I can't find my bootstraps to pull up

Clinton's welfare reform was the logical conclusion of Ronald Reagan's pernicious use of the 'welfare queen' myth in the 1980s.

(Amy B. Dean, fellow, Century Foundation)

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind—it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

(Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister, Nazi Germany)

Nature and nurture

“Good wombs have born bad sons,” as Shakespeare says in The Tempest. The nature versus nurture debate goes back to at least the time of Plato. But perhaps over the past fifteen or twenty years we have acquired a remarkable pool of knowledge regarding human behavior in general, be it the mapping of the human genome, neuroscience discoveries, behavioral psychology or even the controversial field of genopolitics. As individuals we are a complex mixture of genetic and environmental factors. But who are we in assorted groups or various interests or particular markets?

Behavioral economics it seems to me has a great deal to offer, for example, the 2016 presidential election in the United States, which promises to be once again less than enlightening, informative and honest.

Behavioral economics may also have a lot to say about how we look at poverty in the U.S. and throughout the world. Poverty in America has come out of the shadows, for the moment at least, in part because of the issue of racism, a central piece in understanding this country.

Where once behavioral economics was an outlier in the field, it has now become an influential element in understanding economic decision making. Even the World Bank in its 2015 annual report devoted most of the document to behavioral decision making. Ultimately, to be truly successful, it has to influence policymakers to think in a different way. This, however, is hardly ever easy; we humans are reluctant to let facts get in the way of our strongly held beliefs. Call it nature vs nurture.

My cortisol hormone just doesn't feel right

Researchers are familiar with what's called a hormone-receptor complex. There are steroid hormones, which include cortisol, estrogen and testosterone. Cortisol, for example, is released under stress, the proverbial threat, but it can also occur by merely thinking about unpleasant things. High levels of cortisol over long periods may cause such illnesses as depression, heart disease and overall suppression of the immune system.

Stress and prolonged complex tasks can cause glucose levels in the region of the brain associated with attention and planning to drop. Physical capabilities can decrease but mental acuity can be affected as well.

Neurotransmitters, serotonin and dopamine being two, are related to stress and motivation. Levels of serotonin in an individual can affect the sense of well being and confidence. These individual variations might cause different reactions and possibly have a bearing on how we think about and react to real world issues, such as violence, gay marriage and poverty.

The point of all this is that we know a good deal more about genetic and environmental factors when it comes to human behavior. This connects to behavioral economists and how they have looked at the field of psychology and the discoveries in neuroscience and have adapted and applied many of the ideas to economics. Some have referred to behavioral economics as the “hybrid offspring” of economics and psychology.

You've been framed

Frank Luntz, a political operative in the early George W. Bush presidency, told the administration that it was important to always refer to global warming as “climate change.” This phrase, it was believed, was less unsettling and more controllable, thus more easily ignored. The fossil fuel industry could rest easily.

More than 30 years ago two psychologists published a paper questioning the standard assumptions regarding decision making, which ultimately had a significant impact on traditional economic theory. See Prospect Theory: An Analysis ofDecision Under Risk.

The long standing belief had been that the “Economic Man” was rational and by in large made self-interested decisions. Intentionally or otherwise, this idea benefited the status quo and provided a justification for what has been thought to be the “inherent” wisdom of what is universally referred to as the free-market, which is hardly “free” in any sense of the word.

What was being suggested is that the reality was actually more about how alternatives were framed and not about their “relative value.” It became all too often a zero-sum game. The framing was what strongly influenced the decisions that people made.

Now, some thirty years later, the word “framing” is familiar to a great many people, and certainly it's part of the strategy for both marketeers and political operatives among others. Of course, who would want to pay a “death” tax. Outrageous! But what about a small percentage of the rich paying a very moderate estate tax upon their departure from the living, considering how they benefited from America's political and economic system? Andrew Carnegie, one of the founding fathers of the Gilded Age, did not believe that the children of the rich ought to be handed a pot of gold. This was the United States and we of course did not want to create a parasitic aristocracy. You've been framed.

Now, behavioral economists are looking at how people actually act in making economic decisions, which could influence the kinds of programs that might be developed, not only in dealing with poverty but improving upon the choices we all make—unlike what the traditional economic model claims we have been doing all along. It has been to a large degree a lovely fairy tale. Go ahead, treat yourself and pull out that credit card. You deserve it.

The problem with those people

It seems that so many of the tired, moth-eaten cliches have never gone away and have a life of their own: character flaw, lazy, lack of self-discipline and so forth have been the constant refrain. In my part of the country you only have to follow the state legislatures in Missouri and Kansas to know that obliviousness and general obtuseness have been raised to the level of sacred text.

It's not that an individual might be deemed unambitious, but that an entire class of people or group of individuals have been summarily dismissed as, well, “flawed.”

What makes behavioral economics so compelling is the many studies that have been undertaken and the quantifiable data gathered. It refutes so many of the standard, mythical economic beliefs beloved by the status quo—most obviously the comfortable and the privileged.

In the now well studied Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944, as the allies advanced across Europe, the Nazis let the people of Holland starve. This affected the fetuses of pregnant women, especially those fetuses in the 2^nd and 3^rd trimesters. The fetuses took the cue from their mother's low nutrient intake, but even when the war ended and there was plenty of food, in many cases the “thrifty” metabolism couldn't stop storing calories away. In a number of instances health problems like diabetes developed later on for these children.

We learned that physical deterioration was clearly obvious, but we also observed the mental effects of starvation. Food became the central thought, above anything else. Fast forward more than 60 years later and behavioral economists want to know how mental states along with social and physical environments affect economic activity on a very specific level … realizing that one size (program) does not fit all.

While behavioral economists, like any group of people, can have varied points of view, some basic ideas seem to stand out, oftentimes contrary to the prevailing views. Sendhil Mullainathan, a behavioral economist at Harvard has said that, “To put it crudely, poverty—no matter who you are—can make you dumber.”--anywhere in the world, among any economic class of people.

The gnawing away of cognitive competence, counter-productive decisions, the inability to consider the long-term best interest are all related to what economists refer to as scarcity. While the standard belief is generally that those poor people are poor because they make bad decisions, the behavioral economists believe that people make bad decisions because they are poor, perhaps obvious to some people, but observing (in the U.S.) the Congress, many state legislatures and numerous politicians pontificating on poverty and the poor, you would be hard pressed to locate cognitive competence among these “decision makers.”

This is a complex subject, and while behavioral economics is a central part of economic theory today, for many, it goes against deeply ingrained beliefs and vested interests. Framing is going to matter a lot.

For those who want additional information on the subject the following may be of interest:

Foundation

Herbert A. Simon

The Framing of Decisions andthe Psychology of Choices

The Noise Trader Approach toFinance

$100 Dollar Bills on theSidewalk

History

Brief History of FarmerAlliance, 1880s (How white racism worked against economicself-interest)

Other

Rise in suicide by Black Children Surprises Researchers 

Scarcity: Why Having TooLittle Means So Much

Behavioral Economics andSocial Good

GOP's Vile Anti-Poor Crusade

Improving Decisions AboutHealth, Wealth and Happiness

The New Dictatorships RuleThrough the Velvet Fist

Debate Central (framing):American Combat Troops to Fight ISIL

Nasty, brutish and short--or not

The sky gods know

Will there be titanium-skinned creatures with oversized heads and bulging eyes running planet Earth in 500 years? Only Steven Spielberg knows for certain. I think the “leash” over the approximately next 50 to 100 years will be climate, religion and economics. What we do or don't do in these areas simultaneously will have a bearing on who or what will be our progeny.

Climate scientists, using such methods as geological analysis, ice cores, fossil remains and historical records, have determined that CO2 levels in the atmosphere remained between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) for some half-a-million years, but in recent centuries (the start of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18^th century) CO2 levels rose to at least 380 ppm. The greenhouse effect is not an obscure hypothesis recently put forward.

The Roman philosopher Seneca said that, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Artifacts of one kind or another at burial sites go back to at least 70,000 years ago. It hardly seems a mystery as to why we have religion. Among other things, religion binds groups, helps take the fear of death away, sanctions the killing of other groups and provides the “answers.” Today there are some 10,000 different religions all possessing the Truth. Religion at this point in time is a genuine obstacle to confronting a potential planetary disaster.

Last but not least is the economic system that entwines the entire planet. It's little more than a perpetual ponzi scheme, regardless of the “wonders” it may have helped produce—for some—in the past. Most important, it's unsustainable. It deserves to be tossed into the ashcan of history along with mercantilism and the “divine right” of kings.

Immortality and the Kurzwellian phantasmagoria

Superheroes are popular and ubiquitous across the globe and not just among children. Immortality, master-of-the-universe, infinite choices, exceptionalism, privilege, entitlement and certainly narcissism all beckon to even the most rational among us. Ca plus changes, ca plus la meme chose.

Ray Kurzwell, inventor and “technical” futurist, who now works for Google, believes that by 2045 machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence in all aspects, which he refers to as the “singularity.” For Kurzwell, human immortality is only a few blocks away.

Well, 2045 seems a bit optimistic, or pessimistic, depending on your point of view. Would Aunt and Uncle Sahelanthropus, whom we haven't seen in some 7 million years, still love us? Of course, many of these superhero dreams violate the known laws of physics. Gravity can be inconvenient, mass increases faster than the fundamental strength of our bones and we can't walk through walls even though the atom is mostly empty space. But … technology springs eternal, and Ray Kurzwell thinks he'll become immortal; after all, he demands to become a system.

Believing what we believe

Why do we do what we do? One of the most interesting new subject areas at the present time and yes, it's controversial, is the field of Genopolitics. Political beliefs may have a genetic component. Feelings about contraception, gay marriage, capital punishment, animal rights, climate change, etc are personality traits that could be ancient and way older than humans.

If the evolution of the human brain was driven by a need for more complex social cognition, then might the understanding of human biology in a “sociopolitical” context be of paramount importance, perhaps for our very survival?

The amygdala in our very old limbic brain is connected to the cingulate cortex, an area critical to self awareness. It is the cingulate cortex that “thinks” about the responses of the amygdala—threat, not a threat, your imagination and so forth.

What do we think we know now? Some research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have right-wing opinions. Oxytocin is released in sex and orgasm and believed by many neuroscientists to smother the amygdala responses, which may lead to increased generosity, trust, etc. Lower serotonin levels in the brain have been associated with criminality and anxiety. People with a less active MAO allele “tend” to be more impulsive and aggressive. No, there are no specific genes for criminality, but personality traits are heritable.

In a 1980s sexual preference study conducted by David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, it was determined that the top two qualities in a male for both sexes were kindness and intelligence, outweighing such things as money and physical appearance. Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico has suggested that our ancestors who were more intelligent and kinder attracted a higher quality mate thus creating our success.

Regardless of what Genopolitics ultimately uncovers, a better understanding of human behavior and how we make decisions is, it seems to me, not merely nice to know but absolutely critical if we want to get beyond the “reptilian” mindset and consider a future beyond something like the unrelenting nightmare of Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

Back to a future

Every part of the planet has warmed except for Antarctica and at this point in time it may have more to do with circulating winds and the hole in the ozone layer. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a minimum temperature rise of 1.8 degrees Centigrade by 2100. Some 120,000 years ago when it was 1 to 2 degrees warmer, sea levels were 5 to 8 meters higher. Three million years ago when the temperature was 2 to 3 degrees C higher, the sea levels were 25 meters higher.

It's called the tipping point and is a term that has been used in reference to climate change. Is there a point where the change is irreversible? Climate scientists have spoken about such things as a global temperature rise of 2 degrees C and CO2 levels going over 400 ppm. We have now reached CO2 levels of 400 ppm. IPCC estimates have been revised, perhaps because of the sudden collapse of ice sheets and a better understanding of “feedback loops,” which can speed up the process. Several decades of global warming are already in the pipeline. Time, where is it when we need it?

Some of us might recall friends and acquaintances “dropping acid” (LSD) some years ago and having spiritual experiences and “being one” with the universe. We know now there are hormonal and biochemical factors at work in the brain during many of those religious moments, resulting in such things as increases in dopamine levels and serotonin being released. “Spiritual” experiences can change brain activity. A book worth reading on this subject is by D.F. Swaab, a physician and neurobiologist, entitled We Are Our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, From the Womb to Alzheimer's

To believe that some supernatural entity gave us the planet and dominion over all life on it is both irrational and narcissistic to the extreme, but also more understandable today. We're also learning that extreme religiosity may be associated with such illnesses as schizophrenia, dementia and obsessive-compulsive behavior.

Difficult as it might be, we have to move beyond the supernatural and magic. Even more important is finally realizing this planet is all we have--but--real spirituality is all around us. Turn off your I-Pad and move your head. You can even “friend” biodiversity.

Adams Smith, often cited as the father of modern capitalism, once said of the capitalists, “It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public...” What is striking today among the governments of the world is the apparent obtuseness, be they the corrupt autocrats in Beijing and Moscow, the feckless and uninformed politicians in Washington or many among the rising developing nations who claim it's “everyone else” who bears the responsibility. Our ancient short-term thinking is alive and well … and dangerous.

Mounting scarcities, growing ecological disequilibrium, expanding population, economic stagnation, increasing disparities between rich and poor, individual selfishness (including nation selfishness), human redundancy, unproven economic myths like the market's “invisible hand” are more than likely to lead to greater forms of coercion across the globe, and the amount of coercion can be an approximate measure of the system's validity. Once the system is deemed illegitimate, another tipping point has begun, this time rippling across the planet.

It is very much a matter of enlarging the global tribe and accepting the idea unequivocally of reciprocal obligation.

Summary

Gerald Crabtree, a Stanford University geneticist, believes our intelligence may have peaked some 2,000 years ago. It's been pretty much downhill ever since. Really?

Will the last remaining clan of Homo sapiens end up in a cave on Gibraltar squinting at the shadows of their cousins the Neandertals? Does it matter? After all, it's estimated that about 100,000 species are going extinct each year. What's one more, especially the most destructive predator the planet has known. Down deep, we know we're here “by the luck of the draw.”

Humans are probably not failed chimps

You can sequence genes on a computer, email them to a lab and a week later, for $100, receive a vial of DNA.

(Ellen Jorgensen, molecular biologist)

The approaching brick wall

Paleogenomics is a relatively new field, whereby small bits of DNA can be extracted from small fragments of bones, providing additional data about the history of human evolution. The Neanderthal genome was generated from 3 small bones and later a toe bone. But, to digress for a moment.

Three stories appeared recently about the “human condition,” that reminded me that the last divergent branch of the evolutionary “bush” was likely Neanderthal. While evolution itself is slow, what is different today is that for the first time in human history evolutionary change has the potential to move much faster because of the extraordinary discoveries in genetics.

This of course is hardly a reason to be uncritically optimistic about the future of our species. These stories, however, also raise the question about nature and nurture and the role that both environment and genes play in “who we are.”

The first story is about a National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyist  and the killing of an elephant in Botswana. What this particular individual did was not illegal—but will be in 2014. In fact, as the human population increases and we more and more encroach on animal habitats, it is the animal that invariably loses. Authorized “hunts” serve to reduce animal populations and provide funding (hunting fees) to support wildlife reserves, at least this is part of the rationale offered for the killings.

This particular story generated a fair amount of criticism directed at the hunter. In response, this N.R.A. lobbyist called his critics “animal Nazis” and claimed that he was a “hunter” and hunters kill animals. No, he's not a hunter, just someone with a high-powered rifle with too much time on his hands. See the video below and read NRA lobbyist shoots elephantin the face and then celebrates with champagne.

The second story is entitled, Teamof contract killers led by ex-soldier 'Rambo' busted, prosecutorssay. Finally, the last story was produced by documentary film-maker Mariah Wilson. This is a clip from Revealing Hate.

These stories could be replicated across the globe, yet they offer some examples, it seems to me, of a particular sub-species of humankind, an anachronism perhaps, a “throwback” to our past that began over a million years ago. How in fact do we go about increasing such qualities as generosity, trust and empathy in our species. How do we go about “repairing” a poorly functioning cingulate cortex, that part of our brain essential for self-awareness?

The story of the gun lobbyist killing the elephant is largely a story about that minority of privileged human across the globe with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and obtuseness ... yet, what environmental factors, if any, create the mentality of these primitive death eaters? The other two stories speak for themselves.

Our Neanderthal connection

What is significant about sequencing the Neanderthal genome is that the Neanderthal died out only some 25,000 years ago; we're not trying to find comparisons that go back millions of years. Approximately 2.5 percent of our DNA, outside of Africa, came from Neanderthal. Our two species most probably met between 65,000 and 95,000 years ago. After that there was no more interbreeding.

Scientist do not know for certain what caused the extinction of Neanderthal but a “popular” hypothesis is that humans out-competed them because of more advanced language skills. We know that the FOXP2 gene, the instinct for speech and grammar, is identical in Neanderthal, but genes in cognitive development are different in humans and Neanderthal,quite possibly to have solved different sets of problems, anticipating prey for example.

Will a certain percentage of humans go extinct or will we manage to destroy our species completely, ideally without bringing misery to all life on the planet?

Additional Reading:

On Extinction

How Your Brain Works

Humans and Lions Sharing Space

We crossed the red line and no one noticed

We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.

(Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967)

The Earth will end when God declares it to be over.

(John Shimkus, Republican congressman, Illinois, chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy))

For the sake of our planet, we need to start eating lower down on the food chain and we need to do it fairly soon.

(David George Gordon, science writer)

A story in need of an ending

In case you haven't heard and most likely many haven't, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of planet Earth has now risen to 400 parts per million. It's been something like 3 million years since so much carbon dioxide has been hanging over the planet.

The “little-bit” of good news is that 400 ppm is part of a scientific model, a very complex model with a lot of complex parts and poorly understood by most people, which is comforting news to many politicians across the globe. Models of course can be changed, modified or discarded. Unlike the politicians, the scientists could be wrong about a lot or a little and, as some people know, science tries hard to be proven wrong.

The actual “good” news is that we have some idea how to mitigate many of the effects of climate change. For example, in terms of things like deforestation, feed production and animal waste, the

livestock industry produces between 18-51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industry as well uses a lot of fossil fuels and water.

Could you imagine eating a little less meat? What if you could be persuaded that the future of future generations would quite probably be bleak, unless significant changes were made starting right now? For that matter, the present is feeling a little less certain; we may not need vivid imaginations. For more on this subject see “Additional Reading.”

Genes made me do it—or not

Genetics has come a long way since Gregor Mendel, in the 19^th century, showed how the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants followed particular patterns. Today, with the mapping of the human genome and the ever increasing power of supercomputers, we have arrived at a new scientific Frontier-land. What we do with it is a story searching for a good ending.

I once worked with someone a number of years ago that believed humankind was “d-evolving,” as though the expanding universe showed signs of slowing down and reversing itself. Interestingly, Gerald Crabtree, Professor of Pathology and Developmental Biology at Stamford University, has a fairly controversial view on human intelligence. It's declining, according to Crabtree.

He has said that, “A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food and shelter probably died, along with his or her progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate.”

Crabtree has suggested that the approximately 5,000 genes, which he believes are the basis for human intelligence, have mutated over the years and modern man is not as intelligent as his ancestors. The professor thinks we may have peaked about 7,000 years ago! At the same time, Crabtree has said that science and technology have allowed us to rise above the “dumbing down.”

Regardless of Professor's Crabtree's thought-provoking ideas, what we know about genes at the present time is quite remarkable. It's not an either or—genetics or environment—it's more like a blending, a mixing and sometimes one is more influential than the other. The answer is frequently that … it depends.

When we're young, environment has a tendency to be more important but when we get older and more independent, genes seem to play a larger role. Certain behaviors, such as criminality, are heritable but only as side effects of genes that affect personality traits. You don't for example have genes for addiction, but you do have genes for impetuosity and risk taking which, under the right environmental circumstances, might lead to addiction.

Neurobiologists have found out that there is a structure in our limbic brain called the amygdala, which causes the feeling of unease. Research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have right-wing opinions. There is now a field called Genopolitics, which accepts that political views most likely have a genetic component.

Finally, a little bit of good news to consider. Yes, sex and organisms are healthy, because they release oxytocin, sometimes called the “cuddle hormone.” This particular hormone has the ability to lower amygdala response, which can then increase such traits as generosity and trust. David Buss, a professor of psychology, conducted a “sexual preference study a number of years ago.” He learned that the top two qualities in a mate for both men and women were kindness and intelligence, outweighing things such as money and physical appearance.

Thinking good thought

In summary, how we think, make decisions and frame discussions needs to be understood a lot better. We know now that there is both a genetic and environmental component in decision making, and our survival as a species probably depends on how effectively we can increase the size of who we think belongs in our group. The “clan” is bigger than we think.

Additional Reading:

what to consider

Global carbon dioxide in atmosphere passes milestone level

Bring on the bugs

Would we give up burgers tostop climate change

Entering a resource-shockworld

Frozen Evolution: TheProbability of Extinction

worth reading

How (not) to argue withskeptics and deniers: a historian's guide

Science and Religion Can'tBe Reconciled

Rapid Shifts

Belief in biblical end-timesstifling climate change action in U.S. :study

political hack with a degree in biology

Louisiana counts the cost ofteaching creationism—in reputation and dollars

Planet of the mice

“Humans are here by the luck of the draw,” remarked the late paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould.

The escape

It only requires some imagination: In 2012 twenty so-called "super mice" escaped from an animal research lab in upstate New York. Eight of the youngest adults had human glial cells grafted into their brains as newborn mice. Scientists believe these cells play an important role for humans in both intellectual and cognitive processing capabilities.

Researchers demonstrated that the mice had "improved" cognitive capabilities, which included memory, learning and adaptive conditioning. The remaining twelve mice included 6 that had had their mysostatin gene shut down, resulting in increased muscle mass and strength. The other six had undergone therapy resulting in changes in slow-twitch (fatigue-resistant) and fast-twitch (bursts of power) muscles.

These mice could run about an hour longer than the 90 minutes a normal mouse can run before fatigue sets in. A house mouse is able to run approximately 900 meters or slightly more than half-a-mile, while these enhanced mice proved to be capable of running some 1,800 m, more than a mile. Along with their endurance, these particular mice were also resistant to weight gain because of an increase in fat-burning muscle. Is all of this science or pseudoscience?

The 20 escaped mice is fiction, but the particular experiments have in fact been done in research laboratories and reproduced, replicated and undergone peer review, all part of the scientific process.

The best of all possible worlds

Mid Missouri Public Radio recently had a piece on Kevin Wells, a scientist at the University of Missouri—Columbia. Wells has been studying genetics in animals for more than twenty years and he is well aware of the scientific possibilities, such as making animals resistant to swine flu, along with the potential concerns, such as the human health impact, animal welfare and yes, animals escaping.

It's quite likely we'll have a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon on the U.S. market fairly soon, breakthroughs for better treatment of human brain disorders not far off and possibly even “enhanced” Homo sapiens sooner than we think.

Some sort of genetic future has already arrived. What are we willing to do in terms of genetic engineering and what kind of public policy debate shall we engage in? If we have a scientifically illiterate society and a disengaged citizenry, are we capable of making rational choices and understand those that we've made?

But back to our 20 missing mice. The year is 2100, 87 years from now. A certain percentage of our super mice from 2012 survived and produced off springs. Might they have evolved faster than humans? Will they look far different from the average house mouse of today and how big could they get? Could technology out pace our ability as humans to understand what we have set in motion?

The Theory of Evolution does not say that life moves inexorably toward a higher level of complexity and maybe our mice will not, but it is about the “luck of the draw.”