As I mentioned below, this week was mostly taken up in a lonely battle against some kind of viral infection, possibly influenza. It's been a long time since I battled a virus like this and I am still not fully recovered. After the gastrointestinal phase and the fever/aches/chills phase, I thought I was in the clear. I was wrong. Starting yesterday afternoon, I started losing my voice. Although this may be the result of a bacterial infection taking advantage of my weak body, it's just another example of the power of a virus.
When you have spent so much time in the ring with such a formidable foe, it's hard not to be humbled.
We can all make our way through even the toughest of colds with a combination of will and NyQuil/DayQuil. The flu is something different altogether. By Tuesday morning, I was simply incapable of moving. Touching metal objects was painful. The mere thought of food was enough to nauseate me completely. Due to the violent GI symptoms of the first phase, I was already badly dehydrated. My muscles were cramping up and I could barely move my neck without intense pain. I couldn't sleep properly because of the aches and chills and I couldn't watch tv or read because my eyes hurt so badly. It was a terror of a time.
The most remarkable part of the whole experience is the strange mental state that develops. I had read earlier this year that the flu has neurological effects and, this time, I am inclined to believe it. During the depths of the fever/chills phase, I was drifting in and out of what can only be called delirium. Images and sounds from the television became intertwined with dreams and confused me even more. At times, I was not sure if I was awake or asleep. Everything seemed real, but I also knew that at least some of it was dream. Even today, I don't feel 100% together.
About two weeks ago, I watched "War of the Worlds." I had always thought the end of the story was a little hokey. This week, I was reminded of how serious a threat to survival infection truly is. Unfortunately, Wells gets it exactly wrong when he writes "By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain."
We do not owe our immunity to the deaths of billions of men because the ones who died were not our ancestors. They have no descendants. Their deaths contributed nothing to our survival as a species. (Clarification - Obviously it is possible for somebody to have offspring and then die. My point is that Wells' view is a romanticization of evolution. The humans who did not possess an immune system sufficient to ward off the most common pathogens without death would be thinned out over time, leaving us with the gene pool from which we currently draw. Although it is pleasant to think of these dead as cannon fodder in some great war against disease, their deaths were merely coincidental. Our current immune system comes from genetic variation, not their "sacrifice.")
We're the descendants of the lucky ones.
Phew.
9 comments:
It is possible for someone to die after they have produced offspring, but again, I'm glad you survived.
Yes, but the point is that we are the descendants of the people who had an immune system that was capable of fighting off the virus.
I got your point, it was just my turn to be cantankerous, if that is indeed how one spell that word, I didn't pay my dues for it's usage, so I'm sure I'm guilty of some liscensing infraction.
An interesting way to look at it:
1. the virus was also selected to be nasty enough to knock you out and keep you in bed, but NOT to kill you, 'cause you're the host. Indeed, most selective pressures on viruses favor the dominance of less virulent strains, in which the host is not entirely incapacitated (or killed).
2. your ancestors were the ones who were able to fight off the virus JUST ENOUGH to live through it and reproduce. Any more would be wasted effort, which is usually selected against.
Welles certainly romanticized selection. One could argue that some of the deaths of those who couldn't fight off the disease might also have been deaths caused by more virulent strains, and by dying the hosts may have prevented their spread. It just goes to show how much give and take there is in any relationship involving genes. It's a subtle dance.
check out:
http://gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/ch045.htm
It's funny, Welles almost sounds like he's talking about group selection, which as we all know is a myth! There is no selection for "the good of the species," just as there is no true altruism. Biologically speaking, of course.
I am tempted to quote Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" to note that there is a biological basis for altruism, but then I'd have to admit that I only read half of it.
In my bio courses, Dawkins was often used as an example of how to look at selection the wrong way.
I've read the book a few times (it was required in at least one class). That was a long time ago, though... I don't remember much.
True altrusim means doing something for which there is no benefit, which obviously means it's not selected for (the very definition of no benefit). If altruism in any way benefits the individual doing it, it's not altruism.
In nature, altruim is usually kin selection in disguise.
I don't believe there's ever been a single example of "altruism" in nature that has turned out to actually be altruism on closer inspection.
Clarification - I'm not saying Dawkins was wrong about everything. The idea of looking at selection on the level of individual genes, rather than organisms, is damned interesting. But it's really just another model for the same thing...
Are genes the means by which animals create more animals?
Or are animals the means by which genes create more genes?
Wheels within wheels in a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex
Time after time we lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects...
(damned good on "Rush in Rio," btw)
Post a Comment