Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Titanscape on 20/02/2006 03:11:05
-
Although just in men, can we select healthy sex cells only from patients with depression...? I disagree with the eugenics program and the use of sperm banks instead of an ill husband's sex cells.
The chances are 60% in favour of his child being without his depression, mental disorder, but it is still risky.
Using another man's cells is really part of adultery and a comprimise from what is desired and what is from love, in favour of ambition and money.
I am thinking that a drug can be developed that would target defective sex cells and cause their tails to stop beating. So that only healthy cells would beat their way to the egg.
Good idea?
Titanscape
-
This is a great idea. Why would we "give" people "bad" genes if we can prevent this? Butt offcourse things like this would take us closer to real designerbabies...
-
Uh? You serious?
I really, really don't think the science is ever going to be there. And even if it were it would have to be done in vitro because otherwise the risks to the father would be hugely, unacceptably great. At which point, how is this morally different from/better than post-fertilisation selection, which is already out there.
-
Does this not assume there is such a thing as a good gene and a bad gene.
Is it not reasonable that bad genes would naturally be excluded from the gene pool, and that those that remain must provide some advantage (even if only in some situations, and at some cost).
You talk about having children who will not suffer depression, but were not some of our greatest geniuses manic depressives? Would they have been geniuses if they had not been manic depressives (OK, I know the PC term should be bipolar disorder)?
Sickle cell anaemia is another genetic disorder that can provide some benefit, since it helps humans who live in malaria infested environments, but is nothing but a liability. The problem is that while, in non malaria infested areas, it would be an advantage to totally remove the gene for sickle cell anaemia, but in doing so you would reduce the flexibility of the human genome when it next is challenged by malaria.
Many other apparently deleterious genes may well have some beneficial purpose that we are simply unaware of, and removing them from the gene pool could make the human race less flexible in meeting future challenges.
George
-
Fellows, look at Einstien's children or the film a Beautiful Mind... These people would benefit from having healthy children. Sickness sometimes means real suffering, crime, suicide and sometimes the need for carers and welfare money, medication and nurses... Better to have healthy children for their happiness, that one is not bound as a carer to them and that they conrtibute to the economy and have self esteem and that they are not stigmatised.
Titanscape
-
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
Fellows, look at Einstien's children or the film a Beautiful Mind... These people would benefit from having healthy children. Sickness sometimes means real suffering, crime, suicide and sometimes the need for carers and welfare money, medication and nurses... Better to have healthy children for their happiness, that one is not bound as a carer to them and that they conrtibute to the economy and have self esteem and that they are not stigmatised.
So, are you suggesting we have a world without sickness, ever?
Even if achievable, do you think society could cope with immortality?
Do you really think that genetic selection can eliminate crime, or that if it could, that the elimination of crime would be desirable?
There is the old maxim “ignorance is bliss” - so, for the sake of their happiness, should we promote ignorance?
George
-
I think crime and suicide are partly genetic butt mainly envirmental, butt when we would have the possibility of excluding genetic(not ALL) diseases then I think we should. By the way we would't be immortal when there would not be diseaeses, I recently red an article about aging of cells and it seems that our cells can not keep reproducing themselves, there was a limit to the amount of times a cell could reproduce itself...
-
quote:
Originally posted by wim
I think crime and suicide are partly genetic butt mainly envirmental, butt when we would have the possibility of excluding genetic(not ALL) diseases then I think we should. By the way we would't be immortal when there would not be diseaeses, I recently red an article about aging of cells and it seems that our cells can not keep reproducing themselves, there was a limit to the amount of times a cell could reproduce itself...
Genes cannot produce crime or suicide, but it can create a person who is naturally rebellious, and a person who is naturally suicidal.
That a person is rebellious does not mean that they will rebel against the law, or that they will rebel at all, only that they will have a higher tendency to. On the other hand, is a society that is blindly adherent to the law necessarily a healthy society?
It is true that there is a limit on the number of times a cell can reproduce, excepting when that cell becomes cancerous, and thus indicating that there are ways of overcoming that limit. Ofcourse, if overcoming that limit would automatically lead to cancers, then clearly you are merely switching one form of death for another, but it does leave the way open for some future possibility of overcoming that limit without making the cell malignant. Whether this is a desirable thing to do is another matter.
One reason why nature does create a limit on the number of cell divisions is because the longer a cell lives (and particularly, the greater the number of divisions it undergoes) the greater the likelihood of the cell accumulating an intolerable about of genetic damage. Thus, the programmed death of the cell is in order that newer cells (formed through sexual reproduction, that in part tries to neutralise the effects of genetic damage by mixing genes from different individuals in the hope that the genes damages in one individual will not be the ones damaged in the other) might continue the species.
But the real problem with artificially selecting non-diseased sex cells, is deciding what is a disease. Would you, for instance, choose to remove thalassemia or sickle cell anaemia from the human genome, given that although they can cause disease, and even death, they can also provide protection against malaria?
What other genes might also have some hidden protective quality, despite the disease causing capability of the gene?
What about genes that might cause certain character traits – should we be programming all humans to conform to a specific character model?
George
-
Genetic selection has nothing to do with crime in general. There most certainly are genetic traits which display predispositions to violence and anger
We have to learn to stop creating the situation that creates criminals in the first place.
It used to be thought of that criminals were born but it seems to me and is generally accepted now that most crime arises from environmental conditions, such as urban pressures, poverty, and a poor home life. Urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas (taking the relative populations also into consideration).
Crime is more common in slums than in suburbs and unfortunately violent criminals (for the most part ) tend to come from violent homes.
So, deal with povity and povity stricken areas and the problems arising from living in those conditions and crime will lessen...
I think genetic resequencing (or what ever you're implying) could most certainly be useful but I'd prefer to cure the problem in the first place rather than circumnavigate it.
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Genetic selection has nothing to do with crime in general. There most certainly are genetic traits which display predispositions to violence and anger
We have to learn to stop creating the situation that creates criminals in the first place.
It used to be thought of that criminals were born but it seems to me and is generally accepted now that most crime arises from environmental conditions, such as urban pressures, poverty, and a poor home life. Urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas (taking the relative populations also into consideration).
Crime is more common in slums than in suburbs and unfortunately violent criminals (for the most part ) tend to come from violent homes.
So, deal with povity and povity stricken areas and the problems arising from living in those conditions and crime will lessen...
There are a number of genetic traits that are more common in criminals.
One interesting thing I have heard is that the IQ of criminals tends to both extremes (i.e. it is as likely that someone with a very high IQ will commit crime as someone with a very low IQ – the common factor is that both are outside the norm, and are in some way misfits).
But, the point I was making, that you have not picked up on, is that a healthy society will always have some crime, and a society without any crime is unhealthy. Clearly, a high level of crime is damaging to a society, but a society that blindly follows the law, without ever seeking to challenge the legal status quo is also just as unhealthy a society as a society that totally disregards the law.
Even the issue of violence has to be taken with due measure. Society needs, and utilises, some degree of violence; but like crime in general, it must be in constrained measure.
Clearly, if one has a society that occasionally breaks the law, and a society that occasionally uses violence, it will follow that not every time the law is broken, nor every time that violence is used, is an appropriate situation for violence or criminality; but that is the price we must pay for having the flexibility to challenge the law when it is right to challenge the law, or to use violence in those times when it is right to use violence.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Genetic selection has nothing to do with crime in general. There most certainly are genetic traits which display predispositions to violence and anger
We have to learn to stop creating the situation that creates criminals in the first place.
It used to be thought of that criminals were born but it seems to me and is generally accepted now that most crime arises from environmental conditions, such as urban pressures, poverty, and a poor home life. Urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas (taking the relative populations also into consideration).
Crime is more common in slums than in suburbs and unfortunately violent criminals (for the most part ) tend to come from violent homes.
So, deal with poverty and poverty stricken areas and the problems arising from living in those conditions and crime will lessen...
There are a number of genetic traits that are more common in criminals.
One interesting thing I have heard is that the IQ of criminals tends to both extremes (i.e. it is as likely that someone with a very high IQ will commit crime as someone with a very low IQ – the common factor is that both are outside the norm, and are in some way misfits).
But, the point I was making, that you have not picked up on, is that a healthy society will always have some crime, and a society without any crime is unhealthy. Clearly, a high level of crime is damaging to a society, but a society that blindly follows the law, without ever seeking to challenge the legal status quo is also just as unhealthy a society as a society that totally disregards the law.
Even the issue of violence has to be taken with due measure. Society needs, and utilises, some degree of violence; but like crime in general, it must be in constrained measure.
Clearly, if one has a society that occasionally breaks the law, and a society that occasionally uses violence, it will follow that not every time the law is broken, nor every time that violence is used, is an appropriate situation for violence or criminality; but that is the price we must pay for having the flexibility to challenge the law when it is right to challenge the law, or to use violence in those times when it is right to use violence.
George
That may well be so, but it also goes that having these genetic traits does not mean that criminal behaviour will automatically ensue.
My point was directed at the standard of living which by it's nature encourages the people with the genetic trait to commit crime !
I fully support that even a healthy society will still have crime but it doesn't necessarily follow that for one to challenge society one must break the law.
One can challenge convention and by doing so change law. I would like to think that violence within conventional society could cease while the need for violence as a prerequisite for human nature would still be satiated in a controlled way.
No one is ever going to stop a bar brawl or a fist fight but violence as a tool in crime I think would be nice to no longer have.
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
That may well be so, but it also goes that having these genetic traits does not mean that criminal behaviour will automatically ensue.
My point was directed at the standard of living which by it's nature encourages the people with the genetic trait to commit crime !
I fully support that even a healthy society will still have crime but it doesn't necessarily follow that for one to challenge society one must break the law.
One can challenge convention and by doing so change law. I would like to think that violence within conventional society could cease while the need for violence as a prerequisite for human nature would still be satiated in a controlled way.
No one is ever going to stop a bar brawl or a fist fight but violence as a tool in crime I think would be nice to no longer have.
The first point I was making is that we have to separate the issues of violence and crime.
Both the military and the police use violence in a perfectly legal manner, and many criminals are not violent. There is also the question as to whether you are talking about violence against non-humans, in which case hunting is an act of violence, that depending upon the circumstance, may or may not be illegal. It is even possible to argue that not all acts of criminal homicide are acts of violence.
Some of the harshest penalties are often for people who evade paying tax, which has no violence at all involved. Other, lesser non-violent crimes are against intellectual property, insider trading, etc. All of them are criminal acts of varying severity, but clearly not acts of violence.
I would argue that it is categorically necessary sometimes to break the law to change society. Depending upon how flexible and responsive the democratic process is, it may be the only way to implement change, or it may simply be the last resort in extreme cases, but there will always be some situations where the nature of required change is so fundamental that no society could have built into it a legal mechanism for implement such a radical change.
The point is that a society that is too easy to change is inherently unstable, while a society that is too stable is incapable of implementing required changes. It will never be possible to get the balance point right in every case, and in any case, all evolving systems (including social systems) will tend to become more inflexible over time, until they become so rigid that they will ultimately fracture. This is the reason why evolving systems tend towards punctuated equilibria, where there are long periods of stability followed by catastrophic failure, and the development of a new stable state.
Ofcourse, rather like earth quakes, the longer the period of stability, the more dramatic the collapse.
George
-
I do so enjoy attempting to have a dialogue with George. It's like a work out for my brain !!...he is indeed an excellent deliberator, debater and raconteur..one always knows one is going to be met with a healthy retort....and ususally a bloody brow beating too !! [:D]
----------------------
There is no doubt that legal violence is a necessity to combat either a violent circumstance or as a precaution to be used during an event of potential violence.
The same as you have said is in use with regards to hunting but for the most part that is controlled and in fact provides a necessary function of culling so that a species can continue to exist, the exception I suppose is one of survival and illegal practices.
I think there may have been a misunderstanding, I concur that there may be extreme times when breaking the law is the last resort necessity for change but my point was that it does not have to be an act of physical violence. The term violent has many facets though of course.
Society I agree with you must change, else it becomes an arrested culture with no progress towards development at all.
I can see how a society can become so rigid and inflexible that it virtually explodes under pressure…I would just like to think that in the future violence is not the only way to instigate change as a last resort…..and I believe that it is in the formative years during education and under parental guidance that these changes will be made. However, because it is the nature of the ‘ young ‘ to rebel that as a society the enlightenment process must be ongoing through out.
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
There is no doubt that legal violence is a necessity to combat either a violent circumstance or as a precaution to be used during an event of potential violence.
The same as you have said is in use with regards to hunting but for the most part that is controlled and in fact provides a necessary function of culling so that a species can continue to exist, the exception I suppose is one of survival and illegal practices.
I think there may have been a misunderstanding, I concur that there may be extreme times when breaking the law is the last resort necessity for change but my point was that it does not have to be an act of physical violence. The term violent has many facets though of course.
Society I agree with you must change, else it becomes an arrested culture with no progress towards development at all.
I can see how a society can become so rigid and inflexible that it virtually explodes under pressure…I would just like to think that in the future violence is not the only way to instigate change as a last resort…..and I believe that it is in the formative years during education and under parental guidance that these changes will be made. However, because it is the nature of the ‘ young ‘ to rebel that as a society the enlightenment process must be ongoing through out.
If one ever did succeed in creating a social system that had succeed in abolishing violence through education, then one in fact would have developed a brain washing technique that is powerful enough to effectively be able to arrest all social change.
There is good reason to believe that there is nothing within our education system that even comes close to that.
Clearly, any serious psychological 'damage' (and I use the word with caution, since I accept it is a subjective term) in ones formative can exacerbate the tendency to violence, but this is very different from saying that education can be used to remove the underlying tendency where it exists.
There are recorded cases where people who have never had any tendency to violence, begin to develop overt violent behaviour after suffering physical injury to the brain. This clearly indicates that some changes to the brain are capable of affecting ones tendency to violence, and these changes are independent of education. It is not at all unreasonable to assume physical changes that may be caused by injury might also be caused by genetic programming. Ofcourse, this comes back to the original question as to whether eugenics could (or, separately, should) be used to remove the genetic predisposition to violence.
Ofcourse, one question regarding the use of eugenics to control violence would be whether the same gene might not be a significant factor in sporting success. If the two are correlated, there would be many, possibly not very politically correct, consequences on the broader social distribution of such genes.
In some respects, as with other human traits, such as thalassemia, genetic selection does go on all the time, and a gene will be more prevalent in a context that provides benefit to those who express that gene, and will be less prevalent (although not totally removed) from a context that provides active disadvantage to the expression of that gene. The point ofcourse is whether the expression of that gene has multiple forms (e.g. anti-social violent behaviour and sporting success, or possibly a correlation between a genetic predisposition to violence and sperm count – noting that as society has become less violent, so sperm count has reduced), where the possible benefit/disadvantage in expressing that gene may be a mixed consequence.
With regard to whether anything other than violence can ever be the last resort – the last resort must be the most powerful tool you can muster, and thus inevitably the most terrifying tool you can muster. It may be that some day we will find something more terrifying than violence, but would that day really be a step forward?
Ofcourse, last resort aside, there are many cases where lesser tools are sufficient, and it is the degree of availability and success rate of those lesser tools that will determine how often the tool of last resort will have to be used.
George
-
The VAST majority of violent crimes which we see on the streets would be prevented if the person doing the crime was taught respect and right from wrong by their parents as they grew up. And the latest figures showing around 50% of children in the UK are born into single parent families with no father figure is bad news a for the future well-being of this country.
And our education system is also at fault for not punishing children when they step out of line, it should be a fail safe teaching morals to children who's parents are failing in their duties and should never have been allowed to have the responsibility of bringing up children.
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
The VAST majority of violent crimes which we see on the streets would be prevented if the person doing the crime was taught respect and right from wrong by their parents as they grew up. And the latest figures showing around 50% of children in the UK are born into single parent families with no father figure is bad news a for the future well-being of this country.
And our education system is also at fault for not punishing children when they step out of line, it should be a fail safe teaching morals to children who's parents are failing in their duties and should never have been allowed to have the responsibility of bringing up children.
Michael
Respect, or fear? Not the same thing.
But that aside, there is no evidence that society is more violent now than it was in the 19th century, or any time before that. Is it your contention that parenting is better now than it was in the 19th century?
Clearly, the level of violence society experiences is very uneven, with some sections of society suffering far higher levels of violence than other sections; but taken as a whole, and by comparison to earlier ages, we actually live in a relatively non-violent society.
Clearly, we wish to further reduce levels of violence in society, insofar as it is practical and reasonable to do so, but simply to say that violence is due to modern parents getting things wrong is not, in a broad sense (with maybe the exception of a few segments of society) reflected in the realities.
George
-
Thanks for taking over the baton Michael ! [:D][;)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Thanks for taking over the baton Michael ! [:D][;)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
Is that a cop-out? [}:)][;)][:p]
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Thanks for taking over the baton Michael ! [:D][;)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
Is that a cop-out? [}:)][;)][:p]
George
Yes !!....well...maybe not !! [:)]..You're just too cerebral for little ole moi ! [;)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
There is no doubt that legal violence is a necessity to combat either a violent circumstance or as a precaution to be used during an event of potential violence.
The same as you have said is in use with regards to hunting but for the most part that is controlled and in fact provides a necessary function of culling so that a species can continue to exist, the exception I suppose is one of survival and illegal practices.
I think there may have been a misunderstanding, I concur that there may be extreme times when breaking the law is the last resort necessity for change but my point was that it does not have to be an act of physical violence. The term violent has many facets though of course.
Society I agree with you must change, else it becomes an arrested culture with no progress towards development at all.
I can see how a society can become so rigid and inflexible that it virtually explodes under pressure…I would just like to think that in the future violence is not the only way to instigate change as a last resort…..and I believe that it is in the formative years during education and under parental guidance that these changes will be made. However, because it is the nature of the ‘ young ‘ to rebel that as a society the enlightenment process must be ongoing through out.
If one ever did succeed in creating a social system that had succeed in abolishing violence through education, then one in fact would have developed a brain washing technique that is powerful enough to effectively be able to arrest all social change.
There is good reason to believe that there is nothing within our education system that even comes close to that.
Clearly, any serious psychological 'damage' (and I use the word with caution, since I accept it is a subjective term) in ones formative can exacerbate the tendency to violence, but this is very different from saying that education can be used to remove the underlying tendency where it exists.
There are recorded cases where people who have never had any tendency to violence, begin to develop overt violent behaviour after suffering physical injury to the brain. This clearly indicates that some changes to the brain are capable of affecting ones tendency to violence, and these changes are independent of education. It is not at all unreasonable to assume physical changes that may be caused by injury might also be caused by genetic programming. Ofcourse, this comes back to the original question as to whether eugenics could (or, separately, should) be used to remove the genetic predisposition to violence.
Ofcourse, one question regarding the use of eugenics to control violence would be whether the same gene might not be a significant factor in sporting success. If the two are correlated, there would be many, possibly not very politically correct, consequences on the broader social distribution of such genes.
In some respects, as with other human traits, such as thalassemia, genetic selection does go on all the time, and a gene will be more prevalent in a context that provides benefit to those who express that gene, and will be less prevalent (although not totally removed) from a context that provides active disadvantage to the expression of that gene. The point ofcourse is whether the expression of that gene has multiple forms (e.g. anti-social violent behaviour and sporting success, or possibly a correlation between a genetic predisposition to violence and sperm count – noting that as society has become less violent, so sperm count has reduced), where the possible benefit/disadvantage in expressing that gene may be a mixed consequence.
With regard to whether anything other than violence can ever be the last resort – the last resort must be the most powerful tool you can muster, and thus inevitably the most terrifying tool you can muster. It may be that some day we will find something more terrifying than violence, but would that day really be a step forward?
Ofcourse, last resort aside, there are many cases where lesser tools are sufficient, and it is the degree of availability and success rate of those lesser tools that will determine how often the tool of last resort will have to be used.
George
I wouldn’t call it brainwashing George, I think in this case that’s quite a strong term. If we could somehow elucidate that it’s wise to think first rather than be so quick to raise arms then we could be well on the way to effecting change and growth without the need to physically act out rebellion. I’m not for creating a social system that has done away with violence I’m just for a social system that does not resort to the violent side with such verve and alacrity.
I agree that serious psychological 'damage' (and I concur with your caution of the term) in the early years can lead to a violent tendency and therefore exacerbate the tendency to violence…but I put it to you that it’s just a matter oh how to implement an advanced method of instruction so that the consequences of psychological damage are negated. Again…I don’t mean to imply/infer (which one is it George ? I'm not sure [:)]) brainwashing and I would never approve of a technique of education if it were ever misconstrued as brainwashing with the ensuing possibilities of psychological 'damage'
I do not advocate the use of techniques so that the effect is akin to brainwashing.
I also agree with your statement relating to against the use of genetic selection where the gene may have more than one vital function for the body.
If violence is always the last resort then violence will always rule. As long as people have that comfort factor that they can always turn to violence then they may turn to it quicker before considering less violent alternatives
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
But that aside, there is no evidence that society is more violent now than it was in the 19th century, or any time before that. Is it your contention that parenting is better now than it was in the 19th century?
Your right there is no evidence but that's probably Only because the gathering of meanful statistics is a recent innovation.
quote:
Clearly, the level of violence society experiences is very uneven, with some sections of society suffering far higher levels of violence than other sections; but taken as a whole, and by comparison to earlier ages, we actually live in a relatively non-violent society
Yeah right!, i take it you don't include the extra , violent mobile phone thefts, happy slapping, weekend drunken brawls, children hanging children from trees by their necks, children kidnapping toddlers and killing them beside railways lines etc etc etc .
The great train robbery was such a shock at the time not only because of the amount of stolen money but because of the level of violence used during the robbery, a level of violence which wasn't used every hour of everyday as it is these day and is nothing compared to the everyday violent extremes of todays society.
Ask any primary school worker working in your average inner city school how many times they have been shocked by the violent and sexual behaviour of the pupils they work with. Ask them to devulge what happens behind the school gates and you will be shocked with what they recall. To say that today we live in a relatively non-violent society is ******. (not wishing to be rude i placed stars)
People need to wake up and open their eyes because if they don't then the UK wont be a place worth living in in 50 years.
quote:
Clearly, we wish to further reduce levels of violence in society, insofar as it is practical and reasonable to do so
its always practical and always resonable to reduce the levels of violence.
quote:
but simply to say that violence is due to modern parents getting things wrong is not,in a broad sense (with maybe the exception of a few segments of society) reflected in the realities.
I'm happy with what i said
Michael
-
quote:
Is that a cop-out?
Not where George is concerned he's usually quite good at this debating lark[:)]
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
Your right there is no evidence but that's probably Only because the gathering of meanful statistics is a recent innovation.
The gathering of statistics might reasonably have been argued to have started with the doomsday book, in 1086.
Crime statistics for the latter part of the 19th century do exist, but unfortunately the constant changes in legislation make them difficult to compare like for like, and even then, can really be said to have more to do with conviction rates than with the number of crimes that were actually committed.
But, as I said above, crime and violence are two different things, and you are right that meaningful statistics are not available, and are not even available today. No-one has defined what is meant by violence, and what acts should be included or excluded in such a survey, how they should be weighted, and how they might be measured.
What is certainly true is that many acts of violence have been made criminal offences in later centuries that simply were not even criminal offences in earlier centuries, thus it is clear that what society considers to be an acceptable level of violence (i.e. a level of violence that can be left unpunished) has diminished over time, but is that sufficient to say that actual levels (in both type and frequency) of violence have diminished when actual levels of non-criminal violence cannot be measured?
Taking long term historical perspectives, there is general acceptance (although, as has been pointed out, difficult to back up with quantitative evidence) that violence against the person has been on the decline.
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=1461500354&print=0
quote:
The argument has been made that the most significant change in the pattern of crime from the medieval to the modern period was a move from the predominance of interpersonal violence to the predominance of property crime. It is true that the murder rates in the European world do appear to decline significantly from the early 17th century. Murder has always been seen as a particularly reprehensible offence and, in consequence, the reporting and prosecution of murder is generally regarded to have been closer to the number of offences than the reporting and prosecution of other crimes. The first countries to witness the early modern decline in murder were England and the Netherlands. Countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, where ideas of honour as a key element of a man and a family’s social capital had a much longer life, were much slower in following the trend. Moreover, well into the 20th century in some regions and communities where vendetta remained a way of life, such as Corsica, Sicily, Greece, and the Balkans, killing for reasons of honour tended to be regarded as a crime only by representatives of the nation state such as judges and policemen. Overall, however, substantiating the violence to theft hypothesis remains difficult, and not least because of the evidence for considerable property crime in the medieval and early modern periods.
More recently, the growth of feminism and the interest in the role of gender in history has fostered research into violence and violent crime. While a decline in homicidal violence seems substantiated by the admittedly difficult evidence, the extent and pattern of interpersonal violence is less clear. Most men in the Middle Ages carried knives, and so too did many working-class men in the 19th century; a knife was simply a tool for many working men on the land, in towns, or at sea. Serious brawls in taverns could, in consequence, see knives drawn and serious injuries inflicted. Chastising wives, children, and servants for errors and bad behaviour was commonly seen as the duty of the head of a household in the medieval and early modern period. But a new sensibility in the 18th century began to condemn such chastisement, and increasingly cases could be brought before the courts as assaults. From the mid-18th century at least, there are cases of servants bringing their masters to court on charges of assault. At the same time the beating of wives began to be stigmatized and denigrated as the behaviour only of men from the rougher elements of the working class. It was from this social group that most of the accused came, but that could well mean a significant dark figure among their social superiors since there is evidence of cruelty and violence within middle-class and upper-class homes.
The physical correction of wives owed much to Roman law, as it had been adapted by legal scholars in the Middle Ages. The Romans had permitted husbands to kill their wives for certain offences, notably adultery, and while medieval European laws did not as a rule adopt a similar extreme, in some countries and in some regions a double standard existed with reference to adultery into the 20th century. As late as 1907 in France a man who killed his wife having caught her in the act of adultery could escape criminal sanction.
Domestic violence has been notoriously under-reported; so too has rape. Male rape existed, but appears almost never to have been reported. Sodomy was almost always a capital crime, and those found guilty were generally execrated by the crowds present at their execution or while they stood in the pillory. In early modern France, Spain, and Italy the gang rape of a female appears to have been a demonstration of virility and masculine honour, and a rite of passage for the sons of urban artisans and journeymen. Few of the offenders were ever punished. In most European states rape became a capital crime in the early modern period. However, many early jurists did not conceive of the offence as one committed against a person: since women were principally perceived legally in their relationship to a man, female rape was either an offence against property or an offence against parental authority. It was rare for anyone to be executed for rape unless the victim was particularly young and the crime particularly brutal. Indeed, law books could even suggest that while an assault on a woman of good character might merit death, a master’s abuse of a servant girl might be assuaged with a money transaction. Even in the 20th century the dishonour of rape and the prospect of the intrusive investigation of a female victim’s sex life by male police in private, and by male defence lawyers in public court, probably dissuaded many from reporting an attack.
To be totally fair, given that the point I made was regarding violence, not criminality, one should also include the carnage of two world wars in the 20th century, which although it pertains to State instigated violence rather than personal of family instigated violence, nonetheless would have to be considered to have significantly tipped the overall level of violence in the 20th century to a level surpassing anything seen in Europe since the middle ages.
Is it your assertion that poor parenting was responsible for the two world wars?
quote:
quote:
The great train robbery was such a shock at the time not only because of the amount of stolen money but because of the level of violence used during the robbery, a level of violence which wasn't used every hour of everyday as it is these day and is nothing compared to the everyday violent extremes of todays society.
There was no less shock at the kidnapping of bank employees in the Northern Bank raid in Belfast, and there was no actual bodily harm in that raid, merely the threat of harm, and the engendered fear.
quote:
Ask any primary school worker working in your average inner city school how many times they have been shocked by the violent and sexual behaviour of the pupils they work with. Ask them to devulge what happens behind the school gates and you will be shocked with what they recall. To say that today we live in a relatively non-violent society is ******. (not wishing to be rude i placed stars)
People need to wake up and open their eyes because if they don't then the UK wont be a place worth living in in 50 years.
Violence and bullying has always been a part of school life, going back to Tom Brown's school days and before. It has historically been under-reported, and largely dismissed as merely part of growing up, but it was there.
What is new is that teachers are losing control in the classroom, not merely in what happens outside the school gates or behind the bike shed. Part of this has been the changes in the nature of teaching, as schools have become larger, and more pressure has been placed upon academic achievement at the expense of social interaction.
its always practical and always resonable to reduce the levels of violence.
I thought you had previously argued that smacking should not be outlawed?
Is not smacking an act of violence?
Whether it is practical, reasonable, or desirable to outlaw smacking is something else, but if your argument is so unconditional and absolute as to say that it is always reasonable to reduce violence, that would seem to leave little room to retain smacking as a lawful activity.
George
-
quote:
Is not smacking an act of violence?
I was talking about criminal violence sorry I should have made that clear.
A clip around the the legs, is done to benefit the child. Its the way of nature, the way of many species to teach their young right from wrong. NATURE KNOWS BEST. and so shouldnt be class as a violent act, in my opinion. So even if smacking was made illegal i would never class someone a criminal for smacking their child, provided it was used as a last resort or for something which required an immediate response, like if a child did something life threatening.
I don't think wars should be included and on the whole are fought mainly by people who have no choice but to take part,its criminal intent if a war has criminal intent is born by the few who order the war, Hitler for example
Michael
-
Looking at what you wrote, Herman Guerring and Adolf Hitler had weird upbringings. Two men lived with Herman's mother and the second was a Jew and his son was the less famous Herbert Guerring, pardon my spelling please.
His Jewish father spoiled him. Herbert used his name and brotherly favour in Herman's eyes to save many Jews.
Hitler was criminally insane probably because of the thrashings he got as a boy. It is not genetic to be psycopathic I hear.
But I wrote this thread about a possible drug to give someone with depression or Schizophrenia since if their children are as is unlikely, born with a propensity to suffer the illnesses, then from it, depression or delusions, they may commit suicide and the father's efforts are in vain and the family is at a loss.
Mozart however was a joy to his family.
Tragedy is only possible. Einstein abandoned his wife for fame, to a life of drudgery, bringing up his son or sons with delusions, and getting violent beatings from them...
I don't know of genes which make a person violent or a criminal.
I don't agree with throwing away embryos or using them for stem cells.
Violence should be avoided by women choosing their husbands well and by correct teaching and firm laws and policing.
Titanscape
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
I was talking about criminal violence sorry I should have made that clear.
But what I was saying is that crime is substantially arbitrary. What may be legal violence to one generation can become criminal violence to the next.
In many societies, particularly where the writ of central government is week, blood feuds are still common practice – how does this fit into your notion of criminal violence?
quote:
A clip around the the legs, is done to benefit the child. Its the way of nature, the way of many species to teach their young right from wrong. NATURE KNOWS BEST. and so shouldnt be class as a violent act, in my opinion. So even if smacking was made illegal i would never class someone a criminal for smacking their child, provided it was used as a last resort or for something which required an immediate response, like if a child did something life threatening.
The point is that it is a violent act. I would agree with you that it should not be classed as a criminal act, but that would not alter the fact that it is a violent act.
In the past, a man could legally hit his wife, just as an employer could legally hit his servant (and flogging aboard ship was commonplace). All of this would today be considered criminal violence, but it has not become any more a matter of violence than it ever was, but it has become criminal.
quote:
I don't think wars should be included and on the whole are fought mainly by people who have no choice but to take part,its criminal intent if a war has criminal intent is born by the few who order the war, Hitler for example
But again, you are confusing criminal with violent.
Wars are violent even if there is no criminality involved, and one may even suggest that those who instigate wars may not even be violent people themselves, leaving the violence to be carried out by others.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
Hitler was criminally insane probably because of the thrashings he got as a boy. It is not genetic to be psycopathic I hear.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002792.html
quote:
Dr Viding's research looked into the factors that contribute to antisocial behaviour in children with and without psychopathic tendencies. By studying sets of 7-year-old twins, Dr. Viding and her colleagues were able to pinpoint to what extent antisocial behaviour in these two groups was caused by genetic and/or environmental risk factors.
A sample of 3687 twin pairs formed the starting point for this research. Teacher ratings for antisocial behaviour and psychopathic tendencies (i.e. lack of empathy and remorse) were used to classify the twins. Those who were in the top 10% of the sample for antisocial behaviour were separated into two groups - those with and without psychopathic tendencies.
Following analysis, the results showed that, in children with psychopathic tendencies, antisocial behaviour was strongly inherited. In contrast, the antisocial behaviour of children who did not have psychopathic tendencies was mainly influenced by environmental factors. These findings are in line with previous research showing that children with psychopathic tendencies are at risk to continue their antisocial behaviour and are often resistant to traditional forms of intervention.
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
But I wrote this thread about a possible drug to give someone with depression or Schizophrenia since if their children are as is unlikely, born with a propensity to suffer the illnesses, then from it, depression or delusions, they may commit suicide and the father's efforts are in vain and the family is at a loss.
But the point is that one treats a mental condition only when that mental condition begins to interfere with the individuals ability to function within their society. The fact that one has a genetic tendency to a condition, and that this condition may manifest itself in ways that can interfere with the functioning of the individual within society, does not mean that it is inevitable that the genetic predisposition will interfere with the persons ability to function within society, and in a mild form, it is possible that the condition may actually help the person to function within the society.
It could well be that by removing the genetic tendency to that which you regard as a disease, when manifest in its extreme form, may actually cause greater problems by removing the benefits that genetic predisposition might create when manifest in its milder forms.
quote:
I don't know of genes which make a person violent or a criminal.
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/96fal/behav.html
quote:
Some studies have, nonetheless, pointed to a genetic basis for violence. In 1993, investigators in the Netherlands reported the discovery of what seemed to be an aggression gene, perhaps akin to that which Stephen Mobley claims to run in his family. Biochemical evidence supported the link between the particular mutant, or altered, gene and aggressive behavior.
The gene coded for an enzyme involved in the metabolism of certain chemicals that transmit signals within the brain and nervous system. Urinalysis of subjects in the Dutch study, all of whom were related and demonstrated aggressive and antisocial behavior, showed abnormal levels of metabolic products associated with the enzyme. The affected individuals lacked the ability to produce the enzyme, and this deficiency may have led to their antisocial behavior.
Apart from the question of whether genes would directly affect the level of violence a person displays, genetic factors do affect a persons ability to communicate, and people who have a violent predisposition are often (though there are clearly exceptions) poor verbal communicators, and resort to violence because they fail to communicate in any other way (another correlation to this is that women tend to be better verbal communicators then men, and correspondingly tend towards less violence – although I am aware of the risks of assuming that correlation equates to causation).
quote:
Violence should be avoided by women choosing their husbands well and by correct teaching and firm laws and policing.
Most women do not choose violent husbands, but many women are attracted by masculine traits that are often correlated with underlying violent tendencies; but it is not the violence itself that they see, or are aware of.
Unfortunately, mate selection is rarely rational, nor subject to rational judgement (excepting in the case of arranged marriages) . Women do not decide to fall in love with violent men, they fall in love with whoever they fall in love with, and so long as we choose marriage partners by deciding who it is we fall in love with, suggesting that women should not marry violent men is somewhat futile.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
I wouldn’t call it brainwashing George, I think in this case that’s quite a strong term. If we could somehow elucidate that it’s wise to think first rather than be so quick to raise arms then we could be well on the way to effecting change and growth without the need to physically act out rebellion. I’m not for creating a social system that has done away with violence I’m just for a social system that does not resort to the violent side with such verve and alacrity.
I would suggest that any educational system has an element of brainwashing in it – at least insofar as it contains anything in the way of behavioural education – pure knowledge based education, that does not include behavioural training, may be regarded as without any element of brainwashing.
In the general direction of your point, I would agree with you. The risk I was alluding to was that if we ever developed a behavioural training regime that would be so powerful as to achieve a total elimination of violence within the community, we would have developed a tool that would be too powerful for us safely to handle. It is merely that that which is valuable in moderation, should nonetheless be kept in moderation.
quote:
If violence is always the last resort then violence will always rule. As long as people have that comfort factor that they can always turn to violence then they may turn to it quicker before considering less violent alternatives
Not necessarily.
Every choice of action one makes carries a cost and carries a risk associated with it. If you can provide a choice of action that carries lower cost and lower risk to the individual than would choosing a violent course of action, then no matter that violence will remain the last resort, it is no longer the most cost effective resort. At the same time, one can seek to increase the cost and risks associated with using violence, and thus further increase the advantage in using non-violent means; but clearly, simply increasing the costs associated with violence without providing a lower cost alternative would not achieve the desired goal.
Ofcourse, the above is highly idealised, and there are clearly some objectives for which one would not choose to facilitate any means, violent or otherwise, to assist in its being achieved; but nonetheless, insofar as it is practical, providing lower cost alternatives to violence is the only way that one can hope to retain violence as a last resort but not a first resort.
In this, again, there is a clear role for education, insofar as it may help enable people to utilise the alternatives given, but again, it can only help them use that which is available to be used, and if the tool is not made available, then no amount of education will enable its use.
George
-
getting back to the original topic: there are many things that haven't been totally thought through in the original post. however, even disregarding teh etchnical aspects, its still not a good idea. The more genetically diverse a population is, the healthier that population is as a whole (although it may contain many weaker individuals) becasue it is more likely to have the ability to overcome a given environmental challenge. Any science that involves cutting out diversity in the human gene pool is bad science for humanitie's sake.
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer
getting back to the original topic: there are many things that haven't been totally thought through in the original post. however, even disregarding teh etchnical aspects, its still not a good idea. The more genetically diverse a population is, the healthier that population is as a whole (although it may contain many weaker individuals) becasue it is more likely to have the ability to overcome a given environmental challenge. Any science that involves cutting out diversity in the human gene pool is bad science for humanitie's sake.
That was pretty much what my first post on this amounted to.
We know that some genes that are harmful in the current situation we find ourselves in nonetheless can also provide protection to some threats, while other genes we simply do not know in which circumstances they may prove to be beneficial. You remove the gene from the gene pool, and it wont be there when you need it.
George
-
If you look at 200 people suffering from Schizophrenia, do they really benefit family and society more than 200 healthy ones? If you had a choice between a healthy child or one suffering mild delusions, which would you choose Another Someone?
I might say though, I like your open mindedness and accepting non racist point of view.
Titanscape
-
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
If you look at 200 people suffering from Schizophrenia, do they really benefit family and society more than 200 healthy ones? If you had a choice between a healthy child or one suffering mild delusions, which would you choose Another Someone?
I think you are missing the point. In fact, you are missing three points.
Firstly, schizophrenics are not only schizophrenics, they are total human beings. If the question was whether I was given a choice between my child being a schizophrenic, and all other things being equal, that same child not growing up to be a schizophrenic, then clearly I would prefer the latter. The point is that all other things are never equal, and the question may well be whether he might have a a period of schizophrenia, but some very good periods outside of that, it may well be that his life might be better than the alternative child who did not have schizophrenia but neither had the good periods outside of that. We cannot say what else might be altered by removing that schizophrenia.
But, beyond the issue of what might have changed for my child, the question of what might happen if we removed the gene for schizophrenia affects not only my hypothetical children, but also my hypothetical grandchildren. What we cannot say is whether in removing the spectre of schizophrenia from my child's life, we might also be removing some far more beneficial trait from my grandchild's life, a grandchild who may have been spared the actual curse of schizophrenia, yet may have benefited in some other way from those same genes.
Another thing to bear in mind regarding the specific example of schizophrenia is that, unlike sickle cell anaemia, Huntington's Disease, or haemophilia; schizophrenia is not of itself an inherited disease. There may indeed be an inherited predisposition to schizophrenia, but as I understand it schizophrenia is induced by social stress, often by social isolation (it seems more common in immigrant communities because they are more isolated from the mainstream of society).
But beyond the specifics of schizophrenia, and looking at the basic assumption of your question, one may as well ask whether I would rather that my child grew up to be President of the USA (or, as a Brit, more realistically Prime Minister of the UK), or a refuse collector. All things being equal, one might suggest that one would prefer one's child to become a political leader than a refuse collector; yet if every child was born to be President, then who would collect the refuse?
George