The need to control information and incorporate new ideas to support the status quo is not new. During the Middle Ages, the predominant corporation in the West was the Roman Catholic Church. With the rediscovery of Aristotle in the Middle Ages, the church scholars developed a system in which Aristotle’s writings supported the structure of the church. Every word of Aristotle’s writing – or at least every word that did not contradict the Bible – was accepted as eternal truth. Fused and reconciled with Christian doctrine into a philosophical system known as scholasticism, Aristotelian philosophy became the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Medieval Church believed that any challenge to its dogma was evil, and justified suppression of any variation, and opposition of the individual and some scientific discoveries. The dogma of the church had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with maintaining social and political control.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, blends free market, reason and individualism supports the largest institutions of the 21st century – the corporations and dynamics of globalization. The most prominent institution of the 21st century, the corporation, needs to ensure small government and minimal regulation mantra with the purpose of maximizing their power and wealth. The present laissez-faire system allows a few to control the economic system in a democracy. Apologists claim the capitalist system can only function efficiently with minimal government and minimal regulation. They warn that this structure is the basis for jobs and prosperity in the country, and any changes would spell economic disaster. Economics is about the use of models to impose a description of the way we think, and to analyse and isolate important economic mechanisms. This drives discussion on the need for change. The greatest barrier is the inability to see beyond current models of thinking.
The meaning of chance is supposed to be apparent only at a level of abstraction afforded by large sets of data to the cool eye of a scientific observer or the indifferent machinations of an algorithm. But markets, for Hayek are held to be the only social form that properly accounts for the chance or randomness that is by nature a part of the spontaneous development of order within complex – that is to say partly chaotic systems. Klein observes that the neoliberal system of laissez-faire is the obscure, disavowed public face – anonymous, implacable, inscrutable – of an authoritarian scheme to restrict chance to fate. In summary, they use a heady brew of chaos and market (dis)order to protect the largest and most powerful interests – the 1% – at any cost. Thus, neoliberalism seems to have it both ways: to both restrict the meaning of chance in advance, and to reproduce randomness, risk and disorder that is susceptible only of market “solutions.”
Nietzsche claims, “No victor believes in chance.” Many of the individuals that Trump has pardoned do not leave things to chance: Michael Milliken rose to prominence the 1980s as the head of the high-yield bond department, also known as junk bonds, at the now defunct firm Drexel Burnham Lambert. Milliken was accused of taking part in an insider trading scheme and eventually pleaded guilty to several counts of securities violations. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the Whitehouse, raised more than $25 million from Trump supporters through “We Build the Wall” crowdsourcing, and used hundreds of thousands for personal expenses. Former Rep. Chris Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse Trump, is sentenced to 26 months in prison in insider trading case. “I am not upset that you lied to me. I am upset that from now on I can’t believe you,” concludes Nietzsche.
Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Power is all the more cunning because its basic forms can change in response to our efforts to free ourselves from its grip. The contemporary neoliberal “regime of truth,” to use a term from Michel Foucault, greatly influences the ways in which knowledge is being interpreted and implemented. Recognizing that reason has been one of the disciplinary technologies of modern societies, Foucault repeats, reminds us that much of history cannot be explained by anything other than ‘the iron hand of necessity shaking the dice-box of chance’ (quoted from Nietzsche’s Dawn). Foucault celebrated the role of chance in history because chance makes change easier to imagine. If we do not think of history as proceeding in some inevitable or predictable manner, then history is not so deterministic, and it is easier for us to imagine that things might be different in the future.
Two of the most clinically problematic classes of disease impacting the world’s aging populations are cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. Although there are stark differences between cancer cells and neurons, with the former dividing rapidly and the latter relatively quiescent and non-replicating, a growing body of evidence supports common genetic mechanisms involved in dysregulated cancer cell growth and the progression of neurodegenerative disease. Mutations in a variety of genes involved in regulation of the cell cycle, DNA repair pathways, protein turnover, oxidative stress, and autophagy have been implicated in both of these otherwise dichotomous diseases. Most gene mutations occur after you’re born and aren’t inherited. A number of forces can cause gene mutations, such as smoking, radiation, viruses, cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens), obesity, hormones, chronic inflammation and a lack of exercise. Trends in incidence, on the other hand, would suggest changes in risk. Existing studies of trends in the incidence or prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease need further analysis.
In his influential article on the social and cultural framing of disease, historian Charles E. Rosenberg argued, “In some ways disease does not exist until we have agreed that it does, by perceiving, naming and responding to it”. From mid-1930s through the 1950s, a number of American psychiatrists led by David Rothschild responded to the challenge of dementia in the state hospitals by framing dementia as a psychosocial problem rather than a brain disease. Rothschild and his followers argued that the observation of inconsistent correlations between clinical manifestations of dementia and pathological findings could best be accounted for by people’s differing ability to compensate for brain damage. Seen this way, age-associated dementia was more than the simple and inevitable outcome of a brain that was deteriorating due to aging and/or disease. It was the interaction between the brain and the psychosocial context in which the aging person was situated.
Human cancers develop due to the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations. Both alterations are now known to be present not only in cancer cells but also in normal cells long before cancer develops. Specific patterns of alterations are associated with exposure to environmental factors. The accumulation is associated with cancer risk and can be utilized for cancer risk diagnosis. Evidence suggests that approximately 80% of human cancers are linked to environmental factors impinging upon genetics/epigenetics. Alzheimer’s disease and other idiopathic dementias are associated with epigenetic transformations. Nanoplastics, widely existing in the environment and organisms, have been proven to cross the blood-brain barrier, increasing the incidence of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease. On the other hand, besides their strong antioxidant properties, naturally occurring polyphenols are reported to have neuroprotective effects by modulating the Aβ biogenesis pathway in Alzheimer’s disease.
People who live in poverty are significantly more likely to develop dementia compared to people of higher socioeconomic status, regardless of genetic risk, new research concludes. People living in the poorest neighborhoods had the highest risk for brain changes typical of Alzheimer’s disease. Irrespective of income or education, people living in disadvantaged neighborhoods show early signs of cognitive decline. Living in a poorer neighborhood is linked to accelerated brain aging and increased dementia risk early in life, regardless of income level or education, a Duke University-led study finds. These findings suggest that early improvement in social determinants of health through targeted structural policies may lower dementia risk later in life. Specifically, better access to free, quality education, healthcare, and basic living standard together with employment opportunities could reduce risk of dementia.1
Epigenetic risk is not merely a medical risk, but implicates the fundamental principles of fairness and justice underlying the present social contract. The role of epigenetics provides high quality evidence supporting the importance of DNA in shaping people’s lives. While epigenetic changes can be passed on from parents to children, they can also be altered by stress, diet, environment and behavior. Early life stress alters how DNA is packaged, which makes cells function differently than their original mandate. These epigenetic switches are triggered by many factors such as our lifestyle, environment, diet, stress, emotional deprivation or hormones and our age, and as the development of a growing fetus in the womb is totally dependent on these signals, it can alter the function of its cells. Epigenetics explains how environmental factors can switch genes on and off, based on choices we make. Early studies show an association between epigenetic marks (in the human genome) and socio-economic status.
The emerging field of epigenetics provides a chain of connections between what used to be qualified as social and natural inequality, leading to a reformulation of these contested boundaries. This also leads to a rethinking of the time-frame and scope of equality of opportunity. Epigenetic risks explain how environmental factors can switch genes on and off, based on choices we make. We now realize we can change gene expression by the way we think about our lives and ourselves – epigenetic marks are reversible. Controlling epigenetic harms, or environmental harms, is about treating an individual’s potential as a freedom. It is necessary to challenge the status quo of neoliberalism with its causal determinism, and create conditions where individuals can incorporate epigenetic risk into a new social contract. The relevant consequence of this approach should be a society that increases the chances or opportunities for individual fulfillment for all members of society.