?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2008-03-27 04:42
Subject: [personal] "Give me back my wig, honey; now let your head go bald"
Security: Public
Location:Omaha
Mood:grumpy
Music:hotel noises
Tags:personal, religion
Setting aside all issues of empiricism, intellectual credibility, Christianist lies and and sheer wall-eyed silliness, the ultimate reason I can't believe in Intelligent Design is the fact that if the human body had been intelligently designed, the designer was a moron. Exhibit A, the drainage of my sinuses.

Not to mention my knees, my lower back, my digestive system, the system of childbirth and half a hundred other idiotic design compromises.

Just sayin'
Post A Comment | 17 Comments | | Flag | Link






russ: zen
User: goulo
Date: 2008-03-27 12:06 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:zen
Ah, but it depends what the purpose of the design is! Perhaps the goal was to make you realize how fragile and transient our bodies are before we shuffle off this mortal coil!
Reply | Thread | Link



lt260: CYSJ
User: lt260
Date: 2008-03-27 12:08 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:CYSJ
Amen.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-03-27 12:23 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Don't worry Jay! Gay scientists have isolated the Christian gene - we'll all be saved from their wrath soon!
Reply | Thread | Link



Brian Dolton
User: tchernabyelo
Date: 2008-03-27 12:28 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You mean you aren't familiar with the theory of Not Very Inteliligent Design?
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ktempest
Date: 2008-03-27 13:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I must say, I am with you on the sinus thing. Being a nearly lifelong sufferer of sinus issues, I can only think that this aspect should have never made it out of the rough draft. Were they too busy making sure hair sprouted up in inconvenient places? Or deciding on the need for pimples? Sinuses and the stupidity of fell by the wayside.

and now I need to blow my damn nose.

eta: not with you on childbirth. that bit works fine. except when doctors get involved. IRONY.

Edited at 2008-03-27 01:07 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
User: ktempest
Date: 2008-03-27 16:44 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And people don't die in childbirth now? Sure they do. People don't have post-pregnancy issues in developed countries? sure they do. ah people who live in a world where the past is always worse than the present.

BUT, my point was more that the actual physical pregnancy and childbirth mechanism in the body works just fine. There is always a chance for something to go wrong, sure. but that chance is lessened when someone is in good physical condition to begin with. If you're unhealthy and pregnancy goes wrong, it's hardly the lack of modern doctors that's to blame. Many humans were very healthy even 10,000 years ago. how am I so sure of that? well, the species survived, didn't it? Healthy women who took care of themselves and were well cared for often had healthy babies and very few problems themselves. Now, whenever people start going on about dying in childbirth and such, they're generally thinking of "the past" in terms of the middle ages and forward in Europe, where good healthcare was mainly available to the rich. But that was not necessarily true through all time periods and all places. It's lack of knowledge, not developed world medicine, that causes most healthcare problems today.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
User: ktempest
Date: 2008-03-27 19:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Ha! I hardly called you a fantacist. I just find that most people who have absolutely no historical context, especially when it concerns what was "better" in the past, often bust out with silly statements such as the one you posted. I often expect that such things don't need explanation, but then I overestimate how much people understand about the past.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ulrika
User: akirlu
Date: 2008-03-27 20:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Not agreeing with your worldview doesn't make her statement silly. Granted that medical science hasn't been all linear improvement -- and yes, we can all cite stupidities of how medicine has, and does, handle pregnancy -- the portrait you're painting of modern medicine being more harmful to pregnant women than helpful is a lot worse than silly. It's dangerous.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ulrika
User: akirlu
Date: 2008-03-27 19:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And people don't die in childbirth now? Sure they do.

They do. But the *percentage* of maternal deaths in childbirths is way, way, way down from the medically unmediated average. When Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's mother was still single, she advocated celibacy for women as a necessary step to emancipation in part because of the childbed death rate. Jane Austen is thought not to have married in part because she was terrified of dying in childbirth. These were smart, observant women who paid attention to the circumstances of women of their time, and part of those circumstances was the expectation that many would die young from the complications of bearing children. Back then, everyone knew someone who had died in childbirth. Several someones. Now it is vanishingly rare to know someone who died from complications of labor. All thanks to modern medicine.

Species survival is not an argument that there aren't problems with childbirth. It's only an argument that there aren't *enough* problems with childbirth to cut into the replacement rate. If one woman bears three children before dying in childbirth, and her two sisters die giving birth to their first children, that's a better-than-replacement birthrate, with 100% death in childbirth. If one of the three women survives, it's still 66% death in childbirth. The species still survives, but the childbirth mortality rates are horrific.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ktempest
Date: 2008-03-27 20:11 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
But the *percentage* of maternal deaths in childbirths is way, way, way down from the medically unmediated average.

The problem with this is that you're talking about a specific average over a set amount of time in a limited area. I've done a bit of research (for a story) about medicine, health, and childbirth in different time periods. And that average is not the same every where for every time. It's definitely given me a broader view on how much modern, developed medicine helps and how much it's a bunch of money-grubbing assholes flaoling around in the dark.

Now i'm not the kind of person who shuns all modern medicine, cuz that would be crazy. however, it's clear that there is not a line going from "the past" to teh present that steadily goes up on the scale of "best" medical practices and health of a general population.

Considering some of the crap that goes on in hospitals, the way modern medicine treats pregnancy like a disease, and the horrors of unnecessary C-sections and childbirth rape (which, even if you don't agree that it's "rape", is certainly a problem), it's not a stretch for me to feel that many women are better off without certain modern medical practices. *shiver*

Back then, everyone knew someone who had died in childbirth. Several someones. Now it is vanishingly rare to know someone who died from complications of labor. All thanks to modern medicine.

I don't think it's *all* down to modern medicine, but more down to better health in general in our population. Some of that is due to medicine (thanks vaccines!) but some of it is due to better access to clean water, houses that have heat, food that is healthy, etc. And many of those things were available in past times and cultures (even before Jane Austen!).

The species still survives, but the childbirth mortality rates are horrific.

Okay then. What are the mortality rates for both infants and mothers across the times and regions for which we have some data available? There's information on this going back before dynastic Egypt, and for almost every populated region on Earth. Don't just talk to me about Europe from the middle ages forward, let's get some data in here from, say, China, Northern and Southern Africa, Mesopotamia... if one is diligent enough in their research, you can find info on this going back several thousand years. Bring it in, let's examine it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ulrika
User: akirlu
Date: 2008-03-27 20:27 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I don't think it's *all* down to modern medicine, but more down to better health in general in our population.

Really? Okay. Well, the major causes of maternal death from childbirth are: bacterial infection, toxemia, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, sepsis, and amniotic fluid embolism. Which of these do you see as addressable by "better health"? Note also that better health in general is due in large part to improved early childhood and maternal nutrition, especially the availability of high quality protein. But that good maternal nutrition also leads to increasingly large birth weight, which in turn increases the risks associated with an unmediated vaginal birth. Which would not be a factor in *reduced* maternal mortality.

What are the mortality rates for both infants and mothers across the times and regions for which we have some data available? There's information on this going back before dynastic Egypt.

You're the one claiming that somehow the data from Europe don't count. You're the one claiming to have done research. By all means, show us your data.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ulrika
User: akirlu
Date: 2008-03-27 19:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Ah, I see I left out the real irony. Mary Wollstonecraft? She died from complications of childbirth. Replaced herself, but died doing it. Mary Shelley was raised by her father and a series of surrogates.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: copperwise
Date: 2008-03-27 13:46 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Bother
I have long maintained that eyelashes are proof that we are still in the beta-testing stage. Eyelashes are meant to help protect the eyes from debris getting in and hurting. What most frequently gets into my eyes and hurts? Eyelashes. Hmph.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ktempest
Date: 2008-03-27 16:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
HA! so true. every damn day there's an eyelash in my eye, scratching up my cornea. I have to wonder if this is an age thing, though. i don't remember ever getting this many eyelashes in when I was younger. or maybe I'm more sensitive about what ends up in my eye since I started then stopped wearing contacts.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Gary Emenitove
User: garyomaha
Date: 2008-03-27 14:09 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
What's that old line about running a waste-water treatment line through a recreational area?
Reply | Thread | Link



biomekanic
User: biomekanic
Date: 2008-03-27 17:54 (UTC)
Subject: No one said it was a /nice/ intelligence
the designer was a moron

Actually, I think it's proof that it was the Old Testament "Why yes, I am rather pissed off all the time, aren't I?" God.

It would explain a lot.

Edited at 2008-03-27 05:56 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link



kmckiernan
User: kmckiernan
Date: 2008-03-28 01:51 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yes, sometimes I find myself imagining the final design elements of our bodies (sinuses, knees, kidneys, etc.) was delegated to the intern creator, so the full-time creators could focus on (ahem) "more important and new things." Sheesh. Where was the design review? Where was the unit testing? Where can I provide customer feedback?
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances