[David Maes]

I'm just wondering if there could be some kind of hidden instability in the human genome...?

[harmonygirl]

David, only one kind of instability?
Michael, when I had fish they understood me to!
Pagan (or Steve, whatever you wish), I don't think that we WANT to do this, I am raising a tongue in cheek question. It's not only STD viruses that I am talking about, what about the flu and common cold? There are all sorts of bacteria that we have to play host to in order to function. Anyway, it was a joke.

[David Maes]

Just a question: molecules and atoms seem to pass through us...

We seem to be 'open' systems.

Sometimes I would have the impression that systems which are getting older are 'closing' themselves more in relation to the environnement.

I'm not much of a biologist (just interested). But it is my thought that a system sometimes has to close itself to protect itself from 'hostile' environnement; to maintain the constructive processes inside, for example no mixture with virusses or hostile bacteria...; even though sometimes I guess it has to 'open' itself also to 'fire' its "reactions of immunity" against hostile bacteria... (also to feed, 'drink', or breathe...)

Our organisms seem to be open and chemicals pass through us...
I think memorising things to be more like chemical processes; I guess these have to be maintained...

Could it be that this 'maintenance' in relation to the environnement is leading to our idea that systems are closed? What I mean is... could chemical reactions be the real cause of what we call the closeness of a system?

in a philosophical mood...
greetings,
David

[harmonygirl]

David, interesting ponderings...could you give an example of a system closing itself off from a hostile environment? I think that, generally speaking, you're right, it's better to be open. If the system closes, it does not develop strategies to cope with the hostile environment, antibodies let's say, and leaves itself vulnerable to resurgence of hostility. I think closed systems eventually die because they can't adapt.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl David, interesting ponderings...could you give an example of a system closing itself off from a hostile environment?

The human domination of predators is an example of a system closing itself off from a hostile environment. In every place that humans appeared, the large predators are killed off or greatly restricted- and in fact I would do the same thing were I living in a territory surrounded by hostile predators.

I think that, generally speaking, you're right, it's better to be open. If the system closes, it does not develop strategies to cope with the hostile environment, antibodies let's say, and leaves itself vulnerable to resurgence of hostility.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it promotes the gene and the species above the individual. That is, it would be akin to suggesting we let small pox run rampant, because those individuals who survive are 'fitter'. This line of reasoning I must take issue with, for I believe in the inherint worth of conscious/potentially conscious individuals, and thus 'sieving' them would be an immoral action.

[harmonygirl]

but Tinytree, I don't see your example as a system closing itself off, rather it's dealing with a hostile environment according to its nature. closing itself off would be to refusing to interact with the predators. Maybe I misunderstood what is meant by a closed system? Also, isn't everything potentially conscious, including small pox, fried chicken and beets?

[David Maes]

I guess for example living cells.

They have membranes or cell'walls'. Inside the system a specific exchange is being maintained.

So I guess a system can only survive when it 'closes' itself from the environnement in an operational way.

On the other hand (philosophically) it should 'open' itself now and then to receive food, (drink), and oxygen.

I'm trying to understand this; but am experiencing difficulty.

[harmonygirl]

okay, David, I have forgotten, don't cell membranes permit exchanges (I guess the word would be 'porous')? I thought they interacted with their environment?

[David Maes]

Well, I've forgotten a bit... (should have a look in the old biology course)...

As I remember it would have something to do with vacuoles in the cell which are bringing in food (I think it's fagocytosis) (and drink (as I remember pinocytosis?))...

Yep as I remember I think you're right... some smaller molecules can get in I guess via hollow chains of proteins or somethin... (but I think not the bigger ones...)

So it's not absolutely closed; but I guess it's not absolutely open also, this to be able to maintain inside specific exchange...

I guess it's more something like a balance or equilibrium or something like that...

(sorry about long thinking... sometimes I'm still changing stuff while you already answered...)

[harmonygirl]

I think of open as living in harmony with your environment (hostile or not) and closed as refusing to interact with environment. Is this what you had meant?