Re: This used to be on disease and immunity
Gerold Firl (email@example.com)
17 Jul 1996 20:39:36 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Eric Brunner) writes:
|> : >I'd also be interested (slightly) to know what "slant" you perceive, and
|> : >how you reached that perception, and so forth.
Eric, your slant is obvious. Remember your frantic defense of vine
deloria? I have asked you several times now for an explanation of how
you can defend a loony-tune buffoon like deloria, and you have never
deigned to reply; the reason, of course, is quite clear. Deloria is an
indian, so no matter how pathetically transparent his errors, you can
not bring yourself to acknowledge them. You are trapped within a rigid
us vs. them ideology, and your dogmatic blinders are set on narrow
You're thus trapped between your ethnocentrism and your pose of
fearlessly seeking the truth, no matter how painful for conventional
wisdom. You can neither acknowledge the errors of deloria nor admit your
ideological partisanship. Sad, actually.
|> Philip Deitiker (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
|> : Then let's get the discussion back to those aspects of genetics,
|> : immunity, interpreted epidemiological data, and relative sources of
|> : mortality.
|> Bzzt. Genetics (human) is not causal, except to the obsedes (obsessives) of
|> Eurocentricism. Epidemiological data is not. The role of immunity is rather
|> limited to specific pathogens with specific host behaviors.
Once again we see eric's ideology. Here's another sample of his
hysterical fear of biology and genetics:
|> : Sure it does when we talk about the most formidable mechanism of
|> : mutation certainly we have to consider gene conversion and being a
|> : subset of recombination linkage groups and complimentation groups and
|> Bzzt. The only thing(s) adapting in post-Holocene time are pathogens, not
|> peoples. The sole non-trivial (in terms of causation) area of interest for
|> biological adaptations is non-human.
Notice the "bzzt"? That is derived from tv gameshows, where the hidden,
off-screen "judges" use "the buzzer" to convey their theological
dictate. The doctrine according to eric has been revealed: the only
things adapting in post-holocene times are pathogens, *not peoples*!
(Emphasis added, as if it were necessary. The agenda is obvious.)
Whence the phobia? How do you plan to enforce your decree? Biological
organisms evolve, whether you like it or not, and epidemics are an
especially blatent example. A 90% die-off will produce a genetic shift,
especially in small populations, and *especially* in the genetics of the
immune system. You can argue that acquired immunity is more significant
than genetic resistance, and in the case of the individual that is
certainly true; I'd much rather have an acquired immunity than a genetic
resistance when confronted with an infection. Genetic resistance makes
it more probable that I'll survive, but acquired immunity is a sure
In the face of an epidemic, however, genetic immunity can make the
difference between cultural survival and extinction. A 30% mortality
rate is a different kind of catastrophe than 90% mortality. A culture
can bounce back fairly quickly from an epidemic with a 30% kill rate
(look at europe after the plague) but a 90% mortality makes a culture
extremely vulnurable. Unless they are given a lot of time to recover, in
complete isolation from others, that kind of demographic collapse is
almost certainly fatal. Genetic resistance makes a big difference at
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf