Sarah Fecht in Scientific American:

The transition from single-celled to multicellular organisms was one of the most significant developments in the history of life on Earth. Without it, all living things would still be microscopic and simple; there would be no such thing as a plant or a brain or a human. How exactly multicellularity arose is still a mystery, but a new study, published January 16 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that it may have been quicker and easier than many scientists expected.

“This is a significant paper that addresses one of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary and developmental biology,” says Rick Grosberg, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Davis, who was not involved with the research.

Since evolution acts on individual cells, it pays off for a cell to be selfish. By hogging resources and hindering neighbors, a cell can increase the odds that more of its own genes get passed into the next generation. This logic is one of the reasons it has been challenging to imagine how multicellularity arose; it requires the subjugation of self-interest in favor of the group’s survival.

More here.

Shehryar Fazli at The India Site:

Salman Rushdie’s third novel, Shame, which will turn thirty next year, may have an unenviable legacy. Squeezed between its author’s two most famous books – and two of the most famous books of the 1980s – Midnight’s Children and The Satanic Verses, it is seldom given its due in discussions either of the author’s body of work, or of the direction of Pakistani fiction. Yet, even with the recent ‘boom’ in Pakistan’s literature, it remains the most ambitious English-language novel about that country, yet to be surpassed in terms of scope, inventiveness and humor.

But first, a word about my own copy of this novel. It’s a 1984 Picador edition, with the Urdu word for shame, ‘sharam’, written as if by hand with Tippex in Arabic script above the English title. I say ‘my’ copy, but it in fact belonged to my father, who bought it in the 1980s at a secondhand bookstore in Islamabad. What’s peculiar about this is that General Zia-ul-Haq’s military government had banned Shame in Pakistan, a decision that attracted more attention to the book than the dictatorship intended, and induced several Western capitals to ship copies to Islamabad through the diplomatic bag for their envoys to read. Once done, these people would sell their copies to one of the many used bookstores in the capital.

More here.

Pervez Hoodbhoy in The Express Tribune:

In my opinion, Iran’s quest for the bomb does it — and the world — no service. The world needs less nukes, not more. Yet, given the regime’s obstinate insistence, there appear to be only two possible outcomes. Continuing on its present path, Iran will likely become the world’s 10th nuclear state over the next few years. Bad as this would be, it would not be terrible. In all likelihood Iran would then moderate its dangerous rhetoric and, like other existing global nuclear rivalries, this one too could be managed.

On the other hand, an Israeli attack — whether aided or not by the US — would be truly terrible. The Middle East would become a permanent war zone. The third Gulf War would surely devastate Iran. But today it is in a position to inflict much greater damage on the US than were Iraq or Libya. The US would plunge into an economic crisis the likes of which it has not seen before. The last bits of its post-withdrawal strategy from Afghanistan would be shredded to pieces.

More here.

Andrew Sullivan defends Obama in the Daily Beast:

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

Justice

That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing to which we black are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes.

Langston Hughes

From MSNBC:

According to Earl Hunt, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington and president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, approximately one person in 10 billion would have an IQ of 200. With a current world population of 7 billion, there may or may not be one such person alive today, and in any case, his or her identity is unknown. However, the 17th-century genius Isaac Newton, discoverer of gravity, calculus and more, is sometimes estimated to have had an IQ of 200 (though he never took an IQ test). Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons? Would the world be much more advanced than it is today?

Haier believes greater intelligence, which he defines as the ability to learn faster and remember more, would be highly advantageous on an individual scale. “Experiencing the world with a higher IQ might be more interesting for most people. They might enjoy reading more, might have a greater depth of appreciation for certain things and more insight into life,” he told Life's Little Mysteries. Furthermore, IQs of 200 would allow us to pursue activities and careers that most interest us, not just those we're mentally capable of, Haier said. We could master new languages in a few weeks, for example, or become brain surgeons. Smarter humans would also be healthier and longer-living, the scientists said, because they'd have a better grasp of what behavior leads to these attributes.

More here.

From The New York Times:

The New England Journal of Medicine marks its 200th anniversary this year with a timeline celebrating the scientific advances first described in its pages: the stethoscope (1816), the use of ether for anesthesia (1846), and disinfecting hands and instruments before surgery (1867), among others. For centuries, this is how science has operated — through research done in private, then submitted to science and medical journals to be reviewed by peers and published for the benefit of other researchers and the public at large. But to many scientists, the longevity of that process is nothing to celebrate. The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only “if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.” Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction. Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. GalaxyZoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers. On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalist Timothy Gower’s blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks. And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity.

More here.

In the Guardian, Terry Eagleton reviews Alain de Botton's Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion:

Diderot, a doyen of the French Enlightenment, wrote that the Christian gospel might have been a less gloomy affair if Jesus had fondled the breasts of the bridesmaids at Cana and caressed the buttocks of St John. Yet he, too, believed that religion was essential for social unity. Matthew Arnold feared the spread of godlessness among the Victorian working class. It could be countered, he thought, with a poeticised form of a Christianity in which he himself had long ceased to believe. The 19th-century French philosopher Auguste Comte, an out-and-out materialist, designed an ideal society complete with secular versions of God, priests, sacraments, prayer and feast days.

There is something deeply disingenuous about this whole tradition. “I don't believe myself, but it is politically prudent that you should” is the slogan of thinkers supposedly devoted to the integrity of the intellect. If the Almighty goes out of the window, how are social order and moral self-discipline to be maintained? It took the barefaced audacity of Friedrich Nietzsche to point out that if God was dead, then so was Man – or at least the conception of humanity favoured by the guardians of social order. The problem was not so much that God had inconveniently expired; it was that men and women were cravenly pretending that he was still alive, and thus refusing to revolutionise their idea of themselves.

God may be dead, but Alain de Botton's Religion for Atheists is a sign that the tradition from Voltaire to Arnold lives on. The book assumes that religious beliefs are a lot of nonsense, but that they remain indispensible to civilised existence. One wonders how this impeccably liberal author would react to being told that free speech and civil rights were all bunkum, but that they had their social uses and so shouldn't be knocked. Perhaps he might have the faintest sense of being patronised. De Botton claims that one can be an atheist while still finding religion “sporadically useful, interesting and consoling”, which makes it sound rather like knocking up a bookcase when you are feeling a bit low. Since Christianity requires one, if need be, to lay down one's life for a stranger, he must have a strange idea of consolation. Like many an atheist, his theology is rather conservative and old-fashioned.

De Botton does not want people literally to believe, but he remains a latter-day Matthew Arnold, as his high Victorian language makes plain.

Over at Psychology Today, a series of pieces on casual sex. Stanley Siegel's advocacy of casual sex:

Society dictates that only within marriage or another long-term relationship do sex and intimacy exist and popular culture upholds this as the ultimate formula for happiness. Despite the high divorce rate, tax laws, for example, continue to bestow benefits on married couples, while relegating single people to second-class status.

How many times have you heard: He's afraid of intimacy? In arguing against casual sex, marriage advocates regularly flaunt research purportedly showing that spouses are happier than single people. But these studies contain a damaging methodology, which cannot be readily identified by their findings. That is, they fail to consider the guilt and shame that some single people internalize as a result of how society stigmatizes them.

The truth is, long-term relationships or marriage do not guarantee a satisfying emotional life or sexual intimacy. Everyone knows someone stuck in a barren marriage, whose members have lost their autonomy and in which sex has disappeared. Brandon's assertion that people do not belong together forever is correct, but too many of us fear facing that truth or consider alternatives to that permanence.

There are times when casual sex actually deepens one's self-knowledge. With intelligence and clarity of purpose, casual sex is more than instant gratification. By openly exploring our fantasies and true desires with different partners in a way that may not possible in a committed relationship, we can transcend our inhibitions. With each new encounter we can discover buried parts of ourselves and in time experience the totality of who we are. We can even experience profound, revelatory moments that unravel our past and show us things we never knew about ourselves. We can satisfy unmet needs by embracing those aspects of our sexuality that are deeply meaningful and we can choose to let go of those that no longer have importance.

Emily Temple over at Flavorwire:

Branding is all anyone can talk about these days. It’s how celebrities stay famous. It’s what Twitter is really for. It’s even what the last season of America’s Next Top Model was all about (besides Tyra Banks’s book, we mean). This week saw famed Bright Lights, Big City author Jay McInerney’s birthday — the renowned playboy is 57 years old, if you can believe it. Inspired by the persistence of the McInerney legend even after all these years, we thought we’d give you a brief outline of how to build a successful pop culture persona using two demonstrative models: the aforementioned Jay McInerney, poster boy of ’80s excess, and Lady Gaga, Queen of overblown contemporary pop. Click through to pick up a few helpful tips on how to build your pop culture persona based on these two tabloid legends, and make sure to send us a postcard from the top when you get there.

1. Come onto the scene with a little salacious controversy.

You have several options on this front, depending on your existing skill set. But whether you write a novel, drop a hit single, or debut in a film, make sure there’s some scandal attached. For instance, if you decide to write a novel, you should make sure that the main character is almost identical to you, that he is consumed with cocaine and the party boy lifestyle, as Jay McInerney did with Bright Lights, Big City. It will help if you have a posse already, so you can look even more like one of the popular kids. If you’re a musician, make sure you’re wearing something so ridiculous no one can look away or shut up about it, like Lady Gaga — in this case, it will also help if that outfit makes it unclear whether or not you secretly have a penis. Now people are paying attention to you. You may proceed.

Michael Marshall in New Scientist:

Species: Mesodinium chamaeleon

Habitat: seawater around Scandinavia and North America, chowing down on a new generation of slaves

Many animals transform themselves almost beyond recognition in the course of their lives. Caterpillars become butterflies and tadpoles become frogs, and if we couldn't watch them do so we might not even suspect that the two stages were the same creature.

Spectacular as these shifts are, they are only shape-shifting. A tadpole and a frog are both animals, so both must take in food from their surroundings.

Not so Mesodinium chamaeleon. This newly discovered single-celled organism is a unique mixture of animal and plant.

Plant pals M. chamaeleon is a ciliate – a kind of single-celled animal covered in hundreds of tiny “hairs” called cilia. It was discovered in Nivå bay in Denmark by Øjvind Moestrup of the University of Copenhagen, also in Denmark, and his team. Other specimens have since been found off the coasts of Finland and Rhode Island.

Ciliates using their hair-like cilia to motor around rapidly in water. Most get their food by eating other organisms, rather than by synthesising the nutrients themselves. This marks them as quite animal-like.

Daniel Honan in Big Think:

In a very short time, Tim Tebow has become the most polarizing NFL player in a generation. There are many reasons for this, but one thing that has fascinated fans and foes alike is Tebow's apparent ability to rally his team, the Denver Broncos, when it matters the most.

Tebow's performance on the field is extremely uneven. He'll often stink it up for three quarters only to become what The New York Times describes as “a Hall of Fame candidate in the Fourth.” His efforts contributed to a crucial six-game winning streak that helped land Denver in the playoffs, and last week Tebow led the Broncos to a first-round victory with a touchdown pass in overtime. What is the explanation for his success? And how has Tebow been able to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds again and again? Do certain athletes possess the ability to elevate their game simply by willing it? Does Tebow share a common gene with Derek Jeter and Michael Jordan? Or is it divine intervention (43 percent of Americans believed so in a recent poll)?

If you are like me and believe that God has greater concerns than the outcome of a football game, you are left in search of another explanation.

From The Atlantic:

Nobel laureate John Steinbeck (1902-1968) might be best-known as the author of East of Eden, The Grapes of Wrath, and Of Mice and Men, but he was also a prolific letter-writer. Steinbeck: A Life in Letters constructs an alternative biography of the iconic author through some 850 of his most thoughtful, witty, honest, opinionated, vulnerable, and revealing letters to family, friends, his editor, and a circle of equally well-known and influential public figures.

Among his correspondence is this beautiful response to his eldest son Thom's 1958 letter, in which the teenage boy confesses to have fallen desperately in love with a girl named Susan while at boarding school. Steinbeck's words of wisdom—tender, optimistic, timeless, infinitely sagacious—should be etched onto the heart and mind of every living, breathing human being.

New York
November 10, 1958

Dear Thom:

We had your letter this morning. I will answer it from my point of view and of course Elaine will from hers.

First — if you are in love — that's a good thing — that's about the best thing that can happen to anyone. Don't let anyone make it small or light to you.

Second — There are several kinds of love. One is a selfish, mean, grasping, egotistical thing which uses love for self-importance. This is the ugly and crippling kind. The other is an outpouring of everything good in you — of kindness and consideration and respect — not only the social respect of manners but the greater respect which is recognition of another person as unique and valuable. The first kind can make you sick and small and weak but the second can release in you strength, and courage and goodness and even wisdom you didn't know you had.

More here.

Rana Javadi in lensculture:

For me, the When You Were Dying series tells a story about the death of a beautiful era. About death of a peaceful life, when we didn’t live in a global village, the time when we lived with our own cultures, when life was not as fast as now — a life without electronic social networking, without so many environmental disasters and wars, a life with more peace in mind and the world. In this series of work, I have used old photographs from a famous Iranian photography studio, Chehrenegar, in the city of Shiraz. The photos were taken in the courtyard of his studio in open air because of the lack of artificial light in those days. My photographs are made of three layers: one, the original picture from 70 years ago, which is a dead and forgotten moment; the second layer is often made of dried flowers and fabric belonging to those days; and the third one is a reflection of the current environment, captured in the glass or a mirror. Of course, by creating this new layered picture, the present moment dies too, but in a way that starts another life in a new form.

More here.

From Smithsonian:

A recent thread on the urban parenting site Urbanbaby.com asked a simple pair of questions: What is your household income, and how rich do you feel? The resulting contradictions of income and perceived wealth drew widespread remark—and some scorn. One commenter, from New York City’s Upper East Side, makes $350,000 per year and feels “so, so, so poor.” Another earns $1.2 million and feels upper-middle class, while a third, with an income in the $180,000 range in the D.C. suburbs, feels rich. How is this all possible? Everyone knows the old platitude “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” A recent psychological study indicates that wealth is just the same. A new paper, published in the January issue of Psychological Science by Princeton researcher Abigail Sussman, demonstrates that total net worth is not the only thing that influences perceptions of wealth, whether for ourselves or others. If you were asked to consider two individuals—Mr. Blue, who has $120,200 in assets and $40,200 in debt, and Ms. Green, who has $80,200 in assets and just $200 in debt—who do you think is better off? Of participants in the study, 79% said Ms. Green, although net worth is the same for both. When assessing those with positive net worth, having a lower degree of both assets and debt was seen as better than having more of each.

More here.

This year, along with 188 others, I was also asked by John Brockman to contribute a response to Edge.org's annual question. Here's my short piece:

My example of a deep, elegant, and beautiful explanation in science is John Maynard Smith's concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). Not only does this wonderfully straightforward idea explain a whole host of biological phenomena, it also provides a very useful heuristic tool to test the plausibility of various types of claims in evolutionary biology, allowing us, for example, to quickly dismiss group-selectionist misconceptions such as the idea that altruistic acts by individuals can be explained by the benefits that accrue to the species as a whole from these acts. Indeed, the idea is so powerful that it explains things which I didn't even realize needed explaining until I was given the explanation! I will now present one such explanation below to illustrate the power of ESS. I should note that while Smith developed ESS using the mathematics of game theory (along with collaborators G. R. Price and G. A. Parker), I will attempt to explain the main idea using almost no math.

So, here is a question: think of common animal species like cats, or dogs, or humans, or golden eagles; why do all of them have (nearly) equal numbers of males and females? Why are there not sometimes 30% males in a species and 70% females? Or the other way? Or some other ratio altogether? Why are sex ratios almost exactly 50/50? I, at least, never even considered the question until I read the incredibly elegant explanation.

Let us consider walruses: they exist in the normal 50/50 sex ratio but most walrus males will die virgins. (But almost all females will mate.) Only a few dominant walrus males monopolize most of the females (in mating terms). So what's the point of having all those extra males around, then? They take up food and resources, but in the only thing that matters to evolution, they are useless, because they do not reproduce. From a species point-of-view, it would be better and more efficient if only a small proportion of walruses were males, and the rest were females, in the sense that such a species of walrus would make much more efficient use of its resources and would, according to the logic of group-selectionists, soon wipe out the actual existing species of walrus with the inefficient 50/50 ratio of males to females. So why don't they?

Continued here. All the responses can be seen here.