Author: admin

I was listening to a presentation being given by futurist David Houle a few days ago. He began to talk about how technology is changing the way that people communicate and work, particularly with the exponential global growth in cell phone subscribers. As he relayed stats, he discussed implications for how society works. This made me begin to think of something that had been pestering the back of my mind for a while, the implications of the rapid adoption of Facebook.

Recently I read in The Economist, in an article titled Primates on Facebook, about a study that was done of the number of friends people tend to have on Facebook. What is interesting is that the findings are fairly consistent with limitations theorized by Robin Dunbar, who believes that the brain limits the size of a social network an individual can develop. An implication of this that came to my mind is that of the potential of reduced (not eliminated) social mobility. By social mobility I don’t necessarily mean upward, but at all.

What do I mean?

Most people go through life making batches of new friends, friends whose interests match theirs at some given point in life. If, however, there is a cap on the size of a social network, and the legacy social network is preserved longer than it would be otherwise by way of Facebook or similar technology, then it would seem that the tendency to develop new friendships would have to be somehow inhibited.

Think about it. How many relationships have you developed in the last couple of years that have changed your life significantly? If your ability to begin these relationships were somehow inhibited by an otherwise full network on your side or the others, such that you did not develop the same friendship, what would your life be like?

This could have important implications. In another article recently in The Economist titled The Road Not Taken a theory was discussed that says that higher home ownership percentages are negative for an economy due to the decreased mobility of the workforce. I had not heard this before, but it immediately made some sense to me, especially in these times of economic stress. It also matched a long held personal belief that government intervention to increase home ownership is messing with nature, at least beyond some point, and thus may have adverse consequences, something that seems to be more evident now.

The reason I mention this is that the idea that increased home ownership percentages might be negative for an economy is, at least initially, a bit counter intuitive. The same goes for the idea of reduced social mobility due to the increased use of online social networks like Facebook – it is a bit counter intuitive. Seemingly the increased communication would be good, for all kinds of reasons. The problem may lay in the fact that we are all, well, primates.

Originally published 3/23/09 in Science 2.0.

There was a study done over a decade ago by Claud Wedekind in which 44 men wore the same T-shirt for three days, refraining refrained from deodorants and scented soaps so they wouldn’t interfere with their smell. Thereafter women sniffed the shirts and indicated which ones they felt smelled the best. In this test, the researchers found that women preferred the smell of a man whose MHC (major histocompatibility complex), which is a series of genes involved in our immune system, was most different from their own.

But there was an exception… The MHC attraction for women taking the pill was almost the exact opposite, with women on the pill finding the scent of men with MHC’s similar to their own to be attractive.. The assumption is that because the pill tricks your body into thinking it is pregnant, it chemically alters the sense of attraction. This article is about potential implications of this exception.

First, one has to consider why it is believed that the natural attraction is for dissimilar MHC. It is thought that this is a byproduct of evolution, in that those attracted to dissimilar MHC would have offspring with better immune systems, and thus would have a better chance of surviving, a genetic advantage. This leads to the first potential implication, birth control pills may be leading to weaker immune systems for the human species. I’m not saying they should not exist, or be used, as they certainly make life more convenient. I’m simply making an observation that this could be an implication.

Let’s consider another possible implication. Many single women in the industrialized world take birth control pills. They flirt, date, get engaged, get married, and plan families while on birth control pills. Considering the results of this study, however, it would seem that women might be sexually attracted to a person while on birth control pills, only to find this attraction muted when not on birth control. This leads to the second potential implication, birth control pills could increase divorce rates.

I’m not saying birth control pills will increase divorce rates, but it would certainly seem to make sense that they could. As idealistic as someone might strive to be when it comes to their commitment to marriage, sexual attraction still matters. Going even further, many do not strive for any particular ideal, but instead, finding themselves less attracted to their mates, simply head for the exit (or more accurately to another bedroom door). Thinking about it, without looking at actual data, it seems that an increase in divorce rates has some correlation with the inception of use of and growth of use of birth control pills.

This article may cause some controversy. Keep in mind, I’m only making observations about possible implications, I’m not stating these things for a fact, and I’m certainly NOT making any type of moral statement or other statement about society. More than anything, I do not wish to limit anyone’s freedom, of any kind.

Originally published 2/25/09 in Science 2.0