Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

[JS80]

They did a movie on this. I think called Gattaca. And some German dude tried it back in the 40s. Didn't work out too well for him.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
In the short term giving medication/aid to those with hereditary ailments helps. In the long term it hurts the human race as a whole since traits that would otherwise be weeded out can spread.

Take poor vision, for instance. Before glasses, it was relatively rare to have poor vision. Those with poor vision would have trouble functioning in everyday life and there would certainly be a stigma associated with such a "cripple". After glasses were invented poor eyesight was no longer a limitation. People with poor vision bred and spread their genes. Now, poor eyesight is extremely common as a result of this.

This is fairly easy to understand, but many people are extremely emotional and they let their feelings override reason. When dealing with other animals that reproduce sexually the way we do, logic and science prevails. But when humans are the subject, it becomes a hot issue and it gets politicized. Any science is often driven by political leanings.

Fail. The rise in nearsightedness is largely attributable to lifestyle. We spend an ever increasing amount of time focusing on near objects like books, TV, computer monitors and cell phones.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JS80
They did a movie on this. I think called Gattaca. And some German dude tried it back in the 40s. Didn't work out too well for him.

You should be banned for bring up the lame, overused, and obvious Hitler reference.

Why are Nazi's such a crutch used by the overly-emotional crowd? Can't they think of more creative comparisons?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Fail. The rise in nearsightedness is largely attributable to lifestyle. We spend an ever increasing amount of time focusing on near objects like books, TV, computer monitors and cell phones.

You fail. While environmental factors may play a role, it is mostly genetic.

"Only 6%-15% of children with myopia come from families in which neither parent is myopic. In families with one myopic parent, 23%-40% of the children develop myopia. If both parents are myopic, the rate rises to 33%-60% for their children. One American study found that children with two myopic parents are 6.42 times as likely to develop myopia themselves as children with only one or no myopic parents."


Why is there such a push to deny obvious genetic factors when it comes to discussing humans? If animals were the topic, people would be able to approach the issue scientifically and not politically. But once you mention that it's humans you're talking about, you get a strong contingent that wants to deny genetics, as if we're not limited by our genes?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Fail. The rise in nearsightedness is largely attributable to lifestyle. We spend an ever increasing amount of time focusing on near objects like books, TV, computer monitors and cell phones.

You fail. While environmental factors may play a role, it is mostly genetic.

"Only 6%-15% of children with myopia come from families in which neither parent is myopic. In families with one myopic parent, 23%-40% of the children develop myopia. If both parents are myopic, the rate rises to 33%-60% for their children. One American study found that children with two myopic parents are 6.42 times as likely to develop myopia themselves as children with only one or no myopic parents."

Uh that correlation doesn't prove jack shit. Find me a journal where they actually map out the actual gene sequences that contribute to myopia, then we'll talk.

And anti histimines doesn't reduce your body's contact to the allergens, unlike what antibacterial soap does for bacteria, it just bocks the inflammatory response of the body, so it's not like your immune system is getting weakened. If anything, it allows you to expose yourself to the allergens without feeling miserable, and thus only results in a strengthening of the immune system over time.

Fail thread is fail on any fucking perspective, well execpt a retard moron perspective. Yeah let's have a society that doesn't give a shit about anyone that's less than perfect.

 

[senseamp]

OP, you should go and try to prevent people with allergies from getting medication at store/pharmacy, I am sure you will learn a lot about Darwinism.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Fail. The rise in nearsightedness is largely attributable to lifestyle. We spend an ever increasing amount of time focusing on near objects like books, TV, computer monitors and cell phones.

You fail. While environmental factors may play a role, it is mostly genetic.

"Only 6%-15% of children with myopia come from families in which neither parent is myopic. In families with one myopic parent, 23%-40% of the children develop myopia. If both parents are myopic, the rate rises to 33%-60% for their children. One American study found that children with two myopic parents are 6.42 times as likely to develop myopia themselves as children with only one or no myopic parents."


Why is there such a push to deny obvious genetic factors when it comes to discussing humans? If animals were the topic, people would be able to approach the issue scientifically and not politically. But once you mention that it's humans you're talking about, you get a strong contingent that wants to deny genetics, as if we're not limited by our genes?

Of course genetics plays a role. Genetics plays a role in everything. But it is NOT the major factor in the RISE of myopia as you stated.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Uh that correlation doesn't prove jack shit. Find me a journal where they actually map out the actual gene sequences that contribute to myopia, then we'll talk.

And anti histimines doesn't reduce your body's contact to the allergens, unlike what antibacterial soap does for bacteria, it just bocks the inflammatory response of the body, so it's not like your immune system is getting weakened. If anything, it allows you to expose yourself to the allergens without feeling miserable, and thus only results in a strengthening of the immune system over time.

Fail thread is fail on any fucking perspective, well execpt a retard moron perspective.

You seem to lack understanding of the subject and yet you felt the need to post.

Originally posted by: astroidea
Find me a journal where they actually map out the actual gene sequences that contribute to myopia, then we'll talk.

LOL- What kind of idiotic argument is this? Are you actually trying to claim that that you cannot show a genetic cause unless you're able to map the genes sequences? You've got to be kidding me. Scientists have been able to show the genetic aspect of traits for well over 100 years. Mendel was able to show genetic connection back in the 1860's.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Of course genetics plays a role. Genetics plays a role in everything. But it is NOT the major factor in the RISE of myopia as you stated.

If you're able to understand that children with myopia are much more likely to have parents with myopia, and children without myopia are much more likely to have parents without myopia, why do you find it so hard to understand that people with myopia are more likely to have children with myopia than those who don't have it?

If the studies prove the genetic connection and you have a growing population, is it really so hard to understand that people with myopia are going to spread that gene? Shit, add me to that list. I have it and my parents do to. And children borne to me will be more likely to have it than children borne to parents with good vision.

I think that a lot of people are so afraid of the possible connections with eugenics and Nazis that they can't even begin to touch on this subject in a rational manner. They just deny it with everything they've got.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

Unfortunately people nowadays are taught to be so emotional that they throw away all logic and reason and instead spout politically correct "feel-good" nonsense.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Of course genetics plays a role. Genetics plays a role in everything. But it is NOT the major factor in the RISE of myopia as you stated.

If you're able to understand that children with myopia are much more likely to have parents with myopia, and children without myopia are much more likely to have parents without myopia, why do you find it so hard to understand that people with myopia are more likely to have children with myopia than those who don't have it?

Obviously if the studies prove the genetic connection and you have a growing population, is it really so hard to understand that people with myopia are going to spread that gene? Shit, add me to that list. I have it and my parents do to. And children borne to me will be more likely to have it than children borne to parents with good vision.

Why do you keep misreading my posts? I didn't say genetics had no effect. Myopia is inheritable, no one's disputing that. But in order for evolution to be the cause of an overall rise in myopia there would have to be a reproductive advantage to it, which there isn't. In fact, less industrialized nations like India have much lower rates of myopia than first world countries. This points to lifestyle being the predominant cause of the overall rise in myopia.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

It depends on what you want. Obviously if you want the general population to be as free of genetic flaws as possible then your answer is yes. Reality is often cruel. Imposing your political or emotional ideals upon it is pointless, for it is what it is.

I know that the opponents of reality are just jumping at the chance to compare this to eugenics and Nazis. But eugenics is really just "genetics" with baggage added. It's really basic genetics, too, and it's practiced everyday both naturally (people tend to choose healthier looking mates and tend to avoid sickly looking mates) and medically (pre-natal screening for genetic problems). The only difference is the marketing. It's now called "reproductive empowerment" or some other euphemism.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

Your bring up a good point. Is it hereditary? Then sure.

Either you are with Darwin or you are not.

I know it sounds really, really terrible and I'm not advocating denying medicine or care. But you have to follow evolution to it's logical conclusion.

The movie Gattica was so ahead of it's time.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Why do you keep misreading my posts? I didn't say genetics had no effect. Myopia is inheritable, no one's disputing that. But in order for evolution to be the cause of an overall rise in myopia there would have to be a reproductive advantage to it, which there isn't.

It's not that there must be a reproductive advantage, it could be that it is no longer a reproductive disadvantage. And since one parent's traits can be passed onto most or all of their offspring, it's possible for it to spread.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
In fact, less industrialized nations like India have much lower rates of myopia than first world countries. This points to lifestyle being the predominant cause of the overall rise in myopia.

This can be due to the fact that less industrialized nations have poor healthcare, so these otherwise-treatable ailments are reproductive disadvantages.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

Your bring up a good point. Is it hereditary? Then sure.

Either you are with Darwin or you are not.

If you want to talk about Darwin, why only hereditary? Why not get rid of hospitals? Only the strongest will survive then right?

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: krylon
Not sure what you guys preaching about, but I'm referring to hereditary allergies.

People have a predisposition to diabetes, heart failure, and breast cancer.

Most allergies aren't directly inherited or lethal. So if you were going to make a case for "gene pool darwinism" it would make much more sense to stop treating the above conditions than to not treat allergies.

Hi sir. This thread is about allergies. :beer:

No, it's about the gene pool being affected by the survival of people that are genetically predisposed to having a disorder that can be passed on. Whatever you decide about inherited risk of allergies would apply to inherited risk of pretty much any other disorder.

To with hold medicine from someone who is ill through no fault of their own is morally reprehensible. I have no problem with saying that alcoholics should be at the bottom of the list for liver transplants and smokers for heart/lung transplants because that was their own choice. However, a person had no control over what genes their parents gave them. They're stuck with what they have. To punish them for something they can't even attempt to control is absolutely asinine.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

It depends on what you want. Obviously if you want the general population to be as free of genetic flaws as possible then your answer is yes. Reality is often cruel. Imposing your political or emotional ideals upon it is pointless, for it is what it is.

I know that the opponents of reality are just jumping at the chance to compare this to eugenics and Nazis. But eugenics is really just "genetics" with baggage added. It's really basic genetics, too, and it's practiced everyday both naturally (people tend to choose healthier looking mates and tend to avoid sickly looking mates) and medically (pre-natal screening for genetic problems). The only difference is the marketing. It's now called "reproductive empowerment" or some other euphemism.

:laugh:

 

[Mo0o]

Why allergies specifically and not any other genetic illness?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

Your bring up a good point. Is it hereditary? Then sure.

Either you are with Darwin or you are not.

If you want to talk about Darwin, why only hereditary? Why not get rid of hospitals? Only the strongest will survive then right?

I think you're now trying to bend his point to the absurd in an attempt to discredit the idea.

Only genetic ailments can be passed onto offspring. If you break your leg you're not going to have kids with broken legs. But if you have myopia it's very likely that you'll have kids with myopia.

 

[Goosemaster]

Alas, so far from the womb must the man be, stripped of all the glory of the flesh, mired in the wretched pain of an ailing cell among infinite replacements, to finally realize the truth, to accept the falsehood, that once was perfection.

 

[Freshgeardude]

i have both a hereditary allergy and non-hereditary.

allergic to dust, just as my dad and bro.

allergic to tree nuts- no one else in my family is.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

Your bring up a good point. Is it hereditary? Then sure.

Either you are with Darwin or you are not.

If you want to talk about Darwin, why only hereditary? Why not get rid of hospitals? Only the strongest will survive then right?

I think you're now trying to bend his point to the absurd in an attempt to discredit the idea.

Only genetic ailments can be passed onto offspring. If you break your leg you're not going to have kids with broken legs. But if you have myopia it's very likely that you'll have kids with myopia.

Every individual has genes that may lead to a genetic ailment. Where do you draw the line? Who is going to make the decision? Why shouldn't all people have the same ability to live? Why can't someone with an allergy or genetic ailments lead a more productive life than someone without? How do you screen individuals?

With your kind of thinking, some of our Presidents, greatest inventors/thinkers, etc wouldn't have been allowed to be born.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I guess it is time that the world had another round of eugenics. It has been what, 70 years?