The Geomagnetic Field and Life

After my previous post about the possible loss of connection between human electrical fields and the earth-based field (or “geomagnetic field,” the GMF), I checked out this book:

The Book

The Geomagnetic Field and Life, by Aleksander Dubrov, outlines the myriad ways that the GMF affects terrestrial biology, and gives some suggestions as to how the GMF may have shaped the development of life on this planet to begin with.

Yes, sometimes, it changes direction!


I won’t go into details here. Too many to note. If you’re interested, Dr. Dubrov has actually posted summaries of all of his books online for free, here.

There’s a lot there, a lot to think about…take your time.

Shield us with your force-field, Mother

The Social Ecology of Science

My good friend Aaron Schwenzfeier asked me if I had read any books that talked about the information from my last entry – about the continuity of an animal with its habitat.  The rest of this post is my response, with some modifications.

The short answer is no, I haven’t read any single text that shows this continuity.  The closest I could come would be something like Lynn Margulis’ works, or James Lovelock’s and others’ works with the Gaia hypothesis.

In a world where everything needs to be validated by “science,” it’s no sufficient to use common-sense to combine the different principles you’ve learned into a coherent whole.

Please don't drop the ball!!!

Breakdown

The “animal-as-continuous-with-habitat” is an obvious thing, but who’s going to write about it?  What science would you cite? I’m not sure there is much.  There are some studies coming around about the importance of environment with regard to physical activity, even health (for instance, the Framingham study that correlates social group with obesity) but they’re few and far between.  It’s hard to quantify.  And that’s what science wants – quantities.  Qualities are still derided.

The other part, “eat in season, locally,” is the same thing – continuity with environment.  But dieticians can’t quantify that, again.  They can count calories, vitamin content, etc.  They can count other things (OCD), but they can’t count the effect of eating things from other places than your natural geography.

Activity levels waxing and waning with the seasons is as old as life itself.  All animals do this, not just human animals.  The squirrel hides nuts away for the cold winter, builds a large layer of fat to keep itself warm, etc.

Is there a way to measure that, though?

Meow...it's THIS big...

Happiness

Finally, how do you measure happiness?  A few studies have tried, and they create “scientific” versions of happiness – with plenty of “categories” to rate different aspects by.  Is that how happiness is made?  What about the feeling of safety and security that comes from living within your tribe?  How would you measure that.

And even if you could, what would happen?  What if you realize, through the course of your research career, that a feeling of happiness and safety was all that really mattered?  What would you say?  How would you say it?  How would a message like that be taken by your scientific colleagues?  By the general public?

The other thing, and perhaps the biggest impediment to getting real answers about things, about the true “optimal state” of the human animal, is revealed by this question – Why does science measure what it does, and not the other things?  What is guiding science?  Who gains from scientific research?

An ounce of gold, or a pound of lead?

You’re in The Cul-tcha

Culture dictates all.  So, what does our culture value most?  Money.  Our culture is built around the flow of money.  An economic depression is the most terrifying thing imaginable in our society (other than a nuclear holocaust).

I’d go so far to say that much, if not most, of science is guided by money.  You need funding to do science.  So you have to do science in a way that gets that funding.  If you can get funding for a particular research design and not another, you’ll choose the design that gets you the money.

Who is paying that money?  I would hazard a guess, again, that much, if not most of the money being donated to the pursuit of science is being donated by people who want to make more money from that science.

They are pursuing science for the sake of money.  Not for the sake of discovering “truth.”

A few examples of this, taken from the ideas in my post:
The studies done on continuity of animal with habitat are largely from zoo populations – trying to discover how to keep zoo animals alive.  Why would you do that?  What is a zoo for?  What does a zoo tell people who visit it?  How does a zoo treat animals?  I’ll let you answer those questions for yourself.

Studies of diet largely focus on quantity of micro/macronutrients and the physiology of the body.  Almost none involve the fact that that body is not a “physiology” without its habitat and social environment.  There is no isolated “body” to study…it doesn’t exist alone, in a vacuum.  But, further, and again – What is the purpose of dietary research, and to what ends is that research put?  Who gains from dietary research?

Our measurement of chronobiology has largely been to discover how to handle “shift workers,” and make them healthier and more productive.  There is some research on circadian and ultradian clocks, but it isn’t integrated into anything else.  It’s just “science.”  Another problem, I guess, that should be mentioned.  Science for science’s sake is even less effective than science for money’s sake.  It may produce amazing information, but what happens to that information, if it is done in a culture that is separate from the main flow of science?  It sits there.  It doesn’t get used or analyzed, or integrated into the big picture.

Studies of happiness and culture are similarly isolated from other science.  There has bee a trend in the past ten years to combine scientific zones of study, in fields like psychoneuroimmunology, or social ecology, etc.  But they aren’t really making themselves heard that strongly.

Culture, Self-Control, and What We Do To Ourselves

This post represents a few different ideas that have been swimming through my brain for the past week or so, and are starting to bubble over.  Excuse me if it isn’t entirely cohesive yet.

First, the importance of culture in determining biology.  Marshall Sahlins has (and many others have) written extensively about this.  But it seems to go unheard.  The culture that you are in will determine what aspects of your biology you express.  Americans are fat, not because they are lazy, nor because of an overabundance of cheap calories, but because they live in a culture that supports gluttony, sloth, self-abnegation, dissocation from self and other wonderful ethics, etc.

We also live in a culture that is – and this is counterintuitive considering the above statement – addicted to personal property (or rather, the idea of personal property).  Everything is owned, and has an owner.  Because things can be owned, the person with the most “ownings” has the most “power” (in quotes as these are culturally-defined terms).

Separation from self and others is extended to separation from nature.

Blah blah blah…

I’ve been drawn back to Sparta by a few different coincidences recently.  First, my buddy Dave called, and told me the old story of Philip II of Macedon; who, as the Wikipedia entry on Spartan (or “Laconic”) Wit says:

turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: “If I win this war, you will be slaves forever.” In another version, Philip proclaims: “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.” The Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: “If.”

As the entry notes, Socrates held the Spartans in high regard.  Though this is disputed by some, I tend to believe that it is true.  Socrates was an orator, and a master of rhetoric.  The Spartans were notoriously silent, except for  single-word or single-sentence answers that could stop an argument dead in its tracks.  What’s not to admire about a people who can do that?

But that ability of the Spartans’ didn’t come from training in rhetoric.  They didn’t practice rhetoric, or philosophy, or the arts.  It came from their culture.  Their entire way of life was based around simplicity.  Sometimes it was brutal, but it was a brutality, I think, designed to create an honest appreciation and ability to interact with What-Is (of course, this is disputable as well).

They didn’t have a disbelief in personal property, but they believed that property was mainly what causes problems between people, and so self-limited their possessions.

The Stoic branch of philosophy arose out of that culture.  But again, Stoicism is a “philosophy,” it is a system of thought, a way to approach things.  It’s a mental bearing.

It is not a culture.

I posted the following response on the Playthink blog in response to today’s post in which the author posted the results of an old study, where children were put into a room, and given the option of having the marshmallow that sat on the table in front of them, or of waiting to eat until the researcher returned, at which time they could have an additional marshmallow (two, instead of one).  The author ends up saying that the children who were able to restrain themselves, and hold out for two marshmallows, were more “successful” in their lives:

Very fascinating, especially with regard to what we define as “success” in our culture.  Some of the things that go along with denying yourself a marshmallow for twenty minutes:

    • Self-denial, to the point of death (overworking, overstress, under-nourishment, under-exercise, etc.)
    • The belief in private property, which leads to  aggressive anti-social tendencies, and perhaps
    • The complete inability to determine where impulse arises from within oneself.

There are also very good things that come from learning self-control.  Denying yourself delicious treats, though, might not be the best way to develop that self-control.

I’d add another quality that this type of thinking trains – obedience.  The pain/reward dialectic.

That’s all…let me know what you think about this.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook