North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill declaring that every fertilized egg has all the same rights of a baby. If passed, this bill would mean that any abortion is the equivalent of murder. Here's the wording of the bill, from Yahoo News:
The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.
Why do we do the things we do? Why did you propose that woman, for instance? Or why did you accept a job offer from that man? The January 29, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers) takes a look at this question in an article by Mark Buchanan titled "Secret Signals: Are People's Interactions Driven by a Primitive, Not Linguistic Type of Communication?" Scientists have determined that there is a second channel of human communication that (often) acts in parallel with our rational thinking and verbal communication. It's difficult to pin down power and scope of this non-linguistic ability, however. Recently, computer scientist Alex Pentland has started using wearable electronic devices in order to study our ability to communicate using non-linguistic behavior. It is Pentland's aim to try to assist organizations to make better use of their personnel based upon this ubiquitous and powerful hidden communication. Many people resist the idea that many of our choices are not determined by "conscious intentions and deliberate choices." It's time to stop resisting, however. For example, our behavior is highly determined by our social context rather than our innate "character." On this topic I've often recommended an excellent book titled The Person and the Situation, by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett. See also, this earlier DI post titled "Laughing at not funny things, and the limits of introspection."
What's it like being a statue in a garden shop? Is it fun or is it like being trapped in Sartre's No Exit?
Barry Schwartz recently delivered a sensational 20-minute talk on the importance of practical wisdom. He began his talk by describing the obvious: we now live in a highly dysfunctional rule-bound society. What should we do about it? We need to make sure that kindness, care and empathy are a part of every job, whether or not these responsibilities are contained in the official job description. All of us need to have both moral will and moral skill, the two essential components of Aristotle's conception of "moral wisdom." Luckily for us, we now have a President who is willing to take the risk of reminding Americans of their duties to pursue moral wisdom. Schwartz deserved that standing ovation he received after delivering this talk at TED. Much of his talk concerned our obsessions with rules. Yes, rules are oftentimes hopeful. They often help us avoid the mistakes of the past. On the other hand, wise people know that they sometimes need to improvise. They know when to break the rules in order to remedy situations. They know that they are never excused from being kind and decent, regardless of the "rules." Schwartz gives several salient examples, an especially good one involving a janitor. Wise people know that they need to use rules not simply to "follow the rules" but to serve the needs of other people.
Over the past week, on two separate occasions, middle-aged adults spontaneously blurted out to me that they had recently become Facebook "addicts." Today, I stumbled across this delightful essay by Tara Styles, who has thought deeply about her own recent Facebook addiction. Styles' writing style is engaging and you'll enjoy her many observations about Facebook. I am apparently immune to Facebook, given that I am already obsessed with writing for a blog. But Facebook is apparently catching fire, based on the rapidly growing number of times I hear it mentioned on the streets. Sometimes, it makes you wonder whether the people mentioning Facebook so often would rather be at their keyboards than talking with you in person. From what I've seen and heard, Facebook is being used as both a tool to rekindle real friendships but also as a means to concoct the illusion that you have real friends (when you actually don't). I'm not a critic of Facebook per se. As I see it, Facebook is merely a tool and, like so many other tools (knives, alcohol or religion, for example), it can be used or abused. But perhaps Facebook is more addictive than some other tools. Certainly, as a communications tool, it seems to be more addictive to most people than a piece of paper and a pen.