Jack Shafer revisits novelist Michael Crichton's 1993 prediction that the mainstream media would be extinct by 2002 -- and concludes that Crichton, though his timing was off a bit, has been substantially vindicated.
Crichton says the news biz still awaits a Ted Turner-like visionary who can transform it. What does he, Crichton, want out of the news? He tells Shafer:
"I want a news service that tells me what no one knows but is true nonetheless."
That's a pretty great quote ... but what does it mean? If he means he wants to see a more inquisitive media, one that explains the world, one that doesn't just report on what people already think, but raises deep questions people aren't thinking about, but ought to be -- well, that's great. We do need that. Readers, let's come up with a list of Stories that No One Knows But Which Are True Nonetheless that, in a perfect world, the mainstream media would be reporting.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Genomics is the study of genomes, long strings of chemicals (for example A, G, C, T) found in the nuclei of living cells. They encode the inherited physical properties of living organisms. The human genome is about 3 billon base pairs of these chemicals. Put together, they make a pattern that encodes our biological makup.
We have discovered what these actual patterns are in many kinds of organisms (mainly because of computers). However, this doesn't tell us squat until we know what these combinations and sequences mean. Enter "computational" genomics, the deciphering of biology from known genome sequences using computational analysis. We are slowly building massive biological datasets, leading to new biological discovery daily.
The reason for all the gnashing of teeth is that there is no single human genome. Nobody's genome is the same, and if a population has been breeding mostly among themselves for even less than a thousand years, you can see the genetic differences merely by comparing the genomes to each other, and project forward the physical consequences of those genetics. That is, you can eventually figure what genetics cause red hair or blue eyes, intelligence, emotional states, and whatnot. Then we can cross reference this against all the other bell curves datasets out there - say crime rates, IQ, divorce rates, whatever. This is valuable because if you have a particular race with a known skill set (West Africans at sprinting, Chinese at ping pong, Kalenjin at distance running, Jews at chess) you have hints at possible genes to look, and start building your databases accordingly.
This research cannot be stopped. First because it is too valuable to humanity, if only for genetically adverse reactions to drugs, inherited diseases, and whatnot. Secondly, it's too valuable to companies wanting to make money off it. Third, it's bigger than any one government. But we don't want to know the truth, so the knowledge is piling up in research institutes worldwide, rolling forward with little or no public knowledge, and most people have no idea how much is really known.
you can see the genetic differences merely by comparing the genomes to each other, and project forward the physical consequences of those genetics.
It's not that easy, it turns out. You might want to look up "somatic mosaicism" or "nucleotide repeat expansion". Or just how many recessive gene defects the average person carries- at least 6-7 just to account for gross birth defects and miscarriages in pregnancies resulting from father-daughter incest.
That is, you can eventually figure what genetics cause red hair or blue eyes,
Which are already long known.
intelligence, emotional states, and whatnot.
Not really gonna happen, because these are composed of learned emphases and attributes of consciousness.
Then we can cross reference this against all the other bell curves datasets out there - say crime rates, IQ, divorce rates, whatever.
It's been tried for crime rates, since that ought to be easy- violent criminality links very strongly to male gender, after all. No such luck.
Of course, if you really look at it intelligently, crime per se is not very objectively distinguishable from non-crime. It's convention, i.e. a learned attribute. Software, not hardwired. But if you'd bothered with the results of social anthropological inquiry, or moderately rigorous books like "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes, you'd know that.
This is valuable because if you have a particular race with a known skill set (West Africans at sprinting, Chinese at ping pong, Kalenjin at distance running, Jews at chess) you have hints at possible genes to look, and start building your databases accordingly.
Well, physiological study knows perfectly well about fast and slow twitch muscle, the basis in myosin isoforms, et cetera as the basis of ability in track and field. As for the others, I'm sorry to say that you're silly. If Jewish abilities are so genetic, the uncreative and messy state the state of Israel is in, its well known lack of Nobel Prize winners and high art and even chess champions, is obvious disproof.
I'd say that between Hannah Arendt's work and Thorlief Boman ("Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek") you can assemble a far more convincing explanation for the possibilities, extents, and varieties of Jewish creativity and success- and limitations on it- in Indoeuropean Gentile environments. It might also take a little cultural anthropology.
Jillian, I think it means that he thinks it will prove the genetic determinisms he likes, and disprove the social and cultural anthropology that he doesn't.
Do you realize you're pretty much confessing to zero intellectual honesty with comments like this? Clearly ideology is your game. Best of luck.
If mdavid can prove Jillian wrong with facts known to him, I am surprised he does not immediately dispatch her errors for all to see, rather than falling back on the stale tactic of insulting her character.
The extraordinarily high rate of C-section births and other medical intervention in births in the US.
When my wife was pregnant with our first, we read a bit about this. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the natural occurrence of a medical need requiring special intervention in birth is something like 4-5% worldwide. In most countries, especially Scandinavia, the actual rate of intervention is about that or a little higher. In the US it is 50% or higher. Yet, our rate of infant-death is worse than most other developed countries.
Reasons for it range from Americans wanting the convenience of "scheduling" a birth to a doctor's need to avoid litigation to successful sales jobs by pharmaceutical companies.
As a result, we all pay higher insurance premiums and baby and mother health suffers.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.