Big ideas.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Who is the highest-selling artist from your state?
What’s Eminem doing in Missouri? Kanye West in Georgia? And Wiz Khalifa in, of all places, North Dakota?
Eminem may be 'from' Detroit, but he was born in Missouri
This is a mysterious map. Obviously about music, or more precisely musicians. But what's Eminem doing in Missouri? Kanye West in Georgia? And Wiz Khalifa in, of all places, North Dakota? None of these musicians are from those states! Everyone knows that! Is this map that stupid, or just looking for a fight? Let's pause a moment and consider our attention spans, shrinking faster than polar ice caps.
This is a map of the best-selling artists in each state, it says. And then to clear up the ambiguity, it adds: FROM not IN each state.
And that checks out, at least concerning the birthplaces of the aforementioned trio:
- Though associated closely with Detroit, Eminem was born Marshall Mathers on October 17, 1972, in St. Joseph, Missouri.
- Kanye Omari West was born on June 8, 1977, in Atlanta, Georgia and moved to Chicago with his mother when he was three.
- Wiz Khalifa is a military brat, born Cameron Jibril Thomaz on September 8, 1987, at Minot AFB in North Dakota. He lived in Germany, the UK, and Japan before settling in Pittsburgh.
But hey, isn't Dave Matthews a native of Johannesburg, South Africa? What's he doing in Virginia? Because he's not mentioned as a solo artist, and bands are not born but formed (an important distinction). That seems to be the criterion here: the Dave Matthews Band took shape in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Backstreet Boys – two Floridians, two Kentuckians and a New Yorker – saw the light of day in Orlando, Florida in 1993.
This map popped up last year on r/MapPorn, Reddit's corner for cartography nerds, where it generated almost a thousand comments. Since we couldn't find a link to the data used for the map, we did some digging of our own and ended up at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which keeps track of music sales in the U.S.
The Gold & Platinum section of the RIAA website ranks (1) artists by their all-time sales (but not by the state of birth). Cross-referencing with the map, the ranking (of both albums/EPs and singles sold) produces this Top 10:
- Garth Brooks (OK): 148 million.
- Elvis Presley (MS): 146.5 million.
- Eagles (CA): 101 million.
- Michael Jackson (IN): 81 million.
- George Strait (TX): 69 million.
- Aerosmith (NH): 66.5 million.
- Madonna (MI): 64.5 million.
- Mariah Carey (NY): 64.5 million.
- Whitney Houston (NJ): 58.5 million.
- Kenny G. (WA): 48 million.
The RIAA ranking does not make a distinction per state (either of birth or residence) and indeed also includes non-American artists. The Beatles top the overall list (178 million units sold). Garth and Elvis come second and third. Led Zeppelin, Brits as well, occupy #4 (with 111.5 million units sold). In fifth overall place are the Eagles, #3 in the ranking that conforms to this map.
Things quickly go wrong. Brooklyn-born Billy Joel, #6 in RIAA's overall ranking (with 82.5 million), does not get to splash his name across his native state. That honor goes to Mariah Carey (scoring 64.5 million units). Similarly, it's not Bruce Springsteen (65.5 million) but Whitney Houston (58.5 million) who 'owns' New Jersey on this map.
What gives? Are we counting the wrong things? Instead of checking the total for Albums/EPs and Singles, let's try just Albums/EPs. And yes, now Whitney resoundingly beats Bruce, 17.5 versus 3.5 million. And Mariah outsells Billy.
But solving one problem just causes others. Album-wise, the Eagles' 2.5 million total sales pale into insignificance versus Katy Perry's 98 million – yet it's not her name splashed across California. But wait… despite scoring 98 million in the Album/EP category alone, Katy Perry seems to disappear in the combined Album/EP and Single ranking.
We'd love to get to the bottom of this. But now our head hurts, and we need to lie down. Can anybody point us to a valid source that makes sense of this map? Please help us out via the email below.
Strange Maps #901
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
‘Designer baby’ book trilogy explores the moral dilemmas humans may soon create
How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.
18 January, 2021
Surprising Science
- A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
- It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
- While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class="media-headline"><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="c757ef0c79111359597857b09540fee8" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B086RFXC2M?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/516FA23AmfL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B086RFXC2M?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$3.00</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$3.00</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<p>Imagine it's 2045. You start hearing rumors from your well-heeled friends about a mysterious corporation based on an undisclosed island that's offering an unprecedented service: the ability to genetically design your baby.</p><p>The baby will have some of your genetics, and some genetics from a sperm or egg donor, selected by you. But the rest of your child's genetic profile will be engineered by science. These changes will make it impossible for your child to develop genetic diseases. They'll also allow you to customize your child for dozens of traits, including intelligence level, emotional disposition, sexual orientation, height, skin tone, hair color, and eye color, to name a few. </p><p>This raises unsettling philosophical questions for some customers. "When does my child stop being my child?" they ask the corporate representatives. These wary customers are reminded of how risky it is to reproduce the old-fashioned way. The Better Genetics Corporation's motto sums it up: "Only God plays dice—humans don't have to."</p><p>This is the world described in a new science-fiction series by Eugene Clark titled <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"Genetic Pressure"</a>, which explores the moral and scientific implications of a future in which designer babies are becoming a major industry. The first book begins with the story of Rachel, a renowned horse breeder who befriends a billionaire client, and soon gets the funding to visit the tropical island on which the Better Genetics Corporation is headquartered. </p><p>There, corporate executives walk her through the process of designing a baby—an experience that feels like an uncanny mix between visiting a doctor and designing a luxury car. The series is told from multiple perspectives, serving as a deep dive into a complex moral web that today's scientists may already be weaving.</p>
<blockquote>[T]he introduction of designer babies would create a labyrinth of philosophical dilemmas that society is only beginning to explore. </blockquote>
<p>Case in point: In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had helped create the world's first genetically engineered babies. Using the gene-editing tool CRISPR on embryos, He Jiankui modified a gene called <a href="https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/CCR5" target="_blank">CCR5</a>, which enables HIV to enter and infect immune system cells. His goal was to engineer children that were immune to the virus.</p><p>It's unclear whether he succeeded. But what's certain is that the experiment shocked the international scientific community, which generally agreed that it's unethical to conduct gene-editing procedures on humans, given that scientists don't yet fully understand the consequences.</p><p>"This experiment is monstrous," Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>. "The embryos were healthy. No known diseases. Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer."</p><p>Importantly, He Jiankui wasn't treating a disease, but rather genetically engineering babies to prevent the future contraction of a virus. These kinds of changes are heritable, meaning the experiment could have major downstream effects on future generations. So, too, would a designer-baby industry, even if scientists can do it safely.</p><p>With major implications on inequality, discrimination, sexuality, and our conceptions of life, the introduction of designer babies would create a labyrinth of philosophical dilemmas that society is only beginning to explore. </p>
<a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" ><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2MTEzNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDcxMzY4M30.5fwCPH_6sQ0RF19aAH4FQFue9HFJykzdEc0Xka1TY04/img.jpg?width=980" id="affdd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76374e8775bd9441a338cf513bb1fa55" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="924" data-height="520" /></a>
Tribalism and discrimination
<p>One question the "Genetic Pressure" series explores: What would tribalism and discrimination look like in a world with designer babies? As designer babies grow up, they could be noticeably different from other people, potentially being smarter, more attractive and healthier. This could breed resentment between the groups—as it does in the series.</p><p>"[Designer babies] slowly find that 'everyone else,' and even their own parents, becomes less and less tolerable," author Eugene Clark told Big Think. "Meanwhile, everyone else slowly feels threatened by the designer babies."</p><p>For example, one character in the series who was born a designer baby faces discrimination and harassment from "normal people"—they call her "soulless" and say she was "made in a factory," a "consumer product." </p><p>Would such divisions emerge in the real world? The answer may depend on who's able to afford designer baby services. If it's only the ultra-wealthy, then it's easy to imagine how being a designer baby could be seen by society as a kind of hyper-privilege, which designer babies would have to reckon with. </p><p>Even if people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can someday afford designer babies, people born designer babies may struggle with tough existential questions: Can they ever take full credit for things they achieve, or were they born with an unfair advantage? To what extent should they spend their lives helping the less fortunate? </p>Sexuality dilemmas
<p>Sexuality presents another set of thorny questions. If a designer baby industry someday allows people to optimize humans for attractiveness, designer babies could grow up to find themselves surrounded by ultra-attractive people. That may not sound like a big problem.</p><p>But consider that, if designer babies someday become the standard way to have children, there'd necessarily be a years-long gap in which only some people are having designer babies. Meanwhile, the rest of society would be having children the old-fashioned way. So, in terms of attractiveness, society could see increasingly apparent disparities in physical appearances between the two groups. "Normal people" could begin to seem increasingly ugly.</p><p>But ultra-attractive people who were born designer babies could face problems, too. One could be the loss of body image. </p><p>When designer babies grow up in the "Genetic Pressure" series, men look like all the other men, and women look like all the other women. This homogeneity of physical appearance occurs because parents of designer babies start following trends, all choosing similar traits for their children: tall, athletic build, olive skin, etc. </p><p>Sure, facial traits remain relatively unique, but everyone's more or less equally attractive. And this causes strange changes to sexual preferences.</p><p>"In a society of sexual equals, they start looking for other differentiators," he said, noting that violet-colored eyes become a rare trait that genetically engineered humans find especially attractive in the series.</p><p>But what about sexual relationships between genetically engineered humans and "normal" people? In the "Genetic Pressure" series, many "normal" people want to have kids with (or at least have sex with) genetically engineered humans. But a minority of engineered humans oppose breeding with "normal" people, and this leads to an ideology that considers engineered humans to be racially supreme. </p>Regulating designer babies
<p>On a policy level, there are many open questions about how governments might legislate a world with designer babies. But it's not totally new territory, considering the West's dark history of eugenics experiments.</p><p>In the 20th century, the U.S. conducted multiple eugenics programs, including immigration restrictions based on genetic inferiority and forced sterilizations. In 1927, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped didn't violate the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough." </p><p>After the Holocaust, eugenics programs became increasingly taboo and regulated in the U.S. (though some states continued forced sterilizations <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/" target="_blank">into the 1970s</a>). In recent years, some policymakers and scientists have expressed concerns about how gene-editing technologies could reanimate the eugenics nightmares of the 20th century. </p><p>Currently, the U.S. doesn't explicitly ban human germline genetic editing on the federal level, but a combination of laws effectively render it <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo</a>. Part of the reason is that scientists still aren't sure of the unintended consequences of new gene-editing technologies. </p><p>But there are also concerns that these technologies could usher in a new era of eugenics. After all, the function of a designer baby industry, like the one in the "Genetic Pressure" series, wouldn't necessarily be limited to eliminating genetic diseases; it could also work to increase the occurrence of "desirable" traits. </p><p>If the industry did that, it'd effectively signal that the <em>opposites of those traits are undesirable. </em>As the International Bioethics Committee <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, this would "jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfillment of the wish for a better, improved life."</p><p><em>"Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps"</em><em> by Eugene Clark is <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank">available now.</a></em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Designer uses AI to bring 54 Roman emperors to life
It's hard to stop looking back and forth between these faces and the busts they came from.
05 October, 2020
Meet Emperors Augustus, left, and Maximinus Thrax, right
Credit: Daniel Voshart
Technology & Innovation
- A quarantine project gone wild produces the possibly realistic faces of ancient Roman rulers.
- A designer worked with a machine learning app to produce the images.
- It's impossible to know if they're accurate, but they sure look plausible.
<p>Imaginative as humans are, it's often hard not to see historical figures depicted in black-and-white photos as being somehow of another species. Confronted with colorized images can be startling — hey, they look like us — bringing home at last what they were really like. Maybe that person evens look like someone we know.</p><p>The same is true of figures whose appearance we know only from their statues, maybe even moreso. We may know their names and something about them, but, again, it's all sort of not quite real. Now cinematographer and virtual reality designer <a href="https://voshart.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daniel Voshart</a> has published amazing, life-like images of 54 Roman emperors based on their statues. He used machine learning and filled in the (many) remaining blanks with his imagination. While he's careful to point out that his renderings are merely what these individuals <em>may</em> have looked like, they're remarkably plausible, and also remarkably familiar.</p><p>Voshart describes the whole thing as a quarantine project that got out of hand, but lots of people are excited about what he's done, and are <a href="https://www.etsy.com/ca/shop/Voshart" target="_blank">purchasing posters</a> of his Roman emperors.</p>
How the Roman emperors got faced
<a href="https://payload.cargocollective.com/1/6/201108/14127595/2K-ENGLISH-24x36-Educational_v8_WATERMARKED_2000.jpg" ><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NDk2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTUzMzIxMX0.OwHMrgKu4pzu0eCsmOUjybdkTcSlJpL_uWDCF2djRfc/img.jpg?width=980" id="775ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="436000b6976931b8320313478c624c82" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="lineup of emperor faces" data-width="1440" data-height="963" /></a>Credit: Daniel Voshart
<p>Voshart's imaginings began with an AI/neural-net program called <a href="https://www.artbreeder.com" target="_blank">Artbreeder</a>. The freemium online app intelligently generates new images from existing ones and can combine multiple images into…well, who knows. It's addictive — people have so far used it to generate nearly 72.7 million images, says the site — and it's easy to see how Voshart fell down the rabbit hole.</p><p>The Roman emperor project began with Voshart feeding Artbreeder images of 800 busts. Obviously, not all busts have weathered the centuries equally. Voshart told <a href="https://www.livescience.com/ai-roman-emperor-portraits.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Live Science</a>, "There is a rule of thumb in computer programming called 'garbage in garbage out,' and it applies to Artbreeder. A well-lit, well-sculpted bust with little damage and standard face features is going to be quite easy to get a result." Fortunately, there were multiple busts for some of the emperors, and different angles of busts captured in different photographs.</p><p>For the renderings Artbreeder produced, each face required some 15-16 hours of additional input from Voshart, who was left to deduce/guess such details as hair and skin coloring, though in many cases, an individual's features suggested likely pigmentations. Voshart was also aided by written descriptions of some of the rulers.</p><p>There's no way to know for sure how frequently Voshart's guesses hit their marks. It is obviously the case, though, that his interpretations look incredibly plausible when you compare one of his emperors to the sculpture(s) from which it was derived.</p><p>For an in-depth description of Voshart's process, check out his posts on <a href="https://medium.com/@voshart/photoreal-roman-emperor-project-236be7f06c8f" target="_blank">Medium</a> or on his <a href="https://voshart.com/ROMAN-EMPEROR-PROJECT" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">website</a>.</p><p>It's fascinating to feel like you're face-to-face with these ancient and sometimes notorious figures. Here are two examples, along with some of what we think we know about the men behind the faces.</p>Caligula
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NDk4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MzQ1NTE5NX0.LiTmhPQlygl9Fa9lxay8PFPCSqShv4ELxbBRFkOW_qM/img.jpg?width=980" id="7bae0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ce795c554490fe0a36a8714b86f55b16" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="992" data-height="558" />One of numerous sculptures of Caligula, left
Credit: Rogers Fund, 1914/Wikimedia Commons/Daniel Voshart
<p><span style="background-color: initial;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula" target="_blank">Caligula</a></span> was the third Roman Emperor, ruling the city-state from AD 37 to 41. His name was actually Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus — Caligula is a nickname meaning "Little Boot."</p><p>One of the reputed great madmen of history, he was said to have made a horse his consul, had conversations with the moon, and to have ravaged his way through his kingdom, including his three sisters. Caligula is known for extreme cruelty, terrorizing his subjects, and accounts suggest he would deliberately distort his face to surprise and frighten people he wished to intimidate.</p><p>It's <a href="https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-caligula" target="_blank">not totally clear</a> if Caligula was as over-the-top as history paints him, but that hasn't stopped Hollywood from churning out some <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080491/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">howlers</a> in his name.</p><p>A 1928 journal, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4172009" target="_blank">Studies in Philology</a>, noted that contemporary descriptions of Caligula depicted him as having a "head misshapen, eyes and temples sunken," and "eyes staring and with a glare savage enough to torture." In some sculptures not shown above, his head <em>is</em> a bit acorn-shaped. </p>Nero
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ2NTAwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTQ2ODU0NX0.AgYuQZzRQCanqehSI5UeakpxU8fwLagMc_POH7xB3-M/img.jpg?width=980" id="a8825" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9e0593d79c591c97af4bd70f3423885e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="992" data-height="558" />One of numerous sculptures of Nero, left
Credit: Bibi_Saint-Pol/Wikimedia Commons/Daniel Voshart
<p>There's a good German word for the face of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nero</a>, that guy famous for fiddling as Rome burned. It's "<a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpfeifengesicht" target="_blank">backpfeifengesicht</a>." Properly named Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, he was Rome's fifth emperor. He ruled from AD 54 until his suicide in AD 68.</p><p>Another Germanicus-family gem, Nero's said to have murdered his own mother, Agrippa, as well as (maybe) his second wife. As for the fiddling, he <em>was</em> a lover of music and the arts, and there are stories of his charitability. And, oh yeah, he may have set the fire as an excuse to rebuild the city center, making it his own.</p><p>While it may not be the most historically sound means of assessing an historical personage, Voshart's imagining of Nero does suggest an over-indulged, entitled young man. Backpfeifengesicht.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Archaeologists identify contents of ancient Mayan drug containers
Scientists use new methods to discover what's inside drug containers used by ancient Mayan people.
18 January, 2021
A Muna-type paneled flask with distinctive serrated-edge decoration from AD 750-900.
Credit: WSU
Surprising Science
- Archaeologists used new methods to identify contents of Mayan drug containers.
- They were able to discover a non-tobacco plant that was mixed in by the smoking Mayans.
- The approach promises to open up new frontiers in the knowledge of substances ancient people consumed.
<p>Ancient Mayans have been a continuing source of inspiration for their monuments, knowledge, and mysterious demise. Now a new study discovers some of the drugs they used. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81158-y" target="_blank">For the first time</a>, scientists found remnants of a non-tobacco plant in Mayan drug containers. They believe their analysis methods can allow them exciting new ways of investigating the different types of psychoactive and non-psychoactive plants used by the Maya and other pre-Colombian societies.</p><p>The research was carried out by a team from Washington State University, led by anthropology postdoc <a href="https://wsu.academia.edu/MarioZimmermann" target="_blank">Mario Zimmermann</a>. They spotted residue of the Mexican marigold (Tagetes lucida) in 14 tiny ceramic vessels that were buried over a 1,000 years ago on Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. The containers also exhibited chemical traces of two types of tobacco: Nicotiana tabacum and N. rustica. Scientists think the marigold was mixed in with the tobacco to make the experience more pleasant.</p>
<blockquote>"While it has been established that tobacco was commonly used throughout the Americas before and after contact, evidence of other plants used for medicinal or religious purposes has remained largely unexplored," said Zimmermann. "The analysis methods developed in collaboration between the Department of Anthropology and the Institute of Biological Chemistry give us the ability to investigate drug use in the ancient world like never before."</blockquote><p>The scientists used a new method based on <a href="https://www.future-science.com/doi/full/10.2144/000113133" target="_blank">metabolomics</a> that is able to pinpoint thousands of plant compounds, or metabolites, in residue of archaeological artifacts like containers and pipes. This allows the researchers to figure out which specific plants were utilized. The way plant residue was identified before employed looking for specific biomarkers from nicotine, caffeine, and other such substances. That approach would not be able to spot what else was consumed outside of what biomarker was found. The new way gives much more information, showing the researchers a fuller picture of what the ancient people ingested. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ5ODA2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU5NjU3MH0.yulUX2V5W_S-eR5JE89cKODfRv3numTn_cjeBqbcYAk/img.jpg?width=980" id="023b8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0a4f30654bf0f0c2b8463aaaae455714" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="640" data-height="480" />
PARME staff archaeologists excavating a burial site at the Tamanache site, Mérida, Yucatan.
Credit: WSU
<p>The containers in the study were found by Zimmerman and a team of archaeologists in 2012.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"When you find something really interesting like an intact container it gives you a sense of joy," <a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-01-scientists-contents-ancient-maya-drug.html" target="_blank">shared</a> Zimmermann. "Normally, you are lucky if you find a jade bead. There are literally tons of pottery sherds but complete vessels are scarce and offer a lot of interesting research potential."</p><p>The researchers are negotiating with various Mexican institutions to be able to study more ancient containers for plant residues. They also aim to look at organic materials possibly preserved in the dental plaque of ancient remains. </p><p>Check out the study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81158-y" target="_blank">Scientific Reports. </a></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Ten “keys to reality” from a Nobel-winning physicist
To understand ourselves and our place in the universe, "we should have humility but also self-respect," Frank Wilczek writes in a new book.
18 January, 2021
Photo by Andy HYD on Unsplash
Surprising Science
In the spring of 1970, colleges across the country erupted with student protests in response to the Vietnam War and the National Guard's shooting of student demonstrators at Kent State University.
<p> At the University of Chicago, where Frank Wilczek was an undergraduate, regularly scheduled classes were "improvised and semivoluntary" amid the turmoil, as he recalls.</p><p>It was during this turbulent time that Wilczek found unexpected comfort, and a new understanding of the world, in mathematics. He had decided to sit in on a class by physics professor Peter Freund, who, with a zeal "bordering on rapture," led students through mathematical theories of symmetry and ways in which these theories can predict behaviors in the physical world.</p><p>In his new book, "Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality," published by Penguin Press, Wilczek writes that the lessons were a revelation: "To experience the deep harmony between two different universes — the universe of beautiful ideas and the universe of physical behavior — was for me a kind of spiritual awakening. It became my vocation. I haven't been disappointed."</p>
<p>Wilczek, who is the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at MIT, has since made groundbreaking contributions to our fundamental understanding of the physical world, for which he has been widely recognized, most notably in 2004 with the Nobel Prize in Physics, which he shared with physicists David Gross and David Politzer. He has also authored several popular science books on physics and the history of science.</p><p>In his new book, he distills scientists' collective understanding of the physical world into 10 broad philosophical themes, using the fundamental theories of physics, from cosmology to quantum mechanics, to reframe ideas of space, time, and our place in the universe.</p><p>"People wrestle with what the world is all about," Wilczek tells <em>MIT News</em>. "They're not concerned with knowing precisely what Coulomb's law is, but want to know more about questions like the ancient Greeks asked: What is space? What is time? So in the end, I came up with 10 assertions, at the levels of philosophy but backed up by very concrete facts, to organize what we know."</p>
<h3>A rollercoaster reborn</h3><p>Wilczek wrote the bulk of the book earlier this spring, in the midst of another tumultuous time, at the start of a global pandemic. His grandson had been born as Wilczek was laying out the structure for his book, and in the preface, the physicist writes that he watched as the baby began building up a model of the world, based on his observations and interactions with the environment, "with insatiable curiosity and few preconceptions."</p><p>Wilczek says that scientists may take a cue from the way babies learn — by building and pruning more detailed models of the world, with a similar unbiased, open outlook. He can recall times when he felt his own understanding of the world fundamentally shift. The college course on mathematical symmetry was an early instance. More recently, the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning has prompted him to rethink "what knowledge is, and how it's acquired."</p><p>He writes: "The process of being born again can be disorienting. But, like a roller- coaster ride, it can also be exhilarating. And it brings this gift: To those who are born again, in the way of science, the world comes to seem fresh, lucid, and wonderfully abundant."</p>
<h3>"Patterns in matter"</h3><p>Wilczek's book contains ample opportunity for readers to reframe their view of the physical world. For instance, in a chapter entitled "There's Plenty of Space," he writes that, while the universe is vast, there is another scale of vastness in ourselves. To illustrate his point, he calculates that there are roughly 10 octillion atoms that make up the human body. That's about 1 million times the number of stars in the visible universe. The multitudes within and beyond us are not contradictory, he says, but can be explained by the same set of physical rules.</p><p>And in fact, the universe, in all its diversity, can be described by a surprisingly few set of rules, collectively known as the Standard Model of Physics, though Wilczek prefers to call it by another name.</p><p>"The so-called Standard Model is the culmination of millenia of investigation, allowing us to understand how matter works, very fully," Wilczek says. "So calling it a model, and standard, is kind of a lost opportunity to really convey to people the magnitude of what's been achieved by humanity. That's why I like to call it the 'Core.' It's a central body of understanding that we can build out from."</p><p>Wilczek takes the reader through many of the key experiments, theories, and revelations that physicists have made in building and validating the Standard Model, and its mathematical descriptions of the universe.</p><p>Included in this often joyful scientific tour are brief mentions of Wilczek's own contributions, such as his Nobel-winning work establishing the theory of quantum chromodynamics; his characterization of the axion, a theoretical particle that he named after a laundry detergent by the same name ("It was short, catchy, and would fit in nicely alongside proton, neutron, electron, and pion," he writes); and his introduction of the anyon — an entirely new kind of particle that is neither a fermion or a boson.</p><p>In April, and then separately in July, scientists made the first observations of anyons, nearly 40 years after Wilczek first proposed their existence.</p>
<p>"I was beginning to think it would never happen," says Wilczek, who was finishing up his book when the discoveries were made public. "When it finally did, it was a beautiful surprise."</p><p>The discovery of anyons opens possibilities for the particles to be used as building blocks for quantum computers, and marks another milestone in our understanding of the universe.</p><p>In closing his book, Wilczek writes about "complementarity" — a concept in physics that refers to two seemingly contrasting theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, that can separately explain the same set of phenomena. He points to many complementary theories of physics throughout the book and extends the idea to philosophy and ways in which accepting contrasting views of the world can help us to expand our experience.</p><p>"With progress, we've come to consider people and creatures as having intrinsic value and being worthy of profound respect, just like ourselves," he writes. "When we see ourselves as patterns in matter, it is natural to draw our circle of kinship very wide indeed."</p><p>Reprinted with permission of <a target="_blank" href="http://news.mit.edu/">MIT News</a>. Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://news.mit.edu/2021/ten-keys-reality-wilczek-0112" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Mind & Brain
This is your brain on political arguments
Debating is cognitively taxing but also important for the health of a democracy—provided it's face-to-face.
Scroll down to load more…
