Group evolution

Evolution and Our Inner Conflict
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/evolution-and-our-inner-conflict/

Though the initial focus of the article is discussing the dynamic between selfishness and altruism, what I found most interesting was the idea of group evolution. Reading the wiki page it seems clear that the basic idea is quite controversial, but to me it explains a lot of human behavior very tidily. Effective groups produced more offspring than ineffective groups and groups soon learned to recognize beneficial traits from other groups and made directed selection by encouraging out breeding. I see this sort of selective behavior in higher species like mammals way beyond simply mole rats (and humans). Lots of herd animals have benefits to selectively evolving group traits. Take elephants for example. While males tend to operate largely independently (though based on what I have read the last couple of years, males operate in loose groups as well (not as self-evident as the female dominated tight matriarchal groups) and the lost of patriarchs has resulted in significant problems, not the least of which is the young males are unable to effectively deal with their periods of must), female operate in tight groups that collectively have to deal with complex situations over long term periods (not the least of which is the periodic drought). Those groups that were most effective at operating together would have the most offspring that would reproduce in the next generation, so I can see that altruistic genes would become quickly established in organisms that form groups for long periods, even if that particular gene variant wasn’t particularly beneficial to the individual. Naturally, if altruists never actually spread their own seed, it would make it more challenging for a group to effectively pass that trait along the generations, so I can see a balance being required where the purest form of altruism is incapable of being stable. Conversely, I see the purest form of selfishness as being unstable as well as individuals that fail to contribute to any group could easily be excluded. There has to be a balance between selfishness and altruism and I am sure that the most effective groups had a wide range.

I can envision situations over the long term where during different periods of plenty and privation that the different extremes would have different survival characteristics, but it seems to me that once established, such group evolution would be very difficult to be lost as something would have to trigger the individual to be more successful than the group for long enough that the individuals out breed the groups. Just like highly aggressive individuals are successful in certain environments, I am sure that highly aggressive groups will be successful in certain environments. Thus, there could easily be traits linked to races and cultures that evolved because of different environments.

Personally I don’t see the huge objection to the power of group evolution, it seems like it has better value in predicting human behavior than basing everything off the individual.

Gender neutral

Why is ‘having it all’ just a women’s issue?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/25/opinion/coontz-women-have-it-all/index.html

I agree strongly with this author. Why is it that “It’s awfully tough to balance work and family — for a woman.”, why can’t it be a challenge for men as well? I suspect that at least a century ago, here in the US our society made a decision (likely without conscious thought) that men should not be involved in family interactions. Instead, men should labor unceasingly and provide no more than sperm and a paycheck to the family dynamic. It is high time that this dynamic change so men can find it socially acceptable to complain about work-life balance (and then achieve such balance, of course, along with the women).

A thing that makes you go Duh!

Wind turbine creates water from thin air
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/world/eole-water-turbine/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Not living in an area where water scarcity is an issue I can say that this never really served as an idea for me. However, I have thought about the use of compressed air generated from wind turbines and dealing with the inevitable water that is stored in even the driest of dry air (at least at sea level, at the tops of tall mountains the air can get quite dry), so in many respects I have given this concept a lot of thought, but with the water as a waste product rather than as the target.

Since the amount of moisture any gas can contain is related to the pressure of the gas, anyone who has worked with a compressor knows that you need to bleed the accumulated water from the system on a pretty regular basis or eventually the entire compressor tank fills up and becomes useless. Generally, though, that water is a mess of rust and oil from the compressor and I have never looked at it and thought about having a drink, but I can see optimizing a system to produce potable water fairly easily. I think that for remote ocean islands it actually makes a huge amount of practical sense and is likely an order of magnitude cheaper and easier than desalinating. Since the air surrounding ocean islands is likely to be nearly saturated with water to begin with, I see some fairly rudimentary designs being capable of producing quite a bit of water and I think it might even be possible to design such a system in a way that much of the materials can be produced locally.

As for arid regions like deserts, the air still contains moisture, just less. Often the dew point is at or below freezing (one of the reasons why there are such wild temperature swings in those regions as night time temps tend to dip until the dew point) which means in an arid region some sort of cyclic system would need to be developed (meaning build up frost/ice for a while, then allow to melt, rinse and repeat). The approach described in the article appears to be a bit too complex for my liking as it requires generating electricity and then using that electricity to cool a surface to produce the condensation. I would use compressed air in any system I would design. First, the compressed air has a higher dew point, so it is easier to extract water from it, second, using the neat physics of the vortex tube you can produce cooled air, which, btw, can be used to extract even further water from the compressed air. One of the problems with using a generator is that generators tend to ‘burn up’ if operated outside of their design parameters (meaning too slow or too fast) and to maintain optimal RPM, complicated (thus expensive and high maintenance) techniques are necessary to ensure proper range. Also, there is a critical lower bound that the generator fails (and an upper bound, but that is often dealt with by simply de-coupling the generator from the turbine blades). By going with a pure compressor-based system the complexity and expense of the generator and speed control systems are eliminated and thus a much cheaper and more robust system should be feasible.

As a business I don’t see this being worth huge sums. As a humanitarian effort I see it as something that could be quite feasible and with a very high rate of return. While the water squeezed from air isn’t guaranteed to be pure (after all, there are tons of air-born toxins), I can envision some fairly simple means of excluding almost all particulates, which would probably go a long way to removing almost all toxic sources. A quick look at the web site mentioned in the article (http://www.eolewater.com/) makes me think that they are not going to appeal to the poorer regions of the world. Without exploring their patents it is hard to know if they have some lock on the idea or not (I know that there has been extensive efforts to dry compressed air over the centuries, so I would be a bit surprised if they have anything fundamental). I do see that there could be quite a few ‘well heeled’ customers that might consider a more expensive system, particularly if they are considering other desalination approaches, but I see the biggest bang for society’s buck in the poorer areas of the world where alternatives to produce potable water are based on wells which are likely quite expensive to produce in comparison. I am halfway interested in pursuing something like this, but somehow suspect that once I click on ‘publish’ on this blog entry I will probably forget about it, except possibly to entertain my wife for a few minutes during our weekly too and fro Shenandoah.

Oh well, it entertained my mind for a few minutes…

Economic rent and rent seeking

I love it when I come across an article that exposes me to new concepts. I was interested in economics in graduate school and might have pursued it if I hadn’t had a firm idea of what I wanted to do (not that my firm idea did me a damn bit of good), so read with interest things economic when I come across them. This article contains an interview with a Nobel prize winning economist:

The Price of Inequality: Interview with Joseph E. Stiglitz
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-price-of-inequality-interview-with-joseph-e-stiglitz-20120625

One of the things he discusses is ‘rent seeking‘ which is an element of ‘economic rent‘. Both, as used in economics, are new terms for me and basically are referring to the ability (through monopolies like patents, copyrights, etc.) to charge money in excess of what the product or service would be worth in a competitive society. Some rents are paid by society in an effort to improve society (such as royalties on patents with the intention (that is no longer realized in the US) of stimulating innovation), but others might be created by the oligarchy to extract wealth from the rent payers, such as loopholes in the tax or regulation systems favoring one industry participant over another.

There are a couple of quotes I want to put in here in case my reader(s) need extra incentive to explore the links above. From the rent seeking wiki page:

From a theoretical standpoint, the moral hazard of rent-seeking can be considerable. If “buying” a favorable regulatory environment is cheaper than building more efficient production, a firm may choose the former option, reaping incomes entirely unrelated to any contribution to total wealth or well-being. This results in a sub-optimal allocation of resources — money spent on lobbyists and counter-lobbyists rather than on research and development, improved business practices, employee training, or additional capital goods — which retards economic growth. Claims that a firm is rent-seeking therefore often accompany allegations of government corruption, or the undue influence of special interests.

Any of that sound topical and relevant to today’s situation? From the interview:

Some people say we have this inequality because some people have been contributing much more to our society, and so it’s fair that they get more. But then you look at the people who are at the top and you realize they’re not the people who have transformed our economy, our society. They’re not the inventers [sic] of the lasers the transistors, the computer, the discoverers of DNA. They’re the bankers that exploited the poor, the CEOs who took advantage of the deficiencies of our corporate governing structure to a larger and larger share of the corporate revenues without increasing the productivity and performance of the companies or our economy as a whole.

How about that? Any of that sound eerily familiar?

Granted, finding that some dry old economist has already written tomes discussing how fucked up our society is today, generations ago, is only interesting, but as ‘they’ so cutely say, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The thing I hate about that statement (being doomed) is that those who did study history and can see that the lemmings are heading off the cliff are never-the-less carried along by the momentum of the movement and wind up going over the same damn cliff anyway. Which is why I keep coming back to “ignorance is bliss”.

One final quote, just for shits and giggles:

Let’s talk for a second about current events. So much economic policy today both here and especially in Europe, seems like medieval medicine: bleed the patient, and when she gets worse, add more leeches. In other words, “austerity.”

Let me put it very forcefully: No large economy has ever recovered from an economic downturn through austerity. It’s not going to happen in the United States and it’s not going to happen in Europe.

Not that my blog will change a damn thing if a Nobel winning economist is ignored.

The moral question

Health Care as a Privilege: What the GOP Won’t Admit
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/health-care-as-privilege-what-gop-wont-admit.html

This article very nicely sums up what has been floating around in my head: is access to health affordable care something that we, as a society, should consider an ‘inalienable’ right (like life, liberty and the _pursuit_ of happiness (though our Great President has already gone on record opposing life and liberty, even for citizens, if he doesn’t like you)), or is it something we should consider that must be earned, like an HDTV? I have mostly made economic arguments (I think that our society is, as a whole, wealthier (and of course healthier) if we have universal health care) and shied away from moral or ethical arguments, but I think, like the above author, more noise should be made about the moral and ethical dimension. Basically, the GOP and its supporters are saying that access to affordable health care should be entirely an element of your class and thus the government should not be involved at any level. I object to that attitude on many levels (as any regular reader will no doubt know) and I suspect that many, if not a majority, of Americans would also object, were it put to them in this moral and ethical framework instead of the smokescreen the GOP has been using. Of course, if Americans weren’t so damn credulous the GOP smokescreen would be ineffective, but such is life, eh?

A case against term limits

Why our extreme politics will get even worse
Term limits, redistricting, ideology and inexperience in Congress will result in even more partisan gridlock
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/23/why_our_extreme_politics_will_get_even_worse_salpart/

Pretty much until reading this article I was a strong proponent of term limits. However, the article serves as a strong argument against such, though in my mind Gerrymandering is a very substantial issue (as, of course, is unlimited funds). Just like the change in mind I had regarding legalizing drugs, I see this article as having the capacity to start changing my mind regarding term limits. The issue, once again, is unintended consequences. Just like legalizing drugs incentivises drug companies to aggressively market to maximize their profit, setting term limits seems to increase the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists already have an outsized influence on our government, particularly egregious because they are unelected and act in total secrecy. However, newbies need help and what better help than being mentored by someone just booted due to term limits? What does it matter that this ex-legislator is now bought and paid for by some (or several) industries, at least they know how things work, right?

Now it is quite plausible to me that if we did away with Gerrymandering we might wind up electing less partisan officials who might be more inclined to work with one another, so less likely to get advice from lobbyists, but clearly term limits need some thought regarding unintended consequences.

Stupid Americans

I had just finished reading this article:

Are Americans dumb?
Retiring congressman Gary Ackerman thinks so — is he right?
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/22/are_americans_dumb/

But didn’t feel compelled to comment on it (I am sure my regular reader(s) know my opinion already). However, the next article I read was this (Salon has some good ones today):

Alabama defeats communism with anti-sustainability law
Thanks to the John Birch Society, “environmentalism” is no longer an issue in Alabama — by law.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/23/alabama_defeats_communism_with_anti_sustainability_law_salpart/

The crazies are in control of the madhouse now, that is for sure. How deeply our society has devolved when nutcases (like John Birch Society appears to be) are no longer marginalized or called out by society’s leaders, but instead are considered mainstream and representative. Even scarier when I write it than when I think about it in a half formed idea. I know I say this a lot, but one of these days I might finally take action, it is time to get the hell out of this country! I just hope there is someplace else to go…

Class is back!

Class decides everything
Income increasingly dictates every aspect of our lives, from our politics to our health to our happiness
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/24/class_decides_everything/

What is really interesting to me is the realization (duh!) that I am in an upper class. Though I have worked with my hands, held such jobs as factory worker and fast food burger flipper and whatnot, been homeless and destitute, it seems I was ‘destined’ to be in the middle class and all of that activity was ‘character building’ stuff that happens when people are young (sort of like the CEO’s son working in the mail room for a year). Of course, converting my middle class life into an upper class life, as I had intended since I was a teenager, seems increasingly unlikely (though not yet impossible; however, I might be lying to myself), so I might be just settling into my predetermined economic location. Here is what I think is a very interesting passage (some day I am going to need to read Marx):

As fallible as Marx might have been about some things, his focus on class (not to mention his analysis of the tendency of capitalism to sporadically lurch into crisis) was eerily prescient. Marx was the first to see that class was deeper than income or education, or where different groups of people lived or what they could buy. It stemmed from their relationship to the economy, or as he referred to it, “the social relations of production.” Capitalism had only recently overturned the old feudal order of the agricultural age and replaced it with a distinctive class structure of its own, defined by two principle classes. Marx identified the bourgeoisie or capitalist class as those who owned and controlled the means of production; the proletariat or working class was comprised of those who performed physical labor. The rub, of course, was that members of the working class were only paid for a portion of the economic value they created. The owners’ profits were derived from the workers’ “surplus value” — the value they created but were not compensated for.

It is interesting to me that after having studied business since I was 13 that I never consciously thought about business profits from the ‘surplus value’ of the worker’s efforts. I had often thought about how the price of labor impacted profitability, without a doubt, but not how it is written above. I don’t think that will make me on bit less interested in extracting the ‘surplus value’ of any workers I might hire, but it does reveal an interesting blind spot I have. If you are self-employed (but lack any employees), then you get to keep that ‘surplus value’ yourself. Yes, being self-employed comes with its share of headaches (it is generally accepted (by those not living in a fantasy) that the self-employed put in 80-100 hours per week and almost never take longer vacations than a 3 day weekend, two primary reasons why I have never been excited about self-employment) and the true hourly rate might be substantially lower than the billing rate, but if you can double (or more) your income when otherwise you might be at the top of your ‘class’, it might give your children the option to claw up to the next tier. At least it could if we still have any vertical mobility left in our country, something that the article implies is decreasing over time.

Antibiotics and the health epidemic

Earlier I talked about the human ‘microbiome’ and the hygiene hypothesis. I was discussing this with my lovely wife over the weekend (got to kill 4 hours each weekend in the car somehow) and felt that there might be a very close correlation with antibiotic use and obesity and other health problems. Today I felt motivated to actually Google on the topic and guess what? I find this is an area of substantial interest:

In Some Cases, Even Bad Bacteria May Be Good
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/health/scientist-examines-possible-link-between-antibiotics-and-obesity.html

If I didn’t have so many other projects lined up, I think I might dive into this area of research because I think that producing tailored cultures of bacteria will go a very long way toward making humans healthier again. This handily explains why obesity seems to be inherited, but doesn’t seem to be genetic: babies get their microbiome from mom, dad, brother and sister. Also, since it is now well-known (in the world of genome research) that epigenetics is driven by environment, life-time alterations of gene activation can be directed by the bugs you carry for the journey. Given the wide spread impact of most antibiotics, another parallel could be drawn with the popularity of DDT and the substantial adverse effects that resulted in the environment. Indiscriminate killing in any ecosystem is going to greatly disturb that ecosystem, in this case we are talking about the ecosystem that is us, and the more often you devastate that ecosystem the less likely it is to recover to an optimal or efficient one. Most people freak out when they learn about the number of organisms (individuals as well as species) that hitch a ride on our body (I got to admit that as a youth I was well on my way to becoming a Howard Hughes, but since I didn’t have the money to indulge my passion the real world wore off the edge), but to my mind, the evidence that there is a stable, optimal ‘personal ecosystem’ is overwhelming. Since it is gross, though, it will probably be a further generation before such treatments become commonplace. Too bad for those of us suffering.

Bottom line: be very cautious about taking antibiotics (but if you do, be sure to take them as prescribed! Failure to do so creates antibiotic resistant strains (evolution in action!)). It is well known that antibiotics tend to be prescribed just as the patient starts to get better, ask your doctor if it is OK to wait a couple more days before taking them to see if that happens. After they have worked their course, try to bolster your gut by eating ‘live’ yogurt (that which _hasn’t_ been pasteurized). There are also yogurts specifically produced that are supposed to help ‘regulate’ your gut (I haven’t seen any research on them to know if they are worth anything, but there ain’t much chance that they will hurt you), you can try them. Additionally, spend some time making out with your significant other and try reestablishing your bugs from them (presuming they are healthy, of course!). As mentioned in the earlier post, I think that in a couple of decades or less, you will be given a pill with a tailored microbiome to consume once you are done with your antibiotics, but these approaches outlined above could help while you have to wait.

More minows and whales

Notes on Wall Street’s Bid-Rigging Scandal
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/notes-on-wall-streets-bid-rigging-scandal-20120622

This is Matt’s follow up to his article I briefly discuss here. It is much shorter, for those of you who couldn’t make it through the original, but has additional references for those of you who want to do research.

One big thing that didn’t make it into the article was that the towns and cities are screwed coming as well as going:

“Municipals virtually never, never default,” says Rebecca Kaplan, a city councilwoman in Oakland, one of the cities listed as a victim in the Carollo trial (the defendants rigged an auction for a Port of Oakland bond deal). “And yet munis receive ratings that, if you were comparing them to corporate ratings, you would think you were talking about a significant risk of default.”

He also mentions that there appear to be several investigations into wide-spread rigging of the LIBOR, which should be even more terrifying because that really is a global conspiracy, if true (personally, I don’t doubt the likelihood). That hits _everyone_ because so many other interest rates are set on the LIBOR. But of course, Americans can’t be bothered with learning anything complex and besides, the big financial organizations say they aren’t doing anything wrong anyway so fuhgeddaboudit.