Born dead

Matt Damon does a mediocre job as Jason Bourne (I've only seen the 1st in the series). He's way too serious and stiff. There are only two moderately funny lines in the movie. One, when Marie says not to forget her, Bourne says, "How could I? You're the only person I know." And then at the end, when he comes to see her again, he asks to rent a scooter and she asks, "Do you have ID?"

Just goes to show that a brilliant plot can make for a flat movie if the characters are 1-D. It's still a good idea; maybe I should read the book.

Speaking of books, I'm on the homestretch of Russo's Straight Man, and I'm finding it rather disturbing. Hank, the narrator, has half a dozen crushes, on practically every woman in the book. Despite being married to a super wife. I find that to be a frightening prospect. Could I turn out that way? Will I be leering after other women after I've tied the knot? I'm sure I'll always look, but will I be pulled with desire? I wonder if you can get to the point where adultery is like seconds on dessert: something that you know in theory would taste good temporarily but would have a net negative impact on utility. So you don't really crave a second helping for dessert. Can you grow out of the craving for other women?

I think the reason Feynman was such a philanderer is that he fell in love hard once early in his life, and lost that one (she died of TB). After that, love would never be as deep, so he had plenty of affairs (he married and had kids). I hope I don't turn out like that.

half of America believes in Creationism

This statement boggles my mind. But fully 45% of this nation believes that "God created humans in their present form sometime in the past 10000 years":
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm

If you take out the "10000 years" then you get 55% believing God created man in his present form:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Only 40% believe evolution is correct:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

USA has the second-lowest percentage of people believing in evolution, out of a survey of 32 developed nations. We fall behind Croatia, Latvia, and Cyprus. Only Turkey ranks even lower.

This is a serious statement about the condition of our society. Without understanding evolution, you're basically cut off from most of biology. It's going to be hard for you to accept a scientific way of thinking. This may be the greatest obstacle to building moral consensus as rational members of society.

designer genes

Just read an article on genetic engineering by Michael Sandel from the Apr 2004 Atlantic. He opens the possibility of choosing genes in our kids for stronger muscles, better memories, tougher immune systems, etc. The major downside he focuses is the existential dilemma that such power creates. By having direct control over the genes of our children, will we love them less, take less appreciation in their talents? But we already do some degree of genetic engineering in selecting our spouses.

I think the more problematic issue is a reduction in genetic diversity in the species. Let's say there's a gene for tallness. So everyone wants it. Next generation, everyone has the "tall" gene. But let's say there's some kind of bad side effect to this gene. It could make our entire population vulnerable to disease or malformation. Species with genetic diversity are more resilient. But who should be forced to carry on the less-desirable genes? What is to prevent runaway sexual selection--the peacocks with tails too big to lift?

The power to select our own genes is also the power to evolve ourselves into extinction. I wonder what we will do once the technology becomes available.

do you care?

I asked the ASSU prez (I think Elizabeth Han is her name) at an "elections" party last week what she was doing, and she said she was travelling the world, then going off on a Fulbright to fight world poverty. It got me thinking about why I don't do the same. I know in theory that the scourge of abject poverty is one of the great challenges we face today as a species and as a global civilization. And I know there is lots more we could be doing to alleviate it. But I'm not really doing anything about it. I give a little bit of dough now and then to 501c3's that are working on this (Soteni, Accion, Partners in Health), but it's really not that much. The main thing we ought to do is eliminate the West's trade subsidies, but I don't know how to get that to happen. I wonder if I really spent some time on my own in some of these countries if I would still be so apathetic. After all, my crusade to fix broken schools only came about after I spent some time in one. So maybe my apathy is just the consequence of my lack of exposure. Which makes it irrational, not considered. On the other hand, what is my comparative advantage in the field of international development. I'm sure I could help advance the cause, but is there really anything that I could contribute that others can't? Do I have any unique insights? Probably not. So my competitive advantage is probably stronger in physics/education, though you could also argue that I'm unlikely to make any truly unique contribution in either of those fields either....

wiki

I watched a TED talk by the founder of Wikipedia. It's a pretty impressive organization that does a remarkable job filtering good content from bad and basically self-policing. Apparently, there's only one full-time employee, a software developer named Brian. I find that hard to believe, but it is true that almost all of the work is done by an enormous volunteer labor force. That's very cool. It sounds like it would be a cool school project, for kids to edit and contribute to pages. What's the point of learning something new if you don't share it with other people?

I stopped by a Rosetta Stone booth at the mall today and got a quick tour. I was pretty impressed. They use voice analysis software to compare your speech with voice recordings. Pretty cool. Definitely wish I had had it when I was learning French, Spanish, German. Every kid studying a foreign language ought to be using this stuff.

so much to say

Set up a myspace account yesterday. That site is so much tackier than facebook. Fonts and graphics, the whole works is just not as slick as facebook's interface.

Obama nearly matched Clinton's fundraising, his $25m to her $26m. He's going to make this a real fight. I hope he can pull it off, but it still won't be easy with such an early primary. Gore still outranks Obama in California polls.

Good stat mech lecture today on random walks. Interesting use of Fourier transforms to look at the probability distribution. I haven't digested it, but it's kinda cool.

give a man a fish

I gave a hundred bucks to Accion, a micro-lending non-profit today. The idea of micro-lending makes a lot of economic and moral sense, and so I think it's the first place to start in any anti-poverty campaign. Still, I don't think micro-lending is anywhere near as helpful at elevating people out of poverty as trade is. Accion gives out about $3 billion in loans a year, if I read their statements correctly. Walmart, on the other hand, has annual revenues of $300 billion. Let's say only 10% of that goes to the wages of workers in other countries. Right there, they are providing 10 times as much money as Accion is. So it seems to me that trade is the critical lever for pulling people out of poverty. Of course, you also need access to capital and you need responsible, accountable government that creates the right conditions for economic growth. But trade is probably the most helpful ingredient.