vaccine_complexity.md 2.4 KB
How is it that we come to accept that our health can be made whole through a few incidental improvements? That there are just some components that we evolved to require, or that we never evolved to fulfill ourselves? We are not whole, lest we include these exogenously created offerings.
How is that we believe there is so much more to understand about the human body, or the human mind, or consciousness, or reality, and so forth? There are things that we point to in the known domains of man, and claim that they are incomplete. They don't capture the nuance that is required to see us as what we really are. To understand what we really are and how we really behave.
Somehow we can utilize that mode of thinking when it comes to every social issue, to the point where we are willing to disregard some of the most fundamental understandings of science. Yet, when it comes to health and pharmaceutical technology, we are not able to even question it. We are not even able to get to the point of nuance where we can assert that YES what is said about this product, or this the means by which we evaluate a product, are is correct, but that it is not enough to comprehensively describe the matter. Are we even able to assert that there is any difference at all? That there are adaptations sought through pharmaceutical technologies that are also performed, whether by analog or in a precise form, by the human body on its own? Surely, we would grasp the idea that we are considering a particular adaptation that is possible by the human body, and replicating it in am ore controller manner through technology.
What of looking at a particular adaptation brought about through technology, and considering that, yes, the human body can do this too?
If we are to decide that we can agree at least that much, can we take it a step further and talk about the depth of adaptation? The nuance and detail? Whether there are dimensions expressed in the transformation incurred through that adaptation that cannot be known? Whether the degree of complexity is such that there can be a generic representation which appears to fulfillt he same requirements, but that is itself, though whole, lacking some of the structural precision that is possibly present in other adaptations? In other instances of a categorically similar adaptation?
Surely we can at least come to that understanding and use it as a launch pad for new ideas, or new ways of thinking about the problem.