Theoretical theories

One of the most disturbing reports to filter out of the news in recent months was the George C. Deutsch affair, in which a Bush administration crony tried to strongarm NASA into calling the Big Bang a "theory" every time it was mentioned (before they booted him for resume fraud!). The notion here is that any "theory" is automatically subject to differences of opinion - and because there's two sides to every story, that means that FOX News can effectively pretend like there's a whole lot of serious scientists out there who think the Big Bang never happened. Riiiight. (How about the "theory" of gravity and the germ "theory" of disease?)

But not all theories are created equal. If you have a few minutes, try reading this article in Foreign Policy magazine. In the article, Phillip Longman, a scion of the vaguely conservative New America Foundation, argues that falling birthrates in the developed world will lead to the resurgence of patriarchy. Patriarchy, he says, is the only social system that has effectively increased human population over time; when some people (read: feminists) abandon patriarchy, his "theory" goes, their lines will die out and the fast-breeding patriarchs will inherit the Earth.

The only weakness in this argument is that it doesn't exist. Longman offers no reason why patriarchy - a family system where only the father works and in which the male has the final say in the household - is the only system that can lead to higher birth rates. With more women working flexible jobs and more men helping with child care, there seems no reason why women will have to abandon their hard-won equality just to raise the kids on their own. Equality can coexist with fertility.

And patriarchy itself doesn't always cause high birthrates - just ask Japan, the last rich patriarchal society, with a pathetically low fertility rate of 1.3. It seems to me that family values - i.e. people wanting to bring up a bunch of kids - are necessary for the continuation of the species, but that male-dominated families aren't the only kind of families.

Duh.

Then, Foreign Policy follows that article with a dire prediction that Asia's preference for male children will lead to a large number of sexually frustrated men unable to find mates, which will drive those men to aggression and nationalism. Nice theory...but where's the evidence of this happening in the past? Sexual frustration makes men aggressive and nationalistic? All I can say is, it didn't happen that way at Stanford.

And as long as we're on the topic of BS "theories," the New York Times reports that genetic differences in gastrointestinal function have been found between East Asians and Europeans. From this, the writers extrapolate that genes might explain "why" East Asians are more "interdependent," Europeans are more "individualist," and South Americans are "fiercer"...That's some leap you're making there, buddy. Last I heard, individualism doesn't come from the stomach. But sorry, that's only my "theory."

Jeez, with all these theories flying around, maybe we do need George C. Deutsch after all.

BONUS READING GUIDE

1. After helping to poke fun at Jesus, Santa, Mohammed, Bush, black people, white people, Asian people, and just about every other race color and creed, Isaac Hayes is quitting South Park because the show dared to joke about his beloved religion of...you guessed it...Scientology. Yeah, it's all fun and games until it's your own beliefs, eh? Well, Chef...fuchyou.

2. I'm not making this up: Miss Deaf Texas was killed by a train. Yup. Apparently the train sounded its horn right up until it hit her. Can someone call Miss Blind Texas and tell her to watch out for those super-quiet EV-1 electric cars? And call Miss Smell Impaired Texas and tell her to...oh never mind...