The Wallace-Bechdel Test or: Why Men Get All the Good Parts

On a sunny day in 1985, Alison Bechdel, creater of the comic strip “Dykes to Watch Out For,” published a comic strip entitled “The Rule,” based on a conversation with her good friend, Liz Wallace. In the cartoon, one of the characters says that she refuses to see a movie which does not meet the following three criteria:

1.       The film must contain at least two named female characters.

2.       These two characters must talk to one another about

3.       Something other than a man.

Needless to say, the characters do not end up seeing a movie that night. Today, over 25 years later, not much has changed, and a disturbingly high proportion of movies fail the Wallace-Bechdel Test. If this claim seems to be something of a stretch to you, try to imagine a movie you’ve seen lately which passes the test. Then, pop on over to bechdeltest.com, where some rather dedicated film buffs are compiling a list of films which do and do not pass the test. According to their ongoing work, roughly half of movies on the site do not pass the test (sadly, 10% don’t even pass the first part of the test). All in all, the Wallace-Bechdel Test helps to shed light on a pretty obvious characteristic of the entertainment industry today: Women are, and always have been, severely underrepresented. The main reason for this: Women in film are unlikeable. Why are they unlikeable? Why do film schools and production studios across the country preach the doctrine of male leads and advise against complex female characters?

The infamous comic, reprinted here and probably breaking some copyright

Well, to begin, women are not funny. Now, obviously, comments like that are sexist and offensive. But that does not necessarily make them completely invalid. Look over the comedy industry and its history, and you will find remarkably few funny women. Of course, there are always exceptions. Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, Mae West, Carol Burnett, Fran Lebowitz, and more recently comediennes like Ellen DeGeneres, Kristen Wiig and Tina Fey. Of course, I could name five times as many male comic personalities without even having to try. These women are the exception and sadly far from the rule. When you consider also that “I Love Lucy” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” were both created and written by men, the role of women in comedy gets a little smaller. Meanwhile, female comics like Roseanne Barr and Lisa Lampanelli became famous for a highly-masculine, aggressive form of humor which has incurred plenty of criticism from feminists. For the most part, though, women who write and perform comedy find it almost impossible to find both success and respect.

Shown here: One of the wonderful, wonderful exceptions

Outside of the entertainment industry, we see something just as interesting arise: women, according to a study done a few years at Stanford University, treat humor differently than men. Specifically, they process it differently in the nucleus accumbens (the part of the brain responsible in part for how we value rewards). In short, women were able to identify things as being un-funny faster than their male counterparts, and their brains interpreted a funny punch-line as a much more significant reward. Sociologically speaking, this all makes perfect sense. In several species, males have the obligation to try to impress the females in order to win mating rights. Gorillas pound their chests, peacocks flaunt their tail feathers, and humans (being more civilized) tell jokes. As our species evolved, physical strength became less important as intelligence became more important. Humor, it seems, has evolved as an indicator of how intelligent a man is. Rather, wit is the indicator. Several studies have shown what we already knew was true: women and men find different things funny. Women’s brains tend to use more of the pre-frontal cortex (where we keep our language centers and other higher functions) than men do when they find something funny. Put simply, men will find most things funny while women require more nuanced, intelligent humor.

Dear Men: You're doing it wrong

Being funny, then, becomes an extension of the male need to impress the opposite sex. This is why average looking men who are funny can be movie stars. It’s also why men are so much more dominant in the comedy industry, especially in stand-up. Stand-up comedians have to be loud, aggressive, and dominate their audiences to get laughs (hence the term “You killed out there”). These are all traits which tend to fall into the sociological niche belonging to men. Women, in contrast, are not bound by any evolutionary imperative to impress. Their role in the reproduction game is to pick the best mates and then nurse their offspring, which requires patience, not humor. In short, men are evolving to be funnier and funnier, but women are not. Apparently, they have found some other way of attracting male attention.

Beats me. Maybe this nice lady can explain it to me

The same traits which make men funny tend to make them likeable and interesting as characters. Their aggressive and impressive natures translate well to screen, where exaggerated male characters can dominate entire movies out of pure spectacle and bravado, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (See Fight Club). Male characters are also easy to write. Traditionally males are hunters, and that aggressiveness provides a level of agency in stories which make men good protagonists. The hero pursues his love interest. The hero fights the bad guy. The hero has to save the world. These are cinematic hyperboles of the evolutionary roles we’ve pigeonholed men into.The problem, though, isn’t completely evolutionary. There’s also a lot of history that needs to be undone. Comedy and Hollywood writing tends to be very male-dominated, in a manner unseen in most other industries. The reasoning for this comes down to business. Movies are being written for the people who go to see movies: Men, aged 15-35. They tend to be immature, often single, and they simply are not, as a whole, packing the evolutionary good taste women seem to have. Hence, bad movies with crude humor and a never-ending parade of straight, white, male leads in movie after movie. That’s what, sadly enough, makes money. They teach this in film schools, too. Screenplays with multiple female characters who speak to each other about something other than a man “won’t sell,” according to the statistics, and statistics govern the industry.

Statistics, and men who probably look like this guy

Television, on the other hand, is being written for the people who watch television: Women, aged 25-45. They simply watch more television than men do (by about 30%, actually). Which is why television programming is so much different on the whole than what dominates the movie industry. However, these shows don’t really have much incentive to feature funny women (since, you know, women are designed by evolution to prefer their comedians male and all) and comedy shows remain male dominated for the most part. For similar reasons, shows that feature action, adventure, crime, intrigue, and a whole host of other themes are going to be male-dominated. That leaves very little programming left over for the gals to actually STAR in.

Feminists LOVE this show

However, if you look at a lot of successful programming geared towards a female audience, you will find, more often than not, that these shows have multiple female characters, all of whom talk to one another… usually about men. And these are the shows that test well with female audiences. How can we explain this? Over the last century, a number of studies have been conducted to try and determine exactly what it is that men and women talk about. Most of these studies have shown repeatedly that the most popular topic of conversation amongst real-world women is men. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as the goal of the female is to consider and evaluate potential mates, which is made easier through discussion and comparison. It also makes sense from a sociological perspective, as women in society have historically been placed into roles in which their lives were defined by their male counterparts (daughter, wife, etc.) and they didn't enjoy the same freedoms and liberties as today.

Until recently, women weren't even allowed to smile

Fast-forward to 1985, pick up Alison Bechdel, and then keep going right on into the present, where we return to our original question: why do so many films fail the Wallace-Bechdel Test? Why do women, even today, still seem more interested in men than themselves? Why is it so hard to write a complex female character and so much harder to market one to an audience? The answer in short: women aren’t talking to each other about things that aren’t men. But, we’re getting there. In a recent study conducted on a university campus, results showed that there was no difference in the conversation topics between men and women, and both groups spent most of their time talking about things totally unrelated to the opposite sex. The women in this study, as opposed to many in earlier studies, were for the most part educated, intelligent, and passionate individuals who possess a great deal of agency and control over their own lives. It would be hard, frankly, for them to only talk about men. If art imitates life, then perhaps the secret to an Wallace-Bechdel industry filled with complex and interesting female characters is a Wallace-Bechdel world, filled with complex and interesting women.

Unless, of course, they want to talk about me. That'd be just fine

Security or: The Sky’s the Limit

Recently, members of Al Qaeda in Yemen have been discussing plans to get around the TSA’s new full-body scans so that they can continue to plot terrorist attacks on American airports. Among several different ideas, the one which sticks out both to the organization’s leader and to United States intelligence agencies: Surgically sewing explosives under the skin of suicide bombers. If this sounds deranged, ridiculous, and a little terrifying, that’s because it is. And if you think this will affect you the next time you get onto an airplane, then you’re two for two.

Plan B

                The history of airline security begins in 1969, where a steady increase in hijackings peaks at an all-time record of 82 hijackings in a single year. This is followed closely by the infamous D.B. Cooper hijacking in 1971, and the government begins to take notice. President Nixon places sky marshals on major flights and the Federal Aviation Administration begins to require that passengers and baggage go through metal detectors. These bulky tunnels brought the FAA to court over the 4^th Amendment, which provides protection against unwarranted search and seizure. While the courts eventually decided that this did in fact violate the 4^th Amendment, such searches were permissible as long as everybody was subject to them and only weapons and explosives were being searched for. The reason this was possible is that, in the 70’s, air travel was still very much a luxury item. Airlines would hire private security firms to conduct screenings, and since it was a luxury, the courts did not feel that anyone’s rights were being infringed upon since they were choosing to play by the airline’s rules, so to speak. This continued until the 80’s, when the famously unsuccessful “War on Drugs” brought new screening techniques, x-ray machines, and drug-sniffing dogs into airports. Other than that, airport security remained fairly static for almost thirty years. And then, you know…

Too soon?

                The events of September 11^th changed the course of global and domestic history drastically. But let’s stick to air travel. Two days after the attacks, blades and knives of all sizes (from Swiss Army to nail clippers) are banned. By November, the Transportation Security Administration is established and private security firms are replaced by TSA agents at airports across the country. By December, passengers have to remove their shoes while going through security. 2004 prevents visitors and family from accompanying travelers to the gate, and in 2006 liquids over three ounces are banned. Finally, on Christmas Day, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to smuggle explosives in his underwear, directly leading to the shiny new full-body scanners and every bit of controversy which comes with them. On the surface, this might appear to be a series of logical and necessary escalations in response to some very real threats. Of course, in 2005 the Department of Homeland Security (parent to the TSA) reported to Congress that there was no evidence whatsoever that the TSA had in any way improved the protection of airplanes from dangerous objects, despite the fact that the TSA spends nearly $3 Billion each year screening passengers and baggage, several times more than the private groups ever did. To date, there remains no evidence that the TSA is doing any better; despite everything they’ve done to improve our security experience.

If we don't search her, the terrorists win.

                The simple facts are that the security loopholes exploited on 9/11 (insecure cockpit doors and the fact that you were allowed to bring box cutters on board, mostly) were closed almost immediately by the private firms, and that air travel was and is very safe. Over the last twenty years, fewer than 1700 people have died while on an airplane in the US. Of those, only 265 deaths occurred as a result of acts of terror, and most attempts at terror have been woefully unsuccessful. To date, the TSA has yet to report on a single terrorist being caught at a security checkpoint, though it is not necessarily their policy to do so should they catch one. The widely reported “shoe bomber” and the “underwear bomber” each boarded their flights outside of the country (and outside of TSA screenings) and the majority of attempts are foiled by intelligence rather than screenings. So, why put in all the effort? Some say screenings act as a deterrent. If somebody knows that their shoes will be x-rayed, they’re not likely to try smuggling something illicit in them. While there is undoubtedly some truth to this, the real reason probably has much less to do with passenger security and much more to do with another kind of security.

Shown here: the slightly harder to catch "Bra Bomber"

                The United States air transportation industry is among the most important pieces of our nation’s infrastructure. Every day, hundreds of flights take off and land from each of this country’s over 450 airports. These mostly domestic flights, crisscrossing over the wide expanses of land separating our metropolises, have become absolutely critical for the continued growth and competitiveness of business in America. By the late 90’s, air travel had already drastically changed from a thing of luxury to one of the most difficult industries in the world. Profit margins on airlines are razor thin, forcing competition by any means necessary (which usually means worse food and less leg room). Pan Am and TWA, two of the largest and most successful airlines in America went bankrupt in the 90’s. Airlines at this time were very fragile companies, and the entire country more or less depended on them. By mid-afternoon on 9/11, the stock for every single major airline in the United States plummeted to record lows. For months afterwards, people all over the country (especially on the East Coast) are terrified of flying and ticket sales continue to drop. Companies like United nearly go under. Then, the TSA is formed, and new screening procedures go into effect, and increased airport security is all over the news, and in 2002 stocks begin to climb again.

Note: There is a slight margin of error

                The United States Government needs airlines and the airlines need the United States Government. Both realized that there was only so much more secure that they could make airports. Both also realized that what kept people from flying was not danger, but simply the fear of danger, and that convincing people that they were safe was the only way to keep the airlines safe. So the TSA begins to go overboard with regulation after regulation which reports have shown did little more than waste a lot of money and inconvenience and lot of people. Why? Because if you give somebody two inner tubes, a snorkel, water wings, and a life jacket, they’re not going to be afraid of drowning, even if they’re only standing in water up to their ankles. Someone frustrated with too much security isn’t going to be afraid that flying isn’t safe. Richard Reid was able to smuggle explosives onto a plane in his shoes because he wore one of a few specific kinds of shoes which could fool a metal detector. Forcing everybody to remove their shoes, then, is less of an actual necessary security measure and more of a symbolic response to a perceived failure and a way to make people feel safe by making them think security is going too far. In fact, despite every annoying thing the TSA makes us go through, close to 80% of Americans still support increased security measures like the backscatter full body scans we have today. People think, despite what government experts say, that airport security is absolutely necessary. Why is that?

Heck if I know

                The singular problem with the TSA’s method is that, eventually, it gets out of hand. The TSA can’t ever realistically scale back their security, even their unnecessary or redundant security, without scaring passengers. They also can’t slow down, because they’ve become part of a narrative involving an imminent and growing threat to this country (thanks mostly to certain news agencies whose names will not be mentioned here). Their only option now is to respond to every potential or broadcasted threat with excessive effort or risk hurting the nation’s transportation industry. It’s a classic, almost McCarthyistic example of why fear is such a terribly dangerous social and political motivator. What can we do about it? Very little, actually. The air industry is without real competition, since the United States lacks a sophisticated passenger train system (again, a blog for another day) and driving takes forever. Security is going to increase and it’s going to get more annoying. Even airports like Kansas City International who opt out of using TSA agents are only permitted to use private security firms which the TSA has approved. We’re as safe as we’ve ever been and about as safe as we ever will be. So far, it has cost the TSA $40 Billion, and it’s only going to get worse, because Al Qaeda might start sewing bombs into terrorists, and full-body scans can’t see under skin. The TSA is already working on its response, and we’ll find out about it soon enough. 

I just thought this was funny.
But seriously, whatever they come up with, you're not going to like it.

Homo-phobia or: The War that Everyone Forgot

                Homo sapiens, human beings, are a unique species in several ways. They are the dominant species on this planet, the only sentient species, the most intelligent species, and the only species who can truly appreciate good blogging. Creationism aside, the history of our species from our lower primate ancestors has been on the forefront of our curiosity, from anthropology and philosophy to genetics and evolutionary biology. Despite our fervor, however, the specifics of the unique journey which resulted in the pinnacle of evolution that is us are still very unclear. When thinking of the origins of man, the most common image is that of an ape slowly standing erect and morphing through a series of intermediates into man. This image is so iconic and so widely reproduced, so central to our understanding of ourselves and the connection that we as sentient beings still share with the natural world, that it is a crying shame how inaccurate of an image it really is.

This would be less funny if I weren't on my computer right now.

                Classical anthropology would suggest that the path from bestial ape to thinking man was, like that image, roughly linear. A lower primate slowly evolved more and more intelligent descendants until, eventually, the first hominid (one of those figures standing somewhere between Bobo and Bob.) came to be. Roughly 2 million years ago, a fellow named Homo ergaster originated somewhere in northeast Africa. He used tools, lived in more or less complex social groups, and was considerably more sophisticated than its predecessor, Homo habilis, whose anatomy and behavior more closely resembled that of modern-day apes. On the evolutionary timeline, ergaster marks the most definitive spot at which the primitive brain functions which would lead to self-awareness and sapience first began to develop (note: human prehistory is really messy and there is at least one highly respected anthropologist who will disagree with even the most widely-held theories that I reference here. Feel free to ignore them.)  Homo ergaster lived for roughly half a million years before splitting up into Homo erectus (in Asia) and Homo antecessor (in Europe and the Middle East). Homo antecessor would then go on to produce Homo rhodensis (half a million years ago), Homo heidelbergensis (400,000 years ago), Homo neanderthalensis (350,000 years ago) and Homo sapiens (still here). This evolutionary path is still pretty linear, since a few hundred thousand years ago erectus and neanderthalensis died off, leaving human beings as the winning product of evolution’s greatest experiment.

No joke this time. Just a helpful diagram.

                Except for the case of Homo floresiensis. This hominid’s remains were found in southeast Asia back in 2004, and it is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, its skull looks a lot like a human’s. Secondly, it’s pretty small, with much of its anatomy very similar to that of the chimpanzee. Thirdly, this species very likely was walking around and using tools less than 15,000 years ago, right around the time that we as a species were slowly spreading over the entire world. This means that, in all probability, Homo sapiens could have encountered floresiensis in the wild. There is further evidence to support the notion that human beings also coexisted with the Neanderthals and perhaps even Homo erectus, at least briefly. Recent breakthroughs in technology along with new fossil finds are showing us a very different image of our evolutionary history, with diversity anywhere you look. In all likelihood, human beings, or at least their most direct and recent ancestors, coexisted with several other species of hominids, all of them using tools and walking upright.

Homo floresiensis? It's a pretty obscure anthropological find.
You've probably never heard of it.

                We are the only sentient species on the planet and by far the most intelligent. Behind us are the chimpanzee (fairly restricted to a small part of western Africa), and the dolphin (a marine mammal), neither of which come close to our intelligence or even the intelligence of the hominids with which we once shared the world. Why such a gap? Why so geographically far apart? The answer, of course, is that intelligence has its drawbacks on the evolutionary stage. While it greatly increases an animal’s fitness, intelligence also carries with it a certain role to play within an ecological niche. And where there is a specific role and a specific niche, there is competition. We have no competition with the dolphin and hominids left the chimpanzee’s habitat a long time ago, but a few hundred thousand years ago, when Homo sapiens was walking the plains amongst its semi-sentient cousins, competition almost certainly existed. In nature, competition is almost always indirect. Two species of birds which eat the same kind of seed will compete for seeds, but they’re not fully aware that they are competing. The bird’s only thought is “get more seeds;” it never considers the possibility that actively removing the competition will free up all the seeds. It’s not smart enough. Homo sapiens, we know, are smart enough.

"Those seeds are all mine now!"

                At some point in time, multiple hominid species coexisted with us, and there is evidence to support the notion that all of these species would have been capable of evolving into a more sophisticated and perhaps even sapient species. Some were smaller, others larger, and when compared to the human’s most recent ancestor, some may have been just as smart or even smarter. The details of those millennia are shaky, vague, and uncertain. What we know is that at one point they were all in the same place at the same time and then, sometime later, only we remained to inherit the earth. There are two possibilities for how this occurred. Option one: homo sapiens were the most fit out of all these species and were able to in all cases survive where others could not and natural selection alone killed off all other hominids. Option two: these species did not coexist peacefully, and the competition for niche and for resources eventually led to homo sapiens, in the course of their spread across the world, killing off other hominids. There is some evidence to support this: Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis both died off around the same time that Homo sapiens are predicted to have migrated to their respective areas. If this is true, then it is possible that we survived not because we were smarter or more fit, but because we were the most violent.

Option 3: Aliens.

                This is all speculation, of course. Even if such a pre-historical genocide had occurred, no record would exist and there would be virtually no way of proving it and if there were, I doubt we’d really want to know. However, there is something in our nature which is unusually aggressive towards our own kind, especially towards humans who look differently. Racial violence predates even language, and humans have been warring with each other for as long as we’ve been around. It would seem that we picked up our aggressive tendencies somewhere down the evolutionary line. In many ways, because humans have no natural predators, war between different groups of humans has acted as a major factor in determining which groups of human beings have survived. And while intelligence factors heavily in an individual’s ability to kill others of its kind, aggression, strength, and size are other heritable factors which contribute to this sort of survival. Humans have grown tremendously since the earliest fossils, the largest surviving to pass on their genes, while highly isolated groups such as the pygymys remain much smaller. Competition, war, drives our evolution now.

               

Another isolated group. Note the height.

          Our evolution was not linear. We were not the only human experiment. From the first hominids, a family tree grew and branched off. Not so long ago, all but one branch either died or was cut off. How we came to be the lucky ones to inherit the earth I do not know, but it probably was not through meekness. We are a species which, more so than any other, has the capacity and drive to expand its territory from an original location to the entire world in a very short period of time. We do not adapt, we alter. We do not compete, we eliminate. We do not survive, we dominate. This is our history and our present. The Homo sapiens of a hundred thousand years ago, not unlike the other hominids, were crude and savage. We have evolved since then, in ways nature does not select for. We have learned to think and to feel and to believe. In this, we are unique in all the world. And while our past may be dark or violent or troubled, we are our own selection now. We control our own evolution. Just as we invented war, we as a species are capable of ending it and driving ourselves forward, ever further from our primitive beginnings and towards our bright future.

Or, you know, we could do it tomorrow.

When Worlds Collide or: Why Xenogenetics is Terrifying

                Recently, I saw the film “The Green Lantern” in theaters. For those of you who don’t know, the Green Lantern is a DC Comics franchise. The story revolves around a large intergalactic peacekeeping force known as the Green Lantern Corps. The Green Lanterns come from all over the universe and are made up of thousands of different alien races. All of them, though, wear the green power ring of willpower which they can use to materialize anything they can imagine, from brick walls to hamburgers. The plot of the film involves one of these Green Lanterns, Abin Sur, who crash-lands on earth and gives his ring to a human named Hal Jordan, who spends the next couple of days being made fun of for being a human and then saving the entire universe. Also, he’s played by Ryan Reynolds.

Yummy.

                There is a scene in the film in which Dr. Hector Hammond (in the long-standing tradition of comic book character name alliteration) has the opportunity to examine the dead body of the alien who crash landed earlier on. Hammond (played by Peter Sarsgaard) remarks at the end as to how remarkable it is that the alien would be humanoid, which he attributes either to convergent evolution or a common ancestor. Later on his head swells up, he develops psychic powers, and he threatens the life of Blake Lively, but his point remains very interesting.

Oh, Blake. Who'd ever want to hurt you?

                The possibility of extraterrestrial life has captivated mankind for centuries. With billions of trillions of planets in the universe, the probability that life exists solely on Earth is impossibly small.  Chances are, life exists elsewhere in the universe; probably a lot of elsewheres. Life from planet to planet could be billions of years apart in their own evolutionary paths (assuming that anywhere that life exists in competition would also foster evolution) and could on some planets be as primitive as bacteria or so advanced that we seem like bacteria to them. More important, though, than how advanced extraterrestrial life is, is what it is made of, and what it might look like.

My guess.

                Before we look into alien life, however, let’s take a look at how we came to be the way we are. The history of life on Earth is probably about as old as the Earth itself (4.5 Billion Years old, next month). The first fossilized bacteria are about 3 Billion years old, and there’s geochemical evidence to support the presence of life as far back as 3.8 Billion years ago. Before then, there’s a really big grey area where a bunch of rocks and water suddenly produced the first organism, the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA, to his friends). How this happened is up for debate, with the most predominant theories all having really cool names. The first major theory is the RNA World theory, which sadly does not refer to a molecular biology-themed amusement park but rather to a “pre-life” world in which RNA ruled supreme. The notion is that water, ultraviolent light, and the various compounds making up earth’s crust were enough to produce a few ancestral strands of RNA, which has the ability not only to contain genetic information and replicate, but also to act as a ribozyme, a protein-like molecule which can metabolize other compounds. These are both roles which RNA fulfills today in one form or another (mRNA molecules contain genetic information which is decoded by ribosomes which are essentially giant ribozymes which make all the proteins necessary for life). With enough active RNA, larger and larger ribozymes could be formed and DNA, the much more stable genetic molecule could evolve to take over and eventually give way to cellular life. Some scientists believe that this process was only possible under primordial conditions while others believe that it continues today. Of course, any pre-RNA which would arise today would be eaten by something almost immediately, which makes it a tricky theory to test.

Mmm Mmm Good.

                The second major theory is that life did not originate here at all, and that the planet was early-on contaminated by microorganisms, either by alien visitors (who I suppose sneezed or something) or by a meteor. There is some evidence to support this, as nucleotides (the parts of DNA that store the genetic information) have been found inside meteorites. Now, you might be asking yourself where these microorganisms might have originated from. Well, the scientific community reckons that it had to originate someplace and that it probably did so by something close to the RNA World theory. Return to Dr. Hammond and the purple alien who gave Van Wilder the magic ring. If in fact DNA came to this planet from someplace else, then life that evolved on that planet would have a very similar starting point to us. DNA survives best under some very precise conditions (temperature, pH, biochemical environment, etc.) and if extraterrestrial DNA-based life was going to survive, it would have to do so in an environment which is at least somewhat similar to ours. Given the same primordial matter under similar conditions, it is entirely possible that alien life would evolve along similar a similar path as life here did. Would this result in a purple humanoid? Perhaps, though factors such as ocean coverage, temperature, amount of sunlight, and gravity might make them look a little bit less like Temuera Morrison in a costume.

Just a simple alien trying to make his way in the universe.

                Another point that Dr. Hammond brings up is the possibility of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is the process by which organisms take two separate paths but end up at the same place. Take the mangrove for example. The mangrove is a type of tree which is able to grow in salt water (which most plants dislike). While there are several different species of mangrove tree, many of them are only very distantly related. This is because different kinds of trees eventually evolved a similar system of salt tolerance, which results in unrelated mangroves looked very, very similar. The notion brought up in The Green Lantern stipulates that, in a situation in which life on two different plants evolved completely separate from one another, evolution would end up producing very similar end-products (in this case, sentient humanoids with thumbs). The idea behind this is that something about a particular physiology (in this case, sentient humanoids with thumbs) is so effective at survival that it would naturally predominate in any competitive environment, in much the same way that the sphere (being the shape with the highest volume-to-surface area ratio) is the preferred shape of planets, suns, and bubbles. It just works. This theory holds up particularly well if DNA would originate as the genetic information molecule on other planets as well.

Note: not all organisms with thumbs are necessarily sentient.

                The chances of DNA, an incredibly complex molecule, originating on two separate planets are actually pretty slim. It’s possible that life only works with DNA (we certainly have never found a living thing that didn’t have or depend on DNA for survival), and that only planets which evolve DNA are capable of supporting life. It is also possible, however, that any number of other molecules could serve as carriers of genetic information. For example, our DNA is carbon-based. Carbon is electronically similar to Silicon, which forms similar structures with oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. On, say, a highly volcanic planet with an average temperature of 1000 °C, a silicon-based molecule might fare much better than DNA, and give rise to a variety of silicon-based life forms. Even if we stick with carbon, there are many ways of diverging from our own DNA. Earth DNA consists of four nucelotides, but there’s no reason why alien DNA couldn’t use six or eight or even use a completely different four. It’s also completely possible that any number of other completely foreign molecules could serve a similar purpose as our own DNA. The implications of this are mind-boggling. Evolution could occur by completely different mechanisms. Cells could potentially evolve quickly within organisms rather than slowly from generation to generation. Any number of scenarios are possible.

On Candyplanet, the DNA is made from candy.

                Return to Ryan Reynolds at the alien crash site. Let’s say that whatever landed there, while friendly, is based on a completely different genetic system. And let’s say that the molecules as a result of that system are highly toxic to DNA-based life (DNA is kind of fragile, and the only reason why it isn’t destroyed by proteins is because evolution does not favor such a suicidal system). When Ryan gets to close and Abin Sur breathes on him it could result in a quick, horrifying, and generally painful genetic breakdown of Ryan Reynolds’ entire self. And who’s to say that whatever microbes kill him don’t consume his organic matter, multiply, and kill off the rest of the planet, too? Granted, this sounds extreme, but an organism’s molecular genetics is responsible for every protein and chemical in the body. Everything on Earth uses DNA and so we all have similar biochemistry. Mix that with a completely different system, and there’s bound to be some sort of adverse reaction. Suffice it to say, if we ever do encounter alien life, it’s as likely to kill us by breathing on us as it is by shooting us with ray guns. If this makes you sad or scared about the future of our species in the vast and lonely universe, here’s a photo of Ryan Reynolds to cheer you up.

Still Yummy.

Our Friendly Neighborhood Overlords or: It’s a Small World, After All

                In 1870, John D. Rockefeller and a few of his closest friends founded a company called Standard Oil. By 1872, this company had more or less destroyed the competition in Ohio as well as in most of the Northeastern United States. However, at the time, State laws had been put into place to prevent companies from becoming too large, as this was seen to stifle competition and could lead to unfair business practices should a single company establish a monopoly. Of course, anybody who could form a monopoly on a product as necessary as oil would undoubtedly become fabulously wealthy, an idea which seems to have appealed to Mr. Rockefeller. So, for the next several years, the founders ran their separate companies (which at this time were technically only in partnership, despite the fact that they shared shares) until, in 1882, they combined all the companies together and secretly gave all the shares to nine Trustees (including Rockefeller and his brother) who effectively controlled the vast majority of oil in the United States by buying up or shutting down the competition. The loophole worked so well that it was copied by several other industries, including United States Steel, who became even larger.

John D. Rockefeller, circa 1900.

Around the turn of the century, Rockefeller retired and kept all of his shares and in 1911, the United States sued Standard Oil for having violated the Sherman Act (which was pretty much written so that the United States could sue companies like Standard Oil) and won. As a result, Standard Oil was forced to split up into 34 separate companies, effectively killing the monopoly on oil in the United States (They tried this with US Steel, too, but they failed). The largest of these eventually grew up to become Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Amoco. Exxon and Mobil merged in 1999, and Amoco turned into BP. If those names sound familiar, it’s probably because ExxonMobil and Chevron are the 2^nd and 3^rd largest companies in the United States and BP is the 4^th largest company in the world. Luckily, though, antitrust laws and international cooperation helps to keep these mega-corporations in check and separate. Only, you know, not really. Chevron and BP share several thousands of miles of pipeline and members of the ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips (the 4^th largest company in the US) boards of directors all sat on the board of the Peterson Institute forInternational Economics (a think-tank which researches ways of fostering massive international business ventures by looking at new strategies and ways around potential obstacles including US law). 

Above: The weekly meeting.

And if you think that is scary, you don’t even want to hear about where your sunglasses came from. Among the top brands of sunglasses are such well-known names as Oakley, Ray-Ban, Vogue, and Persol, as well as those from designer labels like Chanel, D&G, DKNY, Ralph Lauren, Prada, Tiffany, and Versace. For those of us who don’t want anything too fancy, we shop at standard retailers such as Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and Pearle Vision. Or, if you’re really cheap like me, you just pick up a pair at Sears or Target. Whatever your choice, it doesn’t really matter. Every pair of sunglasses from every name I just mentioned (and dozens more around the world) is made by one single company: Luxottica. These guys completely dominate the sunglasses market; making, distributing, licensing and selling the vast, vast majority of the sunglasses in the world, including generics. By licensing around half of their brands from designers and other companies, Luxottica avoids prosecution, while still making and selling the sunglasses at prices ranging from $2 to $500 apiece for frames and lenses made in the same facilities. 

Yup, those are Luxottica, alright.
You can tell because they're sunglasses.

And if you think that is scary, you don’t even want to hear about where your corn comes from. And if you say the answer is “seeds,” well, you’d be right. Corn does come from seeds and for centuries farmers would collect the seeds from the corn which survived the weather and the pests and plant those the next year, ensuring an even healthier and more prosperous harvest the next year. This worked well for the bulk of human history. So well, in fact, that today, corn can be found in an incredibly wide range of products, including breakfast cereals, soda, chips, margarine, ketchup, chewing gum, beer, toothpaste, wallpaper, cardboard, spark plugs, shoe polish, ink, whiskey, fuel, and even diapers, among many, many more. It’s a product that, thanks to massive government subsidies, is one of the most important and valuable commodities in the world. 

Soylent Green: now made from Corn.

Another interesting point is that corn is actually used in the production of a weed-killer known as Roundup, which is actually sprayed on, you guessed it, corn. Roundup was introduced by a biotech company called Monsanto in the 70’s and by 1980 it was (and remains) the top-selling herbicide in the world. This is because Roundup is really, really good at killing plants including, you guessed it, corn. Now, normally, something like that would be the hallmark of a poor business strategy, but the folks at Monsanto are also the developers and patent-holders on a genetically-modified corn seed which is immune to Roundup, meaning that farmers who use this seed in conjunction with Roundup will have highly abundant and healthy crops year after year. So healthy and abundant, in fact, that farmers who don’t use Monsanto’s products can’t compete with farmers who do. So many farmers use Monsanto’s products that 80% of all corn in the United States is patented by Monsanto. And because the seeds are patented, farmers are legally not allowed to collect the seeds and re-plant them each year. They have to buy from Monsanto and if by accident some seeds should fall off and sprout the next year, farmers can be sued for pretty much the whole farm.  Heck, if their seed blows onto somebody else’s farm, they can sue them. That means that literally 25% of every product at the grocery store (and a whole lot of products in a whole lot of other stores) is at least partially controlled by a single, massive corporation. So what else is new?

And every month, they send this guy to punch farmers in the face.

                Anti-trust laws were written at a time in history when the Industrial Revolution made it possible for single companies to control, under the right circumstances, entire markets. In the name of capitalism, the free market, and the American way, politicians spent decades fighting large companies in order to protect smaller ones. And it’s worked. A surprisingly low number of mega-conglomerates are found guilty of or even tried for breaking competition law. But that’s not because they’re behaving any better, it’s because, like these companies here and many more, they’ve found loopholes in the system along the way. But what should really scare you is the fact that these corporations no longer need to find loopholes. Consider the case of Microsoft, which was sued in 1999 for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act (which it won in an appeal). James Cash Jr. is a member of the Microsoft Board of directors. He also sits on the Board for Wal-Mart (The largest company in the world). Also on this board are Steven Reinemund (Pepsico, ExxonMobil, American Express) and James Breyer, who sits on the board for Dell Inc. Also running Dell are William Gray (Pfizer, Jp Morgan Chase, Prudential Financial), Michael Miles (American Airlines, Time Warner) and Alan G Lafley (Procter and Gamble) and Sam Nunn (The Coca-Cola Company, Chevron). Mr. Lafley and Mr. Nunn also sit on the board for General Electric alongside their good friend, none other than James Cash Jr. These are all massive corporations which dominate their respective markets, and they’re all being run by a mostly anonymous superclass of high-powered individuals who sit on multiple boards and exert incredible influence. Many of these people, like former US Senator Sam Nunn, are in politics and go back several administrations. Many of them are in academia, the deans of some of the nation’s most prestigious schools of business and economics. These are the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the world and they’re the ones running the show. 

Me doing research for this post.

                What does this mean for us? Well, on the one hand, it means that the future is bright for mega-corporations. They already exert the influence of small nations and don’t have to play by the same rules. The future will very likely be full of even larger corporations which will mean more corruption, more unfair treatment of consumers and laborers, and the like. On the other hand, it means security. The fact is, many of the smaller companies that have come out in the past few decades have only been successful because they’ve been able to make use of the resources from larger companies (getting their products sold by Wal-Mart, using cheap corn, taking out risky loans from financial firms). These companies also drive the massive world economy which, while not too hot at the moment, is responsible for providing us with the high standard of living we’ve grown accustomed to. On the other other hand, several of the world’s largest corporations in the financial district (like Fannie Mae, Goldman Sachs, etc.) are responsible for such NON-secure things as the worldwide economic crisis.

"Did I do that?" ~ Fannie Mae CEO

                What can we do? We can buy local, reducing shipping costs which propel energy companies to seven of the ten biggest companies in the world. We can support small businesses, which will help foster competition and keep people like the farmers who refuse to use Monsanto seeds in business. We can stay informed, and learn where our products are coming from before we make our decisions about where to buy, who to vote for, or which university studies to consider. Above all, we can try really, really, really hard to get into that superclass because, frankly, it sounds pretty sweet. 

*Sigh*