Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[TropicalGuy]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I had a similar experience with prednisolone, short term memory loss and confusion.

My theory is doctors in Thailand are paid on the basis of how many drugs they can dispense, by the pharmaceutical industry.

I've noticed Thai doctors are uncomfortable with being questioned if they are male, except if they have had their medical training outside Thailand. Female doctors don't seem to mind.

When I get issued with a raft of medications here, I check on the internet for side effects, and also what each medication is supposed to achieve. I sometimes find one or two medications are completely unnecessary.

There is also the question of appropriate dosage. While I was in COVID quarantine, one of the medications was 1 mg of Valium, presumably to keep me placid. Which was probably a sub-clinical dose, as with a body mass of 90 kg about 5 mg would have been a minimum.

Science is mostly beneficial, but misapplied science can be lethal.

As someone who is determinedly healthy and fit, has never been an in - patient or taken ANY drugs I would implore habitual drug takers to allow the body and mind to  balance & heal itself naturally through diet exercise sleep water no toxic intakes. Unless in Pain or requiring Surgery.

[TropicalGuy]

On 12/30/2021 at 7:42 PM, Lacessit said:

My blood pressure is inherited. I daresay I am in the top 10% level of fitness for my age cohort. 20 minutes of stretching, 25 pushups, plus 10 minutes of cardio in the morning, 15 minutes cardio in the afternoon. Golf and swimming are extras.

I'll admit to enjoying food. Having said that, my BMI is below 30, and I can't see a diet of carrot juice and celery being an enjoyable lifestyle.

If a pill produced by science helps me to greater enjoyment of life, I'll take it, as long as it is legal. No doubt there are millions of Viagra and Cialis users who say the same.

Good. Right Track. Make that routine HIIT to improve. Elevates Heart Rate over 120. Add Fin Swims !

[Lacessit]

19 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Good. Right Track. Make that routine HIIT to improve. Elevates Heart Rate over 120. Add Fin Swims !

Sorry, what is HIIT?

The routine I described is daily, there are no holidays.

[TropicalGuy]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Sorry, what is HIIT?

The routine I described is daily, there are no holidays.

High Intensity Interval Training

[seedy]

4 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

As someone who is determinedly healthy and fit, has never been an in - patient or taken ANY drugs I would implore habitual drug takers to allow the body and mind to  balance & heal itself naturally through diet exercise sleep water no toxic intakes. Unless in Pain or requiring Surgery.

Does not work with all diseases.

 

[JensenZ]

What people don't know, they don't miss. If people had never experienced the Internet, TV, cell phones, refrigerators, electricity. modern medicine etc, would their lives have been any better or worse? If people expect to die, for example, between the ages of 40 and 50 (on average), they won't expect to retire and live in nursing homes into their 80's and 90's.

 

One thing is certain. modern medicine has weakened the gene pool of humanity. There's no more "only the strongest survive", but now everyone (can) survive... and thus spreading inferior genes that would never have survived centuries ago. Of course this only applies to people living in developed nations. The poor in undeveloped nations are still dying young.

[seedy]

3 hours ago, JensenZ said:

 and thus spreading inferior genes that would never have survived centuries ago.

WOW !

Like the 'Master Race' is resurrected ???

Do you realize how that sounds ? Or maybe you know very well.

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, seedy said:

WOW !

Like the 'Master Race' is resurrected ???

Do you realize how that sounds ? Or maybe you know very well.

Even it sounds strange, it is true or not? 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

Even it sounds strange, it is true or not? 

No, that's not how genetics works.

[seedy]

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

Even it sounds strange, it is true or not? 

The Age Old Question - who decides what is 'Inferior' - ?

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, seedy said:

The Age Old Question - who decides what is 'Inferior' - ?

That's an easy answer.  The individual.  As it should be.  Never a problem until one individual decides his definition should be everyone's definition.

[Tippaporn]

21 hours ago, JensenZ said:

What people don't know, they don't miss. If people had never experienced the Internet, TV, cell phones, refrigerators, electricity. modern medicine etc, would their lives have been any better or worse? If people expect to die, for example, between the ages of 40 and 50 (on average), they won't expect to retire and live in nursing homes into their 80's and 90's.

 

One thing is certain. modern medicine has weakened the gene pool of humanity. There's no more "only the strongest survive", but now everyone (can) survive... and thus spreading inferior genes that would never have survived centuries ago. Of course this only applies to people living in developed nations. The poor in undeveloped nations are still dying young.

Agree and disagree.  Where Darwin gets on board is where I get off.

[JensenZ]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Agree and disagree.  Where Darwin gets on board is where I get off.

I did say more than one thing, so you could be more specific...

 

One of my comments has little to do with Darwin. If he was never born, it would still be obvious that modern science keeps a lot of people alive, with genetic defects, who would have perished long before reaching reproductive maturity. 

 

I know one couple who had a problem child, who decided to have another one, and the second one is worse than the first, both requiring special schooling. I suppose they decided to keep trying until they succeeded in having a normal child.

Edited January 2, 2022 by JensenZ

[JensenZ]

18 hours ago, seedy said:

WOW !

Like the 'Master Race' is resurrected ???

Do you realize how that sounds ? Or maybe you know very well.

Yes, I do, and I expected some woke individual would pick up the batton. I'm surprised it was only you.

 

I'm not talking about cleansing an already trarnished gene pool, but how things would have progressed in the absense of modern medicine and science in general, in the context of the question. Bear in mind this is the topic: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[transam]

Both sides of my family have had a problem with blindness, I would have been another one if it were not for medical science advancements....????

[JensenZ]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

Both sides of my family have had a problem with blindness, I would have been another one if it were not for medical science advancements....????

I'd venture to say a large number of us older folk would not be here if not for medical intervention. My motorcycle accident would have wiped me out in my early 20's and no one would have had to endure my posting on Thaivisa LOL... but then again, I would have not been riding a motorcycle in the first place, if not for science.

[TropicalGuy]

9 hours ago, seedy said:

The Age Old Question - who decides what is 'Inferior' - ?

well, Nature does…..without modern medicine override….that’s the point being made ….hence term Natural Selection.

[TropicalGuy]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

I did say more than one thing, so you could be more specific...

 

One of my comments has little to do with Darwin. If he was never born, it would still be obvious that modern science keeps a lot of people alive, with genetic defects, who would have perished long before reaching reproductive maturity. 

 

I know one couple who had a problem child, who decided to have another one, and the second one is worse than the first, both requiring special schooling. I suppose they decided to keep trying until they succeeded in having a normal child.

Recalls the vile breeding practices of first cousin marriages by UK Pakistanis. Their birth deformity rate is 10x native UK ….but they just keep carrying on breeding leaving the UK National Health Service to foot the bill keeping alive babies with throat holes.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

I did say more than one thing, so you could be more specific...

 

One of my comments has little to do with Darwin. If he was never born, it would still be obvious that modern science keeps a lot of people alive, with genetic defects, who would have perished long before reaching reproductive maturity. 

 

I know one couple who had a problem child, who decided to have another one, and the second one is worse than the first, both requiring special schooling. I suppose they decided to keep trying until they succeeded in having a normal child.

The entire first paragraph is good.

 

But . . . weakening the gene pool . . . only the strong survive . . . inferior genes . . . 

 

In my opinion, mankind has gone from religious quackery to scientific quackery without missing a quackery beat.  Not to say that there isn't much good in both.  There is.  Neither is perfect, though.  Just pointing out the imperfections where they exist.  The mere act of criticism though, even when healthy, is usually not tolerated.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

The entire first paragraph is good.

 

But . . . weakening the gene pool . . . only the strong survive . . . inferior genes . . . 

 

In my opinion, mankind has gone from religious quackery to scientific quackery without missing a quackery beat.  Not to say that there isn't much good in both.  There is.  Neither is perfect, though.  Just pointing out the imperfections where they exist.  The mere act of criticism though, even when healthy, is usually not tolerated.

I don't think either religious quackery or scientific quackery has advanced at the expense of the other, they go hand in hand. By religious quackery I mean pseudo-science of course.

 

I believe that criticism is both well tolerated and encouraged in society. I can find no evidence that it isn't. What isn't tolerated is the quackery. Dissent and critical thought require as much scientific and logical rigor as the hypothesis they oppose.

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't think either religious quackery or scientific quackery has advanced at the expense of the other, they go hand in hand. By religious quackery I mean pseudo-science of course.

 

I believe that criticism is both well tolerated and encouraged in society. I can find no evidence that it isn't. What isn't tolerated is the quackery. Dissent and critical thought require as much scientific and logical rigor as the hypothesis they oppose.

Don't bother replying to me, ozimoron.  You ask me for proof as to your false logic and when given you give me a confused look.  When asked to clarify you don't.  When asked to answer questions I ask you don't.  There's no point in discussing anything with you.

[JensenZ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The entire first paragraph is good.

 

But . . . weakening the gene pool . . . only the strong survive . . . inferior genes . . . 

 

In my opinion, mankind has gone from religious quackery to scientific quackery without missing a quackery beat.  Not to say that there isn't much good in both.  There is.  Neither is perfect, though.  Just pointing out the imperfections where they exist.  The mere act of criticism though, even when healthy, is usually not tolerated.

People are getting upset when I use the term "inferior genes". I"m not talking about intelligence genes, or beauty genes, but survival genes. In the absence of science nature takes care of it, as it does in all natural habitats that currently exist that aren't being destroyed by humans.  

 

There's no need for anyone to get worked up over this. I'm not suggesting gene cleansing. What did you actually disagree with and why did you invoke Darwin's name?

Edited January 2, 2022 by JensenZ

[JensenZ]

1 hour ago, TropicalGuy said:

Recalls the vile breeding practices of first cousin marriages by UK Pakistanis. Their birth deformity rate is 10x native UK ….but they just keep carrying on breeding leaving the UK National Health Service to foot the bill keeping alive babies with throat holes.

Coincidentally the couple I was referring to is now in the UK, utilizing your health services.

Edited January 2, 2022 by JensenZ

[JensenZ]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:25 PM, Skeptic7 said:

Completely agree. But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately. Had a poster on another thread direct this at me just last night...

Do you think anti-vaxers are conspiracy theorists? I don't want to vaccinated, but I still believe the earth is a globe and that man landed on the moon. It's a bit much putting them in the same basket. There's a whole range of beliefs on many subjects, but you call them nutters because you have different beliefs? That's nutty. Science has no definitive answers for many theories. Science can be used to mislead people too. They call it "blinded by science" and it's a real problem for people who believe everything that claims to be science. Like anything science needs to be fact checked, but who's going to fact check the fact checkers?

Edited January 2, 2022 by JensenZ

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

Do you think anti-vaxers are conspiracy theorists? I don't want to vaccinated, but I still believe the earth is a globe and that man landed on the moon. It's a bit much putting them in the same basket. There's a whole range of beliefs on many subjects, but you call them nutters because you have different beliefs? That's nutty. Science has no definitive answers for many theories. Science can be used to mislead people too. They call it "blinded by science" and it's a real problem for people who believe everything that claims to be science. Like anything science needs to be fact checked, but who's going to fact check the fact checkers?

One time Christianity and Islam was a minority to. Deleted nutters took over the world!

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

People are getting upset when I use the term "inferior genes". I"m not talking about intelligence genes, or beauty genes, but survival genes. In the absence of science nature takes care of it, as it does in all natural habitats that currently exist that aren't being destroyed by humans.  

 

There's no need for anyone to get worked up over this. I'm not suggesting gene cleansing. What did you actually disagree with and why did you invoke Darwin's name?

Well, you needn't add me to the "upset" column, LOL.  Not upset at all.  Nor do I take offense.  So what is it specifically which I disagree with?

 

I don't agree at all with your statement that it is "certain" that "modern medicine has weakened the gene pool of humanity."  It suggests that the creation and workings of physical organisms are an entirely separate affair from the consciousness which then occupies those physical organisms.  A human being emerging into the world with, say, a birth defect would be viewed as a "mistake" of nature.  No one seems to question what purpose is being served by such a defect.  Heck, there are some who are fully convinced that life has no purpose.  Science certainly professes such an inane idea.  LOL

 

I have stated often that, in my humble opinion, one of science's major failings is in it's complete disregard of any of life's other valid elements other than the purely objective.  It leads to viewing life as purely and mindlessly mechanistic, which it is not.  (One can imagine all sorts of nonsensical and troubling ideas sprouting from that viewpoint.)  Consciousness, which is what we are (anyone care to deny?) has diddly to do with the mechanics of life, in science's view.  Completely, totally, 100% backwards in my opinion.

 

The Darwin reference came in the form of "only the strongest survive."  Now granted that may not be an actual quote by Darwin, and even the well known phrase "survival of the fittest" may not be a phrase used by Darwin.  However, both statements would be widely accepted as terms related to Darwin's theory of evolution.  Just goes to show how myth can be more powerful than fact.

 

And since the term is widely recognised to refer to one of the tenets of evolution then neither do I believe in any notion that the prime driver of any living consciousness is survival.  That's not to say that survival isn't of importance.  But in the absence of quality of life survival is meaningless.  What would be the point of survival if life is merely one of suffering and agony?  If these were life's conditions then I believe Dr. Jack Kevorkian's phone would be ringing off it's hook.

 

I also don't agree with the labeling of any genes as inferior.  I don't believe that a gene could be substandard or otherwise be defective or even a mistake.  Doing so, in my humble opinion, would be due to a lack of understanding of their overall purpose within the whole (the whole including consciousness).  I don't believe that nature makes mistakes or puts out poor quality product.  I believe ideas such as this are a direct outgrowth of science's theory of the origin of life.  At that theory's base one can find the notion that life is absolutely meaningless.  To that I would reply with this quote:

"Men can become deranged if they believe life has no meaning. Religion has made gross errors. At least it held out an afterlife, a hope of salvation, and preserved — sometimes despite itself — the tradition of the heroic soul. Science, including psychology, by what it has said, and by what it has neglected to say, has come close to a declaration that life itself is meaningless. This is a direct contradiction of deep biological knowledge, to say nothing of spiritual truth. It denies the meaning of biological integrity. It denies man the practical use of those very elements that he needs as a biological creature: the feeling that he is at life’s center, that he can act safely in his environment, that he can trust himself, and that his being and his actions have meaning."
—NoME Chapter 9: Session 863, June 27, 1979

 

And lastly, I don't agree with the concept of "spreading inferior genes that would have never survived centuries ago."  That is, also in my humble opinion, pure intellectual speculative reasoning.  I'm not faulting you for trying to come up with reasoned and logical explanations.  Hell, we're all here trying to make sense of the world we find ourselves in.  But I disagree with the analysis.  I believe if more data were known then a much different picture of the actual mechanics of life would emerge.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, JensenZ said:

"blinded by science"

????????????

[JensenZ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, you needn't add me to the "upset" column, LOL.  Not upset at all.  Nor do I take offense.  So what is it specifically which I disagree with?

 

I don't agree at all with your statement that it is "certain" that "modern medicine has weakened the gene pool of humanity."  It suggests that the creation and workings of physical organisms are an entirely separate affair from the consciousness which then occupies those physical organisms.  A human being emerging into the world with, say, a birth defect would be viewed as a "mistake" of nature.  No one seems to question what purpose is being served by such a defect.  Heck, there are some who are fully convinced that life has no purpose.  Science certainly professes such an inane idea.  LOL

 

I have stated often that, in my humble opinion, one of science's major failings is in it's complete disregard of any of life's other valid elements other than the purely objective.  It leads to viewing life as purely and mindlessly mechanistic, which it is not.  (One can imagine all sorts of nonsensical and troubling ideas sprouting from that viewpoint.)  Consciousness, which is what we are (anyone care to deny?) has diddly to do with the mechanics of life, in science's view.  Completely, totally, 100% backwards in my opinion.

 

The Darwin reference came in the form of "only the strongest survive."  Now granted that may not be an actual quote by Darwin, and even the well known phrase "survival of the fittest" may not be a phrase used by Darwin.  However, both statements would be widely accepted as terms related to Darwin's theory of evolution.  Just goes to show how myth can be more powerful than fact.

 

And since the term is widely recognised to refer to one of the tenets of evolution then neither do I believe in any notion that the prime driver of any living consciousness is survival.  That's not to say that survival isn't of importance.  But in the absence of quality of life survival is meaningless.  What would be the point of survival if life is merely one of suffering and agony?  If these were life's conditions then I believe Dr. Jack Kevorkian's phone would be ringing off it's hook.

 

I also don't agree with the labeling of any genes as inferior.  I don't believe that a gene could be substandard or otherwise be defective or even a mistake.  Doing so, in my humble opinion, would be due to a lack of understanding of their overall purpose within the whole (the whole including consciousness).  I don't believe that nature makes mistakes or puts out poor quality product.  I believe ideas such as this are a direct outgrowth of science's theory of the origin of life.  At that theory's base one can find the notion that life is absolutely meaningless.  To that I would reply with this quote:

"Men can become deranged if they believe life has no meaning. Religion has made gross errors. At least it held out an afterlife, a hope of salvation, and preserved — sometimes despite itself — the tradition of the heroic soul. Science, including psychology, by what it has said, and by what it has neglected to say, has come close to a declaration that life itself is meaningless. This is a direct contradiction of deep biological knowledge, to say nothing of spiritual truth. It denies the meaning of biological integrity. It denies man the practical use of those very elements that he needs as a biological creature: the feeling that he is at life’s center, that he can act safely in his environment, that he can trust himself, and that his being and his actions have meaning."
—NoME Chapter 9: Session 863, June 27, 1979

 

And lastly, I don't agree with the concept of "spreading inferior genes that would have never survived centuries ago."  That is, also in my humble opinion, pure intellectual speculative reasoning.  I'm not faulting you for trying to come up with reasoned and logical explanations.  Hell, we're all here trying to make sense of the world we find ourselves in.  But I disagree with the analysis.  I believe if more data were known then a much different picture of the actual mechanics of life would emerge.

You've gone out of your way this time to explain your reasoning for disagreeing with me. Thank you for that. There's so much of what you've just offered that I disagree with, I'll just play it your way earlier and say I disagree (to most of it). To start debating religion and evolution here would be more time consuming than I have the energy for at the moment and also a bit off topic.

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, JensenZ said:

You've gone out of your way this time to explain your reasoning for disagreeing with me. Thank you for that. There's so much of what you've just offered that I disagree with, I'll just play it your way earlier and say I disagree (to most of it). To start debating religion and evolution here would be more time consuming than I have the energy for at the moment and also a bit off topic.

That's the problem with debating any subject matter on forums.  For one, it's too often considered off topic.  To stay strictly on topic more often than not means that if the crux of an issue lies elsewhere, even though it bears a true relationship to the original discussion, technically it could be considered off topic.  In which case one can never gets to the heart of a matter.  I will say that throughout this topic no such limits have thus far been placed, which I for one appreciate.

Another problem is that to do justice to any debate or discussion on any subject matter requires an investment in time and energy.  Few, in my opinion, are willing to expend either.  Many have expressed an outright abhorrence for long posts.  It's neigh on impossible, again in my humble opinion, to gain any comprehensive understanding with one liners or responses of even a paragraph or two or three.

 

There are volumes of thought behind and in support of the ideas I had offered in response to you.  I could never expect you or anyone else to agree or come to any true understanding from a few mere snippets of information, especially if such information is in direct opposition to one's beliefs or one's "facts."  The only people who would readily agree with what I wrote are those who are already steeped in the knowledge of what I speak.

Earlier in this thread we were discussing evolution.  I expressed my objections to Darwinian thought.  One poster offered a 2,453 page magazine article for me to read which purported to give an excellent and acceptable explanation of evolution from a single cell life form to the innumerable life forms in the world today.  As I disagreed with the article's explanation the poster asked why and also asked what then my personal view on the evolution was.  I responded that I would never accept an explanation for the so-called evolution of life over billions upon billions of years from a magazine article of 2,453 words.  Neither could I offer an alternate explanation using only a fraction of that word count.  Nor could I honestly expect anyone to understand or accept such an abbreviated explanation.

 

Again, all I can say is that there are reams of ideas, rationale, and sound logic behind the limited ideas I presented to you.  I hope that you could at least accept and appreciate that such bodies of knowledge do indeed exist, though you may be utterly unaware.

 

Cheers.  And happy hunting for the answers to life's questions.

 

Just one rule of thumb I would suggest that you may prudently want to apply to any of your searches.  No matter any present day consensus on any given explanation one offers to you, understanding full well that any consensus no matter how great can never equate to truth via consensus itself, make damn sure it holds water and does not have such massively wide gaps of information connecting it's ideas through which one can drive an entire universe.  Never be afraid to hold anyone's feet to the fire.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Tippaporn

[JensenZ]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's the problem with debating any subject matter on forums.  For one, it's too often considered off topic.  To stay strictly on topic more often than not means that if the crux of an issue lies elsewhere, even though it bears a true relationship to the original discussion, technically it could be considered off topic.  In which case one can never gets to the heart of a matter.  I will say that throughout this topic no such limits have thus far been placed, which I for one appreciate.

Another problem is that to do justice to any debate or discussion on any subject matter requires an investment in time and energy.  Few, in my opinion, are willing to expend either.  Many have expressed an outright abhorrence for long posts.  It's neigh on impossible, again in my humble opinion, to gain any comprehensive understanding with one liners or responses of even a paragraph or two or three.

 

There are volumes of thought behind and in support of the ideas I had offered in response to you.  I could never expect you or anyone else to agree or come to any true understanding from a few mere snippets of information, especially if such information is in direct opposition to one's beliefs or one's "facts."  The only people who would readily agree with what I wrote are those who are already steeped in the knowledge of what I speak.

Earlier in this thread we were discussing evolution.  I expressed my objections to Darwinian thought.  One poster offered a 2,453 page magazine article for me to read which purported to give an excellent and acceptable explanation of evolution from a single cell life form to the innumerable life forms in the world today.  As I disagreed with the article's explanation the poster asked why and also asked what then my personal view on the evolution was.  I responded that I would never accept an explanation for the so-called evolution of life over billions upon billions of years from a magazine article of 2,453 words.  Neither could I offer an alternate explanation using only a fraction of that word count.  Nor could I honestly expect anyone to understand or accept such an abbreviated explanation.

 

Again, all I can say is that there are reams of ideas, rationale, and sound logic behind the limited ideas I presented to you.  I hope that you could at least accept and appreciate that such bodies of knowledge do indeed exist, though you may be utterly unaware.

 

Cheers.  And happy hunting for the answers to life's questions.

 

Just one rule of thumb I would suggest that you may prudently want to apply to any of your searches.  No matter any present day consensus on any given explanation one offers to you, understanding full well that any consensus no matter how great can never equate to truth via consensus itself, make damn sure it holds water and does not have such massively wide gaps of information connecting it's ideas through which one can drive an entire universe.  Never be afraid to hold anyone's feet to the fire.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but once any discussion becomes a discussion about evolution and/or religion, it becomes one of the broadest topics in existence. I spent too many of my younger years debating these topics, and still read material on this topic from time to time. Coincidentally I just finished watching "The God debate: Hichens vs. D'Souza, and "Does God Exist? William Craig vs Christopher Hitchens" last week. I also disagree with the method of debating whereby a person, to support their position, links very long articles to back up their claims. Thank you for not doing that. 

 

The problem is, to address your post as it deserves to be addressed would be a lengthy process, as you introduced a lot of new material, and as you say, most people are into one liners and would not appreciate having to wade through it.

 

My suggestions that nature takes care of bad genes (mutations) naturally and that modern science and medicine has distored this natural process was not intended to be evidence or proof of evolution. I'm a creationist myself, but that doesn't prevent natural selection from occuring. Natural selection has been working hard since man was first created.