How Crime Scene Cleanup Works

This page covers how crime scene cleanup works. As used here, how crime scene cleanup works encompasses history, social affairs, science, religion, and art. I must cover these areas to show readers how crime scene cleanup involves human history and humanity's ingenious ideas and sordid devices. Many machinations against one another and other species play a big part of our history. I shall repeat this idea several more times below.

. In fact, at this moment, we face extinction for criminal activities conducted in our name by modern governments. Because we refuse to order transparency in government at most levels, we now face consequences from local to federal levels from criminal conduct of such magnitude no amount of crime scene cleanup will save us.

How Crime Scene Cleanup Works delves into the workings of bloodborne pathogens and their ability to shape-shift, adapt to threats. It's the brilliant work of a number of scientifically inclined men and women who make our defenses against these growing threats possible. It's in our history that we find how we reached a place where "knowing" means actually knowing by means of scientific investigation. By covering this biological material we get a deeper understanding of how crime scene cleanup works the way it does, other than by county government fraud..

Genetic mutation within bloodborne pathogens threatens humanity in unforeseen ways. We need to understand more about life and its mysteries.

It began with federal legislation to halt the spread of bloodborne pathogens among medical workers. Then, it inevitably became a cash cow for civil servants tasked with death investigation and body removal. Their first contact with families gave them an opportunity to create a monopoly in and over crime scene cleanup businesses. Government corruption then became how crime scene cleanup works. Too much money bilked from insurance companies came easily, and still does. Insurance adjusters were and are ignorant of what bloodborne pathogens mean. So we all pay for ignorance in biohazard cleanup and homeowners' insurance corporations. A hint of insurance adjuster corruption has arose from time to time, but my contacts have dwindled mightily. Honest crime scene cleanup companies cannot exist in a business dominated by county governments.

Now my insurance adjuster information comes first-hand, from adjusters. They call me from time-to-time for a reality check. They know well enough that a business with employees has a larger overhead than a crime scene cleanup owner-practitioner. So they usually have a heads up on what a crime scene cleanup company needs just to keep its doors open.

For honest adjusters, probably most of them, it's all too new to them. They bring their experience with water damage and fire damage to crime scene cleanup, thinking demolition must follow this type of cleaning. Corrupt companies make ridiculous claims on their invoices. Adjusters don't understand that blood offers little more danger to crime scene cleanup practitioners than it does to morticians and coroner pathologists in their labs.

Some crime scene cleanup companies mislead people into believing that blood and death's odors have germs, biohazards, in them. Insurance adjusters may fall under this mystification as new-comers to crime scene cleanup insurance adjusting.

Without vast amounts of money paid to crime scene cleanup companies by insurance companies, some government employees would not find it worth their while to continue with kickbacks and crime scene cleanup company ownership. Of course, some will continue no matter how much the payback.

It's a dirty, stinky business for sure, and up against insider corruption, it smells even more. But in no way do the enormous fees charged by government related crime scene cleanup companies make any real sense. We lose over 200 medical workers a year to needle stick; we lose zero crime scene cleanup workers to bloodborne pathogens, at least those bloodborne pathogens from working in blood contaminated death scenes. More carpet cleaners die on the road then all crime scene cleanup technicians for all time since the origins of congressional legislation. But for the stink, ick, blood, and other gore, crime scene cleanup is a janitorial task. How much do we pay janitors? They too must work with and around blood, especially those in high school gyms and restrooms.

I want to move on to, Lysenko and the role of fandamentalist ideology in shackeling science. We need to see how Marxist ideological fundamentalism destroyed Russian biological research, science, and agriculture.

Now, there's a convoluted history involving genetics, nature versus nurture. For our purposes, nature creates biohazards from genetic material handed down for eons. So we need to look at this process of evolving risks to public hygiene. We need to realize how local government corruption in crime scene cleanup threatens public health. By thwarting free enterprise in our crime scene cleanup industry, we fall prey to germs in much the same way Lysenkoism destroyed Russian biology: ignorance, hubris, and dogma. The affects from government controlled crime scene cleanup leads to to a slippery sloap. Dire consequences may follow. I will discuss this issue below under plagues.

As a consequence of our least worthy county employees, fewer biohazard cleanup trainers to train trainers will not emerge as they might. With over 30 new germs coming online (so to speak), do we really want to give these government dingalings a monopoly over death cleanup?

Only through an open, robust, free enterprise system in crime scene cleanup can we expect a trained and prepared body of biohazard practitioners to deal with tomorrow's terrorist threats and nature's adapting biohazards. We will not get there by allowing county employees to monopolize our best public training ground for biohazard cleanup.

Primarily, how crime scene cleanup works depends on which county crime scene cleanup occurs. It now appears, most generally, that county employees and other civil servants have seized control over those in need of biohazard cleanup services, in general. This occurs when families of death's victims come into contact with county employees. These employees send unwitting families to corrupt crime scene cleanup companies. In return they receive money for their criminal conduct.

Meanwhile, government paid forensics crews in need of biohazard cleanup practitioners find help from civil servant controlled biohazard cleanup companies. If they do not outright own these companies, they receive kickbacks for referring crime scene forensics work to them.

But here my interest in how crime scene cleanup goes beyond crime scene cleanup as a death cleanup service.

If readers here detect an ideological bias, which exists in strong degrees of bias, they will find it in my writing a commitment to ecology. Likewise, readers will wonder what I'm doing with all of this science stuff and history. Readers will remember that crime scene cleanup covers suicide, causes of suicide, homicide, causes of suicide, and basically psychological, sociological, anthropological, and philosophical issues.

Crime scene cleanup articles appear from time to time in various Internet venues. Free-floating articles found on web sites like this crime scene cleanup web page, on How Things Work pages, and a large host of article directories. Generally written with technical proficiency, authors of these How Crime Scene Cleanup Works articles share a common bond to an objective voice. They seem to stand back and narrate their observations.

The article "Six-figure jobs: Crime-scene cleaner" mystifies many callers to my business telephone. A well presented article, this one article catches many of its readers with their minds on cruise-control. Little do they think about who this six-figure job benefits. It benefits local government employees, not the regular guy like this writer, a carpet cleaner, among other things. So if you're a carpet cleaner, don't run out and spend a lot of money learning how crime scene cleanup works. It won't work for you, I know that. You need someone inside the coroner, medical examiner, or county administration.

You're not going to know anyone in one of these plumb crony positions because of nepotism. This means those in control of these death administration departments hire family and friends to do their crime scene cleanup fraud work. It's all in the family these days, not unlike medieval times. There's nothing new under the Sun in social affairs.

A look at How Stuff Works shows "How Crime-scene Clean-up Works" in terms of a crime scene cleaners ability to withstand strong odors and horrific sights. A detachment from emotional reactions to individuals mutilated by family members or strangers becomes important. Several comments reflect the author's intrinsic trust of his source of information. He believes that "CTS" stands for crime and trauma scene decontamination and as such. This designation, CTS, has wide usage: CTS-Decon. It doesn't. He also believes that no national standard exists, but notes "OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standards" receive crime scene cleaners' attention and directions..

Most often a civil servant makes contact with a homicide or suicide or unattended death victim's family. As my experience and that of others has shown, most often civil servants abuse this privileged contact for private gain. They send these families to their friend or family's business, their own business, or another crime scene cleanup business for kickbacks. As a result, honest crime scene cleanup companies continue to go out of business. Those that remain, like Biosafe (my crime scene cleanup company) must travel many miles to provide their services.

In Orange County, California, this means no one will successfully start a crime scene cleanup company without contacts in their county government.

Crime scene cleanup as a phrase really means an activity focused on blood and other potentially infectious waste material cleanup. A janitorial function, crime scene cleanup entails general janitorial activities, plus specifically designed tools and practices for safe cleanup and decontamination of crime scenes. As understood, crime scene cleanup is a biohazard cleanup activity.

If we were to look for crime scene cleanup in art, we would find in on the Internet under crime scene cleanup and How Crime Scene Cleanup works. Utube and other web sites offer information and pictures related to crime scene cleanup as an activity.

If we were to look for crime scene cleanup in religion, I suppose we would go first to the first homicide, that of Cain's murder of Able. Today we would find crime scene cleanup as an activity occurring in Moslem prayer rooms throughout Baghdad, capital to civilization's first primary source of social control over surplus value.

If were to look for crime scene cleanup in social affairs, we would find it worldwide, but indirectly referred to as "collateral damage" and its remediation. Wars produce many victims and will continue to do so as "collateral damage," rather than as objects of political crimes. It's a power question over who gets to define these terms, criminal and collateral damage.

How crime scene cleanup works in science has yet to fully play out in Russia. It looks like Stalin's evil doing spread from mass murder to ideological control over genetic research and science.

In this introduction to How Crime Scene Cleanup Works, I briefly introduce readers to my ideas about Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, Alfred North Wallace, Thomas Malthus, Gregor Mendale, and Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. I do not expect to change anyone's mind about any of these historical characters. I wish only to articulate a much broader understanding of How Crime Scene Cleanup Works than found elsewhere on the Internet. Unlike other writers on this subject, I hope to broaden How Crime Scene Cleanup works to include many dimensions at many times in human history.

I will remain true to the overall rubric of crime scene cleanup as found in this web site's domain name. I hope, though, to convince readers that at least some of what I write shows How Crime Scene Cleanup Works applies to art, religion, social affairs, science, and philosophy; not just janitorial practices applied to blood cleanup.

So now I begin with a look at biology's recent history and how it influenced our world for good and bad.

As early as 550 B.C., Anaximander of Miletus believed that Earth's life oozed from the seas to land. He claimed that humans and other vertebrates started as fish. At this time people questioned everything from stars to sea creatures. Understanding the Earths components and how it came to exist as it does remained a pressing question un till now.

Anaximander's theory arose more from intuition than a painstaking observation and categorization of life's forms. His followers would follow a similar hunch as long as cultural and ideological did not prevent critical thinking. As history moved forward, it came to pass that monotheism and other theological developments would create their own stories for life on Earth. These would interweave with theories of evolution over more than two thousand years, culminating in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, or preservation of the more fit members of Earth's species.

If readers wonder, again, what any of this has to do with how crime scene cleanup works, we're looking to biological history for bloodborne pathogens' own dev elopement for the eons.

As theories of evolution came and went, some seemingly out of fantastic universes, one idea remain constant: Many species of plant and animals must have come into existence and later perished.

Aristotle could not buy into this idea of evolving plants and animals. He believed that all species were static. Like most of his important thinking and writing, he proposed a logical explanation for life's origins, which began as a hierarchy. A species' degree of perfection (sounds like Plato), like humans, on top. Simple to complex, low to high, a Great Chain of Being existed for Aristotle's explanation of Earth's occupants. So familiar and exacting hierarchical thinking became, Aristotle's ideas were not question until the Enlightenment.

During the end of our 17th century, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology all underwent closer examination and criticism. As a result scientific thinking groped toward a finer distillation of life and its constituents.

Lingering discussions for God's part in creation continued. John Ray (1627-1705) argued that God conserved creation in all of its fine arrangements. While explaining the existence of fossil species atop mountains, Ray speculated that these mountains rose from the seas, trapping the fossils. Ray, like others, had yet to understand Earth's great age or plate tectonics. Earth remained less than 6000 years old.

Ray's approach to classifying plants and animals lead to much better results. Rather than using an alphabetical order, he classified species by their anatomy and physiology.

This approach found great use when Swedish naturalist Carl von Linne began classifying all life on Earth in search of patterns. He used kingdoms, classes, orders, genera, and species. These "archetypes" were believed to reflect God's omnipotence, and happened to resemble Aristotle's hierarchy arranged a bit differently.

Hybridization within species explained so many differences within any one species. Different types of dogs, cats, and pigeons were certain candidates for change by hybridization.

Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, took his best shot at explaining evolution and missed natural selection as the engine of species change. He was too early in cultural and scientific terms. Culturally, Victorian England continued with its midlevel explanations for earth's many and varied species, "The mystery of mysteries."

The English were interested to know their world, just like us. They used all their tools from science and philosophy, but the church's ideological influences, like today, carried too much weight when it came to critical thinking. So Erasmus dealt with evolution inside a cultural milieu which framed his reasoning. Later, as geology and biology became better known and better researched, emerging ideas would lead to those keys that gave Erasmus Darwin's grandson, Charles, the insights he needed. Probably Malthus' population work and Lyle's geology work added greatly to Charles' insights. These works were not available for Erasmus or his generation of evolutionary thinkers.

But I must not give Charles Darwin all of the credit; Alfred North Wallace also came up with natural selection to explain evolution by natural selection. The two came up with natural selection as an explanation for life's changes at about the same time, but in two different places on earth. Had Erasmus had similar information and opportunities, he too may have found the answer to the mystery of mysteries.

We must remember too, that in the early days of natural selection's theoretical development in biology, little history existed for studying this very idea. Ernst Mayr would note, "Most scientific problems are far better understood by studying their history than their logic." This idea becomes as true today as ever. Because humans think rationally (at times), we impose our inductive and deductive logic on nature, and nature does not correspond to human logic. So it's no wonder so many generations of humanity found awe and reverence in nature and near total mystery.

Lamarack, like Erasmus, took his best shot and missed at explaining evolution for some of the same reasons Erasmus missed out. Although he did not have a Victorian mind set as found in Britain, he did have a strong bias.

Lamarack developed a theory of heredity. This heredity theory is called an "acquired characteristics" theory of inheritance. The reason for this arose because he said parents' pass on their characteristics from use. So if a steel worker developed big arms from lifting all day, his offspring would inherit big arms. Likewise with a surfer. Since some white surfers spend a great number of hours in the Sun, they should pass on their Sun-darkened skin to their offspring.

This inheritance theory enjoyed a great deal of popularity; not for its scientific rigor, but because so many people were unable to explain how evolution by natural selection could develop without inheritance of favorable traits, physical characteristics internally and externally. Even Darwin began to look at this paint-pot theory to help explain how a species adapted to the struggle for existence.

Last, as this paint-pot theory goes, a blending process of characteristics occurs; hence, the racist terms "quarter breed," "octoroon," and "half-breed." Malthus would disprove all of this bunk quite thoroughly, but not before this theory gained ascendancy and ideological justification for bigotry, slavery, and mass murder.

In Edinburgh he studied medicine. This traditional center for experimental science lead English science in many fields. Darwin had no interest in medicine, he learned, when it came to the horrific surgical practices carried out - - no pain killers.

He then went to Cambridge University to prepare for a career in religion, a social function in many ways at the time. When he left Cambridge his professors recommended him for a natural history position on a South America voyage. This two-year expedition turned into a five-year voyage, giving Darwin an opportunity to gather remarkable, biological specimens unknown and unimagined at the time. These would become his data for arguing the merits of a theory of evolution, but later. Some believe that during this voyage Darwin knew or at least suspected evolutionary changes in nature. Loren Eisley would later write about The Mysterious Mr. X to explain how "evolution was in the air," throughout England at this time; it was, and we find later how Alfred Russel Wallace believed that evoution must explain the origin of species, but he had no data to prove so.

He took with him Charles Lyle's book on Principals of Geology. This theory of uniformitarianism in geology played a role in Darwin's thinking. Near the Cape Verde Islands he experienced a massive earth quake. This convinced him that Earth's geological history was a history of change. This meant that the environment changed over time.

Darwin's stop at the Galapagos Islands he saw species beyond his belief. These totally unique species were like others species, but in nearby islands and the mainland of South America. Only a few types appeared, though, giving him pause to consider how these species came to exist on these islands, each different from those on different islands. For example, of the thirteen types of finches he recovered from these islands, all thirteen were proven to represent different types of species than found elsewhere on Earth.

More so, these species were closely related to one another and those on the mainland. A plausible mechanism for evolving these species involved a basic type for each. Something allowed them to change while they remained, in part, connected to an original type.

Because of Darwin's inherited wealth, and his marriage to XXX Wedgwood, this friendly fellow had a number of advantage. Because of his huge collection of specimens he had plenty of data for himself and other naturalists. Before long after his return a marriage, he became an insider in the British Royal Society. This organization benefited with Darwin's obsession to figuring out how evolution worked.

In 1838, Malthus' 1798, 40 year old population essay, captured Darwin's imagination. The struggle for survival between individuals became apparent. More and more people were dying in city streets, especially in London. Malthus argued that over population by criminals, the weak, the lazy, and others accounted for many problems in London's streets. This approach to explaining rural and urban trends had a reactionary tone to it, to say the least, It also had a biological component that few biologically inclined minds could consider without carrying away an important lesson. Over population leads to biological pressure, and indeed, survival of the more fit. Read Fr. Engels' book for more on the condition of the British working class.

As guys like Frederick Engels and Alfred Russel Wallace observed the plight of our newly emerging, English working-class, Darwin sought to figure out nature's natural selection, his "dangerous idea."

1. Every individual varies somewhat. 2. Assuming over population, only the fittest survive. 3. Artificial selection propagates varieties; natural selection picks a particular variety based on its survival value; 4. Given enough time in a changing environment, those selected varieties continue to deviate from their original type that they become unable mate with their original type successfully.

Darwin published seven books on basic science between 1842 and 1857. He said nothing about natural selection in these books. He was writing to answer questions that would be asked about natural selection once his ideas were made public.

Emma, his wife and a pious christian, was also being protected by his public silence about evolution. So Darwin had his reasons for keeping his ideas silent. "The Devil's chaplin" was the part he played in his works, framing issues for cutting-edge answers.

Darwin knew the value of religion for the problem of evil and religion's importance to so many people; he was not quick to attack religious beliefs for the comfort it brought people.

Then in 1858 Alfred Russell Wallace's essay on natural selection came up with the whole idea. Without a formal education, void of university experience, he made it to the Amazon Valley. He, from the outset, believed in the theory of evolution. As a radical from the beginning he saw the world as unfair and evolution as an alternative to religion, evolution needed proof, not so much understanding.

If species evolved, then different species will be found near similar species. Evolving species will evolve in a common geography. His adventures to lands far off lead to his finding the evolutionary process through natural selection. In 1858 he remembered Malthus' essay on over population. He wrote his whole theory of natural selection in a few hours. Since he admired Darwin, Wallace sent Darwin his theory. He believed Darwin might be open to his idea because Darwin had hired him to collect certain items over time.

Darwin, shocked to find his theory was out, needed to publish to save his many years of work. He published On the Origin of Species or The Preservation of Favored Races.

Interest in natural history; a primary prop for religion because of the new creation of the world caught religious interests. Ministry, law, medicine, and the military were the more acceptable fields for young gentlemen to pursue.

Darwin wrote to show people how nature works. He had no Baconian (traditional science) observation proof to convince people of his theory of natural selection. So what he did to make his case included overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

He takes what we see out there. We see natural groupings of similar species. Hawks, sparrows, mocking birds and so forth. These differences make little sense in terms of creation theories because of nature's great diversity.

It's the natural proximity of similar species that Darwin uses to show how species evolved. Similar species near similar species shows. This he would prove by marshalling his many thousands of specimens and their arrangements in texts and near one another in museums and laboratories.

Social Darwinism gets going through Darwin's antagonists. Malthus' idea of diminishing resources because of population pressures struck Darwin as an environmental pressure too important to leave out of his thinking.

Survival of the fittest applied to human relations becomes Social Darwinism. Although Darwin did not endorse this idea, some have placed him in this camp. I don't believe he would have agree with Social Darwinism. In this theory of human relations, the weak become an encumbrance to the strong. The ignorant become impediments to human development. Homelessness, mental and physical disabilities, these people requiring state intervention for the welfare created unacceptable drags to the rest of society.

Government should never interfere in business or in other matters. Letting public health and welfare programs allows the weak and inefficient to survive, multiply, and

Nature eliminates inefficiencies and trying to change this would interfere with natural processes, leaving humanity in worse shape than ignoring weak and inefficient people.

The winners were the most fit and ultimately rich people succeeded because they were the most fit. Alfred Russell Wallace could not agree to any of this. In fact, Wallace was a socialist, active writer, and argued that humans should guide their own development.

We can see these arguments giving aid and comfort to racism and theories of racism. White, southern society in our United States easily argued that their black slaves were of a different, inferior race. Social Darwinism gave the south a pseudo-scientific means of arguing that slavery served everyone best because it matched nature's processes, echoing Greek argument for slavery's existence as a natural benefit for all.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other wealthy Americans bought into Social Darwinism as a benefit to society.

Again we see how this ideological development served colonialist enterprises. What better reason for American expansionism. Social Darwinists continued using biological Darwinism to further their ideas and the outcomes lead to unforeseen consequences. Militarism, colonialism, and racism all fit this Social Darwinist model.

Scientific racism arose under the banner of science, and with Socially Darwinism some biologists applied racial theories to their racism. Naturally white males and white females reflected the highest development of civilization's evolution. Others belonging to the "dark races" were less developed, and in the case of American Indians and Africans, doomed to become extinct by natural processes. This biological application to social thinking created terrible racist outcomes. We find strong evidence for Social Darwinism in dominant ideologies used to justify World War I and World War II.

Military leaders inevitably justified what they were doing in Social Darwin terms. Although, in the beginning, no one really had an idea how they were lead into war, other than having a fear of their competitor nations getting the jump on them. Germany, for example, feared a Russian presence in a war between the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and S. So German were quick to enter the First World War on behalf of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

Inborn qualities were believed to create superior people. Could not the race of man be improved by disposing of undesirables and increasing births among desirables? This line of thinking lead to Eugenics by Darwin's admiring cousin, Galton. Galton, racist as he was, oddly enough, was not a bigot. He believe that he had scientific reasons to study and pursue intelligence, beauty, and health were part of the inherited qualities of benefit to society. Applying Social Darwinism meant that the ignorant, ugly, and diseased were best left to their own devices and caused not to reproduce.

mental illness, mental retardation, epilepsy, criminality were believed easily eliminated through selective breeding. Although no one knew about Mendal's work with peas at this time, they were quick to assume something like genes existed for social deviancy. Quantifying intelligence through IQ tests would help in this reward. In fact, this is how IQ tests entered the United States, as tools for eugenics research.

Eugenics never caught on among our general population, public policies came to reflect eugenics in some ways. Positive eugenics came to be known among many leaders as an important social engineering tool. Teddy Roosevelt as well and Winston Churchill believed that intelligent and wealthy people were not having enough babies while their social opposites had far too many children. "Race suicide" some called this skewed birth process. We see how an over emphasis on genetics (yet to be labeled) lead to an almost denial of environmental influences on human development.

The dark side of eugenics developed as segregating mentally retarded people. Some thirty-five states sterilized criminals (third strike) and retarded people were among some 60,000 Americans were sterilized, voluntarily and involuntarily. in 1877 Terry Buck, sterilized against her will, instigated a Supreme Court case justifying sterilizing. buck had been the third of three women born in a family with mental issues. Her mother and her mother's mothers were allegedly mentally retarded. In fact, Terry Buck was not.

It took about half a century for Social Darwinism to become morally corrupt, about the time World War II ended. Today we still find Social Darwinism in our ranks in one way or another. We find it in locker rooms, swimming pools, barracks, schools, and other places where our population has lagged behind on contemporary social thought, but not all.

Among religious fundamentalists, evolution or Social Darwinism was and is unacceptable and morally corrupt. Social Darwinism, as an offspring to Darwinism (aka evolution by natural selection) lead to denunciations of the Bible. Fundamentalists, then and now, believe in the entire Bible is inerrant text of God's word. Below I will discuss how the "liberals" (modernists) won out in regards to public education and evolution. These ideas become important as ideological struggles continue in the United States as its military-industrial-corporate-congressional complex develops a neo-conservative paradigm for World-domination.

Evolution, as they understood it, including Darwin, saw evolution as a single line of development with hierarchical structures. It could not, did not occur to them that evolution looked more like multiple lines of development from multiple dimensions. Races were placed in hierarchical categories by the emergent Social Darwinist, an ideological aspect of dominant ideologies in England, Germany, the United States, and other modern countries.

Sir Francis Galton steps into history on his own terms as a brilliant super nova. Like his cousin Charles Darwin (small world), Galton used his early years traveling Earth's new horizons for Victorian England's scientists gentlemen. Like Darwin, he studied medicine and found medicine lacked an antidote to his curiosity. Unlike Darwin, his wanderlust lead to Africa. Famous for his Namibia expedition and book of observations, he became a geographer and meteorologist. He earned credit for discovering the anticyclone.* With this interest in our planet and life in general, especially human development, Darwin's Origin of Species lead to Galton's dedicated study of human heredity.

From Galton's work in this field all sorts of historical repercussions were to follow, most with unintended consequences. For example, in police science of his time, Galton's experiments and finding on human development lead to his use of fingerprinting. Scotland Yard later took advantage of Galton's finding and began using fingerprints for cataloging, identifying, and apprehending criminals. Along with his analytical findings he developed important statistical tools.

In some ways he went in novel and discrediting directions with his research, leading to eugenics used in terrible ways, including in our United States. We have a lot of crime scene cleanup work left to do since Galton's brilliant work went misinterpreted by lame thinkers.

Galton predated Mendal's principals by using "talent and character" principals and the use of IQ tests. To his credit as an early investigator of analysis, his twin studies became historical benchmarks for today's twin studies into criminal behavior and genetic research. Perhaps to his discredit, depending upon one's point of view, Galton us biometrics to measure the favorable physical characteristics that he believed showed mental superiority. In ways his work showed a tendency to support social darwinism, which were unacknowledged by Darwin and not to Darwin's liking. Darwin, not one to criticize or condemn others, went on with his life without distracting Galton's research into human development through inheritance.

As a result of Galton's efforts, a utopian eugenics movement began, and found monetary support among a few deep-pocket, United State's millionaires. By 1913 Galton's work lead to involuntary sterilization laws in 16 of the United States. Later, Nazi's in Germany used some of Galton's concepts to justify their "racial purity" atrocities.

Like others influenced by Darwin's Origin of Species, Jack London for one, Galton made his own grand theories of evolution by twisting Darwin's work. There's no outright bigotry in the works of Jack London, but one finds similar racial characterization in fiction by both London and Galton Galton wrote a fictional novel without publishing it, Kantsaywhere. Herein his thoughts on eugenics comes to light in an over powering misapplication of genetic theory. He finds humanity's value in its intellectual and monetary achievement, hallmarks of genetic "fitness" for Galton.

Galton would have our United States lowest wage earners sterilized to prevent their genetic pollution of future generations. Meanwhile, the rich and famous, the educated and talented would receive state support for reproducing their genetic stock. (Sound familiar?).

Be that as it may, Galton was a good man with a genuine interest in helping humanity overcome its problems. To his credit, his statistical analysis of biologic events generated the field of biometry, a growing and important field. He sought to find those markers in humanity's makeup that lead to criminality. This narrow approach to understanding the "criminal mind" would never do in today's psychology. It's interesting that this cousin to Charles Darwin would zero in on humanity's internal environment while Darwin zeroed in on life in general. What we can say from their shared experience in medical training is that both shared an interest in a scientific attitude.

Wallace and How Natural Selection Works

Wallace trumped Darwin's theory of evolution in one monumental moment. He sent Darwin his theory for Darwin's consideration and comments in 1858. Shocked to his socks, Darwin quickly reported Wallace's findings to his friends and sought their confidence and advice.

All decided that Darwin deserved recognition for his many years of work on evolution, even though he kept silent about it in text and public. All decided that Wallace deserved credit for his theory of evolution, since he had come up with a theory matching Darwin's' theory of evolution. As a result, all decided to send for Wallace. On his return, Darwin and Wallace would present their dual findings in tandem to the British Royal Society, and event that changed intellectual history forever.

Evolution's first presentation sets the stage for an ideological argument against the poor, sick, weak, elderly, and homeless. It becomes a tool of right-wing politicians as they create horrible conditions for humanity of previously unknown criminality. More though, the affects of Social Darwinism in Russia would later lead to a three decade crime against biology and agra culture, though this remains for my words on T.D. Lysenko.

Malthus becomes another scholar responsible for creating unintended consequences. In his case, his political economy concerns became important clues for Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Karl Marx. Darwin and Wallace find Malthus' over population theory related to poor people fits their struggle of the fittest needs in biology. Marx finds Malthus' work of use in explaining theories of value and surplus labor's tendency to exacerbate the working class wages.

As population rises unchecked, the value of labor decreases. As population decreases, the value of labor increases. Now, this is an important idea because it fits some of human history, even before capitalism. Marx would pick up this notion of labor as a commodity. Humanity became estranged from the land because as technology lead to increased production. Cities grew as macines replaced cottage industries. Wool production became a very profitable venture for Mr. Money Bags.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Peasants suffered mightily in a class war with their landloards, usually the aristocracy, well before landlords.

Peasants had a way of generating population growth beyond their means of subsistance; this problem continues today, we can see. At the village level by increasing cooperation -- protecting the commons too, peasants faired better. Add to their meager prosperity increases landlord taxation, and these village peasants soon lost their surpluses, grain, goods, and money. As a result the medieval agrarian economy and ecosystem soon suffered a breakdown.

Now, keep in mind, peasants have a habit of over populating, maybe for good reasons at times. With increasing population, taxation by landloards, peasants were unable to give back to the land what they took. What passed as subsistance farming became famine farming. This followed repeated, seasonal failures to plow and manure crop fields. As a result a slow, steady soil degradation spread. Marginal soil use lead to decreasing livestock feed; without livestock as beasts-of-burden, declining crop production increased at an increasing rate. Simply put, one thing lead to another. Eventually, aloowing for population growth and landloard taxation, enough sustainable land did not exist.

During the first half of the first half of the fourteenth century. Now population began to decline, as writers like Malthus, Darwin, and Wallace would guess.

Outbreaks of the plague began in 1348 as European peasants became more susceptable to disease throuh poor nutrition and illnesses related to famine. Throughout Europe population decreased rapidly. The plague years were 1348, 1360-1361, 1369, and 1374. Population decreased as much as 60 percent in some areas of Europe between 1400 and 1450.

There's an upside to these microorganism assualts on human populations, plagues, that is. As human carrying capacity fell with decreases in human populations, the land's ecological balance began to shift back to a more user friendly condition.

So Malthus was onto something big. His intent was to propagandize against the Irish peasants and working-class. In the end, he gave English intellectuals food for thought, population as an element in natural selection. But, we must keep this in mind,

How can we know this? We know it by what Darwin and Wallace wrote about. In there terms, the following conditions must be met for natural selection of a new species to occur.

we became a commodity within capitalist society, objects, not subjects. So Malthus put population on the 19th century's frequently asked questions tabel. (See my working paper on plagues.)

Mendel's Principals of Heredity and Darwin's Natural Selection - - 19th Century Irony

Genes became known because of Johann Mendel's efforts. a mild mannered monk at the time of the 19th century's greatest, purely intellectual discovery in biology. As opposed to Darwin's privileged life-style and educational pampering, Mendel struggled to attend a peasants' school made available by a local countess and devoted school master. Science came within the children's reach in spite of church adversity to ideas emanating from scientific thought.

One of the deepest of ironies to occur between individuals in the world of 19th century science occurred between Mendel and Darwin's scientific research. Darwin, raised in privilege among higher middle-class physicians, and educated in theology at Cambridge, planned to become a perish pastor and settle down with his wife, a cousin. Privileged, given an opportunity to tour the world at his father's expense on Her Majesty's Ship, The Beagle, Darwin freely collected biological specimens as specimens for scientific study. This British Empiricism would latter lead from a collective enterprise to years of deductive logic, clever insights, and brilliant cataloging of facts into hypothetical and theoretical categories. All the while Darwin chose freely to venture from one topic to another while living the life-style of a British nobleman.

Mendel, raised in poverty among peasants, worked his way through school. Later he would leave because his father suffered an injury while working on his lord's land. The accident meant that he would leave school and oriented his life to service in the church. Here he could continue his contact with the world of learning. He entered the Augustinian monastery near Brunn, Austria. As he would later write, "His private circumstances determined his choice of profession." All the while, Mendel's choices limited his excursions in place, time, and intellect to the realm's of a cloistered education. He would teach as an uncertified teacher because he could not pass the teaching test.

So here 19th century biology's two brightest stars live on two different continents. Both make scientific findings destined to change humanity's trajectory into the future in so many ways, while one pursues science from nearly pure intellectual curiosity (Mendel) in the form of Continental Rationalism, and the other (Darwin) pursues science from empirical research in the form of British Empiricism. Like Kant, Mendel pursued the thing-in-itself for explanations to nature's mysteries and change. Like Bacon, Darwin pursued material facts almost endlessly before being forced into synthesizing his theory of species modification by natural selection.

To top it off, Darwin never does find an answer to his biggest question, "How do individual within a species inherit characteristics from their parents?". And meanwhile, Gregor Mendel answers this question, nearly in exclusion but for a small, insignificant mathematics journal. Had Darwin somehow come across Mendel's work his life would have ended with his one, greatest question answered. And had Mendel been aware of Darwin's work and what Darwin sought to find, Mendel's work would have come to life with Darwin and Wallace's work in the British Royal Society for all time.

So while a rich gentleman of Darwin's rank, and he was a "gentleman' by all regards within a very Victorian society, studied worldwide with the finest and latest instruments, books, and knowledge available, Mendel studied peas. Peas were inexpensive, easy to handle, easy to catalogue throughout their growth cycle, and he could eat the results if needed. His scientific research into genetic variation by hereditary inheritance from parental characteristics would be known as Versuche uber Pflanzenhybriden.

So when Mendel set out to learn how differences in seed color and height of plants were transmitted from one generation to another, he approached the subject scientifically from the science of mathematics. What else might a peasant monk living in poverty hope to find? Of course, a key to growing greater crops and yielding planned results from intellectual discoveries following a scientific method. So in 1865 he read his research findings to about 45 men seated in the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. Imagine the quite at the end of his presentation. Here this mild mannered monk presents statistical figures on the growth, cultivation, and rendering of peas. How might this apply to the study of nature his listeners might wonder, for certain. Were they following some kind of numerology cranked out of religious beliefs? As a consequence Mendel's work failed to strike a serious chord with his listeners, unlike Darwin and Wallace's dual presentation of natural selection.

We know that Mendel, like Wallace, took a keen interest in Darwin's work, which placed him in a large body of Darwin's groupies.

A letter from a Professor of Botany in the University of Munich, Karl Wilhem von Naegeli. He is the one person known to have received Mendel's paper follows to show what's going on here:

Mendel found genes. He explained to the above professor in 44 pages what he did, how he did it, and what he found. He found genes; yet the professor seems to have missed Mendel's outcomes. Did this good professor not read Mendel's work? Had he read it closely and carefully, he would have found something like the following definition of genes:

Genes exist in cell nuclei. Each of these particles' chemical interactions with its external environment determines how it survives or ceases to survive. Those favorable characteristics aid each gene's passage from parent to offspring and so forth. Now this explanation puts to rest the Lamerackian theory of acquired characteristics. It's not that my mother dyed her hair black and I therefore acquired red hair; it's that my mother's genetic code for hair color came up black twice, once for me and a young sister, and once for our older sister, whose hair came out red. (Bb, Bb, Rb; where "B" = Black, "b" = black, "Rb" = Red, b = black)

What this means is this: Nothing gets inherited from blood, besides bloodborne pathogens. Everything inherited comes from parents. Every human cell has genes inherited from parents as their genes were inherited from their parents and beyond. In crime scene investigation, finding a "genetic blueprint" in evidence helps to solve homicides. None of this would happen but for the work of a modest monk who died unrecognized for one of the greatest human achievements in science.

Now I can carry the irony another step. Mendel died in obscurity while Darwin died a hero's death. Not until 1900 did Mendel's work come to light. One explanation for science missing Mendel's work for its complementing theory to Darwin's natural selection theory comes to one simple outcome from Darwin's Origin of Species; everyone was paying too much attention to Darwin to notice Mendel's obscure work. Incidentally, his paper used algebra to explanation the natural outcome of his inquiring into the inheritability of change through parent's genes.

Marx and Engels become the ideological excuse for repression of science as well as the murder of millions.

If I were to share two thoughts in agreement with Karl Marx off the top of my head, these would be the inevitable accumulation of capital by a ruling class and the "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." As for the "withering of the state," I doubt it. Unlike Marx, I do not see a withering away of the state as its role in capitalist conflict subsides because of socialist humanism's arrival. I see the state withering away because of environmental degradation worldwide, from top to bottom. And that's how crime scene cleanup works, articulating codified and yet-to-be codified criminal behavior. Subsequent crime scene cleanup following homicides, suicides, unattended deaths, and environmental degradation will follow as it does now. One more idea Marx got so correct. Capitalism grows while it develops unevenly. It's feast and famine, and feasting occurs for those well connected or just dumb-and-lucky.

When we speak of Karl Marx, we speak of at least three characters in history. I mean, there's Karl Marx as a social theorist, Karl Marx as a political activist, and Karl Marx as a sociologist. This last character includes Marx's political economy critiques.

Marx was neither a genius nor a demon. He saw injustice in a "barbaric" world. He sought to change this world. That others would follow him and invoke his name for their crimes against humanity should not deter our use of history as it involves Marx. If we were to ask Karl Marx for a description of himself, it might include something like this: "I'm a revolutionary communist committed to explaining our dialectical history's movement by economic and social class struggle." In no place would we find Marx advising others to collude against their neighbors in derivative schemes or rainforest destruction.

We would find a committed Enlightenment intellectual knee-deep in intellectual history. We would find a reader of Shakespeare's work once each year to sharpen his critical thinking skills. Marx would have found his own character in Shakespeare's work. He would have found revolutionary ideas. He would have found Fallstaff and others who drank too much at one time. He would have found his nemesis in Shylock.

From these terms it's easy to expect a conflict theory to emerge from Marx's writings. And so it is that we find an articulated social theory explaining human history as a history of class conflict. For Marx, the primacy of economic activity must come to explain class relationships and the sources of social power in any society following primitive communism's eclipse. "Primitive communism" as Marx describes it, occurs under scarcity, not a launching pad for scientific socialism by any means. Basically the agrarian revolution lead to the development of economic classes as we find them today in conflict. As capitalism develops it does so in a lop-sided manner. On one end of the economic scale, a ruling class develops from its ability to concentrate capital, labor, and information. On the other end, first a proletariat and then a working-class developer without benefit of capital, control over labor, and alienation from essential information. By "essential information," I mean information that might or could make a difference in their prospects for a more humane existence.

As long as the capitalist class has control over the means of producing information, like television and radio, the working-class becomes consumer conscious, rather than class conscious. It happens that our ruling classes become both class conscious and consumer conscious. The idea of "class consciousness" becomes taboo for those in the working-class, ironically, because they have little control over information, knowledge production. Exceptions include trade knowledge, religion, most science, most art, and social affairs information of low-risk to our ruling class. So it would not do for Wall Street to become as toxic an idea as the Communist Party USA.

With all of this conflict throughout human history we should expect plenty of crime scene cleanup work, and we have found it. What else might we expect from the children of Cain?

When it comes to crime scene cleanup in a general sense, as I use it on this crime scene cleanup web site, there's more than enough crime scene cleanup to go around when it comes to abusing the name, Karl Marx. Not so much Lenin, but Stalin's criminal conduct in the name of Marx's communist ideology left our world with crime scene cleanup for centuries; nuclear waste alone will pass into our environment from Russia's criminal nuclear power plants.

Here, what matters most about Stalin's ideological insanity applies to genetics and the abuse of science in the name of socialism. But first, I must explain the role of Mendel, the Miravan monk, in discovering that elusive explanation Darwin and Wallace missed. That is, how organisms come to adapt to environmental and population pressures with inherited characteristics.

A savvy reader will see where I'm going with this and how I intend to remain within my broad definitions of crime scene cleanup.

3. Karl Marx was not a prophet, genius, liberal, or demon. He worked hard to produce a body of work. Readers of his work usually agree that Marx was brilliant. Those who study his life find that he did not do so well as a family man. He did less well at predicting our future. He did provide a well articulated body of literature explaining history and how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; how and why capitalism's uneven development adds to internal and external class conflict within and between social-economic classes. We will not fully understand how crime scene cleanup works without acknowledging our debt to Karl Marx's explication of capitalism.

How Crime Scene Cleanup Works

888-431-733

ASK - BING - GOOGLE - YAHOO! -

Wallace and How Natural Selection Works

Social Darwinism