The Atlantic: What Bonobos Can Teach Us About Sexual Assault

Observing a troop in Gombe, Tanzania, Jane Goodall discovered that chimps have personalities, intimate relationships, and agendas. Her work and that of scientists who followed in her footsteps also taught us that chimps are a male-dominant species, prone to not-infrequent violence, with males harassing and sexually coercing lower-ranking female troop members. Aggression, many primatologists, academics, and nonexperts extrapolate from our body of knowledge about chimps, is in our “nature,” as is the dynamic of males attempting to control and dominate females with physical attacks, forced copulation, and even infanticide. Harvard primatologist Richard Wrangham, a chimp guy, famously asserted in Demonic Males that we humans are living out “a continuous, five-million-year habit of lethal aggression,” driven by a male will to dominate strangers and females. We can expect male dominance and male sexual coercion of females, we’ve been taught, because we’re “wired” that way. [...]

Notably, bonobo females approached by a female and a male simultaneously for sex (it happens) tend to choose girl-on-girl action. Lying one on top of the other or side to side, they press and grind their vulvas together, often shrieking. Their clitorises—richly innervated, larger than a human female’s, and more externalized—probably explain why female bonobos so eagerly practice genito-genital, or G-to-G, contact. It feels good, possibly even better than intercourse with a male. [...]

What gives female bonobos all this power? To eat first, be groomed, coerce males, and rule the roost in general? Parish believes that it’s the lesbian sex. G-to-G rubbing feels so good it bonds female bonobos, allowing them to create formidable coalitions. This in turn gives them the upper hand in matters across the board. In fact, an adult male bonobo is likely to run to Mom when in a dire situation—because among bonobos, it’s females who are alphas and whose support is critical.

read the article

Social Europe: “Us Too!” – The Rise Of Middle-Class Populism In Sweden And Beyond

There are two common explanations for the rise of the Sweden Democrats. The first points to an underlying racism in Swedish culture. The second argues that globalization has led to increased inequality and a more insecure jobs market. Certainly, there is a racist core at the center of Swedish Democrats. But it seems quite improbable that racism in Sweden has increased so dramatically in such a short period. Indeed, recent surveys of the Swedish electorate do not indicate that xenophobia or racism have increased. On the contrary, though there is always a risk that those who have racist values choose not to report them in surveys, most suggest that the level of xenophobia has been quite constant in recent years. Simply put, something that is constant cannot explain a change. [...]

The more basic problem is that the established parties have been deaf to the preferences of their own citizens. Even while popular opinion polls indicated significant dissatisfaction with these policies, all seven established parties supported the so-called, “open door,” policy. Indeed, the Swedish political and cultural elite has been essentially unanimous in support of former Conservative Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt’s famous “open heart” policy. Anyone who questioned this policy – from within the established parties, the media, or academia – was instantly tagged as reprobate or racist and pushed to one side. Swedish voters who wanted a somewhat more moderate refugee policy (perhaps something like that followed in Norway or Denmark) had no party to turn to – except the Sweden Democrats.[...]

The more basic problem is that the established parties have been deaf to the preferences of their own citizens. Even while popular opinion polls indicated significant dissatisfaction with these policies, all seven established parties supported the so-called, “open door,” policy. Indeed, the Swedish political and cultural elite has been essentially unanimous in support of former Conservative Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt’s famous “open heart” policy. Anyone who questioned this policy – from within the established parties, the media, or academia – was instantly tagged as reprobate or racist and pushed to one side. Swedish voters who wanted a somewhat more moderate refugee policy (perhaps something like that followed in Norway or Denmark) had no party to turn to – except the Sweden Democrats.

read the article

Quartz: The biggest hurdle genetically engineered food faces isn’t science—it’s us

By the year 2100, the Earth’s population is expected to increase to more than 11.2 billion from the current 7.6 billion. What is the best way to produce enough food to feed all these people? If we continue with current farming practices, vast amounts of wilderness will be lost, millions of birds and billions of insects will die, farm workers will be at increased risk for disease, and the public will spend billions of dollars as a consequence of environmental degradation. But there is a way we can resolve the need for increased food production with the desire to minimize its impact. [...]

Modern genetic methods introduce more precise changes to genes. These include genetic engineering (soon to be labeled as “bioengineered”), which allows the introduction of genes from one species into another; marker-assisted breeding, which facilitates introduction of genes using molecular techniques; and genome editing, which allows for targeted insertions, deletions, or replacement of DNA sequences. These approaches have led to the creation of rice plants that can withstand floods, insect-resistant crops that don’t have to be treated with chemical insecticides, and dairy cows without horns. Genetic engineering has also been used to create life-saving drugs (like insulin) and enzymes for cheeses. In fact, approximately 90% of US cheeses are made with genetically engineered enzymes. If you like your cheeses, you’re already eating ingredients from bioengineered organisms.[...]

As the climate changes, the development of crops that are resilient to extreme conditions (such as heat, drought, and flooding) will be increasingly important. For example, rice grows well in standing water, but most varieties will die if they’re submerged for more than three days. In south and southeast Asia, where many farmers and their families live on less than $2 a day, 4 million tons of rice—enough to feed 30 million people—is lost every year to flooding. Using a combination of sequencing, genetic engineering, and marker-assisted breeding, our team developed rice varieties that are tolerant of 18 days of flooding. Last year, 6 million farmers grew this “Sub1” rice.

read the article

CityLab: Universal Basic Mobility Is Coming. And It’s Long Overdue

Universal Basic Mobility would be a system of partnerships and/or policies that provide a minimum level of mobility to all members of society. An isolated, static population is unhealthy, unproductive and unhappy. A mobile population is economically, culturally, and socially dynamic. UBM can harness automation and new mobility platforms to accelerate economic growth, providing everyone with access to employment and the means to improve their quality of life. [...]

For a basic user, MaaS plan pricing resembles smartphone plan pricing. The most fully realized MaaS plan is Whim in Helsinki, Finland, that charges approximately $50 per month for limited service including public transit, bikeshare, and limited ridesharing; and $500 per month for full ridesharing service that replaces personal car ownership. MaaS could significantly drive down the amount people—especially urban residents—pay to travel over the course of a year, because while personal cars sit idle 95 percent of the time, shared cars and bikes get much higher utilization—creating efficiencies and cost savings. [...]

A right to mobility doesn’t mean free mobility for everyone, but there are strong incentives to make at least some services free, like public transit. Estonia has implemented free public transit nationally, and Paris is studying it. In cities with free public transit, a common theme is that the collective benefits of encouraging its use by everyone—enabling cities to reduce traffic, pollution, and parking in central areas—outweigh the relatively low cost of providing it to everyone.

read the article