Morgan Freeman narrates that growing up in extreme poverty slows the growth of the hippocampus which is important for learning and memory.
Thanks for watching. Follow for more videos.
#cosmosspacescience
#throughthewormhole
#season5
#episode3
#cosmology
#astronomy
#spacetime
#spacescience
#space
#nasa
#spacedocumentary
#morganfreeman
#poverty
#genetic
#dailymotion
Thanks for watching. Follow for more videos.
#cosmosspacescience
#throughthewormhole
#season5
#episode3
#cosmology
#astronomy
#spacetime
#spacescience
#space
#nasa
#spacedocumentary
#morganfreeman
#poverty
#genetic
#dailymotion
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:01Are the wealthy just born in the right place at the right time?
00:05Or are the poor victims of a system designed to keep them down?
00:11Perhaps physics and biology determine who is rich and who is poor.
00:18Many hope to erase the divide between the haves and the have-nots.
00:23But what if nature demands winners and losers in life?
00:27Could poverty be genetic?
00:36Space. Time. Life itself.
00:43The secrets of the cosmos lie through the wormhole.
00:57Pharoahs, kings, great industrialists, and CEOs.
01:06Throughout history, a select few have claimed enormous wealth as a birthright.
01:13Some of them say they also inherit qualities and virtues that keep them rich.
01:18Could the chasm that separates rich and poor really be the result of our DNA?
01:25Scientists are trying to discover if there is a biological reason the rich stay rich.
01:31And whether equality and prosperity for all contradict the laws of nature.
01:37Where I grew up, nobody had much money.
01:44Nobody we knew, anyhow.
01:46Rich people were out there somewhere, but to us, they may as well have been Martians.
01:52Money was so scarce that I went around the neighborhood collecting bottles.
01:57I traded them in when I had enough to get into the movies.
02:00Now, of course, things are different for me.
02:04I'm in the movies.
02:06Money isn't much of a worry.
02:09My experience shows that being born poor is not necessarily a life sentence.
02:17But for billions of people around the world, poverty passes from generation to generation without end.
02:23And for as long as we've known about genetics, scientists have been wondering if there is a connection between our money and our genes.
02:41Genes are pieces of code that tell your body how to function.
02:46There are about 25,000 genes in human DNA.
02:50How do they affect our personalities?
02:54These are questions University of Virginia professor Eric Turkheimer has been asking for 20 years.
03:02Eric studies the genetics of complex human behavior.
03:07One way you can think about the role that individual genes play in the creation of complex genetic effects
03:14is that it's like the role that an individual thread might play in the creation of a complex tapestry.
03:21Couldn't really understand the role of each thread one at a time separate from the others.
03:26You have to know how each thread fits into the warp and woof of the fabric
03:30and how they all work together to create the pattern.
03:34Well, with genes, it's the same way.
03:36These are the genetic interactions within just one of your 23 pairs of chromosomes.
03:47It's a highly interconnected, highly complex web of genetic factors.
03:51After the human genome was decoded in 2001,
03:58studies emerged claiming to find links between individual genes
04:02and characteristics like common sense, ambition, and perseverance.
04:09Some imagined we might soon be able to identify who is born to prosper
04:14and who is born to fail.
04:17This has frightening implications.
04:19Imagine banks demanding saliva tests before granting loans.
04:26Custody battles decided by which parent has better financial genes.
04:31Or entire races labeled as credit risks.
04:35But a decade later,
04:37the vast majority of these one gene, one trait studies have been proven wrong.
04:44I think if you had asked me 20 years ago,
04:46are we going to know what the genes for human personality are in 20 years,
04:52I think I would have said,
04:53yeah, sure, we'll know, we'll know something.
04:56It's turning out that the way genetics works is more complicated in a way
05:00that doesn't allow us to identify the effects of individual genes.
05:05So, Eric has a new approach,
05:07using statistical software to analyze the vast body of data collected around the world on twins.
05:17Are you shaped by your genes or by your environment?
05:21It's the problem that always gets in the way of studies on how genes are connected to complex traits.
05:28But twins offer a way to separate the effects of nature and nurture.
05:36Identical twins share virtually 100% of their genetic material.
05:41Fraternal twins share 50% of their genes.
05:46By comparing identical and fraternal twins,
05:48we were able to demonstrate in a general way
05:52that genes have effects on almost everything.
05:58Eric began looking at very large samples of twins from all around the U.S.,
06:03from all socioeconomic groups.
06:07He used IQ as a predictor of future wealth of a child.
06:10A link most studies find to be very strong.
06:15What we found was quite surprising.
06:17Children raised in poverty,
06:20their home environment was by far the most important factor.
06:25Their genes seemed to play almost no role at all.
06:28If a child with genes predisposing him or her to be a financial wizard
06:33is raised in an extremely harsh environment,
06:36that exceptional DNA may not shine through.
06:41And then as you moved from kids raised in those really terrible circumstances
06:46up to kids raised in the middle class,
06:49the role of genes became more and more and more important.
06:53And once you got to the middle class or better, genes took over.
06:57And by the time you got to the wealthiest people in the study,
07:01genes were making all the difference.
07:06Genes do have important effects on how rich or poor children will be when they grow up.
07:11But it's an effect that is only visible when kids grow up outside of poverty.
07:19To some extent, it's probably true that people who wind up living in poverty
07:25have some kind of genetic difference from people who wind up making a lot of money.
07:30I think what our work has shown is that it doesn't matter what kind of genetic tendencies
07:35some of these kids may have had.
07:37If they're raised in a bad enough environment,
07:39they're not going to be able to express them.
07:42The tapestry of genes that make up you as an adult
07:45are shaped by the fabric of DNA you were born with
07:48and by the environment you grew up in.
07:52How can we overcome the kinds that nature and nurture dealt us in the womb and the crib?
08:02A new study suggests our economic destiny may be determined by the time we are 12
08:08because poverty can affect the brain.
08:13Martha Farah is the founder and director of the Center for Neuroscience and Society
08:17at the University of Pennsylvania.
08:19She has often wondered why do poor children perform worse on IQ tests and in school?
08:28Many different disciplines have tried to understand how it is that poverty shapes people's life chances.
08:38My colleagues and I are taking a neurobiological approach to this question.
08:44Over the past few years,
08:46Martha and her colleagues have scanned the brain architecture of hundreds of children
08:51from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds.
08:56She has found there are physical differences between the brains of the rich and the poor.
09:03The question we asked was,
09:05what parts of the brain are dependent on that socioeconomic status
09:11for the size and shape that they eventually grow to?
09:16What we found is that several important areas do show an effect of socioeconomic status.
09:23Growing up in extreme poverty slows the growth of the hippocampus,
09:29which is important for learning, memory, and stress regulation.
09:33And it also shrinks the prefrontal cortex,
09:37which helps coordinate memory, perception, and motor control.
09:42Rich kids tend to have a thicker cortex than poor kids.
09:47But it is crucial to note the rich and poor aren't born with these differences.
09:53The brains of the poor start off the same as anyone else's.
09:56Their brains are, however, at greater risk of developing slowly in early childhood.
10:03It is not genetics that does the damage.
10:06It is lack of mental stimulation and the stresses of poverty.
10:13One difference we know exists between the childhood experiences of poor kids and wealthier kids
10:20is that the wealthier kids get more cognitive stimulation.
10:26Everything from being read to, just being talked to, conversation,
10:33visits to interesting places.
10:36And we know that that promotes cognitive and brain development.
10:42But other forces can determine who is rich and who is poor.
10:46Forces that govern not just individuals, but entire nations.
10:50Today's rich man may be tomorrow's pauper.
10:55Because wealth is often a matter of geography.
11:02Two millennia ago, if you wanted to get rich, you'd head for Rome.
11:09For the past century, you came to America.
11:14Now, you might want to head for China.
11:17Why are certain places bursting with money at certain times?
11:24Why are some nations poorer than others?
11:29Two scientists have a radical explanation.
11:33Economies buzz because of the genetic mix of the people in them.
11:39These Ivy League economists may not look dangerous,
11:45but to the academic world, they are wild-eyed anarchists.
11:51A few years ago,
11:53Kamrul Ashraf of Williams College
11:56and Oded Galoa of Brown University
11:58were looking to explain the disparity of wealth between nations.
12:02Their findings set off a raging debate about the roots of poverty.
12:09As economists, we are ultimately interested in understanding
12:12the origins of global inequality.
12:16Those origins lie in the distant past.
12:19Oded and Kamrul set out to study the role genetic diversity
12:27has played in wealth distribution around the globe.
12:30They reached a surprising and unpopular conclusion.
12:35You know, Oded and I established that there is a causal effect
12:39of genetic diversity on economic development
12:42that goes back to the distant past
12:45and persists to the present day.
12:48Initial conditions tend to be very persistent.
12:51These variations in conditions that go back, you know,
12:5480,000 to 40,000 years ago
12:57show up in the data today, and they're there.
13:01Evolutionary biologists find
13:03the farther an indigenous group is from Africa
13:06the less diverse it is genetically.
13:10Africans are the most genetically diverse
13:13because all the various peoples of the world originated there.
13:19The smaller groups that left Africa
13:20to settle in more distant lands are less diverse.
13:25Oded and Kamrul traced this genetic effect
13:28across 80,000 years.
13:30Then they compared it to markers of economic development
13:33over the last 2,000 years.
13:36The genetic diversity is responsible
13:38for about one-sixth of the variations
13:41or the inequality that we see across the globe,
13:44which is a huge fraction.
13:45It's remarkable.
13:47The economists found that too much
13:50or too little genetic diversity
13:52can be harmful to economic development.
13:56Throughout history, they claim,
13:58successful societies have been the ones
14:00that hit the sweet spot of genetic diversity.
14:03In baseball, the sweet spot of the bat
14:11is about six inches from the end of the barrel.
14:14This is where the performance of the bat is maximized
14:17and the hand sensation, or sting, is minimized.
14:21It is the spot where the bat is just right.
14:25There is a sweet spot.
14:27The sweet spot at the moment
14:28is associated with the level of diversity in the United States.
14:33It's societies that are more diverse,
14:35are more able to cope
14:38with this rapidly changing technological environment,
14:41and the degree of diversity
14:42is generating benefits in the context of innovations.
14:48But this is where it gets controversial.
14:51Because if there is a perfect amount of genetic diversity,
14:56that means there are also
14:58less optimal mixtures of humanity.
15:02Oden and Kamru found that
15:03societies lacking genetic diversity
15:06tend not to be innovative.
15:10On the cost side,
15:11societies that tend to be more diverse
15:13are less trustful,
15:16less cohesive,
15:17less coordinated.
15:18An overly diverse country,
15:21by this analysis,
15:22is the Congo,
15:23where ethnic groups have been dividing
15:25for over 50,000 years.
15:28Now, it's mired in civil war.
15:31On the other hand,
15:32a country like Poland isn't diverse enough.
15:36It has only been inhabited for about 5,000 years,
15:39so it is very coherent ethnically,
15:42but it is not a powerhouse of innovation.
15:44Odin and Kamru say a blend somewhere in the middle
15:50lets new voices emerge,
15:52promotes innovation,
15:54and leads to economic health.
15:59But some anthropologists say
16:01the economists are wrong.
16:04There is no sweet spot.
16:06They also charge that Odin and Kamru's work
16:09could be used to justify discrimination
16:11or even genocide
16:13to reduce diversity
16:15in the name of economic progress.
16:17The professors say
16:19their work has been misunderstood
16:21because an appreciation of diversity
16:24can overcome its drawbacks.
16:27We can assure that societies
16:29that are overly diverse,
16:31such as the societies in Africa,
16:33can benefit from their level of diversity
16:36simply by assuring that, in fact,
16:39diversity is cherished,
16:40diversity is respected,
16:42and ethnic groups are being protected.
16:45We're not saying that
16:46there are some traits
16:47that are better than others
16:48for, you know, economic prosperity,
16:51both at the individual level
16:52or at the societal level.
16:53What we're saying is it's the mix.
16:56It appears that since human civilization began,
17:00some have always had more than others,
17:03be it individuals or nations.
17:04Wealth and power may change hands,
17:08but the difference remains.
17:10Can this be changed?
17:12Can we create a society
17:14in which there is wealth for everyone
17:16and not just a few?
17:18According to this man,
17:20the odds may be stacked against us.
17:23Poverty may be an inevitable outcome
17:25of the laws of physics.
17:28In the 19th century,
17:35physicists developed mathematics
17:37that could predict
17:38the seemingly random movements
17:40of gas molecules.
17:45Today,
17:46Wall Street is full of physicists
17:49trying to find similar equations
17:51to predict the movement of money.
17:55They haven't been very successful,
17:58but that could be because
18:00they're overlooking one crucial factor.
18:04The rich don't play by the same rules
18:06as everyone else.
18:07Victor Yakovenko is looking for the causes
18:14of income disparity.
18:17A professor at the University of Maryland,
18:20Victor helped create econophysics.
18:23He uses the science of thermodynamics
18:26to study markets, capital, and earning power.
18:31Victor has found there are really two economies,
18:34one for the rich,
18:36and one for everyone else.
18:39My message is,
18:39there's no such thing as middle class.
18:41Because if I wanted to draw a boundary
18:43defining middle class,
18:44I don't know where to put it.
18:45Data has no features, no structures.
18:47Data shows me that there are only two classes,
18:49lower class and upper class, that's it.
18:52Victor's data shows 97% of the population
18:55is in the lower class,
18:57and 3% is in the upper class.
19:00For example,
19:01today there are about
19:031,500 multi-billionaires in the world
19:06and 2 billion people
19:08who live on less than $2 a day.
19:11Of the 311 million people in America,
19:15the 9 million at the top
19:17have most of the money.
19:19In this world,
19:21we put 100 gold bars
19:22to illustrate probability distribution
19:25of income and wealth
19:27in the American economy.
19:28So, here we have different levels.
19:32Poor people with low income
19:33and then progressively higher income.
19:35These three shelves
19:36represent 50% of the population,
19:39a half of the population.
19:40And what is total income
19:41of the half of the population?
19:43If you count these bars,
19:44it's only 10 bars out of 100.
19:46In other words,
19:47the lower 50% of population
19:49receives only 10% of total income
19:52in the system.
19:53That's income inequality.
19:54This imbalance between the haves
19:58and have-nots,
19:59though dramatic,
20:01is not unique to the U.S.
20:04Pretty much any society
20:05has inequality.
20:06A few rich people,
20:07many poor people.
20:08And it's a persistent feature
20:10of pretty much all societies.
20:12And so I said,
20:13maybe there is some kind
20:14of depresion for this.
20:15And maybe we can understand
20:17it by analogy with physics.
20:18Victor took concepts from physics,
20:22such as the behavior of molecules,
20:24and applied them to financial data.
20:27He discovered that in virtually
20:29all countries,
20:31there is the economy of the rich
20:33and a very different economy
20:35for everyone else.
20:37In America,
20:38the 3% with incomes
20:40greater than $150,000 a year
20:42might as well live
20:44in a different reality
20:45than the less well-off 97%.
20:47Victor calls them
20:50the thermal
20:50and the superthermal economies.
20:53Each behaves in ways
20:54physicists find eerily familiar.
20:58Consider this pot of boiling water.
21:01The water molecules in the pot
21:02jiggle around
21:03and bump into each other
21:05with no apparent order.
21:06But these random movements
21:08actually fit a pattern
21:09called a Boltzmann distribution.
21:12It describes how energy
21:13is spread between particles
21:15when they achieve thermal equilibrium.
21:16So we see this distribution
21:18in physics
21:19when atoms collide
21:21and redistribute energy.
21:22But we also see
21:23the same distribution
21:24in distribution of money.
21:27Strangely enough,
21:28this is how money
21:29is scattered across
21:3097% of the population.
21:33Even if everyone starts out
21:34with equal amounts of cash,
21:36over time,
21:37the money spreads out
21:39in a Boltzmann distribution.
21:41There will be lots of people
21:42in the middle
21:43and fewer
21:44who are very poor
21:45or relatively wealthy.
21:48But for the 3% at the top,
21:50it's a very different story.
21:53The thermal economy
21:54gives way to what Victor calls
21:56the superthermal economy.
21:59The superthermal economy
22:00is like the high-energy molecules
22:02that break free of boiling water
22:04and escape as steam.
22:06Molecules of water,
22:09they have certain temperature.
22:10So the vapor here
22:11would be the analog
22:13of the upper class
22:14because these are the molecules
22:15with the highest possible energy.
22:17These high-energy molecules
22:18no longer follow
22:20a Boltzmann distribution.
22:21Instead,
22:23they are governed
22:23by a power law,
22:26a distribution
22:27that has no upper limit.
22:29So why are there
22:33two economies
22:34with two sets of rules?
22:37The 97% of the population
22:39in the lower classes
22:40live off the money
22:42from their paycheck.
22:43Meanwhile,
22:44the upper class
22:45invests its money
22:47in financial markets
22:48and property.
22:50Unlike people living
22:51on a fixed wage,
22:52the rich have their money
22:54in a part of the economy
22:55that has no limits.
22:57Like steam,
22:57it has escaped
22:59the boundaries
22:59of the pot.
23:01The pattern stretches
23:03across history
23:04from ancient Egypt
23:05to today.
23:07No matter how equal
23:08a nation starts,
23:10this pattern
23:11seems to take over.
23:13Take Israel.
23:15When formed in 1948,
23:18Israel was a highly
23:19egalitarian country
23:20with a socialist bent.
23:23By design,
23:24people had more or less
23:25the same income.
23:27But Israel's income
23:29distribution slowly
23:30broadened.
23:32And by 1990,
23:34it too had reached
23:35the shape
23:35of a thermal economy.
23:38So in 40 years or so,
23:40it evolved
23:41from highly equal distribution
23:42to this broad
23:43unequal distribution.
23:44And after that,
23:45I believe,
23:46it developed
23:46upper class,
23:48this super thermal tail,
23:49even higher inequality.
23:51Equality,
23:52perfect equality,
23:53it's totally unstable.
23:54Okay, once you get
23:56into any transaction,
23:57equality goes away.
23:59The super rich
24:00operate by their own
24:02separate physical laws.
24:05But they have to live
24:07on the same planet
24:08as the poor.
24:11Biology could hold the key
24:13to our mutual survival.
24:20Charles Darwin
24:21saw life on Earth
24:23as a bitter struggle
24:24for survival.
24:27That seems like
24:27carte blanche
24:28for the rich
24:29to take what they want.
24:31Greed is king.
24:33But our understanding
24:35of evolution
24:35is evolving.
24:36Cooperation
24:39and community
24:40may be just as essential
24:42to our survival
24:43as selfishness.
24:50Tracy Minster
24:51studies the oldest
24:52communities on Earth,
24:54colonies of microbes.
24:58Working out of
24:59the Woods Hole
25:00Oceanographic Institute
25:01in Massachusetts,
25:03Tracy and his team
25:04of microbiologists
25:05traveled the world
25:06gathering exotic microorganisms.
25:10I feel like
25:11I'm really looking
25:12at some of the last
25:13wilderness left on Earth
25:14to explore
25:15because what we're seeing
25:17is wilderness
25:18in a tube.
25:20We're harvesting microbes
25:22from their wild sources
25:24and looking at
25:25how they're working.
25:28Single-celled organisms
25:30are everywhere.
25:32In the soil,
25:33in the trees,
25:35in our bodies.
25:35they were at the ground
25:37floor of evolution.
25:40But they are so tiny,
25:42millions can fit
25:43into the eye
25:44of a needle.
25:45Until recently,
25:46we could only see
25:47how these creatures
25:48functioned as a group.
25:50We couldn't see
25:50the molecular processes
25:52happening
25:52inside individual microbes.
25:55But that has all changed.
25:57It's a very exciting time
26:02right now
26:03because we can look
26:05at really big questions
26:07that were asked
26:0940 or 50 years ago
26:11in science,
26:12but were unanswerable
26:14because of the limitations
26:15in the technical tools.
26:18Now,
26:18with the revolution
26:19in genomics
26:20and sequencing
26:21and molecular biology
26:22and cloning,
26:23we can look
26:24at a single cell
26:25that's growing
26:26and see the signals
26:28that are being produced
26:29from it
26:30and understand
26:31what's happening
26:31at that single-cell level.
26:36One would expect microbes
26:38to be ruled
26:38by the most basic laws
26:40of nature,
26:41survival of the fittest,
26:43where every organism
26:44fights for itself.
26:46But Tracer has found
26:47that even these
26:48simple creatures
26:49are capable
26:50of cooperation.
26:51Tracy watches
26:54how different strains
26:55of marine bacteria
26:56defend themselves
26:58against predators.
27:00He places a strain
27:01of Vibrio odalei,
27:03a bacterium
27:04that causes disease
27:05in fish,
27:06in a petri dish.
27:08Then he adds
27:09brine shrimp,
27:11predators that like
27:12to munch on bacteria.
27:14In self-defense,
27:15some of the Vibrio bacteria
27:17begin to produce
27:18a toxin
27:19that kills
27:20the predatory brine.
27:21shrimp.
27:22This toxin does not
27:24kill Vibrio's
27:25closest relatives,
27:26the members of what
27:27biologists call
27:28its guild.
27:29What's striking
27:30is that they never
27:32killed within
27:33their own guild.
27:34They killed
27:35only outside.
27:37Even more surprisingly,
27:39the bacteria
27:40that make the antibiotics
27:41sacrifice themselves
27:43when they kill
27:43the brine shrimp.
27:45By taking one
27:46for the team,
27:47they protect
27:48the entire group.
27:50Down at the level
27:51of microbes,
27:52we see altruism,
27:54self-sacrifice
27:55for the good
27:56of the community.
27:58Altruism holds
28:00for microbes
28:01because of these
28:03guild-type structures
28:05where it really is
28:06for the betterment
28:07of the microbes
28:09to be able
28:10to sacrifice.
28:11So things aren't always
28:13fighting to the death
28:14at all times.
28:16It takes a group effort.
28:19For organisms
28:19to cooperate,
28:21they need to communicate,
28:23the way Trace's team
28:25works to gather samples.
28:27But how do creatures
28:30with no brains
28:31or vocal cords
28:32convey a message
28:33that causes them
28:34to act together?
28:39The answer
28:40is embedded
28:40in nature.
28:42There is a chemical
28:43form of communication
28:44we cannot see,
28:46but which is
28:47an essential part
28:48of life.
28:50The tree behind me
28:51has roots
28:52to get at
28:54elemental nutrients,
28:55and it has
28:56a giant trunk
28:58going up
28:59towards the light
29:00where this beautiful
29:01tree is
29:01harvesting light.
29:04Now, microbes
29:04have a real problem
29:05because they're
29:06really tiny.
29:08And for them
29:09to be able to connect
29:10to elemental nutrients
29:12that they need
29:13and be able
29:14to have an energy source,
29:15they have to work together.
29:17Unlike us,
29:18where we have sight
29:20and we talk
29:21and we can hear,
29:22microbes can't do
29:23any of that.
29:24they rely upon chemistry
29:26that they produce
29:28to be able
29:29to signal
29:30to one another.
29:31So they have to
29:32work with one another
29:33and coordinate
29:34with one another
29:35or fight others
29:38to keep others out.
29:42Individuals may be selfish,
29:43but even the simplest
29:45organisms
29:45seem programmed
29:46to put the survival
29:48of the species
29:49ahead of their own needs.
29:50But at what point
29:52in our evolutionary past
29:54did we move beyond
29:55expedient cooperation
29:57and develop
29:59a sense of fairness?
30:01It may be linked
30:02to the ability
30:03of primates
30:04to communicate
30:05sophisticated emotions.
30:09This woman has found
30:10that while inequality
30:12is part of our genetic roots,
30:14so is a strong desire
30:15for fairness.
30:20When a pride of lions
30:21makes a kill,
30:23the dominant male
30:24would take the lion's share.
30:28We accept this
30:29as nature's weight.
30:31But when we see
30:32the rich taking more
30:33than they need,
30:34we cry,
30:35not fair.
30:37This concept of fairness
30:39seems like just
30:39a modern human idea.
30:41But could it have been
30:43woven into us
30:44by evolution?
30:46Could other species
30:47have evolved
30:48to rage
30:49against inequity?
30:53Chimps share
30:5498.5%
30:56of their genes
30:57with humans.
30:58And like the division
30:59between the super-rich
31:00and everyone else
31:01in human society,
31:03chimp society
31:03is also
31:04unequally divided.
31:07A small group
31:08of alpha males
31:09cause the shocks
31:10and hoards the resources
31:12while the rest
31:13live off the leftovers.
31:16The chimp's lower
31:16in social rank
31:17are sicker,
31:18produce more stress hormones,
31:20and have trouble
31:21finding sexual partners.
31:24But according
31:24to evolutionary biologist
31:26Sarah Brosnan,
31:28chips don't blindly
31:29accept their lot in life.
31:32Sarah is the director
31:33of the Comparative Economics
31:35and Behavioral Studies Laboratory
31:37at Georgia State University.
31:39You need to go
31:40get your mom
31:41to come out here.
31:41She could use some grapes.
31:44She looks for the origins
31:45of human social behavior.
31:48I am interested
31:50in the evolution
31:50of decision making.
31:51How did we get
31:53to where we make
31:53the decisions that we do?
31:55And you can't obviously
31:56study fossilized decisions
31:57in most cases,
31:58so what we do
31:59is we study other primates
32:01because as we ourselves
32:02are primates,
32:03they're sort of
32:03the closest we can get
32:04to understanding
32:05the evolutionary history.
32:06Sarah is particularly
32:13interested in how
32:14our primate cousins
32:15respond to inequity.
32:18So inequality would be
32:20when individuals
32:21don't get exactly
32:22the same thing,
32:23whereas inequity would be
32:24when you get something
32:25that's not relative
32:26to the input.
32:27So unequal pay would be
32:29we don't get exactly
32:30the same amount.
32:32Inequitable pay would be
32:33that maybe you do
32:34a harder job than me
32:35but you're making
32:36the same salary as me.
32:39Today Sarah is conducting
32:40an experiment
32:41with capuching monkeys
32:42to see how they respond
32:44when one monkey
32:45gets a better reward
32:47than another.
32:49So what we do
32:51is we take two individuals
32:52from the same social group
32:53and they sit next
32:54to one another
32:54and they take turns
32:55doing a task
32:56and getting a food reward
32:57for it.
32:58So you can think of it
32:58as doing work
32:59and getting paid.
33:00At first both monkeys
33:02get bell peppers.
33:04There you go.
33:06Then one monkey
33:07is rewarded with grapes.
33:09Keep in mind
33:10they both like bell peppers
33:12but they like grapes
33:13even more.
33:16After seeing his partner
33:17perform the same trick
33:19but get a better reward
33:20this monkey loses his cool.
33:24He starts tossing
33:25his peppers on the floor.
33:26I was really surprised
33:29when we got individuals
33:31actively refusing
33:32food rewards.
33:33So that's like
33:33giving your dog
33:34a milk bone
33:35and having them
33:35turn it down
33:36because the dog
33:37down the street
33:37got a bigger milk bone.
33:39You just don't expect
33:40something like that
33:41to happen.
33:42Animals are willing
33:43to accept
33:44that a dominant male
33:45or female
33:45may get better food
33:47and a little more of it
33:48but Sarah's research
33:50shows there comes a point
33:52where they won't accept it
33:53and the animals in power
33:55seem to realize this.
33:58Some have even refused
34:00the grapes
34:00when they've seen
34:01their partner is upset.
34:03Just because you're
34:04the dominant individual
34:05typically an alpha male
34:06doesn't mean that you
34:08get anything you want
34:09so they typically
34:10have first access
34:11or they might have
34:12better access
34:12or be able to get
34:14the better rewards
34:14if they're limited
34:15but they can't just
34:17take what they want.
34:18For starters
34:19they need the other
34:19individuals in the group
34:20so they need to give
34:21the other individuals
34:22sufficient incentive
34:23to stay in the group.
34:27Sarah has found
34:28the alpha is less
34:29a dictator
34:29and more a leader
34:30of a coalition government.
34:33To keep his job
34:34he has to maintain
34:35the support of monkeys
34:37at all levels of society.
34:39He must observe
34:40social rules
34:41and one of the most
34:42deeply ingrained rules
34:44is to be fair
34:46to the other monkeys.
34:48Like other primates
34:49humans also accept
34:51a certain amount
34:51of inequality
34:52but most of us
34:54cannot abide
34:55in equity.
34:57So a human sense
34:59of fairness
34:59is more than just
35:00not liking
35:00when you get less
35:01than someone else.
35:02Really what we mean
35:03when we talk about
35:04a human sense of fairness
35:05is this almost
35:06moral obligation
35:07to treat people equally
35:08to have things
35:09work out equally.
35:10This may be
35:11the underlying
35:11driving force
35:12for the evolution
35:13of the sense of fairness.
35:14Maybe by having
35:15a sense of fairness
35:16it allows you
35:17to be a better judge
35:18of when you're
35:18with a good cooperative
35:19partner
35:19and when it's time
35:20to go find
35:21somebody else
35:21who might be better.
35:22the balance
35:24between selfishness
35:25and fairness
35:26keeps us moving forward
35:28as a society.
35:30But when individuals
35:31act with extreme selfishness
35:33their behavior
35:34can put many others
35:35at risk.
35:37They can lead
35:37to revolt.
35:39Both apes
35:40and humans
35:41will overthrow leaders
35:42who abuse their power.
35:43perhaps there's
35:46a gentler way
35:46in human societies
35:49a wealthy few
35:50may lord it over
35:51a vast lower class
35:52but the poor
35:54do have power.
35:56They can use
35:57the innate human instinct
35:58for fairness
35:59as a secret weapon.
36:04Unequal distribution
36:05of wealth
36:06is as old
36:07as history
36:08and so is
36:10resentment about it.
36:11the richest 85 people
36:14on this planet
36:15have as much money
36:17as the poorest
36:183.5 billion.
36:22How can we shrink
36:24the ever-widening divide
36:25between the haves
36:27and the have-nots?
36:29Jennifer Jackwitt
36:42is a clinical
36:43assistant professor
36:44of environmental studies
36:46at New York University.
36:48Lately she's been
36:49contemplating
36:50a phenomenon
36:50called
36:51the tragedy
36:52of the commons.
36:53It has its roots
36:55in mankind's
36:56agrarian past.
36:57The commons
36:59is a pasture
36:59where herdsmen
37:00can decide
37:01whether or not
37:01to graze their cattle.
37:03The benefits
37:03of adding a single cow
37:05are individualized
37:06but the costs
37:07of adding that cow
37:08are shared
37:09among all the herdsmen
37:11and this is
37:12the tragedy
37:12of the commons.
37:13The tension
37:14between the individual
37:15and the group
37:16and the real problem
37:17is that just one herdsman
37:19who decides
37:20to add too many cattle
37:21can ruin it
37:22for everybody else.
37:23The tragedy
37:26of the commons
37:28Jennifer says
37:29is now
37:30a global tragedy
37:31a tragedy
37:32that is being
37:33accelerated
37:34by the selfishness
37:35of the super rich.
37:38There's
37:39the global oceans
37:40there's the atmosphere
37:41there's the global forests
37:43there are migratory birds
37:45there are so many things
37:47that behave exactly
37:48like this common pasture.
37:50So we now live in a world
37:51in which a very small
37:53minority of people
37:54is capable of ruining it
37:56for everyone else.
37:57Typically
37:58society keeps citizens
38:00in line
38:01by the rule of law
38:02but around the world
38:04the extremely wealthy
38:05are often able
38:06to circumvent the law
38:08or have laws changed
38:10to suit them.
38:12So how do we stop
38:13these people
38:13from depleting
38:14our shared resources?
38:17Revolutions have been fought
38:18over such things.
38:20But Jennifer argues
38:21the only sensible recourse
38:24is shame.
38:26So when we talk
38:27about shame
38:27what we're actually
38:28talking about
38:28is a tool
38:29a type of punishment
38:30the threat
38:32of exposure
38:33this idea
38:34that we could
38:35show the crowd
38:36that you haven't been
38:37behaving
38:38like the rest
38:38of the group
38:39would like
38:39this is the type
38:40of shame I examine.
38:43Today
38:44Jennifer is running
38:45an experiment
38:46demonstrating
38:47the power
38:47of shame.
38:48it reveals
38:50the difference
38:50in people's behavior
38:51when their identities
38:53are hidden
38:54versus when their actions
38:56are exposed
38:57to the group.
38:58Each player
38:59is given the choice
39:00to contribute
39:01or not contribute
39:02to a common pool.
39:04Whatever money
39:05goes into
39:06the common pool
39:07is doubled
39:08and then redistribute it.
39:10If everybody
39:11puts in a dollar
39:12in each of ten rounds
39:14they all get
39:15twenty dollars back.
39:16That is
39:17if they all
39:18play fair.
39:20That almost is
39:21never the way
39:22the game is played.
39:23People often leave
39:24with far less
39:25than the socially
39:26optimal outcome
39:27and that's because
39:29certain individuals
39:30start pulling out
39:31and stop cooperating.
39:33Most contribute
39:34to the common pool
39:35except these players.
39:37They keep their ten dollars
39:39still take an equal share
39:41from the doubles
39:42communal pot.
39:43So they end up
39:45making more
39:46than their classmates
39:47and they get away
39:49with it
39:49because no one knows
39:51who is cheating.
39:52But now
39:54Jennifer runs
39:55the experiment again
39:56adding in
39:57the element of shame.
39:59At the end
39:59of the tenth round
40:00the real names
40:01of the two participants
40:02who donated least
40:04overall
40:04are revealed
40:05to the other players.
40:07The threat
40:07of being exposed
40:09changes the way
40:10people play.
40:12Now
40:12almost everyone
40:14puts in
40:15their fair share.
40:17So the threat
40:18of shame
40:19actually led
40:20to 50%
40:20more cooperation
40:22than the anonymous
40:23completely anonymous
40:24control.
40:27So
40:28what are the
40:29real world
40:29effects of this?
40:31So in 2008
40:32the United States
40:33government
40:33gave banks
40:34245 billion dollars
40:36in bailout money.
40:38Many of the banks
40:39decided to give bonuses
40:40that added up
40:40to 20 billion dollars.
40:43During that time
40:44President Obama
40:45called those bonuses
40:46shameful
40:47and that's in part
40:48because there was
40:48no formal mechanism
40:50in which to
40:51punish the banks
40:53for having done that.
40:54So he sort of
40:54called on the crowd
40:56to come in
40:56and say
40:57this is not
40:58appropriate behavior.
41:00Many bankers
41:00didn't see it that way.
41:02They saw it
41:03as perfectly
41:03normal behavior.
41:06Shameful behavior
41:07is in the eye
41:08of the beholder.
41:10Most of the super-rich
41:11would argue
41:11they are not breaking
41:13any social rules.
41:14In fact
41:14their investments
41:16create jobs
41:17and make the entire
41:18economy thrive
41:19and grow.
41:21But there will always
41:22be a few people
41:23at any income level
41:24who are willing
41:25to cheat
41:25to make a profit.
41:28When those people
41:29are called out
41:30by name
41:31in front of a crowd
41:32shame can't be effective.
41:35California
41:36has started listing
41:37the names
41:37of the state's
41:38top 500 tax delinquents
41:40online
41:41using shame
41:43to coerce them
41:44to pay their fair share.
41:47But is the power
41:49of shame
41:49enough to close
41:50the gap
41:51between rich and poor?
41:53There are no
41:54simple solutions
41:54of course.
41:55These problems
41:56are gigantic
41:57and difficult.
41:59Shame is relatively
42:00cheap
42:00in terms of punishment
42:02and relatively
42:03ineffective.
42:05But sometimes
42:05it's all we have.
42:11I am living
42:12proof
42:13that poverty
42:14is not genetic.
42:17I've lived
42:18on both sides
42:19of the divide
42:20between rich
42:20and poor.
42:22The forces
42:22that distribute
42:23wealth among us
42:24are complicated.
42:26They're a mixture
42:27of biology,
42:28psychology,
42:29and mathematics
42:30playing out
42:31over lifetimes
42:32and across
42:33the sweep
42:33of human history.
42:35If we can
42:36understand
42:37those forces,
42:39I hope we can
42:40someday
42:41lessen the devastation
42:42of poverty
42:43and allow
42:44each of us
42:45to reach
42:45our full potential.
42:46life
42:52is a
42:52life
42:53and
42:53that's
42:54what's
42:55true.
42:55It's a
42:56life
42:56that's
42:57true.
Be the first to comment