Slashdot Mirror


Does Crime Leave a Genetic Trace?

gallifreyan99 writes "Scientists have spent decades trying to understand and fix social problems like violence and alcoholism, usually focusing on the poor and disadvantaged. But now a small band of researchers is claiming that biology plays a vitally important role — because trauma can change you at a genetic level that gets passed on to kids, grandkids, and perhaps even beyond." Part of the research involved testing the effect of stress on the genetics of mice. A number of mice were subjected to stressful situations and then allowed to raise their children. The children, when later subjected to stress, were more vulnerable to it than normal mice (for example, they would stop struggling in a potentially fatal situation earlier than 'happy' mice). This was expected. What's interesting is that when those children were later bred with normal mice, and that third generation was raised by normal mice (so that parental neglect wasn't a factor), they still showed the same vulnerability to stress. A subsequent generation showed the same.

160 comments

  1. "crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Let's not put judicial labels on psychological behaviours, eh? C20 liked doing that rather too much.

    1. Re: "crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention "genetic". This is epigrnetics, the underlying code isn't changed, the expression of it is!

  2. Re:What about cats? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cat translator is still in early stages, however the reply was more or less "it tastes like chicken".

  3. Biological psychology treads on dangerous ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're just a hop skip and a jump away from eugenics.

  4. Lamarck Vindicated? by man_ls · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this mean Lamarckian evolution is partially correct after all?

    1. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ehhhhh...I wouldn't go that far. Lamarkianism relies on a feedback mechanism to pump info back into genes, which is far more complicated that natural selection, where variation introduces info into genes, then the less-well-adapted genes survive less well and are replaced in subsequent generations by omission.

      This is probably more related to epigenetics, where certain chunks of DNA are coated to stop their effect, and this can be responsive to the environment as well as passed down to children.

      Also the exact causal relationships, if any, between stress, abdominal belly fat deposition (in the gut), and things like heart disease and insulin resistance, and even bacterial fauna population differences is also a hot area of research, and much of thatccan be passed on via non-DNA methods.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by kaliann · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the broad general understanding that the environment can induce acquired changes that can then be inherited, yes. It's called epigenetics, and it's a fascinating field, wherein modification of packaging on DNA affects how and when it is read.

      In the specifics of pretty much any of the claims made by Lamarckian adaptation, no, that's bunk.

      One of the major differences is that epigenetic changes aren't always adaptive; that is, they aren't necessarily helpful to the organism's reproductive success. These changes can result from environmental stresses as a kind of "side effect", and the change affects later generations. Epigenetic changes are inherited, but they can be reversed in as little as a generation or passed on, and they are never responsible for new transcripts or proteins being produced. They modify amounts and timing of products from existing genes - and that's impressive - but they do not introduce novel products on a cellular level, the way changes in genetic code does.

    3. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on what you mean by 'adaptive'. We can make a jump here and assume that abuse and stress will cause your offspring to have lower intelligence- making them more able to survive under those conditions.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'd be very hesitant to describe a widespread natural biological process that clearly survived intense selection over a very long time as something that doesn't provide an advantage. If organisms were better off starting with "clean programming" then I'm sure that germ cells would avoid applying epigenetic changes to their DNA, or that embryos would somehow reset themselves.

      Advantage isn't determined by a panel of judges. Advantage is determined by going out into the world and out-breeding the competition.

    5. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by oblivionboy · · Score: 1

      Well, it could have been decidedly neutral too.

    6. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the major differences is that epigenetic changes aren't always adaptive; that is, they aren't necessarily helpful to the organism's reproductive success.

      They are not supposed to be. Your genes are minding THEIR own best interest, not YOURS best interest. We serve them, not the other way around. We (species' members) are all wired for accelerated dieing out if we detect we are failing - that is the meaning of "stress" - if you see that you are out-competed by your siblings, you take a fall for the team, allowing more successful variants of your genome family the space to grow. In social species it is a bit less sharp - we have a pecking order, so that everybody is included, helping and protecting those at the top, and sacrificing goes from the bottom up.

      That's why the evolution is faster then what would simple rate of mutation dictate: genes use perception and judgment of their bearers, through introspection (stress) and reproductive selection to quickly make achievement assessment and terminate the blind alleys.

      However, every once in a while, the losers manage to survive and are forced out of their species evolutionary niche into another niche (e.g. worst predators turn into scavengers, worst sports become nerds). Then the adaptive pressure pushes their evolution toward other direction. If that continues without interruption, and they don't mate with "mainstream" specimens, eventually they accumulate enough genetic difference that they can no longer interbreed with members of their original specie and voila! - a new specie comes into being.

    7. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by m.shenhav · · Score: 1

      It depends what you mean by Lamarckian evolution.

      Lamarck's theory of evolution was teleological and argued that evolution tended towards complexity in a deterministic way. His inclusion of Soft Inheritance - inheritance of characteristics acquired during the lifetime of the organism - was peripheral and placed in order to explain adaptation of organisms to the environment. What was later called (perhaps misleadingly) (Neo)-Lamarckianism argued that most of the evolutionary phenomenology is best explained by a process where soft inheritance is predominant in frequency or even exclusive.

      Now - the discovery of epigenetic mechanisms of soft inheritance has demonstrated a mechanism by which soft inheritance occurs but does not vindicate the theory that soft inheritance is significant in the evolutionary process. But I would not dismiss this type of inheritance as insignificant just because it is not altering the genetic sequence inside the chromosome; cultural inheritance of language is not genetic but is significant in humans.

      Note the mistake Impy the Impiuos Imp made in assigning a specific genetic mechanism to Lamarckianism; the mechanisms of inheritance were not known when Lamarckianism was formulated, and when in the first half of the 20th century Mendel's work was rediscovered and genetic theory began to develop support for Lamarckian theories dropped. Few if any would support a contention that Lamarckian forces dominate evolution, but now we have mechanistic support for the idea that soft inheritance does play some role in evolution along with other forces.

    8. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lamarck was describing a concept - like Darwin - they lacked the knowledge of mechanisms. So does everybody here. These Lamarckian type feedback loops are inacted through RNA which is how 'epigenetics' works. RNA is king, DNA is basically a recipe for fundamental coponents not higher-order expression and complexity. We have 6-9x the amount of RNA as Chimpanzees but only 1.5% more DNA.

      RNA is the future of medicine.

    9. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The strongest objection to Lamarckian evolution was the lack of any known mechanism for an organism's genome to be altered by it's environment or behavior.

      We now know that epigenetic modifications are heritable and can persist for multiple generations, so there IS a mechanism to support something like Lamarckian evolution.

      It doesn't prove the theory but it does call for a serious re-evaluation.

    10. Re:Lamarck Vindicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means epigenetics is poorly understood.

  5. Curious by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd be curious to see how many generations will exhibit this characteristic, of course using the initial pre-stressed generation as the baseline for what normal behavior would be considered.

    I always find it interesting when science proves something from ancient verbally-passed records, particularly when it's something which couldn't possibly* be scientifically concluded as truth in ancient days. Specific to this case, I believe the Bible says something like "your sins will be visited upon your children and your children's children for seven generations" or some such thing. Ignoring the biblical propensity to refer to everything in 'sevens', it'd be interesting to see if there's correlation.

    * per our current understanding of ancients and their scientific capabilities

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always find it interesting when science proves something...I believe the Bible says...

      A stopped clock is right twice a day.

    2. Re:Curious by Ramirozz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In theory as many as possible... but one thing to remember... that predisposition (not predetermination) can be corrected if the ofspring is given the opposite that caused that epigenetic change... meaning with that: love, empathy, education, safety. I always wonder why studies do tests with the most harming techniques and not the opposite.

      --
      http://www.quasarcr.com/
    3. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      People with religious insanity, or any other delusional belief, will try to shoehorn facts into their delusion. Passing traits to your children and grandchildren does not have anything to do with anyone's superstitions.

    4. Re:Curious by Mark+J+Tilford · · Score: 1

      The bible says that the sins will be visited on the descendants of the perpetrator.

      This research says that there will be an effect on the descendants of the victim.

      --
      -----------
      100% pure freak
    5. Re:Curious by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I always wonder why studies do tests with the most harming techniques and not the opposite.

      My guess would be because causing harm is so much easier, reproducible and gives back obvious and immediate results.

    6. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzzt! Misquote. Its to the "3rd and 4th generation" only (thankfully?)

      The actual quotes are:

      Exodus 20:1-5
      And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

      Exodus 34:7
      Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

      Deuteronomy 5:9
      You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

    7. Re:Curious by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Suffering a traumatic experience (as the mice in the experiment did) isn't a sin any more than having blue eyes or inheriting your parents' house when they die. The bible is very specific about what constitutes "sin" and nothing in this study is even remotely close.

      You're taking a very specific statement in the bible and generalizing in a ridiculously broad way to make it fit the situation, then claiming that the bible predicted it. Sadly, this is a fairly typical for arguments that "the bible said it", even though it makes no sense.

    8. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science doesn't attempt to prove anything from the Bible, outside of a tiny effort of non-biased scientifically strict Bible researchers.

      The Bible contains a lot of statements, a sufficient amount to claim that it likely has a statement that could cover nearly anything. This is further expanded upon by an understanding that most of the stories are not to be taken literally (if a literal interpretation does not suit your purpose).

      For example, I can use this verse from the Bible to account for your misunderstanding of Science and it's works.

      2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      Finding something out of the Bible and attributing it to wisdom is akin mistaking data for information, knowledge for wisdom, or anecdote for data.

    9. Re:Curious by sjames · · Score: 1

      In general, things like that should be taken as meaning "for a long time".

    10. Re:Curious by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, the victim becomes the sinner.

  6. I'm posting AC, but I have a low UID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reasons should be plainly apparent:

    My family was in no way disadvantaged. My father came from a family of modest means, but he was raised in a comfortable home in the country that his father built himself.

    My father was a raging alcoholic, violently and sexually abusive to me, verbally abusive to my mother, sexually abusive to my sister.

    But he was a good provider. He was a career military officer who retired at thirty, and served honorably in vietnam.

    When I was a boy I was brutally bullied by my classmates. I don't know what I did to bring that on, but it was everything I could do to survive elementary school. Why didn't the teachers or the principal intervene when I was being beaten?

    The result now is that while I am not an alcoholic, I surely would be if I ever touched alcohol. That becomes plainly apparent to me if I ever do get drunk so I choose not to drink.

    I am fucked up beyond all repair. I've spent a lot of time in psychiatric hospitals.

    I have a degree and am a good coder, but it is very difficult to provide for myself. I do my best to do right by others, but I myself am poor and disadvantaged. If I can get a job at all I earn more than 100K, but it is very difficult for me to get a job that I can tolerate.

    1. Re:I'm posting AC, but I have a low UID by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am fucked up beyond all repair.

      No, you're not. The fact that you're you are alive proves that you're a tough survivor.

      Kids do not have power over adults who bullied them. As a grown adult you do have the power over screwed up, bullying controlling types. Power to not allow it to happen to you again, at least not without one hell of a good fight from you. You are now stronger than you might realize right now, but strong you are. That strength may come in very handy as you go through life. While your growth as a child was changed, you are not 'fucked'. You would not do the things that were done to you to another human being. That makes you way better than the cowards who harmed you back then. I salute you. Keep on moving forward, maybe just so the bastards don't ''win''.

    2. Re:I'm posting AC, but I have a low UID by Laxori666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everybody is fucked up in one way or another. The great lie of society is that there is such a thing as normal. Yet this is impossible. It is each person's task - given to him by nobody other than himself - to do the best he can so as to make his way through this fucked-up-ness and figure out why it is so endemic and how he can help himself and others around him out of it. You clearly value your own life as you avoid alcohol because it would harm you. This is a good trait! Use it well. Life gets better the more you work at improving it - this is the joy of being an intelligent animal.

    3. Re:I'm posting AC, but I have a low UID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you either are an alcoholic or not. You simply don't know if you are at this point.

      Being "a drunk" and being an alcoholic are 2 totally different things. You can be either one without being the other. Physically addicted to alcohol is a 3rd thing not completely mutually exclusive of being "a drunk". You might easily not be an alcoholic, but drink all the time. You can be an alcoholic and not touch a drop. You can't be addicted to alcohol, not not be "a drunk" (even if you only drink enough "to keep the edge off" an no one sees you sloppy drunk).

    4. Re:I'm posting AC, but I have a low UID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life gets better the more you work at improving it - this is the joy of being an intelligent animal.

      This is of course false in many cases. If life reliably got better by effort alone--or even smart effort--then many more of us would be blowing rainbows out of our asses than actually are.

      The truth is that life gets worse--not better--for many people, for much of their lives. It is likely the GP knows best his own situation, and likely he has accurately predicted his life's trajectory. It is completely possible, even likely, that he is right and there is NOTHING that can change it, and your wishing otherwise won't change it at all.

      When life sucks for someone sometimes it is better to just sit with that fact rather than give false hope, or worse blame the victim.

  7. website seems sketchy by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    The linked website looks like fad journalism. Big splashy page with a headline. Screems bias found here.

    1. Re:website seems sketchy by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      Isn't your judging a scientific article by the typesetting of the site that presents it a bias?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    2. Re:website seems sketchy by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, even the research in the study is dubious at best, as they completely ignore the 'nurture' aspect of rearing offspring:

      Part of the research involved testing the effect of stress on the genetics of mice. A number of mice were subjected to stressful situations and then allowed to raise their children. The children, when later subjected to stress, were more vulnerable to it than normal mice

      So, then, was it a genetic anomoly passed down from the parents that cause the behavior, as the "researchers" hypothesis, or was the behavoir learned, i.e. the traumatized parents taught, either through intent or inadvertently, the offspring to react to certain things in certain ways?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:website seems sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then they gave the children to normal mice to raise, and those children grew up and had children, and those children still showed the same trait.

      Maybe you're right and the the parents tell their kids about the time the Giant Hairless Mouse grabbed them and pretended to kill them and it was all very scary but they were ok afterwards and they all had a good laugh, like going through a haunted house.

    4. Re:website seems sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, didn't even bother to finish the summary. You... fail.

    5. Re:website seems sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, this smells strongly of the sort of scientific rigor that's used in the pharmaceutical industry where 20 trials either show negative results, or no positive effect or are even at best inconclusive, but 2 trials do produce positive effects and then these are the ones chosen to prove the undeniable efficacy of the new drug.

      The credentials (and personal biases) of the researchers in question should be examined closely as this seems like something that could easily be used to provide "scientific" cover for the massive wealth transfer and social programs for the dysfunctional groups that are poor, have low-self-esteem and are violence prone because of the "disparate impact" of the historical oppression by and current, continuous alleged "micro-aggressions" of the larger host population. I would call them "compensation and incentives for voting a particular political party", and outright theft under color of authority, but that's just my opinion. Nonetheless, I see this as being something used to justify leftist social policies because now it can be shown to be "settled scientific fact".

  8. You mean like the Slashdot Beta? $ by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 0

    The "$" subject terminator is a Kuro5hin-ism for "Subject-Only Comment". However, Slash does not permit those, so I'm supplying this comment body so Slash stops complaining.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
  9. The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has a great deal of wisdom about human nature. That it is unscientific in origin doesn't make it false, or like your stopped clock analogy, only coincidentally true.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      But of course it's false. Gods and the supernatural are fantasy concepts, and it shouldn't need to be pointed out here that they don't exist in the real world.

    2. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's false. I'm an atheist as well. But just as Aesop's fables and other traditional stories present messy, imprecise "rules of thumb" for life in a metaphorical way, there seems to be a similar kind of relationship here. It may be coincidence, but it may be that ancient people noticed that stuff.

      Think of it this way: children have perceptions that are much more "big picture," animal-like, and imprecise - but they can manipulate adults in a way most adults have long forgotten how to do. We tend to forget that stuff as it gets crowded out by all the details of higher reasoning.

      In the same way, ancient people didn't have phones to look at every waking moment, and maybe they noticed some important stuff in their own way. They couldn't describe it with any kind of precision, but they still may have noticed it and described it as best they could with primitive, magical-thinking language.

    3. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To call "gods" a "fantasy concept" is like calling a sword a "fantasy weapon". Yes, it's obsolete now, but once upon a time it was a state-of-the-art mental model that people found very useful to make sense of the world.

      And just as people killed by swords are still dead, so conclusions reached by people who used "god" as their mental anchor - may still, in many or even most cases, be valid.

    4. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      But of course it's false...

      Nope. As the title of GP's post makes clear, the bible was written/translated by human beings, not "God". Nothing in it is of supernatural origin. GP's point that the bible contains insights into human nature is completely valid. Other cultural mythologies are also great sources of insight into the human condition.

      Because the faithful believe that their particular scripture is the "Word of God" doesn't diminish the sapience contained therein.

    5. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence that the proverbial man-in-the-sky exists.

      Absence of evidence, however, is not disproof.

      And furthermore, more (intellectually) enlightened believers don't think of God as a man in the sky. It would be more accurate to say something like "the ground of being wills." While such a statement also has no proof, neither does it have any disproof. Statements thereabout are a matter of pure intuition.

      That's why strong philosophical agnosticism is the only logically defensible position.

    6. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's cute that you're so certain of your knowledge of the reality of a universe we still know very little about, having existed in our present form for a paltry one million years compared to the universe's estimated age of ~13.5 billion years.

      We're less than a flicker in a grain of sand on an endless beach.

    7. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And a lot of that "insight" has to do with influence by evil spirits and demons, hence Jesus' and others' exorcisms and such. Yeah, on the vague surface, they recognized that some but not all people do bad things. On detailed examination, they had no clue as to why.

    8. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Livius · · Score: 1

      The fantasy concepts were metaphors, and were always intended to be understood as such.

      So "false" really doesn't apply to them, any more than "true" does.

    9. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I really hate to see the whole "big invisible guy in the sky" type argument, because it works for everything. If you treat Capitalism as though that whole "Invisible Hand of the Market" was entirely literal and not a metaphor, Capitalism sounds like a bunch of lunatic thinking too. Reduce Marxism to the idea that the state has to become stronger to wither away, and it looks like you've instantly refuted all Communism. Take strict materialism down to its soundbites and you are likely to 'prove' all action is irrational. (Indeed, someone once said that the only person ever to fully articulate a pure materialist-existentialist position outside of an asylum was H. P. Lovecraft). Take any philosophy that has dualistic elements, whether it's Cartesian Dualism, the left-right political dichotomy, or some form of supernaturalism, and you can easily make it sound like nothing new has happened in philosophy since Zoroaster.
                  State the fundamentals of modern science the right way, and you can easily make all modern scientists look every bit as silly as any old religion. (Really, "truth is not the same as provability"? I can write that claim in a way that sounds just like Donald Rumsfield rambling about known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and falsely portray that as what Godel claimed and all modern scientists march in lockstep to, and probably if some right wing pundit put that claim on the air, Niel Tyson would get death threats for redoing Cosmos). The "Big Sky Guy's gonna zap you if you're naughty" type argument is just the same sort of straw man that was used to try and refute Einstein (turning Relativity into "Everything's Relative" and then saying that there's no un-relative basis to Special Relativity to even need refuting).
                All modern religions are built on philosophical roots - all of them. The fact that many people follow those religions without having learned or even heard of those roots means nothing, any more than the fact that there are many people who claim to be Capitalists in the USA who have never actually read "The Wealth of nations", let alone Von Mises. If anyone, as an Atheist, wants to debate about religion, they need to look at the real fundamentals of that religion. Raising an arugument that was addressed as long ago as St. Augustine or even Martin Luther and thinking the Atheist has spotted something brand spanking new that all those billions of Christians never considered because they weren't as smart as said Atheist is a fundamentally delusional state, even if there really isn't a God.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    10. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      So bats are birds, pi = 3 and a man is able to sustain an erection while asleep?

    11. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by sjames · · Score: 1

      The model may have been wrong (much like epicycles didn't work out for astronomy), but the observation looks like it could be valid.

    12. Re:The people who wrote the Bible weren't idiots by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      and a man is able to sustain an erection while asleep?

      So you have never had a wet dream?

  10. Not so complex by The+Cat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Violence happens when otherwise friendly people are provoked. In the case of the poor, it's usually when they are goaded by someone in a position of power. We've all seen the peculiar attitude rich and powerful people develop when they feel free to jut out their chin and say "what are you going to do about it?"

    Alcholism happens when powerless people have nowhere else to hide.

    People who are powerless become destructive: either to themselves or others. The reason this situation persists is because there are people in this world who are never held accountable for their single-minded pursuit of making other people powerless.

    1. Re:Not so complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, "alcholism" happens when someone becomes addicted to alcohol. Rich and powerful people also become alcoholics, but let us suppose it happens less frequently than with the poor and disenfranchised. You can claim the rich people with intact family structures have more resources to draw upon to seek treatment and support, I suppose. Predisposition to alcoholism is a genetic trait, which is well known. Not being predisposed to alcoholism would be a competitive advantage to individuals living in a society where use of alcohol is prevalent. You might have cause and effect entirely backwards in your thesis.

    2. Re:Not so complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violence happens when otherwise friendly people are provoked.

      Your view of the reason for violence is so simplistic it is tragic and sickening.

      You have obviously led a sheltered life, and you have no clue about what
      lurks waiting for you in some parts of the world.

      Evil exists, and some people are evil. Provocation doesn't have a goddamned thing
      to do with it.

      I am guessing you cannot be older than maybe 25 or so, because your level of naiveté is
      usually erased in older humans.

    3. Re:Not so complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cold fjord detected

    4. Re:Not so complex by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Some people are just selfish assholes, so sometimes violence and alcoholism is just and only about selfish assholes going with what they feel like they should do(and strongly connected, since thinking that you're not a selfish asshole is much easier when you're drunk, so thinking reasons for violence is easier when you're drunk and there we have a cycle).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  11. Re:"It ain muh fault! Its muh jeans cuz!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did you learn to be an asshole or did your great grandfather's wife run off with a black guy?

  12. Breeding children with mice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it's fun, but...

  13. Doubtful by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I will go on the record predicting this research will widely be discredited within the next 5 years. I’m not saying there is no epigenome, but why would it work in an apparent anti-Lemarkin fashion, let alone anti-Darwinian? The implication is that nobody gets bad-genes, just that genes get shunted aside for multiple generations due to changes in the epigenome.

    I think there is some huge motivation on the part of the research here to explain why certain segments of the population remain in a loop of poverty and violence. I think social factors can adequately explain the problems we see. Perhaps there is a genetic component as well to why some groups do better than others, but research of that kind routinely gets the authors in trouble. Here we can have a quasi -genetic predisposition explanation that does away with the shame of having bad genes and suggests that it is society’s fault for not preventing the stressors in earlier generations that lead current generations to underperform.

    What is a little strange is the implication that the changes to the epigenome stay permanently, of course only if they are negative changes.

    1. Re:Doubtful by burki · · Score: 1

      Good analysis. If you look at the following graphics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.... you find massive (in some countries up to 20%) changes in Homicide rates within less than five years. I just don't see how genetics would be of any help if you want to understand these trends.

    2. Re:Doubtful by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There has been a massive reduction in all crime over the last 40 years, which coincidentally started just about the time they widely banned widespread lead use, particularly in paint and gasoline. And that the last generation routinely exposed to lead paint and gasoline during their 0-20 years is the baby boomers who are in the process of retiring.

      It will likely be impossible to ever confirm this but I believe the dramatic reduction in crime rates can be attributed to reduction of lead in the environment. Lead is massively disruptive to developing brains and causes long term damage that often results in violent or anti-social behavior (this has been confirmed clinically and was one of the reasons it was banned).

      I also believe that we're going to discover in the near future that many of the autism spectrum disorders and other similar disorders whose incidence have been increasing in the developed world are similarly caused by a chemical or range of chemicals that interrupt the brain or hormones during development and which are currently in common use. The significant difference is rates of these disorders between the developed world and the undeveloped world I believe is what will eventually lead to the proof.

    3. Re:Doubtful by LF11 · · Score: 2

      Your critique is flawed.

      It may well work in both directions, but the researchers did not investigate the transmission of positive behaviors. I wouldn't be so quick to discount the results. We are still learning about epigenetics, and there is tremendous knowledge still to be gained. Part of the problem is that the mechanisms of epigenetics are largely invisible to sequencing technology. Our knowledge of epigenetics is hobbled by this.

      We already know that dietary factors can be transmitted epigenetically. We know that social factors can alter epigenetic self-expression (methylation of genes). Why can't social factor epigenetics be transmitted to new generations? This research, while interesting, is not particularly groundbreaking or even surprising.

    4. Re:Doubtful by avandesande · · Score: 2

      If you think about it epigentics gives an organism tremendous adaptive capability. Sad to say, but in hard times crime does pay....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Doubtful by avandesande · · Score: 2

      I guess it depends on what you mean by 'bad'. Epigenetics gives an organism a tremendous adaptive capability- and like it or not, under severe environmental pressures 'crime' does pay.....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Doubtful by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      It will likely be impossible to ever confirm this but I believe the dramatic reduction in crime rates can be attributed to reduction of lead in the environment.

      It is difficult to confirm, but lead was phased out of alcohol on different dates in different parts of the country. By looking at the on time sequence of phase out with the time sequence of onset of crime rate reduction, we could see if there is any correlation. And Rick Nevin did look. He found a correlation. Leaded gasoline was a significant cause for the crime. (Just stay away from the home page. Unless you are ready for a sudden on slaught of geocities meets blogger kind of traumatic experience.) http://www.ricknevin.com/uploa... http://www.ricknevin.com/uploa...

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People mostly mimic their parents. The younger the kid, the more clear it is and the more "hard-wired" the footprint is on the brain. Experiences at young age leave a very clear marks on the brain. Let's be honest: we all get the opions/behavior patterns from external sources. We all would like to be "mature individuals", but in reality we are not. We need support from friends and mostly we just select political views based on the combination of our testosterone, glucocorticoid, etc. levels combined with past experiences and close friend's opinions. Epigenetic views will prevail in the "westernized" world where people are "individual vials pouring of pure independent knowledge and freedom of choice".

    8. Re:Doubtful by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't like the politics of science doesn't mean it can't be true. It may well be shown that this research is flawed and their conclusions are wrong. Likewise, the fact that there is one study that seems to indicate it doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon to do whatever people see as the logical outcome of this finding.

    9. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Darwinian selection doesn't really exist in Humans as such. We protect our weak and unproductive people and let them breed when that would never happen in nature.

      We can't burn leaves anymore because of asthma sufferers, for instance. If my leaves are going to kill you, do you belong in the gene pool?

    10. Re:Doubtful by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      but lead was phased out of alcohol on different dates in different parts of the country

      But I like lead in my booze! Damn nanny state.

  14. we're already there: genetic testing of In Vitro.. by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... fertilization. I think it was the NYT that discussed this a week or two ago. A woman who carried a gene for a cruel genetic disease wanted to have children, but not to pass on the disease. So she opted for In Vitro Fertilization, with the fertilized zygotes being genetically tested. She has had I think two or three children from zygotes that tested negative. If everyone who carries her disease gene does this, than a rare but terrible scourge could be eliminated from the earth. Her father, for example, is doomed to die young and is already suffering. However I myself have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder. It is as yet unclear whether that is a unique disease or the, uh, "lucky" combination of Manic Depression and Schizophrenia. The cause of Schizophrenia is as yet unclear but is thought to be due to infectious disease of the brain. It may have other causes, as it is likely to be more than one disease, each of which causes the psychotic symptoms of delusions and hallucinations. Manic Depression is quite clearly genetic, due to studies in which twins were adopted out to different parents at birth. There is a strong correlation between whether one twin is Bipolar, and whether the other is. That can't be due to environmental factors, or how one is raised. Manic depression is arguably a horrible disease. I myself have attempted suicide in a serious way a number of times, the last time in 2010 when I wrapped my car around a concrete highway overpass post at a hundred miles per hour. But dammit I forgot to unbuckle my seatbelt. It was a sudden decision, the end it all, you see. However Manic Depressives are well-documented to be uncommonly creative. Besides coding, I have a BA in Physics, while I did not complete my doctorate I stymied my fellow students, even the faculty, with my insight into the nature of reality when was in grad school. I draw, paint, sculpt, compose for and play the piano, sing and play drums. I invent all manner of things. I could have lots of patents if I could be bothered to ever file for them. Kay Redfield Jamison is a noted authority on manic depression, and a Johns Hopkins University psychology professor. She speculates that Manic Depression has persisted through evolution despite its obvious disadvantages because "it brings new ideas into the social consciousness". Hollowell and Ratey propose a similar theory for why Attention Deficit Disorder has persisted through evolution as well. Their theory is that people with ADHD are able to connect otherwise unrelated ideas in a way that the brains of normal people would be incapable of, thereby synthesizing novel ideas. For example despite being bent on suicide the whole time I worked at Medior, I invented then implemented a novel lossless bitmapped graphics compression algorithm and format, that enabled the company to stuff more assets on its multimedia CD-ROMs. Now suppose you chose In Vitro Fertilization because you or your mate had spent your whole lives contemplating suicide. You have a choice of a normal zygote, or one that will quite obviously bear a child who will be Bipolar as an adult. Which one do you choose? Were manic depression eliminated from the species, what would our society be like a thousand years from now? Jamison's new ideas wouldn't be getting contributed to the social consciousness nearly as much anymore.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
  15. Don't Mention This by weilawei · · Score: 2

    Don't mention this to the Aussies.

    1. Re:Don't Mention This by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Don't mention this to the Aussies.

      Definitely not to the Brits.

      They sent all the petty criminals and Irish to Australia (back in those days, displaying the Irish flag was considered sedition) meanwhile all the rapist and murderers were kept in merry old England.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Don't Mention This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain transported criminals to what is currently known as the U.S. before they sent any to Australia. The reason they stopped sending them to the U.S. was because in the lead up to the War of Independence, they were worried that ex-British convicts might take up arms and help fight against the British.

      So there you go, your ill-informed attempt at humour perhaps results in a little education about your own background.

      You're welcome.

  16. 'those children were later bred with normal mice' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cross contamination? talk about trauma?

  17. The Bible discusses other things than Gods by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 1

    human nature, for example. I don't believe in G-d, but I own a bible and read it from time to time. It helps me to understand other people. G-d has nothing to do with that.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:The Bible discusses other things than Gods by Sabriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, just curious: if you don't believe, why are you self-censoring?

    2. Re:The Bible discusses other things than Gods by avandesande · · Score: 1

      That's funny you bring that up- was raised Orthodox Presbyterian but am now agnostic at best. However I am respectful of others religious beliefs and tend to do that myself.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:The Bible discusses other things than Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's one of those sensible people that is mature enough to not feel the need to scream "THERE IS NO GOD" at every possible moment.

      Something Roger Ebert said before he died: "I don't get into the whole atheism/theism debate, as that demonstrates too much certainty about the unknowable". It's a very reasonable stance to take.

    4. Re:The Bible discusses other things than Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can be respectful while still writing the word "god" can I not? Im not American and I have no idea why you self censored there in the slightest. Its not self evident.

      When you say that you dont believe in Allah, where do you put the -?

    5. Re:The Bible discusses other things than Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Referring to the deity as G-d is a Jewish thing. Some sort of English equivalent of the YWH bit where you avoid taking the lord's name in vain by not fully spelling it out.

      It's stuff like this that make Jews such good lawyers. Accomplishing the same goal via loopholes while still technically remaining in compliance with the law. However, there are some other bizarre situations where they take the polar opposite approach and overgeneralize a particular stricture. For example, their refusal to consume dairy and meat is due to the prohibition of boiling a kid goat in its mother's milk. From that they conclude you can't have cheese on your chicken.

  18. clearly by alphatel · · Score: 1

    We're all stressed out, and can't deal with it.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  19. Eugenics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, this is why violent criminals need to be sterilized!

  20. What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And what's wrong with eugenics? Hitler gave it a bad name with his fancifully eugenic atrocities, but it's not like we don't already apply the principles to every other species we domesticate. We even do it to ourselves - all else being equal, I assume you would prefer a beautiful, healthy, and probably smart and/or strong reproductive partner. Eugenics just requires doing what we're already doing to ourselves bit more consciously.

    As for biological psychology, I'll admit it can be abused in fanciful ways, just as Social Darwinists abuse the principles of evolution. But ignoring it leads to such patently ridiculous claims as Tabla Rasa and the sameness of the sexes.

    Meanwhile in this case we're talking about epigenetics anyway, extrapolating the results to humans (always dicey, but...) the results suggest that subjecting people to traumatic or other high-stress stimuli will harm not only their own well-being, but also that of at their children and grandchildren. In other words - working that horrible high-stress job so that you'll one day be able to bring your children into a better life may actually be counter-productive, because while you're providing them with more luxuries and opportunities, you're also saddling them with a genetic disability.

    Not to mention the implications of having children with somebody with PTSD - you're potentially saddling your children with not only an emotionally damaged parent, but also a genetic predisposition to follow in their footprints. On the other hand, as we come to understand the mechanisms involved we may well learn how to reverse such epigenetic changes, and that could have enormous benefits for our society.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yea, and whats wrong with Communism? All of those mass genocides just gave it a bad name. Surely we can do it right if we try again.

      Sorry, some ideas are poisonous, and can be identified as such from the results of every time they were attempted. How many times should we attempt eugenics before concluding that it just leads to genetic discrimination, forced euthanasia, and forced sterilization?

    2. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Done! Gentleman, I present to you Kim jong ii, dictator of Korea. You will observe how clean shaven and youthful his face is.

      It still has a bad name. Please, some experiments are not worth trying again, bigota or no bigota.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    3. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      And what's wrong with eugenics?

      The key question in any eugenics debate is "who gets to decide?". Most people who favour the idea assume that THEY will get to make those decisions, and that everyone else will just be delighted at their inspired decision-making.

      Most people who favour the idea are, in fact, wrong about who will be making the decisions.

      but it's not like we don't already apply the principles to every other species we domesticate.

      Off the top of my head, I can't think of a domesticated animal that is better at survival than its wild cousins. Not even sure I can think of one that's close to as good, though cats might come close.

      So, do you want your descendants to be 100% dependent on an advanced technological society to survive? Because sure as shooting, sooner or later something in our environment will change in a way that's adverse to survival of a domesticated species. And when that time comes, we don't want to find out that the domesticated species in question is US.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by pellik · · Score: 1

      I dunno, would descendants who are 100% dependent on an advanced technological society to survive live in an advanced technological society which is significantly more likely to persist than one who's occupants are not genetically adapted?

    5. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

      Actually, eugenics is an extremely common (primitive) human activity, although it's typically called genocide.

    6. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      >Who gets to decide?

      How about everyone? It doesn't need to be handed down from on-high, we could go a more grass-roots GATTACA route and simply encourage people to be more conscientious about choosing their genetic pairings, and give them access to the information to do so (hopefully with protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations). Some social changes could also help - for example encouraging a distinction between choosing a spouse and choosing a reproduction partner. And there's no particular reason children need to be raised by their biological parents - I'm sure we could nudge society in a direction where those with good genes are encouraged to reproduce, and those with bad genes but good child-rearing instincts are encouraged to adopt. And then there's the whole genetic engineering or selection route as well - no particular reason that "love children" should be the norm.

      >Off the top of my head, I can't think of a domesticated animal that is better at survival than its wild cousins.
      Survival in the wild, or within the context of their role in our civilization, past and present? Besides, we bred domesticated animals to better serve *our* needs, not their own, and efficient survival instincts tend to conflict with being a willing slave or meat-animal. Presumably we would want to shape ourselves to be "better" according to a different set of standards.

      > Because sure as shooting, sooner or later something in our environment will change in a way that's adverse to survival of a domesticated species.
      Sorry man, that change has already been happening over the last 100,000 years at least, and we display most of the tell-tale attributes: Thinner skulls, weaker jaws, less violent temperment, etc. All we're missing is the splotchy coloration that is a side-effect of a particular behavior modifying mutation that encourages a much greater acceptance of the "other" at a young age, and appears to be shared by most domesticated species. Just pick a fight with a chimpanzee that masses half as much as you and you'll discover very quickly just how domesticated you are.

      Evolution doesn't stop just because we're not fighting for survival on a daily basis. Evolution shapes a species through mutation and death, and once you remove death as a meaningful factor it's pretty much down to who breeds the most. Most any social policy that affects who reproduces and how frequently is a form of eugenics. Welfare? Check. Not handing out free birth control? Check. A culture that idolizes violent sports stars and encourages them to sleep around? Check. etc,etc,etc.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not just genocide. Why do you suppose Nordic women tend to be so attactive? Hundreds of years of Vikings raiding the rest of Europe and kidnapping the most beautiful women they found did wonderful things for their gene pool.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The key question in any eugenics debate is "who gets to decide?"

      This issue is similar to religion and taxes and many others. The I want my cake and eat it to problem.

      How's this for an idea: Use the cut/pick principle. If you cut the piece of cake the other part chooses who gets which piece.

      You want to decide to intentionally use eugenics on human beings? Then the party that doesn't want to use eugenics picks which genes are selected for.

      You want a state sponsored religion? Fine, those that don't share your faith pick the religion.

      You want to drill for oil in a national park? Super. The other party decides what equal amount of private land just became public. Chances are the selection will include your own private land.

      You want to raise/lower taxes? Ok. The other party decides where the new funding goes/what gets cut.

      Vegetarian only meals served on say Friday? You bet.... The other group is fine with that as long as you accept mandatory meat Mondays.

      If religious people want to dictate science classroom curriculum, that's totally cool. Scientists then get to dictate the sermon in church.

      If the idea actually makes sense on the whole and isn't just a selfish control-freaking land grab, shouldn't both parties agree this process is fair?

      Oh yeah, I forgot - our leaders, the ones that make law, sign law and decide law are exactly that - selfish, control-freaking land grabbers. My mistake to have forgotten that the only people who succeed in such positions require these 'qualities'.

      Those who want to hold office, probably shouldn't.

    9. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by sjames · · Score: 2

      While eugenics seems harmless enough on it's face, as far as I know, no eugenics program has ever turned out well. Hitler's program is, of course the most imfamous but the lesser known American program had it's own serious ethical failures including involuntary sterilization. It eventually comes down to who is the arbiter of genetic fitness and who watches the watcher. In the U.S. the 'feeble minded' were to be sterilized, but some of the victems turned out not to actually be 'feeble minded' at all and, of course eventually it was noticed that poor minorities were FAR more likely to be found 'unfit' than wealthy whites. Soone enough, 'promiscuity' came to be seen as evidence of unfitness and of course everyone 'just knew' that young black women were by nature promiscuous.

      In short, given time eugenics programs become a stage for the most vile prejudices in society.

      It wasn't long until 'euthanasia' came to be seen as an acceptable solution (yes, in the U.S.). While gas chambers were considered, ultimately those involved thought that was just a bit further than most Americans were willing to go, so hospitals resorted to exposing patients to disease believing the more fit would recover and the less fit would succumb. Fortunately, the idea didn't gain widespread support in the U.S bit it was the American programs that gave Hitler his idea for the final solution.

      At the very least, that sort of history suggests extreme caution. yes, parents freely choosing to reject terrible genetic diseases seems justifiable, but what comes next? Does failure to do that become punishable somehow (including a cutoff of financial aid)? If such a 'failure' happens, do we decide that it's OK to coerce 'voluntary' sterilization (again)? Perhaps as a condition for receiving necessary financial aid (again)?

    10. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Yea, and whats wrong with Communism? All of those mass genocides just gave it a bad name. Surely we can do it right if we try again.

      I'm not sure Communism is the best comparison to make. Sure it's easy to point out the huge failures of the extreme examples but where are the extreme examples of capitalism (no government involvement in trade or industry)?

      I'm not in favour of sterilising people, but I guess I believe in eugenics on some level because I think government policy in the UK should be changed. Our current benefits policy means that you can have a family while never earning and the state will finance you, this increases the taxation on people who do work leading to them having fewer children. In effect, our government is encouraging the poorer in society to have more children (than they would without the state) and discouraging others. I'd like to see these revised to limit support when having multiple children with no viable means to look after them, effectively removing an encouragement (or discouraging) them from having children. This view, in my opinion, is a form of modern eugenics because although genetic traits may make less different than social norms etc it is a policy designed to rebalance whether the 'right' or 'wrong' people are having children.

    11. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      BLOCKQUOTE>How about everyone? It doesn't need to be handed down from on-high, we could go a more grass-roots GATTACA route and simply encourage people to be more conscientious about choosing their genetic pairings, and give them access to the information to do so (hopefully with protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations).

      Of course, letting people choose who to reproduce with is hardly eugenics - they might make the "wrong" choice, after all.

      And once you have to add laws to provide "protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations", you're letting the government define what is acceptable in the way of eugenics. Again, not you.

      Seriously, consider the amount of whinging about the evil government on the one hand, and the evil corporations on the other, and you want to hand over to them the power to define what is an "acceptable" set of genes??

      Or did you decide that IN THIS ONE CASE, the government and corporations will take a hands-off attitude and let everyone do it their own way?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, letting people make their own choices gives them the freedom to make the "wrong" choice. So what? Eugenics doesn't have to mean taking things in some decreed-by-God "right" direction, it can just mean actually paying attention to the road you're driving down. Just look at what we've done with dogs - nobody ever decreed that there was a "right kind of not-wolf" we were aiming for, every individual dog breeder nudged the species in a direction that seemed good to them, and a whole bunch of interesting and/or useful subspecies were formed by organic consensus.

      >And once you have to add laws to provide "protections against genetic discrimination by governments and corporations", you're letting the government define what is acceptable in the way of eugenics. Again, not you.

      How so? We already say you're not allowed to professionally discriminate against people on the basis of skin color, how is saying you can't do so based on sequencing their DNA any different?

      Now if the government starts intentionally encouraging the spread (or reduction) of certain genes then yes, there's room for abuse. But as I pointed out they're already doing so unintentionally, it'd probably be good for the species if they at least gave some passing consideration to the long-term genetic consequences of their actions.

      On the other hand there's no reason why your religious congregation, Linux user group, or other social organization with minimal coercive authority couldn't come together to decide on "good qualities for the species" and help their members facilitate the spread of the associated genes more efficiently.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being an actual well-considered counterpoint, you've cut to the heart of of the most serious objections to eugenics, and I can't refute them. I can only say that with dirt-cheap DNA sequencing on the horizon, and an ever-expanding understanding of what it says, some degree of intentional eugenics is pretty much inevitable, and we'd be well advised to shed the knee-jerk "Aaah! Eugenics = Evil" mentality and start discussing how the inevitable could be approached to minimize the abuses.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetic discrimination is a poisonous idea in a population all coming from thousands or tens of thousands individual survivors. The eugenicists have it backwards, the effort should be to diversify, not homogenize the gene pool. Such techniques come in handy every time a population is at the brick of extinction. Starting from this, sterilization is never an option but screening and manipulation are.

    15. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The comparison with Communism is that like with eugenics its basically a couple of ivory tower intellectuals deciding that for the good of humankind a bunch of people have to take one for the team. Eugenics is quite a bit worse because in this case "take one for the team" isnt "work harder than the rest", its "get sterilized and /or liquidated as inferior".

    16. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with eugenics?

      Don't you have wikipedia? That is the absolutely most retarded question I've heard all week! Do you want YOUR children sterilized? Trying to make the best human offspring for yourself is fine, but messing with someone else's genetics without their permission is just evil and I can't for the life of me figure out why ANYONE would think it was all right.

      In other words - working that horrible high-stress job so that you'll one day be able to bring your children into a better life may actually be counter-productive

      Either you didn't bother reading the summary, let alone TFA, or your reading comprehension is lacking badly. It isn't talking about your worrying about whether or not you'll get a raise, it's talking about severe mental or physical abuse. Your kids might have problems if you're a combat veteran.

      Now, eugenics means breeding certain traits out of a species. If we breed a certain trait out of our species, how do we know that the removed trait isn't completely necessary for survival in a human 5000 years from now when we head into the next ice age, or if we screw the climate up enough that normal high temperatures in Argentina are 175F? We have never in our history been able to predict the future. Eugenics is like trying to fix a car that won't start when you know absolutely nothing about cars, you're likely to ruin it beyond repair. We are simply too ignorant.

      I can't believe that shit got modded up, especially "insightful". Christ, slashdot PLEASE bring back the metamoderation that actually worked. There are way too many idiots being modded up. Is this some of the soylent people with /. mod points trying to get folks to leave /.?

    17. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You are discussing eugenics as an autocratic institution. There's no particular reason it has to be that way. It's basically just animal husbandry as applied to yourself - look at what we've managed to turn domesticated wolves into without any sort of organized intent.

      >eugenics means breeding certain traits out of a species
      It can be. It can also be breeding traits in to a species. Look at how the Vikings managed to beautify the nordic gene pool with their routine kidnapping of foreign beauties. If you want to make your population more intelligent for example there's two different techniques you could try - discourage stupid people from breeding, or encourage smart people. Even if it's a government-organized program there's no reason it has to turn ugly - propaganda campaigns and/or an intelligence based breeding bonuses would go a long way. It's only if we want to see definite results within a few generations that things start turning ugly.

      The basic fact is that we've been breeding various traits in and out of our species for hundreds of thousands of years, and have many government programs in place already that shape the reproductive habits of the populace. Take welfare as it existed 30 years ago in the US - I knew lots of families growing up who basically supported themselves by having babies, because that was the most profitable thing they were qualified to do.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You are discussing eugenics as an autocratic institution.

      That's the only way eugenics works. You like eugenics? Move to North Korea where they make mothers drown newborns who aren't 100% Korean.

      There's no particular reason it has to be that way. It's basically just animal husbandry as applied to yourself

      Deciding your own offspring's traits isn't eugenics. Eugenics is, according to Websters, "The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)".

      Animal husbandry isn't eugenics, the term only applies to humans.

      It can be. It can also be breeding traits in to a species. Look at how the Vikings managed to beautify the nordic gene pool with their routine kidnapping of foreign beauties.

      So you're OK with rape and kidnapping? Do you have any idea how evil you sound?

      discourage stupid people from breeding, or encourage smart people. Even if it's a government-organized program there's no reason it has to turn ugly - propaganda campaigns and/or an intelligence based breeding bonuses would go a long way.

      So you're OK with discrimination, too? The mind boggles. Guess what -- you won't get the bonus. Lack of empathy is a negative trait which should be bred out of the species... that is, if you're ok with eugenics.

      Your lack of intelligence would also disqualify you, since you seem to think stupidity is always inherited. It seldom is. Mental retardation is almost always the result of environmental factors, such as an umbiilical cord wrapped around the baby's neck during delivery, accidents when very young (blows to the head), and chemical exposure. Read up on it.

      Take welfare as it existed 30 years ago in the US - I knew lots of families growing up who basically supported themselves by having babies, because that was the most profitable thing they were qualified to do.

      What does that have to do with breeding traits into or out of people? You don't seem to understand the difference between genetics and environment. These people were chosen for their poverty, not their genetic makeup, and there's damned little correlation between the two.

      You also don't seem to have heard of folks who were born in 1990 in welfare but are now in college.

      Both sad and disgusting. Please don't breed!

    19. Re:What's wrong with eugenics? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Damn man, that's some grade-A strawman boxing there.

      >...especially by such means as...
      notice they say especially, not exclusively?

      Intentionally breed animals for certain traits = animal husbandry
      Intentionally breed humans for certain traits = eugenics
      It's like the difference between sweating and perspiring. Animals sweat, humans perspire (or so it was once upon a time). Is there any real difference between the two? No, it's purely linguistics.

      Did I say anything about approving of rape? HELL no, I didn't even mention it. For all it matters to the results the Vikings could have all waited patiently until Stockholm Syndrome took over. Hell, they could have even honestly bought the women from their fathers just like the respectable gentlemen they might otherwise have been married to. It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference to the long-term outcome. My point was just that regularly importing individuals with certain appealing qualities had predictable effects of the descendent population. Vikings are simply one of the best-known examples of a society that implemented extremely selective immigration policies over a very extended time period.

      Hell, man, I grew up on welfare and earned my degree summa cum laude with an all-STEM triple-major. You don't have to tell me that poverty doesn't imply stupidity - there's lots of reasons to be poor. However the reverse is not true - stupidity does tend to lead to poverty (notice I said *tends*, not always). And that means that any policy that affects the poor will tend to disproportionately affect the stupid.

      Sure, retardation != stupidity. Suggesting that all healthy individuals have the potential to reach identical intellectual heights on the other hand... Tabla Rasa was disproved decades ago.

      Empathy is a wonderful thing when discussing which course of action *should* be taken, but it's irrelevant to discussing the likely consequences of any particular course of action. In fact indulging in it can be quite counterproductive because it tends to make people emotional, which clouds their ability to think clearly.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  21. ...allowed to raise their children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, there's the problem. Mice can't raise children, their offspring, but not kids...

    BTW, the "new" /. site is horrible, horrible I say!

    1. Re:...allowed to raise their children by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      My mother was a mouse, you insensitive clod! (And I turned out OK...)

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  22. violent fathers may i & mopery to be desexuali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    might help? it's not just them? should have been done centuries ago?

  23. Evolutionary Advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what is the evolutionary basis for this? How could this develop when it seems to provide a wholly negative outcome to survival and the ability to breed?

    Posting AC cos of mod points

  24. A huge social and ethical conundrum by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, nobody wants the poor to suffer, especially poor children. And nobody wants the government to decide who has the right to have kids. On the other hand, you get more of what you subsidize, and our society pays poor people to have children. How much crime, poverty, and general misery is caused by people who should never have children, and yet have children? (Often, lots of children?) People worry about "income inequality," but here's a not-insignificant source of at least part of it.

    It's tempting to condition welfare on "no more kids" (sterilization), but that's never going to fly, and feels far too totalitarian. And yet, here we are trapped in a system of positive (the bad kind) feedback: Bad parents are paid to have kids, those kids (epigenetically or otherwise) transmit the same dysfunctional traits to their kids, and so society pays for more crime and poverty and misery. I don't have an answer, but I don't think enough people see the problem. They'll just blame their political opponents or capitalism or whatever.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:A huge social and ethical conundrum by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If welfare offered everyone a basic standard of living, as in Scandinavia, that could remove the incentive to have kids for money.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:A huge social and ethical conundrum by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Pay the non-poor even more for having kids? Even a better idea considering the low birthrates in most developed countries.
      Unluckily the opposite is happening, my Provinces newest budget (claimed once again balanced) increased spending for the over 65 demographic and once again cut spending for the under 45 demographic. They just don't care about the future, just getting elected and the over 65 demographic wants increased spending on themselves and less taxes and does vote.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:A huge social and ethical conundrum by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the poor have better opportunities to become less poor, there will be less of this.

  25. no hymen no wedding? no live bride even? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    selective breeding phewwww

  26. Environment is to blame by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    I am no psychologist but from the stories it sounds as if the people were surrounded by chaos. They had no loving parent, no guidance and no one to rely on for help. Essentially they are lost souls. They go from one bad situation to another and make poor choices simply because they can't understand a normal life. And even though people try to do better later in life they have a lot of emotional baggage from their youth that comes back to haunt them. And that is when history repeats itself.

    Imagine never growing up without money or a parent who gave a damn about you. I lost my father when I was 14 but my mother made sure we had money and got an education. She was on top of us pretty good and saw to it that we weren't getting into trouble or hanging out with the wrong crowd. And if my mother needed help there were other family members to help out.

    Contrast that with having little to no family. No money. No education. No hope of ever getting out of that life. It must leave a person with a great feeling of despair. Its so depressing that I can't fathom it. And that chaos is passed down from one generation to another. But cycles can and are broken by determined individuals, often with outside help. Its not completely hopeless but for people in those situations they just don't understand how to get help.

  27. Similar tale of inherited environmental factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sounds familiar except it was about diet.
    Ah yes here it is:

    http://io9.com/how-an-1836-famine-altered-the-genes-of-children-born-d-1200001177

  28. Lead-free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure the amount of lead in the environment is a more useful predictor of violent behavior than genetics.

    If you look at violent crime in the US, for instance, you see a big drop-off starting with the generation after the regulations were put on lead.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Lead-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead coincides with the baby boomer generation which is another theory I've seen. Violent crime is typically committed by younger males, say 25-40, and as the boomer bulge slipped past this age we saw a decrease.

      On the other hand, as an earlier poster mentioned, the timing in different states of the US of lead paint disuse correlates well with crime decreases in those states.

    2. Re:Lead-free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      More sensible gun laws are the real difference.

      Oh really? Then why were there decreases in crime in the states that resisted your "sensible gun laws"?

      As another poster mentioned above, it wasn't just the correlation, but the way the decrease in crime occurred at varying rates as different states adopted the lead regulations on different schedules. In each case, the lead regulations and crime decreases tracked. Forget about the national rates, look at each state independently.

      See, correlation doesn't prove causation, but when it's repeated across a large sample, it becomes a very strong hint for where to look.

      Regarding the statistics regarding the "sensible gun laws", the study that's always pointed to is the one by John Lott, whose data has been called into question. He equates "crime" with "murder" and the drop in murder rates may have more to do with the improvements and greater availability of trauma medicine than any magical effect of guns.

      And if guns are the answer, then why did the assault-weapon ban lower the crime rates? If guns reduce crime, wouldn't more powerful guns reduce crime even more?

      Gun activists...judge them on who they choose to represent them:
      http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Lead-free by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the amount of lead in the environment is a more useful predictor of violent behavior than genetics.

      This was a study on rats. I think it is a bit premature to conclude anything about humans from it, but certainly it is suggestive.

      Lead may very well be a major contributor to violent behavior - it might even be the largest one. That doesn't mean that there aren't others as well. People are complicated; there is no one cause for anything that a person does.

      Some people seem to gain weight no matter how hard they try to lose it. That doesn't mean that if you locked them in a cell and fed them 1500 kcal/day that they wouldn't lose weight while they moan in agony. If you then tell them that if they strangle a kitten that you'll give them a steak I imagine that most would refrain from killing the kitten. So, clearly they have some degree of control over their eating tendencies. On the other hand, if you give them a choice of enduring a shock to earn a steak they may very well elect to do so, whereas somebody who normally eats 1500cal/day would never volunteer to be tortured for extra food.

      My point is that people can choose to control their behavior, but that doesn't really mean that predispositions don't come into play. Brains are complicated, so those predispositions could be the result of prior conditioning, environmental factors, or genetics/etc.

    4. Re:Lead-free by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I think all or at least most heavy metals are as bad. Lead being a major one in our countries.
      What is worrying is the amount of depleted uranium that America has spread around, particularly in the middle east as my understanding is that depleted uranium is as bad as lead for brain development.
      To answer the AC below, compare Canada and the US, crime has dropped in both nations with the drop in the use of lead even our gun cultures are quite different. One problem we're seeing is high death rates in swans and geese caused by ingesting lead shot.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Lead-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > why did the assault-weapon ban lower the crime rates?

      If you look at:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

      Rifles are such a small percentage of the murders and the assault weapon totals are even smaller so you can't use statistics to prove how effective that ban was. Logically the ban decreases crime so you know to ignore the true but false statistics.

      And, you're bringing-up a Republican talking point when you mention the ban. The crime rate continued to go down even after the ban ended. Again, that doesn't prove the ban wasn't effective, because logic dictates that the ban was. You just have to be smart enough to know that a decrease can actually be an increase if the values are within the margin of error. The sample size of about 125 assault rifle murders is just too small for a 300,000,000 population. Either way, we need to get those things off of the streets. We shouldn't let misleading numbers distract us from doing what is right.

  29. First thing that pops into my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crime is not a synonym for Stress

  30. mighty leaps of logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's a mighty leap between the cited study and the association with "crime"
    it just goes to show that some people regularly put their carts in front of their horses and shout "pull goddammit!" to no avail...

  31. Out of respect for Jewish people by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 1

    Some of my best friends are Jewish. Actually it was Kuro5hin's LilDebbie who started doing it over there. I picked it up from him. The Jewish faith holds that it is disrespectful to ever destroy a document that has the word "God" written on it, if it is spelled correctly. The explanation I read pointed out that the attics of very old synagogues held used collection of worn-out Torah, because they spell the word correctly and so would be disrespectful to destroy. My understanding is that it is not considered blasphemy to do so, only disrespectful. Among Jewish people it is customary to write "G-d" unless one can be reasonably sure that the resulting document will never be destroyed. While I no longer believe, I was raised as a Presbyterian. Religion at one time was a big part of my life. I'm not sure I follow the arguments of those who regard religion as evil incarnate because the belief in supernatural beings is unrealistic or unscientific. Consider that these days, it is very uncommon for most Americans to ever speak to their neighbors. But among religious people, we get to know the others in our church. I am often advised by those who don't even believe, to attend church anyway as it's a good way to meet women who want to get married and have children, as I want to.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
  32. Does Crime Leave a Genetic Trace by Publiu5 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, if there ever is another Minority Report cinematic adaptation, this new research will be taken into account. Because if the propensity or inclination for crime can be inherited in a Biblical sense as a couple of people have already posted, then this should make for a more interesting movie about how the society in that PKD story's universe (or the society that it is commenting about, namely us) can persecute and condemn not only one man members of his family and even their descendents.

  33. Re:Biological psychology treads on dangerous groun by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Crime is a social construct. It's usually a case of being rather poor and/or having opportunity outweighing the risks.

    In some fundamentalist country homosexuality is a crime by law. If the regime would be toppled today, and said laws
    would be reversed, would the genetic makeup of aformentioned criminals suddenly flip?

  34. Please tell me I am dreaming! by wdhowellsr · · Score: 1

    Please tell me the browser cache is screwing with me. Please tell me that my wife wants to have sex more often ( ok that isn't going to happen, I have a 12 and 15 year old) Do we really have Slashdot.org back?

  35. Animal torture by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    What disturbs me most about this story is that the "stressful situations" must essentially be mouse torture. Having to do things like that are why I'd never be able to do lab work involving live animals. I'd probably end up releasing them or smuggling them out and turning them into pets.

    1. Re:Animal torture by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      To save a mouse from torture is to subject a starving snake to torture. Nature is unpleasant.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  36. It's only disrespectful if you destroy the documen by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 1

    The Jewish faith does not in fact consider it disrespectul to write "God" as "G" "o" "d". What it considers disrespectful, is to spell the word "God" correctly, then destroy the document that it is written on.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
  37. Re:What about cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stressed out mice are not as tender and delicious than well rested individuals. The most common reaction: "I can haz more tender mice?"

  38. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we neuter murderers and thieves because their kids will grow up to be the same? Or is he trying to explain why we should not blame people for their crimes? The biggest effect would be the environment they grew up in. Its not genetic that makes you a killer or a thief. Why they comparing mindless mice to people? Granted, a lot of people act like mindless mice. lol

  39. Hunger does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Norwegian Church documents have been studied and it was discovered that the stress caused by hunger transfers similarly over generations.

  40. Sounds like Epigenetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds a lot like epigenetics. The hypothesis is that an environmental stressor can cause a reaction within the gene. It doesn't necessarily change the gene itself but rather how the gene is expressed, and this different genetic expression can be passed down through to children.

    It is like having a beacon atop your genes, certain environmental signals can turn that beacon on and alter how the gene is expressed. This flickering beacon (altered genetic expression) can be passed down to future generations and can have long term effects.

  41. What is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gods and the supernatural are fantasy concepts, and it shouldn't need to be pointed out here that they don't exist in the real world.

    Yet, we still believe, based on the evidence, that Han shot first. Any depiction otherwise is just fantasy. Our definition of "real" is highly mutable.

    When you stub your toe, is the pain real, or is it all in your head? "Both" is the most meaningful answer. Is God real, or is it all in your head? Again, "both" is a more meaningful answer than trying to force the false dichotomy.

  42. I'm afraid that doesn't actually work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to dream of the day when I'd be old enough, and so big and strong enough, to beat the living crap out of my own father.

    By that time he was a tired old man, and no longer able to defend himself. I just let him be.

    I ran into some of my old tormentors at a high school reunion. They were all happy to see me, as if we'd always been good friends.

    Even young bullies can grow up to be decent people.

  43. The Renaissane Italians actually used to do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what "Vendetta" actually meant.

    One had to actually sue in court to have a Vendetta declared. If someone fucked up real good, the offended party could obtain a Vendetta.

    The offended party then was granted the right to murder three successive generations of males from the offending party's family.

    This is the same Italy that brought us Galileo and Leonardo DaVinci. Look how far we've come - now we can do that wirelessly, with drones.

  44. wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ""As for biological psychology, I'll admit it can be abused in fanciful ways, just as Social Darwinists abuse the principles of evolution. But ignoring it leads to such patently ridiculous claims as Tabla Rasa and the sameness of the sexes.""

    ""Yea, and whats wrong with Communism? All of those mass genocides just gave it a bad name. Surely we can do it right if we try again.""

    There is no defined definition of "Communism" and with it, or without it, you cannot stop a leader who decides to abuse there power and set there own rules/ideals and it is usually over political propaganda, banning anyone opposed to there ideals. There are more dictators that do not use Communist ideals that have caused mass genocide.

    And if you look at the US they've mastered how to prevent people from realizing they do not live in a Democratic system. They tried using Communism as a threat to implement there own version of censorship, and it just about succeeded. You only need to look at the history of Communist propaganda in the US governments history to see the ideals in communism were being forced onto citizens. Or look at there spying programs from the 30's up till today, and those they target are usually leaders of some movement that had nothing to do with communism, but believed that the US should truly be a free country, where all men/women were to be treated as equals. Oh yeah those leaders oddly were found murdered.

    1. Re:wrong by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      Any sort of eugenics that is embraced will shortly become mandatory, and necessarily involve telling people who may and may not mate, and with whom.
      Brings back shades of the "kill the infirm and sterilize the unsound" policies of Nazi Germany. Gotta breed that master race, dontchakno.

      This isnt even hyperbole. Eugenics by its nature will necessitate telling some people that they are inherently worth less than others, in a moment undoing years of civil rights activisim. Doesnt mean much if "black and white" isnt the issue if it just shifts to "blond-hair-blue-eyes vs those genetically unsound romani", huh?

  45. What about cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They responded with blocky black and white letters, in all capitals, with characteristically bad spelling and grammar.

  46. Crap by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    I knew I shouldn't have ejaculated all over the display model before stealing that TV.

  47. i suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dna evidence is pretty common i thought, generally if you dont properly wrap your meat stick or wipe up the blood and or hose down the wood chipper, but then theres a few other non traditional schools of thought, most people try to tie up loose ends, i propose the opposite, generate as many loose ends as humany possible so it occludes confuses and or creates a complete aire of total ridiculousness.

  48. Lombroso Redeemed by ilguido · · Score: 1

    And so Cesare Lombroso wasn't so wrong after all!

  49. Broken Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem I have with this study is that if a traumatic experience messes up your descendants to X generations, why are we all not messed up? How many people do not have one or more ancestors that were in battle during world war 1 and 2, or any other war? How many people have ancestors who had a traumatic experience during depressions? Heck, five generations would cover the past 150-200 years and there has been quite a few wars and whatnot during that time...

    I'd expect that noone will be able to reproduce the results of this study, much in the same manner as the rat paradise/addiction study...

  50. Heathen fools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20.4, 5)

    Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. (Deuteronomy 5.8-10)

    Now please, heathen trash, render yourself & "mother nature" a service: hang yourself.

  51. Re:Biological psychology treads on dangerous groun by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Quote GK Chesterton, âoeThe blue cross":

    "Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star. Look at the stars. Don't they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires?" well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamants, with fields of brilliants.think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire.But don't fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find the noticeboard, "thou shalt not steal."

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  52. Re: Animal torture === Human torture ? by fygment · · Score: 1

    You really don't see the difference in intentionally harming something vice consuming it for survival?

    Snakes have to eat. Men do not have to torture ... anything.

    But if you subscribe to the contrary, then experiments on humans should be cool, right? It's just a matter of shifting your benchmark for 'acceptable' slightly AND the results are far more validly extended to our species than mouse experiments.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  53. Whyle rest of the "europe" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...most beautiful women they found did wonderful things for their gene pool...."

    While rest of the Europe (like today’s Germany, Ausrtria, England and so on) killed most of the good looking women by blaming them to be a witch or what ever bull shit the ugly ones game up with. Look at them now! German, Austrian etc women are ugly as hell.
    Letting fat, ugly, stupid and diseased people multiply is a bad idea. Period.

    And those selfish assholes, who have some type of serious genetically transmitted disease - wtf is wrong with you, you selfish bricks! Oh, you want the joy of having kids too?
    Fuck you for making them suffer for your selfish pleasure later.

  54. I am just amazed... by nomasteryoda · · Score: 1

    Any child raised by mice would have disturbing psychological behaviours.

    --
    - Good things come to he who waits... but, but Arch Linux FTW!
  55. Re: Animal torture === Human torture ? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    Somebody has to feed the lab mouse to the lab snake, which will cause obvious torture to the mouse. I wouldn't be able to do it, but I don't object to it.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  56. Alcoholism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have known for a long time that alcoholism is genetic. Combine that with having a pretty good chance of making you poor, your kids will stand a pretty good chance of being poor alcoholics. I don't understand what interesting news is here?