Drugs harmful to immune system?

[Xunzian]

You are, quite literally, a fascist reactionary of the worst sort. I mean that.

We should be concerned that people are living longer and better lives because at some unidentified future point that softness may become a weakness leading to shorter lives?

I am sorry. That isn't fascism. That sort of violence-for-the-sake-of-violence is Nazism.

You are a reactionary Nazi of the worst sort.

Right now, you are literally arguing that people need to live shorter, more brutal and painful lives. Think about that.

[Abstract]

You are, quite literally, a fascist reactionary of the worst sort. I mean that.

We should be concerned that people are living longer and better lives because at some unidentified future point that softness may become a weakness leading to shorter lives?

I am sorry. That isn't fascism. That sort of violence-for-the-sake-of-violence is Nazism.

You are a reactionary Nazi of the worst sort.

Right now, you are literally arguing that people need to live shorter, more brutal and painful lives. Think about that.

I did not specify the degree to which I would think any of the thoughts resultant of my "consideration" might be taken into action. you are claiming that I am something when i do not suggest that i definitively believe or know any of this to be true. Nonetheless it seems plausible that such may occur. but that does not mean that we should do too much about it, humanity will die eventually. though I think we should consider what can come of things and at least let people know what could result if it is possible. Rather then let people be blind to how things can effect us in the long run so that the Marketing techniques of companies can keep encouraging us to spend, spend, spend on "fixing" ourselves, rather then working on our selves. I am not suggesting anything should be forced on anyone.

It seems to me you are reading your presumptions into my words.
Perhaps you think I am like the anti-drug people you are familiar with.
I am not anti-drug, I am not anti-aid/medical-treatment.
I am anti "over-use".
I do not know what should define over-use.
But It seems that many things are being over prescribed, and many things are being used more then they need be.

I would think at the least much dukkha can be overcome, but one cannot expect all others to overcome it hear and now, and escape their desires by work on the self.

[lizbethrose]

The problem as I see it with your idea--and I've said this before--is that you have no conception of evolution. It can take hundreds of thousands of years for evolutionary final results to occur--evolution is a very slow process. There is no way that one person in one generation who uses pain medication to relieve the symptoms of migraine headaches is going to pass down genetically to the next generation the same need for a drug. Look at Mendelian genetics.

This isn't to say that the overuse of drugs can't be hazardous to one's health or that eating properly and getting the correct amount of exercise won't improve overall health. I'm simply saying that you're approaching what you're trying to say from an incorrect angle.

[Khrone]

The problem as I see it with your idea--and I've said this before--is that you have no conception of evolution. It can take hundreds of thousands of years for evolutionary final results to occur--evolution is a very slow process. There is no way that one person in one generation who uses pain medication to relieve the symptoms of migraine headaches is going to pass down genetically to the next generation the same need for a drug. Look at Mendelian genetics.

This isn't to say that the overuse of drugs can't be hazardous to one's health or that eating properly and getting the correct amount of exercise won't improve overall health. I'm simply saying that you're approaching what you're trying to say from an incorrect angle.

I'm going to have to point out that evolution never has "final results" and it only takes a single generation for a mutation to develop and be based on to the offspring. While the mutation suddenly appear in the entire species? Of course not. But the offspring with the mutation will be different; not drastically but still have different traits. If you do it right, you can evolve an entirely new species of fruit flies in less than a single year. And if due to their biological composition/chemical imbalances the parent needs medication to fight headaches, there is a chance the offspring will need it as well.
Evolution is far faster than most people think.

[Abstract]

The problem as I see it with your idea--and I've said this before--is that you have no conception of evolution. It can take hundreds of thousands of years for evolutionary final results to occur

never said it wouldn't I have been waiting for people to point that out. I would say though that such varies, some things can be introduced into genetics faster then others can it not? Surely there is not a constant rate of evolutionary change by introduction to a particular aspect of environment. And the question is how long might we be doing a particular thing if it becomes habit? All in all I don't know. We don't know...But change to some degree occurs immediately...just not to a degree that is evident until after 100,00 years or more...or less... and depending on the thing perhaps...

--evolution is a very slow process. There is no way that one person in one generation who uses pain medication to relieve the symptoms of migraine headaches is going to pass down genetically to the next generation the same need for a drug. Look at Mendelian genetics.

This isn't to say that the overuse of drugs can't be hazardous to one's health or that eating properly and getting the correct amount of exercise won't improve overall health. I'm simply saying that you're approaching what you're trying to say from an incorrect angle.

There is no way one person in one generation can do such... but give it most of the population doing it for 500 years, and there is going to be a reduction. Things don't just...POP shit has suddenly change after 100,000 years... things slowly change over a long period of time, and become noticeable after 100,000 years. There will be a reduction the question is to what degree and will we ever stop doing it before it leads to a problem 100,000 years from now, or less depending on the particular capacity for the thing to effect us.

[lizbethrose]

The problem as I see it with your idea--and I've said this before--is that you have no conception of evolution. It can take hundreds of thousands of years for evolutionary final results to occur--evolution is a very slow process. There is no way that one person in one generation who uses pain medication to relieve the symptoms of migraine headaches is going to pass down genetically to the next generation the same need for a drug. Look at Mendelian genetics.

This isn't to say that the overuse of drugs can't be hazardous to one's health or that eating properly and getting the correct amount of exercise won't improve overall health. I'm simply saying that you're approaching what you're trying to say from an incorrect angle.

I'm going to have to point out that evolution never has "final results" and it only takes a single generation for a mutation to develop and be based on to the offspring. While the mutation suddenly appear in the entire species? Of course not. But the offspring with the mutation will be different; not drastically but still have different traits. If you do it right, you can evolve an entirely new species of fruit flies in less than a single year. And if due to their biological composition/chemical imbalances the parent needs medication to fight headaches, there is a chance the offspring will need it as well.
Evolution is far faster than most people think.

Evolution has final results with extinction--but I'll come back to that.

A fruit fly is a simple organism that Mendel used because it is a simple organism--It has a very short life span and must pass on it's DNA in order to survive as a family; therefore, any modifications to its DNA structure--without mutation--have to be accomplished almost immediately.

But I was really thinking about the development of animals that took place in the upper plateaus of Tibet--the wooly rhinoceros, for example, which developed its thick fur and was, therefore, able to withstand the rigors of the second Ice age. Animal development took place all over, of course--my example is just one of many that kept the rhinoceros, as a genera, from becoming extinct. The wooly mammoth is another developed in, I think, Siberia--its development kept elephants from becoming extinct. There are too many examples to mention, really. My point is that each layer of evolution contributes to the next. The first layer, or second, or third and so on may all die out, but they each contribute to the DNA of the following generations. If the following generations find what's been given to them useful, it will continue. If it isn't useful, it will gradually die out.

So we now have rhinos and elephants without hair. Their specialized precursors have died out.

If a parent has the pre-disposition for migraine head-aches, the Mendelian model suggests that at least one out of four of the off-spring will also have a pre-disposition for migraines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen.

And in no way does it suggest, as Abstract so often says, that taking drugs to relieve migraines--or anything else, for that matter,--will result in off-spring equally reliant on drug therapy to the point where future generations will be totally drug-reliant. This simply isn't how evolution works.

[Abstract]

If a parent has the pre-disposition for migraine head-aches, the Mendelian model suggests that at least one out of four of the off-spring will also have a pre-disposition for migraines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen.

And in no way does it suggest, as Abstract so often says, that taking drugs to relieve migraines--or anything else, for that matter,--will result in off-spring equally reliant on drug therapy to the point where future generations will be totally drug-reliant. This simply isn't how evolution works.

Your write about the bug thing... but Mendels experiments show that if a wide population base continues a particular thing or in other words are introduced, or rather self introduced, to a particular environment (such as a pill) they will be more likely to produce offspring with given issues, mutations, or atrophies, as a result of the alterations caused by that environment.

So a single person in a single lifetime can become addicted to something, but humanity as a whole as a result of extended use of something over a longer period of time....cannot become addicted...and is thus addictionally immune?

[lizbethrose]

This has become a very tedious thread.

[Abstract]

This has become a very tedious thread.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic...I just literally don't see how it is possible that humans can individually become addicted to stuff but mankind as a whole could not.

[lizbethrose]

Because most on-the-market drugs aren't physically addictive and because reputable health care providers strictly monitor their usage?

Seriously, abstract, we're not all Rush Limbaughs or Michael Jacksons, with money enough to find new doctors to provide us with scrips needed to continue a physical addiction to addictive pain killers. Yes, there are certain predispositions for some dependencies on drugs that are genetic--principally alcohol dependence disorder. But that doesn't mean someone with a predisposition for that disorder will necessarily become an addictive alcoholic. Beyond that, it takes generations to even evolve a predisposition.

I called the thread 'tedious,' because you refuse to accept this, although there are other people here who've said what I've said. How do posts that do nothing but churn out the same words over and over again not become tedious?

[Abstract]

Because most on-the-market drugs aren't physically addictive and because reputable health care providers strictly monitor their usage?

Seriously, abstract, we're not all Rush Limbaughs or Michael Jacksons, with money enough to find new doctors to provide us with scrips needed to continue a physical addiction to addictive pain killers. Yes, there are certain predispositions for some dependencies on drugs that are genetic--principally alcohol dependence disorder. But that doesn't mean someone with a predisposition for that disorder will necessarily become an addictive alcoholic. Beyond that, it takes generations to even evolve a predisposition.

I called the thread 'tedious,' because you refuse to accept this, although there are other people here who've said what I've said. How do posts that do nothing but churn out the same words over and over again not become tedious?

I would not refuse to accept that some things would not effect us quickly enough. But things do effect us to a degree and that they will eventually is worth considering.

But then what i would point out is that while a drug is not directly addictive in a single human-life, as a ratio of span of life to extent for that of humanity as a whole such a drug can have a higher ratio and thus be considered more addictive on a generational basis...

And you seem to generalize that it takes so long for evolution to occur, but others have provided some evidence, and I think that I should ask for evidence from you that suggests the average rate of such evolution with respect to consumables, of high levels of effect?

[zara1988]

i think the best medicine is able to promote a person's body and recover by himself

[Abstract]

I agree

[PavlovianModel146]

You are, quite literally, a fascist reactionary of the worst sort. I mean that.

You are a reactionary Nazi of the worst sort.

Unless he has said that he is a Fascist Reactionary, that's an ad hom attack. As such, I must issue you a Board Warning. That is your first, so there will be no ban.

[Xunzian]

I don't actually think that classifies as an ad hom.

I'm not saying his argument is false because he is a fascist/Nazi. That is an ad hom attack/argument. I'm saying that the argument being presented initially leads one to conclude that he is a fascist and upon further analysis the reader is able to refine the position presented from abstract "fascism" to the more concrete ideology of Nazism.

Calling people on their ideology or rather trying to clarify the ideology they are presenting isn't ad hom. It can be insulting. It can be "fighting words". But it isn't "ad hom".

[PavlovianModel146]

1. Show courtesy and respect for all who post here.

2. No direct insults to any ILP members are allowed.

4. If you're going to insult anyone here indirectly, be good at it. Be clever, be subtle, be smart. Leave room for doubt in the mod's mind.

[PavlovianModel146]

*NOTE*

In the meantime, I noticed the, "M," was left out of, 'harmful,' in the Thread Title. It seemed harmless for me to correct it, so I did.