fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #340 ]

[ SECRET POST #340 ]

⌈ Secret Post #340 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

__________________________________________________

2.

__________________________________________________

3.

__________________________________________________

4.

__________________________________________________

5.

__________________________________________________

6.

__________________________________________________

7.

__________________________________________________

8.

__________________________________________________

9.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

__________________________________________________

24.

__________________________________________________

25.

__________________________________________________

26.

__________________________________________________

27.

__________________________________________________

28.

__________________________________________________

29.

__________________________________________________

30.

__________________________________________________

31.

__________________________________________________

32.

__________________________________________________

33.

__________________________________________________

34.

__________________________________________________

35.

__________________________________________________

36.

__________________________________________________

37.

__________________________________________________

38.

__________________________________________________

39.

__________________________________________________

40.

__________________________________________________

41.

__________________________________________________

42.

__________________________________________________

43.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Posting for Shahni! And early because I've got ~~pseuicide~~ class.

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 150 secrets from Secret Submission Post #049.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 3 4 ] broken links, [ 1 2] not!secrets, 0 not!fandom.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Wednesday, December 12th, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wait, wait, wait. I don't know the source, so I'm a mite confused -- how will advancement in medical technology hasten the end of human life?

The most prominent one to me is drug-resistant strains of bacteria, which is already starting to happen. Illnesses like tuberculosis that can't be treated with any known drugs are spreading and people are worrying about it. If diseases keep developing like this? We aren't going to have defenses against them.

Okay. But doesn't that sound like an argument for continued development in medicines? Again, I'm not 100% on board with what you're saying.

No, because the further we develop cures, the more we're pushing ourselves into a corner. One day we'll run out of possible options.

Several things. One, that's a hard case to sell, because some would just argue that further complication is a good reason we should keep working at finding possible cures. It is not feasible to speak for the capacities of future scientific developments in medicines, so saying eventually we'll run out of options is quitter's mentality.

Plus, it's a difficult line to draw: should we stop curing everything altogether, even the most basic of illnesses? The common cold is a viral infection, and is called common for a reason. If left untreated, complications may arise leading to, say, emphysema and death. If interventional actions are not taken early on, what's to say something like a pandemic won't occur, wiping out a significant portion of the population?

Another argument could take the socioeconomic point of view, which is to say that, realistically, even fatal illnesses have not been shown to severely limit mental capacities in the majority of cases. Some of the greatest minds in history have been attached to bodies afflicted with illnesses -- but without those great minds, the very foundation of our society would unravel. Not to mention many people with mental birth defects are genius savants, making huge contributions to society in mathematics, music, the arts, etc. In this way, how can we be sure that the implementation of an eugenics program won't actually be detrimental to the process of evolution?

And finally, here comes the humanitarian outlook: eugenics is all very fine and good to talk about, but most people would sing a different tune the minute they or a family member is personally affected. Since you yourself acknowledge the belief to be unrealistic, I wonder why you would hold on to it, especially on the cusp of a medical career.

My two cents.

I'm not arguing for implementation of a eugenics program -- it isn't acceptable in today's society and I don't believe that it would serve much point right now. We can't simply stop treating people for "the good of humanity" because one, medicines have probably had effects that we wouldn't know about until we stopped everything and I'd say it's a good chance the results would be catastrophic, and two, as we've seen on this community, it's unrealistic as most people would not support even the idea of it. My viewpoint is less "if we did this..." and more "If this had happened instead, a long time ago..."

I'm not sure why I do; I'm just a bucket of contradictions. Now that we have this technology, I want to put it to use and help people. At the same time I believe that the power to do this sort of thing shouldn't be in our hands.

but without those great minds, the very foundation of our society would unravel
Who's to say that this society is a good one though? We certainly wouldn't have gone in the same direction without people like that, but perhaps the path we didn't take would have led us to a better future. (Though as

zuppi said, no matter which way we took the result would be the same. ;) )

You are not arguing for the implementation of an eugenics program in the present, but if I infer this correctly, one would have had to take place at some point in history in order for the "what if" to even come into play. The question, again, is where do we draw the line? At the very dawn of medicines? Perhaps that would have just wiped out the human race as a whole, just as nature "intended", and then we wouldn't even be here debating this. Or maybe later on, before the discovery of penicillin perhaps? When?

Historically, suggestions of an eugenics program have been in existence since ancient times -- a very famous one is discussed in Plato's Republic, involving refusal of medical treatment for the sick (sounds familiar) and in extreme cases, infanticide. I don't think humanity as a whole will ever reach the point where something like that is considered acceptable.

Slightly OT (well, not exactly), I have some training in geology myself and -- while the theory of solar expansion is pretty much legitimate, there's hope that by the time we come to that, we will already have developed the technology necessary to move Earth's population and colonize another terrestrial body. It would be unthinkable if the genius rocket scientist in charge of this program had died from an untreated case of osteosarcoma some years back ;)

One final word: all this man vs. nature talk just reminds me that we, the human race, have done a lot to defy nature in the course of our existence and development, and what is more, we're rather good at it. I think what it comes down to is the question what ultimate goal should we seek, the end-all-be-all survival of our race, or the harmony between man and nature? And on that note, I don't think we should count man out of the fight just yet. There may yet be a way to go around natural laws that we haven't thought of.

"...there's hope that by the time we come to that, we will already have developed the technology necessary to move Earth's population and colonize another terrestrial body. It would be unthinkable if the genius rocket scientist in charge of this program had died from an untreated case of osteosarcoma some years back ;)"

That's awful. Humanity is a waste of space, in my opinion- almost all we've done to the planet and ecosystems that have supported us and help us to grow is violate. This, in my mind, is paramount to murder of every living thing on Earth. Basically what you said just now was, "Aren't we humans great? We've managed to get on the path to ditching this shitty ball of mud for a nice new planet once we're done trashing it! =DD" So, no. I don't think that the genius rocket scientist in charge surviving was a good thing. We can claim that humanity will act in a more mature fashion on other planets and in the solar system, but that's bull. Humanity will always be humanity, as evidenced by central themes and human characteristics in literature from the B.C.'s to the A.D.'s, and humanity is extremely species-centric.

I agree with the OP of #18, too. Natural selection has proven itself to be blind and quite good at forming better and brighter species; in the case of humanity, it was a little too good. We're an extremely successful species, but because of this success, we're on the path to destroying everything.
(In an amusing turn of events, I'm going into medicine too- only it's veterinary medicine.)

Uh.

Nope, I don't think I'll waste a good argument on this. Sorry.

By the way, I hope you become a great vet, because all the other species on this planet will have to become some kind of super organisms in order to survive the Sun swallowing the Earth whole (as per my, uh, original point). You know, because all humans will obviously have destroyed themselves recklessly at that point. Why develop the technology? The human race clearly needs to die a painful death, while the rest of the planet dies right along with it.

(Most pointless, incendiary argument ever. Fucking tree-huggers, I'm voting Republican next year.)

Edited 2007-12-13 00:25 (UTC)

Okay, drug-resistant germs (which terrify me greatly, I don't use antibiotic/antibacterials in my home anymore unless I'm down to the green mucous stage of an illness) I can get. But isn't lumping that in with disabilities and birth defects a little, um, scattered for a display of opinion?

Possibly.

But it's natural selection. Old strains of germs die out because they can no longer find suitable hosts. It should be the same way with humans, but with medical technology the ones who would normally not live to an old age and have children of their own are doing so. It's a good thing on most levels, but genetically? No. Defective genes which wouldn't have been passed on if they were in the DNA of any other animal are surviving and replicating and causing disease in people. Which can be linked directly to the medical field.

Not living to old age =/= not having children. There are plenty of genetic diseases that only manifest once you're well into or past childbirthing/rearing years.

And a lot of those genes continue to get passed on because they don't always manifest, so you don't know who is a carrier. Which is how, you know, a lot of these genetic anamolies have managed to persist over centuries when medicine wasn't so advanced.

Actually, a lot of genetic anomalies such as schizophrenia (and unusual aggressiveness in dogs) have been passed down because they were inadvertently selected for- that is, they were linked to genes that were "positive" in the eyes of potential mates, and so passed on along with the "good" genes.

That's because of evolution of bacteria and over use of anti-biotics, not disabilities. The issue there is with doctors, not patients.

The issue there is with doctors

Isn't that sort of arguing for me? We wouldn't have superbugs if we didn't make the medicines to combat the originals.

Nevertheless, I don't really want to argue about this anymore, since I know I'm probably in the wrong. I never intended to debate anyway. I made it so I could admit to myself that I really was a bad person. That's all.

I really wish you would continue. I'd really like to hear your views, since while I do engage in some discussion on eugenics, it's rare to find someone on that side of the argument who's actually had medical training. The issue really is more complicated than meets the eye, and you obviously have reasons backing up your claim; I don't think labeling yourself nilly-willy a bad person is entirely fair.

Edited 2007-12-11 21:29 (UTC)

Isn't that sort of arguing for me? We wouldn't have superbugs if we didn't make the medicines to combat the originals.

Well, that's just getting ridiculous. First of all, it seems you're no longer arguing in favour of eugenics, you're talking of eliminating all kinds of medical care. It's fine if that's what you're arguing (again, I disagree) but stop changing your position.

Secondly, how is the issue of over prescription of antibiotics the problem of those with genetic defects. You're arguing around in circles. What exactly is your argument?

I can't make a judgement on whether or not you're a bad person, but you certainly come across as a very confused one.

I'm not the OP, but, uh? Have you even played Trauma Center? Because if you had, the OP would make perfect sense (or at least what its position was would) and certainly wouldn't appear to be changing positions. If you have... man, you missed something big.

No, I haven't played the game. I'm addressing the issues the OP brought up in this thread. If the game jumps around like the OP then it doesn't seem to make much sense either. Perhaps you could explain better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #340 ]

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

no subject

no subject

Not the 18 OP

Re: Not the 18 OP

Re: Not the 18 OP

Re: Not the 18 OP

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18

Re: 18