Slashdot Mirror
DNA May Carry a Memory of Your Living Conditions From Childhood
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian and British scientists have found that how rich your family was when you were a kid — as judged by wealth, housing conditions and occupation of parents — has a huge impact on your current DNA. 'This is the first time we've been able to make the link between the economics of early life and the biochemistry of DNA,' says Moshe Szyf, professor of pharmacology at McGill University. The study did not show whether the DNA changes identified are passed on to offspring, but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
The changes in DNA are due to methylation of the DNA, not changes in sequence. This can lead to more or less of a given gene being expressed, but won't lead to any actual changes in the genes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
What is this based on? Perhaps extra robustness is built in for exactly the reason that you may run more risk? So having poor parents may actually give you an advantage...
Knowing what I do now about early childhood development, the whole thing is just scary as hell--the more your parents speak to you, the less TV you watch, the better nutrition you get, the more time you spend with other children, and so on... those first two (and then five) years are so critically important to the rest of your life you can pretty much predict the rest of it when you reach adolescence.
One step closer to having an ANIMUS?
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
"Rich" and "Poor" are relative.
> There are always going to be 'haves' and 'have nots' in this world...that's the way of nature.
I think you're confusing nature with modern society.
Turns out F. Scott Fitzgerald was right.
It seems like we've been finding more and more that there are more influences on an organism's genome than just simple heredity and natural selection over a period of several generations. I remember a recent study that suggested that acquired traits might actually be possible to pass on to offspring... if this is the case, we're going to have to revise our models pretty seriously.
If anything, it will only make evolution a lot more impressive. I don't think we'll be seeing X-men level mutations ever, but these kinds of effects could really accelerate change in a species much more than we've ever expected (assuming that these changes happen in reproductive cells as well).
Yes, but changes in fundamental sequence aren't the only way genes 'change'. Changes in expression constitute almost all of the biological changes that affect to an organism during its lifetime, as opposed to merely affecting its offspring; it's only because of expression changes that you ever go from a fetus to an adult (or from a fetus to a slightly larger fetus, for that matter).
I mean, presumably you understand this, unless you're able to talk about methylation solely from reading the article, but I don't want anyone to get the impression that 'only' changing the way DNA is expressed is a small feat.
Expression is *everything*. Almost nothing can be accomplished in any eukaryotic organism without deliberate changes in expression like this; basal transcription (the rate at which your genes are used entirely because the right parts randomly came together with nothing else - like methylation - helping or preventing them) accomplishes almost nothing.
The human genome is a lot like a computer in that way: almost nothing happens without something specifically telling it to work, and these guys just discovered a whole damn code library.
... you are (rewired by) how you live, to twist the cliche. Your offspring might be somewhat rewired by how you lived, too.
I'm betting the latter is demonstrated eventually, given the clues presented by epigenetics and newfound roles of RNA. I read years ago that the behavior of kittens can be largely predicted by that of the father, even if the father was not present after birth; humans are likely affected by the same mechanisms.
The corollary is that while everyone can't be rich, with a little work, almost everyone CAN be poor. Reference the Soviet Union.
Good point. The idea of an "alpha leader" has no relevancy to this discussion...
I don't think so....think of the individual, each person is blessed with gifts...mental, physical strength, height, eyesight.
Not everyone starts on the same 'playing ground' even at the most basic of things in life.
I mean, hell...no matter how hard I tried, even if from birth, there is no way I'd have made it as an athlete in the NBA, or ever got close to that caliber.
That that's not even taking into consideration people born crippled or retarded.....nature really started them with a disadvantage that has nothing to do with modern society. Hell, before modern society in primitive cultures, people with deformities likely were left out to die quickly.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't know what I should make out of these findings but couldn't it be that kids coming from a "richer" background are fed more nutritiously than maybe a "poor" kid? Couldn't that have an impact on the "appearance" of the genetic material? DNA and life style are such different things that I am not convinced that a correlation between these two are any meaningful at this point.
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
No, that just results in everyone being poor, except for those who get to choose how to hand out the money. See the Soviet Union or any other communist nation, for example; the commie fat-cats get their Zil limos while the majority have to wait fifteen years to be allowed to buy a Trabant.
Except poor people tend to have more kids, so they have more influence on the gene pool than rich people.
Dilbert RSS feed
They're not saying there's any 'extra robustness' being generated here, and you can't reasonably infer that possibility, either..
They're saying that the DNA changes, and it makes these people more likely to die of heart disease. If those changes are permanent and affect their germ cells, then their children will also be more likely to die of heart disease.
If those changes aren't permanent, then their children are only as likely to get heart disease as they were before they lived in a shitty childhood home. Provided they don't raise their kids in the same type of home, of course.
No trait increasing disease rates and no degree of permanence/heritability ever result in someone or their children being better at resisting disease than when they started. That's not how genetics or evolution work.
The only way a bad trait ever makes anyone stronger at the function for which the trait is bad is at the species level, by killing the holder so that the species as a whole has less of that trait.
My parents deprived me when I was a child. I can prove it now since it's all recorded in my DNA!
(yes, this is a joke. laugh.)
Depends on how you define 'poor'. If we could guarantee shelter, clothing, and sufficient food to everyone wouldn't that mean that no one is truly 'poor'? There's always going to be a range of how much people have, but if we can get the bottom of that range up to a level where the most necessary needs are met then I think it would be fair to say that no one is poor.
Exactly, evolution in action.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Science can definitively say that she's still Jenny from the Block.
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Great, I see the social Darwinists are out in force here.
At least I don't see any eugenicists spouting off. Although I do see people arguing that not abandoning the crippled to die of exposure constitutes some massive leap forward in social good.
That's what I like to hear people say in a dense, irreversibly interdependent global society: that merely not letting people die is the extent of our social responsibility.
Jesus Christ this place is depressing.
Great, just another privacy violating way that everything in our life is tracked.
Who's going to sue God for this clear violation of privacy?
Sounds a lot like a Nova program I saw some time ago. It titled 'Ghost in your genes'. It talked about how epigenetics control how your genes are expressed and they had noticed some inherited traits based on whether the ancestors were poor, starving, folk or not.
Yes, because everyone in the Soviet Union was rich before the Communists, right?
Rich is relative. By the standards of say roman Gaul everybody in the USA is RICH.
I like living in a country were one or 'poor' peoples problems is obesity.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That was from an earlier study 1-2 years back by memory.
The indication seems strong that environment plays a big part in gene expression and it is absolutely fascinating.
With appropriate measures, the minimum standard of living can be made good enough to not result in a permanent health effect.
The haves will always write off disparity of wealth as "oh well, just one of those things" right up until the poor start camping in their front yard.
I read TFA, and it seems vague what they mean by "rich". I grew up on a farm. We were dirt poor. We got a lot of exercise, as one does on a farm, where whether you eat or not depends on whether you got your chores done. Being on a farm, we ate fairly far down the food chain, commonly fresh foods with almost no processed foods, which we couldn't afford. (This is probably why I never really developed a taste for candy or for overly processed foods.) Sometimes we ate what my dad hunted. (I never did learn to enjoy the taste of venison.)
So, what health risks did I suffer, as opposed to someone who is rich, doesn't have to exercise, and can eat whatever the hell they want? And in what way was their upbringing superior to mine?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sieg Heil!
Food, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare and education.
"Lingering effect" is not "memory". Calling it memory is bad anthropomorphism, and will contribute to sloppy definitions, fuzzy reasoning, and eventually to pseudo-science. I'm sure the scientist involved understand that the phenomena they're studying is nothing at all like memory, but once this is wrung through the filter of popular press, the distinction gets lost.
This is how quantum physics gets turned into new-age philosophy, and biomechanics gets turned into healing resonant vibrations.
Rich is relative. By the standards of say roman Gaul everybody in the USA is RICH.
I like living in a country were one or 'poor' peoples problems is obesity.
I don't like living in a country where privileged people (if you are reading this, that almost surely includes you) think that obesity is the big problem for the truly impoverished and not the lack of access to reasonable health care, transportation, and education (among many other things) that are all REQUIRED for meaningful participation in this society. When you set the bar at Roman Gaul it's easy to pat yourself on the back for the catastrophic results of our economic system, but for anyone who thinks citizens should be entitled to livable conditions and meaningful social/economic/political participation, what we have is an abject failure.
I agree. Scientific results shouldn't be used just for making political points and name calling.
Like you immediately do with it in a slightly back door way.
I've already written once today (in partial jest) that there are two ways to obtain a benefit you haven't earned: through social programs and through inheritance--let's kill both.
There's a raging debate going on in the discussion thread at Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
I'm an R programmer IRL. I don't have much formal training in statistics, but when I need a second opinion, my bookshelf is stacked with the highest grade of bullshit detector. In the machine learning sector, that's a high grade indeed. You don't ascend to the top of the Kagglestalk by being full of shit. (I have not yet formed an opinion about Kaggle in general.)
My investigations quickly lead me to The Spirit Level Delusion: Chapter 10
I quickly came to the conclusion that the spousal unit of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have way oversold their analysis as an input to public policy. Nevertheless, it ought to be troubling how readily these slopes tip in an ugly direction. In data mining, most of what you get is suggestive. I find their approach closer to data mining than proper statistics. Human cognition for the most part is closer to data mining than proper statistics, so I'm not saying that suggestive signals are slight or worthless. I'm saying that juicy things you pick up off the floor should not enter mouth without second inspection.
From Snowdon's mad dog supplemental chapter:
There's a certain type of thinker who loves to stop thinking at the invocation of a categorical word. Outlier is a word of many meanings in statistics. It's not an automatic red flag to invoke the purity reflex (conservatives are sometimes painted as having more intense purity/disgust pathways). An outlier due to a DRAM memory error is best discarded. When the outlier is a big fat juicy data point, you need to engage your brain. Your signal naturally shows up most intensely at the extremes. If you don't want to find a signal, by all means, terminate outliers with extreme prejudice, as Snowdon imprecates the vagrant bastards.
By page 200 or so, he's wound himself up to where he leaves his brain behind. Too bad, because his brain was useful when he used it. He's gone completely insane on the decision process of prudence: trying your best not to shop for the desired outcome, while also trying to step around contaminated inputs. One of the inputs W&P sensibly step around are self-reported psychiatric states. These are known to be dirtier than Netflix ratings. Snowdon by the end is promoting the merest sign of discretion as a hanging offence. I would also like to know why these small acts of discretion were invoked, but I don't immediately fear the worst. W&P could do much better in the scholarship department.
Snowdon loses it completely on race as a confound. Confounds aren't all that important until you get into causative interpretation, often a necessary step on the road to public policy. I don't think W&P is anywhere close to providing a solid foundation for public policy, so this whole causative rebuke leaves me cold. Attack dogs never weary of citing error, long after there was any point. If he's not an attack dog, why does he act like one?
Why do free market zealots always like to begin from the argument that the only alternative to capitalism is communism? How about a society where some people have more money, power and privilege, but the bottom rung is still pretty good. I disagree, there could be rich people even if there were no poor people.
Imagine this for a second, rich people would still be rich, though not as rich. They would go from having wonderful amazing lives to having slightly less wonderful amazing lives. Not so bad. The poor people would go from having crappy pain ridden lives to having really quite good lives. Pretty super. In the end a very small number of people would go from super to basically still super and a great many people would go from awful to just fine. I know which way I would vote—if voting were still meaningful. I guess that means take it to the streets.
this research seems to be just a small part of a bigger picture: the genes have memory ... not a fully proven idea but looks quite promising
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The US doesn't have a military draft, and hasn't had one for 40 years.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Damn spell checker. My fingers do that one all the time, and my subconscious doesn't ring the mail chime until five minutes later.
Ooh, and TV. And heat. And a playstation. And hot water. And air conditioning. And alcohol. And a replacement for all of those when I get plastered and break everything.
As soon as you guarantee that everybody gets some minimum, there's an effort to increase the minimum, and a lack of care by many who have the minimum to preserve what they have, because they're guaranteed it no matter how bad their behavior.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Think of the Children. I'd pay not to have to see the average slashdotter naked.
When can we expect to have one?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
If the DNA was extracted from somatic cells, as the article states (blood), then it cannot show whether there is a heritable effect (passes on to next generation, for you non-biologists). As the article states: "the study did not show whether these changes might be passed on to offspring. Period. You don't need to incorrectly editorialize with the "but if so". There is no need for a non-biologist to make Lamarckian speculation. If the study was on germ line cells in adults that showed methylation, AND it looked at embryonic DNA methylation of that adult's offspring etc etc... maybe then we can start talking Lamarck. Even then, there is no need to throw out heart disease etc, because it is far far from clear what DNA methylation even controls as far as traits.
It means you need to not have serious doubts about whether you are going to have anything to wear tomorrow.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The point is that there are plenty of people who don't even have those three. Maybe we come up with a new definition of poor after we fix that, but until then ....
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You misunderstood me, I was not suggesting that it was the poor who needed to do the work. It's the rich who could eliminate the poor by giving enough to ensure that everyone's basics are covered. And make no mistake: there is enough to go around that if the rich gave up enough of their wealth, the poor would not be poor any more.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
No, he obviously got it, then took the implications of it (that it was a stab at communism) and took it one step further. Your inability to understand doesn't make a good argument for his not getting it.
Learn to love Alaska
Hell, before modern society in primitive cultures, people with deformities likely were left out to die quickly.
Or to betray their people to the Trojans.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
I grew up poor. I got meat on my table for the cost of a bullet and dodging the game warden in the off season. I got vegetables on my table because we gleaned the commercial fields to gather what was left over from the combine harvesters before it spoiled. We had bread because my mother was willing to buy hogs feed, mill it herself and bake it. I grew up in a house with a dirt floor and no insulation in rural Montana. I grew up getting a grand total of 2 cheap toys a year, 1 for my birthday and 1 for Christmas. I know what its like to have to choose between seeing a doctor and paying rent. I still have clothes I wore 20 years ago because I don't throw anything away. I've had to work my fingers to the bone to grind my way out of abject and total poverty. And I am a lucky one, born gifted with intellect that puts me in the 99.99 percentile.
Fuck you. Fuck you ignorant condescension and feeble immorality. And by the way, failure to provide health care often leads to death, violating Maslows physiological need to breath, and otherwise sets on the second tier of safety. Education ties in to employment and indirectly the ability to provide food, again setting in the two most basic tiers. You are just wrong.
It's called socialism, and it works.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
All they had to do was look at comic book mutants (X-Men?) to see that most of them come from underprivileged backgrounds.
Lets not forget that to eat HEALTHY food you need to spend about 300x what you would spend on unhealthy food. And you can't be working two jobs to make healthy food because it requires preparation. Processed food is way cheaper, and ready to consume, which is exactly what poor people are driven to consume since they often work far more hours, multiple jobs, both spouses working (if together at all), etc etc.
I'd like to subsidize veggies and protein, but all we get is more frikkin corn syrup.... My kid has a 'box top' drive at school: come to find the 'box tops' are only on HFC infused bullcrap nasty food that we wouldn't normally buy for our healthy eating family.... Nice to see the school system being so underfunded that they are passively influenced by big corn industry to urge their kids to consume more crap food and get some form of money from it...
I'm pretty sure "the way of nature" is way too broad to apply to human society. The "way of nature" for bees is different from the "way of nature" for lions and the way of nature for ants is different from the way of nature for vultures. Is it the way of nature to poison a water supply in order to be able to drive bigger vehicles? Well, maybe.
Let's not forget that human beings are also "nature" and so any way we decide to do things can be fairly called the "way of nature". I could watch a National Geographic special and decide that the best way to act is to pick off the weakest and feed on them. Or, I could watch a different nature show and decide the best way for society to act is to have parents pitch in to take care of all the children communally, a la "It takes a village".
I would very strongly disagree that dividing society into "haves" and "have nots" is the only way for us to live because it is the "way of nature".
But no one has to be poor.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Fail.
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today. Relative poverty refers to lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's not that your basic DNA is changed, just that certain segments are silenced or activated.
While it is true that virii can overwrite segments of your DNA, it's more that conditions in the environment turn on or off or alter the expression of the genetic code.
For further details look in a recent biology or biochem book for mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, and other fun things.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destitute
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly, it's like that waste of great brainpower, aka Silly String Theory.
We do actually have certain medical devices we can implant in your body that react to electromagnetic induced signals, so that say a wristwatch can regulate your dosage or measure it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"HEALTHY food you need to spend about 300x"
nope.
I can get a burrito at TacoBell for a dollar, are you saying if I wanted to make one at home it would cost my 300 dollars?
The difference isn't that great,but you need to know how to manage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"benefit you haven't earned: through social programs "
Don't be an idiot. Social prgram are paid nito. When I had to go onto the EBT(food stamp) program, I had been working and paying taxes for 25 years.. So don't tell me I didn't earn it.
And everything after 2 million in inheritance should be taxed. remember, the 'death tax' is a tax break for the rich.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Now idiots like Deepak Chopra have a leg to stand on.
I saw this clown on that clown show a week or two ago.
He is insane, and he called the other clown (the one with orange hair) insane.
Neither clown was funny.
300x is hyperbole, but 18x is not: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/ The comment you replied to is basically right. Eating healthy food is a privilege in this country, and it's a privilege that millions of people don't have.
Yes, I agree, destitute is a more precise word, but it's not me that's responsible for using poor and destitute interchangeably in the media, with the preference for using poor to represent this state of being.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Well, I've never seen that usage of 'poor'. The liberals are in my experience much more concerned with inner city blacks with no hope of escape.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
300%, not 300x. Sorry about that.... 3x or 300% was what I intended. Slashdot! y u no edit?
You'll notice I meant to say 300%, and corrected that later.
To poor people, spending 200 dollars or 600 dollars is a big big difference. 600 dollars means there is no electricity or gas in the house, etc.
actually, access to clean drinkable water is the highest risk factor and has the greatest probability of association with severe infections, which can impact your survival and that of your offspring.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The US doesn't have a military draft, and hasn't had one for 40 years.
You obviously have never had a relative called back into action 20 years after they served.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's the Paris Hilton tax. The question is, should Paris Hilton become a billionaire tax-free? If "no" then you support the Paris Hilton tax (formerly known as the death tax). Hey, if they can rename it to make it more catchy, so can I. Let's all support the Paris Hilton tax!
Learn to love Alaska
And everything after 2 million in inheritance should be taxed.
An arbitrary dollar amount is less appealing than, for example, a specific weight of gold. Dollars are manipulated by the Federal Reserve; gold has maintained its value for thousand of years. (In Greek/Roman times, one could purchase the finest robes and accessories for an ounce of gold. Today, the same applies (one ounce of gold being about $1700 today) -- versus dollars, which have lost 98% of their value in the past 100 years.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
In almost all the species the germ line cells, the ones that will become sperm or egg, are sequestered very very early in the development of the fetus. They are also protected more by burying deep in the body, and they undergo fewer cell division compared to other cells. The whole idea is to protect these cells from impact due to life time experience and damage. So it is unlikely the hysteresis on the DNA gets passed on to the progeny.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Good for Facebook. I'm sure your DNA history will be part of your new profile on FB, and we'll start seeing mysterious ads for genetic fixes for what ails us in the margins of our Google search results.
Hell, before modern society in primitive cultures, people with deformities likely were left out to die quickly.
You know, I'm sure I'm going to catch serious hell for this. So please don't view this in the wrong way.
Your chances of obtaining a good set genes have been statistically improved by removing them from the gene pool. Again, it doesn't make it right or humane. But it is what it is.
Life is not for the lazy.
That doesn't change the fact that it's the rich sending the poor. Actually a draft would fix that situation (of course the rich folks might all get stationed in Canada). Having an all volunteer force pretty much assures public indifference to the war (IMHO). Nonetheless, the troops are made up generally of lower class folks, who don't really have a way to make money, and the military offers some quick advantages like the GI bill. Just look at the recruitment strategies and you'll see that it is the poor that are targeted to serve in the ranks of the enlisted (those most likely to end up dead in the middle east).
It also affects your children look up epigenetics.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I didn't say that. My implication was that the Soviet Union's economic system (communism) had the effect of making everyone poor, rather than nobody poor. I don't think this is in much dispute, but just for grins I found http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls . Take a look at the economic growth percentages of the former Soviet Union compared to almost any other industrialized country. Now look at the numbers after they shifted to a market-based economy. So no, they didn't start out rich -- but they sure avoided getting there!
I consider it very important to have a large pie with some unequal slices (although we should not allow them to become too unequal as that causes other problems). The Soviet solution was to have a very small pie -- which did not grow much -- but have equal slices all around. Would it be great to have a huge pie with equal pieces? Sure, but human nature doesn't seem to work that way.
I knew this was coming. When all those things you describe are purchased on credit, you have mortgaged your future. That's poor.
Yes, you can have all those things and be poor. Poverty is not a measurement of how many things you have, but how many choices.
In the United States, my measurement of poverty is, "If your husband or wife gets seriously ill, can you afford her health care without being wiped out?"
Inter-generationally, poverty means you children's future will be worse than your own.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Iceland has the oldest running birth register in the world. From it researchers found that birth weight was affected for a few generations after events such as famine.
Another experiment involved transferring DNA from one cat into the egg of another, one black and the other white. (Though I can't remember what colour cat they inseminated.) The result was a patchy black/white cat.
The point I'm making is that we're not purely the product of our main DNA, but also that which triggers DNA to be run (yeah, look, I'm no biologist). And it seems that "that which triggers DNA to be run" is probably inheritable.
(No, I don't have references, and I don't have time to search for them now.)
Superintendant Andrews: "We're 25 prisoners in this facility. All double-Y chromos. All thieves, rapists, murderers, child-molesters. All scum." - Alien 3
[End Of Line]
Considering that in most of the western world you can be considered "poor" and still own a car, a flatscreen, an iPhone, and are more likely to suffer from obesity rather than starvation, arguably nobody is.
I have a close friend that grew up wealthy and thought very much like you. She argued that no one made minimum wage, since in her well to do neighborhood even the fast food clerks made above minimum wage. To her poor was having japanese cars instead of european, or having to decided between the pool or the tennis court in the back yard.
Then one day, her firm sent her to deposition a client in New York city, and she found herself at the corner of Bedford and Stuyvesant. She came back and told a tale that could only be understood by someone that had been there. She was horrified. Now, this was after Bed-Stuy had started it's gentrification process, so I can only imagine what might have happened if she had seen true poverty, like Allen, South Dakota.
So, you man not think there are any poor in the West, but you would be sadly mistaken.
"Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor."
Wrong, what the market gives with one hand it takes with the other via inflation. Until the poor get some say over pricing of their bills (relative to their income). The poor will not escape poverty.
Not true. Between 1930 and 1970, the Soviet economy was one of the fastest growing economies ever. Only China has been more effective in eradicating poverty in such a short window of time. It just hit a ceiling and stagnated.
If by "wealth" you mean only durable consumer goods like refrigerators, and not things like housing security or health care, you are right. Because of the trade imbalance, we have a back-stock of durable consumer goods that can be obtained cheaply on Craigslist. They do not easily convert to food, housing, health care, education, or basic utilities.
When one defends the current economic system by comparing it to ones in which the infirm were left to die of exposure, you know they're running out of ideas.
I don't think this is in much dispute, but just for grins I found http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls . Take a look at the economic growth percentages of the former Soviet Union compared to almost any other industrialized country. Now look at the numbers after they shifted to a market-based economy. So no, they didn't start out rich -- but they sure avoided getting there!
Actually, in your graph, what it shows is that USSR was doing pretty well until dissolution (peaked in 1990 at almost $6k), then it goes downhill from there in the 90s -- which was the peak of "wild west" capitalism in post-Soviet Russia - and then starts recovering under Putin, and finally overcomes USSR at around 2006. But Putin's Russia is the epitome of "state capitalism", where big business and government are effectively one and the same, run by literally the same people.
But then, I honestly don't know how you'd go about calculating the GDP of the country where most services (by price) are produced and consumed without being sold, so there's no "market value" as such. For example, keep in mind that all Soviet citizens got an apartment to live in from the state. Technically it was "rented", but it there was no rent to pay (only utilities), and you wouldn't get kicked out pretty much for life - so it was effectively yours, except that you couldn't sell it. How do you even evaluate the price of that? Or military - the single biggest industry in USSR - where the recipient didn't pay a cent for that production. Ditto for scientific research and many, many other things.
So if they calculated that GDP figures using the regular expenditure method, they're way, way off because of all the "free" stuff. Going off income would similarly undercount it for the same reasons. And if it's net product, then there's too much guesswork involved in figuring out the prices. Long story short, it's just not a meaningful metric to compare when you're looking at a planned economy and a market state. Better one might be something like HDI, or some other standard of living index.
Wish I had modpoints... yeah yeah, mod me redundant...
Dear Anonymous Coward,
You have just made a case for Capitalism. In an ideal Capitalist society, the rich will get richer, but the poor will get richer as well. Since "richness" is relative, rich people would no longer be filthy rich.
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
Not saying you're wrong, but there are people who want to define "poverty" as "not being able to afford to participate in society". I.e, in order not to be poor, you need to afford education, afford basic information technology tools (like a phone and Internet access), afford to travel to where there is work, and so on.
Mandate all rich people give poor people everything every other generation?
[rolls eyes]
No, not every other generation. Every generation.
Inheritance is the primary cause between the divide between rich and poor, and only by abolishing it completely can we ever hope to have a society in which everybody have equal opportunities according to their abilities.
Crippled or what now? Besides being completely wrong (we have evidence that even Neanderthals looked after the old, weak and infirm), technologically and economically we have the ability to provide a decent standard of living for everyone in the world, as in car, house, education and so on. This is entirely seperate from the idea that some people are smarter or stronger than others. Bluntly, we've been kicking nature's ass for a while now, that's why we're the apex predator, which is why social Darwinism is a non starter.
I interpreted sexconker's post as sarcasm about Occupy Wall Street or maybe that type of left-winger in general.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yes, Lieutenant is a commissioned officer rank. However, maybe there's an analogous point since Lieutenant is the lowest of the commissioned officer ranks.
ROTC is college+training then active service, as opposed to the GI Bill route of training,active service,college
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Having an all volunteer force pretty much assures public indifference to the war (IMHO)
Yes, there does seem to be an attitude of "well, those in the military did sign up for it, they should know what you're getting into."
Some anti-war types see military volunteers as part of the problem (as well as or instead of seeing the common soldier as amongst the victims of war)
I figure some do enlist with misconceptions about the military (thanks to salesman behavior from recruiters?). Educational efforts to clear up these misconceptions do make sense.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I agree that it's not meaningful to compare GDPs, but in the end, it was clear that the Soviet Union (and Eastern Europe) was lagging far behind the West with respect to standard of living. The people living on the east side of the Iron Curtain had worse food, simpler clothes, worse health care, more pollution, and so on. People fled from the East to the West, not the other way around.
For any youngsters and non-Europeans out there, the Soviet Union basically held the whole eastern half of Europe hostage from the end of World War 2 to 1991. The Soviet government in Russia set up and supported the different dictators and one-party systems in Eastern Europe, and intervened militarily if anyone tried to become too westernised (like when they rolled the tanks into Hungary in the late 1960's).
The real reality is that your life opportunities are not determined by your education, and that a significant fraction of the poor do not have access to that kind of high school education, even in this country. What percentage of billionaires are inner city kids who were forced to drop out of high school to feed themselves or escape abuse? When that number rises above 10% I'll be convinced that opportunity is there for anyone to turn their lives into whatever they want.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Wrong, our society has enough productivity to provide for the basic needs of everyone, it just chooses not to. We could do a better job of forcing that choice.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That definition works fine for me too. We could still prevent anyone in this country from falling below that floor too. All it would take is will, we have the resources.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You're being sarcastic, but having access to the Internet is very important to be a part of society today. For example, more and more government information is available on the Internet, and it's not practically possible to get it from books. People can't be expected to know their rights and obligations if they have no practical way of finding out, nor can they be expected to make an informed decision when voting.
You also want poor people to be able to find jobs, and giving them Internet access is a lot cheaper than having paid staff matching employers and job-seekers.
The European Convention of Human Rights guarantees a minimum, and, to a lesser extent, the non-binding UN Declaration of Human Rights.
P.S. May not apply in your jurisdiction.
Who are the lieutenants recruited from?
"repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
Another way of saying the same thing.
"Rich people actually are genetically superior"
Nobody has any right to anything. Nobody did anything to deserve being born. The rights to live in a democracy and enjoy protection from crime and violence are just rights we humans have made up.
Does that mean we should just quietly accept everything life throws at us, because it could have been so much worse? Or should we try to make society as good as we can?
I agree that education (beyond high school) is not as important these days. But having the right contacts and knowing people who can teach you the "get rich" skills at an early age, is.
There are always going to be 'haves' and 'have nots' in this world...that's the way of nature.
No, the way of nature is you fight, and the strongest gets the food. If we were to follow the way of nature, we'd just grab a gun and a brick and start robbing our neighbours.
Concepts such as "ownership", "justice" and "rights" are inventions we made to leave nature behind us.
That that's not even taking into consideration people born crippled or retarded.....nature really started them with a disadvantage that has nothing to do with modern society. Hell, before modern society in primitive cultures, people with deformities likely were left out to die quickly.
It's worth noting, though, that the elderly and crippled were taken care of in medieval societies.
I like living in a country were one or 'poor' peoples problems is obesity.
Unhealthy food is much cheaper than healthy.
> There are always going to be 'haves' and 'have nots' in this world...that's the way of nature.
I think you're confusing nature with modern society.
Not sure about that. I'd consider the Dinosaurs "have nots".
I8-D
Background
Disadvantaged socio-economic position (SEP) in childhood is associated with increased adult mortality and morbidity. We aimed to establish whether childhood SEP was associated with differential methylation of adult DNA.
Methods
Forty adult males from the 1958 British Birth Cohort Study were selected from SEP extremes in both early childhood and midadulthood. We performed genome-wide methylation analysis on blood DNA taken at 45 years using MeDIP (methylated DNA immunoprecipitation). We mapped in triplicate the methylation state of promoters of approximately 20 000 genes and 400 microRNAs. Probe methylation scores were averaged across triplicates and differential methylation between groups of individuals was determined. Differentially methylated promoter sites of selected genes were validated using pyrosequencing of bisulfite-converted DNA.
Results
Variably methylated probes (9112 from n¼223 359 on the microarray) corresponded to 6176 gene promoters with at least one variable probe. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of probes obtained from the 500 most variable promoters revealed a cluster enriched with high SEP individuals confirming that SEP differences contribute to overall epigenetic variation. Methylation levels for 1252 gene promoters were associated with childhood SEP vs 545 promoters for adulthood SEP. Functionally, associations with childhood SEP appear in promoters of genes enriched in key cell signalling pathways. The differentially methylated promoters associated with SEP cluster in megabase-sized regions of the genome.
Conclusions
Adult blood DNA methylation profiles show more associations with childhood SEP than adult SEP. Organization of these associations across the genome suggests a well-defined epigenetic pattern linked to early socio-economic environment.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I've seen you post this in about four different places in this thread, and I agree with the sentiment. We're a rich nation and there is more than enough -- right now -- to make everyone quite comfortable. It would be nice.
The problem that I see is without all of those people being FORCED to work for their necessities, I don't think most of us would. I love my work (and I have a great job) but I still wouldn't bother getting up every morning if it weren't for the paycheck. A percentage of people would almost certainly go out and do anti-work -- that is, tear shit up instead of producing. So at that point, I suspect that productivity drops to such a degree that I don't think we would be able to provide for everyone -- everyone would simply get poorer and poorer as productivity dropped and more people were born.
I can't absolutely prove this without an alternate universe, but examples like the Soviet Union have proven to me fairly conclusively that capitalism works and communism doesn't. Obviously, there's an entire spectrum in between pure capitalism and pure communism (and I don't think anyone would want to live in pure capitalism!) but you do take some efficiency out of the system with every step away from capitalism.
You mean, "People who are slugs get sent to business college, get a job from one of their dad's friends and produce offspring which are genetically inferior."
Wait, who's planning to steal my clothes?
It's funny til you think about it.
People living on the street have their clothes stolen frequently. The loss of a good coat can be a matter of life and death in that situation.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Also (sorry for the two replies ... sleepy), clothing insecurity (as well as the other type of insecurities) is meant to refer to people who are right on the edge. For example, imagine living in a situation where ripping the pair of pants you are wearing means no more pants because you can't afford to replace them.
Clothing insecurity is getting less and less common thanks to the general rise in durability combined with short cycles of style resulting in large surpluses. At least in this country, donated clothing can be had for very cheap (though that only indirectly helps the homeless and those in such severe situations).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Could you explain further?
weinersmith
Lack of healthcare doesn't cause death. The untreated illness or injury do. That may seem just semantics, but it's an important distinction that an awful lot of people fail to make. If the results of my choices are indistinguishable from me not existing, I can't be said to have caused those effects, and therefore I am not at fault for them. I am not responsible for things I didn't cause. Failure to help does not justify coercive force.
This is somewhat offtopic from whether education and healthcare qualify as needs, but your note on healthcare touched on something I see as a basic issue with most pro-government arguments I've seen. Lots of people seem to think that lack of healthcare causes death, therefore by not providing it we are killing people, therefore those people are justified in engaging in theft/robbery/etc in order to get them. It doesn't follow, because they have misused the word 'cause'.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I don't see why that necessarily follows, especially when the easy way for the rich to become a bit richer is to make the poor a bit poorer.
Why decide between putting rents up and cutting wages when you can do both?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You are flunking basic evolutionary theory, slashdot. Organisms do not evolve, populations do. Ontogenesis is not evolution. Lamarck was wrong.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a4
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
I have always concluded there is such thing as cellular memory, that can be passed on through the genes and is present in every living thing....such as animals etc.
Funny how without having a mother to teach it hunting tactics, my dog knew exactly how to dig for rodents and pounce on them, without having any clue before hand, thus leads the debate of is it really instinct or cellular memory we are talking about.....
I know that if a third generation pianist, lawyer, wrestler, ...they will have an easier time with the tasks of the field, then someone just having picked it up in that lifetime. Wealth being managed inside families for generations (hudson bay family, disney, quaker oats, etc...etc...) these family have wealth beyond imagination, yet through generations, the families seem to always amass more, like the younger generation knows how to manage more, then say someone that just came unto money....(lottery) and would have gone through it all within a few years.
The point of all this is that in spite of the disanalogy - nobody here is suggesting Bolshevism as an alternative to liberalism, so your comparison is misplaced - the Soviet Union comparisons don't do the work you want them to. In spite of the lack of abundant natural resources in controlled territories, or the colonies controlled and exploited by Western powers, the Soviet Union transformed itself from a decrepit feudal economy into a world superpower within a single generation. In addition to points already raised above, that doesn't account for Western GDP growth that was gleaned from colonialism and foreign wars, or from the growth that resulted from Keynesian economics (state planning). The old "taking care of other people is Soviet Communism, and Communism is bad" trope is very old hat these days. The issues aren't as simple and the comparisons aren't so direct.
One store's weekly ads...
Cabbage = $0.39/lb
Ground beef = $1.88/lb
Potatoes = $0.79/lb
Jar Spag. sauce = $1.88/jar
Pork Steaks = $1.69/lb
That's just the sale stuff....you can take what ingredients are on sale each week..cook a bunch of it up on Sunday (most peoples' day off) and eat on it for days...which will fit into working peoples' schedule.
But it DOES take time and planning...so, you gotta do the time for shopping and cooking. That means you have to give up some time for TV, etc....but it can and should be done.
I cook weekly and rarely eat out any type of junk food. I'd rather cook and eat healthy most of the time, and when "I" want to dine out...I take some of that saved money and go to a real restaurant where they have good service, fine wine...etc.
It isn't hard to do...eating crap food is just easier...but not necessarily cheaper per portion.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sadly it's not sarcasm.
There's a whole class of hipsters that go to school (are enrolled in - they don't have to actually attend) on your dime, get cheap/free housing on your dime, get food stamps to buy salmon and kashi cereal bars on your dime, and get to shop at stores you and I can't for their clothes. But it's okay - those clothes are shitty and we don't want them. But it's aggravating because they're paying pennies (or nothing) for these old rags when they used to be spending hundreds on anything and everything "vintage".
They're considered poor and in need (and qualified for the programs) because they have no income. Because they're students.
But no one bothers to notice that they get plenty of money from mommy and daddy and don't need a handout.
It's like the fake hobo youth (18-30 year olds pretending to be homeless so they could panhandle) epidemic from 5-6 years all moved on to official welfare.
You're lucky if you haven't seen these kids in your area.
No, it did not make me stronger. Its just that I was already strong enough and lucky enough to have gotten through it where most would not. It has in fact made me weaker. If I had adequate food, shelter, health care and education from the start I would most likely be in a far better place right now. A place where modest success is the expectation rather than the oddity.
"has enough productivity to provide for the basic needs of everyone, it just chooses not to."
But this was my whole point - until there is a democratization of the distribution of wealth (which will probably require serious amounts of protest or even violence) there's not going to be a change and the poor will get doused by inflation. Take a look at disability payments in the US/Canada you can't live on what they pay you with that you are pushed to the margins of society.
Now compare 1000 calories of the food you described to 1000 calories from carb-rich, high fructose corn syrup infused (subsidized), fatty, and salty, processed foods.
You'll find that, for sale, the unhealthy things in the supermarket that can comprise your diet are way cheaper than the healthy things.
Fruit, Veggies, Protein = pricey
Carbs, Fats, Processed = cheap
The democratization and violence is what I'm advocating for.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation*
* http://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypy-jxs2
Not sure what point you think I'm trying to make - please note that a number of different people have commented in this thread.
Colonies have only represented a very small fraction of the Western economy during the 20th century. France, Great Britain and the other colonial powers got rid of their colonies largely because they became too expensive. Most of the economic growth in the West has to do with better technology and better organisation - which I believe includes social programs like public health care and social security.
The Soviet Union was also colonial - it took over Western Europe and regions in Asia, and incorporated their natural resources and production in its own economy. Its economy was efficient as long as it only dealt with modernising farms, building industries and producing military equipment - simple, well-defined tasks which are easy to measure the success of - but it completely failed at technological development and at producing the goods people (and other industries) needed.
Don't buy the unhealthy processed stuff.
Shop around the edges of the store...not the aisles and you'll be largely in good shape. COOK....
:)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Lol. You missed the point in a few cycles of response....
The point was that unhealthy food is cheap, and that poor people cannot afford healthy food.
The difference between consuming the healthy food and the unhealthy food is a budgetary difference of about three fold. There is even a response to my commentary that shows its actually 18-fold.
And now your response, ignoring that the original point was that the healthy choices cost more and is hard on the poor, is that you should avoid the unhealthy food.... DUH! THE POINT IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE POOR YOU DON'T HAVE CHOICES LIKE THAT. The point is that when you buy fresh vegetables, protein, and fruit, you then cannot afford to ride the bus to work, or pay electric/gas bills.
Please don't forget/ignore context and subject of an argument in the future. Its ridiculous.
That's not it at all.
I listed prices on items that make it quite cheap to buy and cook healthy food at home...that is at the same price as fast food, or processed unhealthy food.
I can shop for groceries, take it home and cook it and eat on it for days.....per portion the same or less than the unhealthy foods....and I'm talking I buy only fresh fruits, veggies and meats/seafood.
It can be done...I do it all the time.
The poor DO have a choice...again, look to the link of the sale ads I listed...raw fresh food ingredients, are quite economical...especially if you target your shopping towards the weekly sale items.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're still pretending that the difference isn't blatant.
Here:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/
Read and quit acting like there is no difference. We're at the point in this discussion where the facts have been shown and you still point to anecdote and personal belief as 'evidence'. You clearly have no real experience in groceries to keep regurgitating this same argument that there is no price difference. Everyone I know with families (including myself) understands the full scope and cost of foods and the drastic gradient of price vs goodness.
Read some facts; or better yet, go to the grocery store and bring an excel spreadsheet. I've done it several times, comparing stores, comparing food quality, comparing organics. I feed four mouths, and like every other finance balancing responsible family member, I take deliberate interest in knowing where money can be saved and where healthy choices are costly.
No, the way of nature is you fight, and the strongest gets the food. If we were to follow the way of nature, we'd just grab a gun and a brick and start robbing our neighbours.
No, that's just a bastardized interpretation of "survival of the fittest". Competition and violence are part of nature, but so are compassion and cooperation. You're only seeing half of the picture.
Concepts such as "ownership", "justice" and "rights" are inventions we made to leave nature behind us.
Most mammalian species have a very well developed sense of the first two. The third item is merely an expression of the natural desire for self-control. It only requires codification when you start developing complex large-scale societies and oppressive ideologies; in small social groups, there's no need to write down or debate "rights" - you simply do what you want to do as long as it doesn't cause enough harm for the group to turn on you.
No, that's just a bastardized interpretation of "survival of the fittest". Competition and violence are part of nature, but so are compassion and cooperation. You're only seeing half of the picture.
I said "nature", not "survival of the fittest". Not everything is about evolution.
Most mammalian species have a very well developed sense of the first two. The third item is merely an expression of the natural desire for self-control. It only requires codification when you start developing complex large-scale societies and oppressive ideologies; in small social groups, there's no need to write down or debate "rights" - you simply do what you want to do as long as it doesn't cause enough harm for the group to turn on you.
Mammals may have a sense of territory, but they sure as hell don't respect it when they don't need to. Mammals cheat, steal from and rob each other all the time, even within the same species.
I said "nature", not "survival of the fittest". Not everything is about evolution.
Yes, I know what you said. It made no sense on it's own, so I assumed you were at least misinterpreting evolutionary theory. I threw you a bone, and now you're throwing it back? Sure, go for it - just realize that you've made your initial statement look even more ridiculous.
Mammals may have a sense of territory, but they sure as hell don't respect it when they don't need to. Mammals cheat, steal from and rob each other all the time, even within the same species.
Congrats, you just described humans.