Next week, we’ll read chapters 9 and 10. This week, chapters 7 and 8 of Natural Causes by Barbara Ehrenreich.
Stuff to talk about:
The chapter on holism was pretty interesting. Ehrenreich comes forward with a really compelling point, how bodily parts are said to have “functions” and “responsibilities” but actually that’s an incredibly odd way to describe biology, with an assignment of intent. What’s your view?
Ehrenreich takes down the implication that the body functions in harmony, and “Disease and death are disappointing aberrations.” This is put down fairly concisely with the idea of autoimmune diseases, and the fact that most cancers are not traceable to a carcinogen. What’s your view? Are we a confederacy of warring tissues, or a concise whole?
Now that she points it out? The military language around the immune system is, I must concede, a bit much, right. That’s not a question precisely but yeah, the metaphors are pretty heavy.
Chapters 7 and 8 have been my least favorite ones so far. I'm guessing I'm just not that into reading about biology, holistic approaches and such. As for the military language, in general whether it's used around the immune system, sports or whatever I tend to think military metaphors are way overused.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around these 2 chapters. I wonder just how much the larger scientific community has this exact debate. The entire book is obviously trying to poke and prod at the "consensus" on health and wellness in general, but I'm wondering how many other scientists think and feel the same way as her on these particular subjects.
The macrophage descriptions were terrific. And terrifying.
Dr. Ehrenreich is perfectly antagonistic in her writing, too, especially as it pertains to sucking air into the cavity that humans call ‘not understanding something.’ Macrophages being a good exhibit At
Exhibit B though is her unpacking the history and current description of medicine / science understanding the ‘how’ of human body functions. It’s sort of like when humans didn’t really understand the solar system, then were angry when other folk figured it out.
The autoimmune disease evolution as the other party in the human reproduction evolution story feels a little ‘mutually assured destruction’ to me. Or a biological equivalent of the extreme partisan situation we’re seeing in places these days.
“Functions” and implications of intent are best seen metaphorically, IMO. I view the body as a structural whole, with no “normal” and a lot of individual variability. The structure simply operates, with no intent. It is a natural sort of biochemical programming that dictates what my body does. At the cellular level, should expect things to happen—mutations, changes in genetic expression, etc. I see that as part of natural variation. Thus, autoimmune diseases, cancers, and other “dysfunctions” are a natural part of the system. The military language has always bothered me, but Americans use it in many areas of life (e.g., sports). I think it would be better not to see us battling our bodies (as with cancer) or to see our bodies battling us (as with autoimmune disorders). We should be in flow with whatever our body gives us and be kind to it. See signals from our body that we need more rest or whatever. Adapt to the variations we will experience across the lifespan.
Chapters 7 and 8 have been my least favorite ones so far. I'm guessing I'm just not that into reading about biology, holistic approaches and such. As for the military language, in general whether it's used around the immune system, sports or whatever I tend to think military metaphors are way overused.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around these 2 chapters. I wonder just how much the larger scientific community has this exact debate. The entire book is obviously trying to poke and prod at the "consensus" on health and wellness in general, but I'm wondering how many other scientists think and feel the same way as her on these particular subjects.
The macrophage descriptions were terrific. And terrifying.
Dr. Ehrenreich is perfectly antagonistic in her writing, too, especially as it pertains to sucking air into the cavity that humans call ‘not understanding something.’ Macrophages being a good exhibit At
Exhibit B though is her unpacking the history and current description of medicine / science understanding the ‘how’ of human body functions. It’s sort of like when humans didn’t really understand the solar system, then were angry when other folk figured it out.
The autoimmune disease evolution as the other party in the human reproduction evolution story feels a little ‘mutually assured destruction’ to me. Or a biological equivalent of the extreme partisan situation we’re seeing in places these days.
“Functions” and implications of intent are best seen metaphorically, IMO. I view the body as a structural whole, with no “normal” and a lot of individual variability. The structure simply operates, with no intent. It is a natural sort of biochemical programming that dictates what my body does. At the cellular level, should expect things to happen—mutations, changes in genetic expression, etc. I see that as part of natural variation. Thus, autoimmune diseases, cancers, and other “dysfunctions” are a natural part of the system. The military language has always bothered me, but Americans use it in many areas of life (e.g., sports). I think it would be better not to see us battling our bodies (as with cancer) or to see our bodies battling us (as with autoimmune disorders). We should be in flow with whatever our body gives us and be kind to it. See signals from our body that we need more rest or whatever. Adapt to the variations we will experience across the lifespan.