Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   For subby Adoption is the Option, what about you?   ( news.com.au) divider line
    More: Ironic, rare genetic mutation, Melissa, involved removing bones, best friend Diane, facial reconstruction surgery, Bone, Adolescence, lovely girl Jessica  
•       •       •

539 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 23 Mar 2018 at 12:42 AM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-03-22 09:44:57 PM  
I saw the URL and initially thought it was some disease that made you look like a Trill.

/sadly that is not the case.
 
2018-03-22 10:27:43 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Could have been worse.
Could have been Crouton syndrome.
 
2018-03-22 10:51:06 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


I know, not the same disease.
 
2018-03-23 12:48:47 AM  
whether adoption is the option depends on the angle of the dangle and the heat of the meat.
 
TWX
2018-03-23 01:12:38 AM  
I have javascript disabled admittedly, but a lot of those pictures had the wrong aspect ratio.
 
2018-03-23 01:26:45 AM  
Instead of adoption you now can have eggs extracted, fertilized and then tested for genetic abnormalities. It's expensive but so is adoption.
 
2018-03-23 02:00:54 AM  
I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.
 
2018-03-23 02:32:33 AM  
One time, a bully called me "Goggly Eyes" as I walked past him.

Should have shanked him.
 
2018-03-23 03:09:48 AM  
Martial arts.
Family fun center on suspension days.
Ice cream and pizza.
Vow of secrecy concerning reward.
Feigned lament and bewilderment for school staff.
Problem solved well enough.

/yeah yeah, violence not the answer to bullies, sure.
 
2018-03-23 04:36:37 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2018-03-23 05:52:17 AM  
Who would have guessed that a genetic mutation could be passed on? Somewhat selfish people.
 
2018-03-23 05:59:08 AM  

Nidiot: I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.


I'm with you kinda, but with genetic testing becoming more and more viable where do we draw the line? Pretty clear a deep level of disfigurement and inabilty to function without massive amounts of assistance would be wise to avoid, but what about less severe skeletal/mental deformities or Downs? Once we can do it do we start filtering for perfection only? Because it there is an argument to be made that doing otherwise would be cruel.

Then we get into the furball of why not better than perfect, and now we're in Kahn territory.
 
2018-03-23 07:45:34 AM  

Boudyro: Nidiot: I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.

I'm with you kinda, but with genetic testing becoming more and more viable where do we draw the line? Pretty clear a deep level of disfigurement and inabilty to function without massive amounts of assistance would be wise to avoid, but what about less severe skeletal/mental deformities or Downs? Once we can do it do we start filtering for perfection only? Because it there is an argument to be made that doing otherwise would be cruel.

Then we get into the furball of why not better than perfect, and now we're in Kahn territory.


I think we'd linger in Gattaca territory for a while.  Bigger question is are we still evolving?  Would genetic testing/no one opting for less than perfection stifle the species?
 
2018-03-23 08:09:37 AM  
Is it time to revisit eugenics? I'm just asking questions.
 
2018-03-23 08:39:53 AM  

Boudyro: Nidiot: I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.

I'm with you kinda, but with genetic testing becoming more and more viable where do we draw the line? Pretty clear a deep level of disfigurement and inabilty to function without massive amounts of assistance would be wise to avoid, but what about less severe skeletal/mental deformities or Downs? Once we can do it do we start filtering for perfection only? Because it there is an argument to be made that doing otherwise would be cruel.

Then we get into the furball of why not better than perfect, and now we're in Kahn territory.


There is no line, unless the government, medical establishment, or some other authority forcibly sterilises people with genetic conditions or terminates affected pregnancies against the will of the patients.

There will always be people who do what this family did, but that doesn't mean it was (or was not) the result of careful, considered, healthy decision-making. They knowingly embarked on multiple pregnancies that had or would likely have severe genetic conditions leading to serious, repeated operations and social exclusion. People who are making good decisions generally won't do that (though some may), but they have to be free to do it anyway.

That their children's lives may be of markedly reduced quality was their free choice. Providing them with genetic counseling, better testing, and more information only allows them to make a more informed choice, but does not remove that choice from them. The choice to reproduce is not always the right one (like every other choice out there, people can make the wrong one here too), but human resilience is incredible, the kids will be okay unless they're not, and someday they too will be faced with the same decision, which is why the condition continues to exist, I suppose.

We like to believe that parents are motivated by the desire to provide the best possible lives for their children, not by the desire to experience parenthood, but we are often wrong.
 
2018-03-23 08:45:07 AM  
Reading about the cruel treatment in the article makes me hate people more.
 
2018-03-23 08:45:10 AM  

Nidiot: I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.


I was assured that it would be a pleasure supporting others .
 
2018-03-23 01:19:01 PM  

Mr_Vimes: Who would have guessed that a genetic mutation could be passed on? Somewhat selfish people.


I know what you mean. When a person looks like this it is in the best interest of society that they not reproduce.

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-23 02:00:14 PM  
I wouldn't have been able to have kids if I went through that myself.  I would have had to adopt kids who already need homes.  The tormenting is something you can learn to live with, but I wouldn't want my kids to have multiple operations because of something I passed down to them.  Even more, I wouldn't want my kids to have to ponder passing it down to their own kids.
 
2018-03-23 07:03:30 PM  
If you adopt, make sure to get the WHOLE story of the kids up to that point. Trust your gut.
 
2018-03-23 07:10:10 PM  

RogueWallEnthusiast: I think we'd linger in Gattaca territory for a while.  Bigger question is are we still evolving?  Would genetic testing/no one opting for less than perfection stifle the species?


You need two things for evolution, one is genetic diversity. We have that in spades.

The other is some outside pressure that results in there being fewer successful reproductions occurring from a particular set of genes. We've pretty much eliminated that. We can now keep alive babies born with all sorts of genetic conditions that would normally result in their death. We also opt to provide many forms of support for people who would normally perish as a result of sub-optimal genetics.

So the answer is we still have the potential to evolve, however we are currently doing out best not to do so, because you cannot have evolution and keep as many people as possible alive and able to reproduce, at the same time.
 
2018-03-23 07:21:15 PM  

RogueWallEnthusiast: Boudyro: Nidiot: I'm really not in favour of bringing children into the world knowing they will be disadvantaged. Life is difficult as it is, making it even harder seems unnecessarily cruel.

It's also the ultimate act of selfishness if you do it because you want to 'experience having a baby'. No one else should have to suffer in order to provide you with an experience.

I'm with you kinda, but with genetic testing becoming more and more viable where do we draw the line? Pretty clear a deep level of disfigurement and inabilty to function without massive amounts of assistance would be wise to avoid, but what about less severe skeletal/mental deformities or Downs? Once we can do it do we start filtering for perfection only? Because it there is an argument to be made that doing otherwise would be cruel.

Then we get into the furball of why not better than perfect, and now we're in Kahn territory.

I think we'd linger in Gattaca territory for a while.  Bigger question is are we still evolving?  Would genetic testing/no one opting for less than perfection stifle the species?


Sure, we're still evolving; civilization might buffer us a bit, but natural/sexual selection is always in play. As for artificial selection through these new technologies, I don't see that stifling anything. We're never going to agree on some universal, unchanging standard of perfection -- cultural values also inevitably vary and evolve. Sure, we'll generally weed out the life-shortening and physical-suffering disorders. But beyond that, I see us doing to people what we did to wolves: branching out into different breeds, which continue to diversify and mutate over time. Some bigger, some smaller; more and less muscular, more and less docile, more or less suited to one environmental/occupational niche vs. another. Just on a shorter timeline.

We might even get to the point where someone might select for something like Crouzon, if it could be modified/managed for lack of medical complications and better symmetry. What's considered defective now might be considered distinguished/cute/best-of-breed in the future. "Looking weird" is a concept that's bound for the dustbin once we start multiplying the norms against which perfection is judged, and novelty becomes a matter of taste and fashion.

/tl;dr -- human pugs coming soon
 
2018-03-23 07:30:41 PM  

Bumblefark: We're never going to agree on some universal, unchanging standard of perfection -- cultural values also inevitably vary and evolve. Sure, we'll generally weed out the life-shortening and physical-suffering disorders. But beyond that, I see us doing to people what we did to wolves: branching out into different breeds, which continue to diversify and mutate over time. Some bigger, some smaller; more and less muscular, more and less docile, more or less suited to one environmental/occupational niche vs. another. Just on a shorter timeline.

We might even get to the point where someone might select for something like Crouzon, if it could be modified/managed for lack of medical complications and better symmetry. What's considered defective now might be considered distinguished/cute/best-of-breed in the future. "Looking weird" is a concept that's bound for the dustbin once we start multiplying the norms against which perfection is judged, and novelty becomes a matter of taste and fashion.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have assumed the exact opposite. The way we've become so interconnected, in terms of ideas, cultures, and physical contact, we're getting more and more alike. Regional differences are becoming less pronounced, and reproduction between people from opposite ends of the world - which used to be nearly impossible - is commonplace now. Beauty ideals are becoming standardised and are reducing in number overall. I see us becoming more alike as we become more diverse, as if our diversity is a middle step on the way to some kind of general Earthling. Which is potentially a good thing in terms of selecting for healthier traits but also a bad thing in terms of biodiversity protecting the adaptability of the species.

/I really have no idea what I'm talking about
 
2018-03-23 09:54:38 PM  

Leandros A: Bumblefark: We're never going to agree on some universal, unchanging standard of perfection -- cultural values also inevitably vary and evolve. Sure, we'll generally weed out the life-shortening and physical-suffering disorders. But beyond that, I see us doing to people what we did to wolves: branching out into different breeds, which continue to diversify and mutate over time. Some bigger, some smaller; more and less muscular, more and less docile, more or less suited to one environmental/occupational niche vs. another. Just on a shorter timeline.

We might even get to the point where someone might select for something like Crouzon, if it could be modified/managed for lack of medical complications and better symmetry. What's considered defective now might be considered distinguished/cute/best-of-breed in the future. "Looking weird" is a concept that's bound for the dustbin once we start multiplying the norms against which perfection is judged, and novelty becomes a matter of taste and fashion.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have assumed the exact opposite. The way we've become so interconnected, in terms of ideas, cultures, and physical contact, we're getting more and more alike. Regional differences are becoming less pronounced, and reproduction between people from opposite ends of the world - which used to be nearly impossible - is commonplace now. Beauty ideals are becoming standardised and are reducing in number overall. I see us becoming more alike as we become more diverse, as if our diversity is a middle step on the way to some kind of general Earthling. Which is potentially a good thing in terms of selecting for healthier traits but also a bad thing in terms of biodiversity protecting the adaptability of the species.

/I really have no idea what I'm talking about


I get you, but I do think we have such a huge diversity currently that even if we all suddenly embarked on genetically testing our sperm/egg combo in a petri dish before we implanted it, and we all aimed for the same traits that we regard as desirable, there would still probably be sufficient variation to safeguard the species as whole.

Species that have a dangerously low level of genetic diversity generally ended up that way because at some point there was such a severe drop in population levels they were very nearly made extinct. We have ginormous population levels and the associated diversity.

Also, so many people can't even manage successfully having only planned children now, despite the many birth control options we have on offer, expecting that everyone in the future will only be born via the route of genetic screening seems a little optimistic.
 
2018-03-23 10:50:59 PM  

Nidiot: Also, so many people can't even manage successfully having only planned children now, despite the many birth control options we have on offer, expecting that everyone in the future will only be born via the route of genetic screening seems a little optimistic.


Egads. This is so true. It boggles the mind that half of births are unplanned.

I think our entire species has been gaslighting itself about reproduction forever. I don't know anything about zoology but I'd be surprised if there were any other species that has such a shiatty reproductive process as we do. Even just menstruation (which almost no other mammals do) is demanding. Human gestation is very demanding, and actually makes women sick (do other mammals get morning sickness? I don't think so). Childbirth "in nature" is often lethal which is madness (how are you supposed to raise your helpless baby if you're dead?). Lactation is demanding. Human babies are farking helpless compared to other mammal babies, for ages, and many women suffer depression and severe sleep deprivation. We have insane degrees of emotional bonding. We spend ages and ages raising them and basically sacrifice all our resources to do so. We usually only have one at a time. We maintain the parental-filial bond until we die. No other species does all this, but we have to, because when we have examples of children who are neglected -- even children who are given substantially more attention than other mammals, but less than human children need -- they have dreadful outcomes. Human parenting is costly enough that human intelligence should be sufficient to keep us from subjecting ourselves to it.

Then you can look at the socially determined costs of human reproduction. It is generally understood that the whole shiatty edifice of patriarchy is based on men harnessing women's reproductive labour. Something tells me that if human reproduction were as simple as, say, realising that you're pregnant when you suddenly have a litter of mice and then forgetting about it after a week, we wouldn't have structured our entire society around exploiting the reproductive capacity of women with all that entails.

That's why we have to have unplanned pregnancies. Humans act pretty reasonably at most times. Get them sexually aroused and they turn into complete farking idiots. If we actually looked at reproduction seriously instead of romanticising it, making taboos about it, sanctifying it with religion, legislating away abortion rights, and so on, a lot fewer people would be willing to do it, or do it multiple times. But if you consider all the costs of human reproduction, the fact that someone can legitimately pick up a condom, look at it, and put it back down again because nah, don't feel like it... even my dog isn't that stupid. So we have biology and society conspiring to trick us into reproducing, because brains like these wouldn't give it a second thought otherwise.

/my dog is actually very smart, for a dog.
//insomnia produces long posts
 
2018-03-23 11:09:45 PM  

Leandros A: The way we've become so interconnected, in terms of ideas, cultures, and physical contact, we're getting more and more alike. Regional differences are becoming less pronounced, and reproduction between people from opposite ends of the world - which used to be nearly impossible - is commonplace now.


Geography is certainly becoming less of a factor, but I don't think that means we're moving toward greater cultural homogeneity. It just means that variation isn't as physically restricted when people can move and communicate more freely, and when media has become more decentralized and specialized. We've gotten to where, if you can imagine it, there's probably a "community/lifestyle" for it -- and as those enclaves become more totalizing and immersive, the gaps between them will only get larger. Is there even such a thing as "mainstream culture" anymore?

Leandros A: Beauty ideals are becoming standardised and are reducing in number overall. I see us becoming more alike as we become more diverse, as if our diversity is a middle step on the way to some kind of general Earthling. Which is potentially a good thing in terms of selecting for healthier traits but also a bad thing in terms of biodiversity protecting the adaptability of the species.


I think there's some beauty norms that are biological: e.g., symmetry, golden-toned skin/hair, hourglass figures for women and taller statures for men. And I think Westernization over the last century has been successful in narrowing the range of idealized formulations of beauty within those basic parameters over the last century. But, the innate preferences are just as mutable as the rest of our biology (i.e., there's no reason those can't also evolve and diverge), and the decentralization of media undermines the conditions necessary for any particular set of cultural ideals to hold hegemony.

Point is, evolution in whatever form has a handy way of filling niches. I'm guessing there's lots of possible niches within the realm of possible human existence that we can't even conceive of yet, because natural/sexual selection is such a blunt and blind mechanism. But, going back to the example of wolves/dogs, I think we'll probably just start tinkering around the edges, and find that minor variations can be developed and refined off in different directions to create specialized forms for different purposes and tastes.

/but yeah, I don't really know either; I just figure people are experimental creatures by nature. Given the power to deliberately alter our form for aesthetic or practical purpose -- essentially, making an art of human biology -- I just can't see it *not* following the history of other arts, with diversification into greater and more varied genres/sub-genres/etc.
 
2018-03-23 11:49:21 PM  

Leandros A: Nidiot: Also, so many people can't even manage successfully having only planned children now, despite the many birth control options we have on offer, expecting that everyone in the future will only be born via the route of genetic screening seems a little optimistic.


Egads. This is so true. It boggles the mind that half of births are unplanned.

I think our entire species has been gaslighting itself about reproduction forever. I don't know anything about zoology but I'd be surprised if there were any other species that has such a shiatty reproductive process as we do. Even just menstruation (which almost no other mammals do) is demanding. Human gestation is very demanding, and actually makes women sick (do other mammals get morning sickness? I don't think so). Childbirth "in nature" is often lethal which is madness (how are you supposed to raise your helpless baby if you're dead?). Lactation is demanding. Human babies are farking helpless compared to other mammal babies, for ages, and many women suffer depression and severe sleep deprivation. We have insane degrees of emotional bonding. We spend ages and ages raising them and basically sacrifice all our resources to do so. We usually only have one at a time. We maintain the parental-filial bond until we die. No other species does all this, but we have to, because when we have examples of children who are neglected -- even children who are given substantially more attention than other mammals, but less than human children need -- they have dreadful outcomes. Human parenting is costly enough that human intelligence should be sufficient to keep us from subjecting ourselves to it.

Then you can look at the socially determined costs of human reproduction. It is generally understood that the whole shiatty edifice of patriarchy is based on men harnessing women's reproductive labour. Something tells me that if human reproduction were as simple as, say, realising that you're pregnant when you suddenly have a litter of mice and then forgetting about it after a week, we wouldn't have structured our entire society around exploiting the reproductive capacity of women with all that entails.

That's why we have to have unplanned pregnancies. Humans act pretty reasonably at most times. Get them sexually aroused and they turn into complete farking idiots. If we actually looked at reproduction seriously instead of romanticising it, making taboos about it, sanctifying it with religion, legislating away abortion rights, and so on, a lot fewer people would be willing to do it, or do it multiple times. But if you consider all the costs of human reproduction, the fact that someone can legitimately pick up a condom, look at it, and put it back down again because nah, don't feel like it... even my dog isn't that stupid. So we have biology and society conspiring to trick us into reproducing, because brains like these wouldn't give it a second thought otherwise.

/my dog is actually very smart, for a dog.
//insomnia produces long posts ...


Agreed no one with a functioning brain would take that on were it not for hormones. There's not a lot going for reproduction once you remove the chemical drivers and reward system. Lugging around an infant that is at best useless and no more than a consumer of limited resources for years on end wouldn't happen if it weren't for hormones. You'd just leave it on the nearest ice floe or out for the lions to get.

As for morning sickness, I gather it has something to do with not letting the mother ingest certain chemicals that are toxic to the fetus at that particular point in the gestation period. Humans being as omnivorous as they are possibly run a greater risk of that than your average carnivore or herbivore. However it has also been suggested that animals do develop an aversion to certain foods when they become pregnant.

Re death in childbirth. The problem is that the baby needs to be born with as big a head as possible. Hips are apparently limited in the amount of maximum width they can attain in a bipedal species. We've reached the limit on both. So some mothers died, so some babies died, but not enough numbers to impact the numbers of humans reproducing on the whole, and so no adjustment occurred. Individual deaths don't matter as long as there are enough who survive to keep the species going, the species will continue.

I love the idea of imagining our society if it were not based on men harnessing women for their reproductive capacity alone. It used to amuse me to think how much easier it would be if we laid an egg like a bird, and if we didn't want offspring, we could just elect to not incubate it. So easy.

Of course safe, reliable and easy to use birth control is such a recent invention. Many people are happy to choose to be child-free these days, but it wasn't even an option not so long ago. Used to be that even if you didn't want children they were pretty much the inevitable result of having sex. It's a marvellous thing that now we are actually free to not to procreate. But for some it would appear contraception is like casting pearls before swine.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report