Warfare, culture and human evolution

From Blood and treasure (The Economist, 4 June 2009):

Two of the oddest things about people are morality and culture. Neither is unique to humans, but Homo sapiens has both in an abundance missing from other species. Indeed, that abundance—of concern for the well-being of others, (even unrelated others), and of finely crafted material objects both useful and ornamental—is seen by many as the mark of man, as what distinguishes humanity from mere beasts.

How these human traits evolved is controversial. But two papers in this week's Science may throw light on the process. In one, Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico fleshes out his paradoxical theory that much of human virtue was forged in the crucible of war. Comrades in arms, he believes, become comrades in other things, too.

In the other paper, Mark Thomas and his colleagues at University College, London, suggest that cultural sophistication depends on more than just the evolution of intelligence. It also requires a dense population. If correct, this would explain some puzzling features of the archaeological record that have hitherto been put down to the arbitrary nature of what has survived to the present and what has not.

Dr Bowles's argument starts in an obscure cranny of evolutionary theory called group selection. This suggests that groups of collaborative individuals will often do better than groups of selfish ones, and thus prosper at their expense. It is therefore no surprise, according to group-selectionists, that individuals might be genetically predisposed to act in self-sacrificial ways.

This good-of-the-group argument was widely believed until the 1960s, when it was subject to rigorous scrutiny and found wanting. The new theory does not pitch groups against groups, or even individuals against individuals, but genes against genes. It does not disallow altruistic behaviour, but requires that this evolve in a way that promotes the interest of a particular gene—for example by helping close relatives who might also harbour the gene in question. The “selfish gene” analysis, so called after a book by Richard Dawkins, makes good-of-the-group outcomes almost impossible to achieve.

~ more... ~

A Harvard psychiatrist explains zombie neurobiology

In Night of the Living Dead, zombies are brought back from the dead by a "mysterious force" that allows their brains to continue functioning. But how exactly does a zombie brain function? Finally, a Harvard psychiatrist has the answers.

Through education Dr. Steven C. Schlozman is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a lecturer at the Harvard School of Education. He is also an avid sci-fi and horror fan - and, apparently, the world's leading authority on the neurobiology of the living dead. He has even drafted a fake medical journal article on the zombie plague, which he calls Ataxic Neurodegenerative Satiety Deficiency Syndrome, or ANSD (the article has five authors: one living, three "deceased" and one "humanoid infected").

Schlozman's foray into necro-diagnostics began when he volunteered to give a talk for the "Science on Screen" lecture series at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, MA. He conducted extensive research by talking with George Romero and immersing himself in genre literature and memorabilia - which is why the alternate title for his lecture is "A Way Cool Tax Deduction for a Bunch of Cool Books, Action Figures and a Movie."

So yes, Schlozman's lecture is actually quite funny, and liberally sprinkled with other pop culture references including Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. But the underlying science is serious. His lecture is a tour of the human brain, using the living dead as a narrative theme.

According to Dr. Steven C. Schlozman, this is your brain on zombies: ...

~ more... ~

The Iranian uprisings and the challenge of the new media

...The pedagogical force of culture is now writ large within circuits of global transmission that defy the military power of the state while simultaneously reinforcing the state's reliance on military power to respond to the external threat and to control its own citizens. In Iran, the state sponsored war against democracy, with its requisite pedagogy of fear dominating every conceivable media outlet, creates the conditions for transforming a fundamentalist state into a more dangerous authoritarian state. Meanwhile, insurgents use digital video cameras to defy official power, cell phones to recruit members to battle occupying forces, and Twitter messages to challenge the doctrines of fear, militarism, and censorship.  The endless flashing of screen culture not only confronts those in and outside of Iran with the reality of state sponsored violence and corruption but also with the spread of new social networks of power and resistance among young people as an emerging condition of contemporary politics in Iran. Text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,  and the Internet have given rise to a reservoir of political energy that posits a new relationship between the new media technologies, politics and public life. These new media technologies and  Websites have proved a powerful force in resisting dominant channels of censorship and militarism. But they have done more in that they have allowed an emerging generation of young people and students in Iran to narrate their political views, convictions, and voices through a screen culture that opposes the one-dimensional cultural apparatuses of certainty while rewriting the space of politics through new social networking sites and public spheres.  

A spectacular flood of images produced by a subversive network of technologies that open up a cinematic politics of collective resistance and social justice now overrides Iran's official narratives of repression, totalitarianism, and orthodoxy–unleashing the wrath of a generation that hungers for a life in which matters of dignity, agency, and hope are aligned with democratic institutions that make them possible.  Death and suffering are now inscribed in an order of politics and  power that can no longer hide in the shadows, pretending that there are no cracks in its body politic, or suppress the voices of a younger generation emboldened by their own courage and dreams of a more democratic future.

In this remarkable historical moment, a sea of courageous young people in Iran, are leading the way in instructing an older generation about a new form of politics in which mass and image-based media  have become a distinctly powerful pedagogical force, reconfiguring the very nature of politics, cultural production,  engagement, and resistance.   Under such circumstances, this young generation of Iranian students, educators, artists, and citizens are developing a new set of theoretical tools and modes of collective resistance in which the educational force of  the new media both records and challenges representations of state, police, and militia violence while becoming part of a broader struggle for democracy itself.

Any critical attempt to engage the courageous uprisings in Iran must take place within a broader notion of how the new media and electronic technologies can be used less as entertainment than  as a tool of insurgency and opposition to state power. State power no longer has a hold on information, at least not the way it did before the emergence of the new media with its ability to reconfigure public exchange and social relations while constituting a new sphere of politics. The new media technologies are being used in Iran in ways that redefine the very conditions that make politics possible. ...

~ more... ~

Iran's Supreme Leader unleashes threat of militias against election protesters

Ayatollah Khamenei gave strong backing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was controversially declared the winner of last week's presidential election and made clear further dissent would be crushed. "I am urging them to end street protests, otherwise they will be responsible for its consequences, and consequences of any chaos," he told worshippers at Tehran University. "The result of the election comes out of the ballot box, not from the street.

"If there is any bloodshed, leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible."

Ayatollah Khamenei denounced Britain as the "most treacherous" foreign power working for the overthrow of his regime, a declaration that prompted the Foreign Office to summon the Iranian ambassador in London for a rebuke. The British ambassador in Tehran has faced mounting criticism from the regime, which regularly incites mobs to attack the UK embassy.

The Supreme Leader said the electoral contest was "over". Drawing cheers of "God is Great", he said the Basij militia, or religious vanguard force, would be mobilised against the demonstrators.

In a clear endorsement of the incumbent president, the Supreme Leader said that his own views were closest to Mr Ahmadinejad's vision for Iran.

In a long sermon at Friday prayers at Tehran University, he declared the election outcome was a vindication of the Islamic Republic.

He said that on the basis of an 85 per cent turnout, the vote was an earthquake for the country's enemies. "If the people did not trust in the system they would not participate in it," he said. "Iran's enemies are targeting the beliefs and trust of the people."

He declared that Iran was a functioning democracy, a message he said he wanted to send to Western countries "which are leaders of the media".

He said: "These divisions come from the Zionist radio and the bad British radio trying to change the meaning of the election."

~ more... ~


For more on the official Iranian regime's stance of blaming the ills of Islam on Zionist enemies see: Taliban defectors: US, Israel funding militants

Former Scotland Yard anti-terrorist police chief calls for 7/7 inquiry

Mr Hayman, at the time Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations, says he is "uncomfortable" with the official position that an inquiry would divert resources from the fight against terrorism.

He is the first figure from the security establishment to call for an open inquiry, almost four years after the attacks carried out by Mohammad Mohammed Sidique Khan and his cell that killed 52 people and injured more than 700.

In his book, The Terrorist Hunters, being serialised in The Times, Mr Hayman says that "incidents of less gravity have attracted the status of a public inquiry".

~ more... ~