint will be empirically tested (with both laboratory and field data). The key distinction, however, lies in the approach: the work of the Evolution of Governance program is expressly biological.