Living Systems

The fact of our constant movement, formation and transformation, and the reliance of sun, air, water, etc. in this process is indication of our presence within this system and classification as living.

That which is not living is not contingent upon environmental factors for sustenance, indeed does not require sustenance. Is it our reliance on our atmosphere that distinguishes us as alive? Living systems require constant exchange and engagement with those basic elements that support us. We seem to be slightly misguided in our identification as separate entities capable of thriving independently; rather we (living systems) are in constant relationship with every other living particle.

Divergence of species

I'll be honest: I don't fully understand the process of a species diverging or the development of a sub-species. In this particular instance isn't it possible that the introduction of a single random element could be the determining factor? I'm also curious about external influences such as environmental or geographical shifts. There's obviously a great deal more for me to consider here.

inundated with drugs

Yeah, there's a drug around for nearly everything and it's tough to consider how reliant we seem to have become on meds. Perhaps it should be instructive that the prosperous among us are not exempt, in fact, may well be more inclined to medicate.

The good news (in a manner of speaking) is that we can't afford them. Short of a radical change in health care and the pharmaceutical industry, it seems to me that we have little choice but to move in the direction of preventative health care. This bodes well for those of us intending to eke out a living as TCM practitioners.

genetic evolution

The fact that most of our critical DNA is identical to that of chimps is not particularly surprising. On the contrary, I'm surprised that we human beings are so determined to emphasize our distinctions from one another. It's comical, given our genetic similarity to chimps, that we should ever have considered that there may be sub species among human beings.

Then again, I wonder what difference it ultimately makes whether chimps are classified under the "homo" or "Pan" genus. If reclassification could as Rambaut suggests, "raise the chimps profile and improve their conservation," then by all means, reclassify. But shouldn't that be indicative of our own arrogance that a species should fare better under the classification homo genus?

Does Darwinism matter?

On Tuesday the Board of Education in Florida adopted a curriculum change that will force public schools to refer to evolution as "a scientific theory." Nearly 200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, teachers in Florida will be required to acknowledge the legitimacy of evolution as a scientific theory.

In 2005 a federal court declared that intelligent design, previously considered a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, was in fact a religion rather than science. But it doesn't seem that the case (Kitzmiller v. Dover) made specific requirements as to what must be taught. Thus, schools in Texas, Florida and Arkansas have simply opted to refer to evolution as one theory, among other alternatives.

I have to admit, I'm a bit awed that this is a debate that persists within American public schools in 2008. Then again, it turns out that Romney, Thompson and Huckabee believe in Creationism and deem it worthy of note in scientific discourse. I suppose it is to some degree our inclination to impose a tenet so central to a persons world view on most aspects of experience. Still, I find myself far more comfortable with Nancy Pearcey's assessment of the implications of Darwinism.

Evolution of the Holstein

Alright, now here's a subject that bears investigation. Or rather, wouldn't it be prudent to use science (and history) to our advantage once we understand something about the process of evolution?

There's an article in this weeks New York Times Magazine called, A Dying Breed: A Cautionary Tale of Well-Intentioned Development by a fellow named Andrew Rice. It chronicles Uganda's transition from the Longhorn Ankole cow to the American Holstein, and ultimately, the potential loss of genetic variation in African cattle.

The Holstein is capable of providing 20-30 times as much milk as an African Ankole, which is significant given the level of poverty affecting Uganda. But the Holstein doesn't deal well with heat, while the Ankole has long horns that function to disperse excess body heat. Other traits specific to Holsteins are that they are commonly ill and require imported medicine (we tend to deal with this by pumping cattle with preventative antibiotics) and they consume more resources than will be ultimately sustainable. In contrast, the Ankole is resistant to far more strains of disease and is capable of sustaining a draught, but will not produce the quantity of milk that a farmer needs to prosper.

In other words, while this transition allows many Ugandan's to thrive in the short term, becoming reliant on a livelihood that's unsustainable will put the country in a precarious position. And many of the tribes in Uganda are lactose intolerant. The other side of this dilemma is that the Holstein has brought resources to an impoverished country. Rice acknowledges that, "An estimated 70 percent of the world's rural poor, some 630 million people, derive a substantial percentage of their income from livestock. Increase the productivity of these animals...and you improve dire living standards."

The risk here is the extinction of livestock breeds that have evolved to thrive in this particular ecosystem. "The Food and Agriculture Organization...recently reported that at least 20 percent of the world's estimated 7,600 livestock breeds are in danger of extinction. Experts are warning of a potential meltdown in global genetic diversity."

This loss of genetic diversity in this context seems like a catastrophe on par with the Irish Potato Famine. The difference, of course, is that we know quite a bit more about the repercussions of our actions and proceed in a seemingly reckless fashion.

Here's a link, in case this has generated any interest.
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27cow-t.html

the human yawn: empathy or ennui?

Alright, so human beings are empathetic. Do we really need a study to break it down for us? Really; sure it's interesting to consider, but ultimately, is this information going to alter anyone's reality? Sometimes I wonder how much money goes into this type of study.

On an unrelated note, it seems to me that those of us with canine companions may dispute the assertion that, "humans, uniquely, are able to imagine what someone else is thinking or feeling." Then again, can I provide evidence that my dog is aware of my emotional landscape? No, but I'm not sure that our relationship bears investigation.