At 03:24 PM 2/11/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Natural selection ensures that no widespread condition can be pathological.
That's correct. However, what is normal to a degree is not normal in
the extreme. And "normal" is not a synonym for "healthy."
Further, there are genetic variations within populations, in short,
there are different kinds of people.
Unless you are talking about a population afflicted by the black
plague, all normal functions, organs and behaviors are healthy, by
definition. Anything widespread or common is healthier than the
obverse condition. That includes debilitating conditions such as
sickle cell anemia in the black population. That is healthier in
the African environment the black population lived in.
You are using circular definitions.
That the sickle-cell variation is healthier in Africa does not mean
that it is here and now in the U.S.
That reasoning from conclusions worked in some environment thousands
of years ago doesn't mean that it's healthy now. Particularly for a
scientist. Context, Jed, don't leave home without it.
To be sure, there are many behaviors and mental conditions that
cause problems in the circumstances of modern civilization. For
example, many children, especially little boys, have difficulty
keeping quiet sitting all day in a classroom. They are diagnosed
with ADD. There is nothing wrong with them! Children are evolved to
run around outdoors playing and learning, not to sit on their butts.
Diagnosing ADD in them is like diagnosing a Labrador retriever with
a pathological desire to swim and retrieve ducks, sticks, or
anything that floats. The kids are fine; the problem here is with
modern civilization and our absurd methods of education.
That is not to say there is no such thing as ADD, or paranoia or
other abnormal or pathological conditions. However they are rare,
and if they were not rare, we would be extinct.
ADD is not rare. It's a developmental disorder, so normal behavior
for a kid of a certain age may not be for a kid who is older.
Paranoia is rarer, as a full-blown syndrome. I've seen it up very
close. As a trait or occasional behavior, it is far more common.
Your approach is not without validity, but ADD is quite real, I
testify, as I have it and so do my kids and my older brother and
probably my father did. It's a *difference*, and, like the
sickle-cell gene, it confers some benefits as well as some
disabilities. I wouldn't give it up for anything, but I do have to
factor for it.
To take another example, human metabolism is perfectly okay. It
often results in pathological obesity in the unnatural conditions of
modern society. Again, society is the problem, since obesity was
rare as recently as the 1960s. This problem can easily be fixed, by
adjusting agriculture subsidies for unhealthy foods, changing the
layout of grocery stores, and a few other commonsense steps.
You'd probably get the rules wrong, i.e., you might make things worse
than without them. Or not. The "pathological conditions of modern
society" probably began with agriculture, the first mass-production
technique. Doesn't mean I want to do without agriculture! But there
are consequences. Obesity is only one part of it, there is diabetes,
heart disease, cancer, the "diseases of civilization."
Trying to tweak people's metabolism with drugs, or interfering in
their physical digestion with gastric bands, is a disastrously
stupid approach, in my opinion. A problem that is clearly caused by
changes in environment should be fixed by changing the environment
back the way it was.
How far back? And how much do we change? And who manages said change?
