Happy Atheist Forum

Okay, my first chance to make you scratch your heads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeKb710KikM

First, let me say Bill is simply off his rocker about his reasons but I feel he may be right and work with me on this one.

I have real concern over this race of humans due to our inability to follow evolutionary principals for reproduction.

1000 years ago or before the strongest, healthiest males reproduced. We took a stick, beat the other guy, and raped his woman. It wasn't pretty but it was our way. We are civilized to some degree to be pack socialistic but that just meant we went and raped the women from the next tribe over the hill.

So, we had in the past a physical contest leading to extending the gene pool to apt individuals. Sucks for women, but good for our gene pools as a whole.

Some time ago the rape became bad in a cultured society but we at last still a disease as a method to weed out weak individuals.

Today, disease is almost nonexistent compared to 100 years ago. In a single century, we've extended the lifespan from 55-60 to approaching 80 years old.  You can say intelligence now is the way to go but are we doing that? I would first suggest that intelligence and income are directly related. By that I mean, the smarter you are, the more you earn on average and I believe no one would dispute that. http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/viewThis shows an absolutely inverse relationship to income and child birth rates meaning the less intelligent you are, the more children you have.

Obviously there are factors fore that which need not be discussed here but we are actually breeding less intelligent people with less and less ability for disease to screen out less favorable genetics.

With those things in mind, are flu shots really a good idea? From a genetic human point of view, do we see science staying ahead or making ground on bacterial and virus evolution pace? If not, we only seem to be postponing these outbreaks for a different day. We as a species seem to be good at writing checks tomorrow for a hamburger today.

Don't get me wrong, I'm taking the vacine. I have my own personal agenda that involves reproducing and living as long as I personally can, but is it good for us as a whole is the bigger question I put forth.

I am against military vicination on the premise that military doctors frequently have a malpractice past making them unable to be insured for a reasonable cost which makes military service the only reasonably paying job they can take. So, doctors with malpractice suits against them are making our decisions knowing full well they cannot be personally sued for the outcome or your death. That just seems to be a bad recipe.

I think you're being perfectly fair in calling your point of view unique.

Yeah, observing evolution seems to be an acceptable.

Practicing it is however something else entirely it seems.

Quote from: "darkcyd"Yeah, observing evolution seems to be an acceptable.

Practicing it is however something else entirely it seems.

An acceptable...what?

"Practicing" evolution?

Have you seen Idiocracy?  

I suppose its almost 5 am and my grammar is a bit broken so allow me to run it through a checker and not leave anything implied.

The practice of observing and documenting evolution seems to be acceptable, but using that information as a basis for public policy is a bit too much for people to stomach given the implications.

The removal of people from the gene pool has to occur one of 2 days, death or inability to breed.

Death is a stigma in modern society. 100 years ago you had 8 kids because 4 died before they could reproduce. Today, any death is bad and therefore the idea that we simply shouldn't use a medicine/vacine even one that we knew to be unmaintainable would be held with venomous contempt.

Breeding is really the button people don't want pushed because of a host of implications and perceived human rights. We want the ability to pass our genes down. Is that good for humanity as a whole? The current unchecked allowance of human reproduction is a crisis already but would we be worse off if we implimented a 1 child per female limit and then use what we know of evolution and child welfare to steer allowances for future children?

No, it would never fly.

By the way, yes I saw the movie but had forgotten about it. Funny stuff.

Sorry bud, the flu doesn't discriminate against people based on their intelligence.  Unfortunately, allowing the stupid among us to waive vaccines just makes them incubators that allow the viruses to mutate and bypass the protection vaccines provide.  Vaccination is like a shield: if there's a hole in it's coverage, there's a place by which the disease can still kill our whole population.  Since genes mutate, disease isn't a very good selection fact or for anything anyway, since any immune system we evolve will soon be attacked by a mutated disease.  At this point we need to put a 1:1 cap on reproduction.  Period.  We're beyond natural selective pressures ability to be anything better than a neutral force in our evolution.

I suppose I need to do some research on disease mutation rates vs the human bodies ability to identify new disease markers. You may very likely be right that, we will always be behind to some degree in our bodies own defenses to identify.

I was into chemistry and in the advanced biochem classes I did take, my labs would always have me do PCR primers or worse multiplex primers. I do have some published papers on rapid multiplex primers for Shigella and some other nasty bugs. Biologists typically aren't great at doing math .

I had posted on another thread about abortion somewhere that I really didn't think it mattered because as soon as men get an effective birth control, the population crash that will follow is going to be nothing short of epic along with most unwanted pregnancies. Hopefully soon.

When it does come out, I'd like to see some common sense laws about it though. Like 1 kid max and another if you, have a college degree, pay $25,000, or something reasonable.

Quote from: "darkcyd"I suppose I need to do some research on disease mutation rates vs the human bodies ability to identify new disease markers. You may very likely be right that, we will always be behind to some degree in our bodies own defenses to identify.

Well, it's pretty straightforward.  Viruses are already known to mutate at a rate that makes for new diseases each year.  There's a reason we have neither cured the common cold nor become immune to it as a species.  Also, a virus' life cycle is mere days.  Our reproduction cycle is much too slow to keep up with that.

QuoteBiologists typically aren't great at doing math .

As a guy working on a bio degree who sucks at math, that makes me feel REALLY good.

I am also in favour of eugenics (which is what I assume you are alluding to), but agree with PoopShoot, that leaving diseases to go unchecked will not produce a shift in the gene pool towards intelligence. Though it would certainly put an extra pressure on those with weak immune systems, and reduce the number of old people, how desirable these two outcomes are, would no doubt make for a contentious debate.

SSY:
The problem I see is that it would not only take its' toll on elderly, but infants as well.  While this would be very effective in reducing the population, it would o not much else of benefit while reducing the population quickly enough to cause infrastructure problems in society.

As for eugenics: I have mixed feelings.  That sort of deserves its own thread.

Quote from: "darkcyd"I am against military vicination on the premise that military doctors frequently have a malpractice past making them unable to be insured for a reasonable cost which makes military service the only reasonably paying job they can take. So, doctors with malpractice suits against them are making our decisions knowing full well they cannot be personally sued for the outcome or your death. That just seems to be a bad recipe.

I would have to disagree with you on this generalization.  After serving in the military myself, visiting many a Naval hospital and then working in one of the Army's most well known hospitals as a civilian contractor, I fail to see this as a general trend among military physicians.  If you have evidence to support this claim, by all means, present it.  However, if we are simply going off of subjective observation then, I would make the counter-claim that this is simply not the case.

HOWEVER, this thread would not be the place to discuss a separate issue like this and would be better suited in its on thread - if it would event warrant that much further discussion.

I'm not big on the idea of eugenics, because specialization often winds up in extinction.  Of course, we will one day be extinct anyway; but I see no reason to hurry the task any more than we are already doing.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "darkcyd"I am against military vicination on the premise that military doctors frequently have a malpractice past making them unable to be insured for a reasonable cost which makes military service the only reasonably paying job they can take. So, doctors with malpractice suits against them are making our decisions knowing full well they cannot be personally sued for the outcome or your death. That just seems to be a bad recipe.

I would have to disagree with you on this generalization.  After serving in the military myself, visiting many a Naval hospital and then working in one of the Army's most well known hospitals as a civilian contractor, I fail to see this as a general trend among military physicians.  If you have evidence to support this claim, by all means, present it.  However, if we are simply going off of subjective observation then, I would make the counter-claim that this is simply not the case.

HOWEVER, this thread would not be the place to discuss a separate issue like this and would be better suited in its on thread - if it would event warrant that much further discussion.

I tried to research it some but quickly found the military is disinclined to report malpractice cases to any other government agency.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v30/ai_21103423/?tag=content;col1)

This is a good article that sums up my general complaints. I would have to say my personal experience would have to be the combination of my hostility toward the anthrax vacine, yeah it made me sick as hell, and the inability to sue a doctor who as stated in the article can obtain a far lesser certification.

Keep in mind also, there is an extreme stigma about being sick at all in the military. I still remember guys taking antibiotics, steroids, pain pills purchased from veterinary web sites because it meant we didn't have to go to doctors we didn't trust and we didn't have to explain to anybody how we could ever get sick. When I left, doctors were still referred to as "motrin dispensers" as that was typically their snake oil cure all. Missing leg, no problem, motrin!

With those things said, the article is subjective and although I have been in the service 14 years, my view is subjective as well. I am sure there are some great doctors out there and working in a "well known military hospital," likely provides a very different viewpoint of healthcare provided from what the average guy feels he gets.

Quote from: "darkcyd"I tried to research it some but quickly found the military is disinclined to report malpractice cases to any other government agency.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v30/ai_21103423/?tag=content;col1)

This is a good article that sums up my general complaints.

I'll have to read this article as time allows, right now it is late and I have to be up early in the morning.  

QuoteI would have to say my personal experience would have to be the combination of my hostility toward the anthrax vacine, yeah it made me sick as hell, and the inability to sue a doctor who as stated in the article can obtain a far lesser certification.

I was medically boarded out of the Navy (given an honorable discharged and placed on a temporary disabled status - the final determination was that my trouble amounted to 10% disability) due to nocturnal epilepsy which was determined to be a side effect of the anthrax vaccination (the determination of my neurologist and not the medical board, they worded it a bit more vaguely) - I am not unfamiliar with that issue at all.  However, the vaccine was not produced by the military but a private company.  Therefore if you want to sue anyone it would be Emergent BioSolutions since they own the factory where it is produced.

QuoteKeep in mind also, there is an extreme stigma about being sick at all in the military. I still remember guys taking antibiotics, steroids, pain pills purchased from veterinary web sites because it meant we didn't have to go to doctors we didn't trust and we didn't have to explain to anybody how we could ever get sick. When I left, doctors were still referred to as "motrin dispensers" as that was typically their snake oil cure all. Missing leg, no problem, motrin!

I understand this mindset, however, I cannot say I participated in it.  It could be a difference between branches or just my experience.  And I am aware of the complaint of using Motrin or other NSAIDs as a sort of umbrella prescription.  However, the use of such is due most likely to factors such as time, pressure to return a service member to their proper place of assignment and to attempt to solve the problem without having to prescribe medications which may affect the member's ability to do their job - NSAIDs are pretty much a safe bet besides prescribing rest and drinking plenty of water.  Not to say I condone the calls made under these possible pressures or even possibly the perception of them nor am I defending the military medical system as a highly functioning and efficient entity - it isn't.  I simply making the point that generalizing instances of individual physicians performing terribly to the entire military medical community is a bit fallacious.

QuoteWith those things said, the article is subjective and although I have been in the service 14 years, my view is subjective as well. I am sure there are some great doctors out there and working in a "well known military hospital," likely provides a very different viewpoint of healthcare provided from what the average guy feels he gets.

I worked with the Traumatic Brain Injury Clinic, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Department and Behavioral Medicine Department at Brooke Army Medical Center as well as the Center for the Intrepid, Wilford Hall Medical Center (BAMC and Wilford Hall are now known as SAMMC North and SAMMC South, respectively) and the Army Research Laboratory Field Element in San Antonio.