We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lapp√©, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life

Click here to access article by Jonathan Latham, PhD from Independent Science News

I am not well qualified to comment on the merits of this article, but it makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. I hope that among my many readers there will be one or two, skilled in biological sciences, who will give their informed opinion about Latham's arguments in the comments section. I urge them to do so.

My intuitive understanding of the merits of Latham's arguments is based on my more skilled understanding of societies. They are quintessentially systems. However, ruling classes that arose several millennia ago through violence, the threat of violence, or some other threat to the welfare of their resistors have also played the same game by convincing their subjects that their rule and their ruling system was the legitimate locus of control over the entire society. 

After ruling classes took control, they then went to work on existing religions to insure that supporting myths were included to affirm their legitimate control of societies. In our more modern age ruling classes depend more on indoctrination agents that they use to staff educational institutions, book publishers, book authors, media, etc. to support their ideological version of social arrangements. Many political projects have been driven by the wealth and power benefits practically guaranteed to such ruling classes. It seems reasonable to suspecct the same is true of DNA as the focus of biological science today. The author hints at this explanation at the end of the article, and promises a more substantive explanation in the near future.
How is it that, if organisms are the principal objects of biological study, and the standard explanation of their origin and operation is so scientifically weak that it has to award DNA imaginary superpowers of “expression” and “control” to paper over the cracks, have scientists nevertheless clung to it? [emphasis in the original]
Why is it that, rather than celebrating and investing in Rashevsky, Kauffman, Noble, et al., as pioneers of necessary and potentially fruitful and unifying paradigms, have these researchers been ignored by mainstream biology?

What is the big attraction of genetic determinism?

A compelling and non-intuitive explanation for the monomania of biology does exist. It is set out in a second and forthcoming article: The Meaning of Life. It is an explanation that requires going behind the window dressing of science and examining its active and symbiotic relation to power in modern political systems.

2 comments:

  1. Your intuition is right, as usual, Ron. Here is my view, speaking as a former geneticist.

    This article is indeed an excellent, learned, comprehensive, and thought-provoking review.

    One reason (of many) for the persistence of current, possibly-mistaken, paradigms in biology is indeed politics. The bankers and the Deep State who are our real rulers wish to control every facet of our lives. They have deliberately taken over the media, book publishing, medicine, the three branches of the American government. They are likewise in the process of taking over and corrupting food production. And they have taken over, by now, the entire mainstream scholarly enterprise, at least in the West. They chose and promoted, behind the scenes, the biological worldview that rules biology today, and they will see to it that it remains in place. See for instance: http://drnissani.net/mnissani/pagepub/HISTORY.HTM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you so much for your contribution to this issue. I will be reading your paper soon.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated causing a little delay in being posted. Should you wish to communicate with me privately, please contact me through "About Me" on this blog.