Tuesday, 4 November 2014

feed-back loop

Aeon Magazine presents a compelling case for not unseating the double helix of DNA as the iconography of life but rather complementing our understanding of this blueprint with the experiments, adjusting to new demands or privations, that every organism conducts on a daily basis. The author’s examples are to some degree an interesting reframing of the Nature versus Nurture argument, as the body produces layers of tissues according to established protocols, written in one’s genes, but in novel and adaptive ways that cannot be contained nor predicted in said blueprint. What do you think? Diluting the supremacy of the genes—which are not exactly a vital spark but self-perpetuating chemistry after all—with what can be stretched, trained and spindled is a corollary to the obsession with family history and genetic testing, whose markers are not always as clear-cut as the way they’re marketed.