Societal Immunity and Allergy
National Geographic Türkiye magazine seems to be greatly concerned
with the modern “allergy epidemic” in its May 2006 issue.*
According to an article by Judith Newman
published in this month’s National Geographic, 54.3% of Americans are
allergic to one or more allergens. Moreover, the number of people with
a life-threatening allergy to peanuts doubled from 1997 to 2002 (no,
it’s not a joke, peanuts can be deadly for some people). All the
statistics given in the article point out that industrialized
countries have a higher ratio of allergic individuals.
As the article continues, Newman tries to
come up with the possible causes of the “allergy epidemic.” She lists
these factors: genetic inheritance, modern nutrition habits, excessive
usage of antibiotics, pollution and exaggerated hygiene.
As you can see, all of the causes (except
for genetics) are the products of our superb, fantastic, incredible,
spectacular, lovely modernity. The illness itself is strengthened by a
system that tries to wipe out all illnesses.
There, we see the first “coincidence.”
The paradox within our attempts to wipe out health problems appears in
the very existence of the magazine itself: countless forests are cut
down (which obviously increases pollution worldwide because they're
the only possible natural mechanism to clean the air and maintain the
natural balance) to produce the pages of National Geographic magazine
in order to declare that pollution increases allergies!**
Furthermore, two other causes of
allergies also fit into the same pattern. Excessive usage of
antibiotics and hygiene are most probably rooted in an obsession of
today's global society: being totally disinfected, protected from all
dangers and able to live forever. In other words: denial of the
inevitability of illness and death. And such articles don’t heal this
obsession-they worsen it. The more you read about allergies (i.e.,
illnesses), the more concerned you become about how you can protect
yourself from them.
Thus, it can be said that the article
does more than just observing the fact: it contributes to it. The
magazine states that John Bostock*** once pointed out that hay fever
is peculiar to the “educated segment of the society,” and it’s hard
not to notice an interesting intersection: National Geographic
magazine is read by the same segment of the population. So, are we
sure that such articles are nothing but benign results of the
epidemics they tell us about?
What if we’re triggering such events at
the same time as we’re trying to disseminate knowledge that will
protect us from them? If so, there seems to be a dramatic similarity
between our attitude and that of a paranoid immune system that creates
an illness--an allergy--while trying to protect the body.
* “Dört Mevsim Allerji: Modern Çağın
Salgını”
(“Allergies for Four Seasons: The Epidemic of the Modern Age”),
National Geographic Türkiye, May 2006.
** An ironic observation by Stanislaw Lem:
“We’re trying to stop people cutting down trees by making
announcements in newspapers printed on paper produced from cut-down
trees.”
*** John Bostock: The first doctor to
define hay fever
İsmail O. Postalcıoğlu (POLS/III)
ismail_orhan@yahoo.com
 |
