Anna D. Final Post Assignment -- Part Two

On Osheroff, Medical Ethics, and a Doctor’s Duty

**I apologize for the editing because I've had to post this using my cell phone.

When Raphael Osheroff took shelter at Chestnut Lodge, a psychiatric hospital in central Maryland, he sought relief from his depressive episodes and severe anxiety that put his business dealings in jeopardy. The hospital was known for hosting prominent psychoanalysts of the midcentury era who treated Osheroff along analytic to uncover the root cause of his neurosis. His treatment team anticipated a hospital stay of at least 3 years to work out the cause of unconscious distress. Osheroff’s condition worsened, he became more agitated, he paced constantly, but his medical team refused to give him medication. 

A statement from one of his psychiatric aides expressed worry: “We are concerned about him be when looks like he is depressed, he probably is really depressed and the nursing staff feels like we have to watch him closely.” Osheroff was viewed as suicidal. However, the medical doctors viewed his issued in psychological terms and the ward administrator stated: “He asked to be put on medication but I told him it would interfere with what he came here for! I told him that he needed every neuron to absorb what we are telling him here and that medication would interfere with that. I told him that if his pacing got out of control we would have to wrap him up in a cold wet sheet pack! The social worker told us his agitated behavior was reminiscent of the obnoxious conduct that his father indulged in.”

The ethical dilemma in this instance is self-evident: Osheroff’s doctors wholly believed in their treatment plan, even considered it superior to medication. At what point is the treatment team held responsible for negligence. If Osheroff had committed suicide, could the doctors be held responsible, or could Osheroff’s mental state be blamed for his demise? I believe the medical team should be charged with negligence because medication, a possible treatment option, wasn’t even considered and the patient wasn’t showing improvement with psychoanalysis treatment solely. Osheroff was at the Lodge for seven months until a friend transferred him to another hospital. 

At Sliver Hill in Connecticut, he received antidepressant and antipsychotic medication and the patient showed marked improvement after just three weeks. Osheroff was discharged after a three month and returned to his businesses. The main point of dispute was the patient’s diagnosis; the Lodge psychotherapist argued he was treating personality disorder, specifically narcissism, and a Silver Hill’s clinician cited depression when the insurance was billed. 

When the lawsuit was taken into arbitration, the case was in favor of Osheroff; the patient’s quick recovery after medication and agony during the Lodge stay painted the psychoanalysts’ actions as erroneous, even cruel. The implications of Osheroff v. Chestnut Lodge were powerful: hospitals were now at legal risk if the treatment staff denied medication to vulnerable patients, especially if the medication had efficacious clinical trials. 

When Kramer spoke to Osheroff for his book Ordinarily Well, Osheroff  was seventy- three, and Elavil, a nerve pain medication and antidepressant, had sustained him thus far, and would for the rest of his life. 

Great piece from The Washington Post that further details Osheroff’s stay and treatment at The Chestnut Lodge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1989/10/08/a-horrible-place-a-wonderful-place/ee4d7572-7ac0-4159-baf8-e8112a983e50/?utm_term=.1f50543b3c58

My second on Installment II: The Biophilla Hypothesis

The reasoning behind why nature is restorative is fascinating. Simply letting our executive networks take a break can bring us more mental clarity. Also puts much importance on public spaces like parks, and walking & biking trials so those should become a priority for any major city.

My first comment on Installment I: The Biophilla Hypothesis:

Great report. To echo previous comments, I certainly feel time spent outdoors is time well spent. Looking forward to reading the second installment.

Because there wasn't time fr my presentation

In the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, there was a little girl named Lia who had a severe form of epilepsy called Lenox-Gestault Syndrome. She was Hmong, which is an ethnicity of people from the mountainous regions of Laos, Vietnam, and China. Her family immigrated here in 1980 from Laos at the end of the Indochina wars. Her family move here under very bad conditions and lost children along the way. Lia had her first seizure just 3 1/2 months old. By the age of 4 1/2 she had been admitted 17 times and had over 100 outpatient visits to MCMC, the community hospital in Merced, California; where they lived.  There were numerous issues that prevents her receiving the car that she needed, most of which were a result of language barriers between her and the doctors, but also because of the vast cultural differences that exist between the Hmong tribe and American culture/views of illness and medicine. The Hmong Have animistic views of sickness where everything is a condition of the soul. Despite efforts of Doctors in America and the Shamanistic healers from their community, Lia continued to have seizures that resulted in severe brain damage and eventually coma. She lived in that state from the age of 4 1/2 till she was 30, despie the predictions of imminent death by her American doctors. The story alternates between the history and plight of the Hmong people and Lias'. The ultimate feeling I got from the book was that there are many ways to accomplish the same goals and in order to successfully exist in a multicultural environment, compassion, patence, and kindness have to be given by everyone involved.

Final Post Assignment Part 2:The Parent-Child Resemblances Model and The Child of the Famous Model from Clone Being

Two more models of analysis discussed within Clone Being: Exploring the Psychological and Social Dimensions were the Parent-Child Resemblances Model and The Child of the Famous Model. These models for Cloning look at the individual donating the genetic material having a generational gap between themselves and the clone.  This concept of differences in age between the clone the originator of the genetic material, results in unique dynamics that was not accounted for with the Identical Twin model discussed previously. Another unique dynamic to these models is that they consider the fact the originator shares genetic material with the clone, something that the Adoption Model could not consider by itself.  The first of these, the Parent-Child Model, is probably the most comparable to traditional raising of offspring.

                The Parent-Child Model looks at the clone not as an equal, like the Identical twin model, but as a genetically identical offspring to the originator of the genetic material. As such, there are several dynamics that are comparable to the Adoption Model, like the differences in generation of the originator of the genetic material and the clone. However, the main differences between the Parent-Child Resemblance Model and the Adoption model is that the clone looks like the originator of the genetic material. As such there are unique dynamics, such as the attraction to an offspring that looks like an individual, and several sections on the possibility of narcissistic parenting and the dangers possessed with such parenting styles, that are considered which distinguish the Parent-Child model from other models discussed. While these concepts are vital to understanding how a normal individual might handle having a cloned offspring, the situation can be dramatically different of the originator of the genetic material is a public figure or a celebrity.

                The Child of the Famous Model looks at the possible psychological and sociological implications of a famous, or infamous, individual cloning themselves. One possibility discussed was the concept of the famous individual donating or selling his genetic material so that individuals can have an offspring that is genetically identical to a celebrity or public figure. This would result in a situation where the clone would be indirectly famous because of the originator of the genetic material’s fame and public image. Another concept discussed was the clone’s view of the donor of the genetic material, knowing as much about the famous individual as the public and romanticizing the relationship between the clone and celebrity. Also discussed was the concept that even if the cloned was raised by the original genetic donor, the relationship would be strained due to the fame of the original genetic donor, as seen with celebrity children today. Another concept discussed involved the additional social pressures a clone of a famous individual would face from society, which could manifest in several mental disorders for the clone. Lastly the concept of the clone replacing the original famed individual after their death or retirement was discussed, bringing to light the idea of the clone continuing the legacy of the famed individual.

In conclusions, both the Parent-Child Model and the Child of the Famous Model both bring unique psychological a sociological considerations to light. While one model focuses on how cloning could affect the normal, parent-child relationship, the other model focuses on how cloning could affect relationships between celebrities, their clones, and the public at large. These are just a few of the possible outcomes that could result if cloning becomes common placed.

Word count: 575

Life with a Rare Genetic Disease: The Science, the Suffering and the Hope

Two new books — “Mercies in Disguise” by Gina Kolata and “The Family Gene” by Joselin Linder — look at how individuals cope with devastating genetic diseases.

If life can be a Hobbesian trial — “nasty, brutish and short” — then for adults with rare genetic diseases, life can sometimes be nasty, brutish and long. Take the ordinary difficulties of getting through the day and add, for example, loss of motor function, a deteriorating memory or a blocked vein in the liver and a body so swollen with lymphatic fluid that clothes and shoes no longer fit. Now throw in lack of a diagnosis and dwindling financial resources.

While the precipitous drop in the cost of DNA sequencing has helped many rare-disease patients and their families find answers they could not have only a few years ago, many more continue to embark on protracted “diagnostic odysseys” involving expensive visits with one flummoxed specialist after another. The unexplained disease brings shame, denial and sometimes blame. Along the way patients ask: Why me? It is both an existential question and a basic human desire to know oneself — to understand what is happening to one’s body. Such knowledge might lead to a treatment for, or at least, better management of the condition.

The narratives of families suffering from such diseases traffic in these questions and a roiling stew of emotions: confusion, anger, determination, resilience, love, and moments of profound despair and hope. The seeming scarcity of the last asset — hope — can make books like Gina Kolata’s “Mercies in Disguise” and Joselin Linder’s “The Family Gene” hard to read: We know at the outset that many of the characters and some of their loved ones either carry or are at risk of carrying glitches in their DNA that will cause them anguish and most likely fell them before their time... (continues, nyt)

Sydney Smith's Final Report Installment II: The Biophilia Hypothesis

The Biophilia Hypothesis in 

Florence Williams' The Nature Fix

“Heaven is under our feet

as well as over our heads.”

—Henry David Thoreau

           In her search for “nature neurons,” Florence Williams found that there are two main theories for why nature benefits our brains: the biophilia hypothesis, which posits that we feel most at home in nature because we evolved there, and the cognitive hypothesis, the idea that being in nature improves our brain function. In this blog post, I’ll focus on the second hypothesis.

           Unlike biophilia, this theory does not begin with the proposition that humans have an evolutionary emotional kinship with all living things. Instead, the focus is on cognition: how does being in nature help us focus, problem-solve, and work with others? As perceiving beings, we are bombarded with so much sensory information that the bulk of the brain’s work is filtering out what’s relevant. This is problematic, as it draws the brain away from other tasks. Namely, the human brain has a processing speed of approximately 120 bits per second, and it takes half that just to listen to one person. Attention is thus a valuable resource, a resource which, by the cognitive hypothesis, time spent in nature can help us replenish.

           The brain’s cognitive 

system consists of three main networks. There is the executive network, which does most of the filtering mentioned before. The spatial network calibrates our spatial awareness. The default network—responsible for our hopeful, insightful, easygoing side—kicks in when the executive network turns off. Therefore, a major cognitive hypothesis is that being in nature allows our executive system to take a break, thereby engaging the default network. In this way, we gain a sense of mental and emotional restoration.

           We have long known—at least since the time of the first peripatetic philosophers—that time spent peacefully outdoors can clear the mind. Indeed, figures such as Aristotle, Darwin, Tesla, and Einstein took nature walks to help them think, Regardless of whether we explain the goodness of nature through the biophilia hypothesis or the cognitive hypothesis, and regardless of whether the goodness is due to nature itself or to the urban worries we leave behind, the very recent and ongoing science shows that being outside benefits our health. With that in mind, we can rethink nature’s importance in optimizing human potential and happiness.

           Though, for nearly a decade, a greater percentage of the world population lives in urban areas than rural ones, little attention has been paid to the task of ensuring that urban areas are compatible with our psychological needs. Indeed, policymakers and civic leaders have an ethical responsibility to consider citizens’ need for nature into urban planning, policy decisions, and architectural design. We can also use the results of the nature neuron research to improve our daily lives too.

       Williams recommends following Tim Beatley’s nature pyramid. At the base daily, local engagement with nature that helps us “destress, find focus and lighten our mental fatigue.” The pyramid includes weekly park trips and monthly visits to more remote outdoors. At the very tip is a yearly vigorous extended wilderness excursions. However we can, we should prime our nature neurons, which poetically resemble trees, for our health!

"Throw a stone into the stream and 

the ripples that propagate themselves 

are the beautiful type of all influence.”

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Source: Williams, Florence. The Nature Fix: Why Nature Makes Us Happier, Healthier, 

and More Creative. New York: W.W. Norton &, Independent Since 1923, 2017. Print.

Word Count: 549

Comment on Tanner's post: 

http://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/tanner-everetts-final-report-parts-1.html?showComment=1493088059466#c1543129993696800944

Comment on Sophie's post:  

https://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/final-report-installment-1.html?showComment=1493090754787#c5207154284696662338

First Installment: 

http://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/final-report-installment-i-biophilia.html

Blogpost 2: The Soul of a Doctor

Link to book:<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="https://books.google.com/books?id=ho8uy9Vtu98C&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20soul%20of%20a%20doctor&pg=PP1&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

Here is a link to my first blogpost, where I discuss the first two aspects of patient care (as discussed in the Soul of a Doctor), communication and empathy. https://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/blogpost-1-soul-of-doctor.html

In response to Dr. Oliver’s comment, I would like to say that I too was disturbed when I heard about the medical student excited to see the surgery. On one hand, the medical student should have a lot more empathy for this patient and see how they would feel if they had to go through the pain. On the other hand, I can see why the student might be a little excited to see a procedure, as I too have experienced that when I shadow doctors who get to perform certain procedures. I think that student could have 100% handled the situation better and exhibited more sympathy for the patient. First and foremost, I think it is a doctor’s duty to care for the patient. Not to care about the procedure and science behind the diagnosis of the patient.

For my second blogpost, I am going to talk more about the last two aspects of patient care: easing suffering and loss and finding a better way. In the story, “Limitations” we are introduced to a patient that became disabled after a serious accident. Although he was not paralyzed, the pain that the accident caused was so bad he could not walk or drive. He was suing to compensate for his medical bills and for emotional damages, but he admitted to the doctor that not even a million dollars would make him feel better. The only thing that gave the patient any joy in life was his granddaughter. This made the doctor think about the repercussions of health care and that just because people were living longer, doesn’t mean they were living better. The doctor speaks on how it is their duty to take care of not only the physical health of their patients, but of their mental and emotional health as well. Another story within the easing suffering and loss category is “Imagine How You’d Feel”. This features a mother and father while they are fighting for their child’s life and, ultimately, how they grieved his death. The father acted aggressive and out of control and many of the medical students assumed he was drunk. The mother was more reserved and just wanted alone time with her son. I think this really illustrates how people grieve in different ways. Some people respond in anger, but others are more detached from the situation. The ethical question comes into this story when the mother wants to take a picture with her dead son while he was in her arms. Although the medical student was not comfortable with this, I think it is perfectly acceptable. I come from a family that this is relatively normal for. My mother took pictures at my grandmother and my aunt’s funeral and she keeps them on her phone. I know that it might be weird for other people, but I think that if a patient request a picture with her deceased son, you should not force your beliefs on them. If you are uncomfortable doing so, you could always ask around and see if someone else could take the picture for the patient.

The last aspect of patient care I am going to discuss is finding a better way. The first story is “A Murmur in the ICU” and this follows the medical students as they visit patients as a learning experience. At first the medical students are just interested in learning what they need to learn, but as they look around the room and see pictures of family, balloons, and teddy bears, they quickly realize that these people are just like them. It makes them think about how they would feel if there were a bunch of students crowding around, trying to find the heart murmur that is killing them. The attending physician noted how important it is to introduce yourself to the patient and talk to them, even if you think they cannot hear you. In the end, the medical student realized that as you get accustomed to the environment of the ICU, it just becomes a place where sick people are hooked up to machines. In “Rewiring”, we get a look into the mind of a physician and how it is rewired after practicing medicine. Every person you encounter becomes a potential patient. A homeless man becomes a “48 y.o. male with a history of smoking, emphysema, and dementia.” An elderly woman becomes a “85 y.o. female with history of congestive heart failure presenting with shortness of breath and bilateral edema.” I think that this mindset can both be good and bad. In one sense, this could be a good way of keeping your mind sharp and aware of your surroundings. In another sense, it could be a very pessimistic view on life in that you see what is wrong in everyone. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, as well as any other case I have mentioned.

Here are two videos discussing the importance of empathy in health care. The first is from the Cleveland Clinic and the second is a TedTalk by Paul Rosen.

Link to my two comments:

https://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/first-installment-generosity-by-richard.html?showComment=1493443123064#c8650590376029777190

https://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/oryx-crake-500-blog-part-1_5.html?showComment=1493443301077#c221313574540881896

Drug Dealer MD, Second Post

Over the past thousands of years, people have understood pain to serve at least two useful functions. Pain is a warning system which tells us what to avoid and what not. People also believe pain is an opportunity for spiritual growth: “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” “After darkness comes dawn,” etc. Today, modern American culture regards pain as anathema, and to be avoided at all cost. This new view of pain comes from the belief that pain can cause permanent neurological damage that lays the foundation for future pain. Dr. Lembke states in her book, “This new conception holds true for both mental and physical pain, and it has been a major contributor to the prescription drug epidemic.”[1] As for theories involving mental pain, these date the back the early 1900s. At least to Freud, whose idea was that the early childhood experiences can influence behavior in later life. Also, the idea that an experience in one’s past can have a lasting psychological and often unconscious effect on one’s behavior in the present. 

Now, the role of physical pain has also fallen into a similar transformation. 200 years ago, pain was considered a vital part of the healing process, especially during surgery to revitalize cardiovascular functioning and strengthen the immune response. By the mid-1850s, improved methods to treat pain were introduced, such as morphine and the hollow needle syringe used to administer this drug. This contributed to the changing views for treating pain. With an effective means of treating pain, more doctors began advocating for the use of opioid painkillers. By the 1950s, because of refined technology, opioids were able to be readily synthesized in the laboratory. Thus leading to very eager pharmaceutical companies whom couldn’t wait to sell the new products. Today, pain is considered an almost intolerable sensation for patients to bear. Doctors are expected not to simply lessen the pain, but to eliminate it altogether.

The pressure today, for doctors to treat pain, has become so overwhelming that doctors who leave pain untreated are not just demonstrating poor clinical skills; they are viewed as morally compromised. There is also the legal liability of malpractice doctors must consider. In regard to the views of physical pain causing potential future pain, pain researchers speculate that once the individual experiences pain, the brain can be sensitized for future pain created additional urgency to treat any pain immediately and completely. Our tolerance and threshold for pain are also much lower now than ever before. How much pain is too much pain for an individual to suffer? Because of the lower threshold we are now accustomed to, there is an increase in prescriptions and consumption of potentially addictive prescription drugs.

T-Rex added a great comment to my last post, “How did the medical community in general not realize the glaring consequences of having pharmaceuticals as a major for-profit market? Clearly, someone, somewhere in this food chain had to be aware that pushing all of these pills with a turbulence of misinformation had to be hurting the patients while lining the pockets of the pharma companies. Or perhaps this was such an institutionalized issue from the beginning that even if some doctors did realize what was going on that they couldn't fight it without risking their job and security…”

T-Rex…The medical community has been fed a series of false information about the addictive agents of opioids, such as Oxycontin. They have also been told that pain is something they should eliminate. The philosophy behind “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” has, over the years, been thrown out of the window. Now, we see pain as having no value. On top of this, as I mentioned in my presentation, patients receive surveys once they have been seen by any medical profession in a hospital. This survey asks patients if the physician did everything needed to eliminate their pain. If no, the doctor, as well as the hospital, will get flagged by the joint commission. If this happens too often, the joint commission will revoke the accreditation of the hospital. Thus putting tremendous amounts of pressure on doctors to not send those red flags to the joint commission. 

Truthfully, I do believe this is a very institutionalized issue. Purdue Pharma was responsible for the teaching material of opioids and was later found guilty of misbranding OxyContin, by misleading the risk of addiction and potential to be abused. I think because of this, as well as our current philosophy on pain, and the pressure hospitals place on doctors to eliminate pain are all contributing factors to this issue. 

---

[1]  Lembke, Ann. Drug Dealer, MD. 2016

Being Mortal Presention

So I did my report on "Being Mortal Medicine and what matters at the end by Atul Gawande."  We've been talking about being mortal and how we would like to share our last moments and memories with our family. This book was very easy to read and understand. The author examples when we are younger we really don't think about dying and as we get older it starts to understand and come to terms that it is a part of life.The Author did a good job comparing and contrasting how the younger and the older generation has differ from each other over time.

 First he compares a women name Alice to his grandfather. Alice was a 55 year old women when her husband died leaving her with two kids and a house. Once Alice kids got older they left her in the house alone to continue their lives. And to Alice that was ok. She took care of daily house including mowing the lawn and garden work. Gawande father  met Alice and didn't feel comfortable with her leaving alone.

Blog Post #1: Brave New World

In Brave New World, alphas are designed to be physically and mentally superior than other groups. Bernard Marx though does not posses physical prowess, a confident demeanor, or ability to strike up conversations as the other alphas do. This leads to him being relentlessly taunted by other alphas and eventually cast aside. Even in our non-fictional world, many individuals are ridiculed for deviating from a social standard. In as sense our current society is similar to the one in Brave New World. Deviants are treated as threats to social stability and freedom. They are dehumanized, and are not given equal treatment that they deserve. Those who try to challenge unrighteous laws or norms are subjected to bullying, insults, imprisonment, and even death.

Why is there retaliation against people who only want to be accepted? Fear of people who are different is especially prevalent today. In the U.S. immigrants and refugees are seen as a threat to American culture and will only serve as a burden. LGBT individuals are accused of trying to pervert America. The outrage against these groups may be attributed to the fear of losing power among majority groups. As minority groups increase in size, the majority's opinion holds less influence. There are two pathways from this point. Opinions and ideas from the different groups intermingle to produce a higher level of thought. This would be preferable as everyone benefits from this route, however it is not always the case. Often the majority will continue to cling on to their old ways, desiring the stability it produced in their lives.

Stability may be used as one excuse for retaliation against different people, however instability is another. When issues arise, someone or something needs to identified as the cause. Unfortunately this gives opportunity for false connections to be made. Deviants can be quickly made into scapegoats for one's struggles in life. When this happens, it becomes easy for struggling people to express hatred towards those who are different. This leads to movements that attempt to reclaim that stability by removing the deviants or discrediting them. Such actions will not "Make America Great Again".

Accepting change is not easy regardless of how liberal or conservative one's tendencies may be. Change presents a challenge where we have to reaccommodate ourselves to new scenarios and new people, it can be very tiresome. How do we overcome this challenge; through understanding. At first glance an individual from Russia and an individual from Brazil may look very different however they share similar desires. They both yearn to love and be loved, live healthy lives, and experience happiness. By understanding that we all share similar goals, it becomes easier to relate to someone who you initially saw as different.

In Brave New World there was only one thought and one opinion, and those who deviated from it were exiled. Our world doesn't have to be a brave new world. We should further promote diversity and foster an environment where groups can exchange their ideas, behaviors, and cultural practices. Doing so will create a constantly improving world where its best days are in the future.

Homo Deus: The Anthropocene Epoch

        Homo Deus covers so many topics that I was unable to fully discuss the points I wanted in the time allotted to me during the presentation. I mainly talked about the third and last part of the book called “Homo Sapiens Loses Control.” In this section, Harari explores the extent of the human condition and overlays that with the blessing or curse of technology. He discusses the idea of superhumans and the idea of artificial algorithms becoming sovereign over humans for our best interest. It essentially introduces the idea that humans will create their own downfall, that we will eventually directly or indirectly destroy ourselves. Our fatal flaw being that we couldn’t fulfill our status as the gods of our world.

        In order to fully appreciate where the future will take us, we must first understand where we’ve come from and what progress has brought us to where we are now. I would like to further address the progression of humans from being equal to our fellow organisms to the point at which we saw ourselves as more precious than all other life on earth. Harari’s first section of the book, called Homo Sapiens Conquers the World, discusses the time in history when humans became the first species to change the earth and what aspect of the humanity sets us apart, what “Human Spark,” as Harari calls it, makes us significant?

        In regards to other animals, humans have long since become the gods of this world. Most people are disturbed by this thought because they believe the idea of a “god” is reserved for beings that are supernatural. Harari, however, believes that it is because we as humans have not been particularly merciful gods. It is easy to get the impression that the earth is teeming with wildlife because we watch the Discovery Channel or National Geographic channel, but it more accurate to believe that our world is mainly populated by us and domesticated animals that serve our needs.  According to WWF Global, wildlife populations have been cut in half since 1970, despite the growing ecological awareness. There are more domesticated birds and beasts than their wild counterparts.
Scientists had divided the history of the planet, from creation to present, into periods, eras, and epochs. The official epoch we currently live in is the Holocene, though it is rightfully speculated that we should refer the last 70,000 years as the epoch of humanity, the Anthropocene. During these past several thousand years, humans have become the “single most important agent of change in the global ecology,” according to geographers Lewis and Maslin, authors of ‘Defining the Anthropocene.’ Never in the history of life on earth has a single species processed the power to alter the ecology of the biosphere single-handedly. Homo Sapiens stands right alongside devastating natural forces such as severe climate change, volcanic eruption, and cosmic interference when it comes to changing the world. Such a comparison makes it understandable why we humans have ascended to the level of gods. According to Harari, our impact on the planet already revivals that of ice ages and tectonic plate movements.

        However, while natural disasters and events drastically change the ecology of the places they affect, their influence varies from event to event. Humanity, however, has driven the planet to, for the first time, a single ecological unit. Humans have caused organisms on every continent to interact with each other (invasive species), despite geographical barriers.

        We have come from an archaic hunter-gatherer nature of being animalistic and equal to other animals with genetic predispositions and preferences, to beings who have become enlightened to the world and have transcended to a superior status, thanks to the rise of modern science and industry, the start of it all being the Agricultural Revolution. From there, Homo Sapiens has established itself as the dominant species on the planet. But what makes us so special? Why is it seemingly ethical to exploit the lives of other organisms for our own needs? In my second installment, I will be discussing human nature and its power and what mythical, spiritual, or scientific aspect of humanity separates us so much from all other forms of life.

First Installment-Generosity by Richard Powers

Generosity by Richard Powers focuses on Thassadit Amzwar, a refugee from Algeria. Despite having to flee her home country due to organized bloodbath and losing her father to the war and her mother to cancer, Thassadit maintains a positive outlook on her past, present, and future. This euphoria can be seen throughout every thing she does. For example, she can bring alive a story about an elderly woman hoisting her walker up the Grand Staircase of the Cultural Center at the rate of one step a minute (pg. 55). Due to this, one of her classmates gives her the nickname, “Miss Generosity” (pg. 58). Another one of her classmates illustrates a picture of Thassa with the caption, "Its like she's glowing. Like she knows something. Makes me want to be a refugee (pg. 101)". 

But does Thassa actually know something that the other characters do not know? Does she know the key to being alive? Or is her deep-seated happiness a result of her molecular foundation? This question brings up the debate on whether it is one’s genetic makeup or their environment that determines the person they become. As account for happiness, Powers states, “From 50 to 80 percent of the variation in people’s average happiness may be accounted for by genes. People display an affective set point in infancy that does not change much over a lifetime (pg. 99).” 

If our happiness is so highly dependent on genes, could we possibly alter our genome to become our own versions of Thassa? Thomas Kurton, a genetic specialist in Generosity, has been researching the happiness gene to potentially sell to parents to create happy children. When Kurton discovers Thassa, he also discovers the genome sequence that could be the key to permanent happiness. Every parent wants their child to be happy, but would an alteration of their genome achieve this goal?

As for Thassa’s professor, Russell Stone, he is on the complete other spectrum of happiness than his euphoric student. When seeking the response of his brother to Thassa’s mood, Robert tells his sibling, “Lets face facts. We’re depressives. It’s in the Stone gene pool. It wouldn’t have hung around for so many generations if it weren’t essential (pg. 86)."  If happiness is an ideal state of mind, why has it not been selected on to be more common? Powers states, “Back on the savannah, stress kept us alive. Natural selection shaped us for productive discontent, with glimmers of heavenly mirage to keep us going (pg. 87)." Dr. Melanie Greenberg continues this topic on Psychology Today. Research found that individuals with some adversity reported better mental health and wellbeing than individuals with high and almost no adversity.

With this evidence, is one's happiness a result of nurture rather than nature? Despite Power's vivid description of Thassa, a 99% gene based happy individual, the evidence supports that both nurture and nature contribute to our overall wellbeing. After forty years of research, social scientist concluded that happiness is a result of genes, events, and values. 

With this being said, happiness is not as simple as a nucleotide sequence mutation. As The New York Times describes, "Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you."