Learn from the mistakes of others

it is interesting to consider the way the people respond to technologies, particularly new technologies.

dna technologies - or more accurately, the way dna technologies are used - has been a focal point for a number of social dichotomies. a recent article on the newsweek website prompted me to think about some of them once more.

the article "dna testing: in our blood" examines the experiences of a number of people, and their families, who have explored their ancestry through dna analysis. a large project, co-sponsored by the national geographic and ibm, is attempting to build a large map of genotype branches for humanity, the genographic project. they are already working from dna data collected and collated concerning mitochondrial and y chromosomal fingerprints used to analyse ancestry and relatedness.

mitochondrial dna passes down female lines to their offspring, while y chromosomes are passed male to male. both are quite stable - other chromosomal dna is subject to significant rearranging between matching pairs. mitochondrial dna can therefore give us a good look back along matrilineal inheritances- where your mother's mother's etc dna came from. ditto for tracing the heritage of your father's father's etc. in combination, population geneticists are able to map out broad family groups and identify ancestries back tens of thousands of years.

they can't say exactly who your ancestor was, but rather where they came from. and that can be a real eye-opener.

it's also raising all manner of questions, ethical and otherwise. not all potential donors like the idea of anyone else having access to their dna. some distrust the purposes to which their dna might be used. plenty of indigenous populations have discovered they have no claim over the rewards derived from their cultural and biological heritage in the past -they are wary of losing this, their most intimate heritage.

stumbling across this, i'm reminded of ideas and interests i explored a decade or so ago. back when i was a biology student, learning the hard way that science is rational but scientists can be a different matter entirely.

population genetics, genomics, genethics, and other neato buzzwords were in their infancy back then. as was the internet. i was neck deep in all of it. somehow i got sidetracked into programming and desktop support. and the law.

i remember why i got into the law, more or less. perhaps i should have done philosophy instead? i was/am the bastard most likely to ask why ... why is this so? why is that the way things work?

in a way, even before autism and asperger's entered my regular vocabulary, i was aware of how much i didn't understand about people. in particular, why they said and did some of the things they did. these days i'm wondering if i'll ever be able to understand.

in the meantime, how do i best make use of my interests and my knowledge and my skills and my talents. because the intersection of those things, considered in light of the kind of environment i flourish in, ought to point me in the direction of what i could be doing with my life.

i am interested in the effects of technology, they way people use it - often in ways unlike that expected or intended by their creators/marketers, and where it's all going anyway.

this is why i like science fiction. who are we and where are we going are key questions in that genre. (that and the cool gadgets. do like my cool gadgets, when i can afford them :)

i think too much.

it is interesting to consider the way the people respond to technologies, particularly new technologies.

dna technologies - or more accurately, the way dna technologies are used - has been a focal point for a number of social dichotomies. a recent article on the newsweek website prompted me to think about some of them once more.

the article "dna testing: in our blood" examines the experiences of a number of people, and their families, who have explored their ancestry through dna analysis. a large project, co-sponsored by the national geographic and ibm, is attempting to build a large map of genotype branches for humanity, the genographic project. they are already working from dna data collected and collated concerning mitochondrial and y chromosomal fingerprints used to analyse ancestry and relatedness.

mitochondrial dna passes down female lines to their offspring, while y chromosomes are passed male to male. both are quite stable - other chromosomal dna is subject to significant rearranging between matching pairs. mitochondrial dna can therefore give us a good look back along matrilineal inheritances- where your mother's mother's etc dna came from. ditto for tracing the heritage of your father's father's etc. in combination, population geneticists are able to map out broad family groups and identify ancestries back tens of thousands of years.

they can't say exactly who your ancestor was, but rather where they came from. and that can be a real eye-opener.

it's also raising all manner of questions, ethical and otherwise. not all potential donors like the idea of anyone else having access to their dna. some distrust the purposes to which their dna might be used. plenty of indigenous populations have discovered they have no claim over the rewards derived from their cultural and biological heritage in the past -they are wary of losing this, their most intimate heritage.

stumbling across this, i'm reminded of ideas and interests i explored a decade or so ago. back when i was a biology student, learning the hard way that science is rational but scientists can be a different matter entirely.

population genetics, genomics, genethics, and other neato buzzwords were in their infancy back then. as was the internet. i was neck deep in all of it. somehow i got sidetracked into programming and desktop support. and the law.

i remember why i got into the law, more or less. perhaps i should have done philosophy instead? i was/am the bastard most likely to ask why ... why is this so? why is that the way things work?

in a way, even before autism and asperger's entered my regular vocabulary, i was aware of how much i didn't understand about people. in particular, why they said and did some of the things they did. these days i'm wondering if i'll ever be able to understand.

in the meantime, how do i best make use of my interests and my knowledge and my skills and my talents. because the intersection of those things, considered in light of the kind of environment i flourish in, ought to point me in the direction of what i could be doing with my life.

i am interested in the effects of technology, they way people use it - often in ways unlike that expected or intended by their creators/marketers, and where it's all going anyway.

this is why i like science fiction. who are we and where are we going are key questions in that genre. (that and the cool gadgets. do like my cool gadgets, when i can afford them :)

i think too much.

Particularly if you have control of (one of) the most powerful (technology) corporations ... you can wax lyrical about how excited you are about your own products and how they'll change our lives for the better.

It's hard to fault the logic that we'll continue to think new things, and talk about them, and so forth.

There are even nifty buzzwords like "consilience" to go with the excitement!

From Wikipedia:

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Then, with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. The converse of consilience is Reductionism.

In short, things make more sense in context.

Which is also the difference between information and knowledge. Something Mr Gates and I agree upon. However, I'm not so impressed with mere knowledge. To me, we ought to be aspiring to wisdom - knowledge is useless without a purpose. Something I'm all too familiar with.

Particularly if you have control of (one of) the most powerful (technology) corporations ... you can wax lyrical about how excited you are about your own products and how they'll change our lives for the better.

It's hard to fault the logic that we'll continue to think new things, and talk about them, and so forth.

There are even nifty buzzwords like "consilience" to go with the excitement!

From Wikipedia:

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Then, with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. The converse of consilience is Reductionism.

In short, things make more sense in context.

Which is also the difference between information and knowledge. Something Mr Gates and I agree upon. However, I'm not so impressed with mere knowledge. To me, we ought to be aspiring to wisdom - knowledge is useless without a purpose. Something I'm all too familiar with.