Profit and Loss in Evolution

November 28, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

Something just occurred to me about biological evolution.

Yes, I know, if it’s Saturday night and I’m thinking about evolution (instead of participating in it :) ), then my life must be soooo boring. Not really, but read on because I think this is a good idea.

Earlier this week, I wrote a blog about how New York Times science reporter Olivia Judson wondered why evolution “keeps failing:”

How come organisms keep going extinct in nature? In other words, why does evolution keep failing?

I just now remembered something I read for an economics class. I’m sorry but I can’t remember where I read it. The book said that free enterprise is not a “profit” system, but is instead a “profit and loss” system. Ideally, businesses that serve consumer needs make profits. Businesses that don’t serve consumer needs, or do it inefficiently, suffer losses. The theory is that eventually, that puts resources into the hands of people best able to use them for the social good. (For the moment, we’re ignoring monopolies and corporate corruption that pervert the system.)

That sounds a lot like the evolutionary process.  Organisms that are best able to survive and reproduce in an environment have lots of offspring and survive as species — they “make profits.” Organisms that are less well adapted suffer losses and die off.

So if some species become extinct, that doesn’t mean evolution has failed. It means that evolution is working just as it’s supposed to work.

Problem solved. Hey, I wonder if The New York Times wants to hire me when I graduate? :)


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

What Would Boudica Do?

November 27, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

You don’t see the bumper stickers much in godless Massachusetts, but they’re pretty common in the Midwest: What would Jesus do?

I think it’s a nice question to ask, because Jesus told us to love each other and to forgive seventy times seven (at least). But lately I’ve been asking myself a different question:

What would Boudica do?

You’ve probably never heard of Boudica. That’s okay. Most people haven’t heard of her. As queen of the Iceni tribe in Britain, she led a revolt against the Roman army in the year 61 C.E. She’s one of my heroes, though not for the reasons you might guess.

I was thinking about Boudica because of all the recent news stories about women in combat.  They suffer post-traumatic stress just like male soldiers. They’re forced to leave their families. And that’s not even counting the danger that they will be killed or be forced to kill other people.

I’m no fan of libertarianism. But when people criticize them for wanting to legalize recreational drug use, gambling, prostitution, and other “victimless crimes,” libertarians make a good argument in their own defense. They point out that supporting people’s freedom to do some things doesn’t necessarily mean that they think it’s a good idea to do those things. They just think that the decision should be left up to the individuals involved.

Certainly, any person regardless of sex should be free to serve in any military role for which she is qualified. But do we women really want to emulate men in their ability to kill and destroy? Is that really a good idea? Is that what it means to be free and equal?

Boudica didn’t go to war against the Roman Empire out of mindless male aggressiveness, which causes most wars. She did it for good reasons. Her dead husband, king of the Iceni, had left half his kingdom to the Roman Empire in hope that his wife and daughters would be left in peace. Instead, the Romans seized his entire kingdom, flogged Boudica, and raped her daughters.

Boudica would have understood one of my favorite quotes, from a movie called “She Gets What She Wants:”

“That which does not kill me is going to wish that it had.”

Boudica led the tribes of her kingdom in a devastating military campaign against the Roman occupiers, defeating battle-hardened Roman legions and burning Roman towns including London. Eventually, Roman reinforcements slaughtered Boudica and her followers, but not before she had made the Romans pay in fire and blood for their betrayal and cruelty.

The difference is that Boudica had a really good reason for going to war. Do most of us?

And if not, do we really want to seek out situations in which we might have to kill people or be killed ourselves? Testosterone-induced brain damage might make guys believe that it’s a glorious way to live, but I don’t. No thank you.


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

We Always Like to Find “One” Cause

November 25, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

I’m writing this in the airport while I wait for my flight.

In today’s New York Times, science writer Olivia Judson writes to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species. In particular, she muses about the limitations of evolution:

In the laboratory, in other words, evolution has huge potential. But if it has that much potential — how come organisms keep going extinct in nature? In other words, why does evolution keep failing?

That got me thinking, which of course is always dangerous. It seems to be human nature (whether evolved or not) to always want one single explanation for things. It makes us very uncomfortable to think that an event can have multiple causes. And it drives us crazy if sometimes our favorite causal explanation doesn’t even work at all.

Oops, time to get on the plane. More later. I already got felt up by the airport security people, so at least I don’t have to go through that again today. I hope they enjoyed it.

Hey, I’ll be home when I finish this blog entry!

Back home again …

Back home now! Things are pretty normal. Dad already told me how proud he is of me. Mom fussed with my hair. Grandmother told me to sit up straight. And Josh is off with his gamer friends, to be back in time for dinner. Life is good. Because none of them reads this blog, none of them will find out that I got a tramp stamp (just a little one) while I was at school. :)

Okay, so where was I with the actual blog article? Oh, yes, Olivia Judson seemed a little miffed that evolution doesn’t explain everything about the development of life.

What I was getting at was, we seem to like single-cause explanations of things. Developed life forms (such as us, if we may flatter ourselves) developed through evolution. Psychological problems are caused by brain dysfunction of various kinds, with each problem coming from a particular kind of brain dysfunction. Economic problems are caused by either high taxes and too much regulation or low taxes and not enough regulation, depending on who you believe. My brother Josh is a pain because he’s an 18-year-old male. And so on.

What I’d like to know is why people are so determined to find only one single cause for things. Maybe it’s just how the human mind works. One cause is nice and neat and easy to remember. Multiple causes are troublesome and messy and you can lose track of which is which.

So why can’t the development of advanced life forms depend mostly on evolution and partly on other things? Why can’t psychological problems be caused sometimes by brain dysfunction and sometimes by childhood trauma (I’ve read some Freud, and I think he’s pretty cool). Why can’t tax cuts and deregulation be the solution to some problems, but tax increases and more regulation be the solution to others?

This popular idea that all situations, problems, and people have to fit into the same ready-made slots causes us to misunderstand a lot and sometimes to do the wrong things.

And for me, right now, the thing is to go downstairs and see what smells so good! Our main Thanksgiving dinner isn’t until tomorrow of course, but we always have something special the night before.

Have a happy Thanksgiving. Ttys!


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Flying Home for Thanksgiving

November 22, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

I went out tonight but it was low-key. Just fun and relaxing.

Mostly I can’t wait to get home for Thanksgiving. Dad drove me to school at the beginning of the year, but it’s obviously not practical for the short Thanksgiving holiday. I fly out of Hartford and then a little less than three hours later, I’m home! Well, not home, but at least at the airport being met by my parents.

I love school and I love all my classes, but I love my family too. I even miss my annoying younger brother, but don’t tell him that. :)


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

The Top 10 Sexist Advertisements

November 20, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

Why our mothers and grandmothers are so weird: They grew up seeing things like these “Top 10 Sexist Adverts” listed by The London Times.

They’re all ridiculous, but I think the funniest one is “put some fun between your legs.”


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Unisex Is OK, but Let’s Not Go Crazy

November 19, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

Today’s New York Times has an article about unisex fashions and the blurring of gender roles.

Naturally, I support people’s freedom to be who they are and wear what they want.

But I take it as a bad sign if a guy wants to try on my clothes. Especially if he looks better in them than I do. :)


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Gossip Girl, the Good and the Bad

November 18, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

Delighted that Lady Gaga was on “Gossip Girl” this week, though I would have preferred it if she’d had a speaking part and didn’t just perform one of her songs. I think that if I weren’t going to be me, and weren’t going to be Rachel Maddow, I might like being Lady Gaga.

Otoh the game of switching relationships between characters on “Gossip Girl” is starting to make my head spin. First Dan was with Serena, then with Olivia, and now it looks like he’s going to be with Vanessa. And Serena is starting to disappoint me. She’s a nice person, probably the character I most identify with, but she’s switching guys so fast — Dan, Carter, Trip, Nate, Trip, not even counting her European stuff over the summer. I found myself making a mental list of the guys she hasn’t been with yet. There aren’t that many. And she was also trying to find her father, then the show dropped that storyline completely for several episodes, and then started talking about it again, then dropped it again … maybe Dan Humphrey can get an after-school gig as a script doctor.


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Not Profound, But Pretty Good

October 21, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

All I’ll say is this: Tough test. Perfect score. I’m eating a (small) piece of chocolate cake to celebrate.

Insecurity is my ally. It makes me study harder. As long as I think that I might not be good enough and might not have done enough, then I’m motivated. And if I start to feel complacent, then I worry about losing my edge. That makes me feel insecure again. So it’s a virtuous circle.

MMmmmm … chocolate cake. If you were here, I’d offer you a bite. If you were Edward Cullen from “Twilight,” I might offer you two. :)


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Five Things That I’ve Learned

October 12, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley

I’d like to share a few things that I’ve learned. Some of the ideas are related to each other:

1. Life isn’t just about me.

Sometimes, I get to be the star and other people support me. Sometimes, other people get to be the star and my job is to support them. The same applies to all of us. Sometimes we’re the star, sometimes the supporting actor. We should play either role with grace and gratitude.

Sometimes, things go the way we want and other people are disappointed. Sometimes, things go the way other people want and we get disappointed. When the latter happens, share the happiness of the people who “won” this time, learn whatever you can from the situation, and then move on to the next goal without looking back.

2. If something isn’t in our control, don’t stress over it.

Sometimes, we and the people we love will get sick. Sometimes, we won’t get the jobs or the social situations we want. Sometimes, we will get dumped. By the time we’re 30, the Arctic ice pack will probably be history (not that we were ever going to go there, anyway). Someday, the sun will explode. Someday, each of us will almost certainly die.

We can’t do a thing about any of those events. Don’t worry about them. Try to invest emotional energy only in things we can control.

3. People do whatever they do. Get over it.

People always think they have good reasons for doing what they do. We usually don’t know what their reasons are. Even when someone makes a hurtful remark, she’s doing it for a reason. Maybe she misinterpreted something we said or did, and that hurt her. In her mind, we were the ones who started it. She might think that she’s just striking back.

People very rarely do mean things just from pure meanness. Instead, they have reasons that make sense to them. In addition, they often have subconscious motivations of which they aren’t even aware.

The best thing we can do is try to be as fair and as nice as we can to everyone. If they don’t act that way toward us, remember that we don’t know their reasons. They see the situation differently from the way we see it.

We are only in charge of our own behavior. We should only worry about making sure that our own actions are fair and loving. How other people act is their choice, between them and their conscience. We have no control over that, so we shouldn’t worry about it.

4. This, too, is for the good.

Our viewpoint is very limited. We don’t see the big picture and we are biased by our own desires. When something happens that frustrates us, we need to remember fact #1: “Life isn’t just about me.”

If we can improve a “bad” situation without hurting people, then we should do it. Otherwise, we should trust in the essential goodness of the universe and not worry about it. Things will work out for the best.

5. Happiness and fulfillment are the goals of life.

For you, for me, and for everyone. Things that help people achieve happiness and fulfillment are good. Things that frustrate the process are bad.

In our personal actions, we should seek happiness and fulfillment for ourselves in a way that supports other people’s pursuit of them. In our countries’ social policies, we should do the same. Policies that help the most people achieve the most happiness and fulfillment are good as long as they don’t violate people’s rights or cause excessive harm.


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.

Nobel Laureate Barack Obama?

October 9, 2009 by Rinth de Shadley
President Obama speaks about the award. Coverage by MSNBC.

President Obama speaks about the award. Coverage by MSNBC (link).

Nobel laureate Barack Obama?

I admire President Obama, but I was surprised when the Nobel Committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

According to the Nobel Committee, it chose him because of “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” It also cited his efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

Those are both good things. But are they really why he got the award?

The first reason, “efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation,” seems like part of the unofficial job description of the U.S. president. President Obama is certainly making such efforts, but the most important thing he did was not to be George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Everything else he’s done follows from that.

Both in America and other countries, we are so relieved to be rid of the previous administration  – with its paranoia, torture, aggression, and bigotry — that almost any sane president would seem like a hero.

As for the second reason, reducing nuclear weapons — well, I’m for it. But every president says he wants to reduce nuclear weapons, and almost all the other countries publicly agree. But then nothing changes, except that more countries get nuclear weapons. So I’m skeptical about that reason.

Unlike other Nobel prizes, which are awarded for great achievements in science or literature, the Peace Prize is kind of a feel-good prize. It’s also much more influenced by politics. Some previous winners have done great things to deserve it. Others, like President Obama, seem like good people doing a good job who just happened to be there at the right time. Previous winners have included:

  • Doctors Without Borders for its international humanitarian work
  • U.S. Vice President Al Gore for his work on global warming
  • U.S. President Jimmy Carter for promoting peace in the Middle East
  • Dr. Martin Luther King for promoting social justice and non-violence
  • Biochemist Linus Pauling for opposing nuclear-weapons testing
  • Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin for seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians
  • A whole lot of people you’ve never heard of

What I really think is this:

The Nobel Committee honored Obama’s sincere efforts to do the right thing. At the same time, it gave a big raised middle finger to the previous administration.

What I really hope is this:

President Obama’s award will help him promote peaceful resolutions to international problems and sensible, humane resolutions to our problems at home in the United States.


Copyright 2009 by Rinth de Shadley.