Building a New Philosophy of Health

Fortification against incomplete ideas.

A philosophy is a guide for thought. It is a framework with which you can explore complex ideas. Much like how our sense perceptions are radically filtered in order for us to orient ourselves in a world of near-infinite sense data, philosophies can help delineate between ideas, questions and feelings that are important from those that aren’t. They ground us such that we are able to reach out into the vast unknown and deepen our understanding without falling into abstraction. In the absence of a guiding framework, the direction of our investigations are not rooted in an underlying principle and end up following paths where the information that is discoverable, is not useful. Perhaps even more misguiding, a philosophy minted in distorted and/or ego-driven ideology will yield answers; ones that cannot (by definition) result in genuine understanding or wisdom and can even be anti-useful.¹

Scientific reductionism is a philosophy that highlights this notion. In medical science, for example, there is an unspoken, inherent adherence to the idea that reductionistic investigation can yield important and meaningful information about the nature of life itself. For example, there is an insistence (whether explicitly acknowledged or not) that the intense study of various lipid subfractions in biological fluids can and will be necessary in understanding and ultimately alleviating cardiovascular disease and its associated ills.² The philosophy that guides these investigations is one where the human body is composed of distinct and independent elements; one where the body’s complexity is reduced and separated³. This philosophy leads to “answers” that fundamentally do not (in isolation) provide a deeper, coherent or more unified understanding of the problem(s) and its related context(s); let alone how to effectively and comprehensively address them.⁴ In fact, answers derived from such anemic questions can actively point investigations in the wrong direction.

The ideas that ground our current approach to health are flawed. They fail to adequately frame the issues we are facing, effectively preventing genuine understanding. The information derived from these flawed ideas are merely set-backs disguised as answers.

Chinese medical poster circa 1933. The desire to reduce the human body to mechanical means is easily understandable and somewhat forgivable given how generally successful this approach has been in lifting people out of poverty through industrialisation led by mechanistic thought. This cultural shift most likely takes place in cultures once they are sufficiently disconnected with the Natural world.

“One of the most highly developed skills in contemporary Western civilization is dissection: the split-up of problems into their smallest possible components. So good, we often forget to put the pieces back together again.”

- Alvin Toffler

There are various philosophies used to explain the nature of existence. Materialism, vitalism, idealism, dualism, non-dual dualism, realism etc. Each of these philosophies ‘sets the rules’, so to speak, of the avenues of exploration; where you are allowed to go with a question.

Materialism is grounded in the idea that there is nothing beyond the physical world. Consciousness is but an epiphenomena and there is no justified reason to explain it in a way that invokes non-material things. Idealism, on the other hand, posits that there is no material world and that the only thing there is, is consciousness itself. Being polar opposite in viewpoints, the philosophies used to navigate a problem space yield vastly different answers to the same questions. Debate regarding the validity and utility of each of these philosophes has gone on for centuries with little consensus ever reached. Perhaps this is because different philosophies can be useful at different times, making it beneficial to be able to understand how to approach questions using different (and sometime opposing) frameworks.⁵

If we are to try and understand health; not just for our species but also for all life⁶ and the environments they inhabit, what should our underlying philosophy look like? As stated, pinning this down is an important step in investigation as if we get this wrong, the answers born of our questions will be tainted from the start.

I posit the following structural framework within which we can begin to investigate health fruitfully: Nature does not make a mistake.⁷

The Amazon Rainforest is a salient example of harmony, balance and relationships. The myriad of forces in this environment necessarily compensate and collaborate with each other, generating a state of stability within constant flux (complexity). The more complex the relationships between these forces (while stable), the more resistant the whole is to perturbation.

---

In order to discuss this, I will try to define what is meant by the words, “Nature” and “mistake”, as it is essential to the idea.

I provide my own definitions:

Nature: The space, matter and creative presence that promotes life’s thriving.⁸

Mistake: An occurrence that necessarily requires returning to previous steps in order to continue optimally.⁹

These definitions are purposefully adjusted from their conventional ones, as it is not possible to approach the idea that “Nature does not make a mistake” with standard definitions.

Nature: [T]he phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. (emphasis added)

- Oxford Dictionary

This Oxford definition is starkly and unapologetically anthropocentric; something that inhibits genuine and meaningful investigation into life’s questions. Only with updated definitions can we approach this new philosophy seriously.

---

It may appear naïve to posit something so black and white - that Nature does not make mistakes. Perhaps Nature does make mistakes. A good example is as follows: The Irish Elk was a giant deer species with enormous antlers. It’s extinction was curious, but some researchers believe that because female’s selection of mates were so dependent of antler size, male antlers eventually became so large that they could no longer structurally or metabolically support the excessive growth of these demanding tissues.

The Irish Elk.

Though the details of this story are debated, Nature (via sexual selection) appears to have pursued the wrong lines, potentially leading to the extinction of the species. This is likely quite an oversimplification, but it makes a cogent argument for the propensity for Nature to “slip-up”.

However, mistakes can only be viewed in a particular context at a particular moment in time. What appears to be a mistake now, may end up leading to new niches, new opportunities, greater diversity and an increased propensity to thrive. There is a continual renewal and self-contained cycle. Because a human life occupies such a narrow temporal slice, our perceptions may make things in Nature seem like outright mistakes, when they are in fact a continuously coordinated rearrangement and rebirth of life itself.

Technically, this is not a scientific argument as it cannot be proven or disproven. In a sense, you really never get to cash the check on a so-called “mistake”, as Nature is in constant flux and always seeking balance. In our new definition of mistake, we outlined that it necessarily requires going back to a previous point. Nature does not do this. Instead, it turns an extinction into opportunity, a disease into a protective mechanism, and stressors into an adaptations.

Yin and Yang. A symbol of seemingly endless explanatory power. A philosophy may be seen to represent the line separating order and chaos. Being able to tread this line, grounded in order but reaching into chaos is where learning is maximised. A philosophical framework could be visualised in this manner.

---

The idea that Nature does not make a mistake is a huge deviation from the worldview we currently embrace in Western cultures. The standard underpinning of medical ideology is that Nature is fundamentally flawed and continuously requires our intellectualised intervention. We see this clearly in the adoption of genetic modified organisms (GMO technology), where we view Nature as something to be used and treated in a transactional manner. We see this in the staunch reliance on vaccines, where we see Nature (in the form of viruses and microorganisms) as fundamentally out to kill us at every possible chance. We see this in the unbridled (and often irresponsible) use of antibiotics to indiscriminately carpet bomb our bacterial symbionts with no concern for the complex interrelationships between all forms of life and what the nature of these relationships can tell us.

An example of a philosophy that inherently sees Nature as an enemy; something to fight, with whatever means necessary. The labelling of viruses as “The Invisible Enemy” clearly exposes the author’s guiding philosophy of anthropocentrism. Given the antiquity and abundance of viruses and the fact that a substantial portion of our own genetic material is there as a direct result of retroviral activity, this statement is absurd and naive. If viruses wanted us dead, we would have been gone a long time ago. Perhaps due to other extant factors, human’s relationship with viruses has changed, leading to more viral-related illness?

Culturally, we have become openly anthropocentric¹⁰; we act as though there is a rivalry, a war, a race between ourselves and Nature. The way in which we exploit and fight Nature exemplifies our industrialised relationship to her; one in which we feel as though we can step behind the velvet rope, see what’s behind, and ultimately beat Nature at her own game. This ideology is precisely what underpins pursuits such as CRISPR, GMO, vaccines, mRNA technologies, sunscreen/sunglasses, industrial agriculture (pesticide use), pasteurisation and antibiotics. Even if individuals involved in these scientific pursuits may claim that they do not align with this reductionism, anthropocentrism or human superiority over Nature, but their collective actions say otherwise. It is fundamentally not possible to explore these technologies without believing in some way, shape or form that Nature is flawed.

Rachel Carson - Author of “Silent Spring”. Carson’s writing single-handedly brought the nefarious use of chemicals in the 1960s to the public’s attention. Her work was thorough and written poetically. She was ridiculed and subject to character assassination for many years despite being completely correct. Her guiding philosophy was one of integrity and deep-seeded respect and care for Nature. Unfortunately, her work is perhaps even more relevant today.

---

Where to from here?

Nature is our North Star. It should be what we look to for inspiration. We see the golden ratio in plants. We see incredible light guides in both plant and animal structures. We see food growing in abundance with only natural inputs where diversity is facilitated. We see natural bodies of water snake through the landscape, generative vortexes that clean the water. We see nutrients distributed in a synergistic and compensatory manner. When trying to understand how to face issues we are dealing with in the modern world, we should first inspect the way Nature has dealt with similar problems - the answers are there.

Golden Ratio in leaf distribution. Leaves are separated in a precise mathematical way to maximise sunlight exposure and thus, growth.

Calthra palustris: light trapping into the petal pigment. Microstructures in plants that work at greater efficiencies ever created by optical engineering. Courtesy of Robert Fosbury.

Nature does not make a mistake; if we view something as a mistake, we can immediately infer that the way in which we are viewing the problem is misguided or ill-conceived. Using this new philosophy, we will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff without having to understand complex biochemistry or molecular biology.

For instance, when considering GMO technology to simultaneously control weeds and monocrop, our new philosophy provides a framework where our questions are guided away from:

“How can we create genetically novel commodity crops which can withstand direct application of synthetic pesticide?”

towards

“Perhaps monocropping is itself a problem? Nature always promotes diversity which affords resistance to perturbation and maximal productivity. Instead of fighting with Nature, we could be so much more productive if we modelled her ways using permaculture, rotational grazing, cover crops, crop resting and regenerative practices.”

Mae Wan Ho’s “Dream Farm 2”. A nested hierarchical system in which each element has a synergistic relationship with each other element. These relationships are non-linear and maximally efficient. The outputs of one element are the inputs of another, generating a coherent whole. Ho’s guiding philosophy is one of unity, abundance and mutualism; there is no reduction and separation in “Dream Farm 2”.

With this simple example, we can see how a philosophy grounded deeply in the idea that Nature is the guide, fortifies us against ill-conceived ideas and instead guides us down a path where we fundamentally work alongside and with the forces, patterns and flow of Nature.

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”

- Lao Tzu

Another question might be: “Many people’s total blood cholesterol is higher than we deem it should be, how can we lower an individual’s cholesterol using a synthetic (thus patentable) formulation?”. The asking of this question presumes a mistake on Nature’s part, when in fact, it seems much more reasonable to assume that our relationship with her has been (at least partly) severed. Instead of being guided down this narrow pathway, we should instead have started asking questions like, “What environmental changes impact blood cholesterol levels? Why might the body be responding to these changes in this particular way? What are the implications of cholesterol’s absorption spectra peaking in the UV range? Might our migration to indoor environments be negatively impacting blood lipids? In the context of other environmental factors, is elevated cholesterol even a cause for concern?”

These are all qualitatively better questions as they get deeper into the crux of the problem. They are built on the premise that elevated cholesterol is an appropriate and normal response given the interactions between the unique constitutions of the individual and their environment, not an oversight.

Here’s where it becomes vital to have a philosophical underpinning that helps you navigate the deluge of information we receive today. For one last example, there are no shortage of publications that demonstrate damage to skin cells from UV light.¹¹ This finding is used to imply a causal connection between sun exposure and skin cancer. The ubiquitous conclusions reached from such studies are centered around sun-avoidance and public health messaging. Conclusions such as these violate our philosophy by implying that being exposed to sunlight is detrimental to health.

Using our new philosophy of health, we immediately see red flags as, through nothing more than logic, we know that our species have been exposed to sunlight from day one; much more than we are now. Are we to believe this was a mistake? Were our ancestors harming themselves every day, and by the grace of God luckily made it through in spite of Nature’s oversight? This now opens us up to exploring other considerations such as migration patterns, evolution of pigment, the changing artificial light environment, mitochondrial haplogroup, circadian disruption, nutritional inadequacy and non-native electromagnetic stress as contributors to the issue of increased skin cancer rates. A sturdy philosophy guides us towards good questions.

Nature does not make a mistake. If our conceptions frame something that occurs in Nature as a mistake, we will be able to infer that the way in which we are viewing the problem is misguided.

In essence, the most important feature of a useful philosophy is its ability to guide us towards good questions, and to help us recognise the inherent limitations of answers derived from ill-conceived questions.

Chicken egg fluorescing under UV. Chickens lay their eggs and defecate from the same orifice, leaving fecal bacteria on the shell. Eggs, however, contain protoporphyrin IX which, when struck by light, generates singlet oxygen; a powerful oxidant which effectively disinfects the shell once it’s laid. Nature finds a way. Courtesy of Robert Fosbury.

1. For example, a cosmology born from the framework of geocentrism and an Earth that is a linear plane is poisoned from the start. Any ideas that spawn from this underlying framework yield information that is limited in utility, misguided or anti-useful. This same process is likely also occurring in science with chemiosmotic theory. If this proves to be wrong (or even half-wrong), the damage that has been done to the study of biology as a whole would be enormous.

2. This reductionistic approach is so well accepted and praised it even has its own name: The Lipid Hypothesis. So far this hypothesis has resulted in the minting of trillions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry while the incidence and burden of cardiovascular disease continues to rise.

3. The idea of reduction and separation is perceived as genuine understanding in this case. Reduction and separation should be seen merely as a part of genuine understanding, not the whole thing. Biochemistry, for example, is not useless. However, in isolation, it cannot tell the full story. This is analogous to attempting to reproduce a Van Gogh with only one colour - too many shades are missed to appreciate the complexity and interplay of tones for the piece to have impact.

4. The answers derived from questions of reductionistic investigations on cardivascular disease have been broadly: reduce the consumption of animal fats, consume evolutionarily inconsistent industrial fatty acids derived from non-food sources, eat less food (in other words, nourish yourself less) and when one single datapoint from a subsidised blood test is above an arbitrary cutoff, take pharmaceuticals indefinitely. Herein lies the inherent problems of philosophies that are intellectualised and reduce complex phenomena we do not yet understand to linear mechanisms.

5. This is actually a key metric of intelligence; the capacity to exercise hypotheticals. Being able to view and understand things from different points of view is an important way of expanding the mind and fostering wisdom.

6. Defining “life” is and always has been difficult, particularly in idealist philosophies. The work of Michael Levin at Tufts University has also called into question what can be considered alive. In this case, I feel we could use a more standard definition of life without sacrificing clarity.

7. Please note that the capitalisation of the word ‘Nature’ is purely a personal preference. I have seen this convention used in books that I am enamored with so I have chosen to use it here.

8. The invocation of creativity in Nature is likely to be seen as a step too far as most analytically-minded individuals will view Nature as deterministic and not subject to agency. However, it does indeed seem that Nature is creative and capable of reaching ‘goals’ via a variety of different means. An inadequate understanding of quantum mechanics in biology seems to be the roadblock to the understanding free will. To quote the late, great Mae Wan Ho, “the science of quantum coherence is the study of free will”.

9. Standard definitions of “mistake” use the word “wrong”; something I am not willing to use for my definition as it then necessitates a definition of “wrong” itself. In the context of Nature and the natural world, ‘wrong’ is a value judgement I am not confident in making.

10. This is more of a problem in the West. Eastern philosophy is more grounded in vitalism and does not easily fall into mechanistic approaches. The book “A New Science of Life” (also called “Morphic Resonance”) by Rupert Sheldrake is an interesting look into science from both Western and Eastern approaches.

11. A substantial problem with studies like this is that the models that are used are, at best, poor. ‘Solar simulators’ are far from what the name implies and cannot at all replicate the intricate and fluctuating solar radiance. These studies also typically use cells in culture (separated and isolated) or animal models like rodents. Rodents are generally nocturnal and furry. To think these can be helpful in understanding the nuances of skin cancer in humans is drawing a long bow.