Skip to main content

General O/T Chit Chat Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
jessy_girl said:
Well maybe so - although not necessarily - but to me it wasn't clear that that's what you were referring to. For all I know you were diagnosing me with some other condition altogether, something unrelated but genetic, which I guess is why asking if it was specifically for medical reasons may have been clearer in the context. I actually do understand now where you were coming from but I can honestly say I had zero clue at the time, possibly because I was obviously fully equipped with the knowledge about myself.
Click to expand...
I actually am very interested in human intervention in reproduction after helping (OK being ballast) in birthing a cow in distress. Many breeds of cow cannot give birth unassisted due to humans choosing high birth weights. As there is only artificial selection, the mothers would die if they had to give birth unassisted with strong pulleys. As we save as many human babies as we can, high birth weights and prems are unregulated and encouraged and it's interesting to watch rates of these increasing as we choose emotional choices rather than cold scientific decisions.
 
Isee said:
Why did you pick an example of a condition that is relatively rare? (MRKH effects approx 1 in 4,500 females). Why would you not pick a more statistically likely condition as your best bet?
Click to expand...
MRKH was refutation of bleachy's ridiculous example denying heredity, as Christians do.
 
Witty Banter said:
I actually am very interested in human intervention in reproduction after helping (OK being ballast) in birthing a cow in distress. Many breeds of cow cannot give birth unassisted due to humans choosing high birth weights. As there is only artificial selection, the mothers would die if they had to give birth unassisted with strong pulleys. As we save as many human babies as we can, high birth weights and prems are unregulated and encouraged and it's interesting to watch rates of these increasing as we choose emotional choices rather than cold scientific decisions.
Click to expand...

I actually kind of agree with you, well as far as the interest goes. I think humans are almost unevolving because the whole concept of survival of the fittest is a bit obsolete with regards to the emphasis on saving every life. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should let their sick babies die or that they shouldn't intervene in every way possible, of course they should, but it is quite unnatural to have "weaker" DNA thriving. I read this article about a woman who had several miscarriages she stillbirths after years of usucceaful IVF and she finally had a live birth who was born very prem and he had a number of congenital problems and was intellectually and physically disabled and he died at only a few years old. Very sad for this woman, but I had to wonder if her body was purposely preventing her from reproducing due to it's apparent shortcoming in DNA.

I've considered this for myself because even if I was straight and wanted a child through conventional means I would still likely require fertility assistance, so is that double whammy of factors a sign not to reproduce? Time will tell, but it's difficult to remove the human emotion and maybe this is the direction we have evolved towards instead. Although as I said, I personally would never knowingly pass on a genetic condition and luckily for me I was able to be tested for a lot things before reproducing whilst many others only find out they carry issues after its too late.
 
jessy_girl said:
I actually kind of agree with you, well as far as the interest goes. I think humans are almost unevolving because the whole concept of survival of the fittest is a bit obsolete with regards to the emphasis on saving every life. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should let their sick babies die or that they shouldn't intervene in every way possible, of course they should, but it is quite unnatural to have "weaker" DNA thriving. I read this article about a woman who had several miscarriages she stillbirths after years of usucceaful IVF and she finally had a live birth who was born very prem and he had a number of congenital problems and was intellectually and physically disabled and he died at only a few years old. Very sad for this woman, but I had to wonder if her body was purposely preventing her from reproducing due to it's apparent shortcoming in DNA.

I've considered this for myself because even if I was straight and wanted a child through conventional means I would still likely require fertility assistance, so is that double whammy of factors a sign not to reproduce? Time will tell, but it's difficult to remove the human emotion and maybe this is the direction we have evolved towards instead. Although as I said, I personally would never knowingly pass on a genetic condition and luckily for me I was able to be tested for a lot things before reproducing whilst many others only find out they carry issues after its too late.
Click to expand...
A girl crush at school made news 15 years later for having a near record prem and my first instinct was nooooo. Don't save. It did make me think heavily about things, but the unfortunate truth is death is an undeniable part of the evolution of every creature and we are mad keen on removing it. The local human will and emotion is too strong. Watching these grandmothers give birth to their infertile daughter's babies is pretty crazy, evolution-wise. Anyhow, I personally don't worry too much about global warming as gene pool damage is probably worse.

If it's any consolation, I did research it a bit and apparently the biggest factor hurting the gene pool is actually men having babies later in life. Well, pollution in China as well hurting theirs, but men having babies later affects DNA a lot. Interesting and not particularly intuitive.
 
Witty Banter said:
A girl crush at school made news 15 years later for having a near record prem and my first instinct was nooooo. Don't save. It did make me think heavily about things, but the unfortunate truth is death is an undeniable part of the evolution of every creature and we are mad keen on removing it. The local human will and emotion is too strong. Watching these grandmothers give birth to their infertile daughter's babies is pretty crazy, evolution-wise. Anyhow, I personally don't worry too much about global warming as gene pool damage is probably worse.

If it's any consolation, I did research it a bit and apparently the biggest factor hurting the gene pool is actually men having babies later in life. Well, pollution in China as well hurting theirs, but men having babies later affects DNA a lot. Interesting and not particularly intuitive.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Darwin ever factored in the possibility of human intervention. Almost nobody in the western world will ever not intervene with premmies or the like, and this largely includes doctors, but I'm sure there are practices in other parts of the world where the value of individual life is not as significant and so different decisions are made. Long term this probably strengthens the general gene pool, but short term I think it at least changes it because it's still unnatural to not want to survive in some way and to think on such clinical terms. Animals in the wild will always fight to survive and this extends to their maternal traits with their offspring (except in rare cases), albeit for less emotional reasons. Basically, people will (almost) always fight for their DNA no matter shitty it might be, but I guess that's almost a byproduct of being so highly evolved.

That is actually interesting with the older dads though, especially since males produce new sperm vs women being born with a finite number of eggs. You'd think men would have evolved to stop producing sperm by a certain age now that age seems no barrier for some.
 
jessy_girl said:
I wonder if Darwin ever factored in the possibility of human intervention. Almost nobody in the western world will ever not intervene with premmies or the like, and this largely includes doctors, but I'm sure there are practices in other parts of the world where the value of individual life is not as significant and so different decisions are made. Long term this probably strengthens the general gene pool, but short term I think it at least changes it because it's still unnatural to not want to survive in some way and to think on such clinical terms. Animals in the wild will always fight to survive and this extends to their maternal traits with their offspring (except in rare cases), albeit for less emotional reasons. Basically, people will (almost) always fight for their DNA no matter shitty it might be, but I guess that's almost a byproduct of being so highly evolved.

That is actually interesting with the older dads though, especially since males produce new sperm vs women being born with a finite number of eggs. You'd think men would have evolved to stop producing sperm by a certain age now that age seems no barrier for some.
Click to expand...
About the guys, it's not even the really old men making the big change, it's the small shift from men fathering at 25 compared to, say, 30 to 40. That is having a big impact on the quality of the DNA due to errors associated with aging.

On the intervention, I watched a (probably wrong) doco on entering an untouched Amazon tribe. They run through the jungle all day and kill themselves at roughly 30. They are so inbred that deformities are common and they exercise a no deformity policy to the letter. I thought the doco suggesting that it was barbaric to kill the imperfect children was harsh as it was a major factor keeping that tribe alive.
 
crimmy said:
I noticed he was picking and choosing what to show
Last photo was "my German friend" ... Very pretty young lady
Of course as soon as I opened my mouth and said it out loud he said " I knew you'd say that" and that was the end of that
He's now tucked up in bed and I probably won't see him til next weekend I'd he comes back up to Sydney for it ... Though he might go up to Avoca with friends and we'll be a mere pit stop
Click to expand...
Lol. Totally awkward for him with his mum about, yep he was busted and he knew it.

Our family holiday was in ettalong (never going there again- kids will enjoy anywhere, I on the other hand was bored). We basically spent every day away from ettalong, driving towards entrance, terrigal, shelly beach (I think that was the beach and it was such a beautiful beach), but we weren't able to do Avoca :( the central coast is so beautiful though, you can't go wrong even in ettalong lol
 
Witty Banter said:
About the guys, it's not even the really old men making the big change, it's the small shift from men fathering at 25 compared to, say, 30 to 40. That is having a big impact on the quality of the DNA due to errors associated with aging.

On the intervention, I watched a (probably wrong) doco on entering an untouched Amazon tribe. They run through the jungle all day and kill themselves at roughly 30. They are so inbred that deformities are common and they exercise a no deformity policy to the letter. I thought the doco suggesting that it was barbaric to kill the imperfect children was harsh as it was a major factor keeping that tribe alive.
Click to expand...

Oh, interesting. I was automatically picturing Hugh Hefner types, but I guess humans were designed for something very different to what the world has become. Well in most western cultures anyway. For most people it's a disadvantage or at least less reasonable to have children in your early twenties (making a generalisation here) and yet biologically it may actually be advantageous. I had teenage parents whilst my step dad was 40 by the time my youngest brother was born, it's probably way too small a sample size for me to start drawing conclusions though. I'm probably an outlier anyway.

As for the doco, well it was a western slant but once again I agree with you. I'm sure some cultures would consider it barbaric or cruel to keep a severely disabled baby alive and yet here we are with that being widely accepted as normal.

I really should add a disclaimer that I am not clinical in all manners of thinking nor am I cold hearted and sick babies and children really do make me so sad, but I am interested in all of the above on a purely empirical and ultimately hypothetical level.
 
I'm genuinely interested in this discussion between JG and WB. I actually have a condition called prolactinoma and therefore need to take medication to force on my menstrual cycles in order to fall pregnant. Worked with the two children I have, but no such luck with the third child. Physically there is nothing wrong with me at all, unfortinately the signals from brain activity are just effed up. I suppose this is different from the genetic side of things, but it stills fall under some form of assistance in order to bear children, so thought I'd throw it into the discussion either way
 
Sweetgeek said:
I'm genuinely interested in this discussion between JG and WB. I actually have a condition called prolactinoma and therefore need to take medication to force on my menstrual cycles in order to fall pregnant. Worked with the two children I have, but no such luck with the third child. Physically there is nothing wrong with me at all, unfortinately the signals from brain activity are just effed up. I suppose this is different from the genetic side of things, but it stills fall under some form of assistance in order to bear children, so thought I'd throw it into the discussion either way
Click to expand...

I know, it was a random direction I must say. It's because of your good influence I'm sure.

Oh that's interesting, and I've not heard of that condition before. I have zero against any kind of reproductive assistance, and in your case it has been largely successful and has yielded two healthy children which would suggest to me that it's within the spectrum of natural, ie, you aren't fighting your genetics in a huge way. It's an interesting angle though because you aren't typically reproductively challenged in a biological sense, and yet if you were an animal in the wild you possibly would not have been able to reproduce. But then maybe it is more complicated than that and wouldn't occur in nature as it's conditioned by other factors.

^ this is a bit jibberishy as I am tired but can't sleep, so I apologise.
 
jessy_girl said:
I know, it was a random direction I must say. It's because of your good influence I'm sure.

Oh that's interesting, and I've not heard of that condition before. I have zero against any kind of reproductive assistance, and in your case it has been largely successful and has yielded two healthy children which would suggest to me that it's within the spectrum of natural, ie, you aren't fighting your genetics in a huge way. It's an interesting angle though because you aren't typically reproductively challenged in a biological sense, and yet if you were an animal in the wild you possibly would not have been able to reproduce. But then maybe it is more complicated than that and wouldn't occur in nature as it's conditioned by other factors.

^ this is a bit jibberishy as I am tired but can't sleep, so I apologise.
Click to expand...
No, this makes perfect sense. It is true too, I would not have been able to reproduce and if I were from my parents generation, there is no way i would have been able to have children too. Im thankful I'm in a time I can challenge that process though.

I think it's interesting you brought up factors that bring on conditions. Because I have wondered that myself- would this have existed in my parents or grandparents time, or whether it was just never recognised as anything more back then. Tbh, my condition description sounds worse than what it really is IMO. My endocrinologist assured me the long term use of the medication for my condition is far worse than the condition itself. So that was all the reassurance I needed and I'm thankful there are ways to manipulate the brain to get what I so selfishly want lol. of course if there was even a chance that it affected my future children, I wouldn't be as forward about having children, just for the record
 
I finished my High School, and then I lived life, as some of us do. Job to Job - some of them paid well, some not so.

Enjoyed every experience and remember them all. Tried not to collect to much material things (as you can't take them with you) although there is heap of stuff that seems to have been left here, by others.

Made Mis-Takes, and got back up again - Lived life on a high - lived life on a low ....... spelt words wrong, helped people that asked and need it and also that did not ask, just because .........

I've Prayed to a Higher Force, and have got assistance ......

I have watched people dying and with those that loved them ...... watched people getting knocked out, by one punch, be by the fist or belittlement of words, that were not deserved.

I Had a Pool. and had a Nice House. Hold on to it is if makes you happy :) Sometimes life is moving - sometimes it is stagnet

You are better than me? That saddens me, that you even judge. We are all trying to get by in life - it can be tough - not everyone is blessed with the so called genes, that one person here seems to own.

We were all brought into life and some do the best we can. We share here in a real life way - whether it be about Zoopers or a concert or a dip in cool water or even something we brought into our house to make it a bit more comfortable.....

I really hope you do not donate or have to a Wank Bank - but then again, attitude is something more about how someone is dragged up.


55 Years on
Yeah I am an old bag.
Bag me for it!
HB to ME!
 
Welcome back, @Sweetgeek!

Hey Witty said you went quiet because you were insulted and used by Bleachy because of some shaming stunt.

Gven the fact you have been very quiet, I am wondering if this was true?
 
Good Moanin OT Skittles!

I am back in earning mode!

Enjoy your day :)
 
hooleydooley said:
I finished my High School, and then I lived life, as some of us do. Job to Job - some of them paid well, some not so.

Enjoyed every experience and remember them all. Tried not to collect to much material things (as you can't take them with you) although there is heap of stuff that seems to have been left here, by others.

Made Mis-Takes, and got back up again - Lived life on a high - lived life on a low ....... spelt words wrong, helped people that asked and need it and also that did not ask, just because .........

I've Prayed to a Higher Force, and have got assistance ......

I have watched people dying and with those that loved them ...... watched people getting knocked out, by one punch, be by the fist or belittlement of words, that were not deserved.

I Had a Pool. and had a Nice House. Hold on to it is if makes you happy :) Sometimes life is moving - sometimes it is stagnet

You are better than me? That saddens me, that you even judge. We are all trying to get by in life - it can be tough - not everyone is blessed with the so called genes, that one person here seems to own.

We were all brought into life and some do the best we can. We share here in a real life way - whether it be about Zoopers or a concert or a dip in cool water or even something we brought into our house to make it a bit more comfortable.....

I really hope you do not donate or have to a Wank Bank - but then again, attitude is something more about how someone is dragged up.


55 Years on
Yeah I am an old bag.
Bag me for it!
HB to ME!
Click to expand...

Oh it's your birthday? Happy birthday! Please don't feel like you need to defend yourself or your life, as long you are happy with yourself!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top