Yesterday while chatting over coffee at Avalon, the conservation turned to world-views, politics, anthropology, evolution, masculine-feminine natures, immunization, and the different cultures of chimpanzees versus Bonobo monkeys (patriarchal and matriarchal, resp.)
Throughout it all I was amazed at how little supporting evidence there was for each particular view that was discussed. In particular was the subject of immunization and the need for it.
The argument was presented that we need immunization to eliminate various viruses in the community. The example of Polio was mentioned, and, incredulously, the reason for its re-emergence was due to one small community somewhere in Africa years ago having refused to be inoculated, and this has allowed the virus to spread, and re-emerge into various populations.
Now, the clear evidence from decades of research by Sir Professor Michael Marmot is that the vast majority of the cause of disease and early death is poor 'psycho-social' circumstances. Take care of the 'psycho-social' and the body will mend itself, and fight off disease as needed. If the supporting psycho-social circumstances are positive, the immune system will be sufficiently strong and able to do its job.
This alone obviates the need for immunization when based on the usual reasons touted. Evidence by Harvard Medical School reveals that focused-meditation can actually switch on disease-fighting genes, which again ties in with the primary need of a strong psycho-social ecosystem when seeking good health and wellbeing. Yet during the conversations the relevance of the research was refuted, with suggestions that I had been selective with choice of data.
Throughout it all, it was evident to me that there was a concerted lack of interest in applying the scientific method, of taking in all the facts, and seeking to find a theory to fit the facts. This failure is widespread throughout our culture, but none more so than in scientific circles.
The denial of the evidence of quantum mechanics -- the belief that the experimental evidence of quantum mechanics is not relevant to our everyday lives1 -- reveals an extraordinary degree of denial. How can it not be relevant to our everyday lives, when the very stuff with which we think and feel is deeply enmeshed in, and reliant on quantum processes? I reminded my friends, quoting physicist Mendel Sachs, that
It behooves those who seek truth to study the abstract features of the truths of as many disciplines as possible, in order to determine which of the ideas of each of them correspond and which do not, with the notion that those ideas that do recur in a varied range of domains of knowledge are more likely to be true than those that don’t. Thus the seemingly invariant truths are the ones that should be pursued further, as significant investigations toward our future understanding of the real world.
Despite this, facts that undermined their beliefs and views were categorically avoided. This denial practiced on a large scale imperils all of us, whether it be on the issue of climate change, genetic manipulations of plants and animals with unforeseeable consequences, or simply the unsustainable use of natural resources.
At some point, not too distant in our collective future, it must all go 'bang'. Nature, being a self-organising system that evolves with intent, must eventually respond in ways that counters the imbalances and unchecked behaviours of various human cultures that are barreling forward with scant regard for cooperation or sustainability. Underpinning much of this denial is what I see as short-term expediency and cultural immaturity. It's simply easier and expedient to disconnect ourselves from any responsibility for the resulting reality. At least in the short-term. Ultimately nature will adjust the imbalances, and if we don't change, that adjustment will be at our expense (demise).