When Radiohead first toured, their audiences just wanted to hear “Creep.” They were invited to play a show in Israel – everyone just wanted to hear “Creep.” They were invited to tour America – everyone just wanted to hear “Creep.” At festivals, people walked away after they played it. By then the song was several years old. The dudes in Radiohead were sick of it.
To be fair, Pablo Honey was a pretty weak album. “You” is a fine song, but the proffered singles – “Anyone Can Play Guitar” (more ironic in retrospect than it was at the time) and “Stop Whispering” – aren’t very compelling. At the time, nobody knew their new material.
Now, of course, Radiohead is many people’s favorite band – mine too (tied with The Marshall Cloud and anything else my brother makes).
The essayist Eliot Weinberger has also toured on the strength of a hit single. From Christopher Byrd’s 2016 profile in The New Yorker:
In person, Weinberger is genial and self-contained; he smiles frequently and is prone to wisecracks. When I asked him about the essay [“Naked Mole-Rats,” from his 2001 collection, Karmic Traces], he said “In Germany, I’m sort of like one of those bands that had one hit record, and so I give readings and people ask me to read ‘Nacktmull,’ which is the naked mole-rat. It’s their favorite one. This pretty girl said, ‘Last night, I was in bed reading it to my boyfriend.’ And I said, ‘Don’t you have anything better to read?’”
Yet, like Radiohead, Weinberger has released new work every few years – he seems to have been writing constantly ever since he dropped out of college circa 1970 and began translating the poetry of Octavio Paz – and much of it is better than the hit everybody knows. Over the past two months, I’ve had the pleasure of reading all his books – many are stunning. The Ghosts of Birds discuses Adam & Eve, the dreams of ancient Chinese poets, and the authorial voice of George W. Bush’s “autobiography.” I’ve written previously about What Happened Here, a collection of Weinberger’s essays about the Bush years. And Weinberger has written extensively about the political value of poetry. From “The T’ang” (in Oranges and Peanuts for Sale):
…[I]n the last years of the dynasty, warlords ravished the country. One of them, Huang Ch’ao, a salt merchant who had failed the civil service exams, captured Ch’ang-an in 881. A satiric poem was posted on the wall of a government building, criticizing the new regime. (As, eleven hundred years later, the Democracy Movement would begin with the poems that Bei Dao and other young poets glued to the walls in their capital, Beijing.) Huang Ch’ao issued orders that everyone capable of writing such a poem be put to death. Three thousand were killed.
When dudes ask what we’re doing teaching a poetry class in jail, it’s great to have stories like this to relate … or to toss out a quote from Norman Dubie, my co-teacher’s advisor, who says, “If Stalin feared poetry, so should you.”
And yet, I have to admit: Weinberger’s “Naked Mole-Rats” really is a lovely essay.
#
During the 1970s, evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander gave a series of lectures describing conditions that might spawn eusocial vertebrates. Alexander was a bug guy – the term “eusocial” refers to bees, ants, and termites, where individuals are extremely self-sacrificing for the good of the colony, including an abundance of non-breeding members helping with childcare.
Alexander proposed that a eusocial species of mammal could evolve if they lived in relatively safe underground burrows that could be expanded easily and defended by a small percentage of the colony. The animals would need to be small compared to their food sources, so that a stroke of good luck by one worker could feed many.
An audience member at one of Alexander’s lectures mentioned that this “hypothetical eusocial mammal” sounded a lot like the naked mole-rat and connected Alexander with Jennifer Jarvis, who’d studied the biology of these critters but hadn’t yet investigated their their social structure. The collaboration between Alexander and Jarvis led to the textbook The Biology of the Naked Mole-Rat.
Eliot Weinberger combed through this 500-plus page textbook to produce his 3-page essay. In Weinberger’s words:
As many as three hundred inhabit a colony, moving a ton of dirt every month. They have a caste system …
The medium sized are the warriors, who try to fend off the rufous-beaked snaked, the file snakes, the white-lipped snakes, and the sand boas that sometimes find their way in. … When, by chance, two colonies of naked mole-rats tunnel into each other, their warriors fight to the death.
…
Interbred for so long, they are virtually clones. One dead-end branch of the tunnel is their toilet: they wallow there in the soaked earth so that all will smell alike. They are nearly always touching each other, rubbing noses, pawing, nuzzling.
Like us, naked mole-rats are both good and bad. They are cooperative. They are affectionate. They are always touching. Encountering outsiders, they fight to the death. When a breeding female dies, many other females regain fertility and the colony erupts into civil war.
Naked mole-rats care for others. Naked mole-rats are callous toward others.
[The breeding female, of which each colony has only one] has four or five litters a year of a dozen pups. The babies have transparent skin through which their internal organs are clearly visible. Only a few survive, and they live long lives, twenty years or more. The dead babies are eaten, except for their heads. At times the live ones are eaten too.
These details are drawn from innumerable experimental observations. We humans have spent decades investigating the naked mole-rats. But Weinberger ends his essay with the reverse. Naked mole-rats observe us, too:
Sometimes a naked mole-rat will suddenly stop, stand on its hind-legs, and remain motionless, its head pressed against the roof of the tunnel. Above its head is the civil war in Somalia. Their hearing is acute.
#
Naked mole-rats “are continually cruel in small ways.” But they are outdone by naked apes. After all, the cruelty of naked mole-rats is invariably directed to others of their own kind. Our cruelty embraces ourselves as well as them.
For a research paper published in 2008, Park et al. discovered that being pinched by tweezers causes naked mole-rats pain, but the injection of caustic acid does not:
We tested naked mole-rats in standard behavioral models of acute pain including tests for mechanical (pinch), thermal, and chemical pain. We found that for noxious pinch and heat, the mole-rats responded similarly to mice.
…
In contrast to the results using mechanical and thermal stimuli, there was a striking difference in responses to strong chemical irritants known to excite nociceptors [these are sensory receptors that detect noxious inputs, like pain]. Indeed, the two chemicals used – capsaicin and low-pH saline solution – normally evoke very intense pain in humans and other animals. Injection of either irritant into the skin rapidly evoked intense licking and guarding behaviors in mice.
(In case you’re worried that acid-resistant naked mole-rats might conquer the world: a form of kryptonite exists. Injection of an 11-amino-acid signaling peptide allows acid to hurt naked mole-rats just as much as it hurts mice. Half a dozen animals were subjected to each treatment.)
So, naked mole-rats are selectively resistant to pain. This has inspired some envy in human researchers – after all, chronic pain is miserable, and most of our strategies to dampen pain have a few unwanted side-effects.
But what really gets us humans jealous is that naked mole-rats seem not to age.
#
Naked mole-rats almost never develop cancer. They should get cancer. After all, their cells, like ours, copy themselves. Over time, each copy is a copy of a copy of a copy… any errors are compounded. And some errors are particularly deadly. Our cells are supposed to stop growing when they touch each other, and they are supposed to commit suicide when their usefulness has run its course. But the instructions telling our cells when and how to kill themselves can be lost, just like any other information. Too many rounds of cell division is like making photocopies of photocopies… eventually the letters melt into static and become unreadable.
So I don’t quite understand why naked mole-rats don’t get cancer … but, in my defense, no one else does either. Tian et al. found that naked mole-rats fill the space between their cells with a particular sugar that acts as an anti-clumping agent. This contributes to their cancer resistance, because cells that can’t clump can’t form tumors… but, although many types of deadly human cancers form tumors, others, like leukemia, do not.
Of course, “cancer” cells – mutant versions of ourselves that would kill us if they could – appear all the time. Usually, our immune system destroys them. Most chemotherapy agents do not kill cancer. Chemotherapy involves pumping the body full of general poisons that stop all cells from reproducing, with the hope being that, if the spread of cancer can be slowed, a patient’s immune system will sop up the bad cells already there.
In addition to anti-clumping sugars, naked mole-rats must have other (currently unknown) virtues that enable their remarkable tenacity.
And, although the little critters seem not to age – they have “no age-related increase in mortality” and remain fertile until death – they do die. The oldest naked mole-rat lived for 27 years in captivity, and seems to have been at least a year old when first captured, based on his size.
He was rutting and eating normally until April, 2002… but then, seemingly without cause, he died. Writing for Scientific American shortly after this duder’s death, David Stipp described him (and naked mole-rats in general) as “a little buck-toothed burrower [who] ages like a demigod.”
But it’s worth noting that he had aged. He had accumulated extensive oxidative damage in his lipids, proteins, and, presumably, his DNA… which is to say, his cells were noticeably rusted and falling apart. He just didn’t let it slow him down. Not until he keeled over.
They live with gusto, the naked mole-rats.
For as long as they energy, that is. Several researchers have proposed that naked mole-rats have all these powers because they starve often in the wild.
Caloric restriction – which means, roughly, intentional starvation – is known to extend lifespan in a wide variety of species. It’s been tested in monkeys, mice, flies, and worms. Between two- and ten-fold increases in lifespan have been observed. There are some unpleasant side effects. Hunger, for instance. Caloric-restricted mice spend a lot of time staring at their empty food bowls.
Many humans who attempt caloric restriction on their own find it difficult. Hunger hurts, especially when there’s food nearby. Plus, it’s a rare diet that provides adequate nutrition while still limiting calories. Malnutrition makes people die younger, which defeats the point… unless your goal is simply to make God uncomfortable. Maybe you’ll get a wish!
But naked mole-rats have no choice. Workers tunnel outward, searching for tuberous roots. When they find one, they’ll gnaw it carefully, attempting to keep the plant alive as long as possible, but the colony invariably consumes roots faster than a plant can grow. Although naked mole-rats try to be good stewards of their environment – they are compulsive recyclers, eating their own excrement to make sure no nutrients are lost – their colonies plunge repeatedly into famine.
And they sleep in mounds, hundreds of bodies respiring underground. Anyone sleeping near the center probably runs out of oxygen.
But they survive.
We would not. Most mammals, deprived of oxygen, can no longer fuel their brains. Our brains are expensive. Even at rest our brains demand a constant influx of energy or else the neurons “depolarize” – we fall apart. This is apparently an unpleasant experience. It’s brief, though. At Stanford, my desk was adjacent to a well-trafficked gas chamber. A mouse, or a Chinese-food takeout container with several mice, was dropped in; a valve for carbon dioxide was opened; within seconds, the mice inside lost consciousness; they shat; they died.
A naked mole-rat would live. Unless a very determined researcher left the carbon dioxide flowing for half an hour. Or so found Park et al. – a graph from their recent Science paper is shown below. Somewhere between three and twelve animals were used for every time point; all the mice would’ve been dead within a minute, but perhaps as few as three naked mole-rats died in this experiment.
Human brains are like hummingbirds – our brains drink up sugar and give us nothing but a fleeting bit of beauty in return. And our brains are very persnickety in their taste for sugar. We are fueled exclusively by glucose.
Naked mole-rats are less fussy than we are – their minds will slurp fructose to keep from dying.
#
Naked mole-rats: the most cooperative of all mammals. Resistant to cancer. Unperturbed by acid. Aging with the libidinous gracelessness of Hugh Hefner. Able to withstand the horrors of a gas chamber.
And yet, for all those superpowers, quite easily tormented by human researchers.
In Ghostbusters II, the parapsychologists learned that certain words were dangerous. A strange pink slime burgeoned beneath New York City, bringing with it a wide variety of malevolent spirits. Every vile, hateful thing that anyone said caused the slime to grow in power. Let slip too many insults and the muck might expand to engulf the world.
Until I picked up his 
Al Gore received some 540,000 more votes than George W. Bush. Presidential elections, however, are determined by the archaic system of an Electoral College, to which each state sends representatives who vote according to the will of that state’s voters, nearly always on a winner-takes-all basis. An 18th-century invention, the College was a last-minute political concession to Southern slave owners when the Constitution was written. Representatives were apportioned according to population; slaves, of course, could not vote, but they were considered to be three-fifths of a human in the calculations, thus increasing the populations of the slave states and the number of their representatives.
Awarding the presidency to the losers was constitutional. Somewhat less so in 2004, when clownish Supreme Court justices with clear conflicts of interest prevented the state of Florida from accurately awarding their votes, but constitutional nonetheless: in Weinberger’s words, “Our Founding Fathers had a limited enthusiasm for democracy.”
Frank Brown Cloud 