Biologic precedent for professions in society? Partially autonomous organs capable of sustaining themselves in the interest of the host organism? But what if an organ spawns an ego? And what if that ego manages shared resources disproportionally to its role vis-a-vis the host organism? The organism is then at risk, is it not?
Consider an extension of the foregoing. Organ collaboration spawning a group ego that is short sighted and deprives other organs of adequate resources? If a mutual interest dialog occurs the situation is improved. If the perception of an organs context is distorted and/or insufficient the trend is the opposite. Communicating essential data is critical.
The immune system's arsenal and information management system finds few parallels in the universe as we know it. If confused it can become detrimental, even lethal to its host. Examples abound though much remains to be discovered on just how it functions.
Though the aforementioned organs operate at a more manageable speed and are apparently more evolved than the immune system, they are at the same risk when it comes to confusion. The organs come together in the Central Nervous System, a sort of collective awareness that sustains the vehicle.
---
Self-interest offloads routine organ specific maintenance from the system of which the organ is a part. A smarter organ is aware of resources available to it and the various demands of other vital organs. If the 'smarts' in it 'decides' that burdening the organism's resources in the interest of performing better justifies devaluing the interest of the host or a neighbor … temporarily ...
So it seems there is an ideal dynamic threshold of self-interest that is wisely cognizant of the host. Professional disinterest, yes. To the degree that symbiosis is significantly compromised, probably not. Interval highly relevant.
Professions and society, human and her organs. Wisely cognizant. Seems a worthy goal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment