Steve Martin in "Little shop of horrors" getting stoned performing denistry was the only thing that came to mind.
Steve Martin in "Little shop of horrors" getting stoned performing denistry was the only thing that came to mind.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
I cannot see that page, my work computer blocks sites hosted in Shelbyville.
You mean medical anaestesia which is one of the leading causes of surgical complications?
Certainly the positive benefit outweighs the negatives in this case, but to think that there are no horrible ramifications is just naive.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Dude, "Flowers in the Attic" was not a documentary.
Elind
Philosopher
Incest is not only between siblings. It is also between parent and child.
I would say that the latter has a greater social stigma as it inevitably involves a person of authority over a subordinate, most often an immature one when we hear of it.
However, it has hardly always been condemned. As has been mentioned royalty has often practiced it, at least at the first cousin level due to the desire to keep the blood pure and because of political necessities.
Inherited disorders are a risk, but I recall reading a study on a European royal family ( I forget which one) that actually showed no adverse effects and they tended to live long relatively health lives. It appears that IF there is a certain inheritable defect passed on in certain ways, then there is a stronger risk, of incestuous offspring inheriting it. We know that of course, (hemophilia in European royalty) but the point is that there are not that many such diseases (defects around) and the chances of not getting one are greater than getting one, if the original "stock" was disease free. To some extent one reduces the risk of bringing in bad stuff from outside the bloodline. It seem it is not true that one inevitably has a downward spiral in intelligence and so on. Two intelligent siblings are likely to breed intelligent children, as any animal breeder knows in other ways, as long as one keeps out the riffraff genes to begin with.
In the US the Mormons have had rampant incestuous marriages in their polygamy groups, but I don't know if they've ever let anyone study them, since under US laws a great many "prophets" ( they have them aplenty) would then be liable for prosecution.
Evolution as a whole relies on isolated groups to kick start significant change in a species, since that way existing characteristics are reinforced, whereas if there is interbreeding with other group, then the net result is an average of all and little change is seen.
So, I think the taboos we, as humans, have against incest are not entirely universal on the one hand but probably based on social pressures more than any understanding of genetics, that our ancestors did not have. Of course simple familiarity might have something to do with dulling sexual attraction between siblings, but on the whole I suspect the pressures to find mates outside the immediate family was and is largely driven by economics and politics. Family isn't as likely to attack you, and it's a good way to get a piece of what they have.
I would say that the latter has a greater social stigma as it inevitably involves a person of authority over a subordinate, most often an immature one when we hear of it.
However, it has hardly always been condemned. As has been mentioned royalty has often practiced it, at least at the first cousin level due to the desire to keep the blood pure and because of political necessities.
Inherited disorders are a risk, but I recall reading a study on a European royal family ( I forget which one) that actually showed no adverse effects and they tended to live long relatively health lives. It appears that IF there is a certain inheritable defect passed on in certain ways, then there is a stronger risk, of incestuous offspring inheriting it. We know that of course, (hemophilia in European royalty) but the point is that there are not that many such diseases (defects around) and the chances of not getting one are greater than getting one, if the original "stock" was disease free. To some extent one reduces the risk of bringing in bad stuff from outside the bloodline. It seem it is not true that one inevitably has a downward spiral in intelligence and so on. Two intelligent siblings are likely to breed intelligent children, as any animal breeder knows in other ways, as long as one keeps out the riffraff genes to begin with.
In the US the Mormons have had rampant incestuous marriages in their polygamy groups, but I don't know if they've ever let anyone study them, since under US laws a great many "prophets" ( they have them aplenty) would then be liable for prosecution.
Evolution as a whole relies on isolated groups to kick start significant change in a species, since that way existing characteristics are reinforced, whereas if there is interbreeding with other group, then the net result is an average of all and little change is seen.
So, I think the taboos we, as humans, have against incest are not entirely universal on the one hand but probably based on social pressures more than any understanding of genetics, that our ancestors did not have. Of course simple familiarity might have something to do with dulling sexual attraction between siblings, but on the whole I suspect the pressures to find mates outside the immediate family was and is largely driven by economics and politics. Family isn't as likely to attack you, and it's a good way to get a piece of what they have.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
You want to watch that broad-brushing, Krispin. That is if you ever hope to be taken seriously.
What you fail to realize, with your sweeping generalizations, is that I NEVER SAID Technology should be abandoned and that we should all go back to swinging from trees and scratching for fleas. You inferred that. Erroneously.
If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!
Nature is like Ken Kesey's "Combine" of which he used as an allegory in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The combine they use on farms. It's out there. It's coming. It's going to take it's good old time. But it is unstoppable. And inescapable. And yes - since Nature encapsulates everything that occurs, it is superior. We are a rather minor aspect in the skein of diversity that is Nature. And I don't mean just biology or the Earth or even the Solar System. It's everything else out there as well.
Let's just do a complete scenario-reversal that caused the flare-up in the first place, betwixt ponderingturtle and myself. That if a woman decides she wants to raise a baby without a man - she should be able to.
Let's assume I want to do this (and I don't - this is for the purpose of illustration of a point). Ready? I want to raise a newborn all by myself. Don't want the messiness of a relationship with a woman. Don't like women, want to do this thing myself. Just me and my baby, my little kiddie, who I am going to raise perfectly without anyone else getting in my way. I get a catalog. Nice one, color pictures, slick, well-designed. And I go shopping for a fetus carrier. I'm a Uterus Shopper. My sperm. Her egg. I don't want to know her, don't want to meet her, just give me her vitals. Height, weight, age, eye color, hair color, race, education. Ah! Here's one. Seems ideal. How much? Oh, five grand and she'll carry the fetus to term. Got that. Here's the cash. (9 months later) Hello? Yes? You got my baby? Terrific! Ahhh! Childrearing bliss! No pesky woman to screw up the perfect kiddie. I'll just get this infant formula, feed the kid the bottle, change it, coo and goo-goo with it, burp it, sing to it, read it stories... Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing. Dad knows best, right? And it's legal and I got just what I wanted - you - and we didn't have to involve anything like a mommy in raising you. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't technology great? You can do the same thing, kiddie!
Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
But if Mommy died when the kid was an infant, or ran out, or daddy adopted the kid that's not "monstrous" because it is "natural"?
I will. It is not monstrous. It might not be usual, it may never be common, it might be something that squicks you personally, but it is no more horrific than any other parenting model that deviates from the heterogeneous two-parent model.
Last edited:
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
conspiraider said:
The only monstrous thing I can see here is that someone will make such a pathetic strawman. The only selfish thing I can see here is someone having made up his mind and not bothering to check the facts about his prejudices.
Or do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is something that actually happens?
Yes, thanks. No need for the condescending tone.
Fine. I don't give much of a monkey's toss either way on this issue (though emotionally speaking, I have always agreed with your argument), just wanted to point out that you were using a notoriously unreliable source.
Last edited:
bwaaahahahaa! pot, kettle, etc.
... but in then in the section quoted below you do nothing to argue specifics of an issue. the majority of your arguments sound like "____ is bad and terrible, its against nature and uses technology to something unnatural and thats bad'. How do you expect anyone to draw a different conclusion when you use 'nature good/technology bad' as your only supporting point behind so many of your assertions?
this sounds an awful lot like 'if you let gays marry, people will be marrying animals soon'. slippery slope fallacy.
*yawn* this sounds a lot like woo, again.
my opinion on nature: our ability to do these things is natural. its an advantage that humans have over other species.
I am not krispin, but no, its not monsterous. youre just again assuming you know what women think- and you dont. I do not glorify motherhood- having a loving responsible person around is more important than having one guy and one woman, or at least one woman, or whatever others consider ideal. and its completely unfair for you to speak for children of those women who chose single parenthood- what the hell makes you think that you have the right to say what they feel about how they were raised? its just another tired old strawman.
Last edited:
i tried to find evidence of that on my own and came up short. it seems as though the leading cause of surgical complications is very dependant on the type of surgury being performed.
the underlined part was what i was getting at. that technology doesnt neccesarily lead to some sort of sci fi doomsday situation, and that some technologies provide solutions where even the complications are much more favorable than the original problem.
i look forward to the future because of how technology changes the world.Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I think that the main issue ConspiRaider is trying to raise is not so much the single-parenthood aspect (adoption, orphanage, etc), but the implied misogyny/misandry of choosing not to involve a person of the opposite sex. The fact that this was not possible until technology made certain types of fertility feasible is what dragged the whole "tech = bad" theme into the conversation.
I don't think this is monstrous, or that much of a problem, but CR may have had personal experiences that inform his opinion*. If I had encountered people who believed and behaved this way, I might feel differently.
* He lives in So Cal, and I have met people from there who behave even more strangely.
for me meeting unconventional families made me think it was more acceptable. the only thing i can come up with is an irrational fear of becoming obsolete, but of course thats only speculation.
True. I don't have the stats on hand myself, but a great deal of complications can arise from anaesthesia, even when the doctor has not been negligent. In the wrong hands (which is really the issue for any technology) it can be deadly or worse. Had to write a case note last semester on a case where an epidural had left a man a quadraplegic - a quick legal search found FAR too many medical negligence cases related to anaesthesia...
the underlined part was what i was getting at. that technology doesnt neccesarily lead to some sort of sci fi doomsday situation, and that some technologies provide solutions where even the complications are much more favorable than the original problem.
True, I don't think anyone is really doubting that - in a way I agree with CR, though for different reasons than I think he puts forward. He puts forward a moral argument, while I take issue more with the idea that we have technology now that is specifically aimed at increasing the population, and that is allowing couples who were biologically unable to reproduce the chance to introduce a baby into the world who may well share the problem its parents had and who is 'taking the place' of a possible adoption. For me, the biggest issue is that we are allowing unconstrained population growth in a world that cannot handle it - certainly I don't wish to limit or fine people who fall pregnant 'the natural way', but when there are children in need already, living on a world where there is limited space and resources, to me it is irresponsible bringing a child who could not have naturally been conceived into the world instead of caring for one who may not have a future without adoption.
It's all about managing the world and the people in it - you have to build the house before you can start to renovate.
yup agreed.
this doesnt make sense to me. if the issue is unadopted children why do heterosexual couples get a pass from you?
They don't, if they are unable to conceive naturally. For me the issue is not that children require a mother and a father - though I would put forward that having a positive male and female role model is a must, even if they are not the parents but rather friends or a friend of the parents - but that if one cannot naturally conceive then if one wants a child, one should adopt. Heterosexual couples that can conceive get a pass because I'm not big on regulating people's sexual habits, and preventing or controlling pregnancies in the heterosexual population at large would be a nigh insurmountable task.
For me it boils down to this: If you cannot naturally conceive, be it because your sexual preference has left both you and your partner wombless, because of a medical condition, or for whatever reason in-between, then you should adopt if you want a child. We have reached a point now in cultural development where we should be able to overcome the programming of our genes, bite the bullet and accept that if we cannot conceive our own child then perhaps we should care for someone else's.
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever, provided that we were somewhat sure that carrying an ostrichoid wouldn't kill the mother. Actually, it sounds pretty effing cool. I mean honestly, what's wrong with it?
I think that, as a general thing, doing crazy nonsense for the sake of SCIENCE is a good idea. Worst case scenario, you create a half-ostrich half-man freak of nature and its life is utter misery. Well, that's a bummer, but we LEARNED something. The pain of a freakish manbeast only lasts a short while, but knowledge can benefit us indefinitely. In the long run, experimentation always wins as long as it doesn't destroy the world (thus making the knowledge's benefit be cut off short), and as long as the experiment wasn't clearly a dumb idea in the first place, (thus making the knowledge gain be so small that even multiplied by "indefinite" it still isn't much).
Granted, there are many areas where "thumbing the eye of God" is clearly a dumb idea. But excessive conservatism seems far worse than excessive experimentation, for the reasons I just said.
no but i meant the hetero couples that CAN concieve naturally. in your mind its ok for them to not adopt, but everyone else should. i dont understand why.
but if you could, you would make them adopt?
Its sweet to consider unadopted children, but I still dont quite agree with you. it still boils down to the same problem- telling other people how they should structure their families. I dont think its anyone elses business. I dont think anyone should adopt unless their heart is in it 100% anyway. people who cant naturally concieve go through a ton of hard work to get pregnant and have children and naturally fertile hetero couples dont. I dont see a reason to make it harder on people who are going to have one hell of a time having children either way, and its not like everyone gets approved to be an adoptive parent.