Yes! A new crisis!

[solomon]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/906603.asp?0dm=C17NH

Perfect example of the government motto: Seek a crisis wherever it may be found. This is such a joke. The nation must now mobilize and present a united front against the dangers of accidents. That's right. Accidents. As if our own survival instincts aren't enough to keep us trying to stay free of injury. I can see it now. The National Department of Accident Prevention. With its own chair. Ad campaigns telling you to make sure you go down the steps extra carefully. Haha! What a joke.

"said a national strategy was required to make Americans less complacent about the risk of injury."

He's kidding, right?

Sol

[RichmondVA]

Leaving aside the whole debate as to the government's role (if any) in this situation, I think that's actually kind of cool. And it makes sense to me.

Apparently the same statistical models used to determine the origin and probably spread pattern for diseases also work when you apply them to violent crime (although maybe this is all hype, haven't read enough to be sure). Since both things kill people why not consider and study violent crimes as a particular form of disease? You could potentially target problem areas with greater certainty and less cost through a simple statistical model than a sociological study.

Whether or not the research is done by private industry looking for a buck or universities or the feds I just think it's an interesting example of out-of-the-box thinking.

[Duemellon]

I'm hoping they define which accidents theyr'e looking to reduce.

Mistakes, u'kno, done by children, the ignorant (in the beneign way), or incapable, should be addressed.

Accidents by the foolish, careless, and such, well...
Let them have Darwin awards.

Oh, and by "addressed" i mean, ... uh...
"This is your brain,..
"This is your brain standing on a ladder that is set too steep without a spotter"

okay, maybe that's silly. We'll have a campaign about hair driers advising people not to dry their hair while taking a shower.

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Apparently the same statistical models used to determine the origin and probably spread pattern for diseases also work when you apply them to violent crime

Cool, so Sly was right when, in COBRA, he said, "You're the disease and I'm the cure."

Man...they don't make movies like that anymore.

[Danosaur]

You're all nuts. We don't need a damn government sponsered accident watch dog. Our country is so damn hung up on safety. Look, we have had all the accident prevention we need. We are okay. Watch both ways before you cross the street and all that Jazz, and you will be fine. I can't believe anyone would suggest spending government money on this topic. It's not kinda cool, we are all becoming hypochondriacs.

[postfeminist]

Duemellon said : We'll have a campaign about hair driers advising people not to dry their hair while taking a shower.

You know, shit like this comes up because people are dumb enough to do it, and that's how we find out that it's an easy way to get injured.

Our voyeur culture loves seeing people get hurt (think America's Funniest Home Videos or think Jackass...it's all the same) and i think that our culture encourages us to get off on someone else's bad experiences (think Married By America, Joe Millionaire, Real World, etc...)... We have accidents because we talk on the phone, eat, play with the radio, discipline our kids all while driving. We drive drunk, on drugs, on shitty roads.

It's all about darwinism! Survival of the fittest.. I'm not in the best physical shape of my life, but i know better than to play on the roof wrapped in Reynolds foil during a thunderstorm...

[Duemellon]

It's all about darwinism! Survival of the fittest.. yes and no. I just feel sorry for those children, the poor* ignorant people, and incapable.

I mean, it's one thing to say "anyone stupid enough to suffocate on plastic-wrap helped clear our gene-pool" until you find out your baby-sister died by it.

Or your mentally disabled uncle was that poor* uneducated person who didn't know that electricity was something that jumped through water.

The Darwin Awards need to go to those people who are rudimentally educated and chose to do something stupid.

Those people unable to make that judgement, but decide they can fly b/c they're wearing a cape, or can't comprehend why lighting a match in a firework store is bad, need to be helped.

But i still think it's preposturous, overall, to devote an entire campaign to being the nation's mother.
[
poor: pitiful, not a reference to wealth

[Danosaur]

When you crawl into a two-ton press to un-lodge a piece of debris you're not a poor uneducated soul, you're a dumbass.

[Duemellon]

When you crawl into a two-ton press to un-lodge a piece of debris you're not a poor uneducated soul, you're a dumbass.u are correct.

When you take a 1' diameter steam pipe, attach a 2" spickett to the end, and think that's enough "depressurizing' u'r a dumbass.

Have you lost anyone to something stupid they did?

Was that person capable of understanding the situation and it's consequences they put themselves in at that time?

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Duemellon
yes and no. I just feel sorry for those children, the poor* ignorant people, and incapable.

I mean, it's one thing to say "anyone stupid enough to suffocate on plastic-wrap helped clear our gene-pool" until you find out your baby-sister died by it.

If your baby sister is 2, your parents are dumbasses. If your baby sister is 17, she's a dumbass.

slow-if-i-ever-have-a-kid-my-house-will-be-built-out-of-nerf-dog

[RichmondVA]

I'm gonna take the cold-hearted liberal approach on this one as well. Bottom line: I don't care whether you died stupidly or not.

You might be an idiot when it comes to plastic bags and hair dryers, but maybe you're really good at fixing cars or something else of value to society. Or maybe you are complete dolt but your kid is smart. Now your kid can't afford a good college. Or you end up jacking up my insurance rate with your hospital bills. All of these things cause inefficiency either to society, or what's worse ME :p.

I won't deny the a cancer patient is a more sympathetic than the various Darwin award winners. But to simply dismiss people as undeserving of help isn't smart. It's not about "deserve." It's about the cost stupidity presents a cost to society-- according the article, $260 billion a year.

There's an argument to be made that maybe the government shouldn't be involved in any health issues or disease control. That's fine. I'm just saying I wouldn't distinguish this from other government issues simply because of the dumbass factor. If the dumbass factor causes ineffeciency, then why not treat it as a serious issue and look at ways of fixing it?

If you don't believe in government, its still a smart approach to the problem for private companies to take. Because it looks like there could be a heap load of money to be made.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
You're all nuts. We don't need a damn government sponsered accident watch dog.

No we don't. We have a private watchdog group. It's called the Trial Lawyers of America.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Duemellon
yes and no. I just feel sorry for those children, the poor ignorant people, and incapable.
Okay, this is gonna sound really cold and uncaring, but it's not how I mean it...seriously. Those who are born with sub-par intelligence or a physical handicap (disability? I forget which one is PC) AREN'T the fittest. Period. By default, if you believe in Darwinism (and I mean with a fundamentalist's devotion), you have to believe that those people weren't meant to survive.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Okay, this is gonna sound really cold and uncaring, but it's not how I mean it...seriously. Those who are born with sub-par intelligence or a physical handicap (disability? I forget which one is PC) AREN'T the fittest. Period. By default, if you believe in Darwinism (and I mean with a fundamentalist's devotion), you have to believe that those people weren't meant to survive.

No I don't. I believe in evolutionanary theory but I also think evolution has nothing to do with morality or any other issue. It's merely a description of how species differentiate and survive. Physics tells us that things on humans cannot fly due to our weight and shape, but we have airplanes. Should we say that airplanes are bad because we are "meant" to stay on the ground?

Also, Darwin's theory is NOT about survival of the fittest individuals. It's about survival and differentiation of SPECIES. Sure, part of the process is weeding out weaker genes. But you want a strong gene pool AND a diverse gene pool. Because that supposedly "weak" gene might be actually turn out to be a strength when paired with others, or if conditions change. The sickle cell anemia gene is a good example.

Humans are social creatures. Our ability to cooperate keeps more people alive. Number of creatures of particular species alive is generally a GOOD thing in measuring species strength. Plus, humans have a unique trait in that we not only pass on genes to our young, but also information. So even if you are physically disabled, you can still help out the species by learning information and passing it on. Stephen Hawking, anyone?

If you want to take the hardcore approach that only the fittest, most capable of reproducing INDIVIDUALS should survive, let's get rid of all the doctors and kill off everyone over breeding age as well as 95% of the rest of the population.

[IPrayForSound]

I don't want to take a hardcore approach to anything.

[Duemellon]

if you believe in Darwinism (and I mean with a fundamentalist's devotion), you have to believe that those people weren't meant to survive.I thought long and hard about that, I beleive in evolution, and I was dispairing that having 6 fingers is "weird" and we cut the fingers off of those born with the extra digits. I find that shortsighted and it got me thinking about other facets of our interference in evolution:

skip to bottm for the conclusion, but if the conclusion seems odd, be sure to read the rest

(yes, this is going somewhere, but I've ALWAYS wanted to share this observation)

I was thinking:
Have we stimied our evolution? If evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, shouldn't the strong, healthy, and ingenious survive? Yet, we select mates based on looks, money, and desperation. We are hindering our own evolution because we are basing our selection on 9th century ideals (an exaggeration). If we didn't make it a point to mate because of "beauty" we'd probably be gangly, 6-digted, balding young, and huge-brain-panned. But we aren't, because no one would want that person (does Minute Bol get laid? oh, i guess i'm wrong).

Then, I thought further...
What if our test of survival changed from "gathering food" to "gathering power". After all, power allows us to dictate to others, control resources, and generally assure we have an easy life... but then I think about all the poor people who are reproducing with 7-9 kids while the richest get only 0-2. So, that didn't make sense.

So, once again, I considered a new direction...
I thought about how long it took for the first bird to fly. Some reptile had scales that happened to be useful for that, or some webbing that let it soar, so it was able to fly after falling from a tree. But that reptile wasn't saying "man, I really want to fly", it just happened to it. It's brothers and sisters didn't get the webbing, or didn't get the idea to "fly" so it was the lucky one.

We, on the other hand, decided to fly. We made a conscious decision to fly and sought means to do it. It took a relatively short time to devlop the abiilty to fly, once we became homo sapiens (obviously, it took us MUCH longer to fly than the birds in the whole evolutionary path of primates). So, now we're in a special category. We don't wait for nature's dice to come up snake-eyes and let us fly, we say "screw you nature! We'll fly tonight!" and do it.

I mean, it's concievable that at some point, some creatures may find a way to leave Earth's orbit, but we did that because we wanted to. So now, we didn't grow "wings" we grew an airplane.

So, back to the whole: The weak and stupid's fate in these matters is the manifestation of Darwinism. Well, that's not true. The fact that we can keep the weak & stupid ALIVE, even participating at levels equal with the capable, and some surpassing, proves we have evolved beyond nature's grasp. We dictate our own evolution now.

Think about people, famous and personally, that if we lived in a savage world without technology, would be dead: Christopher Reeves, Steve Hawkins, my mother, anyone who caught a pox, things like that. But they don't, and won't. But the fact that they reproduce, and quite possibly create deaf, blind, and/or incapacitated, offspring doesn't matter in our technology-driven evolution. They will live, and participate in our branch.

So, I'm still distraught that we will prevent ourselves from growing extra digits, wings, scales, color-changing abilities, whatever nature originally had in store for us. I'm still distraught that we base our selection of mates on beauty and romance. But, i see it doesn't matter in our long run.

Three thousand years from now, people will look basically like us. Any changes will be slight, maybe size, maybe stature, but they won't be little grey men (no one wants to wake up next to a little gray man). However, we will have reached heights those little gray men only reached AFTER they became the little gray men.

Okay, enough about my observation. I hope I didn't bore anyone.

you'll want to start reading again

The final reason why I said all this was:
Those born with detremental differences, or who miss the chance to learn, are no longer a negative contribution to our gene pool. We have found the ability to circumvent nature's evolution, and allow the dumb, feeble, and blind, to soar like butterflies, swim like fish, climb like goats, and sing like birds. Sure, we may have to give them a walker, jet plane, submarine, skylift, and piano, but... they're no longer a threat to our survival and do not need to be weeded out.

[solomon]

If evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, shouldn't the strong, healthy, and ingenious survive? Yet, we select mates based on looks, money, and desperation.

Right, but isn't it that money and looks are the signals of healthy/fit genes? I saw a show on discovery I think once about all the subtle cues you pick up about the fitness of a potential mate, especially in things like symmetry of face/body. The other thing was that the "golden ratio" (which is 1:1.6 right?) could be found all over the body, from the relation of size of the joints in the fingers, to the relation of size of the teeth to each other, which was also indicative of fitness. It was really neat.

We, on the other hand, decided to fly. We made a conscious decision to fly and sought means to do it.

Right. Actually, ray kurzweil, an inventor and writer who won the national medal of technology or whatever, believes that humans are at the same time the end of nature's evolution, and in a way a new beginning. He believes that the exponential growth of our technology is merely the next stage of evolution. That basically, that's why nature created us, in a way. (Check out www.kurzweilai.net, it's a great site with a very interesting forum.)

Right or wrong, it's an interesting way of looking at the situation I think.

Three thousand years from now, people will look basically like us. Any changes will be slight, maybe size, maybe stature, but they won't be little grey men

Actually I really think there is going to be a machine/human merger in the future. This doesn't mean they won't look like us, because they might choose to keep resembling humans, but most of the body and brain I believe will be nonbiological in 100-200 years.

Sol

[Duemellon]

Right. Actually, ray kurzweil, an inventor and writer who won the national medal of technology or whatever, that hack stole my idea!Right, but isn't it that money and looks are the signals of healthy/fit genes?Not sure of the analogy you're drawing here. Power/Influence is not a sign of healthy/fit genes. Maybe finding someone who started with nothing and BECAME powerful is a sign of "good genes" but someone born into power, well, that's just a sign of "good fortune".

As elaborate as my previous post was, the intent was to explain why I feel that the weak, disfigured, stupid, and devlopmentally limited people are no longer a threat to our gene pool. It is irresponsible to suggest they have no place in our evolutionary future.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I thought long and hard about that, I beleive in evolution, and I was dispairing <snip>

Have we stimied our evolution? If evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, shouldn't the strong, healthy, and ingenious survive? Yet, we select mates based on looks, money, and desperation. <snip>

Then, I thought further.... <snip>

So, once again, I considered a new direction... <snip>

I thought about how... <snip>

"screw you nature! We'll fly tonight!" and do it. ..<snip>

proves we have evolved beyond nature's grasp. <snip>


You cannot go against nature,
Because when you (Due)
Go against Nature
That's a part of nature, too.

[Duemellon]

To Dear RichV,

Bah.

Nature is the occassional beneficient genetic mutation. Technology is the intentional environmental and situational change to accomplish the same result through haphazard genetic luck.

So,

BAH