![](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Gr1A2jOOqbYJ:www.personal.psu.edu/users/c")
macrophage ![](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:oaY6rZEbk6cJ:www.ets-news.com/images/spring2002/apache_longbow.jpg")
apache longbow
Posted on 06/22/2004 11:44:53 PM PDT by jennyp
Is the war on terrorism, with its pre-emptive strikes, extrajudicial assassination and imprisonment without charges, succeeding? We haven't been attacked since 9/11. But things don't seem to be going that well in Iraq, Osama bin Laden is still at large (or so we are told), and international terrorist cells seem alive and well. Is our strategy the best? Are there others that might be more effective?
If we are truly concerned with defending ourselves, perhaps we should emulate the oldest, most versatile and highly complex defensive network known, the human immune system. Eons of challenges have generated highly sophisticated components that interact with one another to identify threats, share information, regulate responses and clean up the damage.
Popular accounts of the immune system often employ battle metaphors. Innate immunity uses phagocytes ("cell devourers") and "natural killer" cells to eliminate molecules that the complement system "identifies" as threats. Adaptive immunity utilizes the major histocompatibility complex to "expose" viruses that have infected cells. T and B cells "recognize" and "engage" the "enemy," either "killing" it outright or "alerting" other components of the immune system to do the job. No wonder we feel like we are "fighting something off" when our immune systems become active.
The molecules of the immune system are hardly in battle. Their component atoms simply combine and recombine. Consequently, the dynamics of the immune system at the molecular level resemble serendipity rather than warfare. Molecules interact when compatible chemical interfaces "attract" them to one another. Old combinations are transformed into new ones. In the balance between energy and matter, nothing is lost. The operant paradigm is less one of conflict than of relationship.
For example, B cells create antibodies, which epitomize relationship and transformation as they identify and engage pathogens (a disparaging term from the Greek, meaning suffering or disease). And yet, what are pathogens if not collections of molecules looking for other molecules with which to interact? It is of little consequence to the molecules themselves if their relationships unsettle us.
Antibodies are the matchmakers of the immune system. Shaped like a "Y," one end mutates rapidly to find the right combination to interact with the pathogen. Once engaged, the other end attracts additional components of the immune system to neutralize the pathogen. Thus, antibodies bring pathogens into relationship with other elements of the immune system, with the result that both are transformed.
That's hardly a conflict/battle view of immunity. Pathogens do not "intend" to "destroy" the organism. B cells do not "intend" to "protect" the organism from "pathogens." Those words -- our own projections onto their activities -- are highly conditioned by the stake we have in the outcome. B cells simply do what they have evolved to do. It's all mechanical and automatic. As far as we know, B cells do not think at all. They simply interact.
While citizens of a country may form a body politic, their interactions are analogous to molecules. So, how might responses to terrorism modeled on molecular interactions operate? For one thing, they would be less adversarial than relational. They would also be oriented less toward destruction than toward transformation. Finally, survival would be a function of relationship.
A "B-cell response" to terrorism would function at the level of ordinary citizens, where diversity is the societal counterpart of rapid mutation. The mediating role of antibodies would be reflected in our natural inclinations to engage in dialogues about the foundations of civilized society -- civil liberties, an independent judiciary, representation, a voice in government policy, equality, justice.
As a result, both sides -- those who are part of the society and those who are not -- could better know and understand each other. Like the chemical interactions between molecules, both would be transformed.
This hardly sounds adversarial. But would it work? Would it protect the organism, i.e., the nation or the community? Most likely. There is little debate about the advantages of communities where people know and interact with each other. But, what about actual terrorists?
Can an immunological approach really neutralize the threat? We have seen how rapid mutation, engagement and relationship might work. But, what about the counterpart of natural killer cells, macrophages and membrane attack complexes? Certainly, calling in the F-16s to bomb terrorists generates transformation. But, like hitting mercury with a hammer, it also spreads the disease.
The immune system has solved that problem. Cells deconstruct either by necrosis or apoptosis. In necrosis, their membranes are breached and their contents leak out into surrounding tissue. Unfortunately, in the case of a viral infection, this serves to spread the disease. Not a happy outcome. In death by apoptosis, however, the cell self-destructs by collapsing into itself. All within is nicely contained.
As a metaphor for fighting terrorism, necrosis is the equivalent of infiltrating and exploding a terrorist cell. Terrorists who are killed would very likely qualify as martyrs. Those who escape may be even more committed to imposing brutality on others. Ordinary citizens who may have been sympathetic to their cause, but were reluctant to join, might become radicalized -- infected, if you like. Either way, the very means used to neutralize the "disease" serves to spread it.
Apoptosis, however, causes collapse from within. Nothing leaks out. Infections don't spread. What would this look like in the fight against terrorism? Encounters between terrorists and those willing to engage them would mix ideas, ideals and values. They would oscillate and resonate with one another.
Those who dialogue with the terrorists might begin to understand the frustration and alienation that drives them to operate outside the system. They might be moved to intervene on behalf of those who have no voice and no power. They might be willing to work toward more equitable distribution of resources. No matter what the outcome, the openness to another that dialogue requires is a powerful force for overcoming isolation and alienation.
That alone would help to neutralize the forces that give rise to terrorism. B-cell approaches to terrorism would bring those who have become so alienated that they perceive their only voice to be that of violence into contact with those who embrace the basic values of a free, democratic society. As society and terrorist engage each other, potentials for both to be transformed increase.
An immunological model would define societies least able to defend themselves as those that are the least differentiated and the most restrictive of their members' contact with others. When different values and perspectives cannot be engaged in dialogue, the potential for transformation is lost.
Furthermore, governments that perceive their citizens to be the enemy operate like autoimmune disorders that lack the ability to discriminate their own cells from pathogens. Thus, they attack their own citizens in the name of self-defense. They undermine civil liberties because they perceive them to be a threat.
The McCarthy hearings of the '50s are an excellent example of this kind of confusion. Likewise, the purges in Stalinist Russia and the Cultural Revolution in China. Today, anyone who downloads an aerial photo from the U.S. Geodesic Survey Internet site will be, in the words of Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the House subcommittee on national security, "part of a government file." Thusly does the defense become the threat.
Perhaps it would be naïve to expect societies and governments to adopt approaches employed by supposedly mindless molecules. Nevertheless, the complexity of the immune system, whose sole mission is survival, exceeds anything we've created. In fact, where health is concerned, it's more conscious than we are. Furthermore, everything that we do, including writing and reading this column, is a function of molecular biology. Could that which generates all human thought and emotion serve as a paradigm for our behavior in the world?
From the psychological perspective, our relationships are quite analogous to molecular biology. We like encountering one another. We enjoy interacting, sharing ideas and emotions, and being transformed by other's perspectives. We feel protected by friendship. Love increases our resilience.
Alfred Adler believed that security is a function not of power but of gemeindeschaaftsgefuhl, or "community feeling." Carl Jung held that biology leaves its traces in the images that the mind constructs. If so, then humankind's inherent desire for relationship may be a reflection of -- among other things -- molecular biology. Perhaps those of us who lose this desire are what we call "terrorists." If so, their attempts to force themselves upon us through violent means may be a bizarre attempt to regain the kind of relationship that the immune system exemplifies.
If we want to improve their relational health, we may have to be willing to initiate contacts, dialogues and relationships. The responsibility for entering into relationships lies with those who can do it. For those who are willing to entertain such an approach to fighting terrorism, the molecular biology of the immune system serves as a paradigm to show us how.
The heartbreak of logorrhea.
The Talking Cure. If it didn't work for psychosis, it'll work for terrorism.
Anything based on the completely wrong theory of terrorism as a symptom of poverty and disenfranchisement is a pile of poopy-caca.
He lost it here. The immune system destroys invaders. There's nothing "relational" about it.
BTTT for a deliciously bonkers use of a good analogy by a fuzzy-headed liberal.
Yep. If I was on the plane, I'd try to reach the cockpit, and not being a very strong person myself, I'd try to reach the "pilot" and grab onto him & smother him with love, er, my arms, around his neck. By interrupting the activity of the key active areas of contact (between his hands and the wheel), I would be helping to disable his purpose.
Hey, the immune response analogy does work!
This resounds with "can't we all just get along" crap.
I think you're right. If you talk about the immune system accurately, there is an analogy. But if you make it sound like the immune system "dialogues" with pathogens rather than destroying them (like this guy does), you sound real dumb.
macrophage apache longbow
Yes, that's exactly what they do. How else could we describe the phenomenon? I'm dying to find out, let's ask a Degenerate Hippie Liberal Priest! I'm sure he'll be able to put the facts in perspective, and won't ever use any false parallels to make his argument sound more convincing. I'll bet we'll see another productive, useful example of the "overly extended analogy" which will help us to make up our minds about a completely unrelated thing:
Molecules interact when compatible chemical interfaces "attract" them to one another. Old combinations are transformed into new ones. In the balance between energy and matter, nothing is lost. The operant paradigm is less one of conflict than of relationship.
As opposed to Dubya's current War on Terror, which is violating the Geneva convention and the very laws of physics.
But to put this more simply, he is claiming that using poison to exterminate something is not a violent or warlike act, it's merely a chemical reaction. I'm sure the Jews of Auschwitz would want to disagree with him. And he is claiming that the use of these mobile death squads set up by our immune systems are entirely pacifistic, because they are not using guns, only chemicals, and they don't have any intelligence, they just follow the laws of physics. A bullet behaves the exact same way, once you send it down a barrel.
Antibodies are the matchmakers of the immune system. Shaped like a "Y," one end mutates rapidly to find the right combination to interact with the pathogen. Once engaged, the other end attracts additional components of the immune system to neutralize the pathogen.
Do anti-bodies mutate? Hell no. They're built once, designed to target a certain membrane make-up. They are built with a single target in mind, based on what is hurting the body elsewhere. They are designed to single-mindedly slaughter whatever target they were given.
Thus, antibodies bring pathogens into relationship with other elements of the immune system, with the result that both are transformed.
The "relationship" is, if I daresay, decidedly one-sided. The pathogen is crippled by the presence of the anti-body, which also acts as a signal for the attack dogs of the immune system to swarm in and swallow up/poison the cell. Sometimes, the anti-body even causes a chain chemical reaction bursting the pathogen's cell membrane, killing it. To describe this as a "relationship" makes it sound more peaceful than it actually is--but that's the whole point of this article, isn't it? To whitewash the situation we're currently in, to portray it in a pacifistic light, instead of approaching it honestly.
This is a relationship alright: an existential war relationship, in which the body is desperately trying to exterminate the pathogens, by any means necessary. Nothing is held back. There are no "pathogen rights." Any innocent cells who superficially resemble pathogens are slaughtered by our immune systems without second (or first) though. This is the "relationship" he's talking about?
That's hardly a conflict/battle view of immunity. Pathogens do not "intend" to "destroy" the organism. B cells do not "intend" to "protect" the organism from "pathogens." Those words -- our own projections onto their activities -- are highly conditioned by the stake we have in the outcome. B cells simply do what they have evolved to do. It's all mechanical and automatic. As far as we know, B cells do not think at all. They simply interact.
Well, duh. There never was any intent behind it, or intelligence guiding it. But the reason they make for a successful immune system is precisely because those anti-bodies end up targeting the cells they should target for destruction. Bullets do not have any intelligence or "intent" to kill people, but only a complete idiot would separate the flight of the bullet from its launch. A system that successfully manages its anti-bodies will be successful, therefore its genes will be more likely to spread. There doesn't have to be intelligence behind it for it to have a purpose. There was never any intelligence behind the evolutionary development of our hearts and lungs--yet we have them! And we would sound extremely stupid trying to deny that the function of a heart is for pumping blood, just because hearts were not designed with that in mind. This is very important, because the whole point of using the body metaphor is that this Degenerate Hippie Liberal Priest is attempting to attribute an abstract purpose to why we have an immune system (to manage "relationships" and "balance") while denying the obvious purpose that can be seen in the system's form and function! Somebody call the analogy police!
He deliberately ignores a very important part of the immune system: the creation of anti-bodies. They aren't just floating around for no reason, "mutating" just for the heck of it. Extremely simplified biology lesson by someone unqualified to give it (namely, me):
When cells are under attack, they put messages on their cell walls that have the meaning "help, this dude just attacked me, and this is what is on the surface of his cell." When enough similar messages are found, the body begins mass-producing anti-bodies to target all things in the body that have that specific pattern on their cell membrane (you could say it's a lot like racial profiling, because the body kills things based on their skin type; the decision to kill something never involves information found beneath the skin). It's actually a bit more complicated than this; cells belonging to our body have little markers on their skin to that effect, so even if our own cells match the description held by antibodies, they are not killed.This is a systematic mass slaughter of anything similar to the pathogen. The closest analogous human activities would be racial profiling and genocide.
While citizens of a country may form a body politic, their interactions are analogous to molecules.
Are we? Plato tried the same crap in The Republic, and he didn't offer any justification for it either. This is possibly the most important thing the author gets wrong.
So, how might responses to terrorism modeled on molecular interactions operate? For one thing, they would be less adversarial than relational. They would also be oriented less toward destruction than toward transformation. Finally, survival would be a function of relationship.
A "B-cell response" to terrorism would function at the level of ordinary citizens, where diversity is the societal counterpart of rapid mutation. The mediating role of antibodies would be reflected in our natural inclinations to engage in dialogues about the foundations of civilized society -- civil liberties, an independent judiciary, representation, a voice in government policy, equality, justice.
This (like all of his other garbage) is extremely short on specifics. What exactly would the B role look like? He says we are naturally inclined to dialogue, so I assume that would be part of it. But what else would there be? Are we going to talk at terrorists until their ears fall off? Apparently:
As a result, both sides -- those who are part of the society and those who are not -- could better know and understand each other. Like the chemical interactions between molecules, both would be transformed.
I have actually had conversations with extremist Muslims, and it has not encouraged me to dialogue further with them. It certainly did nothing to change their views, even though I pointed out egregious factual errors (one told me that Hamas did not bomb civilian targets). No amount of conversation would have any effect on them.
There is little debate about the advantages of communities where people know and interact with each other.
Wrong. Lots of people prefer to live in communities were people neither know nor interact with each other. Germans, for one (they aren't exactly known for being intimate with their neighbors). And people who choose the freedom of big cities (which exists precisely because of the possibility for anonymity).
Can an immunological approach really neutralize the threat? We have seen how rapid mutation, engagement and relationship might work. But, what about the counterpart of natural killer cells, macrophages and membrane attack complexes? Certainly, calling in the F-16s to bomb terrorists generates transformation. But, like hitting mercury with a hammer, it also spreads the disease.
The immune system has solved that problem. Cells deconstruct either by necrosis or apoptosis. In necrosis, their membranes are breached and their contents leak out into surrounding tissue. Unfortunately, in the case of a viral infection, this serves to spread the disease. Not a happy outcome. In death by apoptosis, however, the cell self-destructs by collapsing into itself. All within is nicely contained.
As a metaphor for fighting terrorism, necrosis is the equivalent of infiltrating and exploding a terrorist cell. Terrorists who are killed would very likely qualify as martyrs. Those who escape may be even more committed to imposing brutality on others. Ordinary citizens who may have been sympathetic to their cause, but were reluctant to join, might become radicalized -- infected, if you like. Either way, the very means used to neutralize the "disease" serves to spread it.
That doesn't sound at all like the threat faced by the human immune system. So why would anyone use the analogy of a human immune system to suggest ways to fight the war on terror? Only because they're an idiot.
Apoptosis, however, causes collapse from within. Nothing leaks out. Infections don't spread. What would this look like in the fight against terrorism? Encounters between terrorists and those willing to engage them would mix ideas, ideals and values.
So terrorist cells would just decide to quit. The only time we've seen this happen is when their brother terrorists are being killed at a very high rate. They decide maybe they should put off their terror war for a while longer.
Those who dialogue with the terrorists might begin to understand the frustration and alienation that drives them to operate outside the system. They might be moved to intervene on behalf of those who have no voice and no power. They might be willing to work toward more equitable distribution of resources. No matter what the outcome, the openness to another that dialogue requires is a powerful force for overcoming isolation and alienation.
This makes the assumption that terrorists operate because of "frustration and alienation." What evidence has the author given for this? It's amazing how stupid and dogmatic leftists are. The whole point of this article is to discuss the importance of winning hearts and minds, but not once--not f---ing once-- does the author mention this little book called the Koran, or this religion called Islam. Not once. Those aren't factors? Those shouldn't be up for discussion? The author claims to want a dialogue, but then he refuses to discuss the most important aspects!
That alone would help to neutralize the forces that give rise to terrorism. B-cell approaches to terrorism would bring those who have become so alienated that they perceive their only voice to be that of violence into contact with those who embrace the basic values of a free, democratic society. As society and terrorist engage each other, potentials for both to be transformed increase.
Who says terrorists act with violence because "they perceive their only voice to be that of violence?" Maybe they think violence is their most effective form of communication! Granted, this author obviously knows nothing about communicating effectively...
Another way this idiot author diverges from his "body" metaphor is that he constantly refers to both sides as being changed by the contact. The purpose of the human immune system, to put it as simply as possible, is to prevent outside agents from changing the body. It is a conservative, reactionary, bigoted system. There is nothing liberal or progressive about it.
An immunological model would define societies least able to defend themselves as those that are the least differentiated and the most restrictive of their members' contact with others.
And an immunological model would be stupid and wrong. Societies that are least differentiated are the safest. Countries full of nothing but white Christians have little to fear from al-Qaida infiltrators. This is not to say that we should strive for an undifferentiated society, but it would certainly be more secure from internal upset. Likewise, contact with outsiders does not decrease one's risk of terrorism. All of those white boys from California who go abroad and discover terrorist Islam are proof enough of this. Again, this is not to say I think America would be better off if nobody left our borders--but we would certainly be safer.
When different values and perspectives cannot be engaged in dialogue, the potential for transformation is lost.
The author assumes the only way to achieve "transformation" is through dialogue. Why? The terrorists certainly don't think so. That's why they are using violence--to transform society!! That's their whole motivation! 100% of it! The author is blind to what makes terrorists tick.
Furthermore, governments that perceive their citizens to be the enemy operate like autoimmune disorders that lack the ability to discriminate their own cells from pathogens. Thus, they attack their own citizens in the name of self-defense. They undermine civil liberties because they perceive them to be a threat.
The McCarthy hearings of the '50s are an excellent example of this kind of confusion. Likewise, the purges in Stalinist Russia and the Cultural Revolution in China. Today, anyone who downloads an aerial photo from the U.S. Geodesic Survey Internet site will be, in the words of Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the House subcommittee on national security, "part of a government file." Thusly does the defense become the threat.
No, this is not analogous to a diseased immune system. This is analogous to a healthy immune system. This author is such a complete moron that he brings up the McCarthy era. There really were Communists! They really were trying to undermine this country! They really were stealing our nuclear secrets and betraying our armies abroad. Is this such a controversial point?
And as far as the Cultural Revolution is concerned, that was wildly successful--by Mao's standards. It accomplished exactly what he set out to do.
What this author is saying is that our government should not perceive American citizens as terrorists. But what if they are? John Allen Muhammed (the Virginia sniper) for example, is an American citizen. Does that mean we should have tried to dialogue with him instead of arresting him? Where do we draw the line between healthy members of society and terrorists? When they pull the trigger? When they build the bombs? When they raise money for terrorists? The author never says.
From the psychological perspective, our relationships are quite analogous to molecular biology. We like encountering one another. We enjoy interacting, sharing ideas and emotions, and being transformed by other's perspectives. We feel protected by friendship. Love increases our resilience.
Huh? Molecules do not "enjoy interacting" with one another. They do not make choices. They do not share "ideas and emotions!" From the psychological perspective, we are completely f---ing different from molecular biology.
Alfred Adler believed that security is a function not of power but of gemeindeschaaftsgefuhl, or "community feeling." Carl Jung held that biology leaves its traces in the images that the mind constructs. If so, then humankind's inherent desire for relationship may be a reflection of -- among other things -- molecular biology. Perhaps those of us who lose this desire are what we call "terrorists." If so, their attempts to force themselves upon us through violent means may be a bizarre attempt to regain the kind of relationship that the immune system exemplifies.
Terrorists want to get something from the world (not from themselves), and they want to achieve this by scaring other people into giving in. The purpose of terrorism is to change other peoples' behavior by preying on their fears. It has nothing to do with psychological shortcomings or an internal search for meaning. Only a psychologist could create such a self-absorbed, masturbatory motivation for terrorism.
If we want to improve their relational health, we may have to be willing to initiate contacts, dialogues and relationships. The responsibility for entering into relationships lies with those who can do it. For those who are willing to entertain such an approach to fighting terrorism, the molecular biology of the immune system serves as a paradigm to show us how.
What would these relationships look like? He doesn't say. Would they be like supporting the current Afghan government, both militarily and with humanitarian aid? Because that is what we are doing. Or would we have never toppled the Taliban in the first place?
What would our oft-criticized "relationship" with the Saudi government look like? Etc. etc. etc.
This piece contains nothing but badly-mixed, superficial analogies. It's worthless. I wouldn't even use it to wipe my own ---, for fear of contamination.
...
If we were to actually use our immune system as an example of how to fight, this is what we would do:
Only a Gaia-worshipping leftist goofball could believe there is anything politically correct, warm, or cuddly about our immune systems.
But who is the real idiot? Him for writing this, or me for having taken the time to properly refute it?
How about something less controversial? Let's dice them into smithereens, use the smithereens to fertilize agricultural land, grow corn on that land, harvest the corn in due time and feed it to cattle, then butcher the cattle in due time and eat the beef.
Better yet, feed swine and eat the pork!
Now how many liberals did I offend today?
Well I was VERY impressed. :-)
I especially liked your comparing how the immune system recognizes pathogens by their surface proteins to racial profiling!
Great post.
LOL! (BTW, who can forget Slim Pickens as he rides that bomb down, waving his hat? Priceless!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.