Of course, there will be people who object. There will be people who will say that this is a revival of racial science. Perhaps so. I would argue, however, that even if this is a revival of racial science, we should engage in it for it does not follow that it is a revival of racist science. Indeed, I would argue, that it is just the opposite.

cheers!

as for “strong societies and weak states and New Institutional Economics,” might i point out douglas rushkoff’s recent response to richard foreman‘s and george dyson‘s edge speculation on, “the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self”—mediated by technology such that we essentially become ‘thin clients’ who access cultural institutions as needed for meaning and instruction in our lives?

anyway, rushkoff’s response emphasized a new “renaissance” taking place, but one that values “the power of collectivism.” he cites as examples:

The open source development model, shunning the corporate secrets of the competitive marketplace, promotes the free and open exchange of the codes underlying the software we use. Anyone and everyone is invited to make improvements and additions, and the resulting projects—like the Firefox browser—are more nimble, stable, and user-friendly. Likewise, the development of complementary currency models, such as Ithaca Hours, allow people to agree together what their goods and services are worth to one another without involving the Fed. They don’t need to compete for currency in order to pay back the central creditor—currency is an enabler of collaborative efforts rather than purely competitive ones.

oh and bringing it back to genetics, just thought i’d point out some research into new DNA base pairs :D

Since such organisms (simple yeasts or bacteria) would carry a brand-new genetic code, they would in effect be new life forms. Organisms with more than the standard two base pairs would be able to make more than the standard 20 amino acids. Thus, such organisms could make novel, unnatural proteins.

here’s an earlier article from the economist, btw.

cheers!

I think what makes _me_ uncomfortable personally — and this was the point of this entry — is that some people can’t imagine that some traits could be determined by anything _other_ than genetic innateness

interesting in light of the summers’ brouhaha over his speculation on women’s intelligence in certain fields. i guess it makes some people uncomfortable that some phenotypic traits may be genetically innate or predetermined to some extent.

Human X Chromosome Coded: Sequence Confirms How Sex Evolved and Explains Some Male, Female Differences

there was also some nytimes coverage on the issue the other day. oh and btw, jim holt had a great new yorker article on francis galton recently:

Galton was one of the great Victorian innovators. He explored unknown regions of Africa. He pioneered the fields of weather forecasting and fingerprinting. He discovered statistical rules that revolutionized the methodology of science. Yet today he is most often remembered for an achievement that puts him in a decidedly sinister light: he was the father of eugenics, the science, or pseudoscience, of “improving” the human race by selective breeding.

he was also charles darwin’s cousin :D

cheers!