Fwd: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 15:13:32 GMT

  • Next message: Claus David: "Roger Ebert"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA29228 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:17:48 GMT
    Subject: Fwd: Who knew genes could get mean?
    Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:13:32 -0500
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
    Message-ID: <20001214151225.AAA22225@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Who knew genes could get mean?

    By Globe Staff, 12/12/2000

    Why do we humans so often fail miserably at losing weight, saving money,
    remaining sexually faithful, or quitting smoking?

    Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, two researchers armed with a wildly diverse
    array of data and a sly sense of humor, say we can blame it on the genes
    we've inherited from our hunter-gatherer forebears.

    Our genes, the pair argue, encourage us to behave in ways that were
    helpful to our early ancestors but that today put us at risk of obesity,
    addiction, and divorce. In ''Mean Genes,'' Burnham, an economist at
    Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and Phelan, a biology professor
    at the University of California, set out to explain why we do the things
    we do, and to help us short-circuit some of these impulses by
    understanding them better.

    Globe reporter Vicki Croke talked with Burnham about wealth, happiness,
    and romance.

    Q. You make the point that, in many ways, our genes are outdated for
    current society: We want to eat as much as we can in times of plenty, we
    have trouble saving money, we can be sexual cheats. How does
    understanding our genetic impulses help us curb our behavior? Can a fat
    person become thin after reading ''Mean Genes''?

    A. When giving advice on a topic like weight loss, it is impossible to
    come up with entirely novel suggestions. By more clearly seeing the
    problem, however, we predict which routes are likely to lead to success.
    While I can't summarize our whole chapter in a few words, one of the key
    conclusions is that people will not succeed in remaining hungry. In other
    words, calorie restriction is not the road to health and fitness, or even
    to losing weight.

    Better to outsmart your passions than to attempt to overpower them with
    willpower alone. We provide the insights to help people outsmart their
    destructive passions. [For instance, since humans are genetically
    programmed to eat more than they should, the book suggests that people
    plan ahead and have a low-calorie snack available to avoid temptation by
    chocolate when the urge strikes.]

    Q. What about comparing ourselves to other animals? (Burnham and Phelan
    compare human gender relations to those of the animals, noting that the
    gender that does the most nurturing of young tends to live the longest.)

    It seems this is dicey business - picking and choosing certain behaviors
    from a huge repertoire in the animal kingdom. Can we really compare our
    romantic partners to aggressive elephant seals who are the size of, as
    you put it, fully-loaded Cadillacs? Or male bush crickets who lose a
    quarter of their body weight during sex?

    A. Throughout ''Mean Genes,'' we have selected stories that are true and
    are representative of the vast scientific literature. For example, male
    moorhens provide the bulk of baby bird care. Female moorhens are bigger
    than males, females compete for males, and females are particularly picky
    when it comes to male body shapes. Females prefer small fat males ideal
    for sitting on eggs. If moorhens had prisons, we speculate that all the
    inmates would be female.

    The lesson isn't that males should take care of the offspring; it's that
    if one sex has the higher minimum investment (i.e., gestation in mammals
    or egg-sitting in moorhens), then the sex that does the investment is
    sought after and the sex that does the seeking dies at an earlier age
    because of the pursuit itself.

    Q. ''Mean Genes'' is a surprisingly fun read, filled with amazing data
    that could keep any reader talking through many cocktail parties: The
    Mayan practice of using a ''toad enema''; the fact that the total energy
    investment of one pregnancy for one woman equals about 300 McDonald's
    hamburgers; a tablespoon of semen is enough to impregnate every woman in
    North America. What's your favorite ''Mean Genes'' factoid?

    A. I love the attempts animals make to keep their mates from cheating.
    Most people know that female black widow spiders eat their mates. Less
    well known is that male black widow spiders break their sex organs off in
    females, forming a primitive but effective chastity belt.

    In some species, a male will sit upon a female for days after sex seeking
    to prevent her from having sex with his rivals. In other species, males
    seeking paternity carry females on their backs for prolonged periods. In
    one species of worms, males use ''cement glands'' to seal their rivals'
    sperm tubes shut.

    Q. You are an economist, and you say that understanding genetic impulses
    helps inform your field. Are you saying all disciplines could benefit
    from a healthy dose of ''Mean Genes'' 101?

    A. Absolutely. Anyone interested in behavior of organisms that arose by
    natural selection should understand genetic evolution and science.
    Psychology is the furthest along in this process, called ''Consilience''
    by E.O. Wilson. Economics, sociology, philosophy, and political science
    are still working with models of human nature that don't incorporate
    Darwin's insights.

    And I've devoted my life to improving economics, also known as ''the
    dismal science.'' One of my research projects looked at why negotiations
    so often fail. The answer, in my study, is that high-testosterone men are
    willing to walk away from deals that low-testosterone men accept.
    Negotiation breakdowns of the sort that I studied are not supposed to
    occur (according to standard economics). The role of testosterone in this
    area removes the paradox. More generally, the rebuilding of economics on
    a better model of human nature will produce more accurate and useful
    results.

    Q. Could this help us understand the political battle between Gore and
    Bush?

    A. There's no data, as far as I know, on testosterone levels in
    politicians.

    Q. You take a potshot at the loyalty of dogs. Do you believe there is no
    such thing as altruism in dogs or, for that matter, in people?

    A. Both humans and dogs sometimes help others without any expectation of
    repayment. So, at one level, both we and they are altruistic. These
    behaviors evolved, however, for different reasons.

    Dogs are domesticated versions of wolves and they have accompanied humans
    for at least the last 10,000 years. Those dogs that were nice to
    ancestral humans lived long enough to have puppies. Those that didn't pay
    attention to their owners, didn't have puppies, or at least not as many.
    Over many generations, human selective breeding has produced dogs that
    are keenly sensitive to their owners.

    So dogs are built to care about people because caring paid off for
    ancestral dogs in the only currency that genes care about - offspring.
    Similarly, we know that humans evolved as the great cooperators. By
    working in groups, ancestral humans were able to eat, and avoid being
    eaten. Accordingly, we - the descendants of those who survived - are
    built with instincts that mediate cooperation.

    As a consequence, humans are altruistic in certain settings. Not random
    acts of altruism, but specifically the sorts of behaviors that redounded
    to the benefit of ancestral humans.

    Q. The book isn't really a self-help guide. And it's too funny to be a
    dry text on evolution and human impulse. What is it?

    A. Short, sassy and bold was our goal in the writing of ''Mean Genes.''
    We hope it will be the first of a new genre of books. It provides advice
    built on a bedrock of scientific knowledge without being boring.
    Furthermore, it allows people to generate their own solutions, built upon
    a better understanding of human nature.

    Q. What do you think is ''Mean Genes'''s most elegant solution to an
    everyday human impulse problem?

    A. In order to save, people need to hide the money from themselves. In
    fact, ''hidden'' money is the only source of retirement funds for average
    Americans. That is, Social Security, pensions, and accumulated home
    equity. The median American head of a household who is nearing retirement
    has under $10,000 in liquid financial savings. In other words, no savings
    at all that can be spent.

    While there's no simple cure for drugs or obesity, savings rates are easy
    to improve. At the national level, we've done this by forcibly setting
    aside a chunk of income. At the individual level, we can do this by
    setting up payroll deductions that go to accounts that can't be touched
    for years.

    This story ran on page D1 of the Boston Globe on 12/12/2000. © Copyright
    2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2000 - 15:19:14 GMT