[quote]amphibian wrote:
Yeah, nobody talks about the good ideas Hitler had…like Eugenics.
How about Johnathan Swift’s “A modest Proposal”?
It’s a slippery slope, what human decides the worth of humanity?
[/quote]
Of course you realize that “A Modest Proposal” is a satirical work. Many of the British aristocracy did not, when it was published.
I think more people need to learn about Hardy-Wienburg equilibrium. Everybody envisions this future where humans are frail but super intelligent with huge brains. The thing is, in a thousand years, at the rate things are going, we’re going to be pretty much the same. I mean, do people with weak, frail bodies, and big brains somehow have more children than normal humans? Unless they do, I see no reason that this would be our future.
[quote]Chrysalis wrote:
amphibian wrote:
Yeah, nobody talks about the good ideas Hitler had…like Eugenics.
How about Johnathan Swift’s “A modest Proposal”?
It’s a slippery slope, what human decides the worth of humanity?
Of course you realize that “A Modest Proposal” is a satirical work. Many of the British aristocracy did not, when it was published.[/quote]
Yes, I am aware thanks…I was going for a certain degree of satire as well.
I’ve pondered this before. Some of the data is there some is not, and it all depends on how you interpret it. Increased rates of cancer <-> higher exposure to radio frequencies, microwaves, radiation ect. or genetic
increased rates of autism <-> genetic or is medicine now better at detecting it
Living to older age <-> medical miracle or medicine allowing you to pass on gene mutations that would have killed you before puberty
There really is no definitive answer.
I wouldn’t worry until there is an invasion or either zombies or gingers
[quote]amphibian wrote:
Chrysalis wrote:
amphibian wrote:
Yeah, nobody talks about the good ideas Hitler had…like Eugenics.
How about Johnathan Swift’s “A modest Proposal”?
It’s a slippery slope, what human decides the worth of humanity?
Of course you realize that “A Modest Proposal” is a satirical work. Many of the British aristocracy did not, when it was published.
Yes, I am aware thanks…I was going for a certain degree of satire as well.
[/quote]
Hard to tell, when you include a satirical work side by side with someone like Hitler. 
Saying Eugenics was a “Good Thing” associated with Hitler seemed pretty satirical to me.
I am known to be a bubble off center though, so no worries.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
I think people shouldn’t be able to pass on their gene’s without having to first pass a IQ and personality test to be quite honest. Stupid/Irresponsible parents breed more weakness into humanity than western medicine ever will.[/quote]
As a parent, I whole-heartedly agree. The news is full of stories of parents that couldn’t tell the difference between their ass and a manhole cover. I recall a few months ago in the news, this couple was all upset as the government was saying ‘they’ were too stupid to raise kids, as both parents IQ was borderline that of an ape. Needless to say the press had a hay-day about how ‘bad’ government was to step in and forbid them from having kids.
[quote]gsword wrote:
So you saw Gattaca in the opposite way it was intended ;)[/quote]
That’s precisely the movie I was thinking of when I started to read this thread. Good flick and definitely makes you go hmmmm.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Medicine isn’t doing that much to keep sick/defective people alive.[/quote]
I tend to disagree. Couples who cannot normally conceive children are going to the fertility doctors and having a slew of premature, sickly children. Case in point is that wack-job from California that’s living with her parents, not married, and went in and gave birth to a egg carton full of 1lb babies. Now don’t read too much into what I’m saying here, as I have no problems with couples doing this and giving birth to one child; it’s when the physicians and the couple refuse to ‘select’ specific fertilized eggs that we run into a problem with multiple births, genetic defects, and children (later adults) with excessive allergies, susceptible to diseases, etc.
[quote]gregus wrote:
Does modern medicine allow for the survival of inferior and recessive genes in people? Is it paradoxical in the sense that as it saves one individual it allows that individual to pass on their weaker less resistant genes to others and make them weaker?
Nature has a way to survive only the fittest and healthiest most robust subjects of the highest adaptability and intelligence. Are we short circuiting that system with modern medicine? Are weakening humanity?
I know the very topic is very sensitive and i certainly would not follow any kind of logic like that if i or anyone i know was in sick.[/quote]
This has definitely been an interesting mind-bender of a thread.
Granted I’m older (40 in a couple months), but when I was younger, NOBODY was allergic to peanut butter. It wasn’t until I was in my 20’s that I actually ran into someone that was. This was such a rare occurrence, and I grew up in a large metropolis. Now, I drop my kids off at school and they’re not allowed to bring peanut butter and jam sandwiches to school as 90% of the kids have allergies to it, with some being so severe that just touching a door handle that was previously touched by someone who had peanut butter, causes such a reaction that they need to be hospitalized.
Or just talk to any human resources department about rampant sick time of employees. Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, the average time off due to illness was a mere 2-3 days a year. Nowadays that number is 5-8 days, which is more than double.
If you ask me, modern medicine definitely has a role in this, but so does the genetic modification of our produce and its affect on our own DNA through gene-crossover, as well as pollution and contaminates in our society.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Does modern medicine allow for the survival of inferior and recessive genes in people? Is it paradoxical in the sense that as it saves one individual it allows that individual to pass on their weaker less resistant genes to others and make them weaker?
Nature has a way to survive only the fittest and healthiest most robust subjects of the highest adaptability and intelligence. Are we short circuiting that system with modern medicine? Are weakening humanity?
I know the very topic is very sensitive and i certainly would not follow any kind of logic like that if i or anyone i know was in sick. [/quote]
Where i would throw in my two cents in modern medicine, is when it comes to life preservation beyond what you would think that the mind or body would normally take. I was forced to think very seriously about this a couple years ago, when my parents, then respectively 65 & 55 told myself and my sisters that they had drawn up living wills that they wanted us to sign. My sisters, parents and i sat down with our family PCP for a VERY series of discussions, and it was v. interesting to hear from the doctor what the medical definition of death (namely lack of brain activity)is, and going from there, to hear what my parents did & didn’t want, for instance in a situation such as being diagnosed with Motor Neurone disease, which a good friend of theirs died from in which brain function is often spared while your body degenerates. Another example i would cite is someone who suffers a massive but non-fatal stroke (one of the things in my dad’s living will).
IMHO (and i know that this is an extremely controversial subject here in the US)modern medicine goes too far when it keeps someone alive beyond where you would be able to carry out normal functions.
Again, i know that this is an extremely controversial & passion arousing topic here (see the Terry Schiavo case)–we had this debate within the immediate family, because my older sister is extremely religious, and hence is not included in the living will.
Just my two cents worth.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
And maybe in 2000 years the very concept of correcting eyesight will seem absurd, because we will live in caves, floating in nutrient vats which support and feed our pale, withered bodies and giant brains, while we telepathically control half-walrus, half-eagle slave creatures genetically engineered to do our bidding in the physical world and protect us from the hordes of armored orca-squid-turtle hybrids unleashed by a society of rogue dolphins.[/quote]
And definitely in 4000,000,000 years, we’ll all have relocated to another planet or some moon of another planet.
I do believe that modern medicine is doing a disservice to humans, but not to humanity. Here’s why:
Modern medicine is designed to treat symptoms, and symptoms only. If you have a headache, they give you aspirin. Why? So you don’t feel the pain anymore. They don’t care why you were having the pain, or what was causing it in the first place, as long as the symptoms are gone, the doctors have done their job. This is why I don’t go to the doctors unless my life is at risk. In my experience, your body will work out its own problems. Another thing is, who would want to take some of these medications nowadays when they have so many side effects?! Some of the crap that they peddle on TV they spend the majority of the commercial telling you why you SHOULDN’T take this pill instead of why you should. Allergy medicine? Would you really risk such serious ailments as heart failure, and ulcers just so you could avoid sneezing? Get real man!
When I was 11, I was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, which is “Incurable”, but “treatable” I was in and out of the hospital trying every trick in the doctors playbook for 9 years. All the while studying nutrition, and exercise. Eventually it got to a point where my doctor pretty much told me he couldn’t do shit else for me, so I said goodbye, never went back, and now I’m healthier, and bigger than I’ve ever been in my life.
In short, I’d say, take responsibility for your own health, because one day, the doctors may not be able to come through for you.
[quote]fabsadami wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Does modern medicine allow for the survival of inferior and recessive genes in people? Is it paradoxical in the sense that as it saves one individual it allows that individual to pass on their weaker less resistant genes to others and make them weaker?
Nature has a way to survive only the fittest and healthiest most robust subjects of the highest adaptability and intelligence. Are we short circuiting that system with modern medicine? Are weakening humanity?
I know the very topic is very sensitive and i certainly would not follow any kind of logic like that if i or anyone i know was in sick.
Where i would throw in my two cents in modern medicine, is when it comes to life preservation beyond what you would think that the mind or body would normally take. I was forced to think very seriously about this a couple years ago, when my parents, then respectively 65 & 55 told myself and my sisters that they had drawn up living wills that they wanted us to sign. My sisters, parents and i sat down with our family PCP for a VERY series of discussions, and it was v. interesting to hear from the doctor what the medical definition of death (namely lack of brain activity)is, and going from there, to hear what my parents did & didn’t want, for instance in a situation such as being diagnosed with Motor Neurone disease, which a good friend of theirs died from in which brain function is often spared while your body degenerates. Another example i would cite is someone who suffers a massive but non-fatal stroke (one of the things in my dad’s living will).
IMHO (and i know that this is an extremely controversial subject here in the US)modern medicine goes too far when it keeps someone alive beyond where you would be able to carry out normal functions.
Again, i know that this is an extremely controversial & passion arousing topic here (see the Terry Schiavo case)–we had this debate within the immediate family, because my older sister is extremely religious, and hence is not included in the living will.
Just my two cents worth.
[/quote]
This is veering a bit off course, but bringing up your parents’ living will made me think back to a sitution I was involved with several years back. I was my husband’s caregiver as he was treated for cancer. The treatments were brutal, but he wanted them, including a somewhat controversial last-ditch whole brain radiation treatment for a recurring metastatic brain tumor.
As his wife, I was unable, in some ways to be objective about his care, and of course I could only advise at that point, not make his decisions for him. He figured, he might live, and if not, his course of treatment might eventually help someone else down the line.
The treatments really took it out of him, as did the cancer. I watched him fade away. He was too weak to care for at home, and spent the last months of his life between the hospital and a care facility. Eventually, he lapsed into a coma-like state (dr’s words, not sure precisely what the difference between a coma and a coma-like state is).
It was at this point, even with knowing my husband’s wishes, that I had decisions to make. Withhold nutrition and hydration? Supply them? He was reduced to nothing more than a pile of bones and a little flesh, unable to respond in any meaningful way to anything but pain. He would wimper when the orderlies came to turn him every few hours. I could do nothing at all for him but sit at his bedside, swabbing his lips with vaseline, and demanding that he got major drugs at least 20 minutes before they touched him.
At that point in time was was struck by the irony of the fact that if I were to hasten the inevitable and end his suffering, I could be prosecuted for murder, yet if I owned a dog in the same condition, I could be prosecuted for allowing the animal to suffer.
I do understand the slippery slope and the controversies, but it is nothing short of criminal to allow living creature, animal or not, to suffer that way. Other countries have guidelines for assisted suicide/euthanasia.
I think in many ways, the advancement of medical technology is outstripping our ability to cope with it. Someone mentioned fertility treatments earlier, and actually there are some pretty decent guidelines in place. Not that they cannot be tightened up, but a situation like the Suleman case violates just about any fertility ethics I have ever seen in place.
Prematurity is another area where medical ethics are sometimes not as clearcut as they could be. We can save preemies tinier and earlier, but should we? Almost all extremely premature babies have huge medical issues that cost thousands and even millions of dollars. A few thrive and have very few effects from their prematurity. Many more end up blind, with cerebral palsy, mentally retarded. Should we be desperately attempting to save babies that get born tinier and tinier, and tie up an inordinate amount of finite resources in their care? Especially when we consider the fact that millions are without healthcare at all?
If you are the parent of that desperately ill baby, the answer is probably yes. If you are the administrator of a hospital, knowing the actual cost and knowing that the hospital will most likely be forced to absorb a lot of that cost, which means denying health care to less desperately ill children, the answer might vary. And even if the initial cost of care was not an issue, what about the quality of life of those children who survive, but greviously damaged? What is the cost to society, overall? Where to we draw the line on the sanctity of human life?
I can’t begin to answer these questions, but they are argued every day by medical ethicists and hospital committees and legislators etc who have to make the decisions.
Interesting to mull over for sure.
[quote]chillain wrote:
And definitely in 4000,000,000 years, we’ll all have relocated to another planet or some moon of another planet.
[/quote]
I tend to think that humanity will have died a miserable death on this planet, having squandered every opportunity to save itself.
[quote]Hyena wrote:
I do believe that modern medicine is doing a disservice to humans, but not to humanity. Here’s why:
Modern medicine is designed to treat symptoms, and symptoms only. If you have a headache, they give you aspirin. Why? So you don’t feel the pain anymore. They don’t care why you were having the pain, or what was causing it in the first place, as long as the symptoms are gone, the doctors have done their job. This is why I don’t go to the doctors unless my life is at risk. In my experience, your body will work out its own problems. Another thing is, who would want to take some of these medications nowadays when they have so many side effects?! Some of the crap that they peddle on TV they spend the majority of the commercial telling you why you SHOULDN’T take this pill instead of why you should. Allergy medicine? Would you really risk such serious ailments as heart failure, and ulcers just so you could avoid sneezing? Get real man!
When I was 11, I was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, which is “Incurable”, but “treatable” I was in and out of the hospital trying every trick in the doctors playbook for 9 years. All the while studying nutrition, and exercise. Eventually it got to a point where my doctor pretty much told me he couldn’t do shit else for me, so I said goodbye, never went back, and now I’m healthier, and bigger than I’ve ever been in my life.
In short, I’d say, take responsibility for your own health, because one day, the doctors may not be able to come through for you.[/quote]
This is absolutely not true. If you have a one off headache then yes, you probably reach for the advil however if you are suffering from chronic headaches then any decent doctor will refer to for a battery of tests to try and identify and treat the root cause.
^^ agree
Over millions of years man has become the very paragon of animals but we must take care not to alter what nature has taken so long to forge â?? or risk being burned by the very fires of creation.
Lance Armstrong beats cancer and becomes the greatest cyclist in the history of cycling. Modern medicine works but not with everyone. The will to fight for life is just as important. Being very healthy prior to an illness or disease is paramount.
There are numerous stories of survival. In which I believe medicine played a part in, how big a part is questionable. Ones health and will to live is as or more important than the medicine at times. There are diseases that we consider minor and curable today, however in the past they were a death sentence.
A healthy diet and physical conditioning play a great part in the prevention of diseases later in life. There are however diseases that are transmittable ie HIV, Hep-C etc, where diet and conditioning play a major role in surviving them. Modern medicine is a hit and miss. We hear all the nightmares and the victories.
Modern medicine can play a role in aiding recovery. With pain killers one is able to be active without discomfort which allows for the physical activity to aid in recovery. It is not the place of modern medicine to determine the life style of the patient.
Although I find it disheartening to see the abuses individuals inflict upon themselves. It is not my place to determine whether they have the right to live long unhealthy lives. Some people will endure great hardship because they fear death.
I do personally believe more money and research should be put into preventive medicine. However this requires one to take responsibility for themselves and that is not a very strong trait in our present society.
There is far to much government interference that prevents individuals from determining their own destiny. As well as a great lack of self determination and desire for personal achievement. Most people lack the ability to make the changes that will determine whether they live a productive life or simply exist.
I want my kids to go through puberty when they are five through the use of modern science.
As TC has pointed out, instinct will cause each to mate with the highest apparent genetic quality mammal they can find that will accept them.
Therefore there will be little to no reduction in degree of evolutionary improvement of those at the higher end of apparent genetic quality.
However many who in the past due to genetic problems would not have survived to reproduce, will due to medicine survive, and find others who likewise rate low in the genetic sweepstakes.
The greater divergence becomes in apparent (or actual) genetic quality between these groups, the less interbreeding will occur between the groups, at some point probably coming to no interbreeding.
At this point total divergence will have occurred. One group likely will live underground, and the other aboveground.
Unfortunately those of the group that lives underground will probably eat those of the group that lives aboveground.
[quote]amphibian wrote:
We’re human beings not livestock. [/quote]
While this is true, we can still learn alot from nature. The weak and sickly buffalo are abandoned and left behind by the herd, so that the greater good may survive.
Social Darwinism FTW
I think eugenics is a good thing in circumstances. I just don’t see why we should allow certain people to breed. My example being people who contribute nothing to society or people who are highly likely to pass on some horrible genetically pre-disposed diseases.