|
Context: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/350726-dad-i-miss-you
TL;DR Context: I lost my father in ALS, that blogpost describes the emotion, the pain that came along with it.
I want to take a moment and thank everyone - not for pouring cold water on themselves, but for taking financial actions against a disease that currently only has one ending. You can postpone it if you're lucky - today's medication against it only has a chance to slow it down (but it will not stop), but it's a matter of time before ALS breaks you down. The clock starts ticking the moment the doctor sits down and tell you that you have this disease. It may go off in a year, in three years - even longer depending on age and healthiness prior to getting ALS.
I've been donating to ALS research prior to this and I will continue to do so, no matter what shape my own economy was, because I couldn't stand aside. I know there are other diseases, just as lethal as this.
But I had to see my father break down in front of me and all I could feel was powerless. I couldn't stop it and at the end I couldn't even face it. And I wouldn't wish this upon my worst enemy (do I have a worst enemy? A nemesis? I have no idea) to get this disease or see someone go through this.
All I wanted to say is thank you for all of you taking actions, even spreading the word will help more than you think. We've conquered diseases before; we'll do it again. The research itself is not exactly as much funded as say cancer researches because it's much more rare. About 1 per 1000 gets ALS in Sweden, if you crossreference that with cancer you'll have a larger number. But what if we could find a way to cure both? The human thirst for excellence, knowledge; every step up the ladder of science will make a difference.
Thank you & sincerely,
someone who had a front-seat ticket to this disease.
|
Hey man, I just read your first blog. I know it's late, but I hope you're doing better now. ALS is horrible.
Tyvm for sharing.
|
Thanks a lot for sharing, take very good care of yourself! We as a community will always back you up whenever you need someone.
About the ice bucket challenge:
The original message seems to have been lost after circulate around the internet around a while.
Just to spread the message of the ice bucket challenge again:
The icy water is supposed to make the participator to feel similar experience of that one who has ALS (the numb feel around your body)
In Hong Kong, it is either record a video of you doing it, OR donate some money but at least it is grabbing people's attention on an illness that probably not a lot of people knew about.
|
On August 21 2014 22:00 ETisME wrote:
In Hong Kong, it is either record a video of you doing it, OR donate some money but at least it is grabbing people's attention on an illness that probably not a lot of people knew about.
It's the same thing anywere else.
Some are only doing it because it brings views on youtube, but they won't donate shit.
Props to people who do the challenge AND give money as well.
I must say that Charlie Sheen's challenge is the best one haha
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I read your first blog now, sorry to hear about your dad. I hope you've managed to recover a bit and are taking care of yourselves. Honestly, I had no clue about ALS. There's just so much diseases out there to keep track of but I think it's great that money has been raised to try help those with ALS. Hopefully, they find some medicine that manages to halt the progression instead of slowing it down.
On August 21 2014 22:00 ETisME wrote:
About the ice bucket challenge:
The original message seems to have been lost after circulate around the internet around a while.
Just to spread the message of the ice bucket challenge again:
The icy water is supposed to make the participator to feel similar experience of that one who has ALS (the numb feel around your body)
ya, I feel the same too. When I first saw it, it just looked like another fad. People dump ice on themselves, take a video and well, that's that but eventually, I noticed it wasn't the case.
|
I am so, so sorry for your loss. I can never ever begin to understand the pain you and your family have been through.
ALS is fucking hell.
But the ice bucket challenge is truly awesome!!!
This will bring the research around this horrible illness to a completely new and awesome position!
Gogo science, make your magic happen. And quick now!
|
On August 21 2014 18:44 Amestir wrote:
Hey man, I just read your first blog. I know it's late, but I hope you're doing better now. ALS is horrible.
Tyvm for sharing.
I'm doing much better nowadays. StarCraft II saved me from a depression, it kept me focused as a manager when the times were rough. I might have made some clouded judgements in relations to grief, but all teams that hired me knew that risk. The most important thing is to have something you can dedicate time and enjoy doing it, and for me it was being a manager. I've moved on from that point but SC2 will always have that special place because without it I would have probably isolated myself and become depressed.
Losing a parent or a child in any way is a grief that will burden someone for the rest of that persons life, but eventually you learn to cope with it, to live your life. My father wanted me to pursue my dreams and goals, to live my life, to enjoy it, be a glass of water or a walk in the park. I savor those things, I enjoy everything because I never know when or how my life will end. Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of death. It gave me a perspective and death is a natural part of life, no matter how death strikes. It can be a car accident, it can be a disease, it doesn't matter. Until then, I'll upkeep his promise. And until then, I will do whatever I can to help those who actively research this disease.
I also realized all my blogposts have been either about this disease or my father, I should really mood up my blog here on TL. But this is a great atmosphere to share things, because the sc2 community can be wonderful to understand, listen and cheer you up. I mean I get touched by all these comments and all the comments in the past, even if I don't know most people that comments, it means a lot that you show that you cared. And that's always important.
|
Well I for one, dislike the ALS Ice Bucket challenge, even if it's for a good cause, most people simply do it because they are narcissists.
I'm happy people are getting support, I'm uncertain about your 1 in 1000 you posted, because from my research it's closer to 2-3 in 100,000, but regardless, my stance about this is different than most peoples'.
Firstly, I think it's absurd that we have to partake in these events to get funding. I believe that the government should be financing this in every western country (given they have public healthcare), because they know how to spend the money best. A big portion of our taxes goes to healthcare, and I would much rather put pressure on the government to fund something, rather than people getting irrationally into supporting things when they don't understand the system, when they don't understand all the other diseases out there, etc.
At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes. The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it. I'm not saying go all Gattaca, but some measures need to be taken for the sake of all disease prevention. People need to stop thinking it's so inhumane to prevent people to bear children, when they already prevent us to have sex until a certain age, when they prevent us to do drugs, etc. There are many safety mechanisms in place for us, this needs to be another.
At the end of a day, I don't believe finding a cure to these diseases is the answer, because it will only get worse in the future. More and more people are having cancer, heart attacks, etc. A cure is not the answer, a cure is plugging a hole on a sinking ship when looking at society as a hole, rather than the one individual. We need to take precautions in protecting our citizen from obtaining these diseases, not curing them.
Healthy lives, not being surrounded by excessive stress (which leads to many diseases), not allowing citizen to make unhealthy decisions and then be allowed to bear children. I know what I say comes off as crazy, but think about it. Sure, some adults will suffer for a generation or two because they want a kid (they can adopt one), but think of how much suffering and harm to our society will be prevented. Well, reading what I said definitely sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic, but I think a lot of what I say has it's merits when not looking at the individuals, but the society as a whole.
It takes a good man to better his contemporary society, but it takes a great man to look beyond that and try and alter the future in a way that will give no fame, wealth, or glory - even after he's been buried for decades, there is appreciation, but no recognition.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
^ Please, no jokes in a serious thread. I might agree that there must be other methods of funding but in general, funding is likely used on diseases that have the highest incidence level, so that when research finds a cure, more people would benefit from it. It's the best bang for your buck approach which explains why cancer gets some of the biggest funding out there. Almost everyone has known someone who was sick with cancer at some point.
At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes.
right, let's disallow people from having children because they have 'bad genes' ... It's not your choice or mine if someone wants to have a child and it should never be the case. The day society gets that limiting is the day that rights have truly died and I hope I never see that in my lifetime. Also, your problem is that you keep thinking of things in terms of money as is evident by this:
The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it.
There is no proof that you will ever eradicate this disease, it's just an assumption that if you stop those with 'bad genes', then you won't have children with it bur doesn't mean it's the case. Anyways, sorry OP for derailing but couldn't just read that post and ignore it lol.
|
On August 22 2014 15:48 BigFan wrote:^ Please, no jokes in a serious thread. I might agree that there must be other methods of funding but in general, funding is likely used on diseases that have the highest incidence level, so that when research finds a cure, more people would benefit from it. It's the best bang for your buck approach which explains why cancer gets some of the biggest funding out there. Almost everyone has known someone who was sick with cancer at some point. Show nested quote +At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes. right, let's disallow people from having children because they have 'bad genes' ... It's not your choice or mine if someone wants to have a child and it should never be the case. The day society gets that limiting is the day that rights have truly died and I hope I never see that in my lifetime. Also, your problem is that you keep thinking of things in terms of money as is evident by this: Show nested quote +The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it. There is no proof that you will ever eradicate this disease, it's just an assumption that if you stop those with 'bad genes', then you won't have children with it bur doesn't mean it's the case. Anyways, sorry OP for derailing but couldn't just read that post and ignore it lol.
I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's:
"As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it"
And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently. I think it's completely fair to not allow someone to have children, as we already do when we chemically castrate certain criminals. Considering we don't allow people to have sex with dead people that gave consent, or have sex with animals, I don't think we are that far off from not allowing for people to have children if they have diseases.
Anyway, I just want to emphasize that governments influence our decisions a lot in order for us to do things they desire, what society desires. It might start with something as little as family benefits if healthy couples have children, etc. And people would still experience raising children (adopted), if they had wanted to. We don't allow mentally retarded people to have children (at least some, I have read this long ago, so correct me if I'm wrong).
As for a cure, these diseases have a lot in common with other neurological diseases. My belief is, that this disease isn't one that can be cured by taking a drug and making it go away. It's a life long treatment, and I'm sure there's something that can be found that suppresses it quite well, and it will be possible to live normal lives with extensive care. But again, it just seems like a short term solution. It's always the same, someones loved one dies gets impacted from the disease, then people say we must fight against this because it was so hard for them, so hard for me, blah blah. And I can relate to that, I can, but you can see this makes people act on emotions, and it makes people act on their immediate safety, these are not long term solutions. Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on.
It just bothers me how much money is spent on cancer research, but how little of that money goes towards prevention. Just today I was reading how awful Ramen noodles are for your cardiac health, but the government doesn't do anything about those...
Anyway, I believe in prevention. Most cures negatively impact other parts of the body (all antibiotics), prevention keeps the body pure and chemically clean. It's a much better way to deal with diseases, and I'd much rather emphasize prevention, rather than cures - whatever it takes.
edit: Most (if not all diseases) have a hereditary component to them. Just like how cancer and heart disease runs in the family (the two biggest killers). Yes, you wont eradicate the disease (as mutations in your DNA happen within your lifetime), you will greatly reduce the probability of just about all diseases occuring.
edit2: Money for me is the smallest factor, the well-being and health of the community as a whole is my concern. I think most of my posts on teamliquid have been very selfless... I have earned enough money to be able to live the rest of my life in a lower-middle class and therefore I don't have much interest where finances are concerned, and I legitimately try and offer input and solutions, and my thinking (in which I sometimes like to challenge the conventional thinking, to promote though). All too often people assume I'm trolling, but a lot of time, when people take care with their reply, I get some nice insights back. But anyways, when I'm referring to the cost of money, I am referring to the opportunity cost of everything else that could be spent on. And when you think of all the "problems" society has, I think there's better ways it could be spent.
|
@FiWiFaKi
I think you are far too ideologist.
There are millions other variables combined that lead to the man YOU think should have never been born to be who he was.
It's far more than genes related.
We are fighting the good fight here, so that we aren't necessarily killing off all those people "Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on."
Your "idea" of "solving the problem" is to NOT even give them a choice on whether they want to see till their end if there can be some sort of cure and hope for them.
Not to mention the huge list of social, economical and political effects upon the whole world.
I won't call you wrong but it's very ideologist that somehow thinks there is someone who can rate who deserves to be born or not based on simple genetics and family histories.
Plus, it's not even like we find the cure means we won't be able to prevent it from happening.
We can be going for both cure and prevention at the same time. Cancer researches have fields that specialize in the causation on cancer (but it's incredibly difficult to pinpoint)
I have a family history of cancer (4 members) and heart disease (2 members), I am probably going to die from any of these two diseases but I am also likely to die off from other causes, so I certainly can't share your PoV
|
On August 22 2014 16:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 15:48 BigFan wrote:^ Please, no jokes in a serious thread. I might agree that there must be other methods of funding but in general, funding is likely used on diseases that have the highest incidence level, so that when research finds a cure, more people would benefit from it. It's the best bang for your buck approach which explains why cancer gets some of the biggest funding out there. Almost everyone has known someone who was sick with cancer at some point. At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes. right, let's disallow people from having children because they have 'bad genes' ... It's not your choice or mine if someone wants to have a child and it should never be the case. The day society gets that limiting is the day that rights have truly died and I hope I never see that in my lifetime. Also, your problem is that you keep thinking of things in terms of money as is evident by this: The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it. There is no proof that you will ever eradicate this disease, it's just an assumption that if you stop those with 'bad genes', then you won't have children with it bur doesn't mean it's the case. Anyways, sorry OP for derailing but couldn't just read that post and ignore it lol. I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's: "As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it" And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently. I think it's completely fair to not allow someone to have children, as we already do when we chemically castrate certain criminals. Considering we don't allow people to have sex with dead people that gave consent, or have sex with animals, I don't think we are that far off from not allowing for people to have children if they have diseases. Anyway, I just want to emphasize that governments influence our decisions a lot in order for us to do things they desire, what society desires. It might start with something as little as family benefits if healthy couples have children, etc. And people would still experience raising children (adopted), if they had wanted to. We don't allow mentally retarded people to have children (at least some, I have read this long ago, so correct me if I'm wrong). As for a cure, these diseases have a lot in common with other neurological diseases. My belief is, that this disease isn't one that can be cured by taking a drug and making it go away. It's a life long treatment, and I'm sure there's something that can be found that suppresses it quite well, and it will be possible to live normal lives with extensive care. But again, it just seems like a short term solution. It's always the same, someones loved one dies gets impacted from the disease, then people say we must fight against this because it was so hard for them, so hard for me, blah blah. And I can relate to that, I can, but you can see this makes people act on emotions, and it makes people act on their immediate safety, these are not long term solutions. Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on. It just bothers me how much money is spent on cancer research, but how little of that money goes towards prevention. Just today I was reading how awful Ramen noodles are for your cardiac health, but the government doesn't do anything about those... Anyway, I believe in prevention. Most cures negatively impact other parts of the body (all antibiotics), prevention keeps the body pure and chemically clean. It's a much better way to deal with diseases, and I'd much rather emphasize prevention, rather than cures - whatever it takes. edit: Most (if not all diseases) have a hereditary component to them. Just like how cancer and heart disease runs in the family (the two biggest killers). Yes, you wont eradicate the disease (as mutations in your DNA happen within your lifetime), you will greatly reduce the probability of just about all diseases occuring. edit2: Money for me is the smallest factor, the well-being and health of the community as a whole is my concern. I think most of my posts on teamliquid have been very selfless... I have earned enough money to be able to live the rest of my life in a lower-middle class and therefore I don't have much interest where finances are concerned, and I legitimately try and offer input and solutions, and my thinking (in which I sometimes like to challenge the conventional thinking, to promote though). All too often people assume I'm trolling, but a lot of time, when people take care with their reply, I get some nice insights back. But anyways, when I'm referring to the cost of money, I am referring to the opportunity cost of everything else that could be spent on. And when you think of all the "problems" society has, I think there's better ways it could be spent.
The cure - is the prevention of the disease. Are you hearing yourself and your arguements? You're reasoning that my father should never have been allowed to live because he might have a disease - and so his children, one of them is me, would never have come to life, just because he's a potential host of a disease doctors doesn't barely even know what causes it? It's also worth mentioning there's NO HISTORY AT ALL of this disease in my family prior to my father.
I'll tell you one thing, as I am involved in reading up on research about ALS. It's not one disease, it's a collection name for diseases that breaks down the neurological system because they're not all alike. They break down the body differently, some will first notice a decrease of function in their arms etc. Not ALL ALS diseases passes on through genes - far from it actually, which means that with your arguement you'll even prevent people's life if there's not even a certainity it spreads through the genes - and your arguement also suggests I should be castrated for the safety of not passing it on? Are you for real?
You're taking heart diseases and cancer as your example in your factor as if all diseases spread through genes. At least get your act together before going full... I don't even know what to say.
|
FiWiFaki is literally supposing some sort of health dictatorship. its laughable
I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's:
"As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it"
And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently.
what do you mean with recently? cause that idea is like almost 200 years old at least
|
On August 23 2014 03:55 Paljas wrote:FiWiFaki is literally supposing some sort of health dictatorship. its laughable Show nested quote +
I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's:
"As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it"
And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently.
what do you mean with recently? cause that idea is like almost 200 years old at least
I was born in eastern europe, so that may be a part of it.
But in Slovakia, even 30-50 years back there was a lot you could not do, even if it effected nobody. For example no teacher will allow you to write with your left hand, even when writing with your left hand does nobody any harm. And most Slovak's embrace these customs a lot, and it's not like they are some third world country, they are for from it actually.
Homosexuality didn't effect anyone directly, same with legal abortion, it didn't effect others directly, but you were still not allowed to do it. These two examples are ones that are still battled to this day, and 30 years ago, they were frowned upon by almost everyone. This is a very recent movement, unless 30 years is a long time in human history for you or something.
Anyway, all I'm saying is, this way of thinking is recent, and honestly, we don't know whether it's the right way of thinking, we feel it's the right way of thinking... but because it's only been happening for so little time, we don't know of the possible consequences in the future. And people like to alienate everyone else who doesn't think like them, which it seems like a lot of people do with Russians in particular, simply because of different ideologies, ideologies that are not wrong, only different.
|
On August 22 2014 22:53 mouz.Wake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 16:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 22 2014 15:48 BigFan wrote:^ Please, no jokes in a serious thread. I might agree that there must be other methods of funding but in general, funding is likely used on diseases that have the highest incidence level, so that when research finds a cure, more people would benefit from it. It's the best bang for your buck approach which explains why cancer gets some of the biggest funding out there. Almost everyone has known someone who was sick with cancer at some point. At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes. right, let's disallow people from having children because they have 'bad genes' ... It's not your choice or mine if someone wants to have a child and it should never be the case. The day society gets that limiting is the day that rights have truly died and I hope I never see that in my lifetime. Also, your problem is that you keep thinking of things in terms of money as is evident by this: The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it. There is no proof that you will ever eradicate this disease, it's just an assumption that if you stop those with 'bad genes', then you won't have children with it bur doesn't mean it's the case. Anyways, sorry OP for derailing but couldn't just read that post and ignore it lol. I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's: "As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it" And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently. I think it's completely fair to not allow someone to have children, as we already do when we chemically castrate certain criminals. Considering we don't allow people to have sex with dead people that gave consent, or have sex with animals, I don't think we are that far off from not allowing for people to have children if they have diseases. Anyway, I just want to emphasize that governments influence our decisions a lot in order for us to do things they desire, what society desires. It might start with something as little as family benefits if healthy couples have children, etc. And people would still experience raising children (adopted), if they had wanted to. We don't allow mentally retarded people to have children (at least some, I have read this long ago, so correct me if I'm wrong). As for a cure, these diseases have a lot in common with other neurological diseases. My belief is, that this disease isn't one that can be cured by taking a drug and making it go away. It's a life long treatment, and I'm sure there's something that can be found that suppresses it quite well, and it will be possible to live normal lives with extensive care. But again, it just seems like a short term solution. It's always the same, someones loved one dies gets impacted from the disease, then people say we must fight against this because it was so hard for them, so hard for me, blah blah. And I can relate to that, I can, but you can see this makes people act on emotions, and it makes people act on their immediate safety, these are not long term solutions. Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on. It just bothers me how much money is spent on cancer research, but how little of that money goes towards prevention. Just today I was reading how awful Ramen noodles are for your cardiac health, but the government doesn't do anything about those... Anyway, I believe in prevention. Most cures negatively impact other parts of the body (all antibiotics), prevention keeps the body pure and chemically clean. It's a much better way to deal with diseases, and I'd much rather emphasize prevention, rather than cures - whatever it takes. edit: Most (if not all diseases) have a hereditary component to them. Just like how cancer and heart disease runs in the family (the two biggest killers). Yes, you wont eradicate the disease (as mutations in your DNA happen within your lifetime), you will greatly reduce the probability of just about all diseases occuring. edit2: Money for me is the smallest factor, the well-being and health of the community as a whole is my concern. I think most of my posts on teamliquid have been very selfless... I have earned enough money to be able to live the rest of my life in a lower-middle class and therefore I don't have much interest where finances are concerned, and I legitimately try and offer input and solutions, and my thinking (in which I sometimes like to challenge the conventional thinking, to promote though). All too often people assume I'm trolling, but a lot of time, when people take care with their reply, I get some nice insights back. But anyways, when I'm referring to the cost of money, I am referring to the opportunity cost of everything else that could be spent on. And when you think of all the "problems" society has, I think there's better ways it could be spent. The cure - is the prevention of the disease. Are you hearing yourself and your arguements? You're reasoning that my father should never have been allowed to live because he might have a disease - and so his children, one of them is me, would never have come to life, just because he's a potential host of a disease doctors doesn't barely even know what causes it? It's also worth mentioning there's NO HISTORY AT ALL of this disease in my family prior to my father. I'll tell you one thing, as I am involved in reading up on research about ALS. It's not one disease, it's a collection name for diseases that breaks down the neurological system because they're not all alike. They break down the body differently, some will first notice a decrease of function in their arms etc. Not ALL ALS diseases passes on through genes - far from it actually, which means that with your arguement you'll even prevent people's life if there's not even a certainity it spreads through the genes - and your arguement also suggests I should be castrated for the safety of not passing it on? Are you for real? You're taking heart diseases and cancer as your example in your factor as if all diseases spread through genes. At least get your act together before going full... I don't even know what to say.
Most diseases we cannot cure well or prevent usually are spread through genes. If there are dangerous bacterial or viral diseases, they can be much easier be dealt with good sanitation. Again, I'm going to seem like a monster, because what I propose isn't in your best interests, but let me back it up with statistics in the USA.
Biggest killers in USA of 2010:
1. Heart Disease: 600k
-Greatly influenced by family history
2. Cancer: 575k
-Family history is a huge sign
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 150k
-Smoking is the largest cause, genetics account for 20-50% of cases
4. Stroke: 125k
-Once again, common knowledge that these are heavily based on genetics
5. Accidents: 125k
-Not genetics, unless doing stupid and dangerous things is genetics S:
6. Alzheimer's disease: 85k
-"The most important risk factors—age, family history and heredity—can't be changed, but emerging evidence suggests there may be other factors we can influence.", so likely most cases are associated with heredity.
7. Diabetes: 75k
-"Diabetes often runs in families. If one of your parents has diabetes, your chances of getting it immediately become significantly higher."
8. Influenza and Pneumonia: 55k
-This is not a hereditary disease, usually bacterial inflections are more common in young children or seniors with weaker immune systems.
9. Nephrosis: Hard to find good information, but from the little research I did, it appears that it's pretty much purely hereditary.
10. Suicide: 40k
Anyway, these numbers show that if you don't smoke, and eat healthy, a large portion (pulling this number out of my ass, but I'd say 70-80%) of deaths are attributed to genetic factors. Yes, I might not be discussing the other diseases (like ALS), but I touched on the diseases that kill 20x as many people a year as any others.
|
On August 23 2014 05:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 03:55 Paljas wrote:FiWiFaki is literally supposing some sort of health dictatorship. its laughable
I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's:
"As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it"
And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently.
what do you mean with recently? cause that idea is like almost 200 years old at least I was born in eastern europe, so that may be a part of it. But in Slovakia, even 30-50 years back there was a lot you could not do, even if it effected nobody. For example no teacher will allow you to write with your left hand, even when writing with your left hand does nobody any harm. And most Slovak's embrace these customs a lot, and it's not like they are some third world country, they are for from it actually. Homosexuality didn't effect anyone directly, same with legal abortion, it didn't effect others directly, but you were still not allowed to do it. These two examples are ones that are still battled to this day, and 30 years ago, they were frowned upon by almost everyone. This is a very recent movement, unless 30 years is a long time in human history for you or something. Anyway, all I'm saying is, this way of thinking is recent, and honestly, we don't know whether it's the right way of thinking, we feel it's the right way of thinking... but because it's only been happening for so little time, we don't know of the possible consequences in the future. And people like to alienate everyone else who doesn't think like them, which it seems like a lot of people do with Russians in particular, simply because of different ideologies, ideologies that are not wrong, only different.
didnt you read my post? this way of thinking isnt recently, it started over 200 years ago and has a long tradition in political philosophy. actually making it a reality has happend only recently, and thats a shame
I also dont get your examples at all. You say that we dont know whether its a good theory, but discriminating homosexuals or people who write with their left hand is clearly bullshit. dictatorship and discrimination is bad, and its irrelevant for how long people have recognized this.
|
On August 22 2014 22:19 ETisME wrote:
@FiWiFaKi
I think you are far too ideologist.
There are millions other variables combined that lead to the man YOU think should have never been born to be who he was.
It's far more than genes related.
We are fighting the good fight here, so that we aren't necessarily killing off all those people "Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on."
Your "idea" of "solving the problem" is to NOT even give them a choice on whether they want to see till their end if there can be some sort of cure and hope for them.
Not to mention the huge list of social, economical and political effects upon the whole world.
I won't call you wrong but it's very ideologist that somehow thinks there is someone who can rate who deserves to be born or not based on simple genetics and family histories.
Plus, it's not even like we find the cure means we won't be able to prevent it from happening.
We can be going for both cure and prevention at the same time. Cancer researches have fields that specialize in the causation on cancer (but it's incredibly difficult to pinpoint)
I have a family history of cancer (4 members) and heart disease (2 members), I am probably going to die from any of these two diseases but I am also likely to die off from other causes, so I certainly can't share your PoV
I just want to be clear, my grandmother and great grandmother died from cancer, so it's not like I think I'm some clean saint that can't be touched by disease, I'm at the same or higher risk than many other people here. Neither am I Hitler, I'm not trying to make a pure breed or people or something.
I just see tremendous suffering in society because of certain nasty diseases, especially cancer and other neurological diseases, and the fact is, this will only get worse (due to more and more people with diseases having children), and most western countries are really expecting the medical field to greatly expand in the next few years (everyone was telling me to go to Biomedical Engineering, because supposedly it'll be a huuge industry in the coming years). I believe the system we have cannot self-sustain itself.
Understand that the USA spend 18% of it's GDP on healthcare as of now, sure some can be attributed to a private healthcare system, but my point is that these expenditures could go to 30% in the next 30-50 years.
And I know it's a really big price to pay to not let certain people have kids, but at what point do you say, we cannot sustain this, especially think in a public healthcare system. If your tax rate is 45% in your country, and half of that tax money is going towards healthcare, that is a tremendous amount of resources that could be used to keep water clean, preserve parks and wildlife, etc etc. It's just like if I asked you how much money you'd pay to keep children alive in Africa, sure you'll spend $20 a month, hell, you might even spend 1/3 of your salary if you know you're making a big enough impact. But eventually, you will start to feel that burden of that choice, and say it's not sustainable - just like how western governments worry about this aging population thing and how it's non sustainable.
I'm not proposing that we kill these people, these people would live with every right they have now, with the exception of not having children. You don't have to castrate them, you don't have to chemically castrate them, simply give them a fine, it's hard to hide children in today's society. Anyway, one of these steps is inevitable in the future, and I expect we will begin to see some of these regulations as normal within my lifetime.
|
On August 23 2014 05:39 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 05:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 03:55 Paljas wrote:FiWiFaki is literally supposing some sort of health dictatorship. its laughable
I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's:
"As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it"
And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently.
what do you mean with recently? cause that idea is like almost 200 years old at least I was born in eastern europe, so that may be a part of it. But in Slovakia, even 30-50 years back there was a lot you could not do, even if it effected nobody. For example no teacher will allow you to write with your left hand, even when writing with your left hand does nobody any harm. And most Slovak's embrace these customs a lot, and it's not like they are some third world country, they are for from it actually. Homosexuality didn't effect anyone directly, same with legal abortion, it didn't effect others directly, but you were still not allowed to do it. These two examples are ones that are still battled to this day, and 30 years ago, they were frowned upon by almost everyone. This is a very recent movement, unless 30 years is a long time in human history for you or something. Anyway, all I'm saying is, this way of thinking is recent, and honestly, we don't know whether it's the right way of thinking, we feel it's the right way of thinking... but because it's only been happening for so little time, we don't know of the possible consequences in the future. And people like to alienate everyone else who doesn't think like them, which it seems like a lot of people do with Russians in particular, simply because of different ideologies, ideologies that are not wrong, only different. didnt you read my post? this way of thinking isnt recently, it started over 200 years ago and has a long tradition in political philosophy. actually making it a reality has happend only recently, and thats a shame I also dont get your examples at all. You say that we dont know whether its a good theory, but discriminating homosexuals or people who write with their left hand is clearly bullshit. dictatorship and discrimination is bad, and its irrelevant for how long people have recognized this.
It might be clearly bullshit to you, but it wasn't clearly bullshit to most peoples' grandparents from what I've read and heard.
Again, you're assuming that your ideology is the only, and correct one. Don't dismiss ideas just because you believe yours is the best way, when it could easily be different, when it has been different. In the 1950s-1980s there was a lot of racism, homophobia, extreme nationalism and whatnot in the USA, but it was still considered to be the best place to live in the planet.
I know it's a bit off point now, but I'm just trying to emphasize that what has been, what is, and what will be is dynamic, don't just assume there is only one valid solution. Anyway, radical ideas are usually not a good idea on the internet, but sometimes they have their merit, and it can be a good exercise to give them some thought.
Marxism was an idea that existed for some time before it was implemented (over 50 years), and many people thought it was a great idea, and even though the thinking existed for a long time, that doesn't mean it panned out as great in reality. It's very possible that we will begin to realize the toll on us, due to some of the decisions we made, but we wont feel that effect for another x amount of years.
|
On August 23 2014 05:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 22:53 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 22 2014 16:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 22 2014 15:48 BigFan wrote:^ Please, no jokes in a serious thread. I might agree that there must be other methods of funding but in general, funding is likely used on diseases that have the highest incidence level, so that when research finds a cure, more people would benefit from it. It's the best bang for your buck approach which explains why cancer gets some of the biggest funding out there. Almost everyone has known someone who was sick with cancer at some point. At the end of the day, I think we'd benefit a lot more in selective breeding, as in certain people should not have rights to have children due to bad genes. right, let's disallow people from having children because they have 'bad genes' ... It's not your choice or mine if someone wants to have a child and it should never be the case. The day society gets that limiting is the day that rights have truly died and I hope I never see that in my lifetime. Also, your problem is that you keep thinking of things in terms of money as is evident by this: The issue of this millennium will be us artificially keeping people alive who would normally die in nature, and this endless cycle will create more and more imperfections in genes, until there is simply no way for us to sustain all these medical expenses. This is a hereditary disease, as long as these genes keep getting transferred, we will only be spending billions of dollars on postponing this disease, rather that irradicating it. There is no proof that you will ever eradicate this disease, it's just an assumption that if you stop those with 'bad genes', then you won't have children with it bur doesn't mean it's the case. Anyways, sorry OP for derailing but couldn't just read that post and ignore it lol. I think there's an interesting ideology people are using to base all their decisions off of these days, and that's: "As long as it doesn't directly effect someone else, you are okay to do it" And I think it's an interesting notion, because from the readings in history, I don't believe that has ever been the case, until very recently. I think it's completely fair to not allow someone to have children, as we already do when we chemically castrate certain criminals. Considering we don't allow people to have sex with dead people that gave consent, or have sex with animals, I don't think we are that far off from not allowing for people to have children if they have diseases. Anyway, I just want to emphasize that governments influence our decisions a lot in order for us to do things they desire, what society desires. It might start with something as little as family benefits if healthy couples have children, etc. And people would still experience raising children (adopted), if they had wanted to. We don't allow mentally retarded people to have children (at least some, I have read this long ago, so correct me if I'm wrong). As for a cure, these diseases have a lot in common with other neurological diseases. My belief is, that this disease isn't one that can be cured by taking a drug and making it go away. It's a life long treatment, and I'm sure there's something that can be found that suppresses it quite well, and it will be possible to live normal lives with extensive care. But again, it just seems like a short term solution. It's always the same, someones loved one dies gets impacted from the disease, then people say we must fight against this because it was so hard for them, so hard for me, blah blah. And I can relate to that, I can, but you can see this makes people act on emotions, and it makes people act on their immediate safety, these are not long term solutions. Someones mom dies, her son has a large chance of getting this disease, then his daughter will grieve what's happening to her father, and the list of pain, destroyed families, and ruined lives goes on and on. It just bothers me how much money is spent on cancer research, but how little of that money goes towards prevention. Just today I was reading how awful Ramen noodles are for your cardiac health, but the government doesn't do anything about those... Anyway, I believe in prevention. Most cures negatively impact other parts of the body (all antibiotics), prevention keeps the body pure and chemically clean. It's a much better way to deal with diseases, and I'd much rather emphasize prevention, rather than cures - whatever it takes. edit: Most (if not all diseases) have a hereditary component to them. Just like how cancer and heart disease runs in the family (the two biggest killers). Yes, you wont eradicate the disease (as mutations in your DNA happen within your lifetime), you will greatly reduce the probability of just about all diseases occuring. edit2: Money for me is the smallest factor, the well-being and health of the community as a whole is my concern. I think most of my posts on teamliquid have been very selfless... I have earned enough money to be able to live the rest of my life in a lower-middle class and therefore I don't have much interest where finances are concerned, and I legitimately try and offer input and solutions, and my thinking (in which I sometimes like to challenge the conventional thinking, to promote though). All too often people assume I'm trolling, but a lot of time, when people take care with their reply, I get some nice insights back. But anyways, when I'm referring to the cost of money, I am referring to the opportunity cost of everything else that could be spent on. And when you think of all the "problems" society has, I think there's better ways it could be spent. The cure - is the prevention of the disease. Are you hearing yourself and your arguements? You're reasoning that my father should never have been allowed to live because he might have a disease - and so his children, one of them is me, would never have come to life, just because he's a potential host of a disease doctors doesn't barely even know what causes it? It's also worth mentioning there's NO HISTORY AT ALL of this disease in my family prior to my father. I'll tell you one thing, as I am involved in reading up on research about ALS. It's not one disease, it's a collection name for diseases that breaks down the neurological system because they're not all alike. They break down the body differently, some will first notice a decrease of function in their arms etc. Not ALL ALS diseases passes on through genes - far from it actually, which means that with your arguement you'll even prevent people's life if there's not even a certainity it spreads through the genes - and your arguement also suggests I should be castrated for the safety of not passing it on? Are you for real? You're taking heart diseases and cancer as your example in your factor as if all diseases spread through genes. At least get your act together before going full... I don't even know what to say. Most diseases we cannot cure well or prevent usually are spread through genes. If there are dangerous bacterial or viral diseases, they can be much easier be dealt with good sanitation. Again, I'm going to seem like a monster, because what I propose isn't in your best interests, but let me back it up with statistics in the USA. Biggest killers in USA of 2010: 1. Heart Disease: 600k -Greatly influenced by family history 2. Cancer: 575k -Family history is a huge sign 3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 150k -Smoking is the largest cause, genetics account for 20-50% of cases 4. Stroke: 125k -Once again, common knowledge that these are heavily based on genetics 5. Accidents: 125k -Not genetics, unless doing stupid and dangerous things is genetics S: 6. Alzheimer's disease: 85k -"The most important risk factors—age, family history and heredity—can't be changed, but emerging evidence suggests there may be other factors we can influence.", so likely most cases are associated with heredity. 7. Diabetes: 75k -"Diabetes often runs in families. If one of your parents has diabetes, your chances of getting it immediately become significantly higher." 8. Influenza and Pneumonia: 55k -This is not a hereditary disease, usually bacterial inflections are more common in young children or seniors with weaker immune systems. 9. Nephrosis: Hard to find good information, but from the little research I did, it appears that it's pretty much purely hereditary. 10. Suicide: 40k Anyway, these numbers show that if you don't smoke, and eat healthy, a large portion (pulling this number out of my ass, but I'd say 70-80%) of deaths are attributed to genetic factors. Yes, I might not be discussing the other diseases (like ALS), but I touched on the diseases that kill 20x as many people a year as any others.
But your idea of a cure is to PREVENT the genes from spreading by not letting those with say heart diseases get children. You're taking away a life before it has been born. Do you realize the CRUELTY behind that? Do you want to govern who deserves to live and die before a child is born? In order for people to get chemically castrated - which was one of your arguements - they've probably comitted a crime to trigger that, such as rape. Is a disease a crime?
Influenza doesn't kill people (worth to add: in most countries with aspirin at hand), we've fought that off. Cancer research is going forward, we can actually save people from death from that disease. Heart diseases - have you heard of, say, pacemaker? That's a leap forward to prevent heart failure too. Science is the best weapon against diseases, NOT TAKING INNOCENT LIVES BEFORE THEY WERE EVER BORN.
Let me clear you in. I'm also left handed, which is a mutation to the DNA. Let's say, for your arguements sake that you kill off everyone that's left handed and their parents, you will still end up with new breed of people that are left handed - because you know what? DNA MUTATES, IT CHANGES, generation by generation. But you don't seem to grasp that.
And if you're so worried about the economy for healthcare, try spend a little fucking less on the army.
|
I'll let this be my last post in your thread, since I see this will go nowhere.
Firstly, let me be clear, I understand all the biology quite well, taken many courses, I've done personal research myself into fields I found interesting. Now onto your post:
Killing innocent lives by not letting people have kids? Are you serious? That's the equivalent of me killing innocent lives by choosing to not have children. The only difference is in one, the individual decided, and in the other, the society decided. There you have your difference between socialism and individualism. I'm more left wing than most people on teamliquid, but government already prevents retarded people from having kids, so hey, they do already play a role in not allowing "genetically inferior" people to have kids, also I'm pro-abortion.
And again, you probably haven't read what I wrote because I clearly stated not killing anyone, just don't let them have children. I am fully aware that DNA mutates, I'm not suggesting it as a one time solution, it's not like this will make cancer deaths go to zero, just greatly reduce them. Also please don't tell me what does and what doesn't cause death, I took that information straight from the USA government website, so if you wish to dispute my claim, dispute it with them. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Idea is simple, if from looking at the genes or by looking at family history that you are very susceptible to whatever disease, we don't allow you to have kids. Now of course, some people will go undetected, or some peoples' genes will mutate, then once it arises, they you prevent them from having kids, and it'll simply be integrated into society. They'd still be allowed to have sex, they can raise a child, they adopt children etc. After a few decades it would feel normal to the population. This isn't a one time wave thing. You can figure our the approximate probability someone has of contacting a certain disease based on historical data, and if they are above a certain threshold for different diseases they will have to watch out for, you don't allow them to have kids.
And no need to get hostile, I live in Canada, we spend only 1.3% of our GDP on military. It's quite reasonable, healthcare poses a much greater risk to government spending. Also some military spending is necessary in our world. Also, an interesting tidbit of information for you, the United States spends 4x as much on healthcare as it does on all of its military spending, rather interesting, no?
Anyway, all the best to you!
|
On August 23 2014 06:43 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'll let this be my last post in your thread, since I see this will go nowhere.
Firstly, let me be clear, I understand all the biology quite well. Now onto your post:
Killing innocent lives by not letting people have kids? Are you serious? That's the equivalent of me killing innocent lives by choosing to not have children. The only difference is in one, the individual decided, and in the other, the society decided. There you have your difference between socialism and individualism. I'm more left wing than most people on teamliquid, but government already prevents retarded people from having kids, so hey, they do play a role, also I'm pro-abortion.
And again, you probably haven't read what I wrote because I clearly stated not killing anyone, just don't let them have children. I am fully aware that DNA mutates, I'm not suggesting it as a one time solution, it's not like this will make cancer deaths go to zero, just greatly reduce them.
Idea is simple, if from looking at the genes or by looking at family history that you are very susceptible to whatever disease, we don't allow you to have kids. Now of course, some people will go undetected, or some peoples' genes will mutate, then once it arises, they you prevent them from having kids, and it'll simply be integrated into society. They'd still be allowed to have sex, they can raise a child, they adopt children etc. After a few decades it would feel normal to the population. This isn't a one time wave thing.
And no need to get hostile, I live in Canada, we spend only 1.3% of our GDP on military. It's quite reasonable, healthcare poses a much greater risk to government spending. Also some military spending is necessary in our world. Also, an interesting tidbit of information for you, the United States spends 4x as much on healthcare as it does on all of its military spending, rather interesting, no?
Anyway, all the best to you!
The US has also, with its spending, proved to be one of the worlds flagships when it comes to curing diseases - because of their spending. When Obama says he'll donate for whoever challenges him, you know what side the President of the United States is on this.
You might call yourself left wing, I'd say you're extremely right wing. To let society govern and 'perfectionize' the DNA in order to "greatly reduce" the number of cases by diseases. You know, there was one infamous leader, he lost a world war of course, but he was on the same tracks there with some of your thoughts.
I really hope you don't get into a position of power because I wouldn't wanna live in a world with your ideology.
|
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests.
|
You're also wanting a pure DNA. I've managed to see two ideologies be in place, one left sided and one right sided, so cut the crap about me being used to live in one ideology. My interests are to save lives, yours are to take lives away, that's one hell of a difference between you and me and most of the rest of the world considering the fact that you, yourself, brought up how much we spend on healthcare.
|
Your thinking is absurd. No lives are being taken away.
I don't understand what you mean by save lives? Are you going to go have 10 kids now to save the lives that potentially could have been? geez. Nobody is dying in what I suggested.
I am trying (well more like I want, because I'm not taking action, rather speculating) to make the best life for the people that are here. Did China take lives with the one child policy? You might argue yes, I think they were simply trying to improve the lives of the people that lived in their land.
|
On August 23 2014 07:13 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Your thinking is absurd. No lives are being taken away.
I don't understand what you mean by save lives? Are you going to go have 10 kids now to save the lives that potentially could have been? geez. Nobody is dying in what I suggested.
I am trying to make the best life for the people that are here. Did China take lives with the one child policy? You might argue yes, I think they were simply trying to improve the lives of the people that lived in their land.
Save lives as in cure the diseases rather than prevent "the flawed" DNA to continue. We've cured diseases before, we can - and we will do it again.
|
How would this work? Just because someone is at risk of producing offspring that inherits a hereditary disease we say no? That individual can still contribute a lot to society. Anyways, nobody is being forced to donate here. It's simply raising awareness. Your strong opinions are unjustified. Maybe when you are at the stage of your life where you want to have kids you'll think differently. Some people end up living only for their kids.
|
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist
|
On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist
I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
On August 23 2014 07:19 Xyik wrote:
How would this work? Just because someone is at risk of producing offspring that inherits a hereditary disease we say no? That individual can still contribute a lot to society. Anyways, nobody is being forced to donate here. It's simply raising awareness. Your strong opinions are unjustified. Maybe when you are at the stage of your life where you want to have kids you'll think differently. Some people end up living only for their kids.
I am actually just a couple years away from wanting to have kids, and I do want them.
Anyway, like I said in my intial posts, I don't think the ALS challenge is bad, I just don't think it's the best way of doing it. In no way do I have any problem with the ALS challenge, I agree it's better than nothing, it raises awareness, gets people together, gets them involved, etc. I just wanted to provide my view on the larger picture.
This will inevitably become an issue in the coming years, so I'm curious how it is dealt with. Maybe we will make some great new strides in medicine, time will tell, but like I argued before, as of now, I don't believe it's the best long term solution to many diseases.
|
On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing.
Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time.
Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it.
Its the same thing here
|
On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here
I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever.
If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting.
Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
|
On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here.
Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own.
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever. If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting. Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Take your idealistic solutions and put yourself in the bucket that's faced with the restrictions. The reason 'for the greater good' is seen as evil is because there is no empathy in it. You propose and accept these ideas because you have no idea what it would feel like if you're not the one suffering. This is an old argument.
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:30 Paljas wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. yeah, and thats total bullshit. you can hide behind moral relativism all you want and say that people have been wrong before and that opinions change, but this doesnt excuse the stuff you are proposing. Yes, I can call other viewpoints bad and recognize the history of ideas and development at the same time. Calling the government North Korea a terrible dictatorship is justified, despite other people having an different opinion on it. Its the same thing here I'm sorry I didn't get across what I wanted across to you. I personally don't think you are giving it enough thinking and not being open minded enough, but whatever. If I may ask a simple question, I find the responses rather interesting. Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Believe me, i gave it enough of time. And like every person, i also have a not mainstream opinion on some issues and think that change needs to happen there. But your relativism is nothing but intellectual laziness. You are basically defending every opinion possible, no matter how stupid it is.
on your strange question, 15 billion probably means that we are already fucked. and economic benefits would be preferable of course. but i think that the problem of overpopulation is mostly due to the way we use the ressources we have, and not the number of people.
oh, and PM me if we you want to discuss this further, dont wanna derail this thread anymore
sorry Wake
|
On August 23 2014 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Say the world had a overpopulation problem, say 15 billion people, and most families wanted to have 3-5 kids. What would be your ideal method of solution to this crisis be? What humane way would you do this? Forced policy? Economic benefits? hmm?
Great, now you're pushing out scenarios that tries to implicate on our resources and an overpopulated world. Most families in welfare countries don't want to have 3-5 kids, Sweden for an example is at a decline when it comes to children, if it wasn't for immigration our population would degrade. Look at yourself, you have to make up a scenario when our population is twice as big as it is now in order to even rationalize "a humane way" - but you always seem to miss the most important thing that so many value. Empathy.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests.
dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post:
On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own.
Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol.
|
On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol.
The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it.
If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it.
There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised. 
|
Haven't read any comments, good to hear you enjoy the extra awareness. My only gripe against it is that we're wasting probably 5L of water a person, which is an insane waste. I'd rather we do something less wasteful to raise awareness, like jump in a river or roll through mud.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 26 2014 12:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol. The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it. If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it. There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised.
There's a difference between being able to at least have a child versus none at all because you're lucky enough to have 'bad' genes. Not sure why you brought up the China point in the first place since it doesn't relate to your idea. Very successful? People follow it because they are forced to and even then those stories I heard show that some people don't like the idea but again, at least they get to have a child if they so desire which is still not the same thing.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I'm not saying it's stupid because I understand where you're trying to come from but it's definitely "crazy" imo because you pretty much ignore the idea of freedom and think what you are doing is eliminating diseases when that'll never be the case. Anyways, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
|
On August 26 2014 13:03 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 20:09 BigFan wrote:On August 23 2014 06:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Thanks for thinking that I'm the new Hitler, luckily Hitler and myself are far different.
He was an ultra-nationalist, I'm the opposite. He was racist, I'm not. He wanted vengeance for what other people supposedly did in the past (jewish people), while I do not.
Just because there are minor similarities with regards to wanting to manage a disabled or disease prone population, mind you, for different reasons. He wanted to have a pure race, I want it for the long term well being and sustainability of society. My ideas aren't barbaric like killing all disabled people. I'm not suggesting this to benefit me, I'm not suggesting this to benefit the individual, I'm suggesting this because I believe in the long term, society will be better off.
That's fine you wouldn't want to live with my ideology, we have different perspectives and different approaches, just like how many governments throughout the world do. You haven't lived in another ideology but the one you live in now (I assume), so I can understand (and relate) why you'd like to stick with what's familiar, as well as something that doesn't oppose your interests. dude, are you actually reading what you're writing? You're basically restricting people's freedom for some stupid ideology. You say it's 'for the greater good' not once realizing the implications and that you will NEVER prevent most of these diseases due to many factors. Btw, for your China analogy, I've heard of stories that people will still have more children but either hide them (dunno how) or put them up for adoption so it doesn't really work as well as one things. I tried reading your other posts but eventually I had to stop since you weren't getting it from the other posters. I think Wake did a great job summarizing what's wrong with this post: On August 23 2014 07:41 mouz.Wake wrote:On August 23 2014 07:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:On August 23 2014 07:23 Paljas wrote:
Wake is correct, FiWiFaki proposals are borderline fascist I guess what I'm saying hasn't gone through at all, because one of the biggest things I've been trying to emphasize is there is no right and wrong answer here. Because what you're saying is borderline insane and there will always be a right and a wrong MORALE answer to this part and your arguements crashlanded. Of course, extremists seldom have the tendency to see what they're trying to achieve. You want to achieve and perfectionize DNA by letting a third party govern over someone's ability to have kids. I want to invest in research and cures so that if the child gets a disease, that child can live. But you maybe don't see that difference, maybe you will when you have a kid of your own. Anyways, I'll leave it at that not to derail the thread any further but please do us a favour (those against your crazy ideology) and don't ever take up some governance position because I would be very concerned >.> lol. The one child policy was very successful. Of course there were some people that had a kid whether accidentally or intentionally and wanted to keep them, but it's not like every second person was doing it. If you do some research about it, you will know it was incredibly successful. Not really a fan of using "heard stories" as evidence. Anyway, the rest of your post I addressed before, so I wont attempt that, and lastly just adding before, my ideology isn't "crazy" or "stupid" just because you and a majority of the population disagree with it. There are lots of "crazy" laws about sex, having children, and parenting around the world, ones that people still see as normal, or come to accept. (even though some aren't very strictly enforced). What I'm proposing is far from the worst (if looking through it in your perspective). Look online for some, you might be surprised. There's a difference between being able to at least have a child versus none at all because you're lucky enough to have 'bad' genes. Not sure why you brought up the China point in the first place since it doesn't relate to your idea. Very successful? People follow it because they are forced to and even then those stories I heard show that some people don't like the idea but again, at least they get to have a child if they so desire which is still not the same thing. I'm sorry but I disagree. I'm not saying it's stupid because I understand where you're trying to come from but it's definitely "crazy" imo because you pretty much ignore the idea of freedom and think what you are doing is eliminating diseases when that'll never be the case. Anyways, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Alright, fair enough, we can leave it at that.
I just did want to add a finishing comment though, I never claimed it would completely eliminate disease. It would reduce disease related deaths by I'd say 50%-70% in 70 years (or people would still get heart disease, but 10-20 years later in their life). But long term, as more and more genes get mixed with whatever defects we treat with medicine nowadays, I think it could easily prevent 90% of deaths from disease in a 200-250 year range, as well as increase the average lifespan by 15-25 years in that time frame (as I expect that in developed countries for life expectancy to be stagnating, and slowly decreasing in the next few decades).
It's very possible I'm thinking of the world in too much of a static sense, and not accounting for all the future developments in medicine and etc, as I am under a belief that rate of technology increase derives from the rate of collaboration between the world, and safety in the world. Just like how technology didn't improve much in the middle ages due to stagnation of empires, then it stagnated during the renaissance, and so-forth. And now we spend a lot of money in research, and we have most of the worlds population involved (North America and Europe, China and large parts of Asia), and we are reaching a point where a human must be schooled until he's 30 to be able to understand what he's going to be doing to make a research contribution... Sorry, kind of having trouble explaining it, but I think the developments in technology will stagnate (I'm sure many people thought that in the past too, haha)...
But anyway, I have trouble seeing the health industry be able to keep up with the aging population with more genetic defects as time goes on, and that's why I think some regulations will be need to be in place eventually.
They are big thoughts that are tough to predict the future of, so maybe I shouldn't be trying, although I've had some professors express that concern to me, and it logically made sense to me, I did some readings myself, and it does seem as an eventual risk that inevitable, but whether it's 50 years or 1000 years from now can be difficult to pinpoint.
|
On August 26 2014 12:48 Blisse wrote:
Haven't read any comments, good to hear you enjoy the extra awareness. My only gripe against it is that we're wasting probably 5L of water a person, which is an insane waste. I'd rather we do something less wasteful to raise awareness, like jump in a river or roll through mud.
Sorry, but I just wanted to point out that the average shower uses 200 liters of water, so 5 liters per person really is not very much. And just because it's not going into the drain doesn't mean it's being wasted. The water finds its way into the aquifer and into a water source eventually (water cycle).
But really, I can't even express how little 5L of water is. I drink around 2L of water a day on average, washing machine uses 100 liters, car wash is 230 liters, and don't even get me started about how much hundreds of liters you'll use watering your lawn.
It's possibly the worst concern you can have about this challenge. The food you eat to get the energy to lift the ice bucket over your head leaves a stronger environmental impact than the 5 liters of water wasted doing this challenge.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5d8Jiv6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hqlHB8G.gif)
|
Could you help share this video? It was made with a $700 000 camera by a caretaker of a man with ALS, a former hockey player.
Informative slow motion Ice Bucket Challenge
He needs a bit of help getting this to the Pixar CEO too, and more shares helps that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
