frozenborderline
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,405
Why do biology researchers underrate environmental factors in illness?
"These questions are like seriously burning in my mind, and it's easier to express, um, this way then through writing. So I have one huge question that's been in my mind for awhile, and it's. Why do ME/CFS researchers, and I think actually scientific and biological researchers in general seem to drastically underrate environmental causes of, um, illness and chronic illness in humans?
And I think I know the answer to that one. Um, but I don't know if it's possible to get it across to these people. I think that, um, it's not because they're bad people. It's not because they're stupid. In fact, most of these people are way, way, way smarter than me. Um, uh, Ron Davis is tremendously smart.
Michael van elzakker. Um, other researchers. And so it's not because they're dumb and it's not because they're ill intentioned. It's just purely a deep ideological stumbling block or blind blinder that many or all humans in industrial civilization have. But, um, it becomes especially problematic when.
You're in such a field, um, and I think that the ideological, some stumbling block is a kind of unwritten idea that we are separate from nature or ecology or that we are not subject to ecological changes in the same way that other animals are, that we're not subject to changes in the food, air and water chain because, um, we're somehow exempt from them because, um, we're like magic fasting? beings with opposible thumbs.
Um, and I think basically everyone has that unspoken thought, but it's especially interesting when it comes to scientists because I'm pretty sure if a scientist looked at, you know, animal extinction, they would look at environmental causes for that rather than social or genetic causes. Um, if they looked at a phenomenon like say, craniocervical instability, which is what I have, started happening a lot in a population of animals that didn't have head trauma, um, would they start with doing, like, genomics? I really doubt it. I think that, um, researchers would start with looking at environmental causes. Cause when you have such huge cascading environmental changes is we've had, um, it almost seems like that's the most reasonable place to look. Um, but the ideological funding stumbling block, we're not, um, a part of nature. We're not affected by nature. We can control nature or control our environment so much that it could never be the main factor in our health. Um, and I think that's a really, really hard stumbling block to get over. And I hope researchers can do some, uh, soul searching, um, on that and start thinking ecologically, um, start thinking that biology is a subset of ecology rather than just a totally separate field."
"These questions are like seriously burning in my mind, and it's easier to express, um, this way then through writing. So I have one huge question that's been in my mind for awhile, and it's. Why do ME/CFS researchers, and I think actually scientific and biological researchers in general seem to drastically underrate environmental causes of, um, illness and chronic illness in humans?
And I think I know the answer to that one. Um, but I don't know if it's possible to get it across to these people. I think that, um, it's not because they're bad people. It's not because they're stupid. In fact, most of these people are way, way, way smarter than me. Um, uh, Ron Davis is tremendously smart.
Michael van elzakker. Um, other researchers. And so it's not because they're dumb and it's not because they're ill intentioned. It's just purely a deep ideological stumbling block or blind blinder that many or all humans in industrial civilization have. But, um, it becomes especially problematic when.
You're in such a field, um, and I think that the ideological, some stumbling block is a kind of unwritten idea that we are separate from nature or ecology or that we are not subject to ecological changes in the same way that other animals are, that we're not subject to changes in the food, air and water chain because, um, we're somehow exempt from them because, um, we're like magic fasting? beings with opposible thumbs.
Um, and I think basically everyone has that unspoken thought, but it's especially interesting when it comes to scientists because I'm pretty sure if a scientist looked at, you know, animal extinction, they would look at environmental causes for that rather than social or genetic causes. Um, if they looked at a phenomenon like say, craniocervical instability, which is what I have, started happening a lot in a population of animals that didn't have head trauma, um, would they start with doing, like, genomics? I really doubt it. I think that, um, researchers would start with looking at environmental causes. Cause when you have such huge cascading environmental changes is we've had, um, it almost seems like that's the most reasonable place to look. Um, but the ideological funding stumbling block, we're not, um, a part of nature. We're not affected by nature. We can control nature or control our environment so much that it could never be the main factor in our health. Um, and I think that's a really, really hard stumbling block to get over. And I hope researchers can do some, uh, soul searching, um, on that and start thinking ecologically, um, start thinking that biology is a subset of ecology rather than just a totally separate field."
