Sheril Kirshenbaum is a marine biologist at Duke University. Sometimes she's a classicist, radio jock, or congressional staffer. Never sure what's next, she continues to enjoy the journey...
Welcome to the planet! Just about a year ago, I married your parents, who happen to be two of my very favorite people. I've never been an aunt before, but then, you've never been a niece before, so it will be fun learning the ropes together.
DISCLAIMER - The opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author alone. They do NOT represent the official opinion, policy, or action of any governmental agency the author may work for or have ever worked for at the county, state or federal level. If you do not like the content or opinions, contact the author, not your Congressmen.
PARENTAL WARNING - This post is about orgasm. That word is psychologically and socially loaded in American culture. If you don't want your kids to read about it, go to the next post. Just don't blame me if they ask you about it anyway.
Sometimes, my fishy side gets to run amok. Today is one of those days. It turns out Meg Ryan wasn't the only one faking it. It seems Swedish brown trout also fake orgasm to increase their chances of successfully mating with a fertile male. Not only is this somewhat old news (I guess I need to read a bit more), but since this behavior was first found in Atlantic salmon in 1954, all trout may well fake this behavior at one time or another.
And from the fish perspective, this makes sense. Like all living creatures, fish possess a drive that says you have to reproduce - you have to ensure the next generation comes into existence. So it makes sense that a female fish wants to mate with the most fertile and most physically robust male she can find. After all, when you fertilize externally, and your eggs are subject to the vagaries of stream flow, sun light, and eating by piscivorous species, you want all the advantages for your offspring you can get.
So what does this have to do with humans? How does fish reproduction relate to the human condition? Well, if you hearken back to Meg Ryan's famous fake O in the dinner for a confused Billy Crystal, you will recall that she was trying to show him that women could actually fake something that men, try as we might, mostly couldn't. And she was also trying to lead to see how this was actually good for both parties in that he got a sense of satisfaction, and she got to end an activity she wasn't enjoying all that much. Essentially, the Fake It approach was, in Sally's mind, a win-win for both parties.
But might it also have a use in human reproductive strategy? First, we as the humans in question need to take a proverbial deep breath and recognize that, since we're in Kingdom Animalia, we do have the same reproductive imperative as do other species. I know, I know, humans aren't animals - we have reason, we can choose not to reproduce. Insert pithy anthropocentric quote here. All that doesn't change certain fundamental parts of our biology, and we shouldn't be so fearful of it.
But second, given the overly heavy emphasis our society places on all things sexual, I wonder if the faking of orgasm by human females might well be a subconscious adaptation to the mate selection process. As I see it, if a human female wants to reproduce, and she can certainly choose not to for a variety of great reasons, I suspect she wants her offspring to have as much chance to grow and thrive as the brook trout female does. And certainly, as our social science colleagues will remind us, mate selection can have enormous influences on this success (yes, Martha, fathers are important for all sorts of reasons). So maybe, just maybe, the Fake O in human females is an evolutionary hold over to increase reproductive success. Put another way, if a woman isn't really into the sexual experience with her partner, will she be really into the child rearing experience with him?
Now before all the feminists hunt me down and bludgeon me, this final thought. Humans can reason, and it is one of many important traits that differentiate us from trout (lacking external gills is also an important trait). So maybe the Fake O is just a response to a bad night, or too much booze, or the distractions of the hectic life we lead. But if it contains important biological clues about potential reproductive success, what's wrong with a woman adding it to her selection criteria?
Last week, I asked for book recommendations and the response was extraordinary! Thanks to everyone for such a long list to explore of favorite stories and authors. Although I have read several already, it's difficult to narrow down possibilities and I'm still undecided which to begin during my trip Friday to NYC.
Below are the titles I'm considering and I invite everyone to follow the links and vote (in comments) on the most intriguing selection. Perhaps some of you will even read along? While getting lost in a good book is among my very favorite activities, sharing the journey is even more enjoyable!
A grueling survey of vast tracts of forest and swamp in the northern Congo Republic has revealed the presence of more than 125,000 western lowland gorillas, a rare example of abundance in a world of rapidly vanishing primate populations.
Our overlords at Seed have decided to change the location of Saturday's Reader Meetup. It will now be at a bar on the west side called Social. I don't know much about the place, but their website has great music, so this could be good!
Details:
2pm-4pm on Saturday, August 9 Social
795 8th Ave (close to 48th St.)
New York, NY 10019
Head to the cafe tables and chairs set by the trees on the upper terrace, facing the Rose Center. The terrace is accessible from the Theodore Roosevelt Park at 81st Street and Columbus Avenue.
This is an outdoor location with tables and shade, which we thought was best for the large numbers we're expecting. After we're all assembled in this spot, if smaller groups are interested in grabbing a coffee or sitting in air conditioning, then we'd be happy to point them to one of several nice cafes nearby.
So here's some news: The paperback of Storm World, with a new author afterword and a new Katrina cover, is officially published today. I haven't held a copy in my hands yet, but I know they've shipped from Amazon. You can click here to pick one up online.
Meanwhile, we already seen our fifth named storm of the season develop--Edouard, which could strengthen into another Texas landfalling hurricane. I don't like all this action in the Gulf of Mexico--or for that matter, all this early season action period.
We've had 8 Category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic in the past five years. The way things are shaping up this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number go to 9 or 10 over the last six.
Friends back in my home state of New York have been telling me about a 'monster' that supposedly washed up on the beach in Montauk, Long Island. Intrigued, I checked out the now famous photograph after the story appeared on CNN. Take a look:
Unfortunately, while I love a good creature mystery as much as anyone, I'm disappointed. The first thing to note is we have no perspective for scale and I'd be surprised if it was more than a couple feet long. Further, what's being called a 'beak' are more likely canine teeth, which suggest a decomposing carnivore. Now I haven't checked in with the guys at Zooillogix yet, but my guess is--despite that our 'monster' looks like a critter from Harry Potter--it's probably a dog or raccoon.
I didn't realize I was going to have the cover story of the latest New Scientist with this in-depth article I did about the climate-tornado relationship. Essentially, the bottom line is this--it's even more complicated than the climate-hurricane relationship. And so for all those politicians, environmentalists, and bloggers out there who want to use tornadoes (and especially this extremely active U.S. tornado year) as an excuse to talk about global warming...well, the science provides a slender foundation for them indeed.
You can't read the full New Scientist article online, but let me lay out the core scientific reason that we can't say much about tornadoes right now. The data are way, way too bad to detect reliable trends, and as for the theory/modeling...well, that's not far enough along either. Scientists are just starting to be able to use climate models to predict environmental changes that could favor severe thunderstorms (which generate tornadoes). But because not all severe thunderstorms are tornadic, and because tornadoes are far too tiny to capture in models, and because the reasons for their genesis are incompletely understood, this line of inquiry can't really go any farther right now--at least not yet.
Here's the relevant excerpt from the piece. Unfortunately, you really need more context than this brief slice, but at least the core scientific points are there:
What about tornadoes? Del Genio says it is "plausible" that their numbers or other
attributes could change as well, but adds that his study couldn't directly predict this. "Telling the difference between severe storms in general, and the particular ones that produce tornadoes, that's the most difficult thing to do," he adds.
A similar conclusion emerged from the second study, done by Jeff Trapp of Purdue University, Indiana in collaboration with Brooks and others. They also found that global warming should increase CAPE but decrease overall wind shear. Higher CAPE more than makes up for lower wind shear, though: they predict that by the end of the century there will be an increase in the number of days in the US when conditions favour severe thunderstorms.
For Trapp, as for Del Genio, there is still not enough information to make a firm prediction. "What we did is sort of the low hanging fruit," Trapp says. "Trying to separate out this frequency of severe thunderstorms from the frequency of tornadoes explicitly is much higher in the tree."
Can it, oh can it be true? As a young lady who regularly goes heroine every Halloween, I couldn't be more excited to hear Hollywood may be on the verge of developing a new, strong, independent female role model! In an age of too many superhero movies about men of steel, men who spin webs, turn green, dark knights, and damsels in distress... Is Wonder Woman really on the horizon for 2009?
..it's time for a new star to step into those red, leather boots and indestructible bracelets. Not to mention the golden tiara that doubled as a deadly weapon.
I really enjoyed Sheril's post last week about scientifically inaccurate movies. As I went to check out the list that she linked to, I found myself nodding constantly.
But of course, that's hardly an exhaustive list. Let me tell you a bit more about the kinds of scientific inaccuracies I've noted in Hollywood films--this by way of leading up to an ultimate question.
Hurricanes vs Tornadoes. The two meteorological phenomena are pretty dang different. One occurs over ocean, after all, and the other over land. One could fit in the eye of the other. Nevertheless, they're constantly, carelessly confused. Films that I've seen which do this include 16 Blocks (where the Mos Def character repeatedly gives an idiotic speech that confuses them) and Next (in which a TV newscaster refers to a hurricane's strength by using the Fujita scale, which of course measures tornadoes).
Instantaneous Evolution of Magical Powers. I can't tell you how many movies use evolution and mutation as a justification for all manner of absurdities, from X-Men to Spider Man to trash like The Cave--in which human beings transform into giant batlike monsters just by being trapped underground. Um, it doesn't happen that way. Not ever.
Now, is this stuff a huge deal? Not really, no. It's not something to get angry about. It's just entertainment.
But on the other hand, given the massive budgets of some of these films, don't you think somebody could have paid a consultant to check on a few facts? And for that matter, don't you think somebody might have hired screenwriters with a bit more creativity, who could actually deliver a good story that's consistent with scientific knowledge and still entertaining? (It's hardly impossible to do.)
That this doesn't happen at all suggests there's something fundamental going on here. I suspect those on the entertainment side of the fence simply don't care about the details--they care about the story, period. And I'm damn sure that those on the business side of the industry don't care.
But still...I'm surprised by how prevalent this kind of dumbness is--and how unnecessary. So what do people think: Is there any deeper way of explaining it?
Speaking of energy... As gas prices topped $4 a gallon this summer, Exxon Mobil has posted a new profit record which works out to bringing in $1,485.55 a second. Go figure.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.
Politics aside, I'm suspicious of McCain's latest ad. It's a false free association taking us from Britney to Paris to Obama and then somehow to offshore drilling... (the latter is a very bad idea by the way). I can't help but wonder how in only 32 seconds we're supposed to figure out the connection between 'more foreign oil' and Spears. What I am sure of is that any potential leader of this country ought to give the American public enough credit to see through this kind of overt manipulation in advertising.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
Welcome to the planet! Just about a year ago, I married your parents, who happen to be two of my very favorite people. I've never been an aunt before, but then, you've never been a niece before, so it will be fun learning the ropes together. 
Sometimes, my fishy side gets to run amok. Today is one of those days. It turns out 
Last week, I asked for 
A new 
I really enjoyed Sheril's 
