Inside Our Body

 

Lucy Jones, Lithub

Inside your body, there are probably more microbial cells than human cells. Symbiotic organisms colonize various areas of the body—the mouth, skin, vagina, pancreas, eyes and lungs—and many reside in the gut microbiota. You almost certainly have microscopic mites living on your face in the hundreds, or even thousands—mating, laying eggs and, at the end of their lives, exploding, unbeknown to you.

You may have heard the incredible fact that the resident microbes in your body outnumber your own human cells ten to one. That figure has been downgraded to three to one or an equal number, which is still astonishing. They mostly resemble mini jumping beans or Tic Tacs on a much smaller scale. These organisms aren’t simply parasitic freeloaders: they are intricate networks that intertwine and interconnect, influencing our health and well-being through complex ecological processes. They are involved in the workings of the immune system, the gut-brain axis, protection against harmful organisms and, indirectly, they have some relationship to our mental health.

When we breathe, we suck different species of microorganisms into the body. Studies suggest 50 different species of mycobacteria would be normal in the upper airways of healthy individuals, making their way into the teeth, oral cavity and pharynx. The environment around you might look clear and empty, but it will be swarming with microscopic organisms, depending on where you are.

Our microbiota are healthiest when they are diverse—and a diverse microbiota is influenced positively by an environment filled with organ­isms, which are found more abundantly in outside spaces than inside. We imagine our skin and our bodies to be armored, or a shell impenetrable to the outdoors, that we have somehow transcended our biological origins. But the human epidermis is more like a pond surface or a forest soil, as Paul Shepard, the late American environmentalist, suggested. Even if we don’t yet understand or know exactly how many of the abundant micro­organisms in our bodies arrived with us through exposure to nature—and, indeed, how they affect our mental and physical health—we are woven into the land, and wider ecosystems, more than we realize.

Crucially, these “old friends” that we have evolved with are able to treat or block chronic inflammation. There are two types of inflamma­tion: the good, normal, protective type, whereby the immune system fires up to respond to an injury, with fever or swelling or redness; then there is the chronic, systemic kind you don’t want. This is the simmering, low-level constant inflammation within the body which can lead to cardiovas­cular disease, inflammatory disorders, decreased resistance to stress and depression. This kind of raised, background inflammation is common in people who live in industrialized, urban environments and is associ­ated with the unhealthy habits of the modern world: our diets, poor sleep, smoking and alcohol consumption, stress and sedentary lifestyles. As we age, our bodies become more inflamed. Scientists can measure levels of inflammation by looking at biomarkers such as proteins in the blood.

It should be no surprise, then, to learn that the gut microbiota of people who live in urban areas and developed countries are less biodi­verse than those who still have profound contact with the land, such as hunter-gatherers and traditional farming communities.

Scientists are starting to understand more deeply the role inflamma­tion may also play in our mental health. Evidence that bodily inflammation can affect the brain and have a direct effect on mood, cognition and behavior is relatively new. But it is strong and compelling. Depres­sion may well be all in the mind, the brain and the body. This view runs counter to the dominant view of Western medicine that our bodies and minds are separate and thus should be treated apart from each other, a view dating back to 17th-century French philosopher René Des­cartes’ concept of dualism. As the neuropsychiatrist professor Edward Bullmore has said, “In Britain in 2018, the NHS is still planned on Car­tesian lines. Patients literally go through different doors, attend different hospitals, to consult differently trained doctors, about their dualistically divided bodies.”

But perhaps we are not as dualistically divided as the Cartesian orthodoxy our health systems are still built on would lead us to believe. A study of 15 thousand children in England found that those who were inflamed at the age of nine were more likely to be depressed a decade later, as 18-year-olds. People with depression, anxiety, schizophre­nia and other neuropsychiatric disorders have been found to have higher levels of inflammation biomarkers. European people have higher levels of cytokines in the winter months, which is also a time of increased risk of depression. Levels of cytokines are higher in sufferers of bipolar disorders during their manic episodes, and lower when they’re in remission. Early findings suggest anti-inflammatory medicines may improve depressive symptoms. People with a dysregulated immune system are more likely to have psychiatric disorders.

In his book The Inflamed Mind, Bullmore argued that some depres­sions may be a symptom of inflammatory disease, directly related to high levels of cytokines in the blood, or a “cytokine squall,” as he puts it.

Could our lack of contact with the natural world be a contributing factor to high levels of inflammation, which could be related to depres­sion and other mental health disorders? Studies show that just two hours in a forest can significantly lower cytokine levels in the blood, soothing inflammation. This could partly be caused by exposure to important microorganisms.

There are multiple reasons why babies born in the rich, developed world have a less diverse population of mycobacteria—for example, the use of antibiotics, diet, lack of breastfeeding and reduced contact with the natural environment. We live inside, often in air-conditioned buildings cleaned with antibacterial sprays, with reduced exposure to organisms from the natural environment via plants, animals and the soil. Our food is sprayed and wrapped in plastic. We don’t live alongside other species of animals, as we did for millennia. The opportunities to be exposed to diverse microorganisms are much fewer—which might explain why my daughter liked to eat soil.

Covid-19 ve Faşizm

İrfan Aktan - Gazete Duvar

1918’de ABD’de başlayıp dünyaya yayılan ve sadece bir buçuk yıl içinde 50 milyonu aşkın insanı öldüren İspanyol gribi, korona virüsünden farklı olarak yaşlıları değil, gençleri vurmuştu. (Salgına İspanyol gribi denmesinin nedeni, hastalığın İspanya’dan çıkması değildi. Hastalık ABD’de çıkmıştı ama o dönemin otoriter rejimleri bu konuda yazılıp-çizilmesini yasakladıkları için, salgına karşı sansürün devreye konmadığı tek ülke olan İspanya’da mesele tartışıldı ve hastalık bu ülkeyle anılır oldu.)

Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nın sürdürülemez hale gelmesinde önemli bir etkenin, İspanyol gribinin gençleri vurması olduğu söylenir. Zira salgın ordulara sıçramış ve sayısız asker, birbirlerini yok edemeden, grip tarafından öldürülmüştü.

Peki sonrasında nasıl oldu da insanlık, Birinci Dünya Savaşı ve onu takip ederek milyonlarca insanın daha hayatını kaybetmesine yol açan İspanyol gribi deneyimiyle mutlak bir barış ve tüm insanlığı kapsayacak geniş bir halk sağlığı sisteminde ortaklaşamadı?

2004 tarihinde yayınladığı Kaygı Üzerine isimli kitabında Renata Salecl, savaş ve salgın hastalıklar sırasında artan kaygının, toplumları otoriter iktidarlara sarılmaya ittiğini tarihsel örneklere yaslanarak aktarıyor.

Salecl, Birinci Dünya Savaşı’ndaki “askeri krizin” daha sonra yerini ekonomik ve “zihinsel” krize bıraktığını, bunun da toplumsal kaygıyı beslediğini vurguluyor ve şöyle devam ediyor: “Âdemoğlu handiyse yapayalnız kalmıştı, zira Tanrı’ya olan inancını kaybetmişti. Gelgelelim bilime, ilerlemeye ve akla inancın kaybolması da bir o kadar önemli olmuştu. Avrupa’nın da ölümü gibiydi bu. Ne var ki kaygı zamanları Avrupa’da yeni totaliter liderlere yer açmıştı. İtalyan faşizmi ve Almanya’da Hitler’in iktidara gelişi, kaygı çağına çözüm bulma girişimleriydi. Öte yandan uyguladıkları politikalar ikinci kaygı çağının doğmasına katkıda bulunmuştu. Nitekim İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nın ardından, bir kez daha, bilhassa Yahudi Soykırımı ve Hiroşima deneyimiyle yoğunlaşan bir kaygı çağına girilmişti. Bir kez daha, görülmedik gaddarlıkta bir şiddete yol açan kitle imha silahları, savaş bittikten sonra ortaya çıkan kaygı duygusunu tırmandırmıştı. (…) Tabii ki en son kaygı çağı, 1990’larda en zalim şiddet biçimlerine tanıklık etmiş olmamızla ve son birkaç yıldır yirminci yüzyılın yeni savaşları ve şerleriyle -terörist saldırı ve ölümcül virüs kullanımı tehdidiyle- meşgul oluşumuzla ilgilidir…”

Birinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası yaşanan toplumsal kaygı üzerinden yükselen, daha doğrusu Almanlar tarafından yükseltilen Adolf Hitler’in, şu günlerde korona virüsünün yaptığıyla da örtüşen bir vahşet politikası vardı.

Hitler’in “ari ırk” hedefi sadece Yahudileri, eşcinselleri, çingeneleri değil, aynı zamanda sakatları, “işe yaramaz” yaşlıları da yok etmeye odaklıydı. Eylül 1939’da devreye konan politikaya göre hastalar, sakatlar, “işe yaramazlar”, doktorlar tarafından tedavi edilmeyerek, aç bırakılarak ölüme terk edilecekti. Büyük tepkiler sonrası rafa kaldırıldığı söylense de, Nazilerin bu politikayı 1945 yılına kadar sürdürdüğü ve 200 bine yakın engelliyi bu şekilde öldürdüğü söylenir.

Bu açıdan bakıldığında, Birinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası Almanya’da oluşan kitlesel kaygının yücelttiği Nazizmin, kapitalizmle uyumlu bir vahşet uyguladığı ve “gereksiz yük” olarak görülen sakatları, “işe yaramazları” da hedef aldığı görülüyor.

Korona virüsü de kapitalizmin artık sömüremediklerini, kâr elde edemediklerini, yoksullaştırarak bağışıklık sistemlerinin zayıflamasına yol açtıklarını aramızdan alıyor. Teksas Vali Yardımcısı Dan Patrick’in açıktan söylediğini dünya liderleri zaten kabullenmiş görünüyor.

Bakın, dünyanın en zengin ülkesi olan ABD’nin Los Angeles kentinde, korona virüsü teşhisi konan ama sigortası olmadığı için evine yollanan 17 yaşındaki bir genç, hayatını kaybetmiş.

O halde karşımızdaki esas düşman virüsten ziyade kapitalizm. Üstelik vahşi kapitalizmin, virüsü işlevsel bir silaha dönüştürmesi son derece olası: Faşizmin bir alt uygulaması olarak yaşizm.

İtalyan doktorların, yoğun bakım ünitelerinde hangi hastayı gözden çıkarabilecekleri konusundaki mecburi tercih sırasında yaptıkları da bu kapsamda. Düşünsenize, korona virüsünden yoğun bakımda tutulan iki hasta ama tek bir solunum cihazı var. Sağlık personeli bir tercih yapmak zorunda ve bunun da kriteri yaş. İhtiyarın ağzındaki solunum cihazını alıp gence takıyorlar… Bu, ne yazık ki evrensel bir ahlaki sorunsal olarak karşımızda duruyor.

Genci yaşlıya tercih eden aslında doktorlar değil, böylesi bir salgının her an kapımızı çalabileceğine ilişkin güçlü delil ve emarelere rağmen olağanüstü dönemde devreye girecek şekilde acil durum sistemi inşa etmeyi fazladan maliyet olarak gören kapitalizmin kendisi. Silaha, savaşa, şatafata, tüketime ayrılan payın yüzde biri sağlığa ayrılsa, insanların plastikten farkı olmayan ucuz tüketim maddeleriyle değil sağlıklı gıdayla beslenmesi sağlansa, önleyici aşı araştırmalarına ağırlık verilse, muhtemelen İtalyan doktorlar yaşlının solunum cihazını söküp gence takmak gibi travmatik, korkunç bir tercihi yapmak zorunda kalmayacaklardı.

**

Ayrıcalıklı sınıflar daha fazla yiyebilsin, yediğiyle acıkan kapitalistler daha fazla tüketebilsin diye yaşlılar sistem dışına, yahut Narayama’da olduğu gibi dağ başında, korona virüsünün pençesine terk edilmek üzere. Böylece aşının bulunmasını bekleyerek zaman kaybedilmeyecek, sürü bağışıklığı sağlanacak, “dayanıklı” genç işçi-köleler fabrikaları dolduracak, kapitalist çark durmaksızın dönebilecek.

Sağlık Bakanı’nın, virüs vak’alarına ilişkin istatistikler paylaşırken, ölenlerin şehrini sır gibi saklayıp yaşlarına ısrarla vurgu yapmasıyla, daha sonra İçişleri Bakanlığı’nın 65 yaş üstü yurttaşlara sokağa çıkma “sınırlandırması” getirmesiyle, yaşlılara yönelik saldırganlık bir nevi meşrulaştı ve korona virüsü ile “yaşistlerin” ittifakı hızla sokağa taşındı.

Sokak serserileri yaşlıların önünü kesip tehditler savuruyor. “Bu seferlik seni affediyoruz” denilerek korkutulan, kafasına kolonya dökülüp alay edilen, binmesine müsaade edilmediği için toplu taşıma aracının önüne yatan, sadece yaşlı olduğu için bir polisin sözlü şiddetine maruz kalan, dışlanan, horlanan, virüsün hedefiyken kaynağı olarak lanse edilmeye çalışılan yaşlılar sadece hastalıktan, “yaşist” politikalardan ve bahse konu saldırganlıktan korktukları için içeride.

Bu iş üç-beş sokak serserisinin, “terbiyesizin” veya İçişleri Bakanı’nın ifade ettiğinin aksine “etkileşim hastasının” işi değil.

Bu, yeryüzü kaynaklarının paylaşımı mücadelesinde, sınıflar arası savaşın ötesinde, artık yaşlar arası bir gerilim noktasının da yeni halkası. Bu anlamda yaşizmi, kapitalizmin bir virüsü olarak okumak mümkün. Türkiye örneğinde ise durum biraz daha ilkel saldırganlığı andırıyor. Meseleyi idrak edecek tefekkür yeteneğinden yoksun, “devletine-milletine bağlı” güruh, dün Çinli sandıkları herhangi bir uzak Asyalıya, bir mülteciye, bir Kürde, bir “vatan hainine” yaptığını şimdi dedelerine yapıyor.

Elbette iktidarın vak’a sayılarını aktarırken ısrarla yaşlıları vurgularken aslında hitap ettiği “kod” bu değil. Başka.

YAŞLILARI ÖLÜME TERK: NARAYAMA TÜRKÜSÜ

Yaşizmin tarihsel bir arkaplanı var. Mazisi nereye kadar uzanıyor, bilemiyoruz. Fakat 19. yüzyıl Japonya’sındaki Ubasuteyama geleneği fikir verici olabilir. Shichirô Fukazawa’nın 1956 yılında yazdığı Narayama isimli romanı, daha sonra 1958 ve 1983 yılında iki ayrı filmin konusu oldu. Bizler daha çok Keisuke Kinoshita’nın yönettiği 1983 yapımı “Narayama Türküsü” filmini biliyoruz. Kıtlığın hâkim olduğu 19. yüzyıl Japonya’sının uzak bir dağ köyünde geçen hikâyede insanlar 70 yaşına geldiklerinde, aileye daha fazla yük olmamaları için yüksek bir dağın tepesine götürülüp ölüme terk edilirler. Yaşlıların çoğu bu kadere razı olmak durumundalar, zira gençliklerinde kendileri de anne-babalarını götürüp o dağa bırakmışlardır. Kaderine razı olmayan yaşlıların elden ayaktan düşmediklerini kanıtlamak için “gençlik rolü” oynamaları da sonucu değiştirmez. Zira kıt kaynaklardan dolayı nüfus sabit tutulmalıdır!

Peki halihazırda dünya, Narayama Türküsü’ndeki gibi, gerçekten de yaşlıları sırtında taşımayacak kadar kıt kaynaklara mı sahip?

Bu soruya “evet” yanıtı verenler, kapitalizmden ve dolayısıyla korona virüsünden yana saf tutmuş sayılır. Zira dünyanın kıt kaynakları, insanları doyurmaya fazlasıyla yetiyor. Fakat ayrıcalıklı sınıflar daha fazla yiyebilsin, yediğiyle acıkan kapitalistler daha fazla tüketebilsin diye yaşlılar sistem dışına, yahut Narayama’da olduğu gibi dağ başında, korona virüsünün pençesine terk edilmek üzere.

Böylece aşının bulunmasını bekleyerek zaman kaybedilmeyecek, sürü bağışıklığı sağlanacak, “dayanıklı” genç işçi-köleler fabrikaları dolduracak, kapitalist çark durmaksızın dönebilecek.

Bu sene Parazit filmiyle Oscar alan Güney Koreli yönetmen Bong Joon-ho’nun 2013 yapımı Snowpiercer filmindeki tren gibi… Filmde, dünya buzul çağına dönmüş, hayatta kalan insanlar ise Snowpiercer adında, “olağanüstü tasarımlı” ve hiç durmayan bir trende yaşıyorlar. Fakat katı eşitsiz koşullarda! Film, trenin en arka kompartımanında yaşayan yoksulların, insani şartlarda yaşamak için öne doğru gidiş mücadelesini, bu esnada acımasızca katledilişlerini ve ilerledikçe gördükleri olağanüstü şatafatı, ayrıcalığı anlatıyor.

Alttakiler, daha doğrusu arkadakiler, ileriye gitmelerinin her şeyi mahvedeceğine inandırılmak isteniyor. “Yaşıyorsunuz işte, daha ne istiyorsunuz?”

Futbol ve Sinir Bilim

https://www.herkesebilimteknoloji.com/haberler/saglik/futbol-ayaktan-cok-beyinle-oynanan-bir-oyundur

Onur Arpat, Herkese Bilim Teknoloji
Futbolla ilgili kafama yatmayan bir şey vardı. Basketbolcular yerden 3 metre yükseklikteki potaya 6-7 metre mesafeden yaptıkları atışları kolaylıkla isabet ettirirken, nasıl olur da futbolcular kocaman kalelere bazen 90 dakika boyunca bir tane bile gol atamazlardı?1 Mesele futbolcuların "yeteneksizliği" miydi?

Sorunun yanıtı sadece "ama futbol kalesinde kaleci var" ile açıklanabilir mi? Basketbolda da siz topu potaya atmayasınız diye karşınızda her daim beş oyuncu vardır, yine de basketbolcular her maçta topu fileden onlarca kez geçirmeyi başarır. Örneğin gözüme basketbolla futbolun ilginç bir karışımı gibi görünen hentbol sporunda da kaleci var ama futboldan çok daha fazla sayıda skor yapılabiliyor. Üstelik hentbol kaleleri futbol kalelerinden çok daha küçük olmasına rağmen.

Uzun yıllar sonra sinirbilime merak salınca sorunun yanıtının futbolcuların yeteneksizliğinde ya da kalecilerde olmadığını keşfettim.

Sorunun yanıtı bence şu: Bir uzuv olarak el, ayaktan çok daha yetenekli bir organ ve futbolda el kullanmak yasak!

**

Yapıları birbirine benzeyen ve temelde topu belirli bir bölgeden (kale, pota, vs.) geçirmeye dayanan tüm sporlarda el devreye girdiği anda sporcular daha fazla skor yapmaya başlıyorlar, çünkü ellerimiz ayaklarımızdan kat be kat üstün. Elbette bu noktada futbol sahasının basketbol ya da voleybol sahalarına göre daha büyük olmasının skoru azalttığı gibi başka makul argümanlar da sunulabilir, ancak bu gibi argümanlar da ellerimizin ayaklarımızdan daha yetenekli olduğu gerçeğini değiştirmez.

**

Ellerimizin beynimizde kapladığı alan ayaklardan çok daha büyüktür. Bu ellerimizin ayaklarımıza göre daha kıvrak biçimde hareket edebilmesini ve ayaklardan çok daha yetenekli olmasını açıklar. Beyinde her bir el parmağının kendine özel kocaman bölgeleri varken tüm ayak parmakları daracık bir alana sıkışmıştır.

Futbol beyindeki bu haritaları değiştirir. Profesyonel futbolcuların hem duyusal hem de motor beyin haritalarında ayaklara ayrılan bölge normal insanlardan daha geniştir, bu alanlardaki sınır bağlantıları daha komplekstir.

Ellerimizin ayaklarımızdan daha yetenekli olduğuna dair evinizde yapabileceğiniz ufak bir deney: Sağ elinizi düz bir alana koyun ve sadece orta parmağınızı yukarıya kaldırmayı deneyin. Başardınız değil mi? Peki, bu defa aynı şeyi ayağınızla yapmayı deneyin. Ayağınızı düz bir zemine koyun, sadece ve sadece orta ayak parmağınızı yukarı kaldırmayı deneyin. Başarabildiniz mi? Yoksa sadece orta ayak parmağınızı kaldırmak isterken tüm ayak parmaklarınızı aynı anda mı yukarı kaldırdınız? Büyük bir çoğunluğun bunu başaramayacağından eminim. Bunun sebebi ayak orta parmağınızdaki kasların güçsüz olması değil, ayağınızın beyninizdeki haritasının "sadece ayak orta parmağına" emir verebilecek kadar hassas olmaması, verilen emrin ayak orta parmağıyla birlikte tüm diğer ayak parmaklarına birden gitmesi.

**

İsveç Karolinska Enstitüsü tarafından yapılan bir çalışmada bilişsel kapasiteleri daha yüksek 12-19 yasındaki genç futbolcu adaylarının bilişsel kapasitesi düşük yaşıtlarına göre daha iyi gelişme kaydettikleri ortaya çıktı. Bilişsel kapasitesi yüksek oyuncular 2 yıl boyunca takip edildiklerinde kendilerini daha fazla geliştirdikleri, daha fazla gol atıp daha çok gol pası verdikleri gözleniyor. Bilişsel kapasite futbolcuların bir "oyun zekası" geliştirmesini sağlıyor. Bu testler sayesinde futbol kulüplerinin gelecek vaat eden futbolcu adayları arasında hangilerinin büyük yıldızlar olacaklarını, hangilerine yatırım yapmanın daha mantıklı olacağını daha iyi tahmin etmeleri mümkün. Bu testlere dayanarak gelecekte tüm profesyonel futbol kulüplerinin birer sinirbilimci çalıştıracağını iddia edenler bile var.

The Loophole in the Hedonic Treadmill

When Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote, in The House of the Dead, that “Man is a creature that can get accustomed to anything,” he was talking about the cruelties and deprivations of life in Siberian prison camp. But the human tendency to adapt or “get accustomed” to situations is more profound than even Dostoyevsky may have realized.

Imagine a person who, after years of drinking bland, watery beer from a mass-market brewery, finally tastes a really good craft beer. At first she notices the intensity of the flavor. A few more sips and she comes to appreciate the beer’s complexity and the exquisite balance between bitterness and sweetness. The craft beer is so much more flavorful than what she has been used to drinking, and the experience is highly enjoyable. But check in after a few months when she has been drinking the craft beer on a regular basis. Something has changed. The experience is no longer as special as it was at first. It now takes an even greater taste sensation to yield the same thrill our beer drinker experienced the first few times she tried the craft beer.

We adapt. A great pleasure, repeated often enough, becomes routine, and it takes an even greater treat to give us the same enjoyment. When we get used to having more, it takes more to please us. (Conversely, when we get used to having less, it takes less to please us.) This is the known as the “hedonic treadmill.” It’s analogous to the well-known tendency to adapt to physical stress. When you first start lifting weights, for example, a relatively light weight might be all it takes to start putting on muscle. But once the body adapts to that exercise, heavier and heavier weights will be needed to keep getting stronger.

The idea of the hedonic treadmill can apply to discrete pleasures—like getting accustomed to better beer—or it can apply to an overall lifestyle. There is evidence that if an individual’s basic needs are met, after a certain point, increases in income do not lead to much greater happiness. As the money we have to spend goes up, so too do our expectations and desires—and with them the possibility of disappointment. A now-classic study from 1978 compared the happiness of lottery winners with a control group drawn from the same neighborhoods. The researchers interviewed lottery winners after the initial thrill had worn off. When asked to rate their present level of happiness, the lottery winners answered in the same way as did the control group. The two groups also made similar predictions about their future happiness. And when asked about a number of mundane pleasures—talking with a friend or eating breakfast—the lottery winners actually derived less pleasure than did the control group.

Maybe those lottery winners weren’t more happy because they spent their winnings on the wrong things. A 2011 survey of the available empirical research indicates that spending money on experiences (for example, vacations, dance classes, or nights out with friends) makes people more happy than does spending money on material goods. One of the reasons is that, while we quickly adapt to that new handbag or pair of shoes, a good experience provides a happy memory that can be revisited again and again, with less threat of adaptation.

JEANETTE BICKNELL, Nautilus

Also check: Hedonic Treadmill

The New Human Agenda

“At the dawn of the third millennium, humanity wakes up, stretching its limbs and rubbing its eyes. Remnants of some awful nightmare are still drifting across its mind. ‘There was something with barbed wire, and huge mushroom clouds. Oh well, it was just a bad dream.’ Going to the bathroom, humanity washes its face, examines its wrinkles in the mirror, makes a cup of coffee and opens the diary. ‘Let’s see what’s on the agenda today.’

For thousands of years the answer to this question remained unchanged. The same three problems preoccupied the people of twentieth-century China, of medieval India and of ancient Egypt. Famine, plague and war were always at the top of the list. For generation after generation humans have prayed to every god, angel and saint, and have invented countless tools, institutions and social systems – but they continued to die in their millions from starvation, epidemics and violence. Many thinkers and prophets concluded that famine, plague and war must be an integral part of God’s cosmic plan or of our imperfect nature, and nothing short of the end of time would free us from them.

“Yet at the dawn of the third millennium, humanity wakes up to an amazing realisation. Most people rarely think about it, but in the last few decades we have managed to rein in famine, plague and war. Of course, these problems have not been completely solved, but they have been transformed from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges. We don’t need to pray to any god or saint to rescue us from them. We know quite well what needs to be done in order to prevent famine, plague and war – and we usually succeed in doing it.

True, there are still notable failures; but when faced with such failures we no longer shrug our shoulders and say, ‘Well, that’s the way things work in our imperfect world’ or ‘God’s will be done’. Rather, when famine, plague or war break out of our control, we feel that somebody must have screwed up, we set up a commission of inquiry, and promise ourselves that next time we’ll do better. And it actually works. Such calamities indeed happen less and less often. For the first time in history, more people die today from eating too much than from eating too little; more people die from old age than from infectious diseases; and more people commit suicide than are killed by soldiers, terrorists and criminals combined. In the early twenty-first century, the average human is far more likely to die from bingeing at McDonald’s than from drought, Ebola or an al-Qaeda attack.”

**
“Until recently most humans lived on the very edge of the biological poverty line, below which people succumb to malnutrition and hunger. A small mistake or a bit of bad luck could easily be a death sentence for an entire family or village. If heavy rains destroyed your wheat crop, or robbers carried off your goat herd, you and your loved ones may well have starved to death. Misfortune or stupidity on the collective level resulted in mass famines. When severe drought hit ancient Egypt or medieval India, it was not uncommon that 5 or 10 per cent of the population perished. Provisions became scarce; transport was too slow and expensive to import sufficient food; and governments were far too weak to save the day.”

**
“After famine, humanity’s second great enemy was plagues and infectious diseases. Bustling cities linked by a ceaseless stream of merchants, officials and pilgrims were both the bedrock of human civilisation and an ideal breeding ground for pathogens. People consequently lived their lives in ancient Athens or medieval Florence knowing that they might fall ill and die next week, or that an epidemic might suddenly erupt and destroy their entire family in one swoop.

The most famous such outbreak, the so-called Black Death, began in the 1330s, somewhere in east or central Asia, when the flea-dwelling bacterium Yersinia pestis started infecting humans bitten by the fleas. From there, riding on an army of rats and fleas, the plague quickly spread all over Asia, Europe and North Africa, taking less than twenty years to reach the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Between 75 million and 200 million people died – more than a quarter of the population of Eurasia. In England, four out of ten people died, and the population dropped from a pre-plague high of 3.7 million people to a post-plague low of 2.2 million. The city of Florence lost 50,000 of its 100,000 inhabitants.”

**
“The Black Death was not a singular event, nor even the worst plague in history. More disastrous epidemics struck America, Australia and the Pacific Islands following the arrival of the first Europeans. Unbeknown to the explorers and settlers, they brought with them new infectious diseases against which the natives had no immunity. Up to 90 per cent of the local populations died as a result.”

**
“Incidentally cancer and heart disease are of course not new illnesses – they go back to antiquity. In previous eras, however, relatively few people lived long enough to die from them.”

The Right to Happiness

 










“Throughout history numerous thinkers, prophets and ordinary people defined happiness rather than life itself as the supreme good. In ancient Greece the philosopher Epicurus explained that worshipping gods is a waste of time, that there is no existence after death, and that happiness is the sole purpose of life. Most people in ancient times rejected Epicureanism, but today it has become the default view. Scepticism about the afterlife drives humankind to seek not only immortality, but also earthly happiness. For who would like to live for ever in eternal misery?

For Epicurus the pursuit of happiness was a personal quest. Modern thinkers, in contrast, tend to see it as a collective project. Without government planning, economic resources and scientific research, individuals will not get far in their quest for happiness. If your country is torn apart by war, if the economy is in crisis and if health care is non-existent, you are likely to be miserable. At the end of the eighteenth century the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham declared that the supreme good is ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’, and concluded that the sole worthy aim of the state, the market and the scientific community is to increase global happiness. Politicians should make peace, business people should foster prosperity and scholars should study nature, not for the greater glory of king, country or God – but so that you and I could enjoy a happier life.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although many paid lip service to Bentham’s vision, governments, corporations and laboratories focused on more immediate and well-defined aims. Countries measured their success by the size of their territory, the increase in their population and the growth of their GDP – not by the happiness of their citizens. Industrialised nations such as Germany, France and Japan established gigantic systems of education, health and welfare, yet these systems were aimed to strengthen the nation rather than ensure individual well-being.

Schools were founded to produce skilful and obedient citizens who would serve the nation loyally. At eighteen, youths needed to be not only patriotic but also literate, so that they could read the brigadier’s order of the day and draw up tomorrow’s battle plans. They had to know mathematics in order to calculate the shell’s trajectory or crack the enemy’s secret code. They needed a reasonable command of electrics, mechanics and medicine, in order to operate wireless sets, drive tanks and take care of wounded comrades. When they left the army they were expected to serve the nation as clerks, teachers and engineers, building a modern economy and paying lots of taxes.

The same went for the health system. At the end of the nineteenth century countries such as France, Germany and Japan began providing free health care for the masses. They financed vaccinations for infants, balanced diets for children and physical education for teenagers. They drained festering swamps, exterminated mosquitoes and built centralised sewage systems. The aim wasn’t to make people happy, but to make the nation stronger. The country needed sturdy soldiers and workers, healthy women who would give birth to more soldiers and workers, and bureaucrats who came to the office punctually at 8 a.m. instead of lying sick at home.

Even the welfare system was originally planned in the interest of the nation rather than of needy individuals. When Otto von Bismarck pioneered state pensions and social security in late nineteenth-century Germany, his chief aim was to ensure the loyalty of the citizens rather than to increase their well-being. You fought for your country when you were eighteen, and paid your taxes when you were forty, because you counted on the state to take care of you when you were seventy."

The Black Death

In what annals has it ever been read that houses were left vacant, cities deserted, the country neglected, the fields too small for the dead and a fearful and universal solitude over the whole earth?… Oh happy people of the future, who have not known these miseries and perchance will class our testimony with the fables.

Petrarch

The medieval Italian poet Petrarch, describing the onslaught of the Black Death in 1348, was prescient. Today, we can’t imagine its lived reality. To sense what the Black Death was really like, you have to imagine that a third of the people you know, or of the human beings you can see walking down the street, suddenly vanish. The known world with a third fewer of its people within a span of six years is unthinkable. And it happened only once in history.

During the onslaught, there’d be no place to bury all the bodies; people would lie abandoned in the street, or curled up on the sidewalk, choking for air until they died. You’d meet a friend for lunch; by nightfall he’d be dead, dining with his ancestors in Paradise, as the Italian poet Boccaccio put it. You would never know whom the arrow would strike next – your wife, your children, your friends, your parents, or you yourself. A large, exquisitely painful swelling might erupt under your arm or in your groin, or – worse – you might feel well one minute and the next start spitting blood. And that blood-spitting was always fatal.

from: Aeon

News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

News is bad for your health. It leads to fear and aggression, and hinders your creativity and ability to think deeply. The solution? Stop consuming it altogether.

In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. The media feeds us small bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don't really concern our lives and don't require thinking. That's why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind. Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic news can be.

News misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from Nassim Taleb). A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That's the underlying risk that has been lurking, and could lurk in other bridges. But the car is flashy, it's dramatic, it's a person (non-abstract), and it's news that's cheap to produce. News leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in our heads. So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is under-rated. Astronauts are over-rated. Nurses are under-rated.

We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, regardless of its real probability. If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and economists – who have powerful incentives to compensate for news-borne hazards – have shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from news consumption entirely.

News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. But people find it very difficult to recognise what's relevant. It's much easier to recognise what's new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. We get anxious when we're cut off from the flow of news. In reality, news consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the advantage you have.

News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are non-stories: slow, powerful movements that develop below journalists' radar but have a transforming effect. The more "news factoids" you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. If more information leads to higher economic success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not the case.

News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.

News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact." News exacerbates this flaw. We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories that "make sense" – even if they don't correspond to reality. Any journalist who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt because of Y" is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of "explaining" the world.

News inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time. News pieces are specifically engineered to interrupt you. They are like viruses that steal attention for their own purposes. News makes us shallow thinkers. But it's worse than that. News severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. Long-range memory's capacity is nearly infinite, but working memory is limited to a certain amount of slippery data. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because news disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Online news has an even worse impact. In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. News is an intentional interruption system.

News works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of arbitrary storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case. Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more news we consume, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed.

News wastes time. If you read the newspaper for 15 minutes each morning, then check the news for 15 minutes during lunch and 15 minutes before you go to bed, then add five minutes here and there when you're at work, then count distraction and refocusing time, you will lose at least half a day every week. Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind?

News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of news about things we can't act upon makes us passive. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is "learned helplessness". It's a bit of a stretch, but I would not be surprised if news consumption, at least partially contributes to the widespread disease of depression.

News kills creativity. Finally, things we already know limit our creativity. This is one reason that mathematicians, novelists, composers and entrepreneurs often produce their most creative works at a young age. Their brains enjoy a wide, uninhabited space that emboldens them to come up with and pursue novel ideas. I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs. If you want to come up with old solutions, read news. If you are looking for new solutions, don't.

Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too.

I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.

Rolf Dobelli

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli


x