Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on August 7, 2011 at 6:52pm

Thirded!

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on June 13, 2011 at 3:17pm

One of the most popular political graffiti slogans down here translates to "Be nice to the United States or they'll bring democracy to your country, too!"

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on June 13, 2011 at 3:26pm

Woah! Scott B. is on fire!

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on June 13, 2011 at 3:44pm

Yeah, Marc, few things get my goat worse than right-wingers in the U.S. pontificating about Latin American culture and illegal immigration from Latin America, when they know NOTHING about the culture other than their right-wing stereotypes, or the forces that drive Latin Americans to seek jobs illegally in the U.S.

Permalink Reply by Stella Shaffer on June 16, 2011 at 10:28pm

An excellent atheist point: religions tend to want to keep people controlled, particularly women.  One way they do that is extending their hostility to all science into the realm of birth control, enslaving women to their husbands and communities since they depend on support for their young children and produce more (low-paid, unempowered) workers.  in every developing country, when medical care is offered the women go for the birth control -- they want to have only a few children, and keep those alive and well.  A fair and healthy economy and reasonable government would encourage that, and there would be no overpopulation problem.

Permalink Reply by John Hunt on June 12, 2011 at 4:16pm

Interesting question, and interesting responses.

 

No one has mentioned fertility treatment.  I can't help feeling that this is a mistake.  Couples previously unable to reproduce find suddenly that they can.  And one sperm "donor" can produce more children than he'd be likely to "naturally":  without physical effort, emotional investment, and decades of financial support.  And how many women of amazingly advanced years have become mothers:  and for what motives; and with what consequences?

 

Living longer seems fine for the individual, so long as one has health.  But it also increases the consumption of resources.  The global population is predicted to hit seven billion this October, [increased from just 2 bn in 1930, and still rising]:  but food, water, fuel, and other resources are already becoming critical.  And funding care homes [predominantly for the elderly] has now become a national crisis here in the UK.

 

A year ago I deposited this "Advance Directive" under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act with my GP.  --

• If I lose the ability for rational and autonomous thought and communication, with little or no prospect of recovery, I wish prompt euthanasia, and no other nonpalliative care.
  I may desire euthanasia in additional circumstances:  but trust that, if necessary, I shall be able to express this.

Though we're still waiting for euthanasia or assisted dying to be legalised here.

 

As for "cleaning the gene pool", whatever this means, I believe we're still a long way from fully understanding how genes work.  I'm not a biologist:  but while gene X may control property or attribute x, attribute y may be controlled or influenced by several genes.  As a further complication, gene Z may influence attributes a, b, and c.  As there's not a nice, simple, one-to-one correspondence, elucidating all the ramifications WON'T be a simple task.  And Prof. Stephen Hawking is an example of someone who, under a simplistic eugenics programme, might never have been born.  If we try cleaning the gene pool, we might inadvertently polish off the entire species quite spectacularly.

 

Of course, this could prove to be of immense benefit to countless other species.

 

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 13, 2011 at 3:54pm

As always, I enjoyed your posts, Scott.  I feel like I learn something every time you speak. 

 

I agree with you as well, John.  The whole idea of cleaning the the gene pool or designer babies gives me the willies.  That's a little too Hilterish for me. 

 

I have heard it nine ways from Sunday from anti-vaxxers that I gave my kids autism by getting them all their shots on time and for everything suggested by the CDC and supported by my insurance.  Now there is a large measles outbreak and it looks to be a bad one.  My kids are fine.  No worries here.  But all those people who told me it was much better for a child to actually get measles than get the shots, well, I hope they changed their mind or never run into anyone with measles.  Otherwise, my children, autistic or not, are the fittest. 

 

Besides, I am beginning to wonder if autism isn't some widespread initial change in evolution, because it's not all bad.  An child with autism who is on the upper end of the spectrum can process tremendous amounts of information.  They can look at a computer filled with all sorts of different information that would be totally confusing to me and see a pattern and pick out the one thing that they see as important.  It's amazing how much data these kids can store and how easily they can process it.  They have brains like an information warehouse. 

 

Living with a child with autism, yeah there are problems with social issues and often hygiene problems, but sometimes I have to sit back and say "wow" to all the things they can easily do that us "normal" folks can't without a lot of effort.

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on June 13, 2011 at 4:01pm

I wrote a chapter on the MMR scandal - and it still runs even today. Bizarre. Worse still the doctor responsible is still in practice!

 

Autism isn't likely to be an evolutionary advantage at this stage (although we can never be sure) and it may not even be heritable. I have Asperger's and only one of my children shows the slightest sign: which may be entirely down to her copying me.

 

The people around you should sue if their children are infected with measles - not the MMR folk, but the idiotic journalists and celebs who foolishly could not see beyond a greedy, self-serving doctor and his faulty data.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Phillips on June 20, 2011 at 8:45am

I have a horrible feeling of foreboding over all of this, with the future prospects of natural selection, red in tooth and claw, taking it's toll on humanity in it's own, unsympathetic and remorseless way.

I would suggest that the crisis awaiting us all from the scarcity of resources and food production, allied to global warming, which is now all but unavoidable, will lead to first national and then global conflicts and a global breakdown of civilisation. Caring for the sick and week may be no more than a field dressing in this breakdown. 

I know that this an apocalyptic Malthusian vision, but there are too many of us now with 6 billion on the Earth. Where will we be when we get to 10 billion? Is optimism an attitude that we can still afford? I am getting more and more apprehensive with the passing years and that growing certainty of mortality as a cancer "survivor" for the moment, that I worry increasingly for my kids, now in their 30's, will have inherited hell on earth before they too get to their 60's.

There will be nothing clean or humane about it.

 

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on June 20, 2011 at 7:46pm

Ma and Pa Nature, as they have for eons, will tell us when we have exceeded their limits.

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on August 7, 2011 at 6:40pm

Hello, late to the party! I agree with you Christopher (Christ what an unfortunate name for an atheist! Meet Jesus and Mohammed as well) that a global breakdown of civilization may be imminent. Yes, it seems like conspiracy shit, but there are just too many dark signs out there. Right now the most mind-altering thing happening to global civilization is that the Arab world is slowly waking up to the fact that their brutal, repressive, authoritarian dictatorships may not be the best of all possible forms of governance. So much of the world is still so far behind in the dark ages that at their current paces it would seem like it would take at least a hundred years for them to catch up with the world leaders of culture, and no the US isn't even among them. The US itself lags pretty well behind the Scandinavian countries which, for example, have a healthy dose of Socialism and have managed to work their system to greater benefits in almost every area of human concern as compared with the US. They are happier, healthier, taller, more long-lived, and better educated than any other countries, so I would say that if we want to save humanity as we know it, we had better start following the real leaders. The point that the US has gotten to, with its economy struggling mightily, its credit rating downgraded, and its wars, combined with its religious fervor and its non-appreciation of science, this is all due to our government being hijacked by the oligarchs on the right. They are clearly among the greatest threats humanity faces, along with the repression committed by political leaders to their countries the world over. They are all raping the land, oppressing the entire human population, poisoning our water/air/ground, sitting on their thumbs on global warming, and overall just taking the worst possible stance on virtually every relevant issue imaginable, and there are a great many. Like you mention, Chris, scarcity of resources, including basics such as energy, water and food, plus global warming, plus a catastrophic extinction event happening globally, plus an exploding human population, coupled with deforestation, desertification, and the list goes on, really makes me wonder if we aren't arriving at a breaking point in a real hurry. And when Nature informs us that we have been responsible for the destruction of our own ecological niche, as Tom points out, we'll be wishing for the days when we had the sets of problems we are now faced with today.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on August 7, 2011 at 6:55pm

Just don't start heading to the other extreme of preaching that only pure Communism can save mankind, like our handful of token, nutjob Revolutionaries, and I'm with you completely, man.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page