1. Jokah Macpherson says:

   June 14, 2015 at 10:31 pm GMT

   Is the reduced assortative mating based on acquaintance time is equal in both directions (Equal rate of less attractive men shacking up with attractive women and less attractive women shacking up with attractive men)? I would expect that it is at least close.
2. Bryan Bell says: • Website

   June 14, 2015 at 11:59 pm GMT

   I’ve been reading Africa: Biography of A Continent on your recommendation in a post several months ago.

   Great read. Like you said some of it’s dated. He also tends to contrast indigenous African innovation with previous archaeologists’ presumption of importation, which can be annoying.
3. Labayu says:

   June 15, 2015 at 8:59 am GMT • 100 Words

   Just spreading the word about some potential research I’d like to see done that readers here may be interested in…

   UC San Diego has the remains of 287 Edomite individuals excavated from Tenth Century BCE grave sites at Wadi Fidan in southern Jordan. According to Erez Ben-Yosef who worked on the excavation, the head excavator Thomas Levy is interested in having genetic analysis done on them, but last Erez heard, nothing has happened yet.

   Anyone who is interested who has the requisite skills may want to contact Levy: http://anthropology.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/faculty-profiles/thomas-levy.html
4. marcel proust says:

   June 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm GMT

   RK: You or perhaps a friend?

   http://www.salon.com/2015/06/16/video_captures_mother_bear_snatching_hot_sauce_from_refrigerator/
5. Karl Zimmerman says:

   June 19, 2015 at 1:14 pm GMT • 800 Words

   I dunno how many people have read at least part of the pope’s statement on the environment, but I was pretty impressed with his segment on genetic modification. He (or his aides) clearly did his homework. It’s a bit mushmouthed at times, but pretty clearly is open to genetic modification in principle.

   131. Here I would recall the balanced position of Saint John Paul II, who stressed the benefits of scientific and technological progress as evidence of “the nobility of the human vocation to participate responsibly in God’s creative action”, while also noting that “we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention to the consequences of such interference in other areas”.[109] He made it clear that the Church values the benefits which result “from the study and applications of molecular biology, supplemented by other disciplines such as genetics, and its technological application in agriculture and industry”.[110] But he also pointed out that this should not lead to “indiscriminate genetic manipulation”[111] which ignores the negative effects of such interventions. Human creativity cannot be suppressed. If an artist cannot be stopped from using his or her creativity, neither should those who possess particular gifts for the advancement of science and technology be prevented from using their God-given talents for the service of others. We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall context and ethical limits of this human activity, which is a form of power involving considerable risks.

   132. This, then, is the correct framework for any reflection concerning human intervention on plants and animals, which at present includes genetic manipulation by biotechnology for the sake of exploiting the potential present in material reality. The respect owed by faith to reason calls for close attention to what the biological sciences, through research uninfluenced by economic interests, can teach us about biological structures, their possibilities and their mutations. Any legitimate intervention will act on nature only in order “to favour its development in its own line, that of creation, as intended by God”.[112]

   133. It is difficult to make a general judgement about genetic modification (GM), whether vegetable or animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application. Genetic mutations, in fact, have often been, and continue to be, caused by nature itself. Nor are mutations caused by human intervention a modern phenomenon. The domestication of animals, the crossbreeding of species and other older and universally accepted practices can be mentioned as examples. We need but recall that scientific developments in GM cereals began with the observation of natural bacteria which spontaneously modified plant genomes. In nature, however, this process is slow and cannot be compared to the fast pace induced by contemporary technological advances, even when the latter build upon several centuries of scientific progress.

   134. Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about economic growth which has helped to resolve problems, there remain a number of significant difficulties which should not be underestimated. In many places, following the introduction of these crops, productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners due to “the progressive disappearance of small producers, who, as a consequence of the loss of the exploited lands, are obliged to withdraw from direct production”.[113] The most vulnerable of these become temporary labourers, and many rural workers end up moving to poverty-stricken urban areas. The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future. In various countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products needed for their cultivation. This dependency would be aggravated were the production of infertile seeds to be considered; the effect would be to force farmers to purchase them from larger producers.

   135. Certainly, these issues require constant attention and a concern for their ethical implications. A broad, responsible scientific and social debate needs to take place, one capable of considering all the available information and of calling things by their name. It sometimes happens that complete information is not put on the table; a selection is made on the basis of particular interests, be they politico-economic or ideological. This makes it difficult to reach a balanced and prudent judgement on different questions, one which takes into account all the pertinent variables. Discussions are needed in which all those directly or indirectly affected (farmers, consumers, civil authorities, scientists, seed producers, people living near fumigated fields, and others) can make known their problems and concerns, and have access to adequate and reliable information in order to make decisions for the common good, present and future. This is a complex environmental issue; it calls for a comprehensive approach which would require, at the very least, greater efforts to finance various lines of independent, interdisciplinary research capable of shedding new light on the problem.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS