In connection with the Alistair Grant's e-mail of 12 Jan 2001:
As I understood, you mean that such phenomena as homeostasis are
SIMULTANEOUSLY achievable and not achievable. If so, then, strictly saying,
you are right. Indeed, for each separate MOMENT, it is probably impossible
to say whether this phenomenon is yet existing or already gone. However we,
health and biomedical professionals, usually deal with more long periods,
and I need, for example, to know did my patient have RELATIVE 'homeostasis'
YESTERDAY or didn't. And I do not need to find out has/had he/she the
ABSOLUTE homeostasis today or whenever. I simply know that such an ideal is
not achievable.
Accordingly, I am forced to deem that homeostasis is a phenomenon of
dichotomous classification system. I.e. that an organism either has
appropriate relative constancy and stability or it has not them. What 'third
case' may I anticipate? That my patient is in 'homeostatic state' while
he/she is not in 'homeostatic state'?! Philosophically attractive but
psychiatrically suspicious... No, thanks. Tertium non datur.
In this relation, Encyclopaedia Britannica's definition of homeostasis looks
greatly important: 'any self-regulating process by which biological systems
tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal
for survival'. Nota bene: PROCESS. I.e. this is something changing at the
moment, and we, in principle, cannot surely provide it with label
'homeostasis' or 'non-homeostasis'. We can only assess -- to some extent --
an intensity, dynamics, and, maybe, tendencies of forthcoming changes of
this process. In most cases, I think, we'll quite be satisfied with
information on an extent of stability of this process!
On the other hand, I am inclined to the opinion that even a dichotomous
classification system is too... multiple for biological homeostasis! Indeed,
what is that case when an organism 'doesn't achieve homeostasis'? I am
hardly realizing this situation. Ability to self-maintaining and
self-regulating is one of the essential properties of a biological system.
Consequently, until an organism is still living, it is about homeostasis or
is keen to homeostasis as close as possible. What is an alternative to
homeostasis? It is the absence of homeostasis. I know only such examples of
this alternative as decompensation, necrobiosis, and death. Thus,
homeostasis is rather a phenomenon of 'monochotomous' classification system.
That is, it do not require such classifying approaches, it exists anywhere
where living organisms exist. And saying that 'homeostasis is not achieved'
is equal to that a living organism is about not to live... (Especially
taking into account that stability of homeostasis is definitely relative.)
I think we should look at homeostasis as a desirable state of relatively
steady health. At least, presence of ability to maintain homeostasis at
minimally possible energetical expenses is indicating that all seems to be
to rights in this organism.
P.S. I agree that phrases like 'plenty of research and clinical findings'
are absolutely unacceptable in serious discussions. It is better to do
without findings, in general...
Stanislav A. Korobov, MD, PhD
Physician-Physiotherapist
P.O.Box 7, Odessa, 65089, Ukraine
[log in to unmask]
|