immunizations

Immunizations are a tricky business. They are, in many cases, useful and so I'm inclined to say that perhaps they ought to be compulsory. However, in the end my skepticism gets the best of me. I don't have enough confidence in the powers that be to put anyone, let alone a child, in the position of compulsory immunizations.

Yes, I believe that parents ought to take an active role in designing their children's immunizations schedule. But I also don't think that the onus should be put solely on parents at this stage in the game. Is the public given adequate and accessible information about vaccines?

Optimally, parents would have a trusted doctor to advise them, or at least to offer resources that would be useful. I have a friend who's pediatrician advised her that she would be putting her child at risk if she didn't give her a Hep B vaccine at 6 months. When she asked how the doctor thought she might be at risk for Hep B, the doctor retracted the urgency of his assessment.

Still, I don't think there's a clear answer here. I think that we often make decisions from a place of fear with regards to the health of our children. Yet, I also understand the gravity of this decision and I believe these are decisions that should be considered from a communal and universal perspective rather than personally.

Eat your broccoli, and eggs, and beets.

I tend to find myself a bit wary whenever I read, "New study says that X prevents cancer," or what have you. After all, we aren't so sure yet why we're getting cancer and so how can we determine preventative measures. Perhaps this is also a knee jerk response to the sources that direct us each season toward a solution to our health woes and away from that primary issue that has finally been isolated. First beef and butter and eggs; later breads and pastas, and then we should all be eating raw food.

That said, when the recommendation is eat more plentiful servings of vegetables, by all means. Let me stress, too, that I am by no means diminishing the science that has established a link between BRCA genes and broccoli [and cauliflower and cabbage]. But what if some day we find that our cancer is directly related to our stress? In that case perhaps the finest prophylactic measure is to eat a balanced, moderate diet and thoroughly enjoy our food.

Furthermore, we have this tendency to break things down to their smallest particle in order to establish efficacy. While this may be a useful tool, I think it's erroneous to assume that I3C will have the same effect once removed from broccoli, or maybe it's effect will be minimized by the use of a given insecticidal. All of this to say that we just don't know and isn't that sometimes acceptable?

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.