Bivalve Bash

I have been badgered into making another blog entry. Ok, badgered is a little harsh, I suppose encouraged would be a better word. The theme of this entry is nature.

I have recently acquired the DVD set of the Discovery Series Planet Earth. It is fascinating to witness some of the things they have to offer. What wows me the most is the behaviors of certain creatures like how male Emperor Penguins huddle in masses and rotating to get into the center of the mass to protect themselves and their eggs from the frigid conditions as cold as -60 degrees Centigrade. By doing this, they still manage to survive and keep their egg alive in one of the coldest places on earth. Another example consists of how humpback whales travel to the north pole and pairs swim in a circular motion while using their blowholes to shoot the krill into a tightly packed area between them where they can be caught easier. I could go on and on, like how bats swarm out of caves at dusk and fly in a swirling circular motion in order to confuse predator hawks, but I should stop and move on.

I read in the New York Times today that there has been some leads in discovering the chance of someone becoming schizophrenic. In fact, the papers results created a paradigm shift in the way people look at schizophrenia and how people believe that it comes about. It doesn't really denounce the behavioral triggers which may spark such a condition, but further explains that people with schizophrenia may have neurological disorders or 'glitches' as the article put it, where the development of certain neurons was incomplete, causing certain receptors to be ineffective or altered to some affect. The study they conducted analyzed the DNA of several hundred normal people along side those diagnosed with the disorder/ mental disease. Apparently there are certain base pairs which either end up changing shortly after birth or are inherited before birth and can lead towards greater chances of receiving such a fate. This leads me to thinking about how much behavior is regulated by our genes. The more I think about it, the more I believe that our behaviors are regulated by our genes. The learning we undergo is simply something that just happens to occur, or is predetermined, as a result of our genetic makeup. In a way it's cool that there is so many breakthroughs in ways to analyze diseases and genetic disorders, because we will eventually determine better treatments and cures for them. Some day in the future, things like schizophrenia may be vastly more treatable.

Now what i want to consider now is what if there are specific genetic errors linked with other behavioral or mental actions. Say for example there are specific genetic errors that lead towards mental instability or that create overly aggressive people. **(ignore the fact that over aggression is usually a hormonal imbalance or excess of testosterone in the system, I'm just throwing a bad example out there) This genetic disorder could be potentially diagnosed at a very young age, or even before birth and potentially treated. Hooray right? Problem solved? Well what about on the other hand? What if it turns out that more and more of our behavioral traits actually boil down to what genes we have. What will that say for us as a whole? Will this create a paradigm shift in the way we believe that we function as a species? If the things that define us as individuals are simply the result of genetic code errors, will it hurt our individuality? Say there were certain genes that made someone more favorable to have a good sense of humor or have the tendency to be a hard worker verses a lazy one. Would these traits be devalued because they are no longer viewed as something potentially learned but something you simply have because of your genes?

To tweak that question, if these behaviors can be predicted by analyzing someone's DNA, will it cause unnecessary discrimination or attention to those who are predisposed to certain traits? Said in another way, would this potential attention or knowledge of predisposed traits make people treat them differently from birth onwards? The ultimate question is if people know what behaviors someone will likely obtain in life, will their interactions towards said individual alter the traits which were predicted, or even cause different traits to emerge as a result? Think about this catch 22 of knowledge for a moment. If say, it was disclosed that a child was at greater risk or predetermined to behave extremely aggressive due to "aggressive genes", Would the parents of such a child treat them in a way that would exacerbate the problem, or even cause other problems to arise, which wouldn't of occurred if they raised the kid devoid of any knowledge of the "aggressive genes" in the first place?

Another angle of behavioral problems that could result from genetic knowledge would go as follows: Say for example someone was determined to have a genetic defect to have a weak heart. As a result, the parents freak out and overly shelter their child, preventing him or her from normal childhood interactions. This child would potentially be robbed of a normal childhood and the kicker is what if the kids heart could sustain normal interactions and would only be at risk of failure under specific situations, which, most likely wouldn't arise from playing in a sandbox or Rec. Soccer like the other kids. What mental disorders or confidence issues would the kid acquire as a result of this genetic information that parents were privileged to? I'm not trying to discourage such research from taking place or even saying that it would be wrong to inform a parent of a child's genetic disorders or disposition for certain behavioral actions, however would such knowledge change the outcome of a child's life... and if so, for better or worse?

I suppose one of the largest nature verses nurture arguments out there is dealing with sexuality. Do you think if it's shown that homosexuality simply is due to a genetic error in code will people treat homosexuals as people with a disease more so than those choosing a lifestyle? I wonder.

The Epoc of the Century, the Millenia of the Decade

Life is composed of routine, regardless of the stage of life you are in or who you are. Repetition is significant and almost inevitable in the grand scheme of things. We all use routine to some extent and even you say you don't, you are constantly doing something different... well even chaos has order.

It seems like routine seeks you out, or in most cases you consciously find it or fall into it. For most of us, routine is comforting but then again, some people say they avoid it, whenever possible. A friend of mine says that she doesn't find routing comforting, for herself that is. The reasoning she gave behind this was that her childhood always revolved around the places she moved to and new situations she was placed in. High school was the longest period of time she stayed in a school. Everything else was a year here and there.

I dislike routine to some extent, because i feel like life gets tuned down and you go on autopilot. However, routine is very important in new surroundings where things are unfamiliar. Wouldn't someone in new surroundings need routine even more than someone in familiar surroundings? Then again i find comfort in comfort. Is it possible to find comfort in stress? Anything is possible with people since everyone has the potential to be different.
How about we look at a nature nurture argument... are people somewhat designed to behave in a manner that causes routine. When you go eat lunch, do you tend to sit in the same seat, or talk to the same people? If you drive to work, do you pick a different route each day or go the same way each time? Another example considers scenarios of being in a prison or on a desert island. In these cases, where one is stripped of their comforts, routine is absolutely necessary to keep ones mind sharp, and sane. There has been studies showing this and basically people will do anything necessary to feel like they have something to look forward to, and something to think about. Being completely idle is destructive.

How can someone say they do not find routine comforting. Sure, excess routine can be sickening, but we all crave it to some degree. Some may say that marriage and "settling down" is falling into the ultimate routine. Those who dislike routine are opposed to marriage because it will make them feel unsettled and instead of feeling comforted by marriage will become restless and upset?

Coming to this conclusion is potentially a logical fallacy of causality. Just because people get married doesn't mean that they will be stuck to routine, and comfort doesn't all come from the routine of marriage. Clearly this road goes two ways because not all marriages are happy, but if someone was to say that they are opposed to marriage because it will do the opposite of comforting them Because they do not find comfort in a life of routine, then i feel like there is some problems with that. Maybe the fears here are associated with a mental image of what marriage tends to be and the 'restrictions' which apparently 'come with the territory' result in a negative impression of the entire idea.

As a side note, is the idea of routine derived from choices which are neutral in ones mind? Meaning, to have something become routine, is there a qualification of the action being insignificant? Such as indifference to which way to drive to work? Because if you look at something which we have to choose to to (within reason) such as eating, can you call that a routine? It is something that is done repetitively but when someone was to say 'i don't find routine comforting' are they talking things that they have a more flexible choice over? At least, a choice, which, in their mind, has minimal impact either way it is chosen? that doesn't make sense, so maybe routine is being referred to as a much bigger basket, where variety has gone the way of the dodo. Being completely clear, if the scenario goes something like ::waking up, shower, eat, shopping/ work, eat, work/chore, get home, eat, watch TV/talk with loved one, bed:: has gotta be very boring and not comforting, yet why is that considered necessary? Is married life doomed to a routine without excitement? Only if the people involved let it.