Whatever happened to ecology?

The holistic ecology of the early days had much in common with the world-view of primal people and of the romantic poets. In the 1950s a revival of reductionist and mechanistic ideas took place. The living world, constantly changing in a total "chance direction", appeared by its very nature "totally indestructible". The view of ecological succession toward a "climax" (Odum) became unacceptable for its assumed metaphysical and teleological connotations. Ecological succession is indeed only one special instance of sequential development, that is a feature of all life processes at all levels of organisation. Even the principle of "balance" was rejected by reductionists, because it recalled divine-order. Finally, the principle that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" was abandoned, thus denying the most basic feature of the living world: organisation. Mainstream scientific ecology no longer reflects the ecological movement of today and may serve to justify the destruction that the irresponsible activities of the multinationals are giving rise to.     

Whatever happened to economic anthropology?1

In the 1970s, economic anthropology, along with kinship and ecological anthropology, was regarded as a core discipline in the teaching of anthropology. The centrality of all these subjects was reflected in the debates of the time. For economic anthropology, understanding the articulation of modes of production was the problem; the holy trinity—tribe, peasant, capitalist—provided the key terms of the debate. These terms, and this problem, are history. The discipline of anthropology has been de‐cored over the past 30 years: economic anthropology, kinship and ecological anthropology are not even on the agenda in many universities today (ANU included). This presents us with a paradox because these academic trends are in inverse proportion to the importance of contemporary developments in the economy, the family and ecology as global problems facing humanity. This paradox must be addressed not by arguing for a rehabilitation of the core subjects of the 1970s—those days are long gone—but by taking a critical look at the implicit theories of value that inform anthropological thinking about the economy, the family and ecology today. I shall argue that, along with neoliberalism, ‘agency’ has been the key term of the new paradigm that emerged in the 1970s, that this paradigm is about to become history and that new ways of thinking about the economy will have to emerge as we all become victims of the ‘financialisation’ of Europe, the industrialisation of Asia and the desiccation of Australia.     

Where are the frame-shifted gene ‘duplications’?

Evolution by gene duplication has been well documented, mostly by the discovery of two or more similar amino-acid sequences in proteins translated from one haploid genome. The sequences differ by interpolation and deletion of amino-acids as well as substitution. This is evidence for triplet (codon) addition or subtraction; do deletions/interpolations of one or two nucleotides (frame-shifting mutations) occur? If they are not seen (as in haemoglobins) either this is because they are not generated (the genetic code constrains DNA events); they are generated but edited (gene conversion?); gametes containing them are selected against; or they are actively and rapidly selected against evolutionarily. If they are seen (as in immunoglobulins, possibly) they may generate somatic diversity (as in antibodies) and there may be a limbo of more-or-less changed structural sequences, returning to translation (and selection) only by another frame-shifting event. This suggestion combines neutral mutation theory with pan-selectionism.     

Mitochondria and peroxisomes: Are the ‘Big Brother’ and the ‘Little Sister’ closer than assumed?

Mitochondria and peroxisomes are essential subcellular organelles in mammals. Despite obvious differences, both organelles display certain morphological and functional similarities. Recent studies have elucidated that these highly dynamic and plastic organelles share components of their division machinery. Mitochondria and peroxisomes are metabolically linked organelles, which are cooperating and cross-talking. This review addresses the dynamics and division of mitochondria and peroxisomes as well as their functional similarities to provide insight as to why these organelles share the fission machinery in evolutionary aspects.