whatmakesmansafe

Here is a link to an article entitled, 'First new Alzheimer's genes discovered for 15 years' the pre-text to which says:

"Scientists have discovered the first new genes linked to Alzheimer’s for 15 years and say the breakthrough could point the way to preventing 100,000 people developing the devastating disease. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6140429/First-new-Alzheimers-genes-discovered-for-15-years.html

Overall, taking a down-to-earth practical view, our genes are given to us by our parents but the genes they gave to us were not necessarily identical genes to the ones they received from their parents or their parent's parents.

Genetics is about coding and, as such, is highly analogous to software code.

As any software programmer will tell you, every software program exists in source-form as well as object-form. 'Source-form' is simply the program as it is written by the programmer, in plain text, into a text-editor. The 'object-form' is this source-form compiled into a machine-readable form, ready for execution, and is traditionally what is copied and distributed by the software manufacturer.

If we translate the above news-story quote into software equivalent terminology we might easily get: 'Business analysts have discovered, for the first time in 15 years, existing source-code linked to a major bug within business software, and say the breakthrough could point the way to preventing 100,000 copies of the program developing the devastating bug.'

If you're a software developer you're smiling right now. This shows, amongst other things, how the media is free to report sensationally on scientific data with virtual impunity.

It's laughable because, as any software developer will tell you, bugs in software don't just arrive without being caused by willful intention or by neglect or ignorance on the part of the programmer. It makes it sound as though the software program has a life of its own and thus absolves the programmer of all responsibility. And shouldn't we be ever-so grateful to business managers, being the geniuses they are, for somehow uncovering the 'cause' of the previously unfathomable problem?

One could conceivably divide possible causes into 'direct' and 'less direct' causes.

The movie, 'What the Bleep', gives a glimpse into how our bodies are continually being wired and rewired - they are modified by thought and intention. This returns responsibility - at the very least partial responsibility - for what happens in the field of genetics to what individuals are thinking and intentionally putting forward.

As for direct causes, individuals as actors can again be seen to play a role which has been long overlooked i.e. by paying closer attention to diet. For decades those who (of course) knew better, told the rest of us that some fats were good for the human heart and others were bad and the bad ones could lead to serious risk e.g. heart-failure. Since the advent of the internet and especially broadband technology, information has come to light which has contradicted former 'experts'. Now we are seeing oils such as Palm oil and Coconut oil being praised for their properties which actually promote heart health and even, according to some claims, reverse diabetes.

I forget who once said, 'As a man thinks so is he.'

All of this serves to emphasize that it matters what viewpoint you take in life.... which may be based on how much responsibility you take for being well-informed vs how much responsibility to relinquish to those who expect you to take their word on authority, rather than on merit. Relinquishing responsibility, for being well-informed, to experts ordained by authorities might easily have serious tangible repercussions in the every-day life of an individual or group of individuals.

If ideas have consequences, surely it matters 1) who pays the price for bad ideas and 2) how free an individual or group of individuals are to mitigate against the risk that comes with acting on bad ideas.

Labels: Alzheimers, Genes