
The Holocaust epigenetics study was over-interpreted - tokenadult
http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-interpreted-epigenetics-study-of-the-week
======
1arity
Whether it was "over-interpreted" or not -- some stressors methylate genes,
and those mutations are passed on to descendants.

Does surviving the holocaust count as a stressor? Yes. Would going through
that probably involve a bundle of stressors, of which some are likely to
produce epigenetic mutations? Likely.

The author of this article is in the business of writing papers that are anti-
trans-generational epigenetic inheritance. The author either doesn't believe
it is possible, or doesn't believe to have seen evidence for it yet.

It's a useful counterpoint to the majority opinion, tho it's very much the
opinion of someone peddling a particular line that happens to be the line
their in the business of writing papers about.

The most interesting thing in this study was that the descendants of those who
had experienced the holocaust seemed to have become more immune to the
stressors their ancestors faced. That's a pretty clear case of the genome
responding by becoming more fit, the occurrence of which has evolutionary
advantage.

~~~
madaxe_again
I wonder what an similar survey of the genetics of Palestinians living under
occupation for five decades would show - and whether the epigenetic effect not
only makes people more "fit" for dealing with trauma, but perhaps desensitised
when it comes to inflicting trauma on others.

~~~
tormeh
As bad as the Israeli occupation is, it's not even in the same order of
magnitude in terms of per-human suffering.

~~~
leaveyou
How did you measure the suffering ? If you just guesstimate the magnitude of
the suffering I try a guesstimation too: In my opinion 4.5 years of intense
suffering are in the same order of magnitude with 45 years of not so intense
suffering. Unless some suffering is way more important than other suffering. I
don't know.

~~~
omonra
You might also count the % or # of non-combatant population that was
intentionally killed.

I also think that if palestinians were really suffering, they would agree to
the terms offered to them. Repeatedly. The fact that they keep refusing to
live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad.

Here is one fact - they are one of the most obese people on the planet:
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164).

~~~
jrochkind1
> The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't
> all that bad.

I think history shows it doesn't work like that. You can't oppress people into
"wanting to live in peace", quite the reverse.

~~~
omonra
Not really. That's called losing a war. In most cases, when a war is lost, one
side agrees to the terms they would probably deem unfavorable before the war
had started. That's why we say they 'lost' the war.

~~~
jrochkind1
I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized
model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that
one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while
another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the
more powerful actor always 'wins'.

For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese
somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to
terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense
to even try to frame it that way.

How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they
made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept
conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The
question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened.
And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of
Iraqis, the _more_ resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no
closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis.

Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between
the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so
miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable'
before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything,
the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as
subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and
this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.

~~~
omonra
The war I am referring to is Israel's War of Independence
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War)
\- which the arabs lost.

Subsequent conflicts are simply an extension of the same one - one side's
unwillingness to accept Israel's existence.

The territories in question are occupied because they were lost in the war of
1967. Had there not been that war (effectively started by the arab states),
Israel would not have taken over the Egyptian / Jordanian lands (which never
had a Palestinian state there).

~~~
jrochkind1
And meanwhile, what is it you actually want the actual people living in the
occupied territories, 2, 3, 4 generations on, to actually DO? They should
acquiesce to living without civil or human rights indefinitely, because some
nation-states of the purported same ethnicity as them (which have never
treated the Palestinians well either) lost a war 50 years ago? (it's debatable
who 'started' that war, but it doesn't really matter)

People living under that kind of repression have always resisted, throughout
history. Always will. You probably would too.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the OP really, or HN.

~~~
omonra
Ok - that's a fair point.

Given that palestinians don't really have a functioning democracy, it's hard
to say what the actual people 'can do'.

However - we can look at opinion polls for ideas. Right now majority of
palestinians support waging a war with Israel:

"“A majority of 74 percent favors Hamas way of resisting occupation. …
Furthermore, 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the
West Bank and 40 percent oppose that,” the center noted."

[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/new-poll-shows-
wh...](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/new-poll-shows-what-a-
majority-of-palestinians-think-about-peace-with-israel/)

As long as that is the case, Israel will respond in kind. Look at what
happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.

So when we talk about 'living under opression' we have to be mindful of the
alternative which they continue to refuse.

For example here are details of the latest offer that was refused:
[http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-
defense/1.645676](http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676)

I fully accept that it's not an ideal solution for majority of Palestinians
who would prefer Israel to disappear altogether.

PS I agree that this has nothing to do with OP or HN - but any discussion of
Jews (or Holocaust) turns to 'but what about the Palestinians'. C'est la vie.

~~~
jrochkind1
> However, the Prime Minister's Office said the document was a U.S. proposal
> that Israel had never accepted. "At no point did Prime Minister Benjamin
> Netanyahu agree to withdraw to 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem or recognize the
> Palestinian right of return. That was and remains his position," Netanyahu's
> office told Yedioth Ahronoth. read more:
> [http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-
> defense/1.645676](http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676)

~~~
omonra
We're getting into the nitty-gritty of he said-she said, leaks, etc. Maybe
after a secret proposal is rejected, Israelis can not admit having proposed
those things (since in the next round of negotiations, that will be the
starting position that must be improved on).

The point is that there are proposals put on the table regularly. They
probably do not include all things Palestinians want (Jerusalem, right of
return) - but they never will. So all they have is sitting with nothing in
relative squalor while waiting for a city upon a hill.

Parent comment asked me what I would do in their shoes - I'd say 'Ok, fuck
this, I'll take what I can and build a life out of it - because otherwise my
grandchildren will live in the same conditions'.

------
gkya
After seeing this sort of _research_ , I sometimes think that we are drowning
in an excess amount of scientific information regarding more humane things. I
think that such approach will not let us understand ourselves better.

~~~
astazangasta
We need to broaden our epistemological horizons. The other day I was reading
the wikipedia article on physical attractiveness; it is mostly a litany of
controlled studies isolating various physical variables. This is rapidly
becoming the only way we know how to think.

~~~
gkya
> [... The scientific method] is rapidly becoming the only way we know how to
> think.

And for better or worse, it's not a way to _think_ , it's a way to _know_ and
_prove_.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
Can fashion, politics, philosophy, or religion help scientists decide what to
prove or what to know? Or is that also within the purview of science?

~~~
gkya
Science is a method for getting to know the universe. Fashion and politics are
unrelated. Philosophy, religion and science are the most common ways to
acquire knowledge. In religion, the source is the myth. In philosophy, the
source is the thought. When philosophy needed a method to get to know for
better the nature, it begat science. Science produces raw data. Philosophy, or
any other method of thinking for that matter, are to interpret what science
collects. But paraphrasingly-quoting Socrates via Plato, in Alchibiades II
144a and 146-147, without the knowledge of the good from the bad, information
otherwise is useless, and maybe pericolous.

And, it's not established that Mathematics be a science, so, shall we dismiss
it[1]?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Definitions_of_mat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Definitions_of_mathematics)

------
katelynsills
"I really don’t like criticising colleagues, a tendency I’m guessing we all
share in science."

This. This is everything that's wrong about modern science.

~~~
brighteyes
I think there is plenty else that is wrong. For example:

* Corporate influence via funding studies (and not publishing the failures), as well as hiring away top researchers (e.g. Hinton by Google)

* The tenure system is vanishing, with more and more staff turning into non-tenured "associates", and fewer and fewer young hopefuls finding a successful career in science.

* Promotions are based on dubious publication metrics.

------
squozzer
I am still fascinated by the possibility of genetic memory, but also heartened
by the existence of skeptics. Looking forward to the debate, assuming it's a
healthy one.

------
stefantalpalaru
Politics is much more efficient than hard science at getting you research
grants, so the researchers adapt their proposals and ultimately their results
to the market.

