The Science of Laughter

Aristotle once suggested that we laugh only at inferior individuals, while Plato suggested that the act of laughing characterized a display of self-ignorance (1). A recent article published by Robert R. Provine, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, may have deciphered the evolutionary significance of laughter.

Primal laughter evolved in social animals which need an emotionally positive mechanism to allow social brains to integrate organisms together within the social hierarchy. “Laughter seems to be an automatic response to your situation rather than a conscious strategy.” Said Tyler F. Stillman who conducted psychological experiments on laughter (2). Organisms in positions of power will tend to laugh less at jokes, than an interview candidate might. Thus, jokes that I tell my classes always catch a few laughs, but the same joke told to a professor generally elicits little more than a funny look. Perhaps I am not a funny as I would like to think.

Laughter can be traced through the evolutionary tree of social organisms from humans, to primates, and even down to rats, which emit a series of high pitched squeaks before and during play at frequencies higher than the human ear can hear (1). In primates and humans, the first laughter response is the threat of tickling. This action will provoke laughter beginning at 4 weeks of age, and acts as a primal “green light”. Therefore, we laugh to cope, to fit in, to show friendly intention, or to make others feel comfortable in awkward situations. Ultimately, laughter could be the key to the development of complex social structures in all social mammals. Laughter allowed the formulation of human societies prior to the development of language or writing. We are evolutionary adapted to laugh.

(1) “Laughter” Wikimedia: the free encyclopedia. March 14, 2007 Wikipedia March 14, 2007.
(2) Tierney, John. “What’s So Funny?” The New York Times, March 16, 2007

Could a New Generation of Space Nuts Revive a Declining Environmental Movement?

The environmental movement has several progenitors. Its origin rests in books, people, pictures, and events in the not-too-distant past. The early conservation era occurred between 1836 and 1960 and is characterized by Henry David Thoreau who wrote Walden; or, Life in the Woods. This book characterized his life for two years, two months, and two days, in a forest around the shores of Walden Pond. Thoreau was our first conservationist.

From 1960 to present day, the modern environmental movement came to fruition. Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson and photos of earth from space all served to draw attention to the world around us. Wikipedia states that for the past thirty years, current public focus points include ozone depletion, global climate change, acid rain, and GMOs, but the original foundation of “saving the rain-forests” has not changed(1). The environmental movement, although unified on multiple fronts in its initial phases, has now become a behemoth with little cohesion on any single issue. Like GM and the Dinosaurs, behemoths rarely survive.

So now we are in the age of diffuse environmental non-profits that all seem to be fighting for some cause native or foreign. Pleas are now falling on desensitized ears. The environmental movement needs to revive itself, and I doubt a new “Panda” will suffice. Yet, there is hope. This gleaning ray comes from the most unexpected of places.

On October 4th, 2004 SpaceShipOne rocketed to the history books as the first private piloted spacecraft to reach an altitude of 100 kilometers (62.14 mi), and then repeat the feat using the same spacecraft within two weeks (3). This height is defined as suborbital, however it offers a glimpse of the earths curvature in the backdrop of space. Ultimately it was scaled composites that came away with the $10 million dollar X-prize, however it was only 1 of 26 companies competing for the title (3).

The first commercial space flight through Virgin Galactic is currently scheduled for 2009. Although the price tag of $200,000 is hefty, it’s still 100x cheaper than its next closest alternative (2). Virgin Galactic and its fleet of SpaceShipTwo class spaceships currently being constructed is the first of several new concepts that are gradually coming to fruition (4). Over the next 20 years new companies will begin to populate our spaceports increasing competition and lowering prices. By 2040, almost every kid will have the opportunity to become an astronaut within their lifetime. Instead of pictures that can never seem to capture the moment, people will have the experience. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but our words usually cannot embody our experiences.

Seeing the world from outer space has been said to change people. Its like your first trip across the country, or finding that through road that causes an epiphany. You realize every things place, and gain an understanding of an areas finiteness. It is this realization with respect to earths place in space, that can revitalize the environmental movement. The effects of this realization could start with the first 100 space tourists in the burgeoning space industry. After all, they are the ones with excess weight to throw around. What would happen if McDonalds only purchased non bovine growth hormone meat, if starbucks only purchased shade-grown coffee, or if every energy company offered cost-effective energy alternatives? This is an exciting time for the environmental movement, lets use it wisely.

(1)“Environmental Movement.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. March 11, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation. March 5, 2007.
(2) Thomas, Cathy. The Space Cowboys. TIME. March 5, 2007. Time Inc. March 11, 2007.
(3) ”X Prize.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. March 11, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation. March 5, 2007.
(4) “Virgin Galactic.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedis. March 11, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation. March 5, 2007.

China: Our Failure, Their Gain

Now-a-days one cant think of an economic revitalization without thinking about China. From the depths of Communism to the vast open spaces of “Capitalism”, China edges ever closer to becoming the next world superpower. Once in a dead heat with India, China has been able to take the lead on the global stage with its unique take on Capitalism built on selected tenants of Communism. Much of China’s industry is still state run, and funded; allowing the production of goods at a reduced cost. However, many new privately owned businesses have helped facilitate the Chinese Industrial Revolution. Many of these businesses receive large subsidies from the Chinese government to make them more competitive on the global market (FYI: This is illegal according to Free Trade Policy) The economic disparity between the common worker and the company C.E.O makes our own look like a spec of dust, but hey, at least everyone has health insurance! The intentional undervaluing of Chinese currency (1 Yuan = $0.12) has ensured that the job sucking monster continues to export U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas.

Why is a trade deficit with China bad? The biggest proportion of the US trade deficit (50%) rests with China, and the proportion is continuing to grow. China can do one of three things with exported American dollars:

1) Chinese businesses can reinvest the exported money into American assets such as real estate, stocks, etc. This will hold up the value of the dollar.
2) Chinese businesses can store the money in American bank accounts, purchase bonds, treasury notes etc. This way they can use the money for later bargaining.
3) Should chinese businesses lose faith in American assets, they will then convert the exported dollars into another currency, such as the euro, to invest in other markets. This is highly problematic, as it causes the value of the dollar to decrease.

Should the value of the dollar decrease too quickly, it will cause stocks to lose value, interest rates to increase sharply causing a reduction in foreign companies importing american goods, further lowering of the middle and lower class, increase in unemployment, and potential reduction in wages for lower tier employees (in relation to inflation).

The outcome of extreme trade deficits can be neutral, or very negative. There are early warning signs appearing, as the dollar had lost 33% of its value against the euro. This indicates that the euro might be replacing the dollar as the global currency. The U.S. has lived with a trade deficit since 1980, but only in the past 6 years has this deficit reached new highs. We have been in this situation before, but digging ourselves out requires a majority of industrialized nations artificially holding up the value of the dollar (in case you have not noticed, our foreign policy hasn’t exactly left us looking like a shining white knight). Reducing the trade deficit with China (where the largest proportion of our deficit lies) is thus imperative, as it could significantly reduce the total deficit while stabilizing and even strengthening the dollar. Unfortunately the US is lacking a backbone in economic policy with China. After 6 years of talks, all we have are vague, empty, and baseless assurances, as well as, a formal complaint to the WTO.

Given what is at stake, you would think that the american government would protect its interests in the region and on its own turf. The unfortunate truth is that we are too scared to impose strict restrictions, sanctions, etc, on Chinese imports because of China’s ability to inflict “major damage” on American companies (a la GM and CAT) with a large proportion of their production assets there. So we are scared to enforce economic policy against China because of a belief that a significant portion of our economy and standard of living are tied to Chinese products.

The problem with this argument is the relationship between standard of living, and having a job. Which is more important? Jobs or your standard of living? What good is our outrageously high standard of living if you don’t have a job to support it? Stopping that job vacuum is sounding more enticing isn’t it? Unless we manage to get a backbone, and implement tough economic policy, it looks like we will continue down our current economic path, and Wal-mart continue to “roll back prices” indefinitely.

(1) Isadore, Chris. Made in USA: Record Trade Gap Hits the United States. CNN Money. February 13, 2007. CNN News Corporation. March 5, 2007.

Supermax: A Double Edged Sword

In a recent Time article, Jeffry Kluger attempted to address the inheirent problems of America’s SuperMax prisons (1). We have all heard of county prisons, state and federal prisons, and even the infamous maximum security prisons, however, I was surprised to hear of yet another tier: the Supermax prison. The name “Supermax” is meant to describe a type of “control unit” prison and represent the most secure level within our legal system that we know of. These prisons have housed several well known inmates including the Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski), The shoe bomber (Richard Reid), and Omar Abdel-Rahman a terrorist leader (2).

The idea of Supermax prisons was derived from the permanent lock down of the Federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois where two corrections officers were murdered by inmates on the same day (2). Specifically dedicated Supermax prisons have cells with either poured concrete or steel furniture, a window (if they’re lucky, most don’t have one) that allows a view of the sky to prevent orientation within the prison. Food is slid through a “bean” hole by guards, the solid steel doors and sinks are constructed with padding between them to prevent communication. Lights are kept on 24 hours a day and the inmates are allowed outside to exercise for one hour per day, but even this is done alone (2). In other words, inmates in the nations Supermax prisons spend 23 hours a day, 7 days a week, for decades on end, alone in solitary confinement.

The debate on Supermax prisons centers on their constitutional appropriateness, and whether or not they can be defined as torture. A UN team sent to investigate torture described Supermax conditions as inhuman and degrading. Unfortunately, I honestly see this as one of two options to contain prisoners who cannot be held within the general prisoner population either because of violence or other reasons. Besides, there is a bigger problem at stake here.

Experiments into solitary confinement and sensory depravation performed by the Quakers quickly showed that such conditions can quickly lead to mental instability, depression, existential crisis, catatonia, and even rage (3). Experiments performed on mice show that continued light input for 24 hours a day can drive a mouse to commit suicide. After only a few days in this environment, studies have shown that the brain waves shift towards delirium. In cases of sensory depravation, a hallucinatory state sets in within 24 hours (1). Is this unintentional (or perhaps intentional) means of no-touch-torture handed out by our governmental a good correctional (if we are ever planning on releasing them) or punishment system? Are we releasing people back into society who may be ticking time bombs? Are we torturing our own?

Two wrongs do not make a right. And if you haven’t stopped to think about it, prison isn’t exactly the easy life either. Yes, 3 meals a day are provided; a bed to sleep on is provided; and even your shower mate, Bubba, is also provided free of charge. There is a reason why people do not want to go to prison. You dont see people skipping to the cop car to be taken to prison. No one smiles when they go to prison, its not some sort of Disneyland. So although many of these people have committed horrendous crimes against humanity, these people have to spend a significant amount of their lives in a place that a size-able chunk of our society is terrified of. When someone goes to prison, they forfeit a portion of their lives. If they go to Federal Prison, then they forfeit their right to vote, on every job application, they have to put down that they have been convicted of a Felony often limiting their potential job pool, and casting them into the lower rungs of societal structure. A prisoner becomes an outcast of society, do we have to take away his mental capacity as well?

My final point is thus. What makes us human? Its not compassion for humankind, nor is it the instinct to survive. Its not our social interactions, structure, or family. Its not our intelligence, ethics, or reasoning ability. When taken singly, none of these make us human. However the sum of these create the human mind, and its our mind that make us human. You take that away, and what do we become?

Supermax prisons are there as a means to control inmates that either could not be controlled, needed protection, or were at risk of running a crime ring within the prison. Yes, this is a problem, and yes we need to figure out some way to deal with it. However, Supermax prisons are not the solution. They in-and-of-themselves, create another problem all together.


1 Kluger, Jeffrey. “The Paradox of Supermax.” Time February 5, 2007: 52-53
2” ”Supermax.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. February 27, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation. March 5, 2007 .
3 “Solitary Confinement.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. February 27, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation. March 5, 2007 .

Thoughts on Graduate School and the Pursuit of Knowledge.

People attend graduate school for a variety of reasons. For some its the pursuit of a career that requires it, a degree in Biology or Physics for example. For others, its just what is expected of them either by admired faculty, or family pressures. Still for others, it is the continuing desire to prove themselves; a vendetta whose sole goal is to debunk that teacher or those peers who thought you would be a truck driver at best. Maybe for some, its the desire to be intellectually elevated above 95% or 99% of Americans depending on your degree. Even others will go to graduate school because they do not know what to do next. What ever your reason, it is vital that you think grad-school is for you.

For many professions, I believe the difference between attaining a Bachelors and a Masters is the probability of being hired by a company. However, a PhD is different. It doesn’t make you more or less competitive, it simply allows you to apply for a new job class. It should be noted that a PhD, depending on the field of choice, will limit your job choices greatly. This is true so long as it is not attained from a prestigious University, or you are able to pull off a Nature, Cell, or Science publication (or other top journal in your field). Otherwise, you will still start at the bottom of the corporate or academic food chain. The only difference is that you will hold a more respected position. Neither degree gives you job security, assurances of being hired, or guarantees a higher spot in the company. However, if the job you want requires a higher degree, then its either give up the career you desire, or push through graduate school.

Some will tell you that they attend graduate school in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge is relative; can be gained from multiple sources; and doesn’t require classes to attain much of it. Do you really need a teacher to regurgitate the diagrams that are found in your book? Better yet, think about your favorite book. Mine was the Future of Life by E.O. Wilson. I can still recall the books main points, and several examples the author used to illustrate them. As a matter of fact, when I talk about the Environment, I use more examples from that book, than I do from many of my classes. My point? If you desire to attain knowledge, go read a book. It will be cheaper, use less time, and induce less stress in your life. I have seen people attend a Biology masters program while teaching themselves Proteomics (the study of proteins, their functions, and all their interactions). That very person proceeded to enter a career in Proteomics even though his Masters thesis never came close to this topic. If he can do it, so can you.

Regardless of the reason for attaining a higher degree, when you attend graduate school, you become your advisors apprentice, and as such, you will learn how to think. If your desire is not aligned with this, you are likely to fall short of greatness, as graduate school isn’t easily tamed.

Its no lie that being a grad student is a form of academic hazing where professors test the very limits of your knowledge and mental stability. Preliminary exams which generally include a written and oral section are among the most stressful points in any graduate student career. For those who are unfamiliar with this process, prelims’ are like a college exam on steroids’ where you are expected to know every single figure, process, or significant publication that even remotely relates to your thesis topic. Its like a test that could draw material from any single page in your Biology, Statistics, Chemistry, Cell Biology, Neuroscience, etc text book. It is around this point that most graduate students take a step back and ask “Why the hell am I doing this?” Fortunately for those of use in Masters programs, we get to evade the dreaded prelims’. However Masters students are not without our share of academic hazing as well. Ultimately there comes a point where almost every grad. student questions why they’re pursuing a higher degree.

Merit should be given to those who take a step back and examine their motives for attaining a higher degree. As stated before, a higher degree is indeed required for some professions, however, for a large proportion of other disciplines, a higher degree is not. In fact a higher degree does not even guarantee that you will get paid a higher salary, or given a specific job. So for those of you who are considering a higher degree for the these reasons, consider the following very carefully. The U.S. Department of Labor touts the fact that higher degrees do pay off in the long run. A Bachelors will yield $2.1 million over the course of a lifetime, while a Masters will yield $2.4, a PhD will yield $3.2, and a Professional (M.B.A., Law Degree, MD, etc) will pay $4.4 million. So the average difference between stopping at a B.S. Degree, and advancing to a M.S. degree is only 400,000 on average. However, this average is a bit misleading.

A student that gets admitted into a Masters program, or a PhD program are usually at the top 1% - 5% of their respective classes. Therefore the average lifetime earnings for a MS student is calculated from the top 5% of your class, while that for a PhD is calculated for the top 1% of your class. The average life time earnings for a BS takes into account the other 95% of your graduating class, even those that graduated in 7 years with a less than stellar GPA. Its like comparing Apples’, Kiwis’, and Strawberries’. If you are currently in a Masters program, then you were smart enough to be there. You are already at the top 5% of Americans, you just don’t have the degree to prove it yet. For these lifetime earnings numbers to make any sense, one must look at the starting earnings of those people in the top 5% of your class that didn’t go to graduate school. I’d bet that those people have a starting salary of $5,000 - $8,000 higher than the “average”. This compares to a starting pay increase of just $10,000 that a MS will command. This means that over the course of a 40 year career, the difference in salary (should the proportions remain relatively constant) is just $80,000. A person that stops a Masters or PhD to go out in the work force, will have between 1 and 4 years experience under their belt by the time a Masters or PhD comes around to do the same job. Besides, as a potential employer, its more economically viable to hire someone with lower qualifications, but higher experience, because training costs and time are significantly lower than having to hire someone whom I would have to spend valuable time and money training.

However, having a higher degree means that you will probably advance more quickly within a company, you will command more respect, and if you’re good, there is no limit to what you could do. You will gain access to intellectuals and be dubbed into a community that few can enter. You will have a great line on your resume complete with amazing experience. You will build lasting friendships with intellectually stimulating people. You will gain mastery of a specific field while being challenged to the very edge of your mental capacity. Both sides have their merits, and its tough being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Its easier to stay where you are, especially if you are already in a graduate program, however in the words of Alexander Graham Bell: “When one door closes, another one opens, but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones the opened for us.”
Evaluate your options carefully.

AThinkinMan