From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 12:01:45 MDT
One for all:
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 12:26 AM, matus wrote:
> I don't disagree with you what
> 'probably' means, this is an issue you and Robert Bradbury have in
> terminology, my issue was your suggestion that the large rise in cancer
> we are seeing is from pollution. Do you still hold that opinion?
I don't see how it's even controversial. We know that extended
exposure to carcinogens increases the risk of cancer. We know that
we're dumping carcinogens into the environment at an alarming rate. We
know that we're living longer.
The two combine to form the positive statement:
"If we want to live longer and not get cancer, we should reduce the
number of carcinogens in our environment."
I admit that there is the possibility of reshaping the human genome to
be less susceptible to cancer-causing agents, but doubt that that will
be accomplished in a way that's going to help ME and YOU and/or "most
people". Remember, "most people" can't afford health insurance.
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 09:41 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Are you then an absolutist or do you speak in terms of probabilities as
> measures of what Will happen?
>
> - samantha
As far as I know there simply is no fact of the matter as to "what will
happen next." To understand this consider the possibility that the
truth value of
"Robbie will have another child in a year" is neither T or F.
The epistemological problem of predicting the behavior of very
large-scale biological systems is notoriously difficult. Consider my
Grandmother who smoked for the middle 70 years of her now
84-and-kicking years. We may get better at it, but the point remains,
we simply don't know what's going to happen. The most probable
explanation for that fact is that there just is no matter of fact about
what is GOING to happen (at least that seems obvious to me, I know
there are alternative points of view).
JR Lucas has a great book on the modalities of future-tense statements
"The Future" it presumes to solve all of the determinist "word games"
with the simple observation that the past is fixed, the future merely
possible.
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 09:47 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> But it is a bit of a shortcut to simply
> say X causes cancer. No matter what we do we can never eliminate all
> mutagens. Thus if we want to guarantee freedom from cancer we need to
> go for
> the lowest level mechanisms that are in part kicked into action by
> mutagens.
> We need ways to boost the body's defensese and to dependably detect and
> eliminate malignant cells. I disagree that any of the above
> necessarily
> requires reworking the "political economy". It does require some new
> technology
Well, there are a few options: we could rework the political economy so
that we don't dump billions upon billions of gallons of carcinogens
into our environment every year OR we could rework the human genome so
that it's less susceptible to carcinogens.
You can take your pick about which is MORE LIKELY to reduce the cancer
rate. Personally, I think that while medical solutions may be
forthcoming, they certainly aren't HERE and that even when they are,
their likelihood of solving the problem GLOBALLY is pretty slim.
That's just an opinion based on the years and years of semi-successful
treatment of cancer. Obviously, from above, I just don't think there's
any fact of the matter. Instead, there is our own subjective
assessment of "What makes sense." If we wanted to be smart, we'd move
simultaneously down both tracks, right?
It "just makes sense" to me that we should stop dumping alarming
amounts of known toxins of all kinds into our food-chain and
environment generally. THAT will require a reworking of our political
economy. This has the benefit of being at least within our power.
This doesn't make sense to you? What are your proposing?
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 09:47 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> Is there something really THAT controversial about my claims here?
>>
>
> You have been rather combative and one-tracked.
Well, so far I've been called a lot of bad things, now we can add
"combative and one-tracked" to liberal, etc. How does your remark
answer the question at hand:
Should we or should we not stop dumping toxins and known carcinogens
into our environment? Wouldn't that go a long way toward reducing our
exposure to said carcinogens? Isn't that LIKELY to reduce our risk of
cancers?
As for me being one-tracked, this particular thread was the smallest,
tiniest, most insignificant point I made in a response to what I
thought was actually an interesting and important question.
If I wasn't so immune to social pressure, I'd think you guys were
picking on me because I'm not an MD. But even a non-MD knows that
reducing exposure to carcinogens is a good idea, but that it's only
"LIKELY" to prevent cancer.
On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> To some extent, yes, but as others have pointed out it's nearly
> impossible to remove all toxins AND I think Robert pointed out that a
> certain amount of toxic stress might actually be good for the body
> because it ramps up defense mechanisms.
Agreed. "Some amount of toxins" are a good idea. But then Robert also
seems to be claiming that eating a nice apple would probably do the
trick in that regard. I don't think he's suggesting that we should all
be ingesting large amounts of aluminum, cesium and asbestos. Are you?
My point is simply that to reduce the overall amount of carcinogens and
known toxins in our environment is a GOOD IDEA if we want to extend our
lives and our chances for survival. I still don't see why this is even
slightly controversial.
Best,
Robbie Lindauer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 12:12:35 MDT