Forthcoming (August 2011) Future Science edited by Max Brockman, Vintage Press, New York. humans to evoke the shame that leads to cooperation. In addition, the emergence of new tools— language, writing, the Internet—cannot completely replace the eyes. Face to face interactions, such as those outside of Trader Joe’s stores, are still the most impressive form of dissent. So what is stopping shame from catalyzing social change? I see three main drawbacks: (1.) Today’s world is rife with ephemeral, or “one-off,”’ interactions. When you know you are unlikely to run into the same situation again, there is less incentive to change your behavior. Research shows, however, that if people know they will interact again, cooperation improves.'> Shame works better if the potential for future interaction is high. In a world of one- off interactions, we can try to compensate for anonymity with an image score, such as the hygiene grade cards or EBay’s seller ratings, which sends a signal to the group about an individual or an institution’s degree of cooperation. (2.) Today’s world allows for amorphous identities. Recall the reef fish that observe Bluestreak cleaner wrasses in the Red Sea. The wrasses seem to know they are being watched, and certain wrasses will build their reputation on the small reef fish, allowing the big reef fish to observe their cooperative behavior with the small fry. Then, when the big fish comes in for its own cleaning, these wrasses eat some of the big reef fish’s flesh along with its parasites, fattening themselves on their defection. To add to the confusion on the reef, False cleanerfish (Aspidontus taeniatus) make their living by looking very similar to the Bluestreak cleaner wrasses. They are able to approach reef fish under the guise of cooperation and then bite off pieces of fish flesh and swim off. Many of our interactions these days are similar to the fish cleanings in the Red Sea. It’s SM. Milinski, D. Semmann, & H. Krambeck, “Reputation helps