Daily Archives: May 4, 2021

Photo: Herbert Spencer, via Wikimedia Commons.

On a newID the Future episode,historian Richard Weikart (Cal State Stanislaus) dissects a new Cambridge University Pressbook on social Darwinismby Jeffrey OConnell and Michael Ruse. Weikart, author ofHitlers Ethic,From Darwin to Hitler,Hitlers Religion, andThe Death of Humanity, says that a major shortcoming of the new book is the authors attempt to put as much distance as possible between Darwin and eugenics thinking, and between Darwin and Hitler. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The new book paints Darwins follower Herbert Spencer (pictured above) as the eugenics-championing bad guy and posits that Darwin and Darwinism had little or no influence on Hitlers warped master race ethic. Weikart patiently highlights some key evidence to the contrary, statements front and center in Hitlers writing. Did Darwin cause Hitler? No. Would Darwin have approved of Hitler? Almost certainly not. But according to Weikart, Darwins own racist and pro-eugenics thinking, combined with some implications of his theory that he himself explicitly recognized, manifestly did lay the groundwork for Hitlers diabolical outlook on the master race, the struggle for life, war, and eugenics.

Originally posted here:

Listen: Richard Weikart Reviews a New Book on Social Darwinism - Discovery Institute

In the face of Indias catastrophic pandemic, the tongue goes silent and the pens fall dry. What can one say that is meaningful? There is seldom any consoling story to be told about grief or mass suffering. There are brave journalists bearing witness. But what does bearing witness do in a culture of official nationalism where the images of death offend more than death itself? There is an urgent need to fix several policies. But what do policy proposals mean, when all policy is about managing headlines, not achieving an objective? There is a need to fix accountability. But how does accountability get fixed when so many institutional sinews from federalism to bureaucracy have snapped? There is justifiable anger at the Prime Minister, whose self-obsessive callousness and abdication of leadership has contributed immeasurably to the current crisis. But in the case of this government, anger seems misplaced. Anger presumes a leader who is standing within the space of reason, where the point of anger is to restore a certain reciprocity between citizen and leader. Anger is completely beside the point, when you have an imperious leader, who has come to mistake the hologram of his own mendacity for reality. In any case, the scenes of suffering make even anger a luxury; there are more urgent tasks to be attended to.

The only empowering thought in this context has been the splendid work that professionals, frontline government workers, health professionals and volunteers are doing to compensate for massive state failure. The extraordinary mobilisation of civic action whether in supplying oxygen or cremating the dead has been exemplary. These are, of course, sometimes limited by class and geography, but it would be churlish to deny the depth of commitment of what we are witnessing. This civic commitment has helped mitigate suffering. It provides slivers of solidarity in a politics that has long forgotten that word.

India has always been a tough place; the callousness that comes with inequality is deeply inscribed in our social structure. Politics was supposed to mitigate at least the harshest edges of this inequality. Instead, what we are seeing in the politics of the BJP is the unleashing of an unvarnished social Darwinism, a ruthless exercise of power on behalf of the powerful: Majorities against minorities, state against dissenters, and big capital against small. The spectre of more repression being unleashed to manage the post-pandemic discontent cannot be ruled out. The question is this: Will these rudiments of public solidarity on display counter deadly social Darwinism that our official politics has become?

Perhaps, a good test case is something urgent: A reconsideration of our vaccine policy. The three basic ingredients of a vaccine policy for a pandemic of this kind are clear. Do whatever it takes to make sure there are enough supplies (the right procurement contract, capital subsidies, capacity expansion, and, if need be, the suspension of intellectual property rights). Centrally procure vaccines, but give states operational flexibility. And distribute them free. This is essentially what the United States did. And do all of this as fast as possible, if we are to prevent new mutants from arising.

Instead, what we got in vaccine policy is a bizarre combination of ruthlessness and managing the headlines. First, there is a scarcity of vaccines and will be for a while because we did not get our capacity expansion and procurement contracts right. Then you had the pandemic surge in some states, which raised two questions: How much operational flexibility can be given to the states? And how much does it make sense to reallocate vaccines to states or districts where they are most urgently needed? These questions could have been easily resolved by a modicum of trust building. But instead, we try to cover up the scarcity and prioritisation question by managing the headline. We unleash a Darwinian competition between states on procurement. The demands of the states could have been resolved in better ways. Now some states will make the vaccines free. But there is a greater opportunity cost to the states doing this. They have less resources than the Centre. And there is high probability that they will divert money from other essential services.

Then, to deflect attention we open up vaccinations for all age groups. The controlled media claps. But you have exacerbated the problem: If supplies are scarce, opening it up to a free-for-all accentuates the allocation problem. Now allocation will be based on whoever can lay their hands on the vaccine, not what is best suited to combat the virus and reduce health burdens. You then say there will be differential pricing. In essence, those who can afford to get them at private sector rates shall get them more easily. The argument is that they will cross-subsidise. This is a specious argument; if people want to genuinely fund cross-subsidies in health, better to collect it as taxes and create public goods, not distribute vaccines as a privileged good under scarcity.

In the meantime, our supply strategy is still not clear. There are no reliable schedules of production targets. You offer Serum Institute of India what seems like an unsustainable price, and slow their capacity expansion, by delaying whatever capital subsidies were necessary. Bharat Biotech then announces a price that is too high, and surely the Prime Minister will step in to reduce the price and claim credit. Meanwhile, you have to wonder at this. India and South Africa have, at the WTO, rightly called for a temporary suspension of patents on COVID-19 vaccines. Why dont we set an example and do this ourselves with Bharat Biotech and take away its production rights? Let any company produce the vaccine. There are ways of doing this that still allow the company to make enough money and invest in R&D. It will also be a better way of positioning Indian brands and India globally than to try and position yourself as a monopoly supplier. In any case, some of the research is publicly funded and should be treated as a public good.

In miniature, this is an illustration of how vaccine policy is made. There is no logic of incentives or cross-subsidies or a free market in these decisions. There is no epidemiological logic. This is ad hoc social Darwinism. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. A perfect metaphor for our healthcare system. This is the moment to convert private acts of kindness into demands for a different public health culture. We can start by demanding a reconsideration of our vaccine strategy, and then think of larger political change.

This column first appeared in the print edition on April 28, 2021 under the title Vaccine Darwinism. The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express.

Read the original:

The ruthless politics of the Centres vaccine strategy - The Indian Express

In A Nutshell, Evolution Can Be Explained Better On Molecular Basis With The Unification Of Neo-Lamarckism And Neo-Darwinism.

The coalesce subject of modern biology is based on the Darwins theory of evolution, the process of natural selection, organisms change with the course of time and the fittest ones are selected by the nature to reproduce and survive. Such changes bring new variants of species. At that time when Darwin gave the concept of evolution it lacked the explanation on molecular basis. But modern genetics and molecular biology have given us the outline of how evolution happens I.e. neo-Darwinism.

But several studies have suggested that there exist some other molecular factors that contribute prominently in the pipeline of evolution of some species. There is also a problem with the Darwin theory that the mutation rate of complex organisms is too slow to explain the changes contribute in the process of evolution. Scientists compensate this by proposing different genetic theories like genetic drift and epistasis. Hence, swift origination of some traits is difficult to explain on the basis of classical genetics.

Some other questions also arose the answers to them are hard to give just relying on the theories of Darwin and classical genetics like why identical twins, having the same genes, generally catch different types of diseases as if phenotype is genetic based? How is it possible that environmental contaminants can change the assault of disease, rendering the DNA Sequences? Why the phenotypic trait divergence rate is higher than the genetic mutations and variations?

Answers to above mentioned questions partly can be explained by Lamarckism, according to Lamarcks theory of evolution, environment has great effect on phenotype of organisms and these changes could pass to next progeny, same concept had been proposed by a developmental biologist Conrad Waddington of the University of Edinburgh stated that fruit flies at the embyonic development stage if exposed to enivironmental contaminants or change in the temperature could bring about variations in the wings structures and that variations could also pass to next progeny. Waddington showed up with a modern term epigenetics to narrate this phenomenon of rapid change. That single generation variation was in support to Lamarcks theory as it was seen that environment could impact traits.

With the advancement in molecular biology and genetics, Lamarcks theory and Waddingtons concepts are now making some discernment. Several environmental factors can turn on and off many genes hence changing the expression of proteins in cells. Epigenetics, thus, involve several molecular processes that can change the gene expression without altering the DNA sequences. Epigenetic modifications include DNA methylation and histone modifications. Of them, DNA methylation, in which a methyl group attaches to cytosine at carbon number five, has extensively been explored. This methylation contributes in the gene expression, can permanently be acquired and pass over generations.

Histone modifications involve methylation, acetylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitylation, and sumoylation of histone proteins that are responsible for chromatin structure. These modifications can permanently change the gene expression. Non-coding RNAs is another type that bind to DNA, RNA, and proteins alter the gene expression regardless of DNA sequence. Hence these epigenetic modifications play crucial role in DNA expression regulation. One can conclude that genetics and epigenetics are highly interlinked.

If these epigenetic modifications are inheritable, known as Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance has been observed in many species, in plants, birds, rodents, insects, pigs and humans, can play a significant role in evolution. These modifications can run into minimum of ten generations to hundreds as in case of some plants. One example of this was observed by Carl Linnaeus in flowering plants I.e., heat-induced flowering trait, this altered trait had been persisted for hundred generations.

Changed environment effect on the biology of organism strongly goes in favor of Lamarckism as these alterations in traits could be observed in next progeny. Darwin also put forward the importance of environment in evolution process and if these environmental factors persist for large span of time, the changes we observe then go in correspondence with Lamarckism by epigenetic means.

A recent study was conducted on the speciation of finches, observed by Darwin on Galapagos islands, changes in phenotype no doubt were results from DNA mutations but an interesting thing that was explored is that epigenetics alterations(epimutations) are larger in number and more related to phylogenetic distance among species.

There are other more obvious evidence in support of epigenetics playing a critical role in evolution. In a nutshell, evolution can be explained better on molecular basis with the unification of neo-Lamarckism and neo-Darwinism, as both are responsible for evolution and highly interlinked. Infact, trait variations within the population can be increased by environmental epigenetics, which empower natural selection.

Scientists are now accepting the role of epigenetics in the process of evolution as evolution could not be justified just on the basis of classic theories of Darwin. Lamarcks concept with the addition of science of epigenetics cannot be just put back and ignored. By accepting, Lamarcks ideas there is no mean to disrespect the classical genetics and Darwinism. Indeed, there unification could change the understanding of evolutionary scientists and will help us to understand the insight concept of evolution. Genetics and epigenetics should not be considered as conflicting subjects. Evolutionary processes like genetic drift and genetic assimilation could easily be grasped with the understanding of epigenetics. Evolution explanation needs a unified theory combination of Darwinism and Lamarckism and integration of them would give us broad and better view of molecular causes that control life.

Visit link:

Darwinism, Lamarckism And Epigenetics Unify The Theory Of Evolution - - Technology Times Pakistan

In some ways, the 67th legislative session was unlike any other starting off with a court case over a district seat, pandemic protocols and eventually the expulsion of a lawmaker. During those unique circumstances, here are some of the bills that became law.

The governor and state health officer can no longer enact a mask mandate. That bill passed both chambers, and had the votes to overcome the governors veto.

I believe good people, when theyre educated and informed will make good decisions, Sen. Terry Wanzek said in support of the bill.

And you might see some better roads and bridges soon. A $680 million bipartisan bonding bill aims to improve infrastructure using legacy fund dollars.

Well this bill will be one of probably three bills coming through the legislature that will put Legacy money out into the state of North Dakota, investments, grants and so forth to help the people of this state move forward, Sen. Rich Wardner said.

Soon, schools will have immunity from lawsuits for posting the Ten Commandments in the classroom.

I certainly hope our teachers would be able to teach that as much as we teach Darwinism today, Sen. Janne Myrdal said.

Plus, a slew of gun-related bills passed, one of which makes North Dakota a stand-your-ground state, eliminating the duty to retreat before using deadly force, in some circumstances.

Its not saying you can shoot anybody you want. Its saying if you find yourself at risk of death or serious bodily harm, or a felony involving violence, you dont have to run away, Rep. Ben Koppelman said.

But lots of bills didnt pass.

Do you really think any person would change their gender and subject themselves to abuse just to win a track event, or play on a basketball team? Sen. JoNell Bakke said.

One that came close would have restricted transgender students participation in public school sports. The governor vetoed it, and the legislature almost overrode it but was four votes shy in the Senate.

Advocates of legalizing marijuana were also dealt a blow, with a bill that made it through the House but was snuffed out in the Senate.

The object is not to make it where theres no regulation whatsoever, but the idea is to say that this is a legal substance, but not that this is an unregulated legal substance, Rep. Marvin Nelson said.

The 47 senators and 94 representatives meet in Bismarck every two years.

See the original post here:

Recapping the 67th legislative session - KX NEWS

To ultra-conservatives, taxes are theft by the majority to take what they have no moral right to: the fruits of another person's labors. Democracy is undesirable because, to them, it allows a majority (the average citizen) to impose their will (social programs) on a minority (the wealthy).

A cabal of billionaires has been working for the last several decades to create an ultra-conservative libertarian society. Some of their propaganda organizations are the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation, the Leadership Institute, and others. They want to eliminate government-provided Social Security and Medicare, social programs, unemployment compensation, the graduated income tax, public schools and colleges, the United States Postal Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other programs that they believe are financed by taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the undeserved.

Ultra-conservatives want a return to an unfettered Lassaiz-faire capitalism that existed before the rise of labor unions. It was social Darwinism at its finest: robber barons, 12-hour work days, child labor, poor pay, cycles of recessions, unsafe working conditions and contaminated food. They only want a government for protecting their property and defending the country from foreign invasion; anything else is an abridgement of their freedom to make money by their own initiative any way they can. If you're not up to the task, that's your problem. Their attitude is that if workers feel exploited at their workplace, they can just look for another job somewhere else.

However, capitalism is a system devised by the very people that are bound to succeed in that system, that is, the brightest, the most aggressive, and sometimes the greediest. Without controls there is a tendency for employers to exploit their employees as the history of early capitalism has shown. Some people, like Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who are champions of Laissez-faire capitalism, may say it's too bad some can't compete; it's just as well that they are winnowed out of society.

As to taxes, former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. However, the wealthy fail to realize they are profiting from a system set up by the framers of the Constitution that favors the land owning and monied class: those with the education and means to exploit the system. Also, they are not cognizant they are in that position by the luck of the draw; not everyone is born able to compete on an unfair playing field, and consequently the wealthy are ethically responsible to give back to society for the greater good of the country. Failure to do so only leads to more poverty, unemployment, crime, and eventually rebellion when things get out of hand.

Republican President D. Eisenhower had a 90 percent tax rate for the super rich during his administration. According to Eisenhower, the super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. The Eisenhower years generated enough taxes to launch and complete the labyrinth of interstate highways.

Ideally, we would have a society where we consider everyone as part of our human family and eligible for all rights and privileges. As with religious and secular humanists, we would have concern for all people without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or station in life. We would have free health care for all through a government single-payer system similar to other advanced countries. We would eliminate the retributive death penalty as the vast majority of the countries of the world have done. Right now we stand ignobly with countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, Uganda and others.

We would attempt to be inclusive instead of divisive. In sum, we would have a nurturing, peaceful and cooperative society, somewhat like the Nordic countries. Our brutally competitive society, with its winners and losers, along with unemployment, poor pay and racism is a prime contributor to poverty, homelessness, crime and a world-leading high incarceration rate.

David Keranen is a retired Bakersfield College math professor. In retirement he reads extensively, writes letters and articles, and plays occasional golf.

Read more:

Community Voices: Whoa, President Biden wants to raise taxes on the wealthy! - The Bakersfield Californian