StevenPinker: on the decline of violence

....or it helps to continually learn, listen & understand -as best we can- when trying to affect change in the ways of the world.

In that regard here is an interesting review of Steven Pinkers lecture (& upcoming book) with respect to the study of human violence from a historical perspective...important to "consider as one considers".

Of course regarding violence, things can easily go to hell in a hand basket -and often do- for a variety of reasons...still, teasing out these observable phenomena can prove very useful in understanding human collaboration.

Steven Pinker on the decline of violence

"Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard, begins his presentation with an image of corpses on a truck, being taken from Auschwitz concentration camp. The image is one of many characteristic of the 20th century, a century that included brutality under Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and the genocide in Rwanda. The 21st century, which has barely started, already includes the brutality of Darfur and the daily destruction in Iraq.

These sorts of images can lead us to thinking that modernity brings terrible violence. Perhaps native people lived in a state of harmony that we’ve departed from.

This, Pinker tells us, is bullshit. “Our ancestors were far more violent than we are.” We’re probably living in the most peaceful time of our species’s existence, a statement that seems almost obscene in light of Darfur and Iraq.

The decline of violence, he tells us, is a fractal phenomenon - we see it over the centuries, the decades and the years. That said, we see a tipping point in the 16th century - the age of reason - particularly in England and Holland.

Until 10,000 years ago, all humans were hunter gatherers. This is the group that some believe lived in primordial harmony - there’s no evidence of this. Studying current hunter-gatherer tribes, the percent of male adults who die in violence is extraordinary - from 20 to 60% of all males. Even during the violent 20th century, with two world wars, less than 2% of males worldwide died in warfare.

Moving slightly further forward, we can see that violent punishment was common in the Bible - Moses tells his followers to kill all the men and married women of a village and rape the virgins. The death penalty was used for murder, idolatry, disrespecting your parents and “collecting sticks on the sabbath”.

The Middle Ages were filled with mutilation and torture as routine punishments for trangressions we’d punish with fines today. This was merely another charming feature of a time that featured passtimes like “cat burning”, dropping cats into a fire for entertainment puposes… Some of the most creative inventions of the Middle Ages were fantastically cruel forms of corporal punishment.

One on one death has plummeted through the middle ages, with an “elbow” of the curve in the 16th century. Despite a slight uptick in the 1960s - “perhaps those who thought that rock and roll would lead to a decline in moral values had it right” (joking) - we’ve seen two orders of magnitude fall in one on one violence from the middle ages to today. State sponsored violence has also fallen sharply - we’ve seen a 90% reduction in genocide since the end of the cold war. State on state conflicts are dropping every decade.

So why do we so mispercieve the violence of our society? For one thing, our reporting is better. AP is more likely to cover a war somewhere on the planet than a 16th century monk. We’re subject to a cognitive illusion - memorable events (brutal murder) are judged to be more probable than they actually are. Finally, our standards tend to change faster than our behavior. We may be offended by capital punishment today because it no longer fits with our vision of ourselves, but it’s worth remembering that not long ago, that sort of punishment was exceedingly common and there wasn’t strong protection of rights in the courts to prevent it from taking place.

So why is violence becoming less common? He offers four explanations:

1) Hobbes got it right. “Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In anarchy, there’s a temptation towards pre-emptive violence, hurting the other guy before he hurts you. But with the rise of the Leviathan - the State - there’s a monopoly on violence. This helps explain why we still see violence in the absence of the state - zones of anarchy, failed states, street gangs.

2) In the past, we had a widespread sentiment that life was cheap. As we’ve gotten better at prolonging life, we take life more seriously and are more reluctant to take life.

3) We’re seeing more non-zero sum games, as people discover forms of cooperation that can benefit both parties, like trade and shared peace dividends. These zero-sum games come with technology, because it allows us to trade with more people. People become more valuable live than dead - “We shouldn’t bomb the Japanese because they built my minivan.”

4) Finally, Pinker leans on Peter Singer to speculate about “the expanding circle”. By default, we empathize with a small group of people, our friends and family. Everyone else is subhuman. But over time, we’ve seen this circle expand, from village to clan to tribe to nation to other races, both sexes and eventually other species. As we learn to expand our circles wider and wider, perhaps violence becomes increasingly unacceptable."

A non-zero sum game of human to human interaction makes the most intuitive sense to me and is reminiscent of aspects of evolutionary game theory, though the "expanding circles" notion is intriguing. However, Peter Singer goes way too far in other writings where he or at least some of his readers manage to confound unrelated ideas into a bizzaro house of cards version of 'animal rights' mindlessly parroted, overused and abused by 'animal rights' activists.

It’s likely, that a combination of Pinkers’ hypotheticals blend together –possibly along with other intangibles- to affect this fascinating fractal phenomenon observed as a general reduction in human on human violence.

What is going on that is right is as important to know as all that is going wrong. All in all this presentation offers some interesting food for thought.

Prions: mysterious shape shifters

Everywhere and nowhere

It is the strangest thing to see a vibrant and healthy Colorado bred elk begin to shrivel and waste away before your eyes. It is even more frustrating to feel that old familiar tinge of complete helplessness when the realization comes to you that chronic wasting disease has taken (CWD) hold of another victim. No matter how aggressive and careful you are there is literally nothing that can be done once this mysterious disease takes hold.

Thankfully, the incidence of this prion based sickness is relatively rare and slow to ravage whole herds. This is good as the best we can do to control CWD is to monitor it by testing the tissues of captive adult animals that have died or researching “test and cull” methods for eradicating it from wild herds.

The mechanisms that make this disease so bizarre and counter intuitive starts with the causative agent – a prion- a small protein structure without any nucleic acid. They are described as “small proteinaceous infectious particles which resist inactivation by procedures that modify nucleic acids.”

This is indeed beyond strange. The idea that a protein structure by itself can cause disease defied a lot of what was known about infectious disease. The infected animals are usually neurological and the disease is now classified into a family of “spongiform encephalopathies” based on the post mortem lesions found in affected mammals¹- of which most seem to have some version of this thing (table 1). They are all characterized by varying degrees of loss of motor control, dementia, wasting (paralysis) and eventually death.

Table 1 some prion diseases:

• Scrapie: sheep
• TME (transmissible mink encephalopathy): mink
• CWD (chronic wasting disease): muledeer, elk
• BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy): cows
• CJD: Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease: human
• GSS: Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome: human
• FFI: Fatal familial Insomnia: human
• Kuru : human
• Alpers Syndrome: human

An interesting historical anecdote regarding early prion research is touched on by Dr Shaun Heaphy lecturer at the University of Leicester “Kuru is the condition which first brought prion diseases to prominence in the 1950s. Found in geographically isolated tribes in the Fore highlands of New Guinea. Established that ingesting brain tissue of dead relatives for religious reasons was likely to be the route of transmission. They ground up the brain into a pale grey soup, heated it and ate it. Clinically, the disease resembles CJD. Other tribes in the vicinity with same religious habit did not develop the disease. It is speculated that at some point in the past a tribe member developed CJD, and as brain tissue is highly infectious this allowed the disease to spread. Afflicted tribes were encouraged not to ingest brain tissue and the incidence of disease rapidly declined and is now almost unknown.” This rather macabre custom did illustrate how this strange infection behaved and how it might work through a population of people.

Even more intriguing, these prions seem to be related to a normal and abundant cellular protein (PrPc) located on the membrane on run of the mill neural cells. These prion like structures have a different structural shape than infectious prions and are perhaps functionally linked with normal neural transmission, though no one really knows for sure.

Prions and these PrPc proteins seem to have species specific structures but these configurations are fairly similar across the board. This species specificity dramatically slows down cross species infections and makes such jumps far less probable, but not impossible- especially if there is a susceptible individual on the other end.

The prion varies in its structural three dimensional forms from the normal PrPc protein and it’s this structural difference that seems to make them so insidiously pathological. To make matters worse, it seems there may be genetically susceptible individuals that are more prone to having their own PrPc proteins “shape shift” into the pathological infectious prion by coming into contact with a prion (by the way, not all shape shifted prions are lethal).

Interestingly, that it is possible to eventually “transform” an infectious prion from one species to another susceptible species is a prime example of witnessing evolution “unplugged” right before our eyes. The ability of these prions to evolve structurally and in time come up with the right configuration to cross species without any genetic elements is remarkable.

As ERV puts it “How does something with the same amino acid sequence evolve??”. With respect to prion research being done by Dr Bartz she adds “The idea I pitched to Dr. Bartz (the idea he was already planning on pitching to the scientific community hehe, I iz smrt) is that prions operate like HIV-1. But instead of exploring sequence space like my HIV, his prions explore structure space. One protein exploring all possible structural configurations. It has an optimal configuration for minks, but needs to explore and find a more optimal configuration for ferrets.” Amazing stuff!

What does a normal PrPc do? What makes its shapeshifted version so lethal? According to the Prion Institute “Studying how and why proteins misfold and the genetics, diagnoses and treatments of prion diseases will have positive implications for both animal and human health issues.”

Indeed, the possible breakthroughs for understanding the prion phenomenon may have staggering implications towards not just understanding the spongiform encephalopathies, but other degenerative neural diseases (i.e.; Alzheimer) as well as shed light on normal brain physiology. All this from a tiny inert blob of protein- reality is indeed far stranger than fiction.

------------------------------------------------------------

1) Visible end results at post-mortem are non-inflammatory lesions, vacuoles, amyloid protein deposits and astrogliosis.

Combating Malaria with mosquitoes

A possible novel strategy

There have been a lot of mixed results on the malaria control front. Simple and effective measures such as executing public malaria prevention campaigns, spraying against mosquito larvae, disseminating anti-malarial medications and mosquito netting have been slow to take hold due to a constellation of frustrating problems. The sad scourge of political corruption, extreme poverty and socio-cultural prejudice are but a few of the barriers that impede progress towards bringing down the death toll of this ancient protozoal disease that kills in the area of one million people a year.

This is why it is still worth perusing alternative strategies against the malaria parasite. Any measure that can help impact the effects of this disease should be considered and if found to be effective, added to the existing known strategies. This doesn’t include opening ones mind until your brains fall out and embracing implausible measures that just don’t work such as homeopathy and nutritional supplement “treatments”. Alternative efforts like these reflect -at best- a stunning dissonance between reality and belief or -at worst- complete and utter stupidity and a morbid disregard for human life.

However, among the more interesting possible anti-malarial strategies that might bypass some of the problems of other programs are biological approaches for combating malaria. For example, approaches that could cut its life cycle could dramatically reduce the prevalence of this parasite using a completely novel angle.

Actually, the idea itself isn't really new. Scientists have been trying for years to develop a malaria resistant mosquito that could survive in the wild. Until recently, the idea of combating malaria through biological mechanisms involving its life cycle has been a nice but impractical theory. It made sense but has been very difficult to make work- the devils been in the details. The good news is that recent developments in this area might breathe new life to this approach making it, at the very least, a promising avenue worth pursuing.

An interesting article in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American touches on some of the hopeful developments in this field. In summary, it mentions various lines of research on the malarial parasite life cycle, genetically engineered mosquitoes (Anopheles) and their capacity to survive in the wild that are coming together to perhaps create an viable and effective instrument for combating the malaria organism (Plasmodium falciparum).

In 2007, researchers found that the midgut environment of the anopheline mosquito, where the malaria parasite is transported and becomes infectious, plays an important role in the development of the malaria parasite. By genetically manipulating the mosquito to produce a substance found in Sea Cucmbers (CEL-111) in this midgut region, these researcher have been able to significantly inhibit the sporogenic development of Plasmodium falciparum.

The authors in this study note that “To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of stably engineered anophelines that affect the Plasmodium transmission dynamics of human malaria. Although our laboratory-based research does not have immediate applications to block natural malaria transmission, these findings have significant implications for the generation of refractory mosquitoes.” These researchers basically have managed to create a viable mosquito resilient to the malaria parasite- an important piece of the puzzle.

Other threads of research are probing alternative mechanisms that alter the parasite life cycle within the mosquito and offer intriguing bits of information adding to the development of a robust data base for discovering more anti-malarial bio-mechanisms. For example, in the same year it was discovered that a capsule protein PbCap380 an ingredient of the malarial oocyst outer wall was critical for malarial survival inside the mosquito. The oocyst stage of the malarial life cycle is key to this parasites ability to infect humans and without this particular protein component the parasites were gradually eliminated from the mosquitoes reducing their capacity to transmit the disease.

Another study found they were able to reduce the adherence of the ookinate stage of the parasite to the lining of the mosquito midgut; an important part of eventual oocyst development by RNA interference. In essence they were able to reduce the level of a “ligand” – a glycoaminoglycans structure on the gut lining- that acts like Velcro.

Having a mechanism or mechanisms to inhibit plasmodium inside altered mosquitoes and maintaining a viable population of these insects are crucial steps toward a larger active bio-engineered anti-malarial program. However, one of the biggest steps in this area is to translate these successes to the field. If one or more of these mechanisms can be spread throughout the wild gene pool of mosquitoes then a whole new front against malaria could be established.

In fact, another recent study offers tantalizing evidence that transgenic malaria resistant mosquitoes can in fact survive in the wild. These authors note that “The introduction of genes that impair Plasmodium development into mosquito populations is a strategy being considered for malaria control. The effect of the transgene on mosquito fitness is a crucial parameter influencing the success of this approach.”

The study found that transgenicaly altered mosquitoes actually had a survival advantage in the lab when compared to non- transgenically altered mosquitoes. The authors conclude that the result of their findings “suggest that when feeding on Plasmodium-infected blood, transgenic malaria-resistant mosquitoes have a selective advantage over non-transgenic mosquitoes. This fitness advantage has important implications for devising malaria control strategies by means of genetic modification of mosquitoes.” On a related note, another important study in fruit flies reveals that it is possible to spread genetically modified insect genes in the wild.

Taken as a whole, one begins to see that several vital steps are being made to close the circle on a novel biological mechanism that can be used to reduce malaria in its natural environment. Each of these studies provides a brick of knowledge that begin to form a wall against malaria transmission. This fascinating activity may indeed be the genesis of a true “bio-weapon” against malaria and add to the greater effort in combating a deadly human disease.

The power of social networking: medicine with meaning

Shredding a paper tiger

Carl Sagan once noted that pursuing the truth no matter where it took you is far more enriching and fulfilling than believing in fantasies and made up realities. No matter how harsh, if you acknowledge your limitations- your humanity- nothing trumps the search for truth.

This is a premise for many who chase down and expose false and deceptive lines of reasoning in human society in an unending search for those gems that shine true. This is why complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) sometimes sticks out like a sore thumb. It pretends to dress itself in a robe of legitimacy and reality claiming actual therapeutic abilities for many of the maladies of society. Yet most of its most basic tenets disintegrate like sand between your fingers if you stop to examine them closely.

Because CAM is so replete with falsehoods peeling away at the facade is an important exercise because it sheds light on what not to do as a client or doctor. In this way much of CAM can be seen for what it is; a non-falsifiable belief system. The doctors’ stethoscope gets replaced with a sorcerer’s wand, and the lab coat with a priests robe.

Critical thinking can also help clarify many problems and pitfalls of the relationship and bond between modern medicine and society. Though there are plenty of issues on the table here, a crucial point to remember is something Carl Sagan alluded to. We need to acknowledge our humanity as it is. In other words, no matter how close to the truth we might get, we are necessarily driven to live with some form of "human" meaning (i.e.; awe, spirituality, inspiration).

But what is it that breathes life and meaning into our everyday lives? This core question has been an insufferable bane to philosophers and the opium of the masses for innumerable religions. It’s likely it has no one real answer.

We have made tremendous inroads -in spite of our limitations- towards a better understanding of reality. At the same time though, certain human qualities such as esthetics, art, and “value” still belong to a hazy area within the spectrum of human society. Somewhere in this realm CAM has created its own meaning with powers it doesn’t have as it stakes claim to things it doesn’t own – namely human “bonds”.

Human qualities (i.e.; fear, anger, happiness, love) form an integral part of the human condition and who we are. Though they may be as hard to pin down as an electron orbit, they contribute to how humanity relates to the world as well as how one individual relates to another. What has all this discussion got to do with social networking?

The importance of interconnections

Richard Dawkins in “An Ancestors Tale” noted that -to some degree- evolution rhymes, patterns repeat themselves. From the gene to the cell and beyond, there is a thread of constant interplay occurring that allows for differing levels of connection. This can be observed throughout the interdependent ecological scheme of life on this planet.

Zoologically speaking, one of its most elaborate versions seems to come in the form of multicellular animals. Here the tightness of interaction (along with the need for a nervous system) seems to have produced a unique form of interconnection. This is a pattern that can be loosely followed from cells that make up organisms to organisms that make up larger groups, herds, to even human societies.

It seems that this repeating phenomenon of networking gives rise to many of the emergent qualities resulting from interconnectedness in humans. For example, phenomena such as consciousness, art and “morality” may be some of the hard to quantify byproducts of networking that are tied to clearer evolutionary mechanisms (i.e.; kin selection, altruism). That these qualities are hard to pin down doesn’t make them less important- especially when we try to understand what it is to be “human”.

The implications for gaining insight into the fuzzy realm of human interactions can have huge payoffs in medicine. For instance, much of what may be attributed to the placebo actually has to do with some of the spin off effects of social networking. This person to person interaction can have a significant influence on the quality of the human experience in medical interactions which can -in turn- positively impact health.

Much of the force and claimed power of CAM actually stems from these networking effects and not at all from the CAM method itself. If doctors better understand how these interactions occur and who they affect, perhaps many CAM modalities would atrophy and be thrown into histories trash bin- at least as medical therapies.

The always interesting Edge web site has a video of Dr Nicholas Christakis Professor of Medical Sociology at Harvard and Attending Physician at Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, Mass., discussing the remarkable properties of social networks, how they obey certain deep biological-like rules and the amazing capacity they have to spread many qualities including altruism, happiness, and even loneliness. These qualities seem to propagate in a way similar to “biological contagions” yet they are social aspects of human interactions.

This research takes the potential for social networks in medicine to new levels. According to his web site “This work takes seriously the contention that because people are inter-connected, their health is inter-connected. This work explores two aspects of social networks: the process by which they form ("connection") and the way they operate to influence behavior ("contagion"). Related work examines the health benefits of marriage and the consequences of spousal illness and widowhood. Other ongoing investigations consider the effects of neighborhoods on people's health, the biodemographic determinants of longevity, and the genetic bases for human behaviors. His past work has examined the accuracy and role of prognosis in medicine and ways of improving end-of-life care.”

Unlike the false magical claims of CAMs “humanity”, this research is based on solid research and science. If these properties are better understood, they could expand our ability to positively impact social networks. We inherently know that illness can indirectly impact others in addition to the ill individual -but we don’t know all the details and potentially miss out on an opportunity to effectively help a broader circle of affected people.

For example, Christakis evaluated how the illness of a spouse affected the healthy partner in the marriage and found that it is possible to identify individuals at greater risk for emotional stress and diseases of their own (mental health and substance abuse). This could allow for specific interventions depending on the circumstance that relieves the caregiver and minimizes the propagation of the negative social effects of what was originally a real organic medical disease in somebody else. This might seem like common sense, but studying its effects brings home the importance that medicine take social networks very seriously.

Part of what we understand as a “good bedside manner” has roots in being aware of these issues. By expanding our body of knowledge, it may be possible to formalize clear and effective approaches to the client/doctor relationship and teach aspiring students solid techniques that seam the “human condition” more intimately into the tapestry of medical practice. That way, these important social interactions would be less prone to false hopes and empty promises common in CAM while softening some of the “sharp edges” of modern medicine.

Christakis describes his research as follows “it is critical when you think of networks to think about their dynamics. A lot of times, people fail to understand networks because they focus on the statistics. They think about topology; they think about the architecture of the network. They think about how people are connected, which is of course incredibly important and not easy to understand either. While on the one hand the topology can be understood or seen as fixed or existing, on the other hand this topology is itself mutable and changing and intriguing, and the origin of this topology and its change is itself a difficult thing.

But here is something else: Once you have recognized that there is a topology, the next thing you must understand is that there can be a contagion as well — a kind of process of flow through the network. Things move through it, and this has a different set of scientific underpinnings altogether. Understanding how things flow through the network is a different challenge from understanding how networks form or evolve. It is the difference between the formation and the operation of the network, or the difference between its structure and its function. Or, if you see the network as a kind of super-organism, it is the difference between the anatomy and the physiology of the super-organism, of the network. You need to understand both. And they both interconnect and affect each other, just as in our bodies our anatomy and our physiology are interrelated.”

The implications of his work are somewhat reminiscent of the social “meme” concept that Dawkins originated and Blackmore is trying to legitimize. Whether these particular ideas reflect reality remains to be seen. The social networking scheme of Dr Christakis work though does appear promising. The potential benefits to understanding how social systems network and function in medicine can positively impact health on a broader more human scale (without CAM help). This is a good thing.

Transforming Data

glimpes of evolution in the information age

Hans Rosling is founder and director of Gapminder, an interesting non-profit venture that promotes sustainable global development. He has breathed life into the world of numbers and managed to do what many thought impossible.

By developing a software program named Trendalyser he was able to “unveil the beauty of statistical time series by converting boring numbers into enjoyable, animated and interactive graphics.” The ultimate goal is to access all of the existing and accumulating informational data bases of the world – which are critically important yet often stored in archaic and difficult to reach places- and transform them into large interactive pools of information that display in incredibly useful formats.

The ability to get more out of the data is truly astounding and has global implications in developmental, economic, health, environmental and social sectors just to name a few. An example of what this technology offers can be seen in Roslings 2006 discussion “debunking the myths of the world.”

The potential for evaluating, examining, and understanding statistical information is staggering. In this way, better decisions and more effective solutions could be implemented. For example, trends in medicine could be tracked and correlations made that favor optimal health thereby improving our understanding of what does and doesn’t work.

These trends could be noticed quicker and targeted more precisely with much more nuance (i.e.; what subpopulations respond to what therapies). This could have a significant impact in science and evidenced based medicine in the near future and promises to make life easier for practitioners striving for the best medicine.

On a related note, there is a bourgeoning new generation of web based services in human medicine that promises to revolutionize how medicine is practiced. The ScienceRoll site has an excellent review of the possibilities.

For the love of animals…for the love of us

understanding the nature of things

One of the greatest lessons Charles Darwin left us was that, as life goes, we are not the center of the universe. He taught us to take a step back from our busy lives and open our eyes to a reality staring us in the face. The message was –and is- breathtakingly simple: Humanity is not the pinnacle of the biological world; it is only a small part of a vast living landscape. Never before, or since has such a powerful lesson in humility been given to us as a species.

This is a lesson that many seem to be forgetting today; an age where there is an increasing disconnect with nature. It may be that we are letting slip from our grasp the very thing that might save us. Here in the “greatest” democracy the very concept of an educated citizen is fading (at a time when we need him/her the most) in an era of dogmatic beliefs, inflexible attitudes, and myopic compassion

Children are graduating from schools with minimal science knowledge, weak critical thinking tools and their hiking shoes rot in the closet as a virtual world increasingly clamors for attention. Not that it is all bad. Fantastic new and novel horizons are opening up before us. It could be that this is just the way of things as humanity stumbles along, but this schism between us and the rest of the real world is not healthy.

The fact is, our stumbling should be done with a little more balance. For example we could be better connected to our origins, our history, and our environment. There is something to be said for the outdoors - “rolling” in the dirt, smelling the smells, watching the ways of plants and animals. We hear this call all the time but it is more urgent now than ever before.

Dr Miller, a veterinarian and horse trainer, in a poignant article “And they call us horse lovers” laments a loss of genuine connection with animals and nature- even with the ones we live with. He notes “How many people who sincerely consider themselves to be "horse lovers" wean foals at three months of age, or even earlier, which nature never intended? How many horses, a gregarious species, spend their lives locked in box stalls? How many horses in the U.S.A, like so much of our human population, are damaged healthwise by excessive nutrition? Such abuses exist in every breed, every discipline, in every equine sport. We need to step back and analyze what we are doing.”

This is a call for a gentler approach to animal husbandry that goes back to, in this case, observing and emulating a little more closely a horse’s natural behavior. It is a train of thought can be extended out to many other human and animal relationships.

The problem though is that many people are increasingly losing their grip on the reality of nature that Darwin unfolded before us. There are those that proselytize with imagined righteousness and confound and confuse the rest of us with self aggrandized claims of “the truth.” For example, animal activist groups that pretend to offer salvation to “enslaved” animals really don’t. They only manage to threaten the very lives of genuine researchers like Dr London. * Whatever legitimate concerns and credibility these groups might have had has long ago washed away along with their blind runs at home grown terrorism.

This sad example, though extreme, reflects a disconnect between many people and the world around them. They might go too far; seeing animals through a narrow filter that mixes human traits, emotions, and belief into an unnatural vision that completely misses the point. Granted we all do this but taking it too far becomes destructive.

It is said, that to truly understand ones connection to the world, you need to gather your own food from the source at least once, rear an orphaned animal, and grow a plant from seed. In this way, the connection between sacrificing and sustenance is seared into memory. This creates a powerful bond to the world around us and makes navigating the present sea of dogma a bit easier and our relationship with the life around us clearer.

The world continues to move on and -one way or another- history will inevitably unfold. Whether or not humanity can achieve any level of sustainability has a lot to do with understanding and accepting our place here. Whether this happens or not is up to all of us.

-------------------------------------------

* Dr. London eloquently defends her work towards understanding addiction.

Happy Darwin Day

He opened our eyes to the world as it is...

...this is indeed a gift among gifts...Thank you Charles Darwin

Animal rights: an urban myth?

Dispatches from the front lines

One of the topics that really seem to stir up the “sentimental pot” to a rolling boil is whether or not animals –in contrast to humans- have basic rights. This would include such ideas as the right to be free, to not be eaten by man, and to not suffer.

For example, large and active elements of the animal rights movement would have us believe that the use and consumption of animal flesh (for some even animal by-products like eggs and milk) are tantamount to genocide and crimes against humanity.

Several animal rights philosophers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan, and writers like Joy Williams and J. M. Coetzee express similar sentiments that support the premise of equality among all animals. For example, Singer argues that “equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact” and morally speaking everyone’s interests should have equal consideration no matter “what they are like or what abilities they have …If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?”

In fact, following this line of reasoning will eventually take you to a strange realm where the concept of racism is stretched and expanded to include other animal species. The term “specieism” has been coined to describe those who draw a line between humanity and certain other animals. As mentioned some go so far as to describe specieism an evil just as morally reprehensible as the racist mindset that led the Germans to create their killing fields. Coetzee has noted that if the animal rights groups are correct then a great crime is going on everyday all around us (regarding the use of animals for food and maybe even as companions- pets- for that matter).

To a certain extent, these passions are understandable and laudable. They reflect a level of sensitivity and compassion towards some (not all¹) of our creature brethren and seem to belie a kind recognition –however strange- that they have as much right to be on this earth as we do.

However, the reality is these worldviews and paradigms are built from nothing more than assumptions and a clear ignorance of how the world of nature really works. They reflect beliefs that betray an astounding lack of ecological knowledge and commingle such unrelated themes as human politics, utilitarianism, and urban individualism with ecology, evolution, mutualism, and other species to species relationships. Even so, some of the claims of animal right supporters do have merit and need thoughtful consideration.

For example, the notion of an equal status among some animals has led to the search for a common need amongst species. Initially, for many, this has been the need to avoid “suffering” in animals. The problem here –and this goes with a lack of biological knowledge- is that the term "suffer" can be a rather slippery and nuanced concept taken beyond the scope of human consciousness.

Some neurologists and philosophers note that human suffering has a uniquely layered and amplified meaning due to our ability to think about our thoughts, examine our condition, and reflect upon our existence. According to Polland, Daniel Dennett “suggests we draw a distinction between pain, which a great many animals obviously experience, and suffering, which depends on a degree of self-consciousness only a handful of animals appear to command. Suffering in this view is not just lots of pain but pain amplified by distinctly human emotions such as regret, self-pity, shame, humiliation, and dread.” There seems to be –as Dennett implies- a spectrum or gradation of perceptions where different animals will experience perhaps varying levels of “suffering” and therefore perceive pain differently.

In other words; there is a difference between “pain” in general and “human suffering.” This has several important implications in how we interact with other animals as well as ourselves and how we perceive these interactions.

This means, as obvious as it might seem to some, that we are not cows, nor are cows us. Our beloved dog or cat see the world through their dog and cat eyes- not ours. All the anthropomorphising in the world can not change that.

On the other hand, in reaching out and offering a loving and altruistic hand, relieving animal pain when it is seen (along with whatever associated suffering or “quality of life” it implies) greatly benefits many animals. In return, they provide a source for deeply moving, beautiful, and meaningful interactions for people- these are truly powerful bonds. Obviously, a good thing if not taken to extremes (i.e.; take care of the animals- but the baby comes first).

One straight laced -no bullshit- view that might make all this philosophical tongue twisting easier to understand is to take a simpler position. This is where a good farmer’s practical view of the world can teach us volumes on how to live cooperatively with our animal brethren. Though real farmers are perhaps a minority today in an overly insensitive and industrialized sector, if we look at the set up of a “traditional” farm there are glimpses of what a sound human/animal bond might really be- one that reaches beyond the concepts of “rights” and putative “crimes.”

Expanding our focus beyond the "suffering" angle, there is a broader and more fulfilling approach to understanding this bond. It has to do with respect, humane treatment, and an allowance for animals to be themselves; to let an animal as Pollan notes have “the opportunity to express its creaturely character- its essential pigness or wolfness or chickenness.” He adds “This, it seems to me, is where the animal rightists betray a deep ignorance about the workings of nature. To think of domestication as a form of slavery or even exploitation is to misconstrue that whole relationship- to project a human idea of power onto what is in fact an example of mutualism or symbiosis between species.”

Perhaps another way to describe this relationship is through the eyes of evolution, where several species “realized” that working together enhanced the prospects of survival for all of them- it was a fair bargain. This describes more a web of interaction where the welfare of one species is dependant another’s which is not the same as a world of literal equality.

This simple perspective helps clarify much of our philosophical angst regarding animal rights and proper treatment. For one, the human social construct of “rights” does not work well in human/animal frameworks because it belongs elsewhere. It helps humans relate to humans within a social and cultural context- it is an abstract tool best for human use only. When it comes to human/animal relationships, the concept of animal welfare, for lack of a better description, seems a better fit.²

The bottom line is that there is a schism in today’s urban/ suburban setting. A majority of people seem to be separating themselves from a vital part of their existence and- corny as it sounds- have lost a vital connection to their roots.

By not facing this connection and looking it in the eye we confuse ourselves with the world around us and everything becomes too people centered. That humans are a small part of a grand tangled web of interacting life gets buried in the details. This is how we lose our way down dead end roads, but then any simple farmer could have told us that.

---------------------------------------------------------------

1) According to William Pollan many animal rights philosophers draw the line of sentience (a point beyond which you can “morally” eat animals) “just north of scallop.”

2) Another issue where mutual “respect” can impact animals in a positive and reasonable way is to confront many of the problems with the extreme industrialization of certain agricultural sectors. As Pollan notes “This is another example of the cultural contradictions of capitalism- the tendency over time for the economic impulse to erode the moral underpinnings of society. Mercy towards the animals in our care is one such casualty.”

Though this is but a tiny part of a larger socio-economic system, reducing our meat consumption to allow for improved conditions would be a small price to pay for a “compassionate mutualism” and it could help steer industry towards more sustainable and successful business plans.

Ref:

Pollan M. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Penguin Group.New York, New York. 2006

Blackmore, S. Conversations on Consciousness. Oxford Univ Press. Oxford, New York. 2006

Humans are still evolving

We are but a point on the thread of time
An interesting article “Sprinting down the evolutionary highway” written by Linda Hurst touches on an important realization that has been steadily emerging from the field of evolutionary sciences- humans are still evolving.

Steven Jay Gould once noted that “there’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 years or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.” Other eminent scientists through time have also supported the idea that human evolution has stopped or slowed to a trickle. The reasoning partly has something to do with reaching a “survival threshold”.

For example, 50,000 years ago modern humans made a “stunning leap forward” and began to develop a finely nuanced use of cooperative abstraction thereby giving birth to potent civilizations. The theory goes that upon having reached this level –a pivotal point where survival is reasonably assured- larger evolutionary pressures began to slow.

In fact, one way or another, the idea that the evolutionary process has somehow stopped or become just a side note for present day humanity has been, until recently, a popular notion.

Fantastic advances in genomic research are revealing just how wrong these assumptions have been. It appears that through the different recent developments of human civilization –the transition from hunter gathering to agriculture to the industrial revolution- biology and environment have been interacting at what seems to be an increasing pitch. In other words, it seems that evolutionary pressures for humanity have been –not static or stopped- but actually increasing for the last several thousand years.

John Hawks an anthropologist researching these issues notes “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.” His claim stems from studies he and others have done involving the analysis of 3.9 million genetic markers in 270 peoples from four groups (Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa’s Yoruba people, and northern Europeans).

They found evidence that about 1,800 recent mutations occurred in the last five thousand years representing qualities such as skin color and partial resistance to disease. This represents about seven percent of the human genome and suggests that there has been a steady accumulation of beneficial gene mutations occurring during this time. This is a rapid rate, far faster than previously thought possible.

It appears that part of the reason has to do with the above described level of human success. The transition to a changed diet, settled habitats, and higher survival (at least to breeding) rates did not slow evolutionary pressures; they pushed them to a higher level.

Apparently the exponential growth in human population from about five million to today’s six and a half billion has created a cauldron of possible evolutionary potential. As humanity spread throughout the world different groups have had to adapt to specific regional demands (i.e.; skin color, malaria resistance, HIV/AIDS resistance, dietary tolerances) thereby pushing evolution along. Also, the shear numbers of humans has allowed beneficial mutations to pop up more frequently, then rapidly spread through the population.

Mutations are spurious and accidental changes to an organism’s DNA that may or may not propagate throughout the species. Crudely speaking, if they offer a significant enough benefit, they become part of the established genome. What is especially interesting is that the general genetic “volume” or number of genes from where the incredible diversity of life originates is relatively small. The portion dedicated to constructing proteins- and essentially us- is even tinier. According to Olivia Judson “the proportion of a genome that contains the instructions to make proteins is tiny; in humans; it may be less that 2 percent. So there’s a lot of other DNA that will experience mutations.” She notes that a significant proportion of these could be dedicated to regulating and controlling how protein coding happens. For example, how these genes orchestrate the order, sequence, and timing of protein production represent the difference between a human or a lump of algae.

It is these “regulatory” genes that might provide a big clue towards understanding evolutionary change at the genetic level. It seems that beneficial mutational changes in these genes – those that manage and control the building block genes- might account for many of the evolutionary changes we are talking about here. In fact, there is more of a difference in complexity between these regulatory genes between species than there is between protein coding genes. These regulatory genes are like puppet masters manipulating a limited number of proteins in infinitely different ways producing the variety of life.

As important as mutations to the protein coding genes might be, there seems to be far more mutational potential and actual change occurring in the larger pool of regulatory genes. Fascinating examples include two noted changes in gene variation reported by geneticist Bruce Lahn that may have affected changes in brain complexity and size.

One change occurred over 37,000 years ago is now observed in seventy percent of the population and the other appeared only 5,800 ago has already spread to thirty percent of the population. Laun notes “Of particular interest are the ASPM and Microcephalin genes. In each of these genes, a new sequence variant arose in the recent past of human history and has since swept to exceptionally high frequency around the world, presumably because of strong positive selection operating on the new variant...These findings suggest the tantalizing possibility that the human brain is till undergoing rapid adaptive changes.” He adds that “Our environment and the skills we need to survive in it are changing faster than we ever imagined. I would expect the human brain, which has done well by us so far, would continue to adapt to those changes.”

These changes do not have to be great seismic events to affect the ebb and tide of human evolution. Part of the drive for this change is the inexorable interplay between genes and the selective pressures of a constantly changing environment.

The point is that evolution is not done with humanity by a long shot. As we peer deep into the inner workings of the gene, we find -to the consternation of some- that it is peering right back at us.

Eugenic fallacies: bastardizing Darwin’s dream

….a glimpse into human delusions of superiority

Observing the variety of human faces one comes across, you will note a seemingly infinite variety of different features. There are oval, round, pear shaped, oblong, rectangular heads all with varying degrees and colors of curly, straight, knotted, and frizzled hair. Particular features such as noses and eyes come in a dizzying array of shapes and sizes. Indeed, the more you look, the more differences you may note.

However, if you take a step back and look at these faces from a distance, you will realize they are all basically very similar. From this viewpoint, the human species is not that different one from the other. This doesn’t seem to be so noteworthy on the surface; we are all just part of a grand family of humans. However, it’s these seemingly trivial differences –mostly irrelevant physical features- that have lied at the core of horrific wars, genocides, prejudices, and other countless horrors.

So it is that this subtle illusory separation between “him and me” also found fertile ground in the burgeoning world of nineteenth century physical anthropology. This was about the time when Darwin was completing his seminal journal “The voyage of the Beagle.” It was also a time when slavery had only just been abolished in England, and was still practiced and hotly debated around the world, including the United States.

It was a time were superficial morphological differences were literally associated with assumed biological differences between humans. With little or no knowledge of human origins and the biological sciences (i.e.; genetics, molecular biology, anthropology) it was a time where the vagaries of assumption, culture, and belief held even more sway than it does today. Humanity tended to be “classified” based on appearances- shades of which unfortunately are alive and well today.

An enlightening glimpse of Darwin’s views at the time can be seen in his work “Descent of Man” where he states “In regard to the amount of difference between the races, we must make some allowance for our nice powers of discrimination gained by long habit of observing ourselves” Even in an era of mainstream racism, he keyed into an old and chronic problem that would soon give rise to new strange and bizarre worldviews, usurping Darwin’s theories and bastardizing them with wholly unrelated and myopic biases. One such worldview was anthropological eugenics.

The bulk of these deep seeded prejudices go far back into the deep socio-cultural origins of humanity as well as the obvious and at the time inexplicable physical differences between humanity. However, the seeds of the “modern” eugenics movement can be seen growing among events in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

For example, Carl von Linnaeus while creating his great opus magnum- the binomial system of nomenclature (still in use today)- contributed to the concept of human sub speciation. He described subgroups such as afer (African), americanus (Native American), asiaticus (east Asian), europaeus (Euoropean), and monstrosus (an undefined loose group including other native peoples). This classification reflects on the general perception of the times- that peoples were considered different enough to be distinctly divided to this level.

Later, the concept of physical anthropology as a science crystallized with the work of Paul Broca, who studied craniometry in the nineteenth century as a means of classifying humans. He wrote an influential textbook that according to Spenger wells “served to galvanize the scientific community. Soon everybody wanted to measure skulls.”

An amateur scientist from England, Francis Galton (a “convert” of Brocas) funded a variety of research projects and eventually focused on measuring everything on the human body as Wells notes “in an effort to categorize human diversity scientifically.”

This mass of measurements had little coherence and could be interpreted in many ways opening the doors for nascent pseudoscience to creep into the picture. Here is where one thread of the eugenics story begins to take shape. Wells notes “This could have been dismissed as no more than an eccentric’s dabblings had his fascination with human classification not mixed with a misinterpretation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection to produce a potent brew.”

Though Darwin himself believed humanity was essentially equal with respect to biology, the same could not be said for some of his supporters. It was Herbert Spencer, a philosopher who, among others, began to twist the original intent of natural selection beyond recognition to serve his own peculiar interests. He coined the term “survival of the fittest” and used it to justify the sharp social divisions in Britain.

This train of thought expanded towards attempting to “scientifically” justify differences in culture and perceived superiority of the time. As Wells notes “Combined with the Victorian obsession with classification, this leap from ‘might makes right’ to a belief that these cultural differences must be definable using scientific methods encouraged the growth of the eugenics movement.”

It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the eugenics movement really began to take hold. According to Wells “the reasons are complex and have to do with Victorian ideas of self-improvement, interest in new scientific fields such as genetics and the wealth of emerging data from physical anthropology.” The rest is history.

From the United States to Europe, varying strains of eugenic movements and philosophies sprouted “to improve the gene pool of humanity.” One of the darker versions was used partly as “justification” for the cult like Nazi party to proceed with the systematic extermination of millions of innocents.

The “modern” eugenics movement of the twentieth century was essentially based on an odd blending of old philosophies and delusions of grandeur mixed with ad hoc associations -flat wrong interpretations- of biology, statistics, and natural selection.

As these misguided and destructive movements faded from acceptance, their histories and sad details are slowly dissolving from much of public consciousness- this is not good. There are many today who confound and confuse bits and pieces of this pseudoscience with real science. These inaccuracies are again being “re-bastardized” into new false assumptions decrying the evils of a new “social” Darwinism completely ignoring how the story really began and perhaps missing a larger point. The fact is, evolution has never stopped tinkering with humans and there really is no “superior” version of humanity- just versions (and -so far- very slightly differing versions at that!).

Humanity is on the threshold of understanding the secrets of the genetic code and is close to stepping itno an era of unimagined potential and clear dangers. This makes it ever more critical that we shed the suffocating trappings of a "victorian ego-centrist" world view and move on. Not an easy task- but so worth the effort.

Ref:

Wells, S. The journey of man. Random house. New York. 2003