Thursday, November 23, 2017

Dominant Dominant Genes

Largely forestalled here on Terra, probably on purpose, probably out of a need for survival, is research into the "dominant" and "recessive" status of alleles. Part of the Bang religion we're asked to believe in to contrast with Risen Rabbi is the far more subtle lie that alleles peacefully organize themselves based on poorly understood understandings of dominance and recessiveness. Widely taught in western spiritual madrasas is the acceptance that, whether or not the Risen Rabbi or Randomness programmed it, certain traits know to recede before other traits. For example, we may believe that a plan for certain levels of pigmentation doesn't include protocols for "pigmentation absence," and a simple allele can be utterly voided by another with a more intensive plan. We may consider the example of brown eyes being "dominant" over blue eyes, wherein we personify the genetic relationship into a sort of amicable fisticuffs match. Perhaps this belief is better suited to the early twentieth century than the twenty-first, and over time we may see some corresponding adjustments to a "genetic yielding" or "genetic sharing" regime, wherein the complete dominance is, in an open-secret fashion (like a century's tracking of results for military placement exams), likened to an act of acknowledged cooperation rather than one of dominance.

(How embarrassing, in a way, for them to have chosen "dominant" and "recessive" for their story. Or so it seems--we're the ones who fell for it. Like, "The Rabbe told me you should believe in Him in defiance of visual observation," it's more a story about our gullibility than their brazenness or narrative-disfunctionality.)

One of the things someone may learn 'pon survival (eventually inevitable, but here mapping to perhaps the next few hundred solar rotations, rather more perception-optimistically than warranted) is the nature of what we now hymnalize as the "genetic dominance" underscoring most of our day-to-day beliefs. In contrast to our layman's diagrams of peaceful surrender, we would learn of a material life which is more like unto the rest of it that we know, rather than a solemn gentleman's agreement appealing to the aged teachers of the early twentieth century. Christianized, financialized, and duly flattered, the foregone victories of self and pseudo-objective results were rather predictable, much like the scholarship of Lothrop Stoddard's blind cattle before their precipice. Even the eugenics-based resistance was only the logical extension of Bang, in the same way that exterminating infidels proved to be the carefully-managed extension of believing Saul about J the C. For what else is the comprehensive pogrom, or instant eugenics, but the logical conclusion of Rabbi or Bang? Like carrots dangled in front of cart mules, the tools have always been there, but you prefer the whip. And what a fine line must be walked to ingratiate and exterminate--it seems so risky to introduce such plagues. Yet the risk is understood and managed, and ultimately proves not only not to be a danger, but to be a resounding success. As I've said before, first we take Manhattan.

Being more life-like as an aspect of a bitter struggle with an inexorable purpose, rather than a milkwater concierge choosing genetic seats, we may come to see the contest of carried genes more as a living process than a preplanned game of musical chairs, and "recessive" alleles as defeated slaves in the slow, inevitable process of dying. Our ability to keep records and view things with longer perspectives may be likened to the desire of the aged to give away pricelessly worthless household treasures to people who cannot appreciate them: too little, too late, viewed from the cynic's perspective of lifetime efficiency, versus the comparatively beautiful longer term perspective of landfill decay more truly involved in the process. Which is to say, from certain perspectives, it might/would have gone better to save the money instead of to buy the then-new and now-ugly serving set, but from longer perspectives, who cares?

Many consumer products in the current climate could doubtless be developed from a better understanding of the invisible ranking system that underpins what we call "genetic dominance." Yet, for reasons that may be obvious, the ability of some genes to command fealty of and to seemingly external loci would forestall such research, as it would for our more complete understanding of these bodies' systems. In particular, the mechanics of our thinking, and of our level of belief in "rightness" or morals, would yield a wealth of results in the idealized modern sense, wherein we pretend that knowledge is not forestalled, never needs to be forgiven nor forgotten, and is always its own reward. Indeed, we would find in these early mental conundra a precursor to our understanding of genetic dominance, and how and why it influences what we call "character."

5 comments:

  1. No. of people who make reference to genetics in the context of human behavior: 100

    No. of people in the above group who know genetics at the level required to get a BS in Biology/Zoology: 2

    No. of people in above group who comment on the internet, in social media, as journalists, or as TED lecturers: 0

    No. of people who became 23andMe customers to earnestly pursue "genetic heritage information" in an attempt to actually "learn something" about "genetics": 100

    No. of 23andMe victims who thought a scam born in the mid yeast's hexagon was going to help them achieve something in this lifetime, rather than working in some way the opposite: 100

    Not even Ted Williams could match this batting average.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your stats are completely wrong, since now the bachelors, the masters, even the fricking doctors, are going to place in the 90s just based on attendance. But it's cool because wikipedia has it all anyway.

      Which reminds me, I just did "Catholic church" and "big bang" on there, and without footnotes, the former has a slightly longer article. Still, I bet more than 1.29 billion people believe in the Big Bang. Wonder if sub-Saharan Africans are now more Bangist and less Christian?

      Delete
    2. Once again, I find myself trapped in the bubble of 30 years ago, when you couldn't just say "because GENETICS!" and have dunderheads nod -- or even scream "OF COURSE! NATURALLY!" -- when the topic doesn't implicate DNA/RNA/haploid/diploid at all.

      Hmmm. Who have gone throughout human history selling selves as something they entirely, distinctly are not? Using words to move money, not deeds or action? Doing nothing, getting everything?

      Wait, it's not 30 years ago still?

      2020: "Tonight's TED Lecture features a 6 year old professor of nuclear physics at MIT. This wunderkind earned a BS at 2 mos, an MS at 9 mos, and a PhD at 18 mos. Began teaching at 2 yrs old, granted tenure at 4, and will be President of the Faculty at 8 if this keeps up."

      Delete
    3. Too much honesty in that dystopia. If they're introducing someone trans, they don't say, "Tonight's lecture features a man who got electrolysis and surgery and has earned the right to be a woman," they say, "A woman who..." The removal of any acknowledgement of difference is sort of evilly (and ironically, duh) vital.

      It became funny at some point (Hollywood lubricated) to tease adults for expecting responsible people to be older. Probably not 2020, but 2090? When will childhood be eliminated as unfree and inefficient, and children (hate term) err younger individuals (microaggression) um (individuals) be freed to be full-time professors?

      Delete
    4. Given the yeomanlike effort at re-thinking Parchments for Pay in the wake of the Vietnam War, the progeny of westwardly migrating Bowl-Shees need to ensure PforP continues increasing in its ineffectuality. To ensure this endpoint and hasten its arrival, certifiable lines of progeny should be Houses of Parchment Subdivision.

      Professor _____, first in his family to earn an undergrad degree and first in his (house of worship redacted) to gain a PhD and teaching appointment, shall bear naught but future Professors of ________. In the event any given Professor is of the (house of worship redacted) practice resulting in fruitful multiplication such that an overabundance in filial facultitos/-as arises, such progeny shall be assured situation at an equivalent PforP institution within the greater American PforP system.

      In this way shall we make permanent our immense achievements in the field of paying for a parchment.

      Delete