chemicals in the environment today that mimic various hormones which
At 07:48 AM 5/7/03 -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: then cause
imbalances in animals, or, for instance, aluminum suspected in alzhimers.
Al has been discredited, Alz is inherited, or inevitable if your hydraulics keep you ticking that long (a recent development).
It's more like the "publish or perish" syndrome. Some field of profs needs to create a new thing so they can keep getting funding for "research".
Yep.
Dumbing down of Americans has been going on for a long time. But I'm not sure that's real either. How long have the majority of people been
going past 8th grade education?
"Education" has been increasing, but industrial life means that people can be stupider, because they are more shielded. See J. Diamond, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html
We used to think DDT was great stuff.
It is. Malaria kills 3e6 a year. But that's not 3e6 industrials who die, and its industrials who make it. The cigars that indians smoked kept bugs away, and with an aboriginal life span the problems with smoking were insignificant compared to the dangers of bugs. What is adaptive depends on your environment. That probably applies to mental traits like ability to sit still, tolerate presence of others, concentrate on abstract lines of thought etc. 21st century schizoid man.
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:13:55AM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
chemicals in the environment today that mimic various hormones which
At 07:48 AM 5/7/03 -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: then cause
imbalances in animals, or, for instance, aluminum suspected in alzhimers.
Al has been discredited,
By some. It is, however, a poison, and one that migrates into any even slightly acidic food.
Alz is inherited, or inevitable if your hydraulics keep you ticking that long (a recent development).
Nonsense. There are far too many very old people with no evidence of alzhimers. They used to say the same thing about senility and dementia, until it was shown that the primary problems were diet and/or a lack of stimulation. And also a problem with -- can't recall the term, but it's a loss of stomach enzymes that absorb B12. (snip)
Dumbing down of Americans has been going on for a long time. But I'm not sure that's real either. How long have the majority of people been
going past 8th grade education?
"Education" has been increasing, but industrial life means that people can be stupider, because they are more shielded.
See J. Diamond, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html
Ah, yes, just think what the modern protective society is doing to the gene pool. Eyeglasses is just one example -- how many people today would starve quickly if thrown back into a hunting/gathering culture without their specs? Or just look at the difference in the last 100 years or so, where children who were "slow" were kept home on the farm, never married; whereas today they move out on their own, meet others like themselves, breed. And I'm not even talking about the welfare aspect, or the seriously retarded -- when I was a kid there were a lot of families with members who stayed home with the folks, or went to live with various relations, just a little too slow or too spooky. (snip) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 06:17 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ah, yes, just think what the modern protective society is doing to the gene pool. Eyeglasses is just one example -- how many people today would starve quickly if thrown back into a hunting/gathering culture without their specs?
Except there's no strong evidence that people without glasses saw better a thousand years ago. Maybe 10 thousand years ago. A lot of the "eagle eyes" were just people with naturally 20-20 vision. In most European and Asian societies going way, way back, most people didn't need good long and near vision past a certain age. They held things close, they squinted, and likely they did OK even in hunting parties where the animals were herded over cliffs or into box canyons. Eyeglasses have become common only in the past 100 years (and arguably in the past 60 years, about since the time visits to eye doctors became common). While there have been jokes about "four eyes" not breeding, because they can't get dates, neither this theory nor the converse appear to have any correlation with actual breeding patterns. Do more kids today need glasses than 100 years ago? Than 500 years ago? Than 5000 years ago? An interesting question, but claims that the past 60-100 years of eyeglass wearing have caused some major change in genetics seems to be a stretch.
Or just look at the difference in the last 100 years or so, where children who were "slow" were kept home on the farm, never married; whereas today they move out on their own, meet others like themselves, breed. And I'm not even talking about the welfare aspect, or the seriously retarded -- when I was a kid there were a lot of families with members who stayed home with the folks, or went to live with various relations, just a little too slow or too spooky.
I agree that things are very different now. I look at the economic side, mostly. Once the slow, or the drunkardly, or the inept, served on farms and estates and kept the horses, did gardening, and so on. Today, we pay them to sit at home and eat Doritos while watching Oprah. And yard workers are hard to find, and expensive. (I just got in from a muddy and dirty day spent moving dirt and sand, spent planting a Minneola Tangelo, and a couple of shrubs. Nearly five hours out digging, shoveling, mixing soil with amendments and manure, digging holes, planting, soaking the root balls, then cleaning up. Which is why I'm now posting, five hours after going out, exhausted, but happy to be back online. And I did much the same a few days ago, and a few days before that, and so on. Those who have been to my house know I have 1.5 acres on a hilltop, and it needs a lot of work to keep the weeds and chapparal from encroaching. My point? The cheap labor--the retards, the shiftless, the drunks--is now being paid out of my taxes (approaching 60% of what I earn) to collect AFDC, welfare, and the catch-all "disability." We need to abolish all of these payments and make the 'tards, the drunks, the unskilled all realize they either hoe the land for a relative pittance or they starve.) (I would hire some of the illegal alien Mexicans who hang out at our local K-Mart except some of them have reportedly tumbled to the fact that they can do a day's work and then threaten to report their illegal work (no SSNs, no Disability Insurance, blah blah) to the INS, who is more interested in catching a gringo hiring wetbacks than in deporting the wetbacks. Also, there are injury scams to collect payouts from gringo suckas.) --Tim May
Eyeglasses have become common only in the past 100 years (and arguably in the past 60 years, about since the time visits to eye doctors became common). While there have been jokes about "four eyes" not breeding, because they can't get dates, neither this theory nor the converse appear to have any correlation with actual breeding patterns. Do more kids today need glasses than 100 years ago? Than 500 years ago? Than 5000 years ago? An interesting question, but claims that the past 60-100 years of eyeglass wearing have caused some major change in genetics seems to be a stretch.
Another possibility is that a large population of those with corrected vision had their vision slowly degraded by the early applications of the correction. I have no experience with vision correction, but I know anecdotally that most people with corrected vision need their corrections strengthened throughout their lifetime. In reality, their sight problem may have stabilized (or even improved) very early on in the absence of treatment. Thus, our perception of what sight abilities the average person in the United States has might be artificially deflated by early and aggressive treatment. Imagine putting back braces on all children that exhibited minor scoliosis - and asking them to leave it there all their life. If this were common, we might be speaking about how back strength and lifting ability must not be what they used to be... ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 10:03 pm, John Kozubik wrote:
Another possibility is that a large population of those with corrected vision had their vision slowly degraded by the early applications of the correction. I have no experience with vision correction, but I know anecdotally that most people with corrected vision need their corrections strengthened throughout their lifetime. In reality, their sight problem may have stabilized (or even improved) very early on in the absence of treatment. Thus, our perception of what sight abilities the average person in the United States has might be artificially deflated by early and aggressive treatment.
Bzzzzzt. I just purchased new glasses recently with a weaker perscription. I was surprised, but my optometrist told me that this is common. -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
Another possibility is that a large population of those with corrected vision had their vision slowly degraded by the early applications of the correction. I have no experience with vision correction, but I know anecdotally that most people with corrected vision need their corrections strengthened throughout their lifetime. In reality, their sight problem may have stabilized (or even improved) very early on in the absence of treatment. Thus, our perception of what sight abilities the average person in the United States has might be artificially deflated by early and aggressive treatment.
Bzzzzzt. I just purchased new glasses recently with a weaker perscription. I was surprised, but my optometrist told me that this is common.
Well, just speculation on my part - I am no professional in this area. However, did he discuss _how_ common it is ? Just because it is common does not mean it is the norm. Further, if your recent vision improvements leave you now with a level of vision that still represents a retrograde motion (albeit smaller) since you first got corrected, it could still be consistent with my uninformed musing. ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 10:41 pm, John Kozubik wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
Bzzzzzt. I just purchased new glasses recently with a weaker perscription. I was surprised, but my optometrist told me that this is common.
Well, just speculation on my part - I am no professional in this area. However, did he discuss _how_ common it is ? Just because it is common does not mean it is the norm.
This is common in nearsighted persons. One tends to farsightedness in ones older age. For a nearsighted person, that equates to vision closer to nominal. It happened to my mother, and judging by the relative flatness of my prescription over the last 7 years (compared with the previous 30), it will happen to me.
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 08:03 PM, John Kozubik wrote:
Eyeglasses have become common only in the past 100 years (and arguably in the past 60 years, about since the time visits to eye doctors became common). While there have been jokes about "four eyes" not breeding, because they can't get dates, neither this theory nor the converse appear to have any correlation with actual breeding patterns. Do more kids today need glasses than 100 years ago? Than 500 years ago? Than 5000 years ago? An interesting question, but claims that the past 60-100 years of eyeglass wearing have caused some major change in genetics seems to be a stretch.
Another possibility is that a large population of those with corrected vision had their vision slowly degraded by the early applications of the correction. I have no experience with vision correction, but I know anecdotally that most people with corrected vision need their corrections strengthened throughout their lifetime. In reality, their sight problem may have stabilized (or even improved) very early on in the absence of treatment. Thus, our perception of what sight abilities the average person in the United States has might be artificially deflated by early and aggressive treatment.
And equally anecdotally, my prescription has changed very little since when I was 14, when I first got glasses. I am now 51 and I can easily wear my glasses from 20 years ago as a backup pair. (Somewhere I have my old John Lennon-style glasses from _32_ years ago, and they are close to my current prescription.) Wearing glasses has not worsened my vision, and I doubt strongly that _not_ wearing glasses would improve my vision...though it might make me squint and strain and pull my eyes the way the girls in high school used to do to see the blackboard. I don't see any evidence that wearing glasses weakens eyes...the issue of vision correction is primarily one of eyeball shape, not the muscles which can, through squinting and straining, improve vision. Most people become nearsighted if they are young and lose their 20-20 vision. Some become farsighted. I see no evidence that those who become nearsighted when they are young would keep their good vision if only they skipped getting glasses. (I did notice a very large fraction of the girls in my high school squinting and using their fingers to pull their eyes, this to avoid wearing glasses. Perhaps this is why so many of them did so poorly in class? The several girls who did well in our school all wore glasses. The cheerleaders didn't, except for one, but they all got pregnant shortly after graduation and worked for Piggly-Wiggly and various banks, as tellers.) If you have some real evidence that wearing glasses is the cause of poor vision, I'm all ears, so to speak. --Tim May "Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert A. Heinlein
If you have some real evidence that wearing glasses is the cause of poor vision, I'm all ears, so to speak.
I have none. I'm happy to say, however, that my anecdotal knowledge of this subject has just been greatly increased over the course of the last hour reading these posts. ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
On Wed, 07 May 2003, John Kozubik wrote:
Eyeglasses have become common only in the past 100 years (and arguably in the past 60 years, about since the time visits to eye doctors became common). While there have been jokes about "four eyes" not breeding,
Another possibility is that a large population of those with corrected vision had their vision slowly degraded by the early applications of the correction. I have no experience with vision correction, but I know anecdotally that most people with corrected vision need their corrections strengthened throughout their lifetime. In reality, their sight problem
I'm not sure that that's true. I'm certainly not a test case, and I won't hold up my circle of friends as one either. But, being someone who just turned 30 and finding that my prescription is drifting back in the general direction of "normal", I find that an odd assertion. I try to code for a living, when I'm not solving the getting-projects-to-code problem. That involves me staring at a terminal about 14 hours a day, on average. And my vision is getting better. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org First law of debate: Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
chemicals in the environment today that mimic various hormones which
At 07:48 AM 5/7/03 -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: then cause
imbalances in animals, or, for instance, aluminum suspected in alzhimers.
Missed attribution - I think Harmon wrote that and I quoted him.
Al has been discredited, Alz is inherited, or inevitable if your hydraulics keep you ticking that long (a recent development).
I think it's back to "we don't really know", but we may have a way to slow it down.
"Education" has been increasing, but industrial life means that people can be stupider, because they are more shielded.
See J. Diamond, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html
Thanks for that, interesting.
It is. Malaria kills 3e6 a year. But that's not 3e6 industrials who die, and its industrials who make it.
3e6 out of 6e9 is pretty small. What's the stats on HIV?
The cigars that indians smoked kept bugs away, and with an aboriginal life span the problems with smoking were insignificant compared to the dangers of bugs.
What is adaptive depends on your environment.
What is your environment creates adaptation.
That probably applies to mental traits like ability to sit still, tolerate presence of others, concentrate on abstract lines of thought etc. 21st century schizoid man.
Yeah, fire did a lot for primates! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
participants (8)
-
Harmon Seaver -
Jamie Lawrence -
John Kozubik -
Major Variola (ret) -
Mike Rosing -
Neil Johnson -
Roy M.Silvernail -
Tim May