An argument against essentialist modes of thinking

From Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality*:

Despite its aura of certitude, classification is never a neutral act. Naming is a form of exercising power, and the ways that things are named often reflect the outlook of the namer.

This makes me think of Foucault's The Order of Things which contains an anecdote that I think well illustrates how our seemingly neutral and sensible methods of classification really are sort of odd and arbitrary:

This passage quotes a "certain Chinese encyclopaedia" in which it is written that "animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camel hair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies". In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of though, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.

Why can't we think that? Does it make any less sense than our own essentialist system of biological classification, which was invented in the 18th Century by a notable racist and based on the then-normal ideal of stratification?

If Lennaeus's method created a tool for modern science, it still used the metaphor of monarchy as a way of framing the order of things. Plants and animals constituted two natural kingdoms (regna naturae). Within these kingdoms, a hierarchy of classes, orders, genera, and species provided categories by which all life forms, plant and animal, were classified. In a world where many still saw hierarchy and inequality as natural, taxonomy provided a tangible ratification of this belief.
[...]
Not only did monarchy supply a defining imagery for understanding nature, but the Linnaean system also validated prevailing inequalities of gender... Even though many plants are hermaphroditic and do not conform to customary definitions of gender, Linnaeus emphatically described plants in terms of their male and female parts, with so-called dominant parts designated male, submissive parts female.

Interesting that this is the same basic system of taxonomy that we learn in school today.

Stephen Jay Gould (yay!) argues that this essentialist paradigm needs to be reexamined, not only because it is incorrect and misleading, but also because of its negative impact on our social organization - for instance the reemerging field of scientific racism (beloved of intellectual bedfellows SDA and IQ fetishist Richard Lynn among others - recently discussed here). He says "Nature comes to us as continua, not discrete objects with clear boundaries".

Essentialism establishes criteria for judgement and worth: individual objects that lie close to their essence are good; those that depart are bad, if not unreal... Antiessentialist thinking forces us to view the world differently. We must accept shadings and continua as fundamental...

The taxonomic essentialist scoops up a handful of fossil snails in a single species, tries to abstract an essence, and rates his snails by their match to this average. The antiessentialist sees something entirely different in his hand -- a range of irreducible variation defining the species, some variants more frequent than others, but all perfectly good snails.

We know what the previous outcomes were of scientific racism: the Atlantic slave trade, the Nazi's "final solution", South African apartheid... certainly these were not the most noble moments in our human history. So why are these theories rearing their ugly heads again?

*By the way, this is a fascinating book. There are several cheap copies at the fantastically huge BMV on Bloor St in Toronto - I got mine for only $4.99

Blue is for Boyz, Pink is for Gurlz - It's Scientifikal

From Bad Science:

This week every single newspaper in the world lapped up the story that scientists have cracked the pink problem. "At last, science discovers why blue is for boys but girls really do prefer pink" said the Times. And so on.

The study took 208 people in their twenties and asked them to choose their favourite colours between two options, repeatedly, and then graphed their overall preferences. It found overlapping curves, with a significant tendency for men to prefer blue, and female subjects showing a preference for redder, pinker tones. This, the authors speculated (to international excitement and approval) may be because men go out hunting, but women need to be good at interpreting flushed emotional faces, and identifying berries whilst out gathering.

There are so many things wrong with this study, most of it covered over at Bad Science. And yes, this is Very Bad Science.

Anyone wanna bet if they found out men had a preference for pink, they would say it's because men are programmed to seek out womens' flushed emotional faces and pink labia? (Don't forget the first law of evolutionary psychology: men are motivated by the desire for sex, while women are motivated by the desire for security). And if women showed a preference for blue it would be because of our innate attraction to blue eyes - really, no foolin'! This is fun. We could play this with every color. Men like orange - quick, what does it mean?

Well, I suppose I should get back to gathering my pink fruits and vegetables (how many pink gatherables can you think of?). And my male readers should go hunt us up some blue meat. No excuses, it's in your genes.

Name this Post

Dutch try to grow enviro-friendly meat in lab

Although it is in its early stages, the idea is to replace harvesting meat from livestock with a process that eliminates the need for animal feed, transport, land use and the methane expelled by animals, which all hurt the environment, he said.

The title for this post just writes itself... Unfortunately I can't choose:

1. Eureka! I've discovered meat!
   
2. Petri Pork
   
3. Ham scam
   
4. Mystery meat
   
5. In the flesh
   
6. Free the lab animals! Um. Well... they're not really animals, exactly.
   
7. Mistaken bacon
   
8. Brings new meaning to "going Dutch"
   
9. Fake n Steak
   

Yes, I know it's weird. Just be thankful I didn't post pictures. I could have, you know.

Smoking & Beef Soon to be Illegal for Men of Breeding Age

"Male reproductive health is in trouble," say two new studies, so urgent guidelines are needed for men of breeding age, just like for pre-pregnant wimmins. In case you'd forgotten:

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

Potential causes for the problems with male reproductive health include carcinogens (like from cigarettes), chemicals (like dioxins), hormones (like from American beef, or milk), and endocrine disruptors (such as found in many plastics). So all men capable of inseminating have a pretty long list of substances to avoid: smoking, beef, dairy products, most personal care products, bottled water, etc.

Details from Grist: Separate studies show chemicals, cigarettes may affect male birth rate :

The percentage of boys born in the U.S. and Japan each year has gradually declined over the last three decades, a new study says -- and pollutants are a possible cause. "Male reproductive health is in trouble," says lead researcher Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh, noting that both adult fertility and fetal chances seem to be affected. The study, published in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives, calls the trend "a serious matter" that could be caused by exposure to chemicals like dioxin and mercury; it also points to factors including stress, obesity, and fertility treatments. The true cause, says Davis, is "something we need to find out and act upon." Because a woman without a man -- well, she'd probably be fine, but still. Meanwhile, a British study says smokers are twice as likely to conceive girls, suggesting that nicotine may affect sperm. Yes, smoke gets in your Y's -- but picking up puffing in an effort to determine your child's gender is not recommended.

More info here and here

Ten out of Ten Bears Prefer Beef Fat to Menstrual Blood

They also prefer to dine on corn and garbage. So women, feel free to go hiking at any time of the month.

The death of two menstruating women attacked by grizzlies in Glacier National Park in 1967 apparently prompted the government to print brochures warning women to avoid bear country during periods of active menstruation.

Although some sites, like this one caution "women may want to avoid the backcountry during their menstrual period", there is little or no reason to be concerned about hiking during menstruation.

The examination of factors surrounding hundreds of grizzly and black bear attacks produced neither evidence that supported a causal relation between human menstruation and attacks nor revealed any published records concerning black bear responses to menstrual blood. The U.S. Forest Service conducted a series of experiments (Rogers et al., 1991) which tested the responses of both male and female black bears to human menstrual odors. The first experiment involved the spin-cast introduction of 15 used tampons (in clusters of 5) to adult male black bears foraging in a garbage dump. Each presentation, therefore, gave the bears a choice between the garbage and tampons. If the bears ate (like they did the garbage), closely sniffed, or rolled on the tampons, then they were considered to have paid attention to the tampons. Of 22 presentations, the bears ignored the used tampons 20 times (twice casual sniffs were observed), effectively preferring the garbage in every instance. In a second experiment, seven bears feeding on piles of corn were offered groups of six used tampons. Six of the bears sniffed the tampons and then returned to their piles of corn. A yearling male tasted one of the tampons, quickly dropped it and returned to the corn.

A third experiment placed four used tampons, an unused tampon, a tampon soaked in non-menstrual human blood, and a tampon containing rendered beef fat in the middle of a heavily traveled bear path with the used tampons interspersed among the others. Ten out of ten bears ate only the tampons soaked in beef fat. In a fourth experiment, women on different days of their period accompanied and contacted bears who were accustomed to human interaction and were known to investigate attractive odors. Eleven encounters involved women wearing tampons and one crazy woman wearing clothing through which her menstrual blood was soaking. Of the twelve encounters with the women, the ten bears did not pay any attention to the lower torsos of the women. Another woman wearing external pads during two of her menstrual cycles hand-fed four female bears and walked within two meters of adult male bears during bear mating season and did not receive any attention. Rogers et al. (1991) concluded that the lack of interest of the bears to menstrual odors does not prove that such odors are never attractive to bears (similar experiments resulted in tampon feasts by polar bears lacking attractive buffets); however, menstrual odors essentially were ignored.

(SOURCE)

More references here, here, and here. Original inspiration from a friend who heard about this on a radio programme on CKLN.

More than you'll ever want to know about menstruation from the Museum of Menstruation.

Funny Where You Find Bits of Truth

As the lyrics of one of my favourite songs goes:

"Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right"

On my way to Edmonton for Christmas with my family, nestled in-between pages and pages of advertisements and "shopping guides", I read a good anti-consumerist article in the in-flight magazine.

The author quotes Roger Scuton who said as a society, we've become very good at "means" (ways to do things) but worse at "ends" (reasons for doing things). Reminded me of a question asked of Richard Dawkins: what can we do about the "why" questions that science can't answer. (Dawkins says those questions are invalid and nonsensical).

In our education system, science and technology are priviliged over liberal arts, humanities, and social science. In reality, though, what is more important for the health, happiness, and fulfillment of all people: figuring out how to build a better, more harmonious and healthy society, or how to build a faster jet or more deadly pesticide?

The Pope of the Chimps

A short story by Robert Silverberg in which researchers teaching sign-language to a colony of chimpanzees inadvertently pass along notions of God and the afterlife.

"It's possible sometimes to be too subtle in your analysis," Falkenburg said. "You're suggesting that these chimpanzees have a theology?"

"I'm suggesting that they may be in the process of evolving a religion," Yost replied.

Can it be?

Sometimes we lose our perspective with these animals, as Mick indicated, and we overestimate their intelligence; but just as often, I think, we underestimate them.

Jump high come again.

I wonder. Secret sacred talk? A chimpanzee theology? Belief in life after death? A religion?

Filed under Literature, Religion, Science Fun

Biofuels?

I hear a lot of people talk about alternative energy as the great saviour of our way of life. Of course, some are speaking about coal and nuclear power. But more environmentally-minded folk include wind and solar power, and biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol.

I think conservation is the #1 priority. I don't think that we can continue to use the amount of energy. Even if we could produce an equal amount of alternative fuels and electricity, that would really only be enough for the current developed world, and it still leaves most people SOL.

I don't think we can produce the same amounts of energy alternatively to match our current usage. Take biofuels. I vaguely remember reading that, because of the petroleum-dependent food production system on which we currently rely, biofuels actually result in a net energy loss. For each calorie of food we consume it requires at least 10 calories of petroleum energy to farm, transport, and process. So why turn fuel-sucking food into fuel?

I decided to investigate a bit more.

This study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel is not worth the energy, "you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Not only inefficient, but "a humanitarian and environmental disaster", says George Monbiot, presenting a chilling vision, in which "most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people." He reminds us that markets respond to profit, not hunger. Those who need food the most are exactly the ones with the least amount of money to buy it, and so the monied person's car will always win out. He reminds us that even today, those who buy meat products have more purchasing power, so grain is fed to animals instead of to starving kids.

Instead of burning soy oil in our SUV's then, what is needed is to drive less and create sustainable production and consumption practices. For example, local organic farming, moderately dense city infrastructure, and significant green belts would not only be much more ecologically sound, but would also result in a higher quality of life than sitting for 2 hours a day in a freeway traffic jam eating a flavour-injected McDonald's burger, even if your car smelled like french fries.

So I say yes to re-envisioning our economy and no to biofuels (except for the few that are using up all that nasty leftover french fry grease: more power to 'em).

Topic: Environment, Food Politics

Science Shmience - If you don't agree with our politics, your science is wrong

The most lovely Union of Concerned Scientists has documented the Bush administration favouring candidates for advisory committees based on their political views. This is apparently because "public policy decisions must, in most cases, incorporate considerations other than science". In other words, oil companies need to continue posting record profits, so we need some "science" showing that global warming is nothing to worry about. Whew! There really is a Republican War On Science.

This is approximately as fun as reading Pat Robertson Quotes.

Neolithic Noodles Unearthed in China

Apparently solving the argument of who invented the noodle, stone age noodles were recently uncovered by archaeologists in China.

And here I thought the food in my fridge was old!

More Science Fun

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to see a water balloon pop in space?

Now you can find out. (MPEG or Quicktime)

Monkey Prostitution

An experiment at Yale University to teach monkeys how to use money has had unexpected side effects, including the first case of monkey prostitution.

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys' true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

Listen to Freakonomics author Steven Levitt talk about this experiment here.

Abiogenic Theory of Oil

Got involved in a discussion about peak oil. Someone brought up the idea that oil isn't what we think: "Oil isn't the byproduct of biological mass from the dinosaurs, it's a geologic chemical and there's plenty still left in the earth."

I read up on it - I'm no scientist so I can't be sure of the origin of oil, but my response to this was:

Even if the abiogenic theory is true. that doesn't automatically solve our problems.

first of all, just because it is there, doesn't mean we can easily get it. in fact, the deeper we have to go, the less efficient it is. sometimes it is so energy- and cost- intensive that it isn't worth it. If it were to take the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil for each barrel extracted, it is better NOT to extract it, right?

take the tar sands, which are extremely inefficient, requiring almost as much energy to mine and refine as is produced. in fact, in alberta, they use high quality fuel (natural gas) to produce poor quality crude oil. improved technology is making it more efficient, but it is still quite ridiculous if you think about it, especially when you factor in other costs (environmental, etc. see below)

it is likely that technological improvements would help in the long run, making extraction of your deep so called abiogenic crude oil possible and maybe somewhat efficient, but why not put that same technology into other energy sources that don't have all the drawbacks of petroleum?

if we put aside the concern with "running out" because we are now tapping into vast geological petroleum deposits, there are still other issues. the release of carbon from deep underground into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide will continue to change the composition of our planet - causing global warming in the short term. sulphur, contained in varying amounts in different oil sources, oxidizing and eventually becoming sulphuric acid in the atmosphere (acid rain)... smog formed from other particles such as nitrogens, dirty groundwater, etc. we all know about these. they won't go away with more oil!

there's more, if you want me to go on, but i'm sure everyone is sick of hearing it... my point is that a new theory of the origin of oil doesn't solve the problem.

so are we looking forward to lives filled with chronic illness, smog alert days, increasingly damaging natural disasters? oh wait, that's already happening... how is abiogenic oil going to help?