Beyond Genotype
Could Their Be an Even Deeper Classification System in Biology Yet to be Discovered?
If you know nothing at all about classification systems in biology or have forgotten what little bit you once knew I suggest you read this first before proceeding.
When it comes to the identification and classification of microorganisms it seems we have reached an endpoint with the genotype. The completely described genetic sequence of an individual microbe is its exact identity and any other microbe with the same sequence is the same microbe, they are identical. They are in fact true clones. For organisms that divide by binary fission like bacteria this seems a reasonable conclusion and their would seem no need to look for (and there may not exist) a deeper system. However, one needs to be clear that genetically identical bacteria are not necessarily (and almost certainly are not) identical at all other levels because of the influence of environmental factors on gene expression. So even two bacterial clones that are in fact the same bacteria can also be different bacteria depending on a host of variables and of course depending on where one chooses to look.
When me move to “higher” level organisms though the picture becomes much murkier. Are two bear that have the exact same genetic sequence (if it were possible) the same bear? Your first instinct is to say of course not, they are two uniquely existing individual bear, so how could they be the same. And yet, if they have the exact same genomes, down to the very last base pair, that would mean they would (have the ability to) express the exact same proteins, have exactly identical organs and every other system of their bodies would be identical. Here is where the complicating factor of the environment comes into play. For, even two genetically identical individuals will not be exactly identical because there are environmental factors (most not well understood) that can and do influence gene expression. The bears may in fact be different in many ways or they may not. Incidentally the same is true of human “identical” twins. In either case having the complete genome sequence of the bear still provides an identity to the bear just have having the complete genome of the bacteria provides and identity to it. From this perspective bears and bacteria and humans are really not that different. A whole genome sequence of each individual would seem to be the deepest level of classification we can reach. Of course there are many options “higher” up the chain for classification such as proteotype and metabolotype and others, but since these are ultimately all directly determined by the the genotype they do not provide much ground for a more meaningful system of identity characterization.
So what might be possible “below” the genotype? What could possibly be deeper than that. One possibility arises from outside of biology in the realm of quantum physics. Could there be such a thing as a quantotype? A description of a living being based on quantum principles. A description which takes into account the probabilistic nature of molecular interactions at the quantum level. By its very nature a quantotype would be a fuzzy picture of a thing. As I have written about before it is dangerous applying quantum principles to things which exist at the macro level as people and animals and even microorganisms do. It is all too easy to read quantum effects into things which look analogous to quantum principles but because they happen at the macro scale are not truly effected by said principles. Or at least, that is the traditional thinking about such things. But still…..
About the Creator
Everyday Junglist
About me. You know how everyone says to be a successful writer you should focus in one or two areas. I continue to prove them correct.
Keep reading
More stories from Everyday Junglist and writers in Earth and other communities.
Human Population and Conservation
If one thinks about what broad themes unite conservationists of all stripes a few main ideas emerge. Preserve biodiversity, maintain and expand wild habitat, decrease pollution and waste. Ultimately most of these boil down to a fairly simple formula. The more we can reduce man’s footprint on the planet the better it will be for every other living thing. The easiest and most straightforward method to achieve this end would be to significantly reduce the human population of the planet. I think most people understand this at some base level and I believe it explains a lot of the negative attitudes many people instinctually express when asked their feelings on the matter. Essentially the conservationist is asking us to admit that we are the problem, we are a net negative for the health of the planet, all living things would be better off if we ceased to exist. I know that few environmentalist/conservationists would put it exactly this way though many probably believe it. In point of fact until very recently I did too.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami3 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.