Relevance

Before starting on the main meal I think I should talk about what I've written so far, and though there's not much of it yet it's enough to raise the question: what's all this got to do with the shambles called humanity as it is today? This was prompted while I was watching a DVD called The Corporation, which is one of the most devastating exposures of the roles of corporations in shaping this utterly dysfunctional world. Joel Bakan, author of the book on which the DVD is based, refers to it as pathological and one short segment compares the behaviour of corporations as comparable to the well-documented characteristics of individual psychopaths. This is precisely how I have regarded corporations for many years, though there are some vital differences, particularly in identifying the origins of this kind of behaviour in individuals compared with those of the corporation. This is not a criticism of Bakan or his DVD for which I much admire, but in dealing with either we have to be very clear about just how they develop. If we are not clear about the processes culminating in these kinds of behaviour we are not likely to have much success in dealing with them - either preventing or changing them. That's precisely why I am so insistent on understanding the nature of the processes involved in both individual and collective behaviour, which necessarily means identifying the way things work at the different levels of complexity, from one person to the United Nations.

Put it another way: if you try to use the same method with a family or a group as you would with an individual,it just wouldnt work. Likewise if you tried to deal with trade unionists intending to go out on strike by appealing to their better nature they would regard you as naive and simple-minded.

With their unfailing genius at creating confusion the lawmakers in the U.S. and U.K. decreed that corporations have the same legal rights under the constitution as individuals with all the advantages that this gives them. Later I shall deal with this plainly impossible situation in detail, but for now I just want to
point out that no systems thinker would make such an elementary mistake as to confuse the individual with the corporation or vice versa since no such system can continue indefinitely. It is becoming more obvious as the days go by that this confusion is a
major factor in creating the decline of the structure of modern industrial societies and it has to change. There are more advanced thinkers who are aware of this in various fields and they talk about the need for a new 'paradigm ' (a jargon term used with increasing frequency since T.S.Kuhn's book on 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' in 1962) - ie, a different model of the way the world works.

So, far from being uninteresting, dry, irrelevant the study and use of an understanding of Systems Theory is essential in making sure that whenever a new model arises it will be able to avoid the inevitable self-destruction we are all now participating in.In fact if we ignore the rules that enable natural systems to work we will have no way of stopping, let alone reversing, our present drive to destruction.

Hereditary or Learned: Genetics or Environment.
I need to introduce this here, because it is a central issue in any discussion about human characteristidcs, personality or behaviour. This has been a battle ground for millenia between those who believe that whatever we do is determined either by what we have inherited from our parents or because we have learned it from the time we we born. It's not just a theoretical exercise that provides jobs for hordes of academics who spend incredible amounts of time, money and energy trying to prove one side or the other. It pervades the attitudes of just about everyone who is looking for the causes of behaviour we either approve of or reject. In medicine, for example, any discussion about a particular disease/illness automatically includes a statement about its possible hereditary origins. The answer will inevitably have much to do with the management of the condition. Same applies in law, education and pretty much every aspect of our daily lives. So let's shed some light on this.

Everything we do is a result of the interaction between what we were born with and what we learn. In other words it's not a question of whether what I do is due to a built-in feature of my body-mind: it is always both. The only question is not either or, but how large a part of my behaviour is due to my genes and how much to what I have learned since - or before - birth. The greater the role of genetic factors, generally speaking, the less the effect of treatment. However, our knowledge of the way genes work is increasing at a phenomenal rate, which of course changes profoundly our ways of dealing with hereditary problems.

There are, though, some dubious consequences, the nature of which we are just beginning to be aware of much to our chagrin. The last several weeks there has been a profusion of reports on the latest figures on the threats posed by Diabetes. According to the NY Health Dept, 8% of the population of New York suffer from a form of diabetes and this is being referred to as an epidemic. The overall figure for the U.S. is 7% and health authorities everywhere are becoming alarmed at the impact this is having on society. These figures represent a truly dramatic leap since I was a medical student in the forties and a quite shattering rise since the discovery of insulin in 1921-23 by Banting, Best and several others in Toronto. Prior to that time almost everyone with Type 1 Diabetes died within a few years. In fact diabetes is now regarded as a scourge and with its complications is the fourth most frequent cause of death in the U.S. and comparable numbers in most of the developed nations. It constitutes a potential menace for those who are diabetic and ignoring the need for proper control of blood sugar is a sure way to developing serious complications.

So the question of genetics versus learned factors is clear in the case of diabetes: the life style one adopts plays a very significant part in the outcome, and trying to put numbers on the relative significance of these two factors is an exercise in futility in most cases. The exceptions, as with some other diseases, are sometimes due to the fact that a certain genetic predisposition may be so great that treatment has little or no effect on the outcome. It is clear that our interference with natural processes, however well intentioned, can lead to unforeseen consequences.


We shall see later how these two factors interact to produce what we become.