The $%*! frustration thread

[Zephira]

I don't think you would do anything to the fetus while it's in the womb. The doctors would alter the egg and the seed before fertilization. If it's already in the womb, then it is already growing, and it is too late to drastically alter the DNA. The biggest risk would probably be stillborn, or some mutation caused by the altered DNA.

[Asafigow]

First(and I know I'll sound stupid. Hey, I'm only a teen), what is a stillborn? And two, have you ever seen actaully mutated creatures? Think about what a seriously mutated baby would look like. It might not even be abe to servive that long. Then think of how often that COULD have happen even IF it's tested.

[nightmare975]

First(and I know I'll sound stupid. Hey, I'm only a teen), what is a stillborn? And two, have you ever seen actaully mutated creatures? Think about what a seriously mutated baby would look like. It might not even be abe to servive that long. Then think of how often that COULD have happen even IF it's tested.

A stillborn is the name given to a dead fetus carried to term.

[Mr Bekkler]

Think about what a seriously mutated baby would look like. It might not even be abe to servive that long.

There's a movie called Eraserhead that has a mutated baby, it takes place in the future and it's really freaky.

[teaflower]

The concept of altering the baby before it's born is iffy with me. I'd want my kid to not have suckass vision like me, or the slew of genetic disorders I have (beta thalasemia minor is FUN). But I don't want my kid to be designer made. I want an adventure with my child, and the adventure starts with what does it look like. As for mutated babies, think conjoined twins. They're two babies mutated in a way that they're stuck together. There's a little girl in India who was born with 8 arms and legs or something. Humans find a way to survive like this because of technology. If we were wild critters like foxes or something, 8 arms/legs girl wouldn't last a day. Neither would the conjoined twins.

Current frustration = Easter. Have to go to church, but I need decent shoes. UGH.

[Ramsus]

Took me all frickin' day to get a low-latency Linux setup for audio processing with pulseaudio running on top of jackd, but I finally got it all figured out. Turns out all I really had to do was have ALSA redirect audio to pulseaudio which then mixes it all and uses jackd which uses ALSA to access the actual hardware. That way, normal applications end up going through pulseaudio, while the high end applications can just use jackd directly.

After all that though, I think I'd rather have just spent $300 on a low-latency, external USB-2.0 sound card with a preamp, phantom power, hardware monitoring, and midi input/output, and used it with a Mac.

[Radical_Dreamer]

First(and I know I'll sound stupid. Hey, I'm only a teen), what is a stillborn? And two, have you ever seen actaully mutated creatures? Think about what a seriously mutated baby would look like. It might not even be abe to servive that long. Then think of how often that COULD have happen even IF it's tested.

Every creature you, I, or anyone else has ever seen has been a mutated creature.

[chrono eric]

But I don't want my kid to be designer made. I want an adventure with my child, and the adventure starts with what does it look like. As for mutated babies, think conjoined twins. They're two babies mutated in a way that they're stuck together. There's a little girl in India who was born with 8 arms and legs or something. Humans find a way to survive like this because of technology. If we were wild critters like foxes or something, 8 arms/legs girl wouldn't last a day. Neither would the conjoined twins.

Conjoined twins usually aren't technically a mutation, tea. That is if we are to assign a strict definition to mutation as alteration of DNA.

And I was going to say something more along the lines of what Radical_Dreamer said but he beat me to it.

The technology for most of what you all are talking about already exists and is routine practice in genetics laboratories. So why don't we do it with humans? Because genetic engineering is largely inexact and prone to error. Don't get me wrong - modern genetics is extraordinarily powerful. I'm just not disillusioned by it. I worked as a genetics researcher for several years and I am fully aware of the limitations of this science.

That said, I agree with Zeality that eventually the day will come when genetic engineering, designer babies, and artificial wombs become a routine reality. But that day is far in the future. What will happen much sooner is routine application of gene therapy. Although likewise dangerous, it offers enormous promise for curing a variety of genetic disorders. And yes tea, that potentially includes beta thalassemia minor.

I actually can't wait for science to reach the point of genetic modification, not because I could create a super-kid, but so I could prevent my genetic defect from spreading to any children I may have.

I don't know what kind of "genetic defect" you have nightmare, but if it is the result of a recessive mutation, and your mate is not a carrier for that mutation, then your kids will have a zero chance of having the disease - although they could still be carriers for it. If it is a dominant mutation and you are a heterozygous individual, and your mate is likewise not affected, then your kids will have a 50% chance of inheriting it. Or, if you believe you are a carrier for some allele that your parents possess and you are afraid to pass it on to your children, there is likely a DNA test available now that could confirm it and put your mind at ease. Radical genetic engineering might not be necessary, so I would hate to have you live in fear of having kids. And if for whatever reason you feel that the chance of your kids inheriting your particular allele is not worth the risk, there is always adoption.

[ZeaLitY]

Divine intervention helped Antonello Colangeli find his son

Ah, so it was a miracle his son survived. Well if God's going to hand out miracles, it'd be nice if he didn't go through the trouble of killing 272 other people just to single out this little kid, eh?

Really, why do journalists do this except as emotional pandering or because they're religious nuts themselves? Does it never occur to them that God didn't work a miracle for all the scores of others who died? It's like plane crashes. I guess God didn't see it fit to save the 200 people who perished on impact, but threw a bone to one survivor so people would believe in miracles. Or what about that guy who fell from a skyscraper and lived? If God was looking out for him, why didn't he, you know, stop him from falling in the first place instead of merely allowing him to survive after being smashed to pieces internally? Did he hurl him off the building for some sweet laughs? "The Lord works in mysterious ways" indeed.

Here's a better headline:

God Kills 272 People, Saves One Child in "Miracle" Attempt
Jesus Unavailable for Comment at Press Time

[chrono eric]

Yes, that is something that always irritates me. Most people seem to be incapable of abandoning an anthropocentric view of the universe and incapable of abandoning the concept of a paternal god that cares about their well-being. Even many atheists, I've found, express similar irrational logic at many times.

People of western religious faith often freeze up when asked the question - "Why does god let a devout mother of four die with her children in a highway car crash, but lets a child rapist and murderer get away with his crimes scot-free?". They reluctantly answer - "Uh...god works in mysterious ways?" What a cop out. Either your god doesn't exist as you imagine him or he does exist but doesn't give a flying fuck about humanity.

And that is actually far more appealing to me than a non-existent god - a god that does exist but doesn't give a damn about us. This universe is unimaginably vast and beautiful. To think that we are at all important enough in that grand scheme of things to warrant divine intervention is hugely egotistical.

[Mr Bekkler]

The Ant Farm Theory, I call it! God is that little kid who bought that ant farm, we're his ants.

He may have given us what we need to survive, but that little kid doesn't think about the ants' lives, thoughts, dreams, prayers, etc. And he sure as hell doesn't care about whether they believe in him. Why would he? It wouldn't have any effect on him at all.

(He is gender neutral in this sense, and could be replaced with she just fine if you prefer. I don't care, and he probably doesn't either.)

The Ant Farm and the Domino Rally Effect are what I would call the extent of my religious "belief". Domino Rally, as in a semi-intentional big bang. There's a chain reaction set up that leads to life, and beyond, and all it takes is the finger to push down that first domino, then they all come crashing down one after the other, and we're right in the middle. It works if "God" is a force comparable to gravity or friction, without conscious thought or any solid plan.

(As far as I know I made those terms up, but they very well may be used for something else, I have no idea.)

[Thought]

Either your god doesn't exist as you imagine him or he does exist but doesn't give a flying fuck about humanity.

There are so many potentialities, I find the entire argument (on either side) to be overly simplistic. It very well may be that god isn't omnipotent. Or it may be that god is omnipotent and just has higher priorities than humans, but that he still cares to a degree (sort of how a human might care for a pet but will go to greater lengths to save a loved one who happens to be human). Or it might be that god is omnipotent and has willingly limited himself (take Christianity, for example; if one follows the religious cannon of the religion, the question isn't why God lets bad things happen, but why do Christians let bad things happen, seeing as Christians claim to be the indwelling of the divine). Or god exists, is omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, and we just have a mistaken perception as to what is good and bad. There are so many possibilities that it seems foolish to attempt to claim any single one without further evidence.

This universe is unimaginably vast and beautiful. To think that we are at all important enough in that grand scheme of things to warrant divine intervention is hugely egotistical.

Huh, so size and beauty determine importance?

So, is someone who is 6ft tall more important than someone who is 5ft tall? Is a supermodel more important than your significant other?

Indeed, is the United States inherently more important than England because it is larger and contains a greater number of beautiful sights?

Or perhaps you are merely claiming that it is only pass a certain size and degree of beauty that these factors become significant? Akin to how certain laws of physics only seem to apply at certain scales. If so, could you hypothesize at the scale necessary before these considerations become important?

It may well be that the earth and humans are unimaginably unimportant in the universe, but I must say that I find mere size to be an inadequate means of calculating such.

[chrono eric]

There are so many potentialities, I find the entire argument (on either side) to be overly simplistic. It very well may be that god isn't omnipotent. Or it may be that god is omnipotent and just has higher priorities than humans, but that he still cares to a degree (sort of how a human might care for a pet but will go to greater lengths to save a loved one who happens to be human). Or it might be that god is omnipotent and has willingly limited himself (take Christianity, for example; if one follows the religious cannon of the religion, the question isn't why God lets bad things happen, but why do Christians let bad things happen, seeing as Christians claim to be the indwelling of the divine). Or god exists, is omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, and we just have a mistaken perception as to what is good and bad. There are so many possibilities that it seems foolish to attempt to claim any single one without further evidence.

I agree, that's why I said "either your god doesn't exist as you imagine him", not  simply "either your god doesn't exist" - alluding to the fact that there are countless possibilities. Read more carefully. I mentioned the second possibility only because I find particular favor in it.

Huh, so size and beauty determine importance?

No, I was simply commenting on the scale of it relative to the scale of human lives. I was not associating importance with the universe by saying that (hell, god could have created it and not care at all about it, or there could be no god and the universe has zero purpose for all I know), but I was expressing distaste for the concept that human beings think they are so important in this universe that a divine being would concern themselves with our lives.

I could make an equally relevant and analagous argument as the one you just made for the concept of human consciousness being superior, and thus putting us in a state of higher importance to the universe (and god). But no matter what argument you make, anthropocentric views of the universe always fall flat for the reasons that you have already alluded to, although perhaps unintentionally.


But back on track. Frustration: People that have no basic medical knowledge shouldn't be allowed to own pets. Plain and simple. Just saw a dog with immune mediated hemolytic anemia. We hospitalized her for 3 days and did everything that we could, but it had progressed so far and she was so jaundiced that her gums, skin, and eyes were literally neon yellow. She had been this way for the better part of a month, getting progressively worse. But her owner never noticed. Not until she stopped eating. Did they think their clearly very yellow dog was a normal situation? A human child can speak and would alert their parents to the subjective effects of the illness, and an adult human being would notice them and see a doctor. But if you don't have the common sense to recognize a basic, clearly obvious, and deadly medical situation then you don't deserve to be the caretaker of a living being that can't take care of itself in any way. I would love to say that now her dog, which would have lived for another ten years probably, is dead solely because of her. But in the end, I'm afraid the responsibility falls back on veterinarians for not educating this woman as much as possible about potential medical/genetic problems prevalent in certain breeds of dogs.

[Thought]

I agree, that's why I said "either your god doesn't exist as you imagine him", not  simply "either your god doesn't exist" - alluding to the fact that there are countless possibilities. Read more carefully.

I did notice that, which is why I didn't say that you had presented a false dichotomy. I just believed it to be useful to note the potential other answers that you had glossed over. As I said, I tend to find such things "overly simplistic" and thus attempted to added some much needed complexity.

... but I was expressing distaste for the concept that human beings think they are so important in this universe that a divine being would concern themselves with our lives.

... anthropocentric views of the universe always fall flat for the reasons that you have already alluded to, although perhaps unintentionally.

I think you might have misunderstood; my intent was to illustrate that anti-anthropocentric views are equally invalid as anthropocentric (woo, learned a new word) ones. To put it simply, importance is inherently subjective; it is dependent on the specific circumstances and relationships between entities. Any objective criterion is inherently flawed.

While anthrpocentrism may be egotistical, the reverse may well be false humility. One overvalues, but the other undervalues.

[teaflower]

So... remember the deal I struck with my sister? Yeah... she... she's not following through. She continues to not knock before barging in. I dunno what I'll do.