Our moral successes are exceeded by our moral failures; one influential reason for such failure is that compliance with moral norms is motivated not by an intrinsic interest in being moral, but by an interest in appearing moral

Moral failure and the evolution of appearing moral. Scott M. James. Philosophical Psychology, Sep 29 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.1983161

Abstract: Standard adaptationist accounts of our moral psychology are motivated largely by our moral successes—empathy, altruism, cooperation, and so on. But a growing body of social psychology research indicates that our moral successes are, if anything, exceeded by our moral failures. One influential reason for such failure, according to the findings, is that compliance with moral norms—when it occurs—is motivated not by an intrinsic interest in being moral, but by an interest in appearing moral. I argue, first, that such research represents a dilemma for standard adaptationist accounts. On the one hand, if the standard account asserts that moral judgment evolved to regulate behavior by ensuring moral compliance even when tempted by egoistic gain, then we should observe regular moral compliance even when tempted by egoistic gain. But this is precisely what the data do not show. On the other hand, if the standard account asserts that moral judgment evolved simply to make moral compliance [more]* likely, then this puts the standard account in direct competition with other, more modest, accounts, ones that limit evolution’s role to what I call social compliance. 

Keywords: Evolutionary ethicsmoral failureBatsonJoyce

* Original says "moral"

Juvenile zebrafish: Some environmental enrichment paradigms produce anxiolytic-like effects and improve immunity

Different Influences of Anxiety Models, Environmental Enrichment, Standard Conditions and Intraspecies Variation (sex, personality and strain) on Stress and Quality of life in Adult and Juvenile Zebrafish: A Systematic Review. Jhon Buenhombre et al. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, September 27 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.047

Highlights

• Some environment>al enrichment paradigms produce anxiolytic-like effects and improve immunity.

• Unpredictable chronic stress and aquarium-related stressors induce anxiogenic-like effects.

• Developmental, social, intraspecies variation and test-related factors affect environmental manipulations.

• Comparison of different levels of stress would define optimal ranges of husbandry, standardisation and stress resilience.

Abstract: Antagonist and long-lasting environmental manipulations (EM) have successfully induced or reduced the stress responses and quality of life of zebrafish. For instance, environmental enrichment (EE) generally reduces anxiety-related behaviours and improves immunity, while unpredictable chronic stress (UCS) and aquarium-related stressors generate the opposite effects. However, there is an absence of consistency in outcomes for some EM, such as acute exposure to stressors, social enrichment and some items of structural enrichment. Therefore, considering intraspecies variation (sex, personality, and strain), increasing intervention complexity while improving standardisation of protocols and contemplating the possibility that EE may act as a mild stressor on a spectrum between too much (UCS) and too little (standard conditions) stress intensity or stimulation, would reduce the inconsistencies of these outcomes. It would also help explore the mechanism behind stress resilience and to standardise EM protocols. Thus, this review critically analyses and compares knowledge existing over the last decade concerning environmental manipulations for zebrafish and the influences that sex, strain, and personality may have on behavioural, physiological, and fitness-related responses.

Keywords: Stress resiliencezebrafishenvironmental enrichmentstrainsexpersonalityneurophysiologybehaviour

---

EE can be housing conditions promoting social interactions, sensory-motor and cognitive stimulation with novel stimuli and physical exercise

Human mortality at extreme age: Power calculations make it implausible that there is an upper bound below 130 years

Human mortality at extreme age. Léo R. Belzile, Anthony C. Davison, Holger Rootzén and Dmitrii Zholud. Royal Society Open Science, Volume 8, Issue 9, September 29 2021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202097

Abstract: We use a combination of extreme value statistics, survival analysis and computer-intensive methods to analyse the mortality of Italian and French semi-supercentenarians. After accounting for the effects of the sampling frame, extreme-value modelling leads to the conclusion that constant force of mortality beyond 108 years describes the data well and there is no evidence of differences between countries and cohorts. These findings are consistent with use of a Gompertz model and with previous analysis of the International Database on Longevity and suggest that any physical upper bound for the human lifespan is so large that it is unlikely to be approached. Power calculations make it implausible that there is an upper bound below 130 years. There is no evidence of differences in survival between women and men after age 108 in the Italian data and the International Database on Longevity, but survival is lower for men in the French data.

7. Discussion

The results of the analysis of the newly available ISTAT data agree strikingly well with those for the IDL supercentenarians and for the women in the France 2019 data. Once the effects of the sampling frame are taken into account by allowing for truncation and censoring of the ages at death, a model with constant hazard after age 108 fits all three datasets well; it corresponds to a constant probability of 0.49 that a living person will survive for one further year, with 95% confidence interval (0.47, 0.50). Power calculations make it implausible that there is an upper limit to the human lifespan of 130 years or below.

Although many fewer men than women reach high ages, no difference in survival between the sexes is discernible in the ISTAT and the IDL data. Survival of men after age 108 is lower in the France 2019 data, but it seems unlikely that this reflects a real difference. It seems more plausible that this is due to gender imbalance, some form of age bias or is a false positive caused by multiple testing.

If the ISTAT and France 2019 data are split by birth cohort, then we find roughly constant mortality from age 105 for those born before the end of 1905, whereas those born in 1906 and later have lower mortality for ages 105–107; this explains the cohort effects detected by [13]. Possibly the mortality plateau is reached later for later cohorts. The plausibility of this hypothesis could be weighed if further high-quality data become available.