People across the political spectrum have long recognized that our democratic system disenfranchises the unborn. Those on the left tend to worry that those alive today are pillaging natural resources from future generations. Those on the right tend to worry that excessive public spending will force our children or grandchildren into economic slavery. Either way, people in the future will be forced to live with the consequences of our present decisions, but they have no say in those decisions (though Greg Lusk has problematized this reasoning).
How to solve this problem? Philosopher Thomas Wells proposes a direct solution: give voting powers to “trustee” organizations “such as charitable foundations, environmentalist advocacy groups or non-partisan think tanks.” These organizations would have a block of votes equivalent to something like 10% of the overall electorate. If there are 10 million eligible voters in an election, we would assign 1 million votes to these organizations. Wells’s idea is that these organizations would vote with the best interests of the future in mind. Not only could they affect the results of elections, but Wells predicts they would shape the political conversation as politicians tailor their policies to appeal to this powerful voting block.
Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolution finds Wells’s proposal “laughable”. He sees Wells’s proposal for a select group of trustees as merely replicating Wells’s own view of how the future ought to look. Instead, Taborrok proposes the economist’s universal solution: the market. Specifically, prediction markets. While I share some of Taborrok’s skepticism of Wells’s proposal, I find Taborrok’s proposal even less realistic. I shall focus my critique on two problems: an epistemic problem and a relevance problem.…
Welcome to a super sized weekly roundup! I’m on vacation next week; here’s a double helping of stories to keep you sated until next time.
A new, disputedstudy from Cornell’s Food and Brand Lab suggests that eating chicken on the bone increased aggression in children compared with eating pre-cut pieces. It sounds like fun research: the drumstick-eaters “were also more likely leave the 9-foot circle radius, jump around, and stand on the picnic tables without permission.” The Cornell Lab, home of the endless soup bowl, studies the social and environmental factors influencing food consumption.
A climate scientist explains how she explains climate change to her fellow evangelical Christians: why should they care about a changing climate?
“Selfitis,” or the obsessive taking and posting of photos of oneself, isn’t a new mental disorder, but many of us were fooled by the satirical story claiming that the American Psychiatric Association coined the new disease category.
Ketchup, perhaps the tastiest of the non-Newtonian fluids, is notoriously hard to pour from a glass bottle. NPR goes into the details of the condiment’s physics that were illustrated in George Zaidan’s TED talk. If manufacturers ever incorporate LiquiGlide, the food-safe, potentially profit-eating surface coating, into their containers, it will be a whole new ballgame.
Coke and Pepsi have bowed to public pressure and removed brominated vegetable oil (BVO) from their soft drinks. Popular Science explains what BVO is and what it was doing in soda in the first place.
We may know the secret of how the pyramids were built.
Gender, science, and bad reporting: A study in Nature [paywall] revealing genes on the Y chromosome that fulfill the same function as those on the X chromosome is publicized as demonstratingsexualdifference, the very opposite of the study’s findings. What’s behind this “sex difference paradigm?” [via Feminist Philosophers]. Also, duck penises are all well and good, but what about duck vaginas? Ed Yong at Nat Geo’s blog Not Exactly Rocket Science explores the combination of biological and social factors that influence the differential treatment of animals’ sex organs.
Useful Science is a new site that offers bite-sized summaries of useful science, collected by a team of mainly Canadian grad students. Another new useful website is Something Pop, which helps you make decisions by ranking the components of your choices.
A meta-analysis debunks most of the headline-worthy claims about the strength of the ovulatory cycle over women’s preferences. [via Slate]…
Did you ever wonder how sloths breathe upside down? Me neither, but here‘s the explanation.
Google is removing ads for crisis pregnancy centres (counselling women to avoid contraception and abortions) that appear when users search for abortion providers; 79% of these ads falsely suggest that the centres provide medical and abortion services.
Some have argued that the emphasis on Sterling’s comments obscured the larger, more
harmful, actions that he has taken (the Guardian suggests this, as does the link below). In particular, they point to the housing discrimination he was accused of perpetrating as an owner of 100’s of properties in the Los Angeles area. Housing discrimination is terrible, and (like all forms of discrimination) should not be tolerated.
Still, I wondered, do sports perpetuate or help fight discrimination? There is obviously no cut and dry answer to this question. It is too broad a question to be answered directly: there are many different sports, and too many ways of thinking about discrimination for the question to be taken seriously. However, in thinking about the question, I took a look at the academic literature on sociology of sport. I found it surprising that this literature is not more heavily cited in recent discussions of racism in sports.
Here I’m going to share excerpts from a paper entitled “Professional Football Scouts: An Investigation of Racial Stacking” by J. R. Woodward (2004). The study covered in the article analyzes draft guides that describe the suitability of college athletes for the NFL draft, paying particular attention to the descriptions of the perceived physical and mental capabilities of white and African American players. I quote this paper it because the study is interesting, but also because it has a fairly detailed literature review with some interesting studies. Given that it seems the sports media perpetuates the messages discussed in this study from 2010, and broadcasts to millions of people, I would guess the messages we receive about sports and athletes portray more bias than we immediately realize.
“Coakley (1998) notes, there are roughly 20 times more African American physicians and lawyers than top professional athletes; nor have most sports truly integrated to allow for equal participation and rewards between the races. In 1997, the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson joining Major League Baseball, his old team the Dodgers had the exact same number of American-born Blacks on the opening day roster as they did in 1947: one.”
“Whites dominate most sports at the collegiate and high school level; football, basketball, track, and baseball—sports where Whites are underrepresented—make up only 4 out of at least 40 sports played competitively.”
“The belief that sport has been a source of upward mobility for African Americans has been rebutted in previous research and is not the object of this project (see Sailes, 1998; and Smith, 1993, 1995). What is of interest, however, is the tenacity of this view. Personal beliefs about race and sport are often solidified when society at large seems to share and reinforce these beliefs, regard- less of their veracity.”
“One manifestation of our “race logic” (how we come to understand racial phenomena in society) is the link between race and athletics, principally the belief in African American athletic superiority. Unfortunately, concomitant with this view has been the conviction of mental inferiority; i.e., the “dumb jock” stereotype (Hoberman, 1997; Eitzen, 1999). American history is replete with academic, intellectual, and social discussions of the primitive nature of Blacks, whose supposed strength, power, and sexual aggression made them appear almost animalistic, an assertion strengthened by their perceived lack of innate cognitive abilities (Mead, 1985).”
“Racial ideology, then, was situated in a particular, disparaging view of African Americans as physical, not mental beings. Athletics was just one of many endeavors in which this view was manifested (Coakley, 1998).”
“Racial stacking is the over- or underrepresentation of players of certain races in particular positions in team sports (Coakley, 1998). For example, quarterbacks in football and catchers in baseball have traditionally been White, whereas Black players are more often found playing in the outfield in baseball and as running backs or wide receivers in football.”
“Loy and McElvogue (1970) presented the first study on racial stacking by examining the racial makeup of baseball and football in America. Their findings suggested that White players are more likely to be found in what they termed central positions (i.e., discrimination is most likely to occur at central positions in any social organization, where the most interaction occurs).”
“In this study, an assessment was made to determine whether scouting reports of college quarterbacks, centers, inside linebackers, and tight ends relied on mental descriptors of White players and physical descriptors of African American players. At a basic level, scouts are individuals raised in contemporary U.S. society with all the implied racial beliefs. Because physical and mental abilities relative to football can be extremely subjective, it follows that descriptions of athletes in various positions would differ for Whites and African Americans, based solely on the ascribed characteristic of race.…