I’ve been reading a biography Adam Smith, who I had previously thought of as an economist, but have since learned that he is a moral philosopher, who studied under Hutcheson and was a good friend of David Hume.
From this work, I’ve realized how important the insights of the enlightenment thinkers were to later theories by biologists such as Charles Darwin.
In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith tried to explore human behavior in a way fairly unique to the time. Recognizing morality as unique to humans, previous thinkers chalked it up to a gift from a diety. Smith wasn’t so sure, or at least looked to people’s behavior in public and private to understand how a sense of morality develops.
One thing that Smith observed is societal pressures creating a standard or norm for public behavior, which could deviate in private. Smith recognized societal standards as a powerful force to shape emotions and therefore behavior. People strive to have a similar emotional level as the people around you, which creates an acceptable medium for public emotional displays, and therefore the behaviors in response to outward emotion.
What I found interesting is that Smith recognized the importance of human interactions, where most others tended to focus on the personal, in dealing with theories of morality (be it the ridiculous supernatural or the slightly more reasonable, all actions are essentially selfish). This idea that society and personal interactions are powerful in shaping human psychology lines up nicely with my ideas about human evolution.
While Smith did not have an inclination of evolution and was not terrible concerned with how morality could have come about, I think his ideas were essential for the eventual development of Darwinism.
The enlightenment thinkers developed new ideas about psychology, behavior, and human interactions and all scales that did not rely on some supernatural force. They did for biology and social sciences what Galileo and Newton did for cosmology and physics: they started the notion that human behavior can be studied in a systematic way by studying aspects of humans and human society. This change in thinking was essential, I think for the study of biological organisms as adaptable.
This is a problem that I’ve been thinking about for some time.
I was debating a friend of mine a while back about the current financial problems. He was arguing against my ‘hands off’ policy, saying that in times of economic downturn the government borrowing and spending money is a good thing. Operating in debt will help jumpstart the economy, and the money can be paid back after we’re experiencing growth again.
At the time I didn’t have an answer, but I finally thought of a good one (with some help from Ron Paul).
Lets say we’re talking about a person who’s just lost their job and has some money put in the bank. Now, if this person opens up a line of credit he can continue his usual lifestyle until he can find a new source of income. This seems like a sound financial plan, except it ignores a property of human behavior, in that we don’t plan well for the future. If you have a credit card, chances are this person could get caught up in purchasing unnecessary luxuries which he’s not going to be able to pay back if he doesn’t find another well-paying job soon.
Similarly, operating the federal budget at a $10 trillion deficit is a sure way to screw ourselves in the future. Who knows if and when the economy will pick back up? Especially since the current problems are caused in part by bad credit practices in the first place.
What Washington politicians are offering is basically more of the same. They want to fix problems caused by bad credit with more bad credit. These giant investment banks which are going under because they thought they could take advantage of people who wouldn’t be able to pay their credit card bills are now being saved by congress and the Federal reserve. And how does the Fed bail them out? By borrowing and printing money, which causes inflation and devalues the dollar.
The Fed is opening a line of credit through the American dollar and isn’t providing a deadline in which it’ll pay us back. Instead, congress is giving the IRS permission to survey every credit card transaction Americans make, and expects the IRS to be able to solve our problems. As far as I’m aware, the IRS has created more problems than it has solved. While I do like new laws that protect consumers from being frauded by creditors, the problem isn’t going to be solved by giving the IRS more power and fingerprinting federal employees (yep, that’s in the new “Housing” Bill too).
At some point, we’re going to have to realize that more protectionism and spending isn’t going to fix problems caused by bad credit. Consumers need to realise that there’s no such thing as free credit. Investing in yourself (or in your future self, as it were) is risky just like investing in the stock market. If a market fails, or if you can’t pay their credit card bills, the government taking care of your investments is only going to create weaker markets, untrustworthy consumers and a weak economy.
A poor economy will only be fixed in the long term by tightening your belt, cutting out luxuries, saving money, and making safe investment decisions. The beauty of the free market is that while companies may go under from time to time, that will ultimately strengthen the economy because it is the weak ones that are going under.
You wouldn’t buy stock in a company that’s about to declare bankrupcy, so why should the government weaken the dollar in order to do the same?
I can see the finish line fast approaching. Just two more weeks until my MCAT and then I get to relax a little. I promise to come back in full force after this!
The legal battle between Google and Viacom seems to have fallen on the side against ‘the people.’ Google is being forced to turn over the veiwing records of every user (including IP addresses) to Viacom to ensure that no copyright infringments are taking place.
Because these infringements are almost assuredly taking place, a word of warning to all Youtubers out there, your privacy may be at risk.
Definitely one of my favorite biotech supply companies, and they have a great sense of humor too. I have a pipet-style pen and tee-shirt I got from my dad, who’s ex-student works for their US branch.
As science blogging is becoming an ever more popular way for scientists to communicate and express themselves, the pressure is mounting to bring the best bloggers to a particular site, as Coturnix has noticed.
I’m glad ScienceForums.net has a slice of science blog pie, and have watched with pleasure as Swans on Tea, and even my own little blog, have begun to grow some popularity.
I think the market is quickly becoming saturated with new bloggers, however, fairly soon only people who already have ‘celebrity’ status, and bloggers with original ideas will be able to capture the share of readership.
Currently, sources like Discover magasine are trying to capture on the success of Scienceblogs.com, and even recruiting their writers. Blog hosting sites may have start offering greater incentive for bloggers to stay (*cough*).
Judging from the success of Scienceblogs.com, it appears that having a collaborative source for blogs seems like the way to go, especially for start-up bloggers. There seems to be little point in investing in a domain name if nobody reads the blog.
This also brings up the interesting thought, that I expect we will have to deal with soon, of who owns the content posted in a blog, if the blog’s hoster isn’t the writer of the blog.
These types of issues and competition between blogging sites seems to be another thing that limits what blogs can do.
global RSS feed.