Art Bell

[DarKPenguiN]

Move the goal posts; results will always change. The same thing happens with 'domestic violence' and 'rape' statistics. Doctoring stats can apply to any study. If the spectrum is widened/narrowed...

Very true.

I still think somethings going on- I think humankind is on a downward spiral . I think our technology and civilization has slowly allowed for more and more 'defects' that would have been weeded out through natural selection- But artificially have been allowed to entrench themselves into our genetics in a major way over the course of history.

At this point man has set himself up to be a slave to technology just to survive. Even something as simple as bad eyesight is so prolific because of corrective devises - should these devises and this corrective understanding ever cease to exist it would take millennium to weed out the trait if it could even happen- This, times all the other issues we have solved and allowed to flourish with technology.

I think we're degrading. And especially the past 50 or so years where civilized society has given incentive for the least capable to breed while the more capable are passing their genetics on less and less.

tech makes us think we're really  smart- Looking at what mankind has achieved from the dust of the earth makes us feel were very accomplished. However, this was all built on the backs of giants and passed on and evolved to get to this point. We were born with a silver spoon in our collective mouths.

[Richard Groyper]

I know I am going to catch shit about this, but here are my thoughts.

Up until 100 years ago, people basically grew up where all of there ancestors did, eating the same foods, drinking the same water, catching and developing immunity to the same diseases. They married within their population.  Life spans weren't long, and the weak died before passing on weak genetics. The strong survived and passed on this genetics.

As societies became more mobile, people ate new foods, drank different water, married people with different genetics, and had kids. Just like with any hybrid organism, sometimes you end up with more desireable traits, sometimes less. But 75 years ago, we didn't have the medical advances we have now. The weak still died young, pruning the weaker limbs from the genetic tree.

Now we can save a baby beginning at 23-24 weeks if everything goes well. Kids that used to die from things as simple as the whooping cough, are living to ripe old ages and passing on the weaker genetics.

My mother was 100% Polish, my father was 50% German, 50% Irish I look at my son, and he is Polish, German, Irish, Scotch, French Canadian, and Native American. We have become the melting pot, but the genetics that used to protect us in our own little enclaves have long since been interspersed with other strengths and weaknesses. He was born premature, and 100 years ago would have died. Today he is 3 inches taller than me and a foot taller than his mother. But he has some minor learning disabilities.

I don't have any scientific studies to cite, just my observations.  It seems like people with weak genetics used to die before they could reproduce, or their children died young. Today, through the "miracles" of science, we are keeping more and more people alive, and they are having children.

As we get further along with trans humanism, you will see couples trying to weed out bad genetics in their offspring, either through terminating pregnancies or by creating designer babies. We should prepare our minds for that. It is already happening. It might not be the social norm, but in 20, 30, or 50 years, we may be seeing a menu or a recipe for selecting your next offspring. And I am not advocating it or saying it is right, I am just making an observation of where we have gotten to today, and what I see coming rapidly.

Have you started up the eugenics program yet, Adolf?

[SciFiAuthor]

I think it's pretty well established that unprocessed foods are better for you, though it's probably due more to the lack of additives and preservatives put into processed foods than anything else. If you're grinding your own sausage, you'll be fine. But buying sausage with a list of 30 chemical additives from a grocery store is not as healthy as an organically grown salad.

That said I support vaccinations. They provide more value than they cost. One just needs to look at the eradication of smallpox to see that. But they should be formulated in the safest manner possible.

[DarKPenguiN]

I know I am going to catch shit about this, but here are my thoughts.

Up until 100 years ago, people basically grew up where all of there ancestors did, eating the same foods, drinking the same water, catching and developing immunity to the same diseases. They married within their population.  Life spans weren't long, and the weak died before passing on weak genetics. The strong survived and passed on this genetics.

As societies became more mobile, people ate new foods, drank different water, married people with different genetics, and had kids. Just like with any hybrid organism, sometimes you end up with more desireable traits, sometimes less. But 75 years ago, we didn't have the medical advances we have now. The weak still died young, pruning the weaker limbs from the genetic tree.

Now we can save a baby beginning at 23-24 weeks if everything goes well. Kids that used to die from things as simple as the whooping cough, are living to ripe old ages and passing on the weaker genetics.

My mother was 100% Polish, my father was 50% German, 50% Irish I look at my son, and he is Polish, German, Irish, Scotch, French Canadian, and Native American. We have become the melting pot, but the genetics that used to protect us in our own little enclaves have long since been interspersed with other strengths and weaknesses. He was born premature, and 100 years ago would have died. Today he is 3 inches taller than me and a foot taller than his mother. But he has some minor learning disabilities.

I don't have any scientific studies to cite, just my observations.  It seems like people with weak genetics used to die before they could reproduce, or their children died young. Today, through the "miracles" of science, we are keeping more and more people alive, and they are having children.

As we get further along with trans humanism, you will see couples trying to weed out bad genetics in their offspring, either through terminating pregnancies or by creating designer babies. We should prepare our minds for that. It is already happening. It might not be the social norm, but in 20, 30, or 50 years, we may be seeing a menu or a recipe for selecting your next offspring. And I am not advocating it or saying it is right, I am just making an observation of where we have gotten to today, and what I see coming rapidly.

I agree totally.

[onan]

Move the goal posts; results will always change. The same thing happens with 'domestic violence' and 'rape' statistics. Doctoring stats can apply to any study. If the spectrum is widened/narrowed...

I'm not sure what your point is. Moving the goal post often refers to changing the reason for why something is offensive. When one criticism is rationally explained another criticism is then voiced, often for/with the same intent. If your goal is to play one upsmanship, fine. I don't get it. Perhaps I just misunderstand you.

But in the reality of autism, the more stringent testing is bringing about better treatment for those infirmed.

[DarKPenguiN]

Have you started up the eugenics program yet, Adolf?

the Kickstarter project is in the works. Even at the $10 tier you get your very own stick on Hitler mustache - Fun for the whole family.

[GravitySucks]

Don't worry, in 9000 years human metabolism will evolve to handle KFC & Mickey D's.

If we could just evolve to eat scat we could be self sufficient.

Or maybe that is redundant.

[SciFiAuthor]

As we get further along with trans humanism, you will see couples trying to weed out bad genetics in their offspring, either through terminating pregnancies or by creating designer babies. We should prepare our minds for that. It is already happening. It might not be the social norm, but in 20, 30, or 50 years, we may be seeing a menu or a recipe for selecting your next offspring. And I am not advocating it or saying it is right, I am just making an observation of where we have gotten to today, and what I see coming rapidly.

You want real fireworks, wait until parents can choose their child's race. Especially in places like South Korea, where westernization of the eyes is the top cosmetic surgery. South Korea could look like England within a century. Or, alternatively, people choose "none of the above" and start having children of an entirely new, invented, optimized race. It's coming, and we should all be debating the ethics of it now before we get gobsmacked with it.

[GravitySucks]

Have you started up the eugenics program yet, Adolf?

That was uncalled for.  I despise any references to a culture of "racial purity". What the fuck are you smoking?  I made no judgements about any of the things I stated.

Again, that was rude and uncalled for.

[DarKPenguiN]

You want real fireworks, wait until parents can choose their child's race. Especially in places like South Korea, where westernization of the eyes is the top cosmetic surgery. South Korea could look like England within a century. Or, alternatively, people choose "none of the above" and start having children of an entirely new, invented, optimized race. It's coming, and we should all be debating the ethics of it now before we get gobsmacked with it.

I think we're moving in that direction- Right now (unless I have something confused) we have tech that can change genetics on eye color. Eventually, using moores law, the genetic code will be understood like a computer code and programming will become easier and more accessible.

I dont think this is a good thing and I think we're tampering with things we should never tamper with and the end result will not be beneficial. however, its probably coming.Like it or loath it.

[Richard Groyper]

Very true.

I still think somethings on- I think humankind is on a downward spiral . I think our technology and civilization has slowly allowed for more and more 'defects' that would have been weeded out through natural selection- But artificially have been allowed to entrench themselves into our genetic in a major way over the coarse of history.

At this point man has set himself up to be a slave to technology just to survive. Even something as simple as bad eyesight is so prolific because of corrective devises - should these devises and this corrective understanding even cease to exist it would take millennium to weed out the trait if it could even happen- This times all the other issues we have solved and allowed to flourish with technology.

I think we're degrading. And especially the past 50 or so years where civilized society has gave incentive for the least capable to breed while the more capable are passing their genetics on less and less.

tech makes us think we're really  smart- Looking at what mankind has achieved from the dust of the earth makes us feel were very accomplished. However, this was all built on the backs of giants and passed on and evolved to get to this point. We were born with a silver spoon in our collective mouths.

I have some dark ideas regarding human violence. Culling the population, mainly. In my opinion, humans killing comes a bit too easy to be an anomaly. I have other depressing thoughts, but I stop here for now.

Our technological superiority allows us as a species to behave as a global virus. We take and take from our environment, while replacing little. We will always have a reason to kill each other. It's natural while feeling unnatural. Cognative dissonance.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think we're moving in that direction- Right now (unless I have something confused) we have tech that can change genetics on eye color. Eventually, using moores law, the genetic code will be understood like a computer code and programming will become easier and more accessible.

That is correct.

I dont think this is a good thing and I think we're tampering with things we should never tamper with and the end result will not be beneficial. however, its probably coming.

We should at least be asking ourselves the questions ahead of time. We need to figure out if we want this sort of stuff before the biotech is available to actually do it. As it stands, we are not questioning this stuff and there is no guarantee that a raw emergence of a biotech won't go in a direction that isn't responsible. That almost happened with cloning. We've already, so far, gotten lucky with cloning. No one has yet cloned a human, but it could have went very differently if someone had.

[GravitySucks]

You want real fireworks, wait until parents can choose their child's race. Especially in places like South Korea, where westernization of the eyes is the top cosmetic surgery. South Korea could look like England within a century. Or, alternatively, people choose "none of the above" and start having children of an entirely new, invented, optimized race. It's coming, and we should all be debating the ethics of it now before we get gobsmacked with it.

That is what I was pointing out. England has already approved in vitro fertilization using genetics from 3 parents

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31594856

There are already prenatal tests for spina bifida and Down's syndrome.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/spina-bifida/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20035356
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20020948

China already has a high incidence of aborting female babies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml

[Value Of Pi]

There is another element to this.  VICE had a segment on cancers and how experimentally several hospitals were CURING specific cancers with specific viruses.  One type of cancer patient was given I think measles with actual cures.  Other types of cancer were being cured by introducing other viruses to the patients. 

Doctors and scientists were being interviewed and it was THEY who mentioned the word 'cure'.

Bill Maher, on a show, theorized that perhaps vaccines were interfering with some natural immune mechanism that also protected against certain kinds of cancer. 

This is a more complex issue than 'listen to the nice doctor, who knows best'.

I also saw a program on this technique of fighting fire with fire. Very interesting although nobody mentioned a connection to current use/overuse of vaccines. I don't think they know how effective this approach is yet, so it's a little early to start extrapolating other theories from indecisive results. Parents should always protect their kids, but being overprotective based on flimsy evidence is very risky where vaccines are concerned.

[DarKPenguiN]

I have some dark ideas regarding human violence. Culling the population, mainly. In my opinion, humans killing comes a bit too easy to be an anomaly. I have other depressing thoughts, but I stop here for now.

Our technological superiority allows us as a species to behave as a global virus. We take and take from our environment, while replacing little. We will always have a reason to kill each other. It's natural while feeling unnatural. Cognative dissonance.

The conversation we could have about that.

I'm not touching that one lol... Would make a hell of a discussion though.

[SciFiAuthor]

That is what I was pointing out. England has already approved in vitro fertilization using genetics from 3 parents

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31594856

There are already prenatal tests for spina bifida and Down's syndrome.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/spina-bifida/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20035356
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20020948

China already has a high incidence of aborting female babies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml

It's a foreshock of the von Neumann singularity. Technological development, including biotechnology, exponentially develops faster the further you go. The developments come before the media can react and the debate can be started as to whether we want the development or not. Technological development now moves faster than our human social systems can react and ask questions about them.

[DarKPenguiN]

That is correct.

We should at least be asking ourselves the questions ahead of time. We need to figure out if we want this sort of stuff before the biotech is available to actually do it. As it stands, we are not questioning this stuff and there is no guarantee that a raw emergence of a biotech won't go in a direction that isn't responsible. That almost happened with cloning. We've already, so far, gotten lucky with cloning. No one has yet cloned a human, but it could have went very differently if someone had.

I think at best we could enact measures that would at least restrict certain the craziest genetic tampering- But that will be on the public end.

The Military(s) of the world will be playing with this to weaponize it- And you cant blame them. We all know its coming and we all know some government is going to be playing with these things- Thus every government will probably be experimenting to get ahead of the curve.

I think logically and rationally, genetic tampering is the dumbest thing we could ever do- And once its done it can be bred into the population for eternity and make changes we can never foresee and never take back... But someone will do it if we ever get there with the tech and pseudo-understanding of genetic code.

[GravitySucks]

I think at best we could enact measures that would at least restrict certain the craziest genetic tampering- But that will be on the public end.

The Military(s) of the world will be playing with this to weaponize it- And you cant blame them. We all know its coming and we all know some government is going to be playing with these things- Thus every government will probably be experimenting to get ahead of the curve.

I think logically and rationally, genetic tampering is the dumbest thing we could ever do- And once its done it can be bred into the population for eternity and make changes we can never foresee and never take back... But someone will do it if we ever get there with the tech and pseudo-understanding of genetic code.

Maybe as a compliment to the heirloom seed banks that have been established, we need to develop an untampered DNA seed bank from all races and store them away in case we ever have to do a reboot

[DarKPenguiN]

Maybe as a compliment to the heirloom seed banks that have been established, we need to develop an untampered DNA seed bank from all races and store them away in case we ever have to do a reboot

Thats actually really interesting.

[Value Of Pi]

Thanks.  I have heard all that before.  I'm just thinking that I would not blame a mother if she did not allow her kid to take all those shots at once.  Maybe there is not such a great need to require all of them.  How have they changed since I was a kid?  We did not seem to have the autism problem then.

And, most of all, WHAT is causing the horrific rise in autistic children?  Do other countries share our statistics?  What are the stats of autism in countries that do not mandate vaccines such as ours?

It seems to me, if parents are concerned and autism is a huge expense, that there would be money put into investigating it.  Parents are not going to play dice with their kids health and right now a lot of them seem to think vaccines are a huge danger.

How many shots at once (separate injections with single or multiple vaccines) in the usual office visit? I understand that there is a schedule, so kids aren't attacked with swarms of needles on any single visit. The problem with getting my vaccines was not the vaccines but the needles.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think at best we could enact measures that would at least restrict certain the craziest genetic tampering- But that will be on the public end.

The Military(s) of the world will be playing with this to weaponize it- And you cant blame them. We all know its coming and we all know some government is going to be playing with these things- Thus every government will probably be experimenting to get ahead of the curve.

I think logically and rationally, genetic tampering is the dumbest thing we could ever do- And once its done it can be bred into the population for eternity and make changes we can never foresee and never take back... But someone will do it if we ever get there with the tech and pseudo-understanding of genetic code.

It's not just genetics though. What happens when prosthetic replacement limbs outperform biological limbs? What happens when Paralympic athletes outperform Olympic ones? Do we allow athletes to amputate perfectly healthy limbs in order to get artificial ones for better performance? We are less than a decade away from that question and no one knows to ask it because, as a culture, we don't really know how advanced prosthetic technology is getting. We run into a conundrum, we obviously have to improve prosthetic technologies for people with disabilities, but at the same time we deal with the potential of those prosthetics outperforming our biological limbs at some stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al5RhaJgxxU

[ItsOver]

I anchor this post to yours, mainly because I no longer care to discuss the "there are rational reasons to not get vaccinations". Bill Maher, as much as I find him funny and insightful, he gets vaccinations wrong. It is that simple. The reason more autism is being diagnosed is due primarily to a much better screening process than even a decade ago. Not all that long ago, almost all learning disabilities were categorized as retardation.

The reasons for autism and the increase in diagnoses are two distinct issues. As a diagnosis, autism is defined by several milestones that do not occur or occur much later than expected. The causative agent of autism is probably primarily genetics. How the brain develops is quite fascinating. While still a fetus the brain starts to develop. At about 4 and a half months the fetal brain starts to develop and quickly. An infant brain has about 100 billion neurons, about the same as an adult. The difference is in the number of connections. An infant brain has many more connections. As the brain grows there is a process called neural pruning that essentially destroys many of the pathways in a young and maturing brain. That is why it is important to teach children at an early age to read and write. As a brain matures to adulthood those tasks become much more difficult to achieve.

Look, better nutrition, a more stable environment, and the removal of toxicities are certainly important. Not as important and deciding rubella, polio, and a myriad of other infections are worth risking to avoid autism.

According to the CDC about 750,000 lives have been saved, and more than 300 million have avoided getting sick from those infections.

Good points O man.  I can recall virtually no medical procedures that didn't come with some risk and possible side effects.  Like most of life, it can be a crap shoot.  I just hope the dice aren't loaded.  Hell, the medical profession is, of course, always learn something different.  I remember the surprise when ulcers were linked to H. Pylori.  We're all a bunch of guinea pigs.  Let's just pray Noory isn't our keeper.

Insert Zizmak's latest avatar here.
 

[Richard Groyper]

I'm not sure what your point is. Moving the goal post often refers to changing the reason for why something is offensive. When one criticism is rationally explained another criticism is then voiced, often for/with the same intent. If your goal is to play one upsmanship, fine. I don't get it. Perhaps I just misunderstand you.

But in the reality of autism, the more stringent testing is bringing about better treatment for those infirmed.

The 'autism spectrum' is much wider now than it was 20-30 years ago. Hence, the 'goal posts' were moved in that particular case. Now, more people will fall under that category than would have before. (I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about my choice phrasing?)

Do vaccines cause autism rates to rise? Or, is the 'autism spectrum' so wide; rising rates are not a correlation, but an obvious outcome due to a spectrum change?

I don't believe vaccines on the whole are harmful. All of my kids are immunized. 

[Richard Groyper]

The conversation we could have about that.

I'm not touching that one lol... Would make a hell of a discussion though.

Too bad. I like this topic...

[DarKPenguiN]

It's not just genetics though. What happens when prosthetic replacement limbs outperform biological limbs? What happens when Paralympic athletes outperform Olympic ones? Do we allow athletes to amputate perfectly healthy limbs in order to get artificial ones for better performance? We are less than a decade away from that question and no one knows to ask it because, as a culture, we don't really know how advanced prosthetic technology is getting. We run into a conundrum, we obviously have to improve prosthetic technologies for people with disabilities, but at the same time we deal with the potential of those prosthetics outperforming our biological limbs at some stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al5RhaJgxxU

I dont know. These are very serious questions that we're going to be facing concerning so many things in the near future.

I dont feel its my place to tell anyone what they should be able to do with their body nor how far we should take the tech when I want to personally see it go as far as we are capable until it ultimately destroys us- Absent a major cataclysm from space our tech will be our undoing.

Things like that will probably be left up to the Por Sport leagues and I think thats going  to be worked out soon. Now that transgendered men are fighting women in MMA (and really hurting them) I think the sports clubs are going to have to enact some fairness rule but are having to proceed with caution due to 'discrimination'- I think this'll fall into the same category.

But voluntarily? A Pro sports game comprised only of people with these superlimbs? Might be cool.

We sure as hell live in interesting  times to even be talking about this and perhaps seeing it in before we die.

the question though is one for philosophers and scholars. I think its all terrible for us as mankind  but I still kinda want to see what we can do so i'm torn.

[Richard Groyper]

That was uncalled for.  I despise any references to a culture of "racial purity". What the fuck are you smoking?  I made no judgements about any of the things I stated.

Again, that was rude and uncalled for.

I thought it was funny. Now stop flailing around like a retard, or you might be a victim of my your program. I joke. I joke.

[albrecht]

Anyone want smallpox back in our population? What about a little round of Diphtheria? Never hurt anyone did it?

Um, neither the US or the UK give the smallpox vaccine in the regular and suggested schedules of vaccination. For decades. We also don't give TB vaccinations, although we both are getting immigrants, usually illegal, because, technically legal immigrants are screened, with TB, sometimes latent, (and more worrying some of the new strains of TB are far harder to 'kill' due to drug resistance.)
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/vaccination-schedule-age-checklist.aspx
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/facts.asp

Not sure why but it seems every thread ups being a "vaccine or not" thread.  It is just a matter of risk/reward. As the UK NHS and US determined in the above case the cost/risk of TB vaccinations is no longer worth the possible side effects and because small pox is eliminated (save a few labs apparently.) We don't get Yellow Fever vaccines as a matter of course but if you are going to travel/live in certain countries than it is worth it to do so. I tend not to get the flu vaccine because it often has proven ineffectual against the current strain and, currently, if I do get the flu (don't remember the last time I got it) it wouldn't be life threatening. To say all vaccines are bad, is plainly crazy. But so is, all vaccines are good. Just like any medicine, surgery, etc. First do no harm, assess the risks, assess the benefits, look at the cost, compare alternatives between medicines, get second opinions, look at alternative treatments, etc (from legit sources and people- not C2C guests.)

[DarKPenguiN]

Too bad. I like this topic...

It is. But man it would go crazy places and wouldnt end well.

I dont have the heart to even get into that one. Too many misunderstandings on such a complex subject.

[Richard Groyper]

It is. But man it would go crazy places and wouldnt end well.

I dont have the heart to even get into that one. Too many misunderstandings on such a complex subject.

We Wuz Kingz 

[onan]

The 'autism spectrum' is much wider now than it was 20-30 years ago. Hence, the 'goal posts' were moved in that particular case. Now, more people will fall under that category than would have before. (I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about my choice phrasing?)

Do vaccines cause autism rates to rise? Or, is the 'autism spectrum' so wide; rising rates are not a correlation, but an obvious outcome due to a spectrum change?

I don't believe vaccines on the whole are harmful. All of my kids are immunized.

Truly wasn't trying to be obtuse. As I stated, perhaps I misunderstood.

In actuality:

In Denmark in particular, the diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list of symptoms, thereby widening the definition of autism. Then in 1995, national data tracking began to include diagnoses made from outpatient patient visits rather than just diagnoses of those admitted to a healthcare facility. Since every Danish resident has a complete health record maintained by the Danish government, researchers can use this national health registry to study an entire population with lower likelihood of bias from those included or excluded in a study.

By examining the health records of all children born in Denmark from 1980 through 1991 â€" nearly 668,000 children â€" the researchers determined that 60 percent of the increase in autism rates in Denmark could be attributed to those two changes in the way Danish autistic children have been counted since the mid-1990s. The change in the diagnostic criteria accounted for a third of the increase in autism, and including outpatient diagnoses in the statistics account for 42 percent of the increase.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/01/05/majority-of-autism-increase-due-to-diagnostic-changes-finds-new-study/#9206b3c737c5

So, I guess from your point of view the goal posts have changed. But there isn't an unmentioned goal to increase the number diagnosed. It just is what it is.