Study shows military intervention can stop genocide
I need a new category along the lines of “You seriously spent money on this?”
According to a study published in the September issue of International Studies Quarterly, military intervention can slow or stop genocide. I’m just going to quote most of the article because it’s brief.
The study reveals that only overt military interventions that explicitly challenge the perpetrator appear to be effective in reducing the severity of the brutal policies. Military support for targets, or in opposition to the perpetrators, alters the almost complete vulnerability of unarmed civilian targets. And these interventions that directly target the perpetrators were not, on the whole, found to make matters worse for those being attacked. “If actors wish to slow or stop the killing in an ongoing instance of state-sponsored mass murder, they are more likely to be effective if they oppose the perpetrators of the brutal policy,” author Matthew Krain states. He finds that even military intervention against the perpetrator by a single country or international organization has a measurable effect in the “typical” case.
When a single international actor challenges the aggressor, the probability that the killings will escalate drops while the probability that the killings will decrease jumps. Each additional intervention by another international actor raises the chance of saving lives. Krain’s study examines factors affecting all ongoing instances of state-sponsored mass murder from 1955 to 1997 and simulates the effects of interventions on two cases, including the current case of mass murder in Darfur, Sudan. His results also confirm that attempts to intervene as impartial parties seem ineffective. “By finding that increasing the number of interventions against perpetrators of genocide or politicide reduces severity this study confirms that international interventions against perpetrators do save lives,” Krain concludes.
So it goes to show that one must (essentially) have an organized militia force of some sort struggling against an oppressive regime that is committing mass slaughter. Underground movements won’t work. I would venture to say that this is due to having a real target that can be identified and fought by the oppressor not only brings world scrutiny to that particular stage, but also distracts from the killings being conducted because those conducting the killing are needed to fight a real enemy.
Honestly, though, “Study shows some types of military interventions can slow or stop genocide” — I mean it’s like “No kidding, really? I wouldn’t have thought.”
A journey through sexual orientation research
I’ve just spent about a half an hour reading a long article from the Boston Globe magazine entitled “What makes people gay?” It’s a very interesting look at how society and medicine has progressed through the years. It’s far too long to adequately cover here, but the article starts off by looking at identical twins, Patrick and Thomas, one of whom exhibits childhood gender nonconformity (CGN). Statistically, 75% of men that exhibit CGN grow up to be gay or bisexual. This sort of throws a wrench into the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait. But it doesn’t completely rule out a biological basis for homosexuality. It just muddies the water a bit.
The article continues on through some of the prevailing theories, including suppressed portions of the X chromosome, and ultimately looking at differences between men and women when it comes to sexual arousal. (For men it stems purely from their sexual orientation; for women, it’s quite a bit more complicated.)
Four or five theories later, the ultimate consensus seems to be that homosexuals are born that way, even though it may not be genetic, and that they don’t have a “choice” in when it comes to their sexual orientation. One prevailing motif throughout the entire article is the idea of cause versus effect, which is normally fairly cut and dried, but not when it comes ot sexual orientation research. Is the smaller clump of neurons in the anterior hypothalamus the cause of homosexuality, or is it merely an effect? Regardless, one very old theory has been finally be laid to rest by the scientific community. Most all of Sigmund Freud’s theories have been relegated to medical history rather than actual, working theories, and the same is true of his theories on homosexuality: distant fathers and overprotective mothers result in homosexual men. In fact, distant fathers are probably a result of CGN instead of a cause, which isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination.
I can relate to Neil Swidey when he says “Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it.” Such is to be expected when one is working in a field which has political and religious groups opposing it. It was, however, nice to see a conservative anti-gay advocate step up to the plate and make some concessions, which is very rare when it comes to science conflicting with religion.
Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something “deeply rooted” in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he’d spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that “many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation.” His message: “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, we won’t have any credibility.”
I wish I could say that concessions to science have been made on other issues, but they have not. Yet. (With the exception of the Catholic church… stay tuned.) In any case, I couldn’t possibly do the article justice here, because it speaks for itself. It’s well worth the time it takes to read.
Oxford to stop accepting child prodigies
This isn’t in the realm of science developments, but I do think it’s related, since most “child prodigies” end up studying music, or science, as opposed to liberal arts. Regardless, due to recently-enacted child protection laws in the UK, Oxford is (probably) going to stop accepting children under the age of 17. This isn’t because Oxford is a dangerous or unhealthy place for children to study, but instead it’s because the University cannot guarantee the safety of the children while they are there. Oxford cannot conduct background checks on all of the undergraduate students in its residence buildings, which means that children will not be allowed to live there. Children under the age of 17 would not be allowed to have one-on-one tutoring sessions, either, because Oxford cannot conduct background checks on all of the faculty and staff.
‘The problem is that we can’t alter the environment here; we can’t lay on special measures for younger students. We’re used to operating as an institution for adults.’
I think it’s unfortunate that these kids will not be given the opportunity to work to their fullest potential, without going overseas. Oxford was the only university that accepted children under the age of 17 in the UK, and now this has changed. It remains to be seen what will happen to future British “prodigies” — whether they will come to the United States, or go elsewhere in the world.
Prehistoric footwear
I came across a nifty story today, where Dr. Erik Trinkaus has made the case for prehistoric shoes by analyzing the bone structures of early humans. By looking at the bones of the smaller toes, and discovering that they were not as strong as their earlier ancestors, he inferred the use of shoes: the lower leg bones of the remained just as strong as normal, only the toes were weaker. This implies the existence of prehistoric supportive footwear:
“I discovered that the bones of the little toes of humans from that time frame were much less strongly built than those of their ancestors while their leg bones remained large and strong,” Trinkaus said. “The most logical cause would be the introduction of supportive footwear.”
During barefoot walking, the smaller toes flex for traction, keeping the toe bones strong. Supportive footwear lessens the roll of the little toes, thus weakening them.
Finding the actual shoes themselves is a bit more of a challenge because the materials used obviously don’t hold up well to the test of time. Anyone who has seen the pile of shoes at the Holocaust Museum can tell you that. But by analyzing the fossil record, Dr. Trinkaus has found that about 26,000 years ago, the bone structure began to change, leaving the smaller toes weaker.
For some reason, I find the thought that it took humanity many thousands of years to figure out that it might be a good idea to wrap their feet up a very depressing thought. But then, I can barely walk outside on my lawn barefoot, and absolutely love those socks that have bottoms that are twice as thick as their tops.
Tokyo opts to water its streets
In an effort to combat rising city temperautres, Tokyo has turned to a neglected custom called uchimizu, which is the sprinkling of water on the ground to lower air temperature.
This latest attempt to bring down summer temperatures that have been hovering in the 40s Celsius involves pumping up the water that seeps into the metro system and spraying it from the kerbside[sic] onto the road surface. A water-retentive coating stops the water from draining away, and evaporation does the rest.
At the test site, directly outside Japan’s parliament building in central Tokyo, a solar and wind-powered pump forces the subway flood water into high-pressure sprinklers that spray it over a 350-metre stretch of road. Recently, the researchers managed to cool the road surface - which often reaches up to 60 °C during the summer - by 10 °C, and the air above the road by 1 °C.
(For the Americans out there — myself included — 40°C is 104°F; 60°C is 140°F)
In recent years, the temperature of Japan’s cities has outpaced global warming by a factor of 4. Temperatures in Tokyo have increased by an average of 3°C (~6°F) compared to 100 years ago. Revisiting uchimizu has caused pavement temperatures to drop by 10°C, and the air temperature to drop by 1°C — no small feat.
People don’t eat less to compensate for overeating
I’ve written about obesity in the past, and I couldn’t pass up this particular article I just came across. The basic premise is that if one eats more than usual and gains some weight over the course of, say, a week, one is not inclined to eat less to make up for it. The possible reason cited:
“The study suggests that eating behavior does not normally respond to internal cues, such as physiological mechanisms involved in the regulation of body weight, but to external cues,” said David Levitsky, professor of nutritional sciences and of psychology at Cornell. “In other words, when the subjects returned to the same environment — in this case our eating lab — they returned to their same eating patterns, regardless of any biological signals.”
The results add to the growing evidence that environmental cues, especially portion size, appear to be a major determinant of how much we eat, he said. This finding runs counter to the current view that food intake is largely determined by biological mechanisms.
However, I would posit a more built-in mechanism: evolutionary history. In the past, when humans were primarily hunter-gatherers, a boom time would often be followed by a period of less bounty. It would seem, then, that evolution would select for eating more now and not being worried about eating less later. Gaining a little girth temporarily would allow one to be held over on less, later.
I emailed the author of the report asking for their opinion on the matter, and I am anxiously awaiting their reply.
Money can, in fact, buy you happiness. Sort of.
According to new research, money can buy you happiness, but only if it’s relative to the incomes of others in one’s own peer group. That is, if I make more money than my friend Bob, I’m probably happier than him, and he’s probably more unhappy than me. Of course, this makes pretty good sense, but the paper doesn’t attempt to explain why this is.
So I’m going to take a stab at it in the light of my recent reading.
Human beings are social creatures. Even those that prefer to be alone most of the time require some social interaction — the vast majority of the population falls within the normal bounds of introverted- vs. extroverted-ness. If one were to take a human baby and separate him from society for his whole life, he would not have any social skills and would die relatively quickly. As individuals, we cannot exist for long in isolation. (This is one of the reasons that solitary confinement is generally reserved as a way of punishing prisoners.) Those rare few that truly hate all social interaction are few and far between. The Unabomber comes to mind, but even he likes a bit of intellectual stimulation every once in a while.
Because we are social, we form social groups based on appearance, age, and perhaps most importantly, ideology. Peers tend to be those that have overlapping interests, ages, and ideologies, and so we judge ourselves on how we are relative to them, because they are our mirroring surface. If one is more successful (in whatever way one defines success), one tends to be more self-confident and secure in one’s own abilities and talents. These qualities lend themselves to happiness and contentment. Friends and strangers alike are more drawn to this successful individual because he exudes confidence. This, in turn, makes him more successful, which is a large part of the reason that a well-crafted façade for someone just starting out in business is one of the most important aspects of becoming truly successful. The image and perception of success breeds further success. It is only a simple matter, then to see why those that are more more financially successful than their peers are happier than their peers: because everyone around them appreciates them more, will defer to them (because they’re clearly doing something right), and, in general, admires them.
So it’s not so big of a stretch to see why happiness often mirrors financial success.