I certainly agree that Nukes are right up there on the short list of catastrophic problems facing humanity. I'm disappointed, however, that Tyler (or Will) didn't talk about any way of addressing the problem. A lot of hawks and doves are coming together to seriously discuss the abolition of nuclear weapons. These people include Henry Kissinger and potential US-Vice President Sam Nunn. Reagan and Gorbachev came close to achieving an end to nukes. Obama-Nunn (Nunn at the very least will be a close advisor on foreign policy) may have a once-in-a-century opportunity. It could be our last opportunity before a major nuclear attack (or accident) occurs.

Mr. Wilkinson's cost/benefit analysis of having children illustrates the wisdom crystallized in the title of a book discussed in a previous edition of Free Will, The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community, by Stephen Marglin (okay, the subtitle, and as I haven't read the book I don't know whether its analysis justifies the claim, which I'd think can be well established regardless). To know my children and assist them in the conduct of their lives is an experience that can't be quantified in terms of dollars or units of felt satisfaction reported on a survey, and I no more regret the $600,000 in disposable income that I've evidently sacrificed for their sake than I would consider accepting a million dollars from a time-traveler in exchange for the sacrifice of my legs or of a relationship with a dear friend for the past 20 years. Economic analysis is a great aid to the furtherance of human values; it strikes me as tragic for the values to be assessed strictly in terms of how they affect the analysis. To put an aspect of the point in terms

The lucky souls fallacy is no fallacy for adoptable children living in orphanages or in squalor.

this was very interesting as always. that being said, i was disappointed about complacent assumptions re: biological sex differences. again, the androcentric bias of BH.tv is reinforced....

Wonderment, Agreed about there being no "lucky souls fallacy" when adopting poor kids. That's what Kerry and I are likely to do, but not any time soon. You also say: "You’ll be happier, and your life will have much greater meaning." Why do you think you know that? I think the intensity of the conviction in this almost universal belief, despite the absence of evidence for it, suggests Darwinian false consciousness -- a propaganda effort by our genes! Insofar as we have data on happiness, it says you won't be happier. And I don't know how to measure meaning (not that we shouldn't try!) but I suspect many kinds of "meaning," including the meaning of childrearing, is terribly overrated. There are no doubt loyal slaves who find their devotion to their masters immensely meaningful. So what!? There ARE huge opportunity costs to childrearing, and I find the conspiracy to paper over them pernicious. If you have nothing equally challenging or engaging to do with your life, then yes go ahead with the default mammalian recipe for meaning-making. It's better than having nothing. But if you can envision the possibilities for a more creative kind of engagement with life, then I think it can seem

Re: liberal markets will ultimately triumph.... You realize what a juvenile thing it is to believe with certainty that what you would like to see happen is going to happen, right? The Marxists were fans of prophecy, too. But let me guess, you're just so much smarter than they were....

yes, but marxist prediction was falsified in many more ways than the whiggish one has been, no? would marx or j. s. mill better predicted the year 2000?

Depends on what you mean. Marxist prescriptive ideas, I think, have been unsalvageably disproven. Their idea of an ideal society just doesn't seem to work. Marxist descriptive ideas, however, I would say are close to spot on. The Marxist critique of capitalism, separate from their ideas about how to create a just society, seem close to unimpeachable to me. Capitalism really does require the value-creation of the workers and then divorces the workers from that value, capitalism really does inevitably create vast inequality, capitalism really does create a large permanent underclass, etc. (In my opinion.) I don't think that you can make nearly a strong claim that those ideas have been disproven. Here's the problem: enthusiastic capitalists have entirely different standards of evidence when they evaluate capitalism and when they evaluate un-capitalism. So, for example, they tend to do things like say "Look at the poverty in Havana-- proof that socialism doesn't work." But when confronted with the poverty in Detroit, they tend to say "Ah, that's not the fault of capitalism; capitalism has not yet matured there-- and in fact, if we'd just get rid of those liberal social programs, affluence would flower across inner city Detroit...." So negative conditions in un-capitalist

Will,

Why do you think you know that?

I’m estimating my certitude at about 65-35 ☺ It would have been 95-5, but you and Tyler persuaded me to scale down.

I think the intensity of the conviction in this almost universal belief, despite the absence of evidence for it, suggests Darwinian false consciousness -- a propaganda effort by our genes!

Well, who wants to argue with that powerful a genetic incentive? You could make an analagous argument about sex itself, couldn’t you? Fornication has its opportunity costs: possible unwanted pregnancy, risk of STDs, etc. But worst of all, even the safest sex runs the grave and risk of often irreversible emotional attachment: you will spend time and resources on your partner and sacrifice independence -- all those immensely rewarding and collossally meaningful things you could do on your own if you didn’t have to consider his/her needs. This just-say-no to a “default mammalian recipe” (the palpable urge to get laid) has historically appealed to “higher purpose” institutions like the Catholic Church. Young men and women sacrificed both sexual pleasure and gene proliferation for the greater glory of God and King (obtaining a symbolic share in His or

Freddie, Do remember that this was my choice for my "most absurd" belief!

That was a nice hour of brain-stretching. I'd like to see Tyler come back. I'd like even more to spend a few hours with him in a bar or coffeehouse -- I disagree with many of the ideas he raised, but I liked hearing them for their provocative value. Just for the sake of specificity, here are some of the things I'd argue about: o I see no reason for North Korea to nuke Japan, unless it is stipulated that the NK leadership is truly irrational. Otherwise, why would they? What would they gain from doing that? o I don't accept that there is anything meaningful about asking people to put numerical values on their beliefs. For example, if I do not believe in God because I have seen no evidence to support the claim of existence, trying to quantify how sure I am about non-existence is impossible. There's nothing to compare to, nothing to give scale. It feels like I'm being asked to divide by zero. What about all of the other things that I believe do not exist? Maybe saying "a trillion to one against" is nonsense, but so is any other number. o I think the idea of subsidizing people

no, *predictive*. russia and china the first communist states? is that the theory's prediction? as social science it didn't work out as expected.

Paraphrasing PJ O'Rourke: "It takes a village to raise a child; the village is Washington DC and the child is you" This is one of the few times I've agreed with Wonderment. If you want children you should have them regardless what other people say. That being said, once you have them you and your spouse/partner have to do everything you can to protect/care for/nurture said kid and also make sure they learn to take care of themselves, clean up their messes, behave with honor and respect etc. I realize this is totally in opposition to the nanny state/self-esteem/everybody wins, no one loses practices that are destroying our culture but those are my beliefs. As to nuclear disarmament, I will happily agree nukes should be destroyed as soon as an infallible system to verify no other nukes exist or can be created is developed.

Clearly I didn't. Clearly I'm also an idiot.

Quoting harkin: [...] This is one of the few times I've agreed with Wonderment. If you want children you should have them regardless what other people say. That being said, once you have them you and your spouse/partner have to do everything you can to protect/care for/nurture said kid and also make sure they learn to take care of themselves, clean up their messes, behave with honor and respect etc. I realize this is totally in opposition to the nanny state/self-esteem/everybody wins, no one loses practices that are destroying our culture but those are my beliefs.

As to nuclear disarmament, I will happily agree nukes should be destroyed as soon as an infallible system to verify no other nukes exist or can be created is developed.

This is one of the few times I've agreed with you, too. On both counts! Progress! I expect we'd quibble about some of the details. For example, I think it isn't nanny-statish to provide some child-rearing assistance to low-income families. For another, while I agree with the concept of maintaining deterrence, I do think we could and should significantly reduce our nuclear arsenals, and I think we should stop most (not all) of the ongoing

Tyler seems more confident in his own beliefs that he thinks we should feel about our beliefs. At one point, he says everything is up grabs. Nothing is 99%, more things are 60-40. Then Will askes what are the chances that human race outlasts the sun. His response is "less than 1%." What gives?

For another, while I agree with the concept of maintaining deterrence, I do think we could and should significantly reduce our nuclear arsenals, and I think we should stop most (not all) of the ongoing research in the area of nuclear weapons.

I'm tellin' ya this is an issue that Fidel Castro, Henry Kissinger, Dennis Kucinich, Ronald Reagan's ghost, Ralph Nader, and lots of other odd couples can agree on. The world could quickly reduce nukes dramatically and approach zero in the not too distant future. Deterrence can be achieved with very few nukes. I'm guessing that 10 nukes per nuclear power would have the same deterrence power as 1000. Zero would also be a deterrence, especially given the fact that in a real emergency you could reconstitute a nuke in a short period of time. In other words, a nuclear-free USA could still say to Iran, "If you invade Israel, we will have our nukes up and running in 90 days and obliterate (to use Hillary's phrase) Teheran and 10 other cities. Same deterrent, no nukes. Abolishing nukes doesn't mean putting the genie back in the bottle entirely. Nuclear bomb knowledge and technological capability will exist as long as civilization does. Currently

Quoting Wonderment:
Draft Sam Nunn for VP

Here's a nice write-up by Ed Kilgore:
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...n_for_veep.php (I'd love to see Kilgore on again.)

Hey Will, you keep referring to how you think Sweden seems like a nice place, but that your libertarian friends disagree with you. As bhtv's perhaps only Swede (and one of Sweden's few libertarians), I would love to see you debate this issue in some future diavlog.

The "I hadn't thought of that" by Will Wilkinson shows how little independence of mind he has. Life isn't the happy libertarian beltway fairytale Will Wilkinson makes it out to be. The realities of, for example, South Africa, Islam and WMD are scary subjects Will Wilkinson can safely ignore. If all western civilization had to offer was cloying optimists and naifs like Will Wilkinson, the doom-scenarios he ignores will surely come to pass. He should speak less and listen more. Tyler Cowen is far out of his league. I suggest Will Wilkinson puts his money where his mouth is and moves to Sweden as soon as possible. I am sure he will be welcomed there considering the quality of the current immigrant stream they are receiving. Would a Swedish model work in Africa? (pun intended).

If Will is interested in Japanophilia then he might find it productive to investigate the Japanese version of "happiness", given his fascination with that topic. "Happiness" in a culture embeds, or becomes the target for, other cultural concepts, no? The well known (and discussed) proclivity in Japan for "group-think" does affect their understanding of happiness, I believe. If you want some intriguing data into Japan, you might try out this website: http://whatjapanthinks.com/

Is it possible for Will (love him dearly, BTW) to do a blog WITHOU slurping some drink or other?

Re the children issue, all such discussions of well-being seem to define the goal as people somehow getting what they want/need. But where is the recognition that inner peace, in the deepest sense -- inner peace really being the precondition for happiness -- arises when we realize that we already have everything we need? On the impersonal value point, I think Wilkinson's perspective aligns better with the modern-secular consensus. What Cowen calls impersonal value sounds a lot like what GE Moore called intrinsic value, which doesn't jibe well with most modern metaethical programs. If alien species were discovered, it'd be potentially good ~for us~, or for them or somebody. Absent sentient beings for whom things are good or bad, things just are. The Japan example doesn't sit well, I think, because we non-Japanese would lose Japanese culture. Take away that third-person moral perspective and it's just a shift in the organization of the things, like so much tectonic movement. But Wilkinson makes a deep point. That something (a society, person, animal) dies is not inherently tragic. If the life it had while here was excellent...that is all that should be expected or hoped for. All things do die, after all.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't accept that there is anything meaningful about asking people to put numerical values on their beliefs. For example, if I do not believe in God because I have seen no evidence to support the claim of existence, trying to quantify how sure I am about non-existence is impossible. There's nothing to compare to, nothing to give scale. It feels like I'm being asked to divide by zero. What about all of the other things that I believe do not exist? Maybe saying "a trillion to one against" is nonsense, but so is any other number.

Well, if someone asked you to bet, what would you bet? Would you bet all your money and your life, and if you're right, you get to keep all your money and your life (but you're given nothing), whereas if you're wrong, you lose both your money and your life? That would be certainty, of course; are you that certain of anything, even the non-existence of God? I'd also like to know what you mean by evidence of God's existence. Do you mean empirical evidence, or can "evidence" be taken to be something broader than that--for instance, how much sense positing a God makes of

Bobby G:

Well, if someone asked you to bet, what would you bet? Would you bet all your money and your life, and if you're right, you get to keep all your money and your life (but you're given nothing), whereas if you're wrong, you lose both your money and your life?

I would not make this bet. But then, I would not make such a bet about any such thing, for two reasons: How would we settle the bet, and why should I bet in the first place, if I have no chance to gain anything? Now, if you asked me to bet, say, that God would not strike me dead within the next hour, and offered to pay me a dollar if I were still breathing at minute 61, I'd take that bet.

That would be certainty, of course; are you that certain of anything, even the non-existence of God?

I am not 100% certain of very many things, when you come right down to it. This is particularly true in a situation such as this, where certainty would require proving non-existence, a near-impossible task. I am happy to concede that God could exist, whether in the form described by current religions or not. It's just that, as Laplace told

Quoting Wonderment: Don’t over-intellectualize on those opporutnity costs. Just have the kids. You’ll never regret it., and you well might regeret it if you don’t.

That argument sounds suspiciously like Pascal's Wager, just adjusted for kids.

The comparison was supposed to be this: valuable technological advances pay for themselves; therefore, there is no need to subsidize technology--the technology should stand or fall on its own merits, just like the decision to have children. Of course, one could also argue that having children is, for most people, a great good, one without which their lives are worse off. I know Will disputes this, but I have seen evidence according to which at least having one child really does make you happier. At any rate, there could be factors, such as the financial hardship involved with having a child, that makes people (irrationally) refrain from having a child. In such a case, subsidization might be a way to improve matters. At any rate, the above speculation is based on empirical presuppositions I'm guessing you don't share. But to your larger point, about overpopulation being a general problem, and so one that should debar subsidization of childbearing in every locality, I don't agree. You throw immigration out there as a catch-all solution, but it really depends on how the immigration is done. First, there are some places (e.g., Israel), where just any old immigration will bring obvious security risks; second, if immigration happens too

Bobby G:

The comparison was supposed to be this: valuable technological advances pay for themselves; therefore, there is no need to subsidize technology--the technology should stand or fall on its own merits, just like the decision to have children.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree somewhat -- as I said, I'm not a big fan of the government always trying to pick winning technologies and throwing money at its choices. But I don't agree there is no need to subsidize technology. In many cases, a new technology that will ultimately yield a societal benefit may need a little help at the outset getting to the point of cost efficieny, or it may be that there is no short-term incentive for one party to employ a new technology if everyone else postpones that adoption, or it may need the assurance of a market when first introduced. In such cases, it's probably better to think of this as an investment rather than a subsidy. I'm thinking, for example, of the government pledging to buy envelopes made of recycled paper, or guaranteeing a minimum order for a flu vaccine, or granting a tax break to those who

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks for the clarification. I agree somewhat -- as I said, I'm not a big fan of the government always trying to pick winning technologies and throwing money at its choices. But I don't agree there is no need to subsidize technology. In many cases, a new technology that will ultimately yield a societal benefit may need a little help at the outset getting to the point of cost efficieny, or it may be that there is no short-term incentive for one party to employ a new technology if everyone else postpones that adoption, or it may need the assurance of a market when first introduced. In such cases, it's probably better to think of this as an investment rather than a subsidy. I'm thinking, for example, of the government pledging to buy envelopes made of recycled paper, or guaranteeing a minimum order for a flu vaccine, or granting a tax break to those who install solar panels or imsulate their houses.

Yeah, I agree that there can be good reasons to subsidize technology, although I'm a little skeptical about the government's ability to see good reasons until after the technology no

But to your larger point, about overpopulation being a general problem, and so one that should debar subsidization of childbearing in every locality, I don't agree. You throw immigration out there as a catch-all solution, but it really depends on how the immigration is done. First, there are some places (e.g., Israel), where just any old immigration will bring obvious security risks; second, if immigration happens too quickly, or without any stops, ghettoization or balkanization could happen; third, it may be worth a country's while to have more high- rather than low-skilled workers, and immigration might be much better at providing the latter rather than the former. In such a case, targeted subsidization of childbearing may be in order, although one starts to skeeve out about eugenics, etc.

Why not import the children without the parents, as Madonna and Bradjelina have done? That would seem to address all the points above. You have a surplus of orphans in Burkina Faso, and you have a demand for children in the West. Single parents, gay parents and post child-bearing age parents should be among those subsidized to adopt these children. The child is much better off being raised by a 70-year-old couple

I think I agree, or almost agree, with just about everything you say. Just a couple of points, though: (1) About malnutrition, early childhood disease, etc., I'm skeptical that these are the children who get adopted. I have a friend who adopted an Ethiopian child and, first: it took about two years; and second: the child has some serious abandonment issues, not surprisingly. There's more to life than material goods, as you know, though material goods are very important. (2) I do think, and I imagine you'll differ with me here, that there's a special good that accompanies having your own children, above and beyond parenting a child. In addition, I suspect that all things being equal a biological parent will do a better job than an adoptive parent. (This suspicion is based on a factoid I heard that step-fathers are about five times more likely to abuse step-children than biological fathers.)

(1) About malnutrition, early childhood disease, etc., I'm skeptical that these are the children who get adopted.

I just used those at-risk factors as examples. Suffice to give them Angola's average live expectancy of 37 years, as opposed to Switzerland's 80.6

(2) I do think, and I imagine you'll differ with me here, that there's a special good that accompanies having your own children, above and beyond parenting a child. In addition, I suspect that all things being equal a biological parent will do a better job than an adoptive parent.

Yes, I disagree on both counts. On the second, I would remind you that step-dads are not always parents by choice, as the adoptive parents of the Cambodian kids would be. Step-"dads" are often just the guys who hooked up with the mom.

Bobby G:

Yeah, I agree that there can be good reasons to subsidize technology, although I'm a little skeptical about the government's ability to see good reasons until after the technology no longer needs the subsidization.

We share this skepticism. But, as in the examples I gave last time, it's possible to come up with instances where a positive return seems like a good bet. It's also the case that we can discriminate based on scope; e.g., the government has to buy envelopes of some sort, so it's hard to see how a policy of buying only those made from recycled paper risks much, compared to, say, the government making a sudden massive push for hydrogen-powered cars.

And there's also the problem that the companies that are most likely to convince the government that they should get subsidization are the ones that already have a lot of money, which are often (usually?) companies that are on the downward slope of their innovativeness.

Agreed. This is a real problem. However, it is more an argument in favor of reforming government and the rules for doing business with with the government than it is an

That was a nice hour of brain-stretching. I'd like to see Tyler come back.

I agree with your first sentence. I regret not having heard this diavlog until now, but now that I did, I can shout, "This is what turned me on to bhTV from the beginning! It's what is missing so often! It's what needs to be done more!" But then, you make the mistake with the second sentence. No!! It's not the 'heads, it's the format! If one bhTV keeps going back to the hole, it will become a parody of itself. More spontaneity, more of whatever Matthew Lee wants to devise with his video camera, more innovation! Of course, the irony is, that this burst of innovation came from one of the weekly franchises, not a new pairing. Kudos to Will! But, can he do it again, innovate that is?

I see no reason for North Korea to nuke Japan, unless it is stipulated that the NK leadership is truly irrational. Otherwise, why would they? What would they gain from doing that?

Again, I agree with you. Another one of my nuke-the-MSM complaints is, that the "Koreans are Crazy!" or "Kim Jong-il is a lunatic" memes compensates for absolutely no understanding of Korean affairs. Victor Cha helps to counteract that possibly intentional tack the

Joseph:

No!! It's not the 'heads, it's the format! If one bhTV keeps going back to the hole, it will become a parody of itself.

I agree that a shtick can get stale, but I thought Tyler offered more than that. He struck me as someone who had more than an hour's worth of interesting things to say. I didn't mean to imply that he had to come back with Will, just that I'd like him to come back. And I strongly disagree -- it's all about the 'heads for me. There are all sorts of places to see novelty (innovation, if you insist) on the Web. There are all too few places to hear intelligent conversation. As for the rest of your comment: Thanks for your insights on the Koreas.

On one hand, I'm reassured by Tyler Cowen's appreciation for Japan. More Americans need to visit all the islands. If not for the exchange rate and high costs in Japan, I would visit every chance I could catch the ferry or puddle jumper from Busan. I can confirm his conclusion, that Japan is a remarkable example of what an advanced Asian state can be. No two nations are as alike as ROK and Japan, but Japan does it better. I could live in Japan permanently. Yet, there is that other-worldly feeling that is also refreshing, as in Busan. All humans are not alike. And, the affect on my wife on her maiden trip was even more remarkable. She grew learning in school that the Japanese were murderers and defiled Korean culture during the Occupation, but she just flat out responded the first day, "This is not the place I learned about! I like it here!" Japan has this way of winning one over! On the other hand, nothing Cowen said I didn't already know. Again, why wait for a 'head to travel to learn this when there are plenty of expats who right now are debating and living these issues. My blog is

...I thought Tyler offered more than that. He struck me as someone who had more than an hour's worth of interesting things to say. I didn't mean to imply that he had to come back with Will, just that I'd like him to come back.

I agree Cowen was interesting, but I think the format allowed him to unwind, as it were. The usual format seems to be a regimen where someone gives the two 'heads a list of topics and a rough time frame. Or, a book roll-out. Some pairs it seems rehearse. I wonder how many other 'heads could be spontaneous.

Joseph:

I wonder how many other 'heads could be spontaneous.

Ugh. I remember a few where this seemed to be the idea, and not fondly. A little planning goes a long way, both in determining topics to discuss and preparing for those topics. I don't get the sense that there's much rehearsal, although I grant that in the more horserace-centered diavlogs, some of the statements sound as though they've been said many times before. (We're in agreement that BH.tv could stand a less of this kind of diavlog, and more of an effort to bring in new topics.) Most of the "book rollouts," as you call them, have appealed to me. It may be just that interviews are more to my taste than yours. Do you like Fresh Air, for example? I do.

I listen less to NPR now that my family in Florida got Slingplayer, which allows me to watch local TV. I only watch PBS' Online Newshour, which has been a fav since it was Lehrer and MacNeill in the 80s. My US news is tenuous, only blogs, PBS, and the Baltimore Sun and Orlando Sentinel. I don't like interviews with celebs. I hate hearing people talk about music and movies in particular, because I generally think art is a subjective task with social implications. If an artist talks about his/her own shtick, it's very authoritarian. I like free-wheeling, unending debate, like college drinking sessions.

Quoting Baltimoron: I like free-wheeling, unending debate, like college drinking sessions.

Sometimes I do, too, although I'm much more likely to enjoy them if I'm participating in them. Fresh Air is not all celeb interviews. You should check it out online and take advantage of the podcast to filter out the interviews likely not to your taste.

Quoting bjkeefe: We share this skepticism. But, as in the examples I gave last time, it's possible to come up with instances where a positive return seems like a good bet. It's also the case that we can discriminate based on scope; e.g., the government has to buy envelopes of some sort, so it's hard to see how a policy of buying only those made from recycled paper risks much, compared to, say, the government making a sudden massive push for hydrogen-powered cars.

Yeah, I agree that this example is a good one, but there could be something we're both missing--maybe just as the government pushes for this some new technology will arise to deliver paper mail that's more environmentally sound even than recycled paper. I grant, though, that we can't always rely on such exigencies as a reason never to publicly fund any technology.

Agreed. This is a real problem. However, it is more an argument in favor of reforming government and the rules for doing business with with the government than it is an argument against the principle that public investment can be a good thing.

Hmmm...reforming government in what way? I can't imagine any way

Bobby G:

Hmmm...reforming government in what way? I can't imagine any way of keeping corporate contributions out or much diminishing their power over government. Maybe you can educate me on this. (I tend to be a "no limits on contributions as long as they're public" guy.)

I am ideologically in favor of limiting campaign contributions, although I grant it's hard to come up with a satisfactory mechanism. I also grant that at some point, it seems a little unfair to limit things too much. I'm with you that better openness would help. Apart from that, three things I'd like to see in the way of reform: 1. Much more stringent control of the revolving door -- too many people, including elected officials, work with the understanding that a fat job in the private sector depends on the favors they do while in government. It should be very hard to set up this sort of quid pro quo. 2. Ethics oversight in Congress with teeth. Possibly directed by an independent body. 3. The requirement that every measure to be voted on by Congress be frozen and made available online for public perusal for a period of time before the

Why do you think you know that? I think the intensity of the conviction in this almost universal belief, despite the absence of evidence for it, suggests Darwinian false consciousness -- a propaganda effort by our genes! Insofar as we have data on happiness, it says you won't be happier. And I don't know how to measure meaning (not that we shouldn't try!) but I suspect many kinds of "meaning," including the meaning of childrearing, is terribly overrated.

There is a reason why there is such intensity: All pleasure, especially from and related to sex, is all part of the same propaganda campaign by our genes... but you probably (95/5) wouldn't avoid sex because of it's potential health risk, emotional hazards, and, of course, economic burden. The pleasure we derive from satisfying our Darwinian urges is real and at the core of many things we do.