1. Should parents take a more active role in designing their children's immunization schedule?
Most definitely. The CDC web page on vaccines states that "any vaccine can cause side effects." The side effects from vaccines range from common, mild soreness to the rare death, to things in between such as extremely high fever, seizures, comas, and permanent brain damage. Those are documented possibilities, though reportedly rare. This is not to mention other conditions that some people think can be caused by vaccines, such as autism. I think it is probably wise to know the risks associated with something before subjecting your child to it. There is always a chance something awful can happen, though it appears unlikely.
Therefore, what precautions can be taken to minimize the risks even further? First, it is recommended that the child is healthy when undergoing a vaccine and checking for certain allergies such as gelatin (which is in the MMR and chicken pox vaccines), antibiotics, and eggs. These compounds are found in some of the vaccine potions that are administered.
2. Would you support making vaccination programs "compulsory"?
No, but I would support parental education about vaccinations. Perhaps compulsory education. I think, with education, most parents will feel they are making the right choice--or at least an informed one. I do take issue, however, with the profits the pharmaceutical companies make from vaccinations. If something is mandated, I think it should be paid for, and that it is a conflict of interest for companies to be profiting from vaccinations. How can we trust the science behind vaccinations if the profit motive feeds into recommendations and research?
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of Deadly Immunity, is interviewed below about his belief that vaccinations cause autism. Many, many bloggers discredit Kennedy's beliefs. His statements seem somewhat convincing, though excerpts from his book seem sensationalistic. It's pretty hard to know what to believe, and difficult to know who to trust on these issues.
Dr. Andrew Weil, a popular physician who promotes integrative medicine and who, therefore, I trust more than most western medical doctors, has been often quoted as saying this:
"Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water."
Here are some graphs that are pretty telling:
On his website, however, Dr. Weil states:
"I'm aware of the anti-immunizations movement fueled by parental concerns about developmental disabilities, but I don't think there is any good evidence linking the vaccines to these disorders, which is why my daughter had all her shots as scheduled. If you're concerned about side effects, have your pediatrician check your children over first (serious reactions are more likely in sick children). You also may want to look into homeopathic treatments designed to reduce the risk of vaccine reactions.Take any precautions you feel are necessary, but I urge all parents to have their children immunized as recommended. Although immunizations are not without risks, the risks are much lower than those that come with the diseases they are meant to prevent."
1. If you had access to all resources how would you deal with “the global crisis in diet”?
This is actually a big problem when considered, especially on a global scale. I feel overwhelmed by it. Thinking of just the United States the problem's tendrils reach into so many areas that are broken. To get off the junk food people need more time, less work. It would be nice if both parents in a family didn’t have to work, or if we lived in extended families. Then we would have more time to cook, and to shop at farmer’s markets, and to grow some of our own food. Those quality of life improvements would certainly help. Rearranging our values would be good, too. Instead of watching TV while the dinner is in the microwave, we could be cooking (if we weren’t so tired and knew how).
Other ideas that might help would be: *Mandating nutritional information on menus at all restaurants *Changing the feeding practices of domestic animals to include grasses and leaves instead of corn and manufactured feed -- this would lead to a greater concentration of Omega 3 fats in our meat; the price of meat would probably rise and therefore people will begin to eat less of it again. *Better nutrition education that is not funded by special interest groups * Advertising restrictions--not allowing advertisements on TV for foods that have over a certain percentage of fat and/or sugar (this was done with cigarettes, which are not as big of a killer as obesity is!) * Improve foods in schools-- no fast foods sold, only whole foods, fresh fruits and veggies / have school garden programs, like they do in Berkeley * Improved food labeling * Taxes on junk foods that will be funneled into the health care system
As far as the problem of the global diet crisis, honestly I can’t even begin to understand the problems, let alone suggest mandates to fix them.
2. Would you expect “carbon offsets” to work effectively?
I think there is some possible good that could result from carbon offsets, primarily that money is going to fund renewable energy development and/or resources. However, it also strikes me as a way to continue leading the same old life, with a little less guilt -- kind of like sinning and then going to confession; the sin has still been committed. Carbon offsets might prove most effective in simply making people aware of how much carbon is being emitted due to their direct activities, but it is not going to be an effective long term solution... the carbon is still being released into the air, even if we feel better about it!
3. Do you agree that “laughter really is the best medicine”?
“Best” medicine, I don’t know. But I think it is good medicine. The tricky part is that when I’m already feeling pretty good -- emotionally, mentally, physically -- it is much easier to laugh than when I’m feeling lousy. So it’s kind of like a chicken and egg question. If you are already feeling healthy, then you will laugh more, so you will be healthier. If you’re feeling lousy, you will probably not laugh as easily, and therefore won’t reap the benefits. The question, as always, is how to make that shift? Things that are funny often come as a surprise, and it can be nearly impossible to make yourself laugh on command.
1. How would you prioritize the reintroduction of the American Bison?
This is a complicated question. Back to nature always sounds really good to me, but times have changed; the planet has changed. I wasn't sure how to approach this question at all. I read through the articles in our packet and found that I had a lingering question: beyond symbolism and majesty, what role did the bison have in the ecosystem? Rather than spend lots of time googling to find this answer, I did something old fashioned -- I called someone, specifically my father-in-law Gene, who is Wyoming born and bred.
At left, A buffalo just outside of Yellowstone National Park, in Teton County, taken in 2004.
Gene has been a hunting guide for decades in the areas bordering Yellowstone Park and knows those woods well. He also has been a cattle rancher, and so has a particular bias. I have been an animal lover and was a vegetarian and / or vegan for over twenty years. I've been in that wilderness with him, riding horses and on pack trips. I'm kind of quiet and he's quite a talker. When I met him my head and heart were full of ideas that I'd read about, but he has actually lived it -- lived off the land directly for his whole life. It's interesting to hear his viewpoint and I often think that if the cattle ranchers and hunters sat down with the park rangers and conservationists, much progress could be made toward re-establishing a healthy ecosystem.
Me and Gene.
I asked Gene what he knew about the bison around Yellowstone. Here's what he said, more or less (after my conversation with him, I fact-checked some of what he said on the Internet and have placed my fact-check comments next to his comments):
That there are about 6,000 bison in Yellowstone and the surrounding Teton County, and that Ted Turner has a bunch on his ranches in the area. (Both are true. Ted Turner, in fact, has about 50,000 head of Bison -- the largest private herd in the world.)
Bison don't respect fences and compete with the ranchers. If it's a dry year the bison won't just stand there and starve, they will knock fences down and keep going until they find some green grass to eat.
There is a brucellosis problem which is kind of a crock of shit. Cows can become carriers of the disease, but can still remain healthy and produce calves. However, if you sell these calves and they are found to be carrying brucellosis you can no longer sell the cattle as "producing cattle" but only for meat. The disease doesn't really hurt the cattle, and cannot be transmitted to humans, so it is not of real concern. Brucellosis is a problem for the rancher because it reduces the value of his cattle (since you aren't allowed to produce more cattle from an infected animal) and therefore creates more animosity toward the bison. (Actually, humans can get brucellosis, but it is not from eating infected meat; it is from drinking infected goat's milk, primarily; also, the disease does impact the cattle -- it causes them to have more spontaneous abortions).
If the bison population gets too large for the Yellowstone area, they will go into Idaho. Idaho doesn't have a lot of fences like Wyoming because they are doing more farming in Idaho versus cattle ranching. The buffalo will then trample the farmers fields in Idaho, and then the farmers will start shooting the bison.
The success in breeding programs and raising them as ranch animals has proven that the herd won't go extinct, so we shouldn't worry about having to increase their numbers so much. What do we need more buffalo for, anyway?
Then I asked him well, what purpose do you think they served when there were millions of buffalo? He told me:
After the buffalo were gone the grass was starting to diminish and no one could figure out why because buffalo eat grass, and now the buffalo were gone, so you'd think the grass would be more plentiful. But there were no animals tromping the grass seed into the ground, so the grass was all dying. The buffalo migrations helped to scatter the seed and they mashed the seed into the ground. Then the Great Plains began to turn into a dustbowl because no other animal was serving this function. The elk were also hunted out of the low country. People in the late 1800s and early 1900s would hunt them for their ivory teeth and just leave their bodies there. If you have nothing to do all day but hunt, you can kill quite a few elk in a day. So the elk got smart and moved to the high country, where they could see you coming. But all the elk left the low country too. Now the Great Plains have wild game (antelope), are being farmed, or have cattle on them. The cattle serve the function that the buffalo once served, of spreading the grass seed and mashing it into the earth. And the Great Plains have shrunk. You don't need the buffalo anymore. The human population is too big; there are too many people and there is not enough land. Look at a population map. There's no room for buffalo out there.
At left, a Wyoming calf, also taken in 2004.
So that made a lot of sense to me, actually. I'm not saying forget the buffalo, or they're not necessary, but the problem is a lot more complicated than just trying to control some cattle ranchers. Who eats that meat, anyway? Most of us do, that's who. And if you're eating meat, where do you expect it to come from? Gene always points out that environmentalists are always wanting to re-introduce wild species into his backyard, but never into their own. That they think of places like Wyoming and Montana as just a vast wilderness. He always says, "Why don't they release wolves and grizzlies into Golden Gate Park?"
Just as the ecosystem of our country is interconnected so are our habits. If we want to eat meat, it has to be raised somewhere. If it's being raised somewhere, that's taking up traditional habitat that wild animals used to use. And the cattle ranchers are expected to just deal with the buffalo, the wolves, etc. We need to realize how we are all impacting this planet, and come up with a plan together that makes the most sense for the health of us all. We need to sit down and listen to each other, and respect the wisdom and knowledge of one another.
By the way, I looked up his story about the bison's role in the ecosystem. According to the US Fish and Wildlife:
"Bison were historically an integral component of the North American prairie ecosystem. Migrating bison provided essential functions, such as grazing and other disturbances that, together with fire, drove key ecological processes on the prairie. The decimation of the historic bison herds across the continent in the late 19th century removed this component from the prairie ecosystem. As the Service works to restore and conserve prairie habitats throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System, the agency has identified wild bison as a species that can and will play a vital role in this effort."
Another interesting fact about the Yellowstone bison: In the United States, only one wild bison population has continuously occupied their native range since prehistoric time: the Yellowstone bison.
2. How would you assess the "New pill promises to reduce breast cancer risk"?
Well, that's kind of an empty promise and quite misleading. The article doesn't identify exactly what this new pill is except to say that it is a "new group of compounds that include a drug known as mifepristone." Mifepristone is basically RU-486, the abortion pill. I have no ethical problem with the abortion pill, and realize that the dosage of RU-486 is much higher than what they will put into this new contraceptive cocktail, but what are the side effects, and what is this motivation to receive such glowing PR as to promise erradicating breast cancer? To date, mifepristone has not been approved for any additional uses other than to induce abortion (and that article was written in 2006). The article also doesn't mention that "No long-term studies to evaluate the carcenogenic potential of mifepristone have been performed" nor does it mention that the drug is a steroid.
I'm guessing that the drug companies were pushing this "anti-breast cancer" angle because anti-abortion people were protesting the drug due to its use in chemical abortions.
1. What do you think about the "eight-point Deep Ecology Platform"?
I agree with it.
There are so many ways to say the same thing, however. What is the point of the message? To make change, presumably. And I think the best way to get the message across is to grab someone's heart. The Deep Ecology Platform principles makes me prickle a little. It's the tone and the bossiness of the thing. As I said, though, I agree with all the points, but the eight points make me feel glum, they are not inspiring, they speak mostly to that which has been done wrong instead of that which can be done right. My spirit does not ring true with them, though my mind does.
Here are some other words I found to express similar beliefs, which catch me in the spirit and heart:
From the Tao te Ching:
Man follows the earth. Earth follows the universe. The universe follows the Tao. The Tao follows only itself.
Wendell Berry: The first thing we must begin to teach our children (and learn ourselves) is that we cannot spend and consume endlessly. We have got to learn to save and conserve. We do need a "new economy", but one that is founded on thrift and care, on saving and conserving, not on excess and waste. An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy.
Chief Seattle: What I do to you, I do to myself. What you give me, you give to the Universe. What the Universe gives, she gives to us. What I feel, you feel. What you become, I become. You are not alone, nor am I. You are forever with me and I with you. We are brothers and sisters on the Web of Life.
Manifest Mitakuye-Oyasin: Relate, connect to your sisters and brothers. See the similarities, not the differences. Recognize that water is ice, as well as vapor. Hear the one heartbeat and embody the awe of life. (mi-TAHK-wee-a-say) means we are all related - Ojibway language
Native American Elder:
Honor the sacred. Honor the Earth, our Mother. Honor the Elders. Honor all with whom we share the Earth:- Four-leggeds, two-leggeds, winged ones, Swimmers, crawlers, plant and rock people. Walk in balance and beauty.
Ancient Indian Proverb:
Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
2. Can you explain why "Ecosystems are both strong and fragile"?
An ecosystem can withstand some abuse, some lean times, without collapsing. It can repair itself like when flesh recovers from a deep cut. After all that has been done to the earth and its many ecosystems, over six billion humans can still survive. But ecosystems also bear scars from abuse and since all parts are interconnected what is done to one part echoes out and impacts the others. There are 13,000 year old hunting camps in the Arctic that STILL retain the mark of change from the piles of whale bones that were lain on the shoreline by humans. The piles of whale bone changed the chemical make up of earth and water and this activity can still be detected. If something so low impact as piling up whale bones on a shoreline can leave its mark for 13,000 years, imagine what kind of mark we are leaving today, and for how long the scar will retain the memory of what we have done. Maybe instead of fragile, I would say "Ecosystems are both strong and sensitive." They don't necessarily break, but they are easily impacted.
3. How would you assess the "end goals" of Social Ecology?
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but if you mean:
"challenging those aspects of the political and economic order that prevent the fulfillment of basic human needs" and
"offering theories that explain the social causes of environmental problems and alternative ways to resolve them" and
"supporting social movements for removing the causes of environmental deterioration and raising the quality of life for people of every race, class, and sex"
... I say here here and also good luck.
Who wouldn't want to live more peacefully and in harmony? How do we solve all the problems that exist and get us all to that point? Certainly it is too much to move six billion people in the same direction without their consent. It can be hard to move even one small unwilling child out the door of the supermarket when he wants to consume sugar and sparkly prizes. But if we all want to walk via our own will together in the same direction, then it will be done! Hopefully we can wake up to the same dream one day.
1. How do you feel about western approaches to HIV/AIDS?
I feel like western researchers and doctors are doing the best they can to understand and treat the disease. It's a complicated and cunning deadly virus. Western scientists are investigating the virus's behavior and seem to have a good understanding of how it interacts with the immune system. The immune system is probably the worst system in the body to be under attack -- the very system that should be working to defend the body from malfunction is being corrupted. Even the way I am writing this is very western -- the natural metaphor I use is a mechanical one. I think in the west we think about "killing" and "attacking" the invader. It's a very war-oriented approach to health. And this is what I am wondering--if the whole approach needs to be re-thought and turned upside down. I'm not suggesting that I know how to do this, but sometimes a completely novel way of looking at something can bring solutions to the surface. Some ideas I have:
--concentrate more on strengthening the immune system instead of attacking the virus. The attack mentality doesn't seem to be working very well. Give the body immune strengthening medicines instead of harsh drugs. Research ways to generate a super immune system that can withstand and recognize the virus so that the immune cells are not tricked into being overtaken by the virus. I guess this is the concept of the vaccine. And I understand that a vaccine for AIDS is tricky because there are so many different strains... but maybe there is another way to really bolster the immune system and keep it functioning well?
--try to think like the virus as if the virus had a will and an intent. As if the virus had consciousness. What is its goal? What is its intention? What does it want? Why does it mutate so easily? If the mutations could be controlled perhaps a vaccine would work.
--I'm not advocating for chimp research, but why don't chimps develop symptoms when they have the virus? What is different about how their immune system functions? I don't imagine their immune systems can be all that different.
--we live with a lot of different viruses, like CMV, that don't typically kill us. Is there a way that we could get to a point where the HIV virus is not such a deadly thing to live with?
--is there a way to get HIV to mutate itself into oblivion?
2. Can TCM strengthen our immune systems?
Yes I believe it can. At least all signs point to the fact that TCM does indeed strengthen the immune system. One possible reason for this is that it can lower stress and anxiety; stress and anxiety alone can cripple the immune system because the immune system is connected to the nervous system. Some people believe that the acupuncture needle actually re-activates the immune system by acting as a foreign invader.
3. What do you think of "the deal that saved the whale"?
I think it's complicated. The solution (encouraging ecotourism) is better, I'm almost certain, than outright development. However, I've been working on a project for several years that involves World Heritage sites including the one mentioned in the article (the site is El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve). Several artists were sent on two visits to a natural World Heritage site over the course of a few years. Many of them reported that the act of a place being named a World Heritage site (a designation given to help protect the site) often turns it into a tourist destination. Once that happens -- even if it is ecotourism -- the impact to the site can be significant. This happened at the Galapagos Islands, which just this year went on to the "World Heritage sites in danger" list -- largely from the impact of tourists.
Here is a link, with lots of pretty pictures, to the project I have been working on: www.artistsrespond.org. And a link to the artist's project who worked at the grey whale sanctuary mentioned in the article: http://www.artistsrespond.org/artists/ovalle/
The Mitubishi Saltworks at El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve in Mexico:
1 and 2. How sophisticated is our understanding of cancer and How does a TCM approach to cancer differ?
I must say this topic is strangely synchronistic. I think I mentioned in class that my friend has recently been diagnosed with her second brain tumor.
So I have spent the last four hours reading about cancerous brain tumors. I have read about treatments, diagnoses, and the fact that "they" don't know what causes brain tumors (though some others have theories). I read story after story of people dealing with this diagnosis, or trying to find support when a loved one has this diagnosis. There have been a few miraculous cures as well, which is quite hopeful.
Western medicine knows how the cancer acts, what it looks like, and what the prognosis generally is, but they don't know what causes it, how to prevent it, or much about alternative treatments. Typically they focus on removal of the tumor and poisoning any remaining cancerous cells. There has been much research, and many research dollars, toward finding a cancer cause and a cancer cure. Without tons of success -- but some (someone diagnosed with cancer now has a greater chance of surviving).
Happily, I had the feeling that the researchers actually really care about finding a cure, and the neurosurgeons seemed to really care about their patients well being. A lot of patients reported how "warm" and "kind" their doctors were. That was good news. There are even some neurosurgeons who recommend that their patients seek acupuncture to help support the immune system through chemotherapy, and also as a way to cope with pain.
Then I searched for brain tumors and "Chinese medicine." The Chinese medical practitioners also suggested that acupuncture would be a good way to manage pain and boost the immune system.
Chinese medical practitioners seemed to have a greater confidence in defining what might cause cancer than the Western physicians did. The explanations had a lot to do with the body being out of balance and a stagnation of qi. Chinese medical theory speaks to treating the whole person when treating a cancer patient -- not just focusing on the tumor--balance the body and get the qi flowing and you will strengthen the body, allowing it to bring itself back into balance, and thereby creating less favorable conditions for growing cancer (in addition to strengthening the immune system).
The real question here, however, is how do you treat --in an emotional way-- someone who has been diagnosed with cancer? Especially when it brings up your own issues of mortality, fear of change, attempts to restrain the “bad” stuff in your life? How do you -- as a practitioner or a friend -- maintain open heartedness and not get too caught up in your own stuff? How do you remain solid, but not robotic? Helping someone to face a serious illness is a pretty heavy thing and requires a big heart and some wisdom, I think --whatever type of medicine you choose to administer.
3. Are our genes still being shaped by natural selection?
Though I’m not entirely sold on “natural selection” to begin with, if it has indeed been true in the past, it certainly is still true now. Just because we believe we have conquered nature does not mean we actually have. We are still part of nature. We are still animals. We might be more successful as individuals for the time being -- able to survive longer and to reproduce despite having physical maladies that might have killed us off in the past before having a chance to reproduce, but if you take a long view and view humanity as one gigantic organism, our “success” will ultimately lead to our downfall. Already people are starving from not enough food. And we are making the planet an inhospitable place for any life. Much of this is because we have been able to reproduce with such dazzling success! We will eventually succumb to the power of nature, even if we think we are tricking it for the time being.
Then again, maybe we are not still being shaped by natural selection....and maybe our opting out was not such a good idea.
Here is the clip I was trying to explain tonight in class. The part I like best is the smile of love and knowing on the one guy's face. Such confidence in love!
1. How do you distinguish between living and nonliving systems?
LIVING...
Something alive: my dog Pepita:
Something alive: the flower seedlings I planted yesterday when I was supposed to be doing my homework.
Something alive: the energy in the room last night when we were downloading theme songs from seventies TV shows and dancing like crazy people to Sanford and Son...well maybe I was the only one dancing like a crazy person...
Something alive: a virus?
NON-LIVING...
Something non-living: my coffee cup
Something non-living: my little green blanket that I wrap around people and dogs when they are sick or feeling blue
Something non-living: this here computer
Something non-living: that cool slate gray stone that somebody once upon a time gave me and told me that it was magical
Something non-living: that secret pile of teddy bears I keep in a wicker laundry basket and put out of sight so people don't think I'm a dork
(okay, so I have more than just teddy bears...)
Something non-living: a virus?
ONCE ALIVE, now non-living (DEAD)...
Something dead: my fingernails and hair
Something dead: that poor squirrel that Daisy killed yesterday
Something dead: the Gardenia that took more water than I had time to give it. I'm sorry Gardenia. I was looking forward to your beautiful scent.
Something dead: a virus?
What is the difference? First, "non-living" and "dead" are two different things. A a key, a dish, a car...these are all non-living, but not dead. My fingernail is non-living but also dead. John McCain's poor wife is living but also looks dead--her spirit seems crushed.
And what about viruses? And what about a cut flower? What about the wood that our homes are built of? What about that piece of garlic that will begin sprouting if you leave it sitting there too long? Are these alive, dead, living, non-living?
What about the energy that hangs in a room? What about your most prized possession? What about that dirty sock I keep seeing in the bathroom and don't stop to pick it up -- the one made of cotton that came from a once-living plant?
Something that is alive, I think, can usually move from an internal source of energy, even if just by growing. Like that lichen that grows 0.5mm per year, getting nutrients from dust in the air, and living for 4,500 years. Wow. It is "animated" -- which comes from the latin and greek words for "give life to" "air" "breath" "soul" and "wind."
Something dead used to breathe and exchange energy and matter with the rest of the world, but now is still and decaying. It now continues to give out, but not take in. Therefore, my secret stuffed animal collection might be considered "dead" because many of them are made from cotton, which is a plant material.
Something that is non-living has never breathed. Like rocks and metal. But does this mean that it lacks consciousness?
AND WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?
That there is another question all together. Usually living things are thought to possess some level of consciousness, particularly if they are biologically "complex." Of course some people still reserve consciousness just for humanity. But others might extend it to dogs or even to rats, but not to bacteria, ants, or plants. Some--from mystics to shaman to even some modern scientists-- extend consciousness to rocks and electrons:
“If evolution is to work smoothly, consciousness in some shape must have been present at the very origin of things. Accordingly we find that the more clear-sighted evolutionary philosophers are beginning to posit it there. Each atom of the nebula, they suppose, must have had an aboriginal atom of consciousness linked with it; ... the mental atoms ... have fused into those larger consciousnesses which we know in ourselves and suppose to exist in our fellow-animals.”
--William James, “The Principles of Psychology,” 1890
William James (above) -- dead, but once alive...
Here are some choice excerpts from a 2007 New York Times article "Mind of a Rock":
(for full article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html)
And the part of our world that is most recalcitrant to our understanding at the moment is consciousness itself. How could the electrochemical processes in the lump of gray matter that is our brain give rise to — or, even more mysteriously, be — the dazzling technicolor play of consciousness, with its transports of joy, its stabs of anguish and its stretches of mild contentment alternating with boredom? This has been called “the most important problem in the biological sciences” and even “the last frontier of science.” It engrosses the intellectual energies of a worldwide community of brain scientists, psychologists, philosophers, physicists, computer scientists and even, from time to time, the Dalai Lama.
So vexing has the problem of consciousness proved that some of these thinkers have been driven to a hypothesis that sounds desperate, if not downright crazy. Perhaps, they say, mind is not limited to the brains of some animals. Perhaps it is ubiquitous, present in every bit of matter, all the way up to galaxies, all the way down to electrons and neutrinos, not excluding medium-size things like a glass of water or a potted plant. Moreover, it did not suddenly arise when some physical particles on a certain planet chanced to come into the right configuration; rather, there has been consciousness in the cosmos from the very beginning of time.
...Take that rock over there. It doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything, at least to our gross perception. But at the microlevel it consists of an unimaginable number of atoms connected by springy chemical bonds, all jiggling around at a rate that even our fastest supercomputer might envy. And they are not jiggling at random. The rock’s innards “see” the entire universe by means of the gravitational and electromagnetic signals it is continuously receiving. Such a system can be viewed as an all-purpose information processor, one whose inner dynamics mirror any sequence of mental states that our brains might run through. And where there is information, says panpsychism, there is consciousness. In David Chalmers’s slogan, “Experience is information from the inside; physics is information from the outside.”
2. What do you feel is the significance of the use of language and tools in chimps?
Some humans are searching for a connection with the other. This is strictly a judgmental opinion, but I think some of us feel more comfortable with, and more compassion for, living beings that are not human because humans can be very cruel. Therefore we want to spend more time with non-human animals. Those who spend more time with non-human animals are often surprised to find how similar they can be to human animals. Particularly other primates. Because we as a species have for so long separated ourselves from non-human animals it is surprising to find language and tool-use -- things we believed to be unique to ourselves -- happening in other animals.
What is of the most important significance with this discoveries is that perhaps -- perhaps! -- others will become convinced that non-human animals are worthy of compassion. Because some people don't seem to value anything that is *other*. So, hopefully, slowly non-human animals will be given the right they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect if we prove how similar they are to us.
Other animals besides humans and chimps use tools:
Crows:
Elephant painting:
Other animals have language (even though it is not English!!!)
Check out this link about prairie dog nouns, verbs, adjectives: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/prairie_dog.html
Humpback whale communication:
3. "Chinese Medicine Gaining Respectability in the West?"
Frankly, I fear Western science prying into the Chinese medicine. The basic tenets of Chinese medicine, from what I understand, link back to a much different philosophy than that of Western science and medicine. Western science tends to take a role of domination, making other philosophies and cultures submit to it. Bending and shaping other philosophies to fit into its framework in order to deem them acceptable. Just like with the topic of animal language -- most other animals are assumed not to have language because they don't speak English. Western scientists tend to judge other things based on its world view. How can you fairly evaluate something from a perspective other than the one from which it is born? It this possible?
Though perhaps my fear is linked to a fear of change and a naive idealizing of Chinese medicine and villifying of Western science.
I just hope that the concepts of Chinese medicine, and other traditional medicines being sought out by Westerners, are not too watered down and re-formed so as to lose their essence, becoming that which we are trying to seek an alternative to.
It would also be interesting to explore this question in reverse -- how have the Chinese accepted Western medicine into their world view and health care system?
I forgot to bring your e-mail addresses to work (unloaded all that heavy school stuff from my bag!) but will forward the stuff I promised tonight to all of you. Here, though, is the link to the HeartMath Institute: www.heartmath.org. There's lots of really inspiring research there!
A bit on Chinese Medicine and heart energy that I found on the Internet -- funny, this sums up my whole presentation in a nutshell (or at least what I was shooting for):
"In Taoist Chinese medicine, heart (shen or spirit), soul (mind/emotions) and the physical body are entwined as one. Ancient tradition teaches us and modern research now shows that as our hearts become clear, filling with gratitude and loving-kindness, this engages the higher cognitive functioning of the brain. This resonance of inner peace and love affects every living cell in our body and allows us to live life in harmony with grace. Thus, the essence of healing is rooted in Spirit"
“The heart is the sovereign of all organs & represents the consciousness of one’s being. It is responsible for intelligence, wisdom & spiritual transformation.” Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Medicine
“Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” Proverbs 4:23
Apparently species diversification is necessary for life to thrive - otherwise living species would procreate asexually, there would be nothing such as male and female and everything would be a clone. This seems to be very simple and straightforward logic. The way things are set up, you need to cross-pollinate with another member of the species in order to recombine dna and create a new life that is different from its parents.
Troubles from not following this logic, created simply by greed, have cropped up on many occasions but apparently those in the business of mass food production, and mass lumber production, are not interested in learning this lesson. The world's food supply in the hands of so few is kind of a scary thing--large monoculture crops are easily destroyed by disease (what one is prone to, so all of them are).
What we can do is plant our own food. During the Second World War American's grew something like 60% of their own food in backyard Victory Gardens. There are people who are saving a diverse seed supply, and buying and growing these seeds will be a help. Also, the localvore movement is a good idea. The closer you are to your food supply, the better.
It certainly makes the world richer, more beautiful and interesting!
2. Do you vote for the chicken or the egg?
Personally I vote on the sage grouse. If the chicken/egg question is literal, it couldn't be the egg because the new chicken would have no one to mate with and would die off without reproducing its kind. It couldn't be the chicken because where would the chicken have come from? The sky?
So by giving the answer "the sage grouse" what I am saying is that the entire chicken species is just part of a continuum of all animal life which gradually, gradually shifts from one species into the next. Slow motion shapeshifting. With chickens, I suppose humankind captured some of the wild "chickens" (something like a sage grouse) and the brighter and more fussy of the bunch escaped or were kicked out of the coop. The more vacant of the clan stuck around to become our domesticated chickens. That's my guess, anyway.
3. Eating my broccoli...
Funny enough broccoli has been a feature of my meals for the last week. It's not really my favorite though. There are so many different opinions and theories about what is good for you and what is bad for you. I just try to pay attention to how my body feels. I became a vegetarian at about the age of nineteen because my stomach hurt after I ate meat. I became a vegan about six years ago because of the bodily disagreement I have with dairy. I started to eat meat on occasion about a year ago because my iron levels were dangerously low which may have contributed to not being able to carry a pregnancy to term (according to my doctor). Through all these dietary shifts, I know my body well and know that I feel most energetic when I eat a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables, adequate protein, but no meat. However, I'm no longer so meticulous about what I eat. I've become a little more flexible which has resulted in being a little more relaxed, which was necessary.
Best of all, I like to eat the food I grow myself:
1. Is there a drug around for just about everything?
Probably. There's also a poem for just about everything. What you use to cure what ails you, depends on where you look. If you see the body as a chemical body, then yes, you can find a drug to try to address that chemical. If you see the world in poetic terms, you'll probably read Rumi or ee cummings or Emily Dickinson or go listen to some Curtis Mayfield or Mozart or Dolly Parton, depending on the need.
In the drug industry there is something called "The Orange Book" (http://www.fda.gov/cder/ob/) which provides a listing of approved drug "products." This book is updated *daily* and contains approximately 10,000 approved drug products, 7,000 new drug applications, and 5,500 discontinued drug products. That's a lot of drugs for a lot of ailments. You can get drugs for restless legs, bad behavior, genetic troubles, cancers, peeing too much, peeing too little, not being able to sleep, having a sore thumb, and for uncontrollable swearing and sweating (including eyebrow sweating).
Likewise, I found poems about lyme disease, chronic pain, seasonal affective disorder, and bad knees. There's a whole website devoted to "poetic healing." Here is a poem from that site, just for Indian Summer:
MEDICINE MAN: THE HEART OF HEALING (G,A)
Born of mud rising to the sun— Bark and stone The deepest beauty curls within my blood Resounds like thunder, deafening time.
Grunting savage of earth and beast Slowly wading the thick forest mist Incarnating a language centuries past— Breath so green, dark and laden Mist and sweat develop my scent.
Before me, within me, maps and layers Evolving, turning, weaving a wisdom I cannot say. Skin of layers, darkened soil Breasts like memory I hold within Peeled from time, dissolved to soul, flesh and love.
Millennia tinged a verdant spark, pulse a landscape Inside I see the world before me— Gathering roots, smelling leaves This is home eternity says Never a choice from heaven unknown.
I hold my heart so you may see it Let go, let go A depth inside I cannot say.
We are creative beings and apparently desparate for healing. We'll try anything, and maybe everything. So, it's not surprising there is indeed a drug for everything. It just depends which medicine chest you stock. Poems? Sounds? Needles? Prayers? Clozapine? Chicken noodle soup?
2. Can we raise our levels of dopamine ourselves?
Yes, we can. It is produced in the brain, so it seems reasonable that we can raise the level of this hormone/neurotransmitter ourselves. I found lists of ways to do so:
Fish, red meat, chicken, turkey, eggs, beans and legumes, fermented soy like tempeh and miso, and beverages like coffee, black tea, green tea and milk; seeds such as Sunflower, Pumpkin and Milk Thistle; herbs such as Ginseng, Nettles, Red clover, Fenugreek, and Peppermint. Exercise will help and eating foods rich in protein will increase dopamine levels. Orgasm is perhaps one of the quickest most intense ways to raise dopamine levels.
The question is, do we want to keep raising dopamine levels? Some say that we can become addicted to higher levels of dopamine, such as those levels achieved by orgasm, and as addicts we will do anything to get "high." The problem with orgasm and dopamine is that what follows is a release of prolactin, which can lead to a greater need to get the dopamine fix. Being addicted is being addicted and it's just as damaging to become addicted to something natural as it is to something illegal (or legal).
I discovered an extremely interesting website that has a very different take on dopamine, prolactin, sex, and lasting human bonds. The key, according to this website, is actually to try to raise oxytocin levels, and not dopamine levels. Oxytocin is released as the result of loving bonds, and therefore will lead to greater overall health. Chasing after increased levels of dopamine will only result in acting like a crazy addict. http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding
3. How do you think chimps and humans diverged as a species?
Probably it happened on the borderland of forest and grasslands. Probably the human-chimp species population grew too large, like beehives do at the end of a good summer, and part of the population took off into a place that had no trees. The lack of trees led to more of a need to walk, hence the bipedalism. It's easy to be spotted in the grasses, so the smarter you are, the better weapons can be made, and you survive if you're a warrior. All of our current human fears and psychological problems extend from those early days in the grasslands. That's kind of a joke. But so there you have it. The need to survive. We're all perfectly adapted to some past time and place running through the grasslands. Now we're trapped in an urban jungle, which we're not so well adapted to. And chimps are trapped within our urban jungle too- mostly in cages in zoos or in our ivory towered research labs helping us to cure ourselves. We're still involved in hating the other. The ones who chose to stay, or maybe who actually kicked us out, of the trees that couldn't hold all of us.
Random scramblings on a lot of complicated information...
1. “99.4% of the most critical DNA sites are identical in human and chimp genes” What do you make of this?
In order to be fair and not emotional about this, it would be interesting to know how well human DNA matches the other, now extinct, species that are currently classified as being part of the same genus "homo." That would resolve the question of the article in one way (or perhaps create additional arguments). But that is the not question here. It is simply to comment on the fact that we are genetically extremely close to chimpanzees.
First, I think it's exciting. It's a priviledge to see such a close, yet distant in so many ways, relative alive along with us. I wonder about Homo habilis, erectus, etc., and if their behavior would be more chimp like, or more human like. Also, I've worked with primates (gorillas) and have looked into their eyes and it is obvious to me there is a common understanding and connection. So, it's not that much of a surprise.
But we are significantly different from chimps in a lot of important ways -- the ability to "talk" (as in human speech) cannot happen with chimps because their vocal cord structure is different. While they can walk upright for short stretches, their physiology is different that ours so they are not officially bipedal. Their skull shape and size, and their teeth vary significantly.
I also found a website that says human and fruit fly DNA is 60% similar, which makes the 99.4% figure a little less impressive. Also, it was found that 80% of the proteins in the human and chimp genomes are different, which is important because the proteins are responsible for creating the physiological variation.
That said, I think comparative genomics is an extremely interesting field! And hopefully it will lead us toward accepting and respecting non-human animals more. The genetic closeness between living beings also means that we are all prone to the same environmental impacts and that we really should pay close attention to the fact that many species are going extinct, or are mutating in disadvantageous ways.
I wonder though why we would be more likely to grant "rights" only to those who are similar to us? This exact thinking -- the "other" isn't as worthy and I'll accept and respect you only so long as you are like I am -- is what is beneath racism, sexism, and other equally harmful belief systems.
2. Check out the Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses Tutorial http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/pev/page2.html
I found the link a little thick with too many speciality words which made it a little hard to understand. I am glad that I read Fritjof Capra's words on the topic in "Web of Life" last week. From the tutorial I did learn, however, about viruses and how they are technically "not alive" (according to this website, but this is contested by others) but just strands of genetic code that require a host to copy and transport them. For some reason this is very interesting to me. They are awfully clever even if they are not considered to be alive. However, I would side with those who think viruses are alive.
3. Impressions on Human Genetic Evolution http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/ HumanGeneticEvolution/mainpage.htm
Something occurred to me as I read this:
"For example, populations that are better able to exploit resources may have greater biological fitness and therefore contribute disproportionately to the gene pool. This is illustrated by the development of agriculture, which can support more people than the hunter-gatherer cultures."
This statement could be regarded as unscientific and culturally-laden. Judging something as "better" or "worse" is tricky. Not only in terms of applying subjective values, but also in terms of scientific judgment. WIth a short-sighted view it might seem that the more people you can support, the better, but humans have survived a lot longer as small hunter-gatherer bands than we have survived so far as agriculturists. And agriculture leads to more sedentary living, populations expand, and then what? Well, disease rips through large sedintary bands of people more disastrously than it does small, mobile tribes. If a small group of people die from a disease, then they are gone, but that is just a small percentage of the whole human population. If a disease takes hold in a sedentary group of people, many more are at risk. Agriculture also, in my opinion, led us to hoarders mind set-- stockpiling -- and away from a nature-based mind set. Agriculture was the first step humans took in conquering nature. And where are we now? Nature seems to be getting the last laugh as our lifestyles are not working in conjunction with it. So what is "Better"? What is "Worse"? What, ultimately, would be the smartest route to survival?
4. Cybernetics This topic is complicated! Intuitively I like this systems approach, though it seems much more complicated. Fractals also came to mind (for some reason, I'm not sure why), and then one of the web pages started talking fractals which made me think I was on the right track. It certainly will take more than a few minutes of visiting websites to get some kind of grasp of it. I found some definitions and explanations from a few different websites (in addition to those suggested) were helpful...
Cybernetics: How systems function
Autopoiesis: Self-generating system, like a cell. Remains stable despite matter and energy continually flowing through it.
Life: the ability to self-produce, rather than "reproduce" (you are still alive even if you don't reproduce)
Co-evolution example: "For example, the light entering our eye does not 'cause' the photochemical release that occurs, that mechanism must already exist, light just triggers it. This ties in with the complexity view that selection acts on systems whose structure has already self-organized."
From the evolutionary cybernetics page:
Yet, the Darwinian approach remains controversial. There are two main reasons:
most people find it difficult to imagine how the intrinsically "dumb" process of blind variation can give rise to intelligent, apparently purposeful systems, such as organisms, minds or societies. some scientists (e.g. Kauffman, Margulis) claim that we need alternative mechanisms of evolution, such as self-organization and symbiosis, that complement variation and selection
I stumbled upon this guy (http://howardbloom.net/) whose book "Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century" seems really interesting, equally complex, and somehow related to all of this... From the website description: "Global Brain tells scientific tales so vivid and so little-known they scintillate. The book zooms in on the birth of the first communal intelligence in colonies of cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago. A single bacterial society in those days of a spanking-new earth held trillions of members, all hyperlinked by a chemical communication code...and all working together to literally reengineer their genes. Each colony upped the level of microbial ingenuity by broadcasting data-laden macromolecules over the span of continents and seas. Using this global information-web, bacteria pioneered the first planet-straddling research and development system eons before the emergence of brains."
And this guy on youtube does an alright job explaining autopoiesis, but it is ten minutes long:
My thoughts on Evo-Devo and how Darwinism matters to me... (This is a pretty long post. I apologize. The topic made me a little obsessive and I had trouble stopping and went contrary to my better judgment.)
We live by story. And the story we are living by is driving our species to extinction. It is that the story we live by is shaped by the prevailing theory of who we are, what we are here for and where we are going. Thus if we change the theory, we can change the story, and thus the old pattern of our lives, opening the way to the better world.
-- David Loye
Theories of how we came to be here, right here, right now, and where we are going, are all stories. You have the Darwinists, the Creationists, the Neo-Darwinists, the Evolutionary Developmental Biologists...and the lay person, who may or may not consider the question at all.
Charles Darwin:
From a personal standpoint, my own biology and evolution is a mystery to me. From my heart, I can only thank my parents and my ancestors for surviving and reproducing. I feel like a biological concoction and continuation of their lives. I am the result -- as are my sisters and parents and cousins and aunts and uncles -- of a long chain of a family of survivors.
How did I get to this current point and am I appropriately adapted to my environment? Perhaps not -- I don’t have any children. Is reproduction essential to being considered successful in an evolutionary sense? Maybe on an individual level but at the level of the collective, perhaps *not* reproducing is even more essential to the survival of humanity (and the rest of the planet) at this point.
What I can say with certainty is that I don’t feel that my current environment is a very good match for my biology, and vice versa. The noisy world raises my cortisol levels and it frequently doesn’t make me feel good. Does happiness play a part in “evolutionary success”? I am attempting to go beyond my body’s dislike of crowds, noise, garbage, and bad manners through the use of culturally learned behaviors like meditation and energy work, etc., to adapt better to my environment. Other people are using a lot of drugs to ward off the onslaught of overwhelming sensory input. From the looks of our drug sales, particularly antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, a lot of people are feeling they need some help, beyond what our biology offers, to adapt better to this crazy environment we have created.
In the early nineties as an anthropology student I received some good basic training in theories of evolution and genetics. What was presented was rather simple and straightforward and made sense--genes are passed down, and if they are suitable for the environment at hand you reproduce, passing those “fit” genes along. Occasionally mutations happen, randomly, creating variations. The story was that the environment drives biology. In recent years I have come to think that “evolution” is more complicated than what I had been taught.
The mapping of the genome produced surprising findings. There are fewer genes controlling our biology than we expected. Variations in the genetic makeup between species are smaller than what we assumed we would find. And there are holes in the paleontological record -- there are “missing links” and much is unexplained.
The evo-devo people discovered, through looking at DNA on the molecular level, that genes between species are not all that different, but they express themselves differently.
This New York Times snippet was a good basic summary of what exactly evolutionary developmental biology is:
Motivations for studying evolution have varied, but hopefully it will ultimately lead us to “finding our place” as Dr. Sean Carroll states in the New York Times video. And that, I think, is what the intense arguments regarding the genesis of life have been about. There is profound disagreement as to where the human place is. Above nature? A part of nature? At the “top” of the food chain? Better than the rest? Smarter?
I tend to think that the revolutionary thinkers on the subject have it right (please see below) -- it seems everything is pointing to the fact that we are interconnected with the planet as a living being, and all life on the planet is really not that much different, in essence, from other life forms...in other words, we are all one (the same thing that physics says). The hard part is getting mentally beyond these isolated bodies and seeing things within a deeper context and history. I also think the earth is trying to evolve with us, and trying to adapt to the changing circumstances of what the conditions of the planet have become. She (the earth) might feel the need for some antidepressants right now, too. And I think she's a little crabby -- hence all the tsunamis, earthquakes and such.
In the last thirty years or so there have been other revolutionary thinkers on the subject of evolution. There has also been a re-looking at what Darwin actually said. Here are some interesting thoughts and thinkers on the subject:
1. David Loye
At 83-years-old David Loye has had a wide ranging background, from being in the trenches of WW II to spending ten years on the faculties of Princeton and the UCLA School of Medicine. In later life, his thoughts turned to Darwin and evolutionary theory. He went back and re-read Darwin and made some surprising discoveries. He now believes that Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists have misinterpreted Darwin. His claim is that Darwin believed what primarily drives human evolution are "the moral qualities." And that the moral qualities are “advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, by our reasoning powers, by instruction, by religion, etc., than through natural selection.”
In the Descent of Man he searched for the following terms, to see how prominent they are in Darwin’s thinking.
Survival of the fittest = used 2 times in Descent Competition = 9 times Selfish and selfishness = 12 times
Love = 95 times Moral sensitivity and morality = 92 Sympathy = 61 Mutual, mutuality, mutual aid = 24
Loye also writes that "The shift from the emphasis for the first half [The Origin of Species] to the full Darwinian theory [The Descent of Man] and story [Darwin's journals] — and your understanding and involvement — can not only help move us toward the better future. In the long run, it may help save ours and all other species."
Link to Loye’s work: http://thedarwinproject.com/about/about.html
2. Rupert Sheldrake, a controversial figure in science and former biochemist trained at Cambridge and Harvard, has presented the theory of “morphic resonance” to explain how genes could be so similar amongst species, but the expression of those genes so diverse (for example, the genes dictating the spots on a moth are basically the same as the genes dictating a mammal's limbs). Morphic Resonance is like a cloud of memory that exists around individuals, societies, cultures and species, that carries memory which informs everything from the shape of a limb to societal behavior patterns. This morphic resonance also evolves, and it carries with it much more of the story than just our genes do.
3. Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist and partner with James Lovelock in creating the “Gaia Theory,” revolutionized evolutionary thinking with her theory that symbiotic relationships--a co-evolution with the planet and other life forms -- are what have been the determining factors in the evolution of species. This is systems thinking. Margulis has found that significant portions of the human genome are either bacterial or viral in origin. Bacteria evolves very differently from other life forms, as they can share DNA during their lifetimes with other bacteria. Some of our human DNA does not reside in the cell nucleus, but outside of it -- this is the mitochondrial DNA. It is theorized that this mitochondrial DNA resulted from viruses that have become a permanent part of our DNA. The advent of microbiology greatly changed the view of evolution. According to Margulis, many scientists still approach evolution at a macro level, leading to great misunderstanding. From her Wikipedia entry:
“She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk." She opposes such competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species.”
Links about Margulis:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/margulis/
4. And finally Fritjof Capra sums up much of this systems-based evolutionary thinking in his 1996 book “The Web of Life.” He reviews Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists, Margulis and Lovelock, deep time, findings from microbiology, and then moves into evolution and human culture. In the end Capra writes "that a proper understanding of human evolution is impossible without understanding the evolution of language, art, and culture. In other words, we must now turn our attention to mind and consciousness, the third conceptual dimension of the systems view of life.”
Comments on the links:
Darwin's books are like the Bible -- many interpretations are possible. Though they definitely answer one question -- life forms have changed over time -- the exact path and way that happens is up for discussion. Depending on one's world view -- scientific, religious, or somewhere in between -- arguments can be constructed to support that world view. It's slightly troubling how so many different people can be so sure that they have the right answer as to what this all means. And kind of laughable that the mystery remains! The mystery remains! Buddhists will tell you you have to find the answers out for yourself and be your own teacher. I just cross my fingers and hope we can get ourselves to a place of greater peace and happiness, personally and collectively.
What a funny and complex question to think about. On a personal level my body remains a mystery. I am often surprised and sometimes confounded by my own biology. I created an art project once where I broke my body down into its various parts, drew pictures of each part--my foot, my leg, my ear, my nose, my belly, etc.-- and told the stories that belonged to each part. So many stories our bodies have to tell! The line between biology, culture, personal history, and societal beliefs begins to blur.
We have, as a human culture, many understandings of our biological selves and perhaps no understanding at all. As a graduate student in medical anthropology this very question was the leading question in all research related to the field. The answer to the question depends on who you talk to: a woman with "heart trouble" in Iran and a cardiologist in the United States will have very different explanations and treatment ideas for her symptoms. Arthur Kleinman, a medical anthropologist who wrote a groundbreaking book in 1980 called "Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture," provided the term "Explanatory Models" or EMs to describe this phenomenon. For Kleinman, it is vital to always ask a patient "what do you think is the cause of this problem?" And this question will lead to a greater understanding, for both patient and physician, of how to treat someone's symptoms, and of what the cause of the symptoms really is--especially when working with someone who comes from a different belief system.
In the West we might be led to believe that allopathic medicine possesses the REAL understanding of our biological selves. That the close scientific investigation of the body provides the correct answers. Yet really, surprisingly, through study of things like the placebo effect, alternative forms of healing, and turning an anthropological eye on Western medicine itself, we discover that this isn't exactly the case.
Cecil Helman, an anthropologist at the University of London, studied, among other things, culture and pharmacology. Helman writes: "In many cases, the effect of medication on human physiology and emotional state does not depend solely on its pharmacological properties. A number of other factors, such as personality, social or cultural backgrounds, can either enhance or reduce ths effect, and are responsible for the wide variability in people's response to medication." That statement is rather shocking for someone coming from a Western biomedical perspective. How can this be?
Helman reports that in study after study placebos have been shown to effectively "cure" practically any organ system in the body. He states:
"It is therefore the *belief* of those receiving (and/or administering) a placebo substance or procedure in the *efficacy* of that placebo which can have both psychological and physiological effects."
An important point here lies in the parenthetical phrase "and/or administering" -- it doesn't even have to be the patient that has the strong belief -- it can be only the physician's belief that impacts the efficacy of a treatment! A study was done on five treatments (specifically, in this case, five different drugs) for angina pectoris "all of which are now believed to have no specific physiologic efficacy, yet at one time all were found to be effective and were used extensively." How can it be true that at one time a drug cured on a number of people of angina pectoris and now the drug doesn't work? The only difference found between the time the drug worked and the time it did not is the collective belief of the physicians!
It is this study that comes to mind when people try to defend acupuncture as truly effective because it seems to work on non-human animals. What they are trying to say is that the effectiveness of acupuncture can not only be in the mind of patient because it works in animals who have no belief in acupuncture. What is missing here is the impact of the belief of the acupuncturist on the outcome.
Another case where this is true -- the impact of belief of a practioner on the biology of another being -- is with the effectiveness of prayer. Dr. Larry Dossey is a physician who reports on the effectiveness of prayer to heal in his book "Prayer is Good Medicine." Again, there are many scientific studies that validate his assertion.
In light of all these studies, a straightforward understanding of the physical parts of the human body (and the effect of chemical substances on the body to treat sickness) begins to hold a little less weight in offering a true understanding of biology. We are not machines. Nothing can be explained in simple biological terms...unless maybe that is your belief system.
The short way to answer this question then, do we really understand our biological selves, is no. What a fantasic mystery we are!
There is perhaps another way to speak about our "biology" our "life" that includes more than just looking at our internal organs...
2. Impressions on the links on evolution:
There's a lot of information in those links! I guess I never knew that the topic of evolution could span so far and wide. I looked into "Deep Time" which really provides some perspective on our own little lives. It's amazing to me that life as we know it took so long to evolve, and that we are capable of destroying a lot of it in the blink of an eye. I also looked at PBS's mate selection quiz which made me wonder if my lips were puffy enough and my chin small enough...never thought a site on evolution could make me feel so evolutionarily inadequate! And finally, I tend to believe that life forms can sort of "will into being" certain traits. Even with all that time for change involved, it still seems a little too weird that moths could develop spots that look like owl eyes. My world view would throw some consciousness into the mix there. I still stand by the belief that we are not machines!
I grew up in a small town in Ohio and wanted to be many things: a vet, a psychologist, and something I called an “artist scientist.” I spent a lot of time watching birds, and traveling in the interior landscapes of my imagination.
My first semester at college I fell in love with anthropology and other people’s stories. I studied art, comparative literature and cultural anthropology. I went on to get a Master of Arts in Medical Anthropology -- the cultural study of healing and sickness around the world.
Between then and now I have traveled a meandering pathway living in many different places and working as journalist, second grade school teacher, photography student, gorilla researcher, health educator at a sperm bank, and now I write grants for art and film at UC Berkeley. My heart’s desire has been to be in the healing arts for a long while. I finally got up the courage to go that direction and honestly, I’m really, really energized and happy about this step! With Chinese Medicine the whole world comes together for me.
