Scientists Spot Key Autoimmune Disease Genes

[Mr. P]

I may sound harsh here, but if we continue to find ways to keep people alive longer, are we setting ourselves up for another possible problem with overpopulation and the ills that can bring?Mr. P.Scientists Spot Key Autoimmune Disease Genes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:MONDAY, Jan. 22 (HealthDay News) -- The identification by U.S. scientists of genes thought to be key to autoimmune disorders could be a big step toward new treatments for these illnesses, which include lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes.Cells called regulatory T-cells are supposed to help keep the immune system in check, but in autoimmune disease, these mechanisms can fail.Now, researchers reporting this week in the journal Nature have identified a set of genes closely linked to regulatory T-cell function. The finding could have important implications for research into autoimmune disease and even cancer, experts say. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Chris OConnor]

Not only are we keeping people alive, but we're continually finding means to keep weak and ill-adapted people alive. Natural selection weeds out the weak and ill-adapted so that their genes cease when they die, but we're fighting nature to the point where we're weakening the human species.For example:Is it in our best interest to feed the millions of Africans that are starving to death in Ethiopia? They have absolutely no education, all sorts of medical problems including HIV, no marketable skills, and they live in a virtual wasteland with no real potential for supporting such a population. So we drop millions of bags of grain and keep them alive just long enough that they can gain the strength to have sex and pop out some babies, thus continuing the cycle.I'm well aware that what I've just said will raise some eyebrows. Seriously, think about your answers before you attack my logic. Should every single human life be preserved at all costs? And if you answered "yes" to this question I posit that you're not thinking deeply enough. Think about the most grotesque human deformity imaginable. Perhaps one where an extra arm grows out of the middle of a baby's forehead and one of the eyes is sealed shut with some sort of slimy mucus membrane that requires ointment every hour to keep the baby from screaming in pain and agony. Don't laugh...shit like this happens all the time. There are many babies born each year with medical nightmares.So do we spend our time, money and medical expertise keeping these babies alive so that they can grow older to the age where they can have sex and create more grotesquely deformed babies? Natural selection would have seen them dead before they hit 2 days old, but with our "save everyone" attitude we now have a growing population of deformed and miserable suffering humans that cannot enjoy their lives because of handicaps they didn't ask for in the first place.And before you ask I'll tell you right now that I would rather not be born at all then to be born with an arm sticking out of my forehead and a seeping right eye. Had I not been born I wouldn't be missing anything including the opportunity to live. Not being born at all is not a punishment.

[Loricat]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, Chris. It takes guts to say it...probably helps to be reading Jared Diamond now though, I find he's mighty gutsy.But my question is, should we not share the wealth a bit before we write off a whole continent of people for having no skills? Or do you believe that our greedy over-consumption/over-accumulation (of everything!) is our prize for being in the right place at the right time, our societal natural selection success?

[Mr. P]

I believe in helping out. Some people, in our artificial environment we create through civilization, may find themselves born into or forced into a situation where they have the odds stacked against them. But I am not for keeping people alive at all costs. We have to find some dividing line on where it becomes counter-productive with keeping people from leaving this world.The Terri Schaivo case comes to mind again.But I think we should stop and give some food to the hungry, we should make medicine available to those who do not have it. Because we have 'created' civilization, we should service that idea by sharing the wealth. Again, our environment is artificial now...and we should help those who find themselves short in that man-made world: man made advantage does away with NATURAL selection. But I do not think we should 'pull out all the stops' in keeping people from dying. We should at least balance this 'sanctity of human life' idea with what we feel is the proper population levels and design viable systems of managing the health of the whole. This may mean population control through birth control and child allowances. This may sound harsh, but there is a limit to how many people can live on this planet, whether we want to be nice about the details or talk about them in an honest and frank manner!Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Loricat]

Mr. P, Quote:Because we have 'created' civilization, we should service that idea by sharing the wealth. Again, our environment is artificial now...and we should help those who find themselves short in that man-made world: man made advantage does away with NATURAL selection.That's a good way of putting it. Something about this was niggling at the back of my brain...and I remembered: my husband often talks of the economic theory that essentially states that advantage falls to the person who makes the most use of a communal resource. How does this fit here? Are those in the 'West' making the most use of the world's resources, or is it that whole segments of the world population just don't have (never had?) access to those resources, and we're like the bigger kids at the daycare, and we're not sharing? "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd

[Rich206]

I don't think it is fair to compare people with genetic abnormalities to people who are suffering through circumstance of birth (i.e. being born in Ethiopia as opposed to the United States). Ethiopia is not exactly a "wasteland" - agriculture is the major portion of the Ethiopian economy. However, it is true that the country suffers from periodic droughts, the economy has been poorly managed and many of the people require help with food supply to survive. Rather than simply abandon these people as useless baggage, I think that we should tie aid to government reforms such as population control and diversification of the economy. Despite the overthrow of the Marxist government in the 90's, the economy has not been fully privatized, and the government still technically owns all the land, which discourages investment, as leased land is not an asset that can be used to borrow money.The people of Ethiopia lack marketable skills because there has been no effort to develop such skills. They are not genetically predisposed to that condition, and we are not weakening the human species by trying to help them. The country is only a little more than ten years removed from the "Red Terror" of a communist government that was preceded by an aristocracy. Both mismanaged the economy, although there was some effort at modernization.Since the rise of nation states, people who would thrive elsewhere cannot easily move. We should not sustain them just for the sake of perpetuating a cycle of poverty, but we should not simply abandon them either. I'm not certain whether the country can sustain the population that it currently has, but it can certainly sustain a considerable percentage of it. Population control and government reform should be a requirement for foreign aid. Unfortunately, our own government's current hostility to any form of birth control - particularly abortion - isn't exactly helping matters.I do not believe that heroic efforts should be made to keep people who have severe genetic abnormalities or medical conditions alive against their wishes, but I do not think that we should deny medical aid to those that seek it. We are clearly evolved animals, yet we are also sapient beings, capable of making moral and ethical judgments. We have used our intelligence to develop the means to sustain human life where it might otherwise fail. By what right do we deny those means to those among us who require them to survive? Do we simply say that it is the way of nature while the rest of us take full advantage of all the unnatural developments of technology to aid us? Those with healthy genes will thrive and produce more offspring regardless of whether we support those who have been unfortunate enough to be born with disadvantages. I do not think that weakening of the human species through advancements in medical technology poses much of a threat, certainly when compared to the problems of resource depletion, overpopulation and environmental degradation. Edited by: Rich206 at: 1/24/07 2:02 pm

[Mr. P]

Lori:Quote:How does this fit here? Are those in the 'West' making the most use of the world's resources, or is it that whole segments of the world population just don't have (never had?) access to those resources, and we're like the bigger kids at the daycare, and we're not sharing? Are the resources entirely communal? Some important resources are geographically dependant, like oil reserves say, and can be manipulated by the controlling soverign state. That said, why is not the Middle East in control of the ball to the extent that such an important resource as oil would seem to allow for? The US (call it the West) is absolutely in control of the direction of the world. I say this not to be pompous, but as a matter fact (although we should keep our eyes on China and India from what I have been seeing). This is the problem as I see with the attitude "work hard and succeed".There can be no denying that those in power control the price of admission into that scheme of power. At least we have to admit that there is some collusion amongst those with current power to control the climate in which 'they' can then solidify and expand the power 'they' hold. (hate to sound paranoid, but 'they' is the best descriptor I can find). It is not as simple as working hard to get ahead anymore. There are certain barriers, rules, requirements and attitudinal behaviors that are being imposed on people that may be impossible to overcome due to a mistake one makes or an occurence that sets one back (Credit scores are my pet peeve, mistakes can start a snowball rolling that is hard to run away from before it gets so big it is near impossible to get away from, yet credit is issued easily enough, but no attempt to educate these young people is made). So yes, I think that there are kids in the daycare that are not sharing, and sometimes are even hiding, the marbles.Rich:Quote:By what right do we deny those means to those among us who require them to survive? Do we simply say that it is the way of nature while the rest of us take full advantage of all the unnatural developments of technology to aid us? These are the questions I hoped would be discussed here. There are no easy answers obviously. But a twist on these would be: "By what right do we offer the means to people who would otherwise perish?" WHY is it a right for people to have access to everything they need to survive? And SHOULD we DO, just because we CAN?And is it responsible for any of us to utilize technology to extend our lives at all? Are we fully cognizant of the implications and effects of the technology we develop that extends lives and increases population? Should we focus more on the end result before we just make it a right to extend life at the request of the individual if that has an impact on the survival of the species?Don't get me wrong, I think we are both on the same page here. I do not have any answers about this...but I have been thinking about this topic internally for some time. Why is it moral to extend or protect life at all costs rather than letting nature take its course. WHICH is the better path in the long run? ANd who gets to make those decisions!?Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 1/24/07 3:36 pm

[Rich206]

A considerable percentage of the people who read this would have died in infancy were it not for the advancements of modern medical technology; therefore, I suppose an argument can be made that we have weakened the gene pool already. However, viruses evolve too, and new diseases would continue to emerge, so I don't agree with the idea that the gene pool is being weakened because we are not allowing natural selection to develop immunities to these threats. Rather than withholding medical care so that only the strongest survive, I think we would be better served by offering medical care and pursuing efforts to control our populations through birth control. We are interfering with natural selection by doing so, but humans have been interfering in the natural course of things since the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals. Rather than abandoning certain of these advancements as unnatural, I believe we should use our evolved intellectual capacity to develop rational approaches to the problems that we face, including overpopulation. In other words, humans have evolved the capacity to interfere with their natural environment and have been doing so for some time. Obviously, that has not always been for the better, but I do not see that we can (or should) turn the clock back in terms of withholding medical advances.Our ability to intervene medically does pose certain ethical dilemmas, and I don't pretend to have all the answers. However, once we have developed lifesaving technology, I don't see how we can withhold it selectively, and I don't know who would get to decide when it should be withheld. I tend to agree with Jared Diamond's conclusion that the decline and eventual death of a human being is due to multiple failures rather than any single cause, so I am doubtful of claims that we will soon be extending human lifetimes dramatically. I don't think we will be faced with the ethical dilemma of how long a person should be allowed to live in that sense anytime soon.Medical advancements are the result of our own evolvement of intelligence. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same right to utilize them. Of course, it's not a perfect world, but if our intelligence got us into this situation in the first place by providing solutions for medical challenges, then I see no reason why we can't use our intelligence to solve the other problems we face. There's no guarantee that we will, but I believe we are capable of doing so, if we put our minds to it. I suppose it might be said that we departed from the course of natural selection some time ago, but natural selection provided us with intelligence, and, barring an utter collapse of human civilization, there's no going back. I don't see how we can ethically impose natural selection on people being born today (and would it really be natural if we're doing it selectively ourselves?) when you consider that most of us wouldn't be here if it had been left up to natural selection alone.I think the idea that we are preventing humans from evolving into a better organism by utilizing medical technology and interfering with natural selection is a misconception. Evolution does not advance toward perfection; it merely selects traits that are more desirable under the current conditions. Intelligence has given us the ability to adapt and thrive in many conditions, so it is perhaps the most desirable trait of all, if we utilize it fully. If the evolution of human intelligence turns out to be undesirable in the end, we will become extinct, and evolution will go on without us.

[Mr. P]

Quote:I think we would be better served by offering medical care and pursuing efforts to control our populations through birth control. Well I agree with this. But there is resistance to this...and to child limits as well. China has done this, mayhaps on a bit more dramatic scale, but who are we to say they are wrong?WILL we control the population though. Humans tend to think we have a free breeding card, that we have no RIGHT to limit people on how many children they can have. People like the Duggers. Every sperm is sacred after all!Quote:but I do not see that we can (or should) turn the clock back in terms of withholding medical advances.Well we dont want to turn 'back', but we should also be wary about turing it ahead faster than we can cope with.Quote:I am doubtful of claims that we will soon be extending human lifetimes dramaticallyBut has'nt the avg. lifespan increased dramatically over the past 100? 200? 300? years? I am looking for info on this to supplement this discussion. I did see one figure somewhere that 100 years ago, the avg. lifespan was 49. It is now 74. That seem to me like we HAVE experienced drastic lifespan extension...and who is to say this will not increase, and WHAT is DRAMATIC? If we add another 5 years of life over the next 100 years even, how will this impact the viability of certain local and extended civilization?Quote:but I believe we are capable of doing so, if we put our minds to it.I believe this too! But I, true to my name, feel that idiocy will get in the way for a long time to come...I mean religion, politics and stubborness born from those!Quote:barring an utter collapse of human civilization, there's no going back.hmm...this may not be too far-fetched, alas.Quote:I don't see how we can ethically impose natural selection on people being born today (and would it really be natural if we're doing it selectively ourselves?) Well of course it is not natural selection if we impose it. We then turn into breeders of sorts! We can only divert natural selection. In the end, I think it will will win though.Quote:Evolution does not advance toward perfection;I did not mean to imply this, as I understand that natural selection is not teleological.Quote:If the evolution of human intelligence turns out to be undesirable in the end, we will become extinct, and evolution will go on without us.And this is what I meant by 'it will win' in the end.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Mr. P]

Just an interesting article I found while doing a search. I briefed it, did not read it straight through and just offer it for some info.Forever Young - Reason OnlineQuote:"We see ourselves on the cusp of the second longevity revolution," agrees Jay Olshansky, a demographer at the University of Chicago and the author of The Quest for Immortality (2001). "Scientists are on the verge of discovering major secrets of aging." The first longevity revolution occurred in the early 20th century, as infant mortality declined and infectious diseases were conquered; as a result, more young people now enjoy the opportunity to become old. The next longevity revolution, by contrast, will actually postpone old age.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper