Read original article:
View post:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Your kid probably isn’t a Leninist, but research suggests she’d like to divvy up other people’s stuff equally. Solodov Alexey/Shutterstock
At the playground, I watch my 10-month-old son beeline to the center of the sandbox where there is a bright pink shovel. But before he gets there, a rambunctious 2-year-old snatches up the coveted toy first. As my son watches the shovel slip away, a wobbly 14-month-old comes over and offers him a half-chewed cookie. I tear up a bit at this random act of kindness. It’s probably just “hormones,” but I am touched by the empathy that this little person is showing my child.
What caused this toddler to “do the right thing” and show kindness to a stranger? Was it good parenting or an innate personality trait? That’s the mystery that cognitive scientist Paul Bloom, author of the recent book Just Babies, is working hard to figure out: Can the youngest of our species distinguish good from evil practically from birth—or does morality need to be taught?
Philosophers like John Locke and psychologists like Sigmund Freud took for granted that we are born with a blank moral slate. But Bloom rejects that. He argues that babies actually have a natural sense of morality and fairness—one that simply emerges, like many other developmental milestones. “I think all babies are created equal in that all normal babies—all babies without brain damage—possess some basic foundational understanding of morality and some foundational moral impulses,” says Bloom on the Inquiring Minds podcast. “They’re equal in the same way that all babies come with a visual system, and the ability to move around, and a propensity to learn language.”
Bloom thinks this sense of morality emerged via Darwinian evolution, just like every other adaptive trait that marks our species. But how can he tell? How does one study morality in babies who can’t wax poetic? Scientists have come up with several clever solutions to break the language barrier.
“The way we do it here at Yale,” says Bloom, “is we show babies one-act plays.” These one-acts, playing at the Yale lab run by Karen Wynn, who is Bloom’s colleague and wife, star puppets who model behaviors that we would label as naughty or nice. Similar experiments are being conducted at the Center for Infant Cognition at the University of British Columbia, where Wynn’s former graduate student, Kiley Hamlin, now runs her own lab.
We asked Hamlin to share some short videos of the one-acts that Bloom describes in his book and on the podcast. In one play, for example, a dog is enjoying playing with a ball. She loses control of the ball or, depending on your interpretation of events, tosses it to one of two nearby cats. Then one of two things happens. In the first video below—from Hamlin’s lab at UBC—the orange cat refuses to return the ball and instead runs away with it. In the second video, by contrast, a gray cat returns the ball to the dog.
After watching the play, the babies are given a choice: Which kitty would they like to play with—the helpful gray one or the naughty orange one? The scientists carefully monitor the children’s reactions. “With the younger babies, like 3-month-olds, we can see which one they orient to, which one they look at,” says Bloom. Older babies can actually reach for and grab the preferred character. And with babies and toddlers alike, time and time again, “we find they look to the good guys.” Like in this video, again from Hamlin’s Lab:
But these labels of “good guy” and “bad guy” are adult constructs. Are we simply projecting our own judgments onto the behavior of the babies? “There’s no consensus even for adults what makes something moral or not moral,” acknowledges Bloom. “But one cue for adults, at least, is intuitions about reward and punishment.” So the scientists investigated how babies respond when the bad character is punished and the good one is rewarded.
For example, another play tells the story of a cow who is trying to open a plastic box full of toys. Flanked by two little piggies, the cow struggles with the box for a few moments. Then the play has one of two possible endings. Either one of the pigs helps the cow open the box and get the toys, as in this video…
…or the other pig hinders her efforts by jumping on the box and slamming it shut, as shown here:
Babies under the age of 1 then watch another character either reward or punish the naughty and nice pigs by handing out treats; the babies show a preference for characters who reward good and punish evil. Toddlers are given the opportunity to administer the reward or punishment themselves, and they tend to punish the hinderer and reward the helper.
Interestingly, as the toddlers get a little older, this sense of fairness seems to morph into pure egalitarianism—at least when it comes to distributing other people’s stuff. “There’s a lot of research suggesting that when it comes to divvying up resources that strangers possess, they are socialists—they like to share things equally,” says Bloom.
When asked to hand out treats to other people or to stuffed animals, 3- and 4-year-old children will divide resources equally, if at all possible. Even if they know that one person deserves more of a resource than another because she worked harder for it, they will still opt for equal distribution. In a study of 5-to-8-year-olds, when it was impossible to divide resources equally—for example, if the children were given five erasers to distribute to two people—they would even throw the extra eraser in the trash instead of giving more to one person than the other.
But what happens when the children being studied are themselves the lucky recipient of the extra resources? Well, that changes everything. “So, they’re very egalitarian when it comes to other people,” says Bloom. “When it comes to themselves, they’re not the slightest bit egalitarian. Particularly when dealing with strangers, they want everything.” So while babies do seem to have an innate capacity to separate good from evil, their moral lives are still fairly limited. “Babies are kind of jerks,” Bloom says.
It turns out that humans aren’t the only primates that have evolved a sense of fairness. In one study, Capuchin monkeys performed a task and were rewarded with slices of cucumbers. But when they observed another monkey getting a grape—which tastes much better—for doing the same amount of work, they went on strike. The previously rewarding cucumber slices were no longer worth the effort.
Does this mean that babies (human or otherwise) are making actual moral judgments? Or are they simply learning what types of behaviors get rewarded in the society in which they are born? In other words, are the scientists really just observing a tool that helps infants navigate complex social interactions? As Bloom points out, babies don’t have a lot of control over their own lives—they can’t choose the people with whom they interact. So what’s the point of having a preference for those who are fair or moral? “It could be when choosing a social partner, and particularly who to learn from, they pay attention to how these individuals react towards other individuals,” notes Bloom.
But it also could be that this capacity is useless in the beginning. “A second possibility is that this capacity does no good for babies, but it’s just wired to pop in early on,” he says. “It’s like sexual organs, which emerge early in development even though they aren’t used as sexual organs until much later.”
So what separates a morally mature adult from a well behaved toddler? “As we get older, we become more like moral philosophers,” says Bloom. “We become more able to use reason and deliberation to figure out what’s right and wrong.” And we tend to grow out of our selfish phase. “Most adults are far nicer than babies and 2-year-olds,” says Bloom.
Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. We are also available on Stitcher. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Inquiring Minds was also singled out as one of the “Best of 2013” on iTunes—you can learn more here.
Link:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
On Thursday, federal judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling striking down gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. This marks the 22nd time since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year that a federal court has found bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On Wednesday, a different federal judge issued an opinion upholding Louisiana’s ban, making the total post-DOMA record 22-1.
Posner’s opinion is special, though, because, as Gawker notes, it’s, well, amazing. And bitchy. And delicious.
Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straight-forward to decide. The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.
Indiana defended its ban by arguing that the state had no reason to extend marriage to gay people because gay people can’t have children—that marriage is designed, in part, to force fathers in hetereosexual relationships to raise children they may or may not have wanted.
At oral argument the state‘s lawyer was asked whether “Indiana’s law is about successfully raising children,” and since “you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn’t the ban be lifted as to them?” The lawyer answered that “the assumption is that with opposite-sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.” In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.
My favorite bit is Posner’s response to Indiana’s assertion that “homosexuals are politically powerful out of proportion to their numbers.”
No evidence is presented by the state to support this contention. It is true that an increasing number of heterosexuals support same-sex marriage; otherwise 11 states would not have changed their laws to permit such marriage (the other 8 states that allow same-sex marriage do so as a result of judicial decisions invalidating the states’ bans). No inference of manipulation of the democratic process by homosexuals can be drawn, however, any more than it could be inferred from the enactment of civil rights laws that African-Americans “are politically powerful out of proportion to their numbers.” It is to the credit of American voters that they do not support only laws that are in their palpable self-interest. They support laws punishing cruelty to animals, even though not a single animal has a vote.
Go read the whole thing. It’s wonderful.
Link:
This Judge Just Said Everything You Want to Say to the Anti-Gay Marriage Crowd, But Better
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
And you thought letter writing was a lost art? Mother Jones still receives handwritten letters every day, and not all of them are from prisoners or crazy people. In any case, they just pile up. We no longer publish letters in the print magazine, and our communications are largely digital these days. We also don’t have the staff bandwidth (if you’ll pardon the internet jargon) to respond to our digital trolls, let alone our snail-mail ones. And yet every day I walk past that stack of letters and wonder what it contains. I decided to read a handful each day, or skim them at least, and share some choice excerpts with all y’all.
Mother Jones Snail Mail, Volume 1
April 2013
Dear Mother Jones,
I haven’t heard anything again in the news regarding the “house in a residential neighborhood” that neighbors (CA) complained had a lot of Chinese pregnant women paying to have their babies there so they would have US citizenship. It sounded to me like a sure-fire way to build sleeper cells. Worth investigating?
—JPH, Washington, DC
May 2013
President, Foundation for National Progress,
The “Truth” is that despite your Assertions/claims that “your hard hitting investigative journalism” is Accurate and Factual—you are delusional self congratulating Fools. When I see distortions and outright lies being printed about firearms, firearm , 2nd amendment Rights Groups and organizations, your credibility about other issues you print material about becomes untrustworthy as to veracity. Good bye you San Francisco “Tootie Frooty” Assholes located in the “land of Fruits and Nuts” (California).
—Anonymous
View article:
You’ve Got Snail Mail! Handwritten Letters to Mother Jones, Vol. 1
Photo: Lu Feng
A Chinese physician is raising concerns about the poor quality of men’s sperm, which he attributes to decades of exposure to pollution in the country. According to the Telegraph, the doctor, Li Zheng, told local newspapers that he was “very worried” about the falling quality of sperm, and that two-thirds sperm at Shanghai’s main bank did not meet standards set by the World Health Organization.
A 2012 study, coordinated by Dr Li, concluded that over the last 10 years worsening environmental conditions had closely mirrored the falling quality of sperm. Low sperm counts and aspermia, a condition that causes a man to produce no semen at all, were among the problems.
Oftentimes, it’s women’s rather than men’s reproductive problems that are at the center of reproductive health discussions. For example, the Wall Street Journal called a hospital in Beijing to inquire about their take on pollution and reproductive health, but the hospital spokesperson told them, “Our (obstetrician and gynecologist) chief refused the interview, because there is no data or document to explain the pollution’s impact to pregnant women.”
Still, there is evidence that environmental pollution is a double-edged sword impacting both men and women. As the Journal writes: “Previous studies have shown exposure to high levels of pollution can reduce the success rate of in vitro fertilization and drawn a link between toxic air and reduced fertility in men.”
The problem likely reaches beyond China, too. Some researchers have reported a worldwide decline in average sperm counts. Others, however, point out that the issue is far from settled and may be a case of not enough data. As researchers pursue more studies to unravel this tangled subject, however, couples in China, at least, are experiencing the very real impacts of falling sperm quality and availability. As Quartz reports, sperm goes for around $4,900 on the Chinese black market these days.
More from Smithsonian.com:
Female Squid Uses Sperm for Both Reproducing and Snacking
American May Be the World’s Top Exporter of Sperm
See the article here:
Original article:
Lacking an option for quality organic baby clothes can find you forced to compromise on your future purchases. Dealing with garments that have been poorly constructed, or materials and manufacturing processes that are less desirable can be very disappointing. The right retail options can be found that will be able to satisfy all of your needs with much less effort.
Clothing that has been created in ways and methods that make use of unsafe labor practices, harmful harvesting of natural resources and any other practices that you are concerned with would be a poor investment. Finding a better alternative means that you will not spend your money supporting such manufacturing practices. Smarter shopping can be a vital concern.
Products that have been manufactured using a safer range of more natural materials will alleviate any concern you may have about them being in such close contact to young children and infants. Unsafe and illegal manufacturing of garments can be a real concern for those investing in new clothing. Ensuring that your products have been created safely, and with natural materials can be a real concern.
Options can be quite limited when you choose to do business with mainstream retailers. Even the outlets that carry a wide selection of clothing and garments designed for infants may be unable to provide you with the options you are most interested in. Dealing with a seller who specializes in such concerns will provide you with greater selection and options to make use of.
With the right retail purchases available, clothing and providing for your children may be done in the best ways possible. Having to compromise your shopping habits due to a poor selection of options to make use of could be very unfortunate. Knowing where to find a range of superior options will allow you to make wiser and more effective investments each time you make purchases.
Knowing where to find the best retail options could be key to the entire process. Choosing to do business with the right professionals will allow you to make use of an expanded inventory and the highest quality products available. Cost-effective resources that will provide you with the clothing that you have been searching for will allow you to more easily find the items you seek.
Searching though an online storehouse might be a lot easier than shopping in person. A faster and more effective way to make your purchases can be found, and all without ever having to leave your home. Purchasing natural high quality clothing and garments online provides you with the easiest means to provide for your children, ensuring that your shopping efforts will meet with success.
Dealers who can offer superior options for organic baby clothes are where you should concentrate your efforts. Shopping for the right garments can be done more quickly and successfully by those who have access to the right retailers. A better way to meet all of your needs would be well worth investigating, as such efforts may allow you greater opportunity to make the most beneficial of purchases in your efforts to assemble a wardrobe for your child.
Polly Browder is a full-time mother and part-time nanny. For more information about the advantages of organic baby clothing, visit www.organicbabywearhouse.com.
Libros
