Special Needs Kids

[Manedwolf]

Yes, I figured a moment later that might happen, confusing evolution for deliberate eugenics. That's not what I meant at all, sorry. 

We as a society have moved to an obsession with "germ free" and what I feel is the wrong approach to dealing with that sort of genetic issue of "life threatening" histamine reactions.

Instead of finding a way to overcome it, which might be as simple as introducing very small amounts of those allergens until the person builds up a resistance, we're encouraging schools and other institutions to try to eliminate the allergen altogether.

Which only works until it doesn't. Some kid is going to come in with a peanut butter sandwich some day, and then, with zero resistance, the kid with the peanut allergy who has been strictly kept from ALL peanut contact is going to have a severe histamine reaction.

Many scientists feel that resistances can be passed on genetically. If we can solve such allergies in some way, let people build up resistances, isn't that better than instead attempting sterility and avoidance, resulting in each generation being a little more frail, a little more allergic to more and more and more things, until any contact with any less-developed country could literally kill them?

That's what I meant. Currently, we're heading towards making all our kids into bubble-boy levels of sensitivity, rather than focusing on a way to solve the problems, so they'll reproduce and pass on the resistances, not the allergies.

Like it or not, the obsession with avoiding all germs and the drive to avoid all allergens instead of allowing resistance to be built up...it will make us genetically weaker with every generation that passes on those allergy traits unsolved. And then the rest of the world, particulary the third world, with stronger immune systems and lack of allergic reactions, well...what will that mean for us? That's what I meant by screwing up evolution...not that I want anything to happen to kids with allergies! Just that I think it'd be better if the allergies were dealt with before they grow up and reproduce!

How many people have even suggested something like allowing kids with severe peanut allergies to be exposed to extremely low doses of the allergen, then more, and more, coupled with some histamine blockers in lower doses as their body decides that it's not worthy of a freakout histamine reaction? Not many...most people just want to eliminate the peanuts altogether. Which doesn't work. See what I mean, now?

We're also already seeing the results of our obsession with sterility in this country...MSRA.

[BrokenPaw]

This is something that BrokenMa calls the "Sleeping Beauty Fallacy".

The story of Sleeping Beauty gets her all into a knot, because:  The king and queen are told that at adulthood, their child will prick her finger on a spindle and die.  Much wailing and gnashing of teeth later, and the curse is reduced to a century-long sleep.  So what do mom and pop do?  They freak out and ban all spinning in the kingdom by way of spindle or distaff, under the hope that if there were no spindles in the kingdom, daughter dear would be unable to prick her finger on one, and the curse would come to nothing.  But of course the princess does find one in due course, and the curse is fulfilled.

BrokenMa reasons thus:  If the princess were my daughter, I would have immediately begun training her in using a spindle, as soon as she was old enough to hold one.  Then, by the time she became an adult, she would be such an expert with it that she'd be able to avoid being pricked.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the same argument that pro- and anti-gun folks have about guns and kids:  Everyone agrees that guns handled by irresponsible children are a life-threatening danger.  But some would deal with that danger by hiding from it, by removing all guns from the world, in the name of safety; and some would train the kids so that on the day they do encounter a gun with no parents around, they know what it can do and how to avoid being hurt or killed.

Spindles, germs, guns, allergens... it all comes down to the difference between living in fear of danger, or accepting that danger exists and dealing with it.

-BP

[Paddy]

I don't mean to sound heartless, but the reason we're seeing more of that now is that they're simply surviving. It's often, it seems, just bad genetics. And in times past, they were just "sickly" and often didn't live past childhood. Now, they grow up and have more kids with the same genetic weaknesses.

Seig Heil mein Fuhrer!  We must allow the gene pool to cleanse itself in preparation for the Master Race. 

[longeyes]

Well, the truth may lie somewhere between The Generation of the Infirm and "This is Sparta!!!"

[Manedwolf]

I don't mean to sound heartless, but the reason we're seeing more of that now is that they're simply surviving. It's often, it seems, just bad genetics. And in times past, they were just "sickly" and often didn't live past childhood. Now, they grow up and have more kids with the same genetic weaknesses.

Seig Heil mein Fuhrer!  We must allow the gene pool to cleanse itself in preparation for the Master Race. 

You know, there's a big difference between simple observation of why something is, and godwinning by suggesting that someone is suggesting causing that to happen.

It's just nature, and the reason why we're seeing more of it is because our science is letting people live despite it. Who said that's a bad thing?

[Len Budney]

You know, there's a big difference between simple observation of why something is, and godwinning by suggesting that someone is suggesting causing that to happen.

I'm on Maned's side here. He isn't suggesting that we slaughter the weak and sickly. He's pointing out that we have more "sickly" people today than in years past, because in years past they'd already be dead. Mtnbkr actually agreed with Maned, when he mentioned that preemies in the '70s had worse chances than today. If Mtnbkr had been born in 1943, instead of 1970-something, he might not have lived to grace us today with his insightful comments. Then again, if he'd been born in 1993, the NICU would have considered him practically routine.

My son was born six weeks early in 2, and apart from a couple days under sun-lamps the whole thing was humdrum. Relatives actually roll their eyes if I even refer to him as a preemie.

--Len.

[BrokenPaw]

The fact that we are seeing more people survive today than we might have seen a century ago, because they would have been "selected out", simply means that in today's world, the criteria for natural selection have changed. 

This is no different from any other shift in priorities in the human timeline; Stephen Hawking is a valuable contributor to our understanding of the universe, even though his physical body would have kept him from surviving, not so long ago.  Physical prowess, so important in a race of hunter-gatherers, less (but still) important in a low-tech industrial society, is now no longer a requirement for survival.  While strong people to do heavy work are still necessary, it is now possible for the weak, the infirm, and even the frail to make a contribution from their own abilities and survive thereby, trading their skills of intellect for the labor of the strong.

Eugenics is pointless in an information age; on what criterion would a eugenicist sort the "good" from the "bad"?  Even things that have for years been thought of as diseases are turning out to be potentially advantageous in a world run by computers.  I speak here specifically of Asperger's Syndrome, a sort of high-functioning autism with which I have a certain familiarity.  There is quite a lot of indication that those who tend toward the Autism spectrum find their way into the computer field, and often excel in it, where in a pre-information-age society they would have been reviled, or cast out, or assumed to be possessed of the devil.

Times, they are a-changin'.
-BP

[Firethorn]

Eugenics is pointless in an information age; on what criterion would a eugenicist sort the "good" from the "bad"?  Even things that have for years been thought of as diseases are turning out to be potentially advantageous in a world run by computers.  I speak here specifically of Asperger's Syndrome, a sort of high-functioning autism with which I have a certain familiarity.  There is quite a lot of indication that those who tend toward the Autism spectrum find their way into the computer field, and often excel in it, where in a pre-information-age society they would have been reviled, or cast out, or assumed to be possessed of the devil.

I know there's all sorts of slippery slope arguements, but a little eugenics would be a boon to society.  For example, it'd be fairly simple to all but eliminate diabetes in future generations.  Some of the other crippling/mental retardation syndromes would be even easier.

There's an aweful lot of expenses associated with these diseases, and they're preventable today.

In the future, sure, DNA manipulation to fix the genes.

Note, I'm not talking about GATTACA level manipulation here - just the obvious stuff, generally tracable to one messed up gene.

[Len Budney]

In the future, sure, DNA manipulation to fix the genes.

Nope--ALL genetic research will be banned, the day someone discovers the "gay gene." One guy will invent a cure for it, and another will provide services aborting gay babies, and the gay lobby will have the whole science outlawed.

--Len.

[Tecumseh]

In the future, sure, DNA manipulation to fix the genes.

Nope--ALL genetic research will be banned, the day someone discovers the "gay gene." One guy will invent a cure for it, and another will provide services aborting gay babies, and the gay lobby will have the whole science outlawed.

--Len.

Actually I think it will be the Christians who do this.  They seem hellbent on stopping science dead in its tracks.

[Antibubba]

Wow!! Nearly 2 entire pages until gays, abortion, and fundamentalism are introduced.  Our own group evolution...

[Perd Hapley]

Actually I think it will be the Christians who do this.  They seem hellbent on stopping science dead in its tracks. 

Christians will "stop science" to save homosexual babies? 

[Firethorn]

Wow!! Nearly 2 entire pages until gays, abortion, and fundamentalism are introduced.  Our own group evolution...

I mention diabetes, then they bring up 'gays' in response.  Sheesh.

Oh, and my plan to eliminate diabetes was fairly simple:  Test everyone for the recessive genes, then simply screen fetuses for the recessives.  Sure - it's artificial insemination, but it'd only have to be done for a single generation.

I'm mostly worrying about stuff as bad or worse than type 1 diabetes here.  IE the people who need lifelong daily medical treatment/drugs.

As for finding a 'gay' gene - I'm fairly sure that it's more likely something like hormonal balance during pregnancy.  The best they'll probably find is genes leading to a predisposition.  Mother's genes, diet, and exposures might matter more than the kid's.

I also think that sexual attraction isn't either/or.  If it was, how do 'closet gays' manage to get it up enough to have kids?  They might be a 60/40 (60% attacted to men, 40% women).  Or it might be hormonal shifts around 40 that cause a tipping point.  Still, the issue is way too politicized right now, so I doubt we'll be seeing good science on it.

I'm talking about this on a level along the lines of why people like or dislike meat here.  I'm not trying to say whether being homosexual is good or bad - personally, I think that it's neutral and not usually the person's choice.

[Len Budney]

Just from an objective standpoint, I have to wonder what the hell we're doing to Western civilization in the long run by derailing evolution so badly among our population. 

I supported your initial statement, but at this point you're sounding loonier than a lodge full of masons having a fruitcake bake-off at a secret meeting of the Bilderbergers.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Wow!! Nearly 2 entire pages until gays, abortion, and fundamentalism are introduced.  Our own group evolution...

I mention diabetes, then they bring up 'gays' in response.  Sheesh.

Oh, and my plan to eliminate diabetes was fairly simple:  Test everyone for the recessive genes, then simply screen fetuses for the recessives.  Sure - it's artificial insemination, but it'd only have to be done for a single generation.

I'm mostly worrying about stuff as bad or worse than type 1 diabetes here.  IE the people who need lifelong daily medical treatment/drugs.

As for finding a 'gay' gene - I'm fairly sure that it's more likely something like hormonal balance during pregnancy.  The best they'll probably find is genes leading to a predisposition.  Mother's genes, diet, and exposures might matter more than the kid's.

I also think that sexual attraction isn't either/or.  If it was, how do 'closet gays' manage to get it up enough to have kids?  They might be a 60/40 (60% attacted to men, 40% women).  Or it might be hormonal shifts around 40 that cause a tipping point.  Still, the issue is way too politicized right now, so I doubt we'll be seeing good science on it.

I'm talking about this on a level along the lines of why people like or dislike meat here.  I'm not trying to say whether being homosexual is good or bad - personally, I think that it's neutral and not usually the person's choice.

Actually, the explosion of Type II adult onset diabetes likely has little to do with genetics. It's because kids and then adults are consuming so much high-fructose corn syrup, which, to the metabolism, is like trying to drink from a firehose. It just throws the whole insulin-production system off till it just can't work properly anymore.

[Brad Johnson]

It's because kids and then adults are consuming so much high-fructose corn syrup, which, to the metabolism, is like trying to drink from a firehose. It just throws the whole insulin-production system off till it just can't work properly anymore.

It's not the syrup, the body can handle that because the body is made to specifically to digest carbohydrates (along with fats and proteins).  It's the weight.  Type II diabetes has a direct correlation with obesity.  We, as a society, are increasingly obese due to our sedentary lifestyles and poor nutritional habits.  As a direct result we are seeing an increase in diabetes among the general population.

Brad