Vaughan Spa
Dream Spa

Human species 'may split in two'

H

Hangman

The Ideal Terbite
Aug 6, 2003
5,593
3
0
www.fark.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

(With incredibly scientific pic)

Can't say I agree with all his predictions, but I am looking forward to symmetrical facial features, looking athletic, and having a squarer jaw, deeper voice and bigger penises. (I left that one plural on purpose).
 
I was particularly intrigued by the statements about our resistance to disease and dependancy on meds. Particularly the part about the perpetuation of the cancer gene due to death prevention. Now I'm not saying that we should let all those susceptable to cancer die, but by not eradicating the disease (or any disease for that matter) and only focusing on treatment, it will only get worse in the future.

I recall a TLC program about this rare gene that causes severe birth defects. There was a couple portrayed in the program who had a history of this gene, both were tested, both tested positive for the gene, and had a child. Well, no surprize that the child turned out to have this rare disease and would require many surgeries, costing thousands of dollars and the kid would never grow up normal. I was thinking at the time: if you knew the chances of having a normal child were extremely slim, why on earth would you go ahead and have one?
 
can we possibly have a mutation where there is a 2nd arm on the left side to hold the coffeecup/cigarette/whatever ?? :-)

there have been days when I feel such a thing would be most useful.
[tongue firmly in cheek].
 
Even better than that would be a line of women with flat heads so you have some place to rest your beer while getting a blow job lol
 
ThePunkPanther said:
can we possibly have a mutation where there is a 2nd arm on the left side to hold the coffeecup/cigarette/whatever ?? :-)

there have been days when I feel such a thing would be most useful.
[tongue firmly in cheek].
Click to expand...

Actually. A mutation that resulted in a third arm (in perfect working order) has actually occurred in China/Japan. But they decided the kid was better off if they cut off the arm, while he was still very much an infant. Happened like a year and a half ago. I actually posted a thread about it then. Don't know if I can find it. I'll see if I can find it. It was the most interesting mutation. A third arm (remember, in perfect working order and looked perfectly normal - like the other arms) would definitely be useful. I'll see if I can find a picture of the kid.
 
Given that our dependance upon technology will dry up as oil drys up, I don't think that we have to worry quite the way the article suggests.

Also, so many women have plastic surgery, that I don't think his suggestion about boobs and other features is credible. Further, there seems to be a limit on how tall a human will grow with access to the right foods so I think that 7' tall is probably not in the cards either.
 
Comp: I believe I read somewhere that there's a limit to how tall we can get due to the gravitational pull on our bodies. Anyone who has achieved taller than average heights seems to have many spinal and bone related problems.
 
With no insult intended...

tboy said:
I recall a TLC program about this rare gene that causes severe birth defects. There was a couple portrayed in the program who had a history of this gene, both were tested, both tested positive for the gene, and had a child. Well, no surprize that the child turned out to have this rare disease and would require many surgeries, costing thousands of dollars and the kid would never grow up normal. I was thinking at the time: if you knew the chances of having a normal child were extremely slim, why on earth would you go ahead and have one?
Click to expand...

...it would be a hard thing to explain to someone without kids.

To a lessor degree many couples face this decision...my wife and I did in fact. You chose to take a chance (though usually not as great as what you intimate here) that things will go well in hopes of securing the greater good...

This is the thing - that couple much more than likely does not love their kid any less. It isn't a car...you could and would reasonably ask "why buy a car that you know will have tons of problems". But they got what they wanted out of parenthood...a child to raise and love. The fact that said child is higher maintenance than most does not change that...and while I am sure they would rather he / she were "normal" (even if they never admitted as much), that is not the same as wishing he / she were never born.

It is tough - no question. My best friend has a kid who will never be "normal", and his childhood and teen years have been a constant struggle. Doesn't mean he loves that kid any less than the other one, or regrets that he was born. It means that life has challenges, and he has this one (amongst others).

The thing to remember is - you have children for the sake of having them, with NO guarantees of how "normal" they will be, even under the best of circumstances. I'm not saying *I* would bring a child into this world knowing it was likely to have severe issues, and I am lucky to say I have / did not....but I can see how someone would take a chance. There simply is no substitute for knowing the love of a child, or for loving one. How much you are willing to risk for that is an individual decision that gets made thousands of times everyday...and probably can't quite be understood without being there.
 
Last edited:
Hey Mlam, I think you misunderstood. I don't in any way shape or form insinuate that they don't love their child any less when they aren't "normal". I can totally understand why they feel that way also.

What I can't understand is from a practical POV, knowing full well that you stand more than a pretty good chance that your child will live a life of hardship and sufferring, why go ahead with it anyways? In my mind it seems rather selfish in a way. As for the stats, during the program it was discussed that the odds that the child would end up with this problem was (if memory serves) something like 90%.

I mean, I'm not a parent so I can't understand the "draw" to procreate, but knowing full well that if I had one, and the odds were stacked against him or her living a "normal" life, I would do the right thing and make a home for a needy child via adoption.

But then again, I'm biased. I firmly believe that the world has enough people already and more than enough kids that need a decent upbringing. I don't a) see there is a undeniable "need" to reproduce and b) because we are supposed to be such advanced creatures we should know better than to add another burder to the planet. I mean really, we're the only species that even if our environment can't support anymore of us, we keep reproducing anyways.

I mean, I was watching 60 minutes this past sunday and they were discussing this new product to help with child malnutrition in ethiopian. The product was pumpy nut and was a concoction of peanut butter, milk, sugar and all the vitamins and nutrients a kid needs. In fact, if a child is brought in hear death, in a week they're back on their feet and within 3 weeks they're back to "normal" weight and mobility/size etc. At $1.00 per day it's cheap.

During the segment however some disturbing stats were mentioned. 1) Children are typically married at 11 2) They have their first baby at 15 and (most disturbing) 3) The average woman will give birth 8 times during her lifespan. EIGHT fucking times. Jesus. No wonder they have a food shortage and starvation. I mean hell, we have an abundance of food here and I don't know of, or heard of anyone in Canada having 8 fricken kids. Maybe BIRTH control should be distributed instead of pumpy nut.
 
To reproduce or not??

MLAM said:
...it would be a hard thing to explain to someone without kids.
Click to expand...

MLAM, that was a putdown of a response. Basically you are saying that if one doesn't have kids they just wouldn't get it. I have children and I don't agree with a lot of what you said. I do agree about the love given and received in raising them. But what about adoption? The point was why would they reproduce, not why would they want to have and raise kids.

The point about having biological offspring is that it is a step towards insuring your own immortality. You may die but your genes live on. I would prefer raising my biological offspring versus adopting for this reason (all other factors being equal).

We all understand that our biological offspring will not be perfect and will have some extra challenges because of it. This is normal and we don't think twice about it when the extra challenges are not dramatic. The whole situation takes on a different flavour when the KNOWN odds are higher of greater problems. Would you create a child if you knew that the odds were 1 in 250,000 that the child will be 2" shorter than the national average? All but the most vain would say yes. Would you create a child if you knew that the the odds were 1 in 1,000,000 of the child being born with stumps for arms? I can't say what I would do. Fortunately I never had to make that decision. (Please note I am talking about conceiving a child KNOWING the odds of a specific issue. As biological parents we all accept unknown odds of unknown problems when we conceive a child. Please also note I am not suggesting aborting the child assuming the issue becomes known after conception.) Would you deliberately create a biological child if you knew that the odds were 1 in 10 of the child being born with stumps for arms?
When the KNOWN odds of the child having a major problem rise there comes a point when most would decide that passing their genes on might not be a good idea. At what odds and for what problem is a personal decision.

There are lots of wonderful people who give and receive a lot of love and have not created biological offspring.

g_27
 
Good points gard, you explained it better than I could (or did).....and yeah, that was my point lol doh.
 
No problems with a split, as long as the 'upper class' becomes food like in the 100+ year old sci-fi this article is based on.
 
tboy said:
Comp: I believe I read somewhere that there's a limit to how tall we can get due to the gravitational pull on our bodies. Anyone who has achieved taller than average heights seems to have many spinal and bone related problems.
Click to expand...


are you talking about basketball players? those 7 foot fokkers seem to be doing just fine.
 
smiley27 said:
I challenge every idea of humans "evolving". Evolution is possible only in a situation where genetically fit will survive and the others won't. Nowadays, people that wouldn't normally survive 20,000 yrs. ago, stay alive thanks to modern medicine. So, the final conclusion is: genetically, the humans are deteriorating rapidly, because damaged genes are passed to the next generation that's fucked up even more than we are. That explains overall stupidity, regardless of nation, race, sex or size of a pecker.
Click to expand...

Evolution still goes on, it just evolves to suit the world. In the past it was the strongest, smartest and hardest working that achieved the most evolutionary success. But now, it is more complex, but there are still certain types of people that have more or less kids, in many cases it is losers who have more kids, this will cause people to evolve into bigger losers. But evolution takes a long, long time, and our society is changing very quickly, so it is hard to predict.
 
smiley27 said:
I challenge every idea of humans "evolving". Evolution is possible only in a situation where genetically fit will survive and the others won't. Nowadays, people that wouldn't normally survive 20,000 yrs. ago, stay alive thanks to modern medicine. So, the final conclusion is: genetically, the humans are deteriorating rapidly, because damaged genes are passed to the next generation that's fucked up even more than we are. That explains overall stupidity, regardless of nation, race, sex or size of a pecker.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY....and it isn't even 20,000 yrs ago, it was less than 100 actually.

Until we begin to treat disease on the genetic level, we won't evolve we will De-evolve (as in Devo lol are we not men? we are devo....)

As you stated, as long as we continure to perpetuate genetic anomalies then we will continue to have genetic errors in our gene pool. For evolution to occur, you have to weed out the sick, weak and stupid but we not only support them, but endorse them as well. For eg: that stupid anti-jumper barrier along the bloor via duct. DUH.
 
Because...as you said...

gardener_27 said:
I would prefer raising my biological offspring versus adopting...
Click to expand...

...and apparently they felt the same way.

They wanted their own child, not someone else's. Is that selfish? Sure...but I don't think many people conceive children without being aware that the world already has children needing homes in it.

Add to that the difficulty and expense of adopting healthy white children...along with the draw many women have to being pregnant (my wife loved it, save for the last two weeks or so, and has always wanted to have another)...and well, they decided they rather have of their own I suppose.

Like you, I don't know if it is a decision I would make. But given that I made a similar choice to a lessor degree, I can't say that it is unfathomable.

It wasn't intended as a put down. But Tboy admits he's never had an urge to procreate. So...I don't think he'd understand the desire to have your own kids.
 
Last edited:
Mlam: I never said I never had the urge to procreate, because I have and maybe one day will, but what I'm getting at is that to make it so important that it becomes an obsession (like the new series "tell me you love me") is unhealthy. Expecially, as stated, if you pretty much KNOW your kid will have severe handicaps and or genetic problems.

I mean, colour blindness runs in my family and I am blue green colour blind but that is nothing compared to some other genetic factors that are passed along.

For eg: If they do end up finding the gene that determines whether you will get cancer or not, and the parents get tested and find that if they have a kid, they will most likely get cancer, shouldn't they consider NOT conceiving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back