Intense Discussino Regarding Genetics Not for those with little self esteem

paranoia

New member
Let me introduce myself, name is Troy. I recently had visited here after a bout with my nasal mucous. I dont have CF though, actually I have Ectodermal Dysplasia, which has similar symptoms of the nasal passageways, after reading a great deal in regards to some of the personal posts on this website. I began to question the existance of the homo sapien in our most frail form.

So to begin if you need any education in regards to ED just visit www.nfed.org

But my question was spurned out of hatred for my own predicament, the level of severity which cannot compare to what those with CF have to endure. But I have various other issues myself. I was thinking about our establishment and health as a race (homo sapien). It seems to me that our necessity for procreation wraught obviously out of innate emotion from birth has somehow allowed us to self perpetuate beyond natures confines our expectancy of life. I began to realize logically if there were no medications or health care establishments that those of us afflicted with genetic mutations would more than likely have died at a very young age. Thus leaving those suited for natures trials alive, survival of the fittest if you will...

I commented this to my mother who somehow felt uber guilty in repose of genetic makeup. Thus commenting how she should have been tested and how my existance was meaningless, of course this was in the heat of the moment and her response was sarcastic at its height. But to be honest to ensure and prevail our existance as a healthy race of beings would it not be safe to say that those who are not fit to live should not live? Those of you with large hearts and direct emotions would respond quickly with a hasty NO they should live. But sit back for a moment, if I was allowed the severity of death in my current predicment the only thing that would scare me would be the painful death, not the end result of such actions. Actually I would envite such a relief of life. To constantly care for oneself in the manner we are subjected becomes a nuisance, at sometimes it is rather nice to be alive we begin to take things for granted (all be it short) this air of relief defines to me the type of life someone with the basic necessitation of self preservation the body is expcted to provide on a constant basis would have.

Would we along with major corporations be then guilty of self preservation, thus spurring perpetuation of genetic disorders throughout our genetic line? We then are subject to no choice in regards to life or death, if given the choice now i would pay my bills and medically end my life if it were acceptable. However we are bound by laws and rules structured around the basist individual those who have nothing wrong with them genetically speaking but are merely depressed. it has become illegal to commit suicide or attempt it for those who have everything going for them. However being of the same genome we are also to abide by these laws.

However it has become common practice to save every living thing until it is at an inch of its life and maintain it until machines or medicine cannot provide comfort or quality of life or even sustain life. So we spend a great deal of money in regards to these exploits, I have to give it to nature though we have been challenged to explore these issues and somehow bandaid the problem. Rather than allowing genetic manipulation at the site before birth by fixing the source we are forced to give birth a chance and thus inevitably our offspring would most likely be exposed to such defects as well. We are faced with several choices then,

1. I would like to have a child, I would like to know what my genetic makeup would supply me with with my specific partner as I am most intrigued by some innate necessitation. Where does this stem from? Id, is that you?

2. I would love to genetically engineer my child to be free from defects, but I have to face the religious clergy in regards to playing god. As it is somehow the emotion of the religious groups to assume the worst out of the nature of man. I can be most assured in assuming that the stereeotype associated with genetic engineering is in regards to making your child up like a special ordered laptop. I want blonde hair blue eyes.. oops I mean Brown hair, that wasnt intended to be a eugening comment.. or was it? Those afflicted with genetic disorders would love to just have a kid, or so I would think.

3. What is the purpose of life? We havent really ever been able to answer this question its to relevant to the individual. But I find no serious purpose in perpetuation on my own defect. Thus my innate need for procreation seems pointless. It is the objective of most species to be fruitful, no? If I do not retain this ability in a reasonable sense then I have no real need. I can educate myself and become whatever I wish. However everyone has this basic apptitude to do so, so when does materialism and education tower high above quality of life and love? I use love here generally because its easier to understand this term than me using words like genetic attraction, selective mating, procreation. If relevant to the individual education/experiences and materialism are not important, then what is left? Love you say? Ahh blissful isnt it? Mi amor, one reason to stay alive right? Hmm depends on the person but you are then questioned as to wether your love is based of the human instinct of attraction and procreation. Thus if that is the main reason to sustain ones life is to copulate and be fruitful and the inevitability of offspring caring your gene is high, then what is the purpose of life what are you left with?

I believe being part of the "system" not in a derogatory sense, with laws based of the basist human ability for self sustainment, we are a race or species of our own subjected to the lofty obligations of society. I believe if we continnue to perpetuate our existance we would then continue to deteriorate the human species as a whole. The only thing that maintains our existence is the lost of such a loved one or family member and the emotions that surround it, but just like that deer your ran over or the thousands of humans that die each year you dont know, your logical sense takes the best of you and you begin to rationalize the existance of those who departed, they are less important and become expendable over a period of time.

I am for one subject to these expectations and am fed up with them. But what do i have to do? I suppose the only logic sense is to move to Texas and commit several murders so then my death seems merited by the logic of the "system".

Thanks for listening
Troy W.
 

Lilith

New member
Woah...okay, very deep, but you'd better be prepared for a thousand flames on this one... Can't say I haven't pondered on these same things myself once or twice, though...
 

thelizardqueen

New member
This honestly sounded too complex for me to understand....aside from the "I would love to genetically engineer my child to be free from defects"...that riled me a bit.
 

anonymous

New member
I think you have misconceptions and some self-identity issues here. It may be true a short man is less evolutionarily fit than a tall man, but by no means is that short man's life less valuable, and it would be offensive to tell him he shouldn't have children. CF is a disease that yes, you would die from if you had it before the technology to treat it existed. So what? Part of our evolution has in fact been the capacity to invent and find ways to solve problems, like building shelters, creating fires, and all the way up to building the technology and means to care for those with CF. Maybe we shouldn't live in houses, and should instead just sleep out in the snow. Perhaps we should let viruses and bacteria overcome our population. After all, without technology, that very well could have occured.

Did you know all babies would die on their own without human care? Perhaps then, using your logic, we should simply let all babies die. This proves in itself that human behavior is defined by caring for one another. We would not exist, at all, if at one time we weren't all cared for when we would otherwise die. No baby can ever just decide to get up and find food to eat for itself. We have found means to care for those with CF, and continue to find more. Why is it so fundamentally different from having shelters, eliminating dangerous viruses and bacteria, or caring for children? It's not, and people with CF are just as important and valuable as those without it. And no, I don't have CF.

There is no "well-being of the human species". Even if you were to give birth to 50,000 children all with CF, it would do little to the rest of the population, as the population continues to grow. Nor would it matter, if you care more for strangers than yourself, then something certainly is wrong. It wouldn't deteriorate anything. Human society will truly have decayed and deteriorated if we begin to focus on what is "evolutionarily" fit or "superior" in terms of selective processes on a genetic level. To be blunt, we would be like dogs. We may as well get rid of our ability to think and choose if that were the case.
 

TCNJcystic

New member
You should write for the the Wachowski brothers. They'd love to have you.

Darwin did come across a theory about the survival of the fittest. Let's face it, CFers simply are not the fittest. Were it not for doctors and researchers, most of us, myself included, would not be here to have this discussion.

I'll answer your numbered statements in a moment, but first, I'd like to address something that struck me as unusual, and in my opinion, which you can take or leave, untrue. You wondered whether or not CFers are guilty of self-preservation, and my direct response is a resounding, "No." If our individual survival were entirely up to us, then we would be guilty of self-preservation, but it is not. Since we have been young, before we could care for ourselves, our parents and our families have been preserving us, and it is this amazing factor that makes humans human. We live because humanity has come together to support one another and keep one another alive. I live because researchers found drugs that the government tested and gave to drug companies, (although the latter two of these institutions may not be the best examples) who in turn gave them to doctor's who gave to us and our families. Rather than question the morality of our self-preservation, consider the amount of people who have gone in to keeping each member of this forum alive. And for what? Some would say money, and that would be correct. CFers are big business to researchers and drug companies, but if no one cared about whether we lived or died, there would be no business at all. There is self-preservation involved in the sense that I've made the choice to live, to teach, to love, but without a team of humans expressing their humanity, I'd be dead.

Self-preservation? No.
Rather, it's what seperates humans from the rest of the kingdom that keeps us alive. We are no longer subject to Darwin's theory because it does not account for something that Darwin himself could not have accounted for: compassion.

1. Why do you want to have a child? I want to have a child because I want to start a family, and I want what my future wife wants. Again, this seperates us from Darwin's theory of the fittest. I don't procreate because it's my job, or because that's what existence is all about. I wonder if the existence of an animal is simply to procreate, but the existence of a human and animal, I've already discussed, are not one in the same.

2. Genetic engineering is going to be a sensitive topic in future replies. I'd rather not comment on it because my I am not sure of my own views. I have not adopted one, although I see the pros and cons of both sides to the argument, and I personally feel that these are so obvious that even proponents of one side should understand the logical desires of the other.

3. What is the purpose of live, you wonder? As do I, sir. I do believe that if one considers the "system" to be the arbiter of things, than one sacrifices much happiness. The government is no god worth fearing, and it's largest flaw is it's inability to realize that it is not greater than the lives we live. So, then, what is the purpose of life, ignoring the system? There probably is a general answer to this question somewhere, but nowhere that anyone has thusfar found. On love, though, we are a species who has conceptualized the institution of marriage, which I believe disables any argument that we exist for procreation, or that love is not real.

I am happy you posted such preplexing ideas. My advice, which you can take or leave, would be to calm down on the worrying and start celebrating life in the best way you can. Humanity, for it's compassion, has given you something an animal might never get: opportunity. It is up to each member of this forum to decide what to do with that opportunity. For me, it is being in love, getting educated to teach students everything I know about this life, to play some good music, and to enjoy the time while I'm here. My personal belief is that life's purpose is to take how many hours, day, or years you have here on the planet and enjoy them as best you can.

AND I'M DONE
I don't think I said anything too controversial, but if I got on anyone's nerves with this one, please PM me instead of using space on the thread figure thing out. Thanks!
 

TCNJcystic

New member
Anon wrote some really great things, one of which I meant to talk about and forgot.

I don't think by reproducing that we are in turn polluted humanity's future, although I sympathize with people who may be concerned only with the possibility of passing the disease on to their own offspring and potentially making them suffer.

Thanks for the great post, anon.
 

anonymous

New member
Those of true enlightenment realize there is no purpose in anything. You, myself, nor anyone else matters at all. Have fun while you are here and meet your needs with as little obtrusivness into others enjoyment as possible then die. Noone will remember you when you die besides those close to you, or if you are one of the very few to actually contribute something to society in some pretty important way. Then the cycle will continue. You are pointless. Quit fretting about it and go drink a beer.
 

JazzysMom

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>thelizardqueen</b></i>

This honestly sounded too complex for me to understand....aside from the "I would love to genetically engineer my child to be free from defects"...that riled me a bit.</end quote></div>



I am glad I am not alone. I started reading it & said....have I allowed my brain to turn to mush or is this just tooooo complex!
 

paranoia

New member
<b>Lilith</b> I would hope that those who read my post would not deem it necessary to flame this issue, I put a enough emphasis on the simplistic characteristic from which I believe would derive negativity, lack of self esteem, however I question myself as to wether or not I should have said EMOTION in place of ones esteem.

<b>S</b> Please dont post unless pertinent to the conversation.

<b>thelizardqueen</b> You dont look like one to be underestimated, I wouldnt put it past you as to your capability to interpret what I had said. Maybe just a couple of read throughs? I notice you post alot in response to board members, I myself enjoy some of your posts very much so. Your response was greatly appreciated if only to interject your emotion on the one phrase.

<b>anonymous</b> I would say first hand that you and my mother would need to get together and talk. Your response to my post was from what I could tell very emotionally guided. Your initial perception of my topic from my basic interepretation seemed to predicate a response without thouroughly thinking through the topic. It was noted through comparison that a short man would be considered not fit by simple genetic exclusion. However I am merely subjecting my thoughts based off of genetic disease, not traits that would be considered subject to eugenic specialization. I am not in anyway denouncing human adaptation.

But you have to take into account the considered basist homo sapien, one in which the body itself retains the ability to self sustain. This is however on the assumption the individual is old enough to do so and this in turn is decided by factors of civiliation at the current time. However, this isnt a battle in semantics otherwise we could sit here all day and debate on the very spectrum of human interpretation.

I know that all living things would die without a certain level of care, however that isnt the issue here, more or less my point revolved around being unfit without the need of drugs or health care to sustain life. Lets say hypothetically we lived during a medieval era, you would have a large group of individuals dying due to the inability of the body to sustain healthy function beyond the respective confines of natures selection. So then were does nature stop and human interferance begin? Has it always been inherint in human emotion to supply a means to an end without the aid of judgement from nature? As a species our constant meddling in affairs related to making life easier to endure has led us to put holes in the ozone layer and cause a great deal of calamity in regards to the natural order of things (extinction). So we have effectively become the judge and the jury when faced with issues that can be viewed as negative or positive in a relevant manner to those involved.

Without experiencing some of the issues of CF or ED yourself i dont think that you will ever fully comprehend the severity of our predicament. I wouldnt expect much in response other than the perpetuation of what could be considered moralistically viable for the good of the race, rather than what would be considered genetically viable. Do you realize however that as a race we subconsiously engineer our offspring? I believe as many others that attraction is subconcious identifier that helps one choose a partner who would be considered on a genetic basis with physical identifiers to improve ones offspring, a term we so easily generalize as "attraction".

I had made the point to my mother as well which she responded hastily in remake to the validty of such claims as there are no direct facts to corroberate such ideas. Her response was simply, "No, couldnt be" of course seeing as how thorough I am I was affended by the simplistic response and found it necessary to identify her actions and the rest of the world if not by pointing out her so called attraction to my father. "Did he have a nice smile? Did he have nice eyes? Was he physically fit? Did he have good hair structure? How was his personality?" It would be easy for one to say these factors had no importance on someones attraction to another but if you sit back and think about it, any number of varying characteristics we find in another human person can dictate our attraction. I could go on this topic for hours just remember if you respond to this claim then make sure you have a good idea, dispondent of human emotion before hypothesising on supposid truths.

I would like to close and state that by searching for a better means of existence for the homo sapien are we not apparently looking out for eachother? Possibly not on an individual basis but in a broader long term scope. Then are we not caring for the quality of life and happiness of our fellow man? I would like to think that I care for the human race enough to not procreate and perpetuate my genetic disorder. I would not wish this upon someone else to endure, but if I can never get past my necessity to procreate or the good feeling I get durinng copulation then I have failed possibly myself and the species as a whole. I would say that a great deal of pregnancies are not planned meaning we perpetuate our predicament by mere instincts that of a "Dog" to simply have sexual relations.

<b>TCNJcystic</b> I would like to applaud you on some very valid points. i never intended to make it seem as though those afflicted with CF were guilty of any level of self preservation as this would be relevant to the individual. I had hoped that it would be interpreted that we are falling under the guise of guilt due in part by our parents or doctors merely on the basis of morality and human emotions. It is true that you were given the gift of life through the sustainment of medicine and caring of others, in short my hypothesis was to determine if we are guilty as a race for continuance of a disorder that makes our lives unbareble to live in some instances. Its considered immoral to believe otherwise as the accepted notion was established by the basist homo sapien.

1. I would say that my need to have a child really derives out of basic human instinct. Then however im faced with having children with ED. I am then confronted with a moral issue. Do I have one because my body tells me to, or do I avoid placing someone in the position of enduring such trials and tribulations inherent with the disease itself. If then I cannot have said child based on my decision in regards to continuance of said genetic disorder, do I really have a basic need to live? I choose not to procreate but all I really have left is experience of life and materialism. But what amount of experience and materialism would be considered fufilling, or even fufilling at all? If I am not satisfied with experience/materialism/love then I have no reason to continue on my exploit of life, I would say the only thing keeping me here would be my fear of pain to die. I would say most definitely that the main existence of the human race is procreation, not unlike a virus... (Or so the Wachowski brothers would have you believe) haha. This is of course up to the individual but im making a logical observation.

I dont really have any rebuttles to your points as they consist of advice which I hold in good regard. But I just thought I would elaborate on what is afflicting me on a much more thorough sense by reiterating through your logic. Thank you sir.


I appreciate all of your responses, I wish there were more to reply to though!

Troy
 

paranoia

New member
Anon I cant have a beer, it would make me feel even worse than I already am.

Anon I am depressed, who isnt? Should we all line up and visit the psychiatric ward? Would I not convey my ideas in the same manner to a psychologist that I am doing here? Or did you just deem it necessary to point out how much you were uninterested by the topic?
 

Lilith

New member
Just for the sake of indulging your point of view, Troy, I'll jump in and support most of what you say. In my opinion, humans are destructive creatures, even if its unseen by most of the population. Cancer, AIDS...I don't believe these diseases (and others included) just popped up out of nowhere. I believe cancer has a lot to do with nuclear experiments and activity, and AIDS...well, for all we know, it could have been produced in a lab somewhere. Holes in the O-zone, even the basic principle of war...all of it boils down to human nature being geared toward self-preservation. And that self-preservation is often fueled even further by greed. Drug companies are living proof of that. TCNJcystic said that "if no one cared about whether we lived or died, there would be no business at all." I don't believe that. People care more about money than each other. As long as a profit is going into their pocket, they'll produce the drugs. If that profit drops, they won't. Simple as that.

My opinion of the human species as a whole is sour, to say the least. All you have to do is watch the news each night to see just how bad things have gotten (even if most of the news is censored and/or fabricated, you can't deny how many murder cases you hear about each night). If you are terminally ill, those points are driven home even harder (at least, they have been for me).

Now, that's not to say that everyone is bad. There are a few people with sincere hearts that would care for others and put their own needs aside (my friend Sarah and my lover Rick are living proof). That's why I disagree with you on your view of love. Even if love is a 'programmed' emotion put in place simply for the purpose of procreation, that program can be overwritten. I, for example, can't stand children and would never have one of my own. But even if I did wish for a child, I wouldn't do it because of fear of passing on this gene and being responsible for someone else's suffering. I simplly wouldn't do it. And I view genetic engineering as another example of man messing with nature when they shouldn't be. So I would never do that, either. But I'm still in love, deeply and madly, with my chosen partner. Whether love is something supernatural or something that is triggered by horomones or electric brain impulses, it does indeed exist.

All that said, I can see and somewhat agree with your point that the human race is polluting itself. But in the grand scheme, nothing will stop it. People will continue to bare children with illnesses and technology will see them kept alive, either out of true compassion or greed.

As an anyonymous poster said, "Those of true enlightenment realize there is no purpose in anything." They're right. In the end, it won't matter. Fate is fate. The wheels are turning too fast now. So why worry? Pondering on these ideas is one thing, but don't let it consume your thoughts. All it will give you is a headache.
 

anonymous

New member
Paranoia, I can tell you one thing for sure, my analyses are not emotionally guided, I think yours are rooted in an inferiority complex or self-esteem issue, questioning your evolutionary attractiveness perhaps. I too went through such a stage at one point, albeit questioning different attributes. I have no "genetic defects" myself and thus am granted a bit more of an objective outlook on the issue. My profession is in the field of molecular biology and I am well versed in evolution and how it works, if you would like to discuss it. Human evolution is something quite unique, and you are not looking at it in its totality.

What you don't understand is that technology, whether it is medicine or not, is one of the reasons humans survived in the first place. I know this may be something some people may not wish to come to terms with, but without technology, we likely would not have lived this long. We, like thousands, even millions, of other species, would simply have died off. Outside of technology, we wouldn't have had any significant advantages over other species, and are much less capable in many physical feats. We wouldn't do any of the things we do now. There may be a few tribes left over, if they hadn't already been eradicated by disease, predators, or resources. Keep in mind, domestication of crops, creation of shelters, etc, and the advent of technology are what allowed this many people to even exist. I couldn't survive a blizzard before technology. Now I can. What your argument leads one to believe is that somehow recent technology is to be thrown out of the equation, yet you can still keep previous technologies in the equation. This is a dishonest argument. Most of us would simply die if all technology in any form were taken away, medicine is included in this. Fundamentally, technology is all the same, and some consider technology itself is part of the evolutionary cycle.

Your hypothetical, to be blunt, is nonsense. The advent of civil society is only a very small portion of human existence. There is no reason to say, "well, if we lived in the 1200s...", when it is such an insignificant portion of time in terms of evolution. Any evolutionary discussions should be placed somewhere before the domestication of crops, creation of city states, domestication of animals, etc. Plenty of people could not survive without those, because we haven't evolved to any appreciable extent since those times. I would also point out not everyone chooses their partner soley on how they look, I know I didn't. I am well aware of human physiological pattern recognition in terms of physical attraction, whether it be symmetry, immune system strength, bone structure, hormone recognition, etc. And your point? Giving too much weight to such things is what drives people to plastic surgery. If someone wishes to live their life like a dog, that is their decision, but I certainly choose a different route. Having human primal urges does not mean one has to live by them. Sometimes when my dog barks, I have this urge to kick it. Would I ever kick it? No. The human mind is an amazing thing, and is what allows us to break free of being slaves to hormones. There is no evolutionary benefit to love my pugs, but I do anyway, and I wouldn't eat them even if I were starving to death. I think you should come to terms with the fact humans have choice.

Above all else, evolution has given humans a desire to preserve themself and their genes, regardless of those genes. Most evolutionists I have met will argue true altruism doesn't even exist, that humans only help each other because of the benefit:cost ratio will help them in some form. I have never seen someone say they will stop breeding to help "better" the human race. That is anti-evolution. Evolution itself is confined to environmental conditions. Everything we have, by its very nature, is natural. While you may view civilization as artificial, it is a new artificial environment, and this has caused the fitness landscape to change. If someone with a disease can now survive in this landscape, what on earth could be wrong with that? You in fact are trying to go against evolution into some kind of masochistic system where people have the environment to survive in, yet choose not to, for whatever reason. There could be an environmental change where tall people became selected against. I think this is where you have gone wrong, not realizing environment shapes evolution almost in its entirety, and that humans have indeed made natural changes to our environment. Due to our innate psychology to preserve ourselves, someone with CF would be abnormal to want to stop their existence to "better" other peoples' genes.
 

katyf13

New member
If there's one thing I know about MOST CF patients (and those with other illnesses that I am close with) is that physically cf folks might not be the fittest HOWEVER emotionally they far surpass the rest of the population. There are exceptions of course, but most of the people I know with cf are wise, and have learned to enjoy every day. To me personally, I would rather be surrounded by compassionate, life-experienced, emotionally fit people than those who are just healthy as oxes. (oxen? you know what I mean.)

Paranoia, your outlook seems bleak. I think you need a hug.

Oh and Mike and I were just discussing if I should be tested as a carrier or not. He wonders if having a baby with cf would be so wrong. I mean it makes sense to have a healthy baby, but at the same time, Mike's life has been extraordinary. Who am I to decide the fate of those who will join us some day?
Controversial indeed! ;-)
 

Mockingbird

New member
Troy, I have a response, but it involves God. If you would like me to post it, then let me know, but if you do not wish to consider things like that then I will just leave you alone.
 

S

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>paranoia</b></i>
<b>S</b> Please dont post unless pertinent to the conversation.</end quote></div>


it is pertinent, i'm telling you that long posts are a pain...i'm sure i'm not the only one who looked at it and decided to pass on the reading. thanks for reading this short, concise, and to the point post! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
 
Top