With this in mind, is it possible that basic biology is one of the driving forces behind economic growth?

From Disease, Biodiversity & the Wealth of Nations by Alex Berezow. Interesting topic. I am not sure I am ready to go with the article's conclusion (I suspect that they have the flow of causation backwards), but it is useful to discuss and mull.

With this in mind, is it possible that basic biology is one of the driving forces behind economic growth?

What really is worth highlighting though is the graphic that attaches to the article which shows the relationship between lattitude and national per capita income.

The questions about any phenomenon or explanation are 1) Is it real?, 2) Do we understand the root causes?, and 3) Can we change it? In this case the observation is that on average countries closer to the equator are poorer than those further away. This is a long ago observation which is not yet fully explained. The article touches on some of the speculated causes.

So is it real? Sure looks like it. Do we understand root causes? Probably not so much. Can we change it? Not knowing the root causes makes that kind of difficult. Starkly framing the questions that way forces us to consider more deeply an already complex issue.

Difference Engine: Up, up and away from The Economist

Difference Engine: Up, up and away from The Economist.

A thouroughly excellent discussion about aviation safety in general but more particulalry about the trade-offs and challenges about what should be measured, how it should be measured, and what exactly might the measures be telling us. Worth the read for that elucidation alone.

One interesting snippet.

According to the Aviation Safety Network, an independent database in the Netherlands, there were 23 fatal airliner accidents during 2012, with some 475 people killed as a result. That compares with a ten-year average of 34 accidents and 773 fatalities—making 2012 the safest year for air travel since 1945.

For that, passengers can thank the expertise that goes into the assembly, equipment and inspection of aircraft produced by the likes of Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer. Western-built jets and turbo-prop planes account for around 95% and 80% of global passenger fleets respectively. Of last year’s 23 fatal accidents, only three involved Western-built jets.

Men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting

From Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, Chapter Six.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

The best arguments for having children, unfortunately, run opposed to modern, secular American culture

From When Babies Disappear by Heather Wilhelm.

Wilhelm is at the same conclusion that I have reached, though probably via a different route. The measure of the success of a civilization is its survival and continuity. Civilizational trends are a function of productivity and productivity in turn is a function of culture (values, behaviors, knowledge, skills, decision-making, etc.). Those countries whose cultural attributes fail to support reproduction are inherently of no further interest in historical terms. While they may have succeeded in aspects of productivity, they have failed in terms of continuity. I share the suspicion that civilizational fertility is a function of religious belief systems rather than some sort of calculus of costs and benefits.

Wilhelm's concluding observations.

The best arguments for having children, unfortunately, run opposed to modern, secular American culture. Good reasons to have kids tend to be about delayed gratification, prioritizing family, putting others first, transmitting serious values and beliefs, focusing on something larger than yourself, and understanding the difference between joy and fun. Perhaps this is why, as Last notes, "American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one." It's also why, if American fertility continues to slide -- and, as the author notes, that's still an "if" at this point -- there's little the government can do.

What to Expect When No One's Expecting discusses potential policy solutions to the global fertility drought. Many are vague, and few are convincing. When it comes to pro-natalist government policy, welfare-state support for parents seems to work a bit; outright bribery, as recently attempted in Singapore, does not. But the main driver of faltering global fertility -- and the reason Last's book is so interesting -- is based on culture, not policy.

The good news is that culture can be engaged and changed. The bad news is that change can be plodding. America still has time to adjust its priorities in terms of marriage, community, and family. Other countries, having already jumped off the fertility cliff, may not have that luxury.

Everyone has always assumed — and early research had shown —

From Darwin Was Wrong About Dating by Dan Slater. Tackles a problem I see as common and unsupportable: the confident discussion of highly contingent speculation in sociology and evolutionary psychology in particular.

An example of the challenges of research in sociology:

Take the question of promiscuity. Everyone has always assumed — and early research had shown — that women desired fewer sexual partners over a lifetime than men. But in 2003, two behavioral psychologists, Michele G. Alexander and Terri D. Fisher, published the results of a study that used a “bogus pipeline” — a fake lie detector. When asked about actual sexual partners, rather than just theoretical desires, the participants who were not attached to the fake lie detector displayed typical gender differences. Men reported having had more sexual partners than women. But when participants believed that lies about their sexual history would be revealed by the fake lie detector, gender differences in reported sexual partners vanished. In fact, women reported slightly more sexual partners (a mean of 4.4) than did men (a mean of 4.0).

The multipolar world looks anything but post-American

From U.S. Playing Second Fiddle in Panama Canal Rebuild? by Walter Russell Mead. For too long, too many people have viewed global issues as zero sum equations - if you win then somehow in someway I must be losing. While this is certainly conceivably true, in most instances it is not and it is becoming less zero-sum all the time. When we insist on measuring ourselves against old measures of success without actually reflecting on what it is we truly wish to achieve, we almost inevitably begin to consider bad actions.

Real power in this world comes less from imposing your will on other people (always a tedious and expensive process and full of risk) than from figuring out how to align your interests and theirs. Over time, the United States has gotten much better at this, with the result that there is less difference between a ‘unipolar’ world and a multipolar one than many people understand.

As France fights jihadis in Mali, Panama improves the Canal, the Gulf Arabs lead the charge against Iran, and India and Japan think about Asian security together, the multipolar world looks anything but post-American.

It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor

From After Years in Solitary, an Austere Life as Uruguay’s President by Simon Romero.

I am fascinated by what are the attributes and mechanisms of cultural and knowledge survival and propagation. Why is that some phrases, authors, books etc. survive and others do not? This article describes Uruguay's president Jose Mujica.

Some world leaders live in palaces. Some enjoy perks like having a discreet butler, a fleet of yachts or a wine cellar with vintage Champagnes. Then there is José Mujica, the former guerrilla who is Uruguay’s president. He lives in a run-down house on Montevideo’s outskirts with no servants at all. His security detail: two plainclothes officers parked on a dirt road.

In a deliberate statement to this cattle-exporting nation of 3.3 million people, Mr. Mujica, 77, shunned the opulent Suárez y Reyes presidential mansion, with its staff of 42, remaining instead in the home where he and his wife have lived for years, on a plot of land where they grow chrysanthemums for sale in local markets.

Visitors reach Mr. Mujica’s austere dwelling after driving down O’Higgins Road, past groves of lemon trees. His net worth upon taking office in 2010 amounted to about $1,800 — the value of the 1987 Volkswagen Beetle parked in his garage. He never wears a tie and donates about 90 percent of his salary, largely to a program for expanding housing for the poor.

As the article progresses it transpires that in his career he has been a violent guerrilla, a bank robber, a prisoner, etc. So he is unusual, and sounds admirable in some respects but with a questionable background. But what really caught my attention was his erudition.

“We have done everything possible to make the presidency less venerated,” Mr. Mujica said in an interview one recent morning, after preparing a serving in his kitchen of mate, the herbal drink offered in a hollowed calabash gourd and commonly shared in dozens of sips through the same metal straw.

Passing around the gourd, he acknowledged that his laid-back presidential lifestyle might seem unusual. Still, he said it amounted to a conscious choice to forgo the trappings of power and wealth. Quoting the Roman court-philosopher Seneca, Mr. Mujica said, “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor.”

Seneca, 2,000 years later, being quoted by a former guerrilla/leftist president of a small country in South America. Fascinating.

Men do, nevertheless, have the deck stacked against them by biology.

From Catching Up from The Economist.

Interesting throughout. I must admit that without any real thought, I had just sort of assumed that the differential in age was simply a matter of nature. As it is, to a point, but their explanation provides a more robust explanation.

All of which is good news if you are male. Men do, nevertheless, have the deck stacked against them by biology. One way the cards are marked is that female mammals (women included) have two X chromosomes, whereas males have an X and a Y—the latter being a runty little thing with only a small complement of genes. Females’ “spare” X chromosome protects them from genetic mutations on the other one. Males have no such protection. Women are thus carriers of, but rarely suffer from, diseases like haemophilia which are caused by the mutation of X-chromosome genes. In birds, by contrast, it is the males who have matched chromosomes while females sport the runt. As a result, male birds tend to outlive their mates.

A further biological difference between the sexes is in the lengths of their telomeres. These are sections of DNA that protect the ends of chromosomes from decay. Men’s telomeres are shorter than those of women, and also degrade more quickly. Both of these attributes have been linked to reduced lifespans.

But some are more equal than others

The biggest biological difference between health of the sexes, however, can be summed up in a single word: testosterone. Testosterone is the hormone that more or less defines maleness (though women have it too, in lesser quantities). It promotes both aggression and risky behaviour. It also suppresses the immune system, which is why castrated tomcats and rams live longer than those that have not been neutered. The same applies to people. A study on eunuchs found they live 13.5 years longer than men who are intact.

Testosterone-driven behaviour means that men are more likely than women to die in accidents, and more likely to die from the violence of others. They are also more likely to kill themselves. These things are particularly true of young adults. Men are two-and-a-half times more likely to die in their 20s than women are. Testosterone may also explain the differences between the sexes in risky behaviours like smoking and drinking.

But blaming testosterone for male risk-taking explains only the “how”, not the “why”. For that, you must turn to evolutionary biology. It is no coincidence that the gap between the sexes’ mortality is widest in people’s 20s. This is the peak period for reproduction. Men are fighting each other, and showing off to the girls, in a competition whose prize is, in an evolutionary sense, immortality itself—the passage of their genes to the next generation.

To stake a claim in the afterlife, as any religion will tell you, you must make sacrifices in the present one. In actuarial terms, therefore, the Longevity Science Advisory Panel reckons that even if men adopt healthy lifestyles, women will continue to outlive them. A gap of between one and two years of life expectancy (at age 65) will persist indefinitely. That, if you are a man, might seem unfair. But if it does, then think of it as the price of eternity.

Logic, knowledge and NYT reporters

One of my recurrent themes is about the quality and nature of decision-making and of the poor quality of argument seen in many articles or posts. In the New York Times, For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health by Sabrina Tavernise, there is a classic example. The article reports on a recent study comparing international health outcomes, focusing on those under age 50 in which Americans came out at the bottom of most measures.

If you have read my post, The Texas-Wisconsin Paradox you will be aware of the extent to which the US comes off poorly in these sorts of comparisons because of the heterogeneous nature of US culture. To understand the nature of the comparisons, you really have to be comparing apples-to-apples which rarely happens.

Without having read the original study referenced in this report, it does seem likely that this is an advocacy study whose results are intended to support a predetermined outcome. Regardless of that though, what caught my eye was the final paragraph.

The United States is a bigger, more heterogeneous society with greater levels of economic inequality, and comparing its health outcomes to those in countries like Sweden or France may seem lopsided. But the panelists point out that this country spends more on health care than any other in the survey. And as recently as the 1950s, Americans scored better in life expectancy and disease than many of the other countries in the current study.

Three simple sentences packing a powerful one-two punch of reportorial foolishness.  Its almost as if the reporter knows that technically she should be skeptical of press release advocacy studies but can't quite bring herself to the brink of critical thinking. Just from the perspective of logic, this is a failed paragraph, providing a classic illustration of a non sequitur. In what way does the fact that the US spends a great deal on health care have to do with the argument that international comparisons are false because they are not comparing apples-to-apples. It doesn't. How did those two sentences come together at all?

Having opened herself up to criticism from the perspective of logic, the reporter then doubles down by betraying a lack of knowledge about the topic on which she is writing - "And as recently as the 1950s, Americans scored better in life expectancy and disease than many of the other countries in the current study." Its as if she is unaware of two critical facts. First, in the 1950's the US was at the apex of global inequality, i.e. post-World War II, the US was disproportionately richer than the rest of the world and every decade since then has seen a slight improvement in the productivity of the rest of the world's economies (and the beneficial health outcomes that come from increasing wealth).

More critically, she seems unaware of the fact that the 1950's were the tipping point for the familial cohesion of the African-American community and the legion of bad sociological outcomes (health, wealth, violence, etc.) arising from that collapse as initially pointed out by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and documented and measured by the economist Thomas Sowell. The US has five major cultural groups with dramatically different sociological measures from one another. The bleakest measures are those associated with the third largest group, African-Americans and their measures have worsened dramatically in the decades since 1960. These facts support the argument that the problem with international comparisons is that they are comparing apples-to-oranges and yet, by apparently being unaware of this information, the reporter offers this sentence as if it contradicted the argument. Compounding the fault is the fact that apparently fact checkers and layers of editorial quality control all missed correcting the final paragraph and forestalling the embarrassment that ought to go with having written such nonsense.

A pictorial overview of the history of tractors in Iceland

From Literary Iceland Revels In Its Annual 'Christmas Book Flood' by Jordan G. Teicher, a sentence too delicious to pass over.

"Two years ago one of the surprise best-sellers was a pictorial overview of the history of tractors in Iceland."