I finally caught up with epigenetics, which is perhaps the newest and hottest area of theory and research in biology. My thanks for that go out to NOVA, that interesting and occasionally-great science show on PBS. Until recently, scientists thought that human genes have the last word on how living things are designed and how they operate and respond to environmental challenges. Genes were looked at as the unchangeable “software” of life. But the evidence now shows that there is another layer of control involved, the layer of “epigenetic” chemistry. From what little I understand of it, the DNA and RNA processes that express our genetic design do indeed tell the body what to do and when to do it – on the micro level, anyway (you can’t say that DNA controls your behavior, i.e. made you cranky today or made you eat that big piece of chocolate cake last night; even though some people try to). BUT, they sometimes get muted or shut down completely; or they get amplified, made to have more influence than the other local genes. That is what the epigenetic chemicals do.
So, any one person with a particular genetic code is not locked into one exact type of body with a totally fixed set of chemical processes within. The most startling evidence for this involves fraternal twins, i.e. twins with the exact same DNA. The evidence now shows that although they usually do look alike, they don’t always act alike. And the processes inside their bodies can also vary, especially if they’ve been through different experiences. So one can have a tendency to get certain kinds of infections quite easily, while the other will fight those infections off. If you are a fan of “self-healing” lifestyles, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that what you eat and how you exercise and think and avoid toxic exposure can have effects on making the good DNA bits work and turning off the bad DNA bits. The bad news is that epigenetic changes take a long time to respond to environmental factors, and once they do, they stay around for a long time – even getting passed on to the next generation. So if your parents had bad life habits or were exposed to toxins over time, the negative effects on their genes could well have been passed on to you. (The good news in response is that with enough time, those bad effects might be reversed by a sustained level of healthy life-habits).
Actually, I am going out on a limb somewhat here, as this is a new and complex area of science, which I have studied for a grand total of about 95 minutes or so. But I will make one conjecture here regarding the recent crop of studies regarding the effects of diet on preventing serious diseases like cancer. Basically, most of these studies indicate that healthy diets do nothing to prevent cancer and other serious diseases.
This seems rather curious, as earlier studies identified specific chemical pathways through with chemicals in broccoli, for example, could bolster the immune system and help kill mutant cells. Furthermore, on the other extreme of magnitude, away from individual cells and up to whole societies, studies show that nations and group of people with certain types of diet have lower rates of various cancers that are prevalent in the USA. But when you move into the middle level, i.e. 5 or 10 year studies on a mixed group of 500 or a thousand people, you lose the effect. My half-assed guess is that epigenetics have something to do with this. If your mix of genetics and epigenetics bias you towards colon cancer, then all the calcium and fiber and low-fat dieting in the world can’t overcome that all at once. But with enough time, maybe the tides do turn. And it may be that one healthy-diet factor that was studied in isolation won’t work in the absence of others. Perhaps a low-fat diet alone does not make up for the lack of micronutrients or an improper balance of omega acids or a dearth of fiber and antioxidents.
Well, this is mostly conjecture and wishful thinking on my part. But the new epigenetic movement does seem to lend some support to the old common sense notion that every day of healthy living increases the chance that it is going to do some good. In future studies of eating habits and disease, I hope that the scientists involved will learn to control for the epigenetic starting points of the participants. People nowadays find enough excuses (or succumb too easily to advertising pressures by multi-national food service corporations like McDonalds and CocaCola) to eat and drink too much of the wrong stuff without the additional notion that “scientists say that it doesn’t matter anyway”.
Jim,
If I may, I’d like to go back to the “self” for a bit: How about the idea the Orthodox Church teaches that humanity (or maybe each human) has within him/her a “spark” of the divine and that all of the LIVING of life is the gradual realization and “development” (for lack of a better word at the moment) of this “spark” of the divine–a growth into a “spiritual” or (for the agnostics and atheists) a “non-material” but REAL level of being. This concept basically goes back to the early philosophers. I’m wondering about the concept of the “self” as the “spark” of the divine within the human; just pause for tho’t.
You may also be interested in some of Pierre Hadot’s works. His books PLOTIINUS OR THE SIMPLICITY OF VISION and PHILOSOPHY AS A WAY OF LIFE may be of interest. Both have sections on “self” as the ancient philosophers discussed it. But perhaps you’ve see this material before.
Some of this material is basically the discussion of the concept the Gnostics had of “layers” of gods and how one could gradually work oneself back up the levels of material/immaterial creation into the divine. I know this concept is certainly not anything that today we would consider “correct.” But I AM wondering if there couldn’t be a kernel of truth in it all–that there are “layers” to the soul where one can “grow” and develop. Maslow took this idea, gave it a 20th century “twist,” and ran with it back in the 1960s with his “layers” of the development of the individual. “Layers” is MY term–I should make that clear; Maslow didn’t use the word “layers.”
What is one dealing with in these “layers”? Whether Gnostic or Maslow-ian? It seems to me that one is dealing with “levels” of development similar in some ways to the “levels” of development of the physical body–embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, etc.; however, how about this idea in a “spiritual,” i.e., NON-PHYSICAL sense? With each “layer” of development, the individual “grows.” Just a tho’t.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 3, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Jim,
If I may, I’d like to go back to the “self” for a bit: How about the idea the Orthodox Church teaches that humanity (or maybe each human) has within him/her a “spark” of the divine and that all of the LIVING of life is the gradual realization and “development” (for lack of a better word at the moment) of this “spark” of the divine–a growth into a “spiritual” or (for the agnostics and atheists) a “non-material” but REAL level of being. This concept basically goes back to the early philosophers. I’m wondering about the concept of the “self” as the “spark” of the divine within the human; just pause for tho’t.
You may also be interested in some of Pierre Hadot’s works. His books PLOTIINUS OR THE SIMPLICITY OF VISION and PHILOSOPHY AS A WAY OF LIFE may be of interest. Both have sections on “self” as the ancient philosophers discussed it. But perhaps you’ve see this material before.
Some of this material is basically the discussion of the concept the Gnostics had of “layers” of gods and how one could gradually work oneself back up the levels of material/immaterial creation into the divine. I know this concept is certainly not anything that today we would consider “correct.” But I AM wondering if there couldn’t be a kernel of truth in it all–that there are “layers” to the soul where one can “grow” and develop. Maslow took this idea, gave it a 20th century “twist,” and ran with it back in the 1960s with his “layers” of the development of the individual. “Layers” is MY term–I should make that clear; Maslow didn’t use the word “layers.”
What is one dealing with in these “layers”? Whether Gnostic or Maslow-ian? It seems to me that one is dealing with “levels” of development similar in some ways to the “levels” of development of the physical body–embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, etc.; however, how about this idea in a “spiritual,” i.e., NON-PHYSICAL sense? With each “layer” of development, the individual “grows.” Just a tho’t.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 3, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Jim,
RE Epigenetics: I’m reminded of what I learned in a physiological psychology class back in the 1980s: They taught fish (of all things! (and I think they were gold fish, some very “basic” kind of fish anyhow)how to swim a simple maze. It took the original fish a certain length of time. Then they killed those fish, ground them up into “fish flakes” and fed them to others of the same kind of fish. Again, back to the maze with the “second generation.” The fish who ate the fish who knew how to run the maze learned the maze MUCH FASTER than the original fish. They did this several times and basically proved the point; somewhere in the whole process the fish “learned” by EATING the fish who KNEW how to swim the maze.
Sounds similar to me–that human genes can store information that is acquired in one way or another from one’s “ancestors.” (Eating one’s ancestors may be inappropriate–to say the least.) But the concept of acquiring learning thru the genes is similar.
Then I think: Would such a process account for the presence of addictions that run in families–not necessarily the same addictions–but addictions of one kind or another. Also, I think of the concept of AA: When one leaves one addiction (alcohol/cocaine/crack/meth, etc.), one will only too likely go to another addiction.
Back in the early 1960s I was teaching in a high school in Milwaukee. I happened to be the lucky one whose homeroom was used for AA meetings in the evening hours. Even back then I noticed: These people couldn’t get enough coffee or cigarettes!!! And I MEAN they drank coffee and smoked!!! At that time I had no clue about the AA thing of going from one addiction to another–but I remember commenting mentally to myself about it. (In the genes?)
As to the “good news” aspect of this concept: It seems to me that GENERATIONS would have to be involved. (But maybe I’m missing something here.)
Then: As to the healthy diets thing: I’ve been giving some tho’t to the “healthy diet” craze (which is what it seems to me to be). It seems everybody has a diet that is “guaranteed” to make one live longer.
I’ve come to the conclusion in all this that what is really going on is that the baby boomers are beginning to face what we (and here I speak for my generation which is very small in numbers, having been born at the depth of the depression in the 1930s when not a lot of babies were born and now having reached an age where lots of “us” are dying off)have known all along: PEOPLE GET OLD: IT’S INEVITABLE. Get used to it. I hate to put it so bluntly, but that’s exactly how it seems to me. Baby boomers seem to me (and I admit I may be a majority of one)to have “invented” fifty–now they are “inventing” sixty!! Oh, oh. When one reaches sixty, people start dying and it hits home in a very hard way that life is finite.
I find myself wondering if more effort put into preparing oneself for the afterlife (or if one doesn’t believe in an afterlife–then in examining how one can live a non-material [some would say “spiritual] life)would not be time better spent.
As to diet change and health: Yes, indeed, other cultures have less of one disease or another disease. Two comments on this point:
First, to get the effects the diets in other cultures, it seems to me one must TOTALLY IMMERSE oneself in the foods of that culture–not just eat this or that item, even on a regular basis.
Second, don’t people in other cultures die too? If they aren’t dying of OUR diseases, they are dying of diseases peculiar to their OWN diets. Is there any culture in the world whose members regularly live lives of QUALITY for hundreds of years? I think not.
Which brings me to the issue of QUALITY OF LIFE. I don’t quite grasp the sense of what the big point is in extending life even a few years–what? 2, 3, 4, even 5 years? Well, maybe it’s a matter of what good one may do others in those extended years. But the problem I see in all that is that (except in a very
Comment by Anonymous — November 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Jim,
RE Epigenetics: I’m reminded of what I learned in a physiological psychology class back in the 1980s: They taught fish (of all things! (and I think they were gold fish, some very “basic” kind of fish anyhow)how to swim a simple maze. It took the original fish a certain length of time. Then they killed those fish, ground them up into “fish flakes” and fed them to others of the same kind of fish. Again, back to the maze with the “second generation.” The fish who ate the fish who knew how to run the maze learned the maze MUCH FASTER than the original fish. They did this several times and basically proved the point; somewhere in the whole process the fish “learned” by EATING the fish who KNEW how to swim the maze.
Sounds similar to me–that human genes can store information that is acquired in one way or another from one’s “ancestors.” (Eating one’s ancestors may be inappropriate–to say the least.) But the concept of acquiring learning thru the genes is similar.
Then I think: Would such a process account for the presence of addictions that run in families–not necessarily the same addictions–but addictions of one kind or another. Also, I think of the concept of AA: When one leaves one addiction (alcohol/cocaine/crack/meth, etc.), one will only too likely go to another addiction.
Back in the early 1960s I was teaching in a high school in Milwaukee. I happened to be the lucky one whose homeroom was used for AA meetings in the evening hours. Even back then I noticed: These people couldn’t get enough coffee or cigarettes!!! And I MEAN they drank coffee and smoked!!! At that time I had no clue about the AA thing of going from one addiction to another–but I remember commenting mentally to myself about it. (In the genes?)
As to the “good news” aspect of this concept: It seems to me that GENERATIONS would have to be involved. (But maybe I’m missing something here.)
Then: As to the healthy diets thing: I’ve been giving some tho’t to the “healthy diet” craze (which is what it seems to me to be). It seems everybody has a diet that is “guaranteed” to make one live longer.
I’ve come to the conclusion in all this that what is really going on is that the baby boomers are beginning to face what we (and here I speak for my generation which is very small in numbers, having been born at the depth of the depression in the 1930s when not a lot of babies were born and now having reached an age where lots of “us” are dying off)have known all along: PEOPLE GET OLD: IT’S INEVITABLE. Get used to it. I hate to put it so bluntly, but that’s exactly how it seems to me. Baby boomers seem to me (and I admit I may be a majority of one)to have “invented” fifty–now they are “inventing” sixty!! Oh, oh. When one reaches sixty, people start dying and it hits home in a very hard way that life is finite.
I find myself wondering if more effort put into preparing oneself for the afterlife (or if one doesn’t believe in an afterlife–then in examining how one can live a non-material [some would say “spiritual] life)would not be time better spent.
As to diet change and health: Yes, indeed, other cultures have less of one disease or another disease. Two comments on this point:
First, to get the effects the diets in other cultures, it seems to me one must TOTALLY IMMERSE oneself in the foods of that culture–not just eat this or that item, even on a regular basis.
Second, don’t people in other cultures die too? If they aren’t dying of OUR diseases, they are dying of diseases peculiar to their OWN diets. Is there any culture in the world whose members regularly live lives of QUALITY for hundreds of years? I think not.
Which brings me to the issue of QUALITY OF LIFE. I don’t quite grasp the sense of what the big point is in extending life even a few years–what? 2, 3, 4, even 5 years? Well, maybe it’s a matter of what good one may do others in those extended years. But the problem I see in all that is that (except in a very young person) extending one’s life a few years ends up in spending that life “doctoring” to “beat the band,” to use a very old saying. I guess I just don’t get the point. And I definitely am speaking in terms of my OWN SELF here.
(And I must add: In very young people drastic measures to save a life are surely worthwhile and sensible. My own sister had rheumatic fever and was dying. She lived 60+ years longer because of a “new/experimental” drug they TRIED (but tho’t might kill her). This was one of the very first uses of penicillin back in the 1940s. Now there’s an example of what seems to me a “sensible” extension of life. Sixty plus years is worthwhile. And she did NOT spend those years with intense “doctoring.” She lived a normal life of ordinary people who at times need doctors and then can go for long periods in good health.)
Back to my original topic after my digression: I’ve realized death may not be too far away…who knows? So, I’ve decided to spend my remaining time in working on the “transition” aspects of death, so to say. I believe in an afterlife. And I think back to my early life when I was “starting out” and the sense of real WONDER I had and “looking forward” to what was to come and what was to be at that time. I’ve decided to approach the remaining years of my life in the same way–only with respect to the afterlife. Start preparing for it (the afterlife) and use the sense of real wonder as preparation for something very new in my life, and a “looking forward” to what lies ahead.
Well, perhaps just the musings of an old lady, I’m willing to admit.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Jim,
RE Epigenetics: I’m reminded of what I learned in a physiological psychology class back in the 1980s: They taught fish (of all things! (and I think they were gold fish, some very “basic” kind of fish anyhow)how to swim a simple maze. It took the original fish a certain length of time. Then they killed those fish, ground them up into “fish flakes” and fed them to others of the same kind of fish. Again, back to the maze with the “second generation.” The fish who ate the fish who knew how to run the maze learned the maze MUCH FASTER than the original fish. They did this several times and basically proved the point; somewhere in the whole process the fish “learned” by EATING the fish who KNEW how to swim the maze.
Sounds similar to me–that human genes can store information that is acquired in one way or another from one’s “ancestors.” (Eating one’s ancestors may be inappropriate–to say the least.) But the concept of acquiring learning thru the genes is similar.
Then I think: Would such a process account for the presence of addictions that run in families–not necessarily the same addictions–but addictions of one kind or another. Also, I think of the concept of AA: When one leaves one addiction (alcohol/cocaine/crack/meth, etc.), one will only too likely go to another addiction.
Back in the early 1960s I was teaching in a high school in Milwaukee. I happened to be the lucky one whose homeroom was used for AA meetings in the evening hours. Even back then I noticed: These people couldn’t get enough coffee or cigarettes!!! And I MEAN they drank coffee and smoked!!! At that time I had no clue about the AA thing of going from one addiction to another–but I remember commenting mentally to myself about it. (In the genes?)
As to the “good news” aspect of this concept: It seems to me that GENERATIONS would have to be involved. (But maybe I’m missing something here.)
Then: As to the healthy diets thing: I’ve been giving some tho’t to the “healthy diet” craze (which is what it seems to me to be). It seems everybody has a diet that is “guaranteed” to make one live longer.
I’ve come to the conclusion in all this that what is really going on is that the baby boomers are beginning to face what we (and here I speak for my generation which is very small in numbers, having been born at the depth of the depression in the 1930s when not a lot of babies were born and now having reached an age where lots of “us” are dying off)have known all along: PEOPLE GET OLD: IT’S INEVITABLE. Get used to it. I hate to put it so bluntly, but that’s exactly how it seems to me. Baby boomers seem to me (and I admit I may be a majority of one)to have “invented” fifty–now they are “inventing” sixty!! Oh, oh. When one reaches sixty, people start dying and it hits home in a very hard way that life is finite.
I find myself wondering if more effort put into preparing oneself for the afterlife (or if one doesn’t believe in an afterlife–then in examining how one can live a non-material [some would say “spiritual] life)would not be time better spent.
As to diet change and health: Yes, indeed, other cultures have less of one disease or another disease. Two comments on this point:
First, to get the effects the diets in other cultures, it seems to me one must TOTALLY IMMERSE oneself in the foods of that culture–not just eat this or that item, even on a regular basis.
Second, don’t people in other cultures die too? If they aren’t dying of OUR diseases, they are dying of diseases peculiar to their OWN diets. Is there any culture in the world whose members regularly live lives of QUALITY for hundreds of years? I think not.
Which brings me to the issue of QUALITY OF LIFE. I don’t quite grasp the sense of what the big point is in extending life even a few years–what? 2, 3, 4, even 5 years? Well, maybe it’s a matter of what good one may do others in those extended years. But the problem I see in all that is that (except in a very
Comment by Anonymous — November 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm