There’s a tone of self-righteousness in “My assumption is that the farther one lives from crime (meaning the higher one’s income, … concerned that the state will discover an effective tool for reducing crime.” that is really misplaced on your site as it it is unbecoming and below your skills at rhetoric and your typical good nature as a person.

Agreed.

I stand by the claim (it is a variant of “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged”), but it was inappropriate to make it in that context. It was a cheap shot. I apologize.

My question, as I have a problem being succint, especially when tired, is: Which is worse: a broken species or living with crime?

Both.

A healthy species that does not have to live with crime is clearly preferable.

Hence my proposal.

The question is should we trust the state in enforcing ‘norms’? What’s to stop the state from being taken over by, say, people who hate green, and use that power to enforce green color blindness?

I’ve discussed the enorcement of norms — which I called vertical and horizontal controls, before [1]. It’s preferable to be able to do things consensually, and not require police protection.

The police enforcement of the norm against violence has perhaps been the greatest invention in the history of man. [2]

What safeguards do you propose such that what is meerly unpopular is not criminalized and then subject to genetic rewritting?

The basic problem — how we do have a government that can protect us, but not one that oppresses us — is the basic question of liberal political thinkers. I think we’ve done pretty well. [3]

But, as your resident organic synthetic, I tell you we’re also, because of the way we’re releasing drugs, generating people who will need more care and more complicated care because the drugs aren’t well understood though they treat the initial ailment. Ergo, is there true advancement?

Improving quality and length of life is an improvement, yes.

Point is: fixing the first ailment with a second that may be worse in the long run may not be the best choice.

This is true, but using this as an argument freezes all policy making, because every option could conceivably have unimaginably dire consequnces.

It isn’t a question of “are they worthwhile” so much as are we doing it responsibly, are the secondary and teriary problems worth the cost, and do we know enough to predict and deal with the secondary and teriary problems.

So the question is at what rate lives should the lives saved be discounted, because of the possibility of bad effects down the road?

If so, what rate do you prefer?

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/12/controls-vertical-horizontal-strong-weak-implicit-explicit-spousal-abuse-an-a-transcending-example.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/07/09/comments-on-verticalization-and-progress.html
[3] http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

And, yeah, I carry some dents in my skull, divots in the bones of my arms and legs that a kid who had a white collar professional as a parent wouldn’t have gotten simply by trying to survive. This is why i always have such a problem with my inlaws and my wife’s HS friends. They care oh so much, but because I clean up well I don’t look like the street urchin I used to be who lived with all that crap(ghetto birds aren’t good for light sleepers. Nor are gun shots. No knocks that go to the wrong house. Cops who don’t enforce stuff because the DA sucks. Etc) I’m evil because I don’t agree with their hairball ideas of how to fix what I lived thru. There’s something to be said for first hand knowledge of the problem when talking about fixing it.

What’s your point? You *care* more than me? Does that matter, really, when we’re talking about whether something is good policy and ethical? That one *cares* more? Shouldn’t it be based on the appropriateness and correctness of a proposed policy rather than caring?

My question, as I have a problem being succint, especially when tired, is: Which is worse: a broken species or living with crime?

I say a broken species is far worse than crime. Simply for the issue of scale. It affects all. Crime affects some fraction less than unity.

Granted, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a broken species. But, shouldn’t the possibility deserve to be considered when discussing the policy?

“I don’t understand the question.”
The question is should we trust the state in enforcing ‘norms’? What’s to stop the state from being taken over by, say, people who hate green, and use that power to enforce green color blindness? Sure, it’s a ridiculous example but it illustrates the point. What safeguards do you propose such that what is meerly unpopular is not criminalized and then subject to genetic rewritting? A broad definition would suffice given the forum I would think.
“pharacologies are the invention that finally made health care actually work… before 1980, there was no special correlation between national health care spending and life expectency, because without these inventions you’re killing as many people as you are saving”
But, as your resident organic synthetic, I tell you we’re also, because of the way we’re releasing drugs, generating people who will need more care and more complicated care because the drugs aren’t well understood though they treat the initial ailment. Ergo, is there true advancement? Just because we haven’t seen that uptic yet doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The Boomers are the first true pharma gen, and we’ll see this as they age. In fact, we’re already seeing it. Merck’s drug was just the most famous, but there are others. The Pill example I gave. Thimerisol(which, is a load of crap, none of the science supports it causing autism, though it does go in line with my point of not fully understanding a compound before releasing it because we’re in a hurry to fix things.).

Point is: fixing the first ailment with a second that may be worse in the long run may not be the best choice. Particularly since we don’t understand what we’re bloody doing in our rush to “care” and “do something because people are suffering”.

It isn’t a question of “are they worthwhile” so much as are we doing it responsibly, are the secondary and teriary problems worth the cost, and do we know enough to predict and deal with the secondary and teriary problems. Right now, looking back at the whole Phen-fen thing(both drugs had problems with them, Dan), no, we don’t. It isn’t anti-science to say that either.

Thanks for your comment.

In the line of reasoning of taking a lesser evil over a larger one couldn’t it be said that we have chosen the lesser one since the isea of classifying unpopular and anti-social behaviors and views could lead to forced chemical ‘fixing’?

Someone who says that discounts he harm of murder, rape, roberry, arson, and assault more than I do.

There are theoretical concerns relating to corrective gene therapy, concerns that are close to those of any effective solution to crime. There are real concerns over real lives destroyed every day. My assumption is that the farther one lives from crime (meaning the higher one’s income, because income’s correlated with crime, and the more asian, jewish, or white one is, because race is correlated with crime apart from income), the less one will naturally care about reducing crime and the more one will be concerned that the state will discover an effective tool for reducing crime.

Is it totally right for the State to decide which of the genders the ‘broken’ kid should be?

I don’t understand the question.

And, Dan, I haven’t even gotten to the pharmacological stuff yet. I

Along with assembly-line surgeries, pharacologies are the invention that finally made health care actually work… before 1980, there was no special correlation between national health care spending and life expectency, because without these inventions you’re killing as many people as you are saving.

So if you want to debate whether pharacological drugs are socially worthwihle, i’ll happily take that debate.

And what would PJP2 say of all of this, hmmm? (Yipe!)

The great Pope would naturally condemn all bad deeds, which is not an option for policy makers.

I think another way of looking at this, Dan, is the issue of gender dimorphism. Is it totally right for the State to decide which of the genders the ‘broken’ kid should be? The path to hell is paved with good intentions after all. (Personally, I’m in favor of gender selection. But that’s just preference and not reasoned position).

And, Dan, I haven’t even gotten to the pharmacological stuff yet. In 2001 in the New Scientist there was a report of how use of The Pill was affecting fish spawning. So much of the hormone was going out in the waste that it had caused multiple generations of fish to experience massive gender imbalances that cut down on fish populations. With the FDA cutting down the number of years for study the ‘bible’ on a drug is so short we’re constantly seeing stuff pop up that is very nasty with new drugs(the Merck case being just the most visible a few years ago). There’s some ‘horizontal’ factors I don’t think you’ve considered yet that you might want to.

And what would PJP2 say of all of this, hmmm? (Yipe!)

Thanks for the history lesson!

I simply don’t know enough about the procedure to comment.

PRCalDude,

The Bible contains its own historical context. “Scripture interprets Scripture” has always been the hermeneutic of sound Biblical scholars.

I’m not aware of any support for this extra-biblical doctrine before, say, 500 years ago. It certainly sounds like a modern innovation, as it assume a fixed and unquestioned set of books for the Bible which certainly wasn’t the case in biblical times.

Romans 3:23-26 is Christianity in a nutshell.

I would expect that someone looking for a brief summary of Christianity and who uses only scripture to itnerpret would use Scripture’s summary, in 1 Corinthians 13:13.

The persecution of Christians and the crucifixion of Jesus are an example of the Christ/antichrist theme running throughout Scripture and have to do with spiritual opposition to Christ’s invisible kingdom.

Indeed, Christ’s crucifixtion was spiritual. But it was physical too. Spirits without bodies are ghosts, and bodies without spirits are corpses.

Well, without historical context, one can interpret the Bible any way one wishes.

With historical context — such as ongoing state-supported persecution of Christians, up to and including the killing of Christ — arguments for Rome as a Just State as somewhat futile.

The Bible contains its own historical context. “Scripture interprets Scripture” has always been the hermeneutic of sound Biblical scholars. While it’s true that the outside historical facts can be relevant, they’re seldom necessary and I rarely hear them mentioned in a sermon.

Widespread persecution of the church didn’t begin until after the resurrection and is mentioned in the early part of Acts. The crucifixion of Jesus was organized by the Sanhedrin, though the Romans did carry it out, but the crucifixion was necessary for God’s justice to be satisfied, as it says in Romans 3:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

So Jesus was the “sacrifice of atonement,” and Romans 3:23-26 is Christianity in a nutshell. Jesus came to redeem sinners. The persecution of Christians and the crucifixion of Jesus are an example of the Christ/antichrist theme running throughout Scripture and have to do with spiritual opposition to Christ’s invisible kingdom.

At the beginning of the Civil War, there was almost no system in place to deal with wounded soldiers who often lay on a battle field for days before they died or some civilians took them in. Eventually there was a well developed system of stretcher bearers, ambulances, aid stations, field hospitals and military hospitals. This system provided the best care available such as immediate amputation while anesthetized with opium or laudinum. The outcomes were much better than in previous years.

However, a few years later when germ theory made it possible to get better outcomes with less severe treatment, the accomplishments of Civil War medical car were overlooked and only the horrors were remembered.

When lobotomy was first developed there were no drugs for treating mental illness. As Walter Freeman said, “Lobotomy gets them home.” Modern psychiatric drugs produce much better results when the patients take them. A basic problem with treating the mentally ill is that many of them will not take their medication if they are not coerced. When you are talking about people who commit crimes, often violent crimes (10% of the homicides in this country are committed by mentally ill people) that is a real consideration. This is not an issue with lobotomy.

Given the advances in medical imaging and knowledge of brain geography since the late 1940s when lobotomies went out of fashion, it seems that it might be possible to do better than the ice pick through the eye socket surgery that is so poorly thought of today.

then it is reasonable to examine other therapies such as castration and lobotomy which have demonstrated some success at modifying behavior.

Agreed on castration, though this is politically impractical.

Massive brain damage is of limited therapeutic value.