My Subjective Thoughts on Human Security Issues

What is human security? It is, “The right of all human beings to respect for their lives and freedoms including freedom from threats (freedom from fear) and freedom to develop (freedom from want)” (Reveron & Norris, 2011, p. 108;235). Here threats can be a host of variables such as war, death, genocide and displaced populations. In the human security concept people should be basically free from violence or fear of violence. However, Reveron and Norris’s (2011) definition bothers me so I more adhere to the United Nations definition located in paragraph 143 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome, “We stress the right of all people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair”, and recognized that “all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential” (United Nations, 2005, p. 30). This definition is more inclusive to real liberties and not so abstract and vague. Being able to eat, I think, is a fundamental human right.

Global challenges to human security happen when internal conflict may go beyond a State’s geographical borders such as when one State declares war on another and starts to kill it’s inhabitants over a disputed border. There is always collateral damage in war torn countries where innocent people die and are afraid of dying. This leads to loosing one’s food security, water security, and human security. Food and water security are the two most basic building blocks of all other security factors; I cannot stress this enough!

Various studies show there is a casual relationship between food insecurity and the emotionally psychological development of children that live in poverty that are consistently food insecure. This association between food insecurity and the behavior of children is compounded by being disproportionately exposed to other risk factors which have the potential to have a negative affect on the child’s behavioral development. These include being forced to grow up in a single parent home, domestic violence and illegal narcotic use.

Thus, through routinely inadequate sustenance these impaired social behaviors can partially be explained. Without proper water security we cannot be fully food secure and thus, we are human insecure because of the lack of these basic building blocks to human security. The figure to the left is a graph of ecological footprint measured as the number of planets versus time. As is shown, we have just one planet, so the Earth’s bio-capacity in number of planets is 1 (horizontal blue line). In 1961 humanity was using 50% of the earth’s resources, but consumption of resources has been increasing every year not only because of increase in energy consumption, but also because of increasing population. After 1985 we have been consuming resources at a rate greater that the capacity of regeneration. Today, we are using 1.3 planets Earths, which means that we are consuming ecological services 1.3 times faster than their capacity of regeneration. This is a problem.

Everything is interconnected. How we manage our resources can have drastic consequences if we globally fail to listen to the warnings of science. I will use Washington as an example to show how food security revolves around so many different, but interconnect concepts. As temperatures here in Washington State increase so do forest fires, flooding, and precipitation and desertification. According to the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, “…global climate models project increases in average annual Pacific Northwest temperature of 2.0°F by the 2020s…snowpack is projected to decrease by 28% across the state by the 2020s…the probability that more than two million acres will burn in a given year is projected to increase from 5% (observed) to 33% by the 2080s” (Motte, & Salathe, 2007). The problem here is not that the climate does not naturally change, but that it’s been changing at an alarming rate. Our environmental security is of paramount importance in establishing food and water security.

Table 1 below shows the projected temperature and precipitation changes in the Pacific Northwest due to an increase of carbon output by humans (e.g. cutting down forests, burning fossil fuels). The warming climate and atmospheric conditions will inhibit snowfall and increase a wetter winters. The changes outlined by table will have an impact on our annual snow pack; the most obvious impact will be a decrease in snow pack which in turn will affect streams, rivers, creeks, higher levels of down flow and earlier snow melts. In Littell’s executive report evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate he claims that snowpack has decreased by 25% over the last 40-70 years in the Cascade mountains (see Littell et-al., 2009). Less snowpack = less fresh water stores, reduced river flow or smaller streams simply dying up all together and moving someplace else.

The fertile orchards of eastern Washington produce 60% of the apples in the United States all of which are greatly impacted by the increasing conditions caused by humans. The increase of forest fires has the potential to cost billions in property damage, increase air pollution and has serious erosion and sedimentation consequences. Changing in growing patterns will increase crop losses and lead to inadequate water supplies to agriculture leading to massive food shortages. The logging practices of the last 150 years has left of with only 10% of the original old growth forest in Washington State.

This deforestation of old growth forests during the last 150 years has significantly increased the carbon which threatens our climate in Washington state and globally. Everything is an intrinsic, interconnected system that supports and works with each other. “Of course, deforestation, carbon emissions, ozone depletion, and other forms of pollution directly impact human security by threatening quality of life, impacting pace development and stressing many societies” (Reveron & Norris, 2011 p 111). Water supports food and food supports human life all the while human activities drastically impact our ability to adequately save or produce both. Humans pollute and toxify water resources; then throw away enough food to completely end human hunger globally. So, what is our problem?

Without clean, unpolluted water then food cannot be grown and without food human beings will starve to death. Basically, food security is sensitive to climate change and the quality of water. However, poor agricultural practices and other human activities threaten these necessary resource. Our rivers, streams and oceans are becoming radiated, fish species are disappearing and being filled up with excessive nitrogen, garbage and toxic waste products from our industrial production of goods. The destruction of our own food and water security is the consequences that lead to a failure in human security globally which leads to a host of in and external conflicts with ourselves and other States of the world. I think food, water and environmental security have always been implicitly recognized during the whole course of human primate evolution, however, environmental security has just recently been more focused in the last 25 years.

When people cannot get enough food to feed themselves and family members or lack water, shelter and other natural resources (e.g. firewood to cook food, lumber to build houses, sheep to make clothes) that creates unstable living situations. During the last 25+ years there has been a sort of convergence between how we see national security and environmental protection. They’ve essentially melded together to form what we now consider environmental security. Part of the problem with environmental security issues is that humans always put themselves first which I think it pretty natural in the greater scheme of things, “Clearly, protecting the environment is an important end to itself, but human needs often take priority over conservation” (Riveron & Norris, 2011 p 106). However, in doing so we tend to not see the long term affects of our actions which result in a decrease in viable agricultural lands, increases in pollution, global climate change and in the end reduced food and water security. 

Finding viable alternative energy sources are an absolute necessity if humans are to eventually repair some of the global damage they have inflicted. This paper will look at solar and wind energy as two of many viable energy alternatives to the extensive use of coal and other fossil fuels. As fossil fuel consumption increases the so does the carbon in trees and plants. We are then cutting down forests at alarming rates releasing all that stored carbon into the atmosphere. All forms of fossil fuel production and processing are dirty and contaminates the atmosphere, soil and our water sources. It’s inefficient yet is still the top producer of power in the United States because it’s cheap. Ignoring environmental concerns for the last 150 years for cheap power is now becoming more apparent with the drastic environmental changes that have been happening all over the world with increasing severity. The desertification has cause greater loss of agricultural lands thus reducing the amount of food that can be produced and directly affecting food security.

The carbon level graph above shows a direct relation to carbon content in plants to the increase in fossil fuels being burned each year. As more fossil fuels are burned, there is a drastic increase in terrestrial carbon content. As we cut down the trees that are absorbing the carbon released by fossil fuel burning we are adding even more carbon into the atmosphere which in turn increases the global temperature and affects all life on the planet.

This increase in carbon in the atmosphere will make plants and trees grow faster and bigger thus it could possibly increase crop production. This could help with our growing food needs, but this is only something that will benefit humans is in the short term. The long term affects; however, are not as enticing. Glacial melt, increased rains, floods and severe weather all have drastic affects on humans and the environment. The Earth is a system of interconnected parts that work in harmony with one another. When humans impact one part it will eventually affect all the other parts. The extent of consequences of human actions in the past has yet to be realized and scientist can only theorize on the severity of those actions on our future environment.

The United Nations and individual States of the world have all been trying to address these issues, however, we run into various other problems as well. I would have to say the primary agency trying to combat food insecurity is U.S. Agency for International Development through it’s Feed the Future program initiated by the U.S. Government which tries to get other countries to address the basic principles causing food insecurity within their respective borders. It’s helping other countries modernize their agricultural techniques which helps grow enough food to sustainable feed their citizens.

The U.S. Is lucky enough to develop agricultural practices through trial and error over the last 2.5 centuries. Many of these practices where not used in developing countries or their farmers were ignorant on them and did not know they even existed. The U.S. along with other countries have leveraged more than 18 billion dollars to help combat food insecurity globally. The peace corps is another organization that combats food and water insecurity by educating people on how to grow sustainable crops, harvest them, and take care of themselves better than what they have been use to. They help build livable housing, farms and help create a better living environment.

The Peace Corps was founded in 1961 and has been active in more than 139 countries in the last 50 years. They help address pressing issues such as disease, sex inequality food security, water security, environmental security and simply try to empower people with education methods. Their mission is to promote peace and friendship through helping people deal with these challenges while empowering them to change. They have had over a quarter of a million volunteers and are a proven entity in changing the lives of people for the better all over the world. The sad part is that the experts generally agree that there is enough food in the world for everyone to eat yet tens of millions of people starve everyday. 

That said obviously the right agencies are not working on the problem or we would have better solutions. We spend tens of trillions of dollars manufacturing weapons of war and destruction yet give almost nothing to eradicating hunger. It’s easy to ignore the starving babies in some third world country while you eat a big mac. “World health experts concur that improving global food availability and access must be a global priority” (Mcguire & Beerman, 2013, p. 634). As a global community we should be putting more effort into alleviating poverty and feeding everyone. The Peace Corps annual budget for 2014 is around 379 million dollars which might seem like a lot, but globally it’s a drop in the bucket. They are currently active in 65 countries with 7,209 volunteers. What they do matters and globally they are seen as a very positive entity.

Conclusion

I think when addressing any concern we need to start somewhere. In addressing food and water security in developing countries it would be wise to have a green energy source to power their water pumps, machinery and farming methods. If they had large wind or solar plants they would not be polluting the air and waterways which make it harder to farm and produce food. There would be less reliance on trees for cooking or heating houses. If we pollute a piece of land it’s essentially useless and can no longer be productive to help with food security. When a river becomes toxic it cannot be use to water crops.

That said, I think we need to focus our efforts on establishing clean, efficient means for people to power their electronics, technology, equipment and heat their homes, cook food and manufactor goods. With that in mind I think wind and solar options are affordable and necessary especially in developing countries. There are different types of solar power plants such as parabolic, thermal, hybrid and central towers. Parabolic solar plants use a a curved mirror to focus the sunlight onto a pipe running down the middle of the mirror. The pip heats up, boils water into steam and then the steam is used to turn a turbine which in turn produces electricity. In the deserts of California they already have Solar Thermal Power Plants producing electricity enough electricity to power 350,000 homes. If the same type of device could be built in a developing country they would have less need to destroy forests and pollute water bodies just to get energy to produce food. 

There is a large solar power plant in the Nevada desert called the Nevada Solar one that produces 134 million kilowatts of energy every year. It is spread over 400 acres and cost 266 million dollars to build. Solar energy is sustainable; it doesn’t run out, is quiet, does not pollute and can help alleviate a dependency on grid power almost anywhere in the world. However, solar is only an intermittent energy source because there has to be sunlight. Hybrid plants use natural gas so they can keep producing energy at night time. Building them in the deserts also impacts the desert ecosystems which are relatively delicate. Once built though, they last for many years and provide a secure, stable mean of power generation year round which could substantially benefit a lot of countries in places like Africa and near the equator.

With advancements in solar cells scientist have reached a 44% efficiency which is twice that of commercial solar cells (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012). “Solar thermal plants are among the most promising technologies to replace fossil fuel stationary applications, and within solar thermal technologies, parabolic troughs are considered the most mature application in the market” (Giostri, Binotti, Astolfi, Silva, Macchi, & Manzolini, 2012). Modern solar cells can even generate electricity in the rain and with complete cloud cover. 

Wind energy transforms wind into electricity through a large turbine that is turned by blades and resembles a household fan. Wind energy is another sustainable energy source: it doesn’t run out. Like solar power it’s intermittent because the wind is not always blowing. However, currently, wind energy produces enough electricity to power 1.6 million homes in the United States. Wind turbines are combined into wind farms that can stretch for many miles across the hills and mountains. There are also offshore wind farms.

Wind also have a very low ongoing cost because they are very easy to maintain. In 2010, wind only accounted for 2.3% of the total share of energy production. One gigawatt of wind energy can power about two hundred thousand households in the United States per year and it’s estimated that the potential for offshore wind power is about 4,200 gigawatts. That’s enough electricity to power 840 million homes! The switch from fossil based fuels to wind energy can be made relatively easy and wind is definitely a viable alternative with great potential. It already helps alleviate the strain on traditional energy plants and could possibly start replacing them in the near future. Nothing is without environmental impacts. Wind can be noisy for those that live near them and the giant wind blades have an adverse impact on local bird species. They also have to be far away from urban centers and the offshore facilities can be really expensive to construct and the need for long expensive power lines to attach them to the grid is another consideration that has to be made.

Most wind turbines are from 2-3Megawatt (MW) and cost anywhere between 3-4 million dollars. Wind turbines are also less practical for individual home installations. A small 50 watt wind turbine cost about 1,000 dollars and that does not include installation. The typical American home would need a 10 kilowatt system and that can cost tens of thousands of dollars, however, in developing nations one small turbin can produce enough energy to run their appliances, cook their food and heat their homes. In comparison, a 50 watt solar system cost less than 200 dollars. In the United States there are plans for rapid expansion of wind farms and there are numerous farms currently either planned or under construction. For example, there are 23 proposed wind farms under consideration right now and in North Dakota there is a 292 MW facility currently under construction at a cost of about 379 million dollars.

The biggest impact humans can have on carbon is planting trees and better logging practices. This can help regulate carbon in the atmosphere and repair some of the damage inflicted by human beings. The jungle regions of the Earth are being devastated by logging and making room for agricultural lands to harvest more food. It’s all interlinked 

Wind and solar is currently being combined to help power remote communities, power street lights and even on farms to help power all the electrical equipment. Businesses and large buildings have also been using wind turbines to help alleviate costly energy bills. Unlike solar, wind energy has much greater potential with advancements in generator technologies and much more efficient storage capabilities. The hardest part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is the financial aspects. Coal is cheap, green alternatives are not and until recently governments were more focused on short term savings than long term benefits.

This view; however, is slowing becoming the exception instead of the norm and if we truly want to address food and water security to ensure all the rest then we should start here with clean power that is easy to maintain and distribute. Community solar plants would produce free energy to local residents reducing bills that need to be paid tremendously. These are the types of programs we need. Once clean, efficient power is dealt with we can produce good crops and feed people more efficiently while not damaging the food and water producing places or regions with our garbage.

References

Giostri, A., Binotti, M., Astolfi, M., Silva, P., Macchi, E., & Manzolini, G. (May 01, 2012). Comparison of different solar plants based on parabolic trough technology. Solar Energy,86, 5, 1208-1221.

Littell, J.S., McGuire E., Whitely, L.C. & Snover, S.K. (2009). The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Retrieved from: http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciaexecsummary638.pdf

Maxwell S. (2001). The evolution of thinking about food insecurity. Food security in sub- Saharan Africa. London: ITDG. 13–31.

McGuire, M. and Beerman, K. (2013). Nutritional Sciences: From Fundamentals to Food. Belmont, CA: Wadesworth Cengage Learning.

Motte, P.W., & Salathe Jr, E.P. (2007). Future climate in the pacific northwest.. Manuscript submitted for publication, Geology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Retrieved from http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach1scenarios642.pdf

Regmi, A. (Ed.). (2001). Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, WRS01-1. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, USDA. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS011/

Shiabi G, O’Neal K (2008) A framework for understanding the association between food insecurity and children’s developmental outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2: 71–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00049.x.

Reveron, D.S. and Mahoney-Norris, K.A. (2011). Human security in a borderless world. Boulder, CO: Westview press.

Sims, R. E. H. (2004). Renewable energy: a response to climate change. Solar Energy, 76, 9-17. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00101-4

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. (2013). How much electricity does an american home use?. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

United Nations General Assembly, 60th Session. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome A/RES/60/1), 24 October 2005, Available online: Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021752.pdf

Reflection on Violence Against Transsexual Women

As with most other crimes of violence prior research shows that crimes against transsexual women tend to be committed by young white males (Berrill, 1990; Comstock, 1991; Garofolo & Martin, 1993; Harry, 1992; Martin, 1996; Maxwell & Maxwell, 1995; Messner, McHugh, & Felson, 2004; Tomsen, 2009; Van Der Meer, 2003). In fact, homicides committed against transsexual women tend to have multiple perpetrators when compared to non-transsexual homicides (Martin, 1996; Tomsen, 2009; Van Der Meer, 2003). For perpetrators of transsexual female violence negatively sanctioning transsexual women is an opportunity to brazenly demonstrate masculinity against victims who offenders subjectively presume will not retaliate (Harry, 1992). 

The current social structure of U.S. society promotes hegemonic conceptualization of heterosexuality and sexual prejudice (Herek, 2000; Kimmel, 1997).  Hence, many young white males are obsequious to group norms so by engaging in negative sanctioning behavior towards transsexual women it allows these males to situationally negotiate masculinity and assert their adherence to social norms governing sex role expectations which are valued by their social groups thus, they feel their actions are morally justified (Poteat, Kimmel, & Wilchins, 2011).

References

Berrill, K. T. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5: 274-294.

Comstock, G. D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Garofalo, J., & Martin, S. E. (1993). Bias-motivated crimes: The law enforcement response. Carbondale, IL: Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections.

Harry, J. (1992). Conceptualizing anti-gay violence. In G. M. Herek, & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 113- 122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4): 905-925.

Martin, S. E. (1996). Investigating hate crimes: Case characteristics and law enforcement responses. Justice Quarterly, 13: 455-480.

Maxwell, C., & Maxwell, S. R. (1995). Youth participation in hate-motivated crimes: Research and policy implications. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Messner, S., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. (2004). Distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology, 42: 585-618.

Poteat, V. P., Kimmel, M. S., & Wilchins, R. (2011). The moderating effects of support for violence beliefs on masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behavior during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 434-447.

Tomsen, S. (2009). Violence, prejudice and sexuality. New York, NY: Routledge.

Van Der Meer, T. (2003). Gay bashing: A rite of passage? Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5: 153-165.

A Reflection on Biology, Sex, Gender, and Behavior

Sex - male or female; gender - feminine or masculine. Personality, behavior, attitudes; who are we, who am I? Are sex role expectations negative? What is so horrendous about a given society having sex or gender role expectations? Many of those socially constructed expectations are quite different across cultures and societies. Even within the social strata of one respective society they may be quite diverse. Is behavior merely the end result of our socialization processes, conformity, and control and thus, the by-product of our own social structures? Why is the mean personality traits stereotypically ascribed to women and femininity empirically valid, logical, and reflect reality more so than it does not? There is a great divide in the sociological and psychological world over what truly influences human primate behavior which directly trickles down into other disciplines who have adherents to old paradigms they do not wish to give up on. 

I purport that biology is what influences behavior and creates those sex and gender specific stereotypes. Why are women so much more passive than men, more expressive emotionally; and why do women form stronger social bonds much earlier than men do? Is the alleged socialization the causal variable? Is it the differences in socialization between males and females? If one truly believes this theoretical framework then how does one explain how there are no significant changes to some of these "stereotypical" feminine traits across cultures and societies? If personality and behaviors are the result of social conditioning then we would get drastically different results from studying females from differing cultures, but we don't. Women from isolated native populations in South American have similar personality traits which can be viewed empirically in women from the United States, Great Britain or Morocco. How can this be so? 

            

Women naturally have higher levels of oxytocin and serotonin so females are more passive and expressive emotionally. It's why females form stronger social bonds with other humans and pets. Testosterone; however, has been found to counteract the effects of oxytocin which is partly why men - generally speaking - are much less likely to be generous and trusting and more likely to react aggressively or be hostile. It also explains why men have a much harder time forming strong social bonds with other people (Emerson & McKinney, 2010; Lau & Haug, 2012; Pollack, 2013; White, 1999; Zack, 2012). 

            

Morality and ethics concern judgments of behavior as right or wrong, good or bad and we use this to assign social values to behaviors and personality. Males can be seen doing the same types of behavior all across the globe irrespective of their societies ideology or the social values we place on behaviors. Males have been responsible for the vast majority of all violent crime everywhere on the planet since crime statistics have been recorded even where that respective society openly devalues those behaviors (e.g. sex crimes). Maybe there is a balance between absolutism and relativism since there are multicultural truths that affect moral  perceptions, however, we cannot palliate the overwhelming data that shows sex crimes are almost entirely a male phenomenon (Hinman, 1998).

            

Even in the United States males are responsible for 99% of forcible rapes while 91% of their victims are women (Greenfield, 2012). So, it’s not just a third world problem, it’s a male problem. “Probably the most egregious violation of women’s rights, however, occurs in conjunction with practices such as human trafficking and the use of sexual violence against women as a deliberate policy in conflict situations” (Reveron & Norris, 2011, p. 56). Who is doing all of these horrendous crimes? Males. Even when we look to the third world community we see it's males that are intentionally exploiting children in the labor market where they treated as slaves or indentured servants instead of as children. The informal economy includes things such as child prostitution, illegal human organ market and child soldiers. Workers are exploited, women and children are exploited and it’s revolting (Davis, 2006). The myth of informality is the attempt by people in academia to invalidate the problems associated with economic informality by attacking and devaluing the data created by previous researchers looking into this area of interest. It’s called a, “…myth inspired by wishful thinking…” (Davis 2006, p. 179).

            

We can theorize on why women do not account for more rapes and crimes cross culturally, but that in and of itself cannot negate the harrowing data regarding rape statistics. It is a male problem, “in Rwanda, up to half a million women were raped during the 1994 genocide” (Reveron & Norris, 2011, p. 56). Here the lack of self-control happens when the dominant societies formal and informal social controls are no longer sufficient to constrain anti-social or deviant behaviors thus, I suspect that when they [males] have the opportunity to act out on their natural biological imperatives that were previously constrained by society that they will, in fact, do it. In every single war or conflict the we have men raping women in large numbers all through known history. Like I previously stated, it is a male problem, not a "gender" or socially constructed issue. It's a biological problem associated with being a male and needs to be addressed as such.

            

Genetics seems to influence personality traits that may impact ethical decision making including differences as to whether a person is introverted or extroverted, neurotic. stable, incurious, agreeable, antagonistic, etc (Pinker, 2002; Wilson, 1993; Shermer, 2004; Zak, 2012). When people suffer physical trauma to their brain altering their brain structures, changing chemical compositions, their personalities change but it seems people from the social sciences outright ignore this interesting segue into the discussion about how sex hormones impact behavior and decision making in order to keep the validity of their paradigm. Males and females have drastically different amounts of sex hormones which have significant impact on brain development structurally.

            

Maybe if we finally address the biological influences in behavior and personality traits we can start to really find plausible solutions to those negative behaviors and personality traits such as males violent, aggressive nature, “For many human beings in the world the most serious threat to their daily lives and physical safety arises not from cultural extremism but from common criminal violence…”( Reveron & Mahoney-Harris,2011, p. 43). Who are the people most responsible for this common criminal violence around the world? Males.

        

There needs to be more academic research that looks at how brain structure development, sex hormones and the impact genes, heredity and genetic variation in human primates impacts behavior and personality traits which affects the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior that are underlying the cognitive functions of the human primate condition. It is fundamentally important to look at biological influences in various areas of sociology, psychology and criminology especially when it involves individual attributes, traits and behaviors such as what we in criminal justice study: crime.  One major implicit assumption in sociological discourse is that human primates are the same at birth and thus differences are the end result of socialization and one's respective position in the social hierarchy. From my own perspective I have noticed that the absence of explicit discussion on biological influences in criminal justice, criminology and sociology is due to the respective disciplines' theoretical emphasis on a group's social-structural position while engaging in a type of reasoning defect by asserting that since there is an unavailability of reliable measures of relevant biological influences it's therefore not relevant hence, an appeal to ignorance which is a false dichotomy. 

            

Maybe justice is a biologically adaptive trait (Walsh, 2000). Maybe the notion of justice is emotional rather than rational and is the result of natural selection because those who cannot navigate society are just not optimally adapted for survival in a societies manifestation of consensual norms, but that is a discussion for a whole other blog.

 References

Davis, M. (2006). Planet of Slums. New York, NY: Verso Publishing.

Emerson, T., & McKinney, J. (2010). Importance of religious beliefs to ethical attitudes in business. Journal of Religious and Business Ethics. 1(2): 1-15.

Greenfield, L. (2012). Sex Offenses and Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. BiblioGOV.

Lau, L., & Haug, J. (2011). The impact of sex, college, major, and student classification on students perception of ethics. Mustang Journal of Business Ethics. 1: 92-105.

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human behavior. New York, NY: Viking Publishing.

Pollack, J.M. (2013). Ethical Decisions and Dilemmas in Criminal Justice. Belmon, CA: Wadesworth.

Reveron, D.S. and Mahoney-Norris, K.A. (2011). Human security in a borderless world. Boulder, CO: Westview press.

Shermer, M. (2004). The science of good and evil: Why people cheat, gossip, care, share, and follow the golden rule. New York, NY: Times Books, Holt and Company.

 

Walsh, A. (2000). Evolutionary Psychology and the origins of justice. Justice Quarterly, 17(4): 841-864.

Wilson, J.Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York, NY: Free Press.

White, R. (1999). Are women more ethical? Recent findings on the effects of gender on moral development. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 9: 459-472.

Zak, P.J. (2012). The Moral Molecule. New York: Dutton.