Some coworker said there was a "gay" gene

[Mr. dB]

 

[ceo]

It comes down to the simple fact that you always get what you subsidize. In the name of kindness and humanitarianism, we're creating entire generations of government dependents -- wards of the state. To me, our current crop of nanny state people are no better than early missionaries that taught against birth control so the Christians would out-reproduce the non-Christians. I'm sure both groups are equally convinced they are right, but it doesn't make either one of them less wrong.

I think (I could be wrong, or only partly right) that MM was referring to advances in medicine and technology leading to the perpetuation of those genetically inferior/weaker beings.

Look at a disease like Cystic Fibrosis (just one example), that used to kill kids before they were of the usual age to procreate. With advances in early detection (technology) and medicine/medical treatment, those with CF can now suffer through early adulthood to about age 35, before finally succumbing to the disease. That leaves them plenty of time to pass along the recessive trait, and leave offspring that also now will get to suffer through a short life and possibly pass along more recessive traits.

Will they find a cure? Possibly. A way to prevent it? Hell, who knows? Would it ever have just died out on it's own if not allowed the opportunity to be reproduced in offspring? Possibly?

I'm certainly not against medical and/or technological advancements by any means. This is just something that I have thought about before.

 

[ceo]

God hates queers,

God hates pigs too, but that don't stop you from fucking them!

Ha! It doesn't stop you from eating bacon either, bish.

 

[mrplunkey]

I think (I could be wrong, or only partly right) that MM was referring to advances in medicine and technology leading to the perpetuation of those genetically inferior/weaker beings.

Look at a disease like Cystic Fibrosis (just one example), that used to kill kids before they were of the usual age to procreate. With advances in early detection (technology) and medicine/medical treatment, those with CF can now suffer through early adulthood to about age 35, before finally succumbing to the disease. That leaves them plenty of time to pass along the recessive trait, and leave offspring that also now will get to suffer through a short life and possibly pass along more recessive traits.

Will they find a cure? Possibly. A way to prevent it? Hell, who knows? Would it ever have just died out on it's own if not allowed the opportunity to be reproduced in offspring? Possibly?

I'm certainly not against medical and/or technological advancements by any means. This is just something that I have thought about before.

I'm sure that was where she was going. I was stretching her point to include my views on not subsidizing situations we don't want (i.e. fourth generation welfare recipients).

Someone should run the numbers. I wonder how many people medical technology can now get to reproductive age versus how many people we enslave into welfare and other social services per year.

 

[cindylou]

I think (I could be wrong, or only partly right) that MM was referring to advances in medicine and technology leading to the perpetuation of those genetically inferior/weaker beings.

Look at a disease like Cystic Fibrosis (just one example), that used to kill kids before they were of the usual age to procreate. With advances in early detection (technology) and medicine/medical treatment, those with CF can now suffer through early adulthood to about age 35, before finally succumbing to the disease. That leaves them plenty of time to pass along the recessive trait, and leave offspring that also now will get to suffer through a short life and possibly pass along more recessive traits.

Will they find a cure? Possibly. A way to prevent it? Hell, who knows? Would it ever have just died out on it's own if not allowed the opportunity to be reproduced in offspring? Possibly?

I'm certainly not against medical and/or technological advancements by any means. This is just something that I have thought about before.

You don't have to have CF to carry the resessive gene and pass it on to your kids. You can prevent it already with genetic testing when you get married..or whenever you decide to start planning your family.

 

[musclemom]

You don't have to have CF to carry the resessive gene and pass it on to your kids. You can prevent it already with genetic testing when you get married..or whenever you decide to start planning your family.

CEO is partly right but I wasn't thinking of something like CF.

Here's a funny story, DECADES ago I ran across literature about scientists who were able to link certain diseases, like CF and sickle cell, to a genetic immunity to other diseases that were far more fatal in certain regions of the world. I lost the material and never could find those studies because the wording I have is so vague. It's something I ran across incidentally in doing another search.

No, I'm really talking about the fact that stupid, naturally unfit humans, say those born with minor birth defects that are routinely corrected at birth (or even in utero) are able to be born at all, survive to adulthood, and perpetuate themselves in our culture. Under more, let's say, brutal (brutish?) conditions, those babies would die at or shortly after birth, end of story.

Now take stupid. I'm betting a significantly higher percentage of stupid children and teens probably ended up dead in hunter/gatherer cultures than even the amount of teen drivers that get killed. It just makes sense. Same thing with natural assholes. Close knit tribes, who really relied on every member of the tribe to pitch in and pull their share in their own way, needed to be civilized to each other. There's a reason native cultures always view the invading Europeans as having no manners. The Europeans treat everyone, even their own people, with complete disrespect. Native people didn't care about the words that came out of a persons mouth, it's their actions that spoke the loudest.

 

[mrplunkey]

No, I'm really talking about the fact that stupid, naturally unfit humans, say those born with minor birth defects that are routinely corrected at birth (or even in utero) are able to be born at all, survive to adulthood, and perpetuate themselves in our culture. Under more, let's say, brutal (brutish?) conditions, those babies would die at or shortly after birth, end of story.

I'd think other marginal diseases (i.e. diabetes, obesity) would also result in the offspring dying in a tribal environment.

I agree with MM on this issue, but I'd also argue our social programs have created a permanent underclass that have not skills or hope of survival without government support.

 

[AFeedz]

CEO is partly right but I wasn't thinking of something like CF.

Here's a funny story, DECADES ago I ran across literature about scientists who were able to link certain diseases, like CF and sickle cell, to a genetic immunity to other diseases that were far more fatal in certain regions of the world. I lost the material and never could find those studies because the wording I have is so vague. It's something I ran across incidentally in doing another search.

You're right on this. I remember from the one and only semester I was pre-med (lol) that the reason sickle cell is so common in certain African regions is because while those born with the sickle cell trait (possessing only one sickle cell gene, as opposed to 2) are still able to contract malaria, the gene enables them to be less vulnerable to severe infection, so they often don't exhibit malaria's more severe symptoms.