Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz...
    #6507108 -

Modern medicine goes against the evolutionary balance of life and is detrimental to furthering of the human race. For example, Modern medicine’s philosophy aims to fight illnesses that are natural. Gene therapy, antibiotics, vaccinations and such bring harmony to families that would suffer without them. While beneficial in the beginning, these treatments are short-lived and have the repercussions of diseases like AIDS, SARS, and super bacterium like Staph. Modern medicine attempts to promote better health by eliminating these evolutionary stepping-stones for humans and creating new stepping stones for bacteria and viruses. The band Devo comes to mind when thinking about this predicament humanity pushes itself deeper into where de-evolution is the theme.

In medieval times, the balance of humanity was well kept. When overpopulation occurred, events such as plague or famine would wipe out a majority of the population. Survivors of these epidemics could be said to be products of natural selection. The same concept applies to the realm of insects. In areas where ant populations are growing out of control there may spawn a fungus called Cordycep. Certain species of fungi infect insects and are known to wipe out entire colonies. The cordycep epidemic would soon cease after the ants or whatever insect population quieted down. This is very similar to how medieval humans lived and this aspect, despite its terrible outcome is essential to the balance of life.

Gene therapy, defined by dictionary.com, is the application of genetic engineering to the transplantation of genes into human cells in order to cure a disease caused by a genetic defect, as a missing enzyme. What would be normal and who would decide this? Are these disabilities diseases? Sickle-Cell disease is when an amino acid mutation occurs, in which the blood takes on an unusual conformation that does not allow hemoglobin, where oxygen is carried in a red blood cell. Sickle cell was a major problem but now with a good diet, people are able to live with this trait. One would think sickle cell patients would be great candidates for gene therapy, but altering this trait would go against natural selection and life’s natural cycle. The sickle cell gene is fatal if people have been encoded with both sickle cell hemoglobin genes, whereas in contrast, those with normal hemoglobin genes are subject to malarial infections. Children with both the normal and sickle-cell hemoglobin are resistant to malaria and will be able to reproduce to pass on the gene. Modern or Western medicine wants to cure all diseases, but in this case, sickle cell can be a malignant disease but with malaria it is essential for survival. Without this genetic variation being recycled, we take away the randomness or variation of life.

Antibiotics and vaccines have been so good to humans, so why stop when they instill a balance of the emotions and biology of families and friends? This poses a major problem as a vast majority of society subjects contributes to building stronger immune systems. Penicillin, which proved to be the age-all-cure in the past, is now expired as bacteria have evolved and adapted to it. Next, we have ampicillin, amoxicillin, and so on. Can we blame the bacteria for surviving? For as simple an organism as a bacterium, modern medicine can not pin it down. The super bacterium, Staphylococcus, exemplifies a bacterium resilient to most medicine. While we cheat ourselves the opportunity to develop immunity to Staph naturally, the bacterium moves to its next phase in evolution and we stand still.
As mentioned before, epidemics like plagues and famine would remain locally isolated if we regressed to the natural way of life. With the globalization of basically everything on Earth, we have pandemics of diseases like SARS and AIDS. While modern medicine researches a cure, its product seems to be therapies. We have hit a wall that we can not quite drill all the way through. The genome seems to be the answer, but if modern medicine gets a grasp on the genome, and figures a way to alter it, then who knows what mutations may be spawned from our own doing?

Edited by Cracka_X (01/29/07 03:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #6507185 -

I am currently taking a Philosophy of Science and Nature class and we are reading Darwin's Origin of the Species. I think it is probably one of the most interesting and engaging classes I have yet to take. We just had a big discussion about these topics this past friday with another to come this upcoming friday. I am pretty excited.

I think the human consciousness is still on a rise, but out physical selves are definitely not what they should be. Natural selection in the human race is almost non-existant as we have created a new game. We are going to speak about this topic in class this week. I will get back to the thread when I learn something new.

I think we will get to a point where we do not need our bodies. We will also start mixing technology into living systems somehow in the not too distant future. It has already started. It is similar to what people explain they see on DMT trips. It sounds all too realistic and imaginable to me.


--------------------
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - The trip of a Life Time.

Indra's Net - There is an endless net of threads throughout the universe. The horizontal threads are in space. The vertical threads in time. At every crossing of threads there is an individual. And every individual is a crystal bead. The great light of absolute being illuminates and penetrates every crystal being, And every crystal being reflects not only the light from every other crystal in the net, But also every reflection of every reflection throughout the universe.

-cK

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz... [Re: Cracka_X]
    #6507264 -

> While beneficial in the beginning, these treatments are short-lived and have the repercussions of diseases like AIDS, SARS, and super bacterium like Staph.

Good argument for super bacterium like Staph (MRSA). Not so good of an argument for AIDS, SARS, or any viral based pathogen. One could use viral treatments, such as the antiviral cocktails for HIV infection, to help out the viral side of your position.

> The band Devo comes to mind when thinking about this predicament humanity pushes itself deeper into where de-evolution is the theme.

This is pointless for those that have never heard of Devo. You need a good transition instead.

> The same concept applies to the realm of insects.

By starting out discussing man, then going to insects, you are silently implying that the effect does not apply to the animal kingdom. I would probably use the word "nature" rather than "insects". With this change, you are silently implying that the effect applies to everything in nature, from humans to insects.

> Gene therapy, defined by dictionary.com, is the

Bleh... get rid of this and footnote the source.

I mostly skipped the sickle cell paragraph...

> Antibiotics and vaccines have been so good to humans, so why stop when they instill a balance of the emotions and biology of families and friends?

So, like, wow, what are you trying to say. This is too important to your premis to leave it sloppy. Rather than state that they have been "so good to humans", state that they have been good to humans. Period. New sentence. Now tell us why they have been good to humans. I donno about this emotions and biology fluff. Instead, tell us how they improve peoples lives...

> is now expired as bacteria have evolved and adapted to it.

I wouldn't say it is "expired" as it is still used for many infections.

> The super bacterium, Staphylococcus

There is a strain of Staph that is a super bug, but not all strains of Staph are resistent to antibiotics. Do a search on MRSA (pronounced mersa in the medical field).

> Can we blame the bacteria for surviving?

Eh? Bacteria don't have motives. This is like blaming dirt for making us dirty. Make a statement out of this rather than a qusetion. Something like: "Bacteria, like all life, do their best to survive."

> As mentioned before, epidemics like plagues and famine would remain locally isolated if we regressed to the natural way of life.

Where was this mentioned before? Unless it was in the sickle cell paragraph that I skipped, then this is a new premis, not one that was mentioned before. We somehow went from a modern medicine thesis to a globalization thesis.

> With the globalization of basically everything on Earth

Passive. You don't need the word "basically" or "Earth" or any of the fillers. This should be simply:

"With globalization ... "

> We have hit a wall that we can not quite drill all the way through.

I must have missed something. What wall did we hit? We were just talking about the earth... are will drilling through the earth? This line is pointless as it stands. In general, your conclusion needs a lot of work...


A few overall points:

1) General form.

a) Intro paragraph that includes an attention grabber (perhaps a lyric from Devo) that illustrates the points you are about to make. A thesis that tells us what you are going to talk about. A quick description of each of your main points. A transition into your first point

b) A few paragraphs that talk about your first point. Perhaps the use of antibiotics in medicine.

c) A few paragraphs that talk about your next point. Perhaps the use of genetics in medicine.

d) A few paragraphs that talks about your next point. Perhaps the use of globalization to spread disease.

e) A conclusion that restates (in new words) your thesis followed by a quick recap of each point you made. Finally, give a question or make a statement that leaves people thinking about the impact of what you have written. An "if we don't change our ways..." type of statement that shows the impact of your thesis.

I didn't really check much of the grammar, spelling, etc.

Another idea that you could add in is "time" as that is the real issue. Can science and medicine cure diseases faster than diseases can evolve?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz... [Re: Seuss]
    #6507398 -

most people are poor at understanding the repercussions of antibiotics, and the overruse has bitten us in our ass; and many scientists are poor at considering the genetic impact of tampering with that matrix; but modern medicine is more blessing than horror:
in 1964 i had my appendix removed
i would have died
how many diseases have I survived that I would not have.
but most of all
I would have missed psychedelic, and that would not have been good!


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz... [Re: redgreenvines]
    #6507762 -

> how many diseases have I survived that I would not have.

The general argument is that by surviving these various diseases using medicine, we are avoiding the process of natural selection, thus weakening our long term ability to survive as a species. Correct or not, I don't know. I can debate both sides fairly well.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Nature v. Nurture Frog 1,145 16 09/11/04 10:34 AM
by Frog
* My thoughts on new age medicine. Droz 947 15 03/26/04 03:26 AM
by fresh313
* Invented by mother nature, refined by society Ulysees 698 4 06/04/02 05:12 AM
by Ulysees
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )		 DividedQuantumM 3,052 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* The Value of Nature
( 1 2 all )		 jono 2,564 21 06/05/02 01:15 AM
by deepr
* Drug Use in Modern Society
( 1 2 all )		 DigitalDuality 5,382 30 05/25/04 08:28 PM
by Redo
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )		 Dogomush 4,147 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Lynn V. Andrews (female Castaneda)
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,964 31 07/13/04 07:46 PM
by Huehuecoyotl

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,234 topic views. 1 members, 436 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.