1. I think the distinction between living and non-living systems is all about scale. Clearly, there are some things that are non-living - for example, a rock. However, as a part of a larger system, that rock could play an important role. It could be washed into a river and broken down into small pebbles. One of these pebbles could be swallowed by a chicken, which uses that pebble to digest its food. I would include the rock inside the chicken's body as part of a living system, but the rock itself, not. Therefore, I don't think there is such a distinction - I think that if you zoom in or out enough, even the most inanimate, inorganic things are playing key roles in living systems.
2. I definitely think that it is valuable to know and understand that, genetically, there is more in common across "racial" lines than within populations. Therefore, I suppose I would agree that "DNA doesn't determine race". However, I'm not exactly sure what this proves and how it reflects on our society. As someone mentioned in class, even if skin color is not a valid way of grouping genetically similar people, we see, for example, health trends within populations that do correlate to skin color. This does not negate the statement of the article, but I think it is important to hold that, though "race" as a concept may not be scientific, it is incredibly relevant, and cannot be dismissed . It is unfortunate that articles such as this do not enforce our social structures, but rather demonstrate how, even though a group of people may not be the most genetically similar, the systems in which we live affects populations so drastically as to create serious biological trends within them.
No comments:
Post a Comment