"On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing."
There's a channel with the least horseshit? Quick - someone tell my brother-in-law - he just spends his evenings repeatedly looping through all the channels.
When his dish went down (snowstorm and ice buildup temporarily knocked it out) he spent over two hours just sitting there looking at the on-screen menu (I kid you not) before giving up and going to bed.
BTW - most advertisers still haven't got a clue about the scams wrt cost-per-click. They WANT to believe. You can tell them until you're blue in the face that click-bots, pay-to-click scams, and all the rest mean that the stats are bogus, but there's no changing their minds - they'd rather believe that it's not bad traffic, but a question of if they tweak their landing page better, they'll get better conversion rates.
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas." HAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use reCAPTCHA." HAHAHA! (gasp) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use image captchas." Here - pull my finger. That plus a couple of bucks will get you a coffee. HAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas so hard even people can't solve them!" DUH! Think about what you just said for two seconds... that means ALL your click-through traffic is bots.
The internet really needs to come up with a better revenue model than the current advertising monoculture.
So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?
How long before someone makes a botnet of open proxies with US IP addresses and inserts their clients' ads in place of Hulu ads?
It's interesting you say that, because you're not the only one, by far. I have friends who intentionally disconnected their TV from any external inputs (no antenna, no cable), so it's DVDs and games only. One of my daughters bought a 60" Sony a few years ago... she has cable, and yet she now also no longer watches TV, and is thinking of getting rid of it. I haven't turned my dish on in over half a year... and this isn't the first time that's happened.
Interactivity and real control changes the equation completely for many of us. Who wants to go back to being spoon-fed?
"I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse."
Have you tried getting a Wii and downloading Opera (500 Wii points)?
It plays youtube videos full-screen with no problems. I can't say whether it works with Hulu since I'm north of the U S of A, and they don't like Kanuckistan.
Impressive research. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter:-)
Seriously, gaming the system, astroturfing, whatever, is ultimately stupid and counter-productive. There are enough problems (or room for improvement, depending on your point of view) with every operating system that there's no need to indulge in sockpuppetry.
"Plus, you can not record Hulu to a DVR or VCR meaning that every one of those thousand viewers actually watches your commercial, instead of only about half. "
Huh? Since when did they plug the analog hole?
Also, what's to stop people from checking their email, opening another tab and browsing for half a minute, or raiding the fridge while the commercial streams, same as TV?
I do agree about the increased value of active choices via the Internet, but most of the time, if there's an ad, instead of clicking to close it, I go do something else for a few secs.
Fact: Brooke's brain isn't growing. that's an undeniable fact. You can tell by measuring the circumference of the head - doctors do it all the time. No tools needed other than a measuring tape. Or haven't you noticed that the skull gets bigger as the kid gets older, to accommodate a growing brain?
Fact: Contrary to the article, Broke's communications are NOT consistent with "9 to 12 months old" but with the instinctive sounds of 0 to 3 months, with - maybe - some a bit more advanced. Anything else is projection.
The rest follows.
So the real question is - is there a self-aware entity in there? From the scant, contradictory information in the article, maybe, maybe not. If there isn't what's your problem? At that point, it's not like we're dealing with someone old where "Elvis has left the building", but more like "Elvis was never here." BTW - I did preface my statement with the caveat "without more information", which should have told you that I wasn't making any absolute declaration as to what should be done in Brooke's case, since the article doesn't give us enough to do more than speculate.
The video doesn't play on linux. "Her mental age is estimated at..." - based on the evidence in the article that the only tissue that grows on her is hair and nails, would be speculative at best. From the article, her affect is extremely low, she's completely non-verbal, just grunting and other noises - this is NOT congruent with a normal mental age of 9 months to 1 year. At best you're looking at 4 to 6 months, maybe less. Instinct, not learning.
Also, post-birth abortion isn't my invention - there's over 1 million hits. It's part of the english language. Get over it already.
Culling, by any name, may offend the sensibilities, but there are times when it's justified. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell solely from the article, but certainly parents should have the option when confronted with the possibility of something like this. If there were a screening test, it's doubtful that many parents would opt to bring such a child to term.
From the article: the ONLY two things that are growing are her hair and nails. Nothing else is developing. To say that she has the mind of a toddler is speculation - nowhere in the article does any medical specialist say that. To the contrary, she's completely non-verbal, she's had brain seizures, and she's got a low affect (she sits quietly in her crib for hours). "Mental capacity of a toddler" covers a broad spectrum - and at best she's at the low end - more an infant than a toddler.
The article states that there is no evidence for cognitive growth. It just isn't happening, despite the wishful thinking of some of the people quoted in the article.
Now, on to the next point:
how could you possibly argue to kill something that isn't suffering, isn't threatening you, and looks and acts like a human baby?
Read exactly what I wrote, and maybe you'll come away with a fuller understanding (emphasis added):
And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character.
First, note that I didn't say she should be offed - I said that, without more details, on the face of it her case is a good argument for it. Nothing more. Obviously, anyone would need more details to make an actual determination. Get real. Euthanasia should be an option for extreme cases where there's little or no hope, and we not only should make it available, but we should make it socially acceptable. Doing otherwise has already cost a lot of people needless suffering. In her case, we need more facts - not just a news story. If the case is hopeless and she isn't self-aware, then what's the problem - there's "nobody home"? If she IS self-aware, then what's the problem - euthanasia isn't a viable option absent any other considerations. But, without any other facts... sure, keep euthanasia as an option.
Second, if an adult had deteriorated to this point after a long life, most civilized people would be considering their options, and euthanasia is one of them. Without more detail, there's not much to differentiate the current state of someone who's led a full life, and is now in severe physical and mental decline, and Brooke. Is Brooke self-aware? Probably not, and almost certainly not to any great extent - but again, without any more details... based just on the article... it's obviously speculation. At some point, it's a question that will have to be answered. Life is never that tidy. For example, what if her brain does start to grow normally? The skull bones are already fused, the soft spot on top is now replaced by bone - there's no place for it to expand. What do you propose - try to put her brain in a jar like on Futurama?
The West, and the US in particular, is a wealthy society.
The United States is beyond broke. Debt is NOT wealth. California is within 2 months of not being able to meet payroll and other expenses. Cities are massively overbuilt with houses that are worse than useless - wrong types of buildings in the wrong places - the banks can't even GIVE them to the cities for free because cities want the banks to pay for the cost of tearing them down. The deficit is blowing past anything that was ever contemplated. One in every 2 mortgages will be under water soon.
The median house price in Detroit is $7,500.00. That's one city that is never coming back, which is why it is being systematically bulldozed, street by street, as properties are abandoned.
Recently both Google and slashdot have been running ads for "you can make 11,668.00 from home" lately. The ads are served up by google to sites like slashdot, and it's the same modus operandi: Ask you for $2 for information, then bill you $70 to $90/month for a "subscription" you supposedly agreed to.
For search pages, google can argue that it's just conveying information for free. For ads it serves, google has no such safe harbour - it's a for-profit business, and they really should crack down on these obvious scams.
I'm no battery scientist, but I wonder if these batteries will be more or less safe compared to the lithium-ion batteries. I guess I could go read the article but...
Anything that breaks the membrane and allows moisture to come into contact with the anode will start a nice fire. Or you can microwave them. Or blend them.
First they came for boxcutters, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for hammers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for screwdrivers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for microwaves, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for blenders, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for can-openers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
So here I sit starving, unable to open this frigging can of food, and even if I could, I'd have to eat it cold because I can't nuke it and without tools I can't fix the furnace. Now if only I could find a rock and a lithium battery, I'd be able to cook it!
First, I did read the article. The doctors said her brain was not developing, and the article I read did not give a brain age of 9 months. You yourself admit that even in my original post I wrote without more details... and then you have the nerve to condemn me with YOUR suppositions?
What a fucking hypocritical lying little troll.
Take your useless little suppositions and use them like a suppository.
"And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character.
"
People are taking exception while glossing over the "without any more details"... never mind that I also preface it with a warning about how it's going to sound cruel (in the hope that people would pause for a second and read what I wrote, and not what they THINK I wrote).
My argument is simple: given someone who is not going to develop into a full-fledged, self-aware person, what DO you do? Shouldn't ALL options be on the table, so that parents can make a decision, rather than just accept the status quo. That if they decide NOT to euthanize, it's a decision that was made, not forced upon them by lack of the option? Similarly, that if they decide that euthanasia is the right thing in any individual case, that as a society we should support them socially and psychologically?
What I don't say is that they should have euthanized her. Having it as an option isn't the same as saying "you really should have done this." But people get all excited, and then read in things that aren't there. Why? The answer is simple...
For so many people this topic is completely taboo, and for no logical reason. They want to continue to use extreme measures, even when the person is clearly brain-dead. Or they want to force people to keep on living with intolerable pain rather than allow doctors to help them end the pain while they still have SOME dignity, and can pick the time of their own goodbye. Why? Not because they have the other person's interest at heart, but because they selfishly want to force THEIR views on others.
Just like rape isn't about sex, but control and power, so is this taboo about euthanasia. In too many cases, it's religious nits who want other people to continue to sit and stew in their own shit and stink, in constant pain, because "It's god's will". I don't buy it. They have no right to tell others that they cannot make what, for many, is a rational choice, or that they cannot be trusted to responsibly act when considering it for their relatives.
For these people, nothing short of a brick to the face will work. Their "duty to god" has blinded them to human suffering, or rather, their duty to god is more important than your suffering.
But back to specifics:
In the long run, there are vastly fewer people in this category than the entire population, so it's not a measurable drain on society
Unfortunately, it's not a 1-to-1 cost ratio. It would take hundreds of people to pay the cost for each case. Now add in the cost for all other such "reasonable requests" that aren't individually a measurable drain, and soon you're drowning in debt. The death of 1,000 cuts has the same result - it just takes longer.
My bad... I swapped names by mistake, I only realized it later, and of course, we can't edit our posts or post an update in the post itself.
I can understand not being allowed to edit the post by changing the original text - but we could avoid a LOT of the flame wars if we could ADD text to clarify what we meant, or point out a nuance that may have been unintentionally missed, or (like I just did by swapping the names) having a brainfart:-)
Of course that would cut down on the number of page views.
Kindly point out where I said that THEY should euthanized Brooke.
Oh, I never did.
What I did say was that, without any more details, this makes a good case for allowing post-birth abortion (or euthenasia). Not that it should be mandatory, or even that it's necessarily right in THIS case, since obviously we don't have all the details - and I pointed this out. Simply put, that it should be one of the options available for cases like this.
"And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character."
So don't condemn me for things I never wrote. The mods who marked you as flamebait probably read my original post, and realized I didn't write what you accuse me of.
Now on to the REAL question - would I euthanize one of my own in such a case? I don't know. I'd like to think that I'd have to courage to do the right thing, and pull the plug, but I just don't know. And I'm honest enough to admit it. Just like I know that, no matter what I'd decide, I would always wonder if I had made the right choice.
As for your accusation that I am guided by he "level of inconvenience" when dealing with the infirm, the handicapped, etc., the fact is that I am guided by reality. If there's nobody home, taking extraordinary measures to preserve the flesh, even to maintaining respiration after they've shucked off their mortal coil or vacated the premises is just plain bent. Once the "person" is gone, turn out the lights. Anything else ranges from just plain indecent to macabre.
And don't wait until it's too late to tell people that you love them... they need to hear it while they're still alive, while they're still able to enjoy hearing it, and while they can reciprocate. On their deathbed, or after Alzheimers has stolen them away, is just too late.
Calm down... she doesn't have the mind of a 4-year-old. She doesn't have the mind of a 4-MONTH-old. Think more along the lines of a newborn infant. Except... No permanent brain changes, so no maturation, no learning.
If you read the article (I know, this is slashdot, nobody even reads the summaries), the only ones saying otherwise are the family, who claim to "read in" more. Absent any other evidence, they're projecting their wishes onto Brooke, same as people do with the terminally ill, and even the dead ("I swear I saw her breathe!").
Can't say I blame them - it's a sorry situation to be stuck in. However, they really do seem to be treating her like a toy or a pet - because that's pretty much all she's ever going to be able to respond as. Not as an individual. It is what it is, which just goes to show that staying young forever can be a curse.
Hm, maybe so - but there's very little if any evidence so far saying that simple day-to-day encounters effect a physical change on the brain. Yet we remember these activities for years beyond their original occurrence.
ALL memories require physical/chemical changes to the brain. No change == no memory. If the change isn't permanent, the memory is lost. The brain isn't a "get something for nothing" device - you don't get data storage without change of state.
My question back to you is "what is a being?" Leave off "human" for the moment - it obscures the true issue, which is sentience, be it human or non-human, alien or cybernetic.
Also, euthenasia doesn't necessarily require the consent of the subject - it's because they're often beyond the capability of functioning that euthenasia has to be looked at. If they were still functional and self-aware, there'd be no question of euthenasia.
Killing her wouldn't be euthansia, it would be eugenics, and even that psuedo-rationale is a stretch because she may never be able to reproduce!
Really? So even though she's incapable of giving informed consent to sex, you would want her to BREED if she could reproduce, because to do otherwise is eugenics? As others have pointed out - a pedophile's dream - an adult with the body of a baby. That's just fucked up. Or you're not thinking your argument through. Or if you disagree with it, why did you bring it up?
Or, to get back to being serious... there's a good chance that this choice will have to be made at some future date. For example, if her brain DOES start to develop normally... the skull has already consolidated, the soft tissue on the top is no longer soft, so there's no room for the brain to expand. Drilling holes to relieve the pressure works with adults whose brains are expanding because of injury, but won't in this case. Of course, if the brain never develops, she doesn't become self-aware, so she couldn't care less what happens.
Or any one of the diseases that kills people every day, and the situation becomes hopeless...
It's an ugly situation. I don't envy anyone in that family, I just feel sorry for them.
There is no reason at this point to believe that Emily will ever be capable of any learning. You can't learn if, through a genetic fluke, your brain cells can't be permanently modified fast enough to retain a memory, or if they "reset" to their former configuration soon after.
Also, your examples bring up the whole "quality of life" issue. At some point, it's time to pull the plug. With time, hopefully we'll either conquer diseases like Alzheimers, or learn to replace the parts that break down with mechanical devices (there's already been some experimentation with prosthesis to help the brain).
If we don't figure out a solution, then the only other alternative is to cull the herd. That's just being realistic. Ugly, but the alternatives are ultimately uglier.
LOL, dude... you are either trolling or have some serious issues. You clearly don't have kids. Anyone without some kind of psych problem who has spent any time with babies wouldn't be able to kill one.
2 adult daughters. We get along great. However, if you've ever spent any time with parents, you've certainly heard at least one parent say that they could kill their kid. Most of them don't have a psych problem - they have a "darned teenager blah blah blah" problem... and they get over it.
And where do you get the idea that a toddler isn't self-aware?
This isn't a toddler. That would be a BIG step up. Emily's brain doesn't change. You can't learn or develop and retain memories if your brain doesn't change. Think of a computer with no ram - just rom. Pretty useless. Emily is running on instinct. A newborn is not self-aware.
I mean, the parents here aren't even abandoning the child - they are caring for it. I don't know what even made you think of euthanasia! LOL...
And that's their privilege. But what happens when the parents are pushing up daisies, or themselves in an old-age home? Which of the kids is going to be guilted into playing mommy to someone who is, like a doll, an empty shell?
Darned if I can remember... one of them was about an individual who couldn't remember more than 5 minutes in the past - IIRC, it was a short story by Asimov (but I could be wrong - it was several decades ago), the other about how the Soviets developed an anti-aging treatment that took the world by storm, but their leaders refused to take it... In the latter story, all was well for the first few years, but then people began to lose short-term memory function, as the brain became affected.
You can't learn if your brain undoes every chemical and physical change, or simply doesn't change in response to stimuli. Scary stuff, and it looks like we have a real-life case.
I'm a strong advocate of euthenizing those with Alzheimers when there's no longer "anybody home." Same with anyone who is brain dead. That which makes us beings is what is important, not that which makes us human, which is just genetics.
Beings are self-aware. It's intelligence that is important, not external shape. In other words, I would accord self-aware beings the same personhood as self-aware humans. This includes other animals that have exhibited self-awareness, or hypothetical aliens, or whatever. And we'd better start thinking more along those lines, because there ARE other self-aware creatures on this planet, and we also may have the same problem with our own creations becoming self-aware.
Memories and learnign require changes in brain cells - immediate changes - or they're lost forever. Her brain hasn't changed in 10 years. Even if it were to change slowly, the change would be too slow to store memories or aid learning, so the very thing that makes her interesting to doctors also dooms her to non-self-awareness. Talk about tragedy.
Of course, we're self-aware, and we tend to project how WE would feel in such a situation on others. However, Emily, not being self-aware, literally could not care less. It is this that I recognize, so I look at the larger picture. What about the effects on society as a whole if all of a sudden, people stop aging and stop learning? More narrow in scope - what happens when Emily's parents die? Which of the children gets to be the permanent baby-sitter?
Heck, just imagine the weaponization potential of this... imagine you could develop a virus that could carry this to your enemies. All of a sudden, they can no longer learn, can't remember what they did an hour ago... perfect zombie fleshbots. Or, to be a dumbass for a moment, imagine if a company like Microsoft got a hold of this.
All I'll say to this is that I hope you learn a lesson in empathy someday.
A big, nasty, walloping lesson that leaves you permanently pissing into a bag through a tube from your hospital bed, you inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick.
Maybe YOU need to learn a lesson in looking at the big picture...
As I've posted elsewhere when being accused of a lack of empathy...
The family's situation is totally screwed up. If nothing changes, at least one of the kids is going to be stuck baby-sitting for the rest of their lives, putting their own life on hold, after the parents kick the bucket. This isn't fair to them. Worse - what if the genetic defect is 50/50, and the kids are carriers?
This is not a blessing - it's a horror show. Imagine dying of old age and never having become self-aware... you can imagine it because your ARE self-aware. Emily never will be. That's the difference between a human being, and a human animal. You're a being, a person - Emily is just a human animal. Not a being, and with no capacity to become one, since she can't learn, and is responding purely on instinct. The family has developed coping mechanisms, but they'll be ill served by them in the long run. Think about what's going to happen over the next few decades. Would YOU like to have a sister as a pet, along with the responsibility that goes with it? And the guilt when you get fed up? Because that's the future in this case, unless and until Emily kicks off.
Sure, be sympathetic for the family... but also look at the reality - that for too long we've held euthanasia as being "unthinkable", a taboo, and that we then force other people to live lives that suck because of our taboos. Sometimes, you have to be brutal to overcome a deeply-seated taboo and get people to even consider the alternatives. Or to realize that form is not more important than function. Emily might have the form of a human being, but she will never function as one - one of the essentials - changes in the brain that allow learning - is missing. The same thing that excites doctors about the rest of her has sealed her fate in that most important area - the ability to become self-aware.
I wouldn't wish this on family. But I would make it easy and socially acceptable for them to change it.
Now, how does this make me into someone who needs to "learn a lesson in empathy" or an "inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick"?
The facts say that Emily is not developing - she is stuck, brain-wise, in infancy, and will always respond purely on an instinctive level. This is a hopeless situation. Hopeless. You are guilty of projecting YOUR sense of self-awareness onto Emily. She is less capable of self-awareness than your cat or dog. We put down our pets when they can no longer function, the prognosis is hopeless, they're crapping and pissing themselves, will never walk again, and simply can no longer live the life of a dog or a cat. What's the difference with Emily? The fact that she never WAS a toddler, or a teenager, and never will be. And that, unlike the cat or dog, who can actually LEARN, Emily doesn't.
But back to YOU:
A big, nasty, walloping lesson that leaves you permanently pissing into a bag through a tube from your hospital bed, you inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick.
And how arrogant are YOU, to be prescribing such treatment to someone who, unlike Emily, is self-aware? Oh, and BTW, I've been through worse - and you lack imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
"On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing."
There's a channel with the least horseshit? Quick - someone tell my brother-in-law - he just spends his evenings repeatedly looping through all the channels.
When his dish went down (snowstorm and ice buildup temporarily knocked it out) he spent over two hours just sitting there looking at the on-screen menu (I kid you not) before giving up and going to bed.
BTW - most advertisers still haven't got a clue about the scams wrt cost-per-click. They WANT to believe. You can tell them until you're blue in the face that click-bots, pay-to-click scams, and all the rest mean that the stats are bogus, but there's no changing their minds - they'd rather believe that it's not bad traffic, but a question of if they tweak their landing page better, they'll get better conversion rates.
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas." HAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use reCAPTCHA." HAHAHA! (gasp) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use image captchas." Here - pull my finger. That plus a couple of bucks will get you a coffee. HAHAHA!
"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas so hard even people can't solve them!" DUH! Think about what you just said for two seconds ... that means ALL your click-through traffic is bots.
The internet really needs to come up with a better revenue model than the current advertising monoculture.
It's interesting you say that, because you're not the only one, by far. I have friends who intentionally disconnected their TV from any external inputs (no antenna, no cable), so it's DVDs and games only. One of my daughters bought a 60" Sony a few years ago ... she has cable, and yet she now also no longer watches TV, and is thinking of getting rid of it. I haven't turned my dish on in over half a year ... and this isn't the first time that's happened.
Interactivity and real control changes the equation completely for many of us. Who wants to go back to being spoon-fed?
"I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse."
Have you tried getting a Wii and downloading Opera (500 Wii points)?
It plays youtube videos full-screen with no problems. I can't say whether it works with Hulu since I'm north of the U S of A, and they don't like Kanuckistan.
Impressive research. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter :-)
Seriously, gaming the system, astroturfing, whatever, is ultimately stupid and counter-productive. There are enough problems (or room for improvement, depending on your point of view) with every operating system that there's no need to indulge in sockpuppetry.
"Plus, you can not record Hulu to a DVR or VCR meaning that every one of those thousand viewers actually watches your commercial, instead of only about half. "
Huh? Since when did they plug the analog hole?
Also, what's to stop people from checking their email, opening another tab and browsing for half a minute, or raiding the fridge while the commercial streams, same as TV?
I do agree about the increased value of active choices via the Internet, but most of the time, if there's an ad, instead of clicking to close it, I go do something else for a few secs.
"And the criminal ones?
The police said they were unable to proceed after the payment of a $22 million settlement and the victim refusing to testify.
So - bought off.
Fact: Brooke's brain isn't growing. that's an undeniable fact. You can tell by measuring the circumference of the head - doctors do it all the time. No tools needed other than a measuring tape. Or haven't you noticed that the skull gets bigger as the kid gets older, to accommodate a growing brain?
Fact: Contrary to the article, Broke's communications are NOT consistent with "9 to 12 months old" but with the instinctive sounds of 0 to 3 months, with - maybe - some a bit more advanced. Anything else is projection.
The rest follows.
So the real question is - is there a self-aware entity in there? From the scant, contradictory information in the article, maybe, maybe not. If there isn't what's your problem? At that point, it's not like we're dealing with someone old where "Elvis has left the building", but more like "Elvis was never here." BTW - I did preface my statement with the caveat "without more information", which should have told you that I wasn't making any absolute declaration as to what should be done in Brooke's case, since the article doesn't give us enough to do more than speculate.
The video doesn't play on linux. "Her mental age is estimated at ..." - based on the evidence in the article that the only tissue that grows on her is hair and nails, would be speculative at best. From the article, her affect is extremely low, she's completely non-verbal, just grunting and other noises - this is NOT congruent with a normal mental age of 9 months to 1 year. At best you're looking at 4 to 6 months, maybe less. Instinct, not learning.
Also, post-birth abortion isn't my invention - there's over 1 million hits. It's part of the english language. Get over it already.
Culling, by any name, may offend the sensibilities, but there are times when it's justified. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell solely from the article, but certainly parents should have the option when confronted with the possibility of something like this. If there were a screening test, it's doubtful that many parents would opt to bring such a child to term.
From the article: the ONLY two things that are growing are her hair and nails. Nothing else is developing. To say that she has the mind of a toddler is speculation - nowhere in the article does any medical specialist say that. To the contrary, she's completely non-verbal, she's had brain seizures, and she's got a low affect (she sits quietly in her crib for hours). "Mental capacity of a toddler" covers a broad spectrum - and at best she's at the low end - more an infant than a toddler.
The article states that there is no evidence for cognitive growth. It just isn't happening, despite the wishful thinking of some of the people quoted in the article.
Now, on to the next point:
Read exactly what I wrote, and maybe you'll come away with a fuller understanding (emphasis added):
First, note that I didn't say she should be offed - I said that, without more details, on the face of it her case is a good argument for it. Nothing more. Obviously, anyone would need more details to make an actual determination. Get real. Euthanasia should be an option for extreme cases where there's little or no hope, and we not only should make it available, but we should make it socially acceptable. Doing otherwise has already cost a lot of people needless suffering. In her case, we need more facts - not just a news story. If the case is hopeless and she isn't self-aware, then what's the problem - there's "nobody home"? If she IS self-aware, then what's the problem - euthanasia isn't a viable option absent any other considerations. But, without any other facts ... sure, keep euthanasia as an option.
Second, if an adult had deteriorated to this point after a long life, most civilized people would be considering their options, and euthanasia is one of them. Without more detail, there's not much to differentiate the current state of someone who's led a full life, and is now in severe physical and mental decline, and Brooke. Is Brooke self-aware? Probably not, and almost certainly not to any great extent - but again, without any more details ... based just on the article ... it's obviously speculation. At some point, it's a question that will have to be answered. Life is never that tidy. For example, what if her brain does start to grow normally? The skull bones are already fused, the soft spot on top is now replaced by bone - there's no place for it to expand. What do you propose - try to put her brain in a jar like on Futurama?
The United States is beyond broke. Debt is NOT wealth. California is within 2 months of not being able to meet payroll and other expenses. Cities are massively overbuilt with houses that are worse than useless - wrong types of buildings in the wrong places - the banks can't even GIVE them to the cities for free because cities want the banks to pay for the cost of tearing them down. The deficit is blowing past anything that was ever contemplated. One in every 2 mortgages will be under water soon.
The median house price in Detroit is $7,500.00. That's one city that is never coming back, which is why it is being systematically bulldozed, street by street, as properties are abandoned.
The current public debt is over $11 trillion, but after you add in unfunded social security and medicare obligations, it's over $100 trillion, or $1.45 million for a family of 4. Unfunded health-care obligations are what bankrupted GM. Why won't they bankrupt the US?
Recently both Google and slashdot have been running ads for "you can make 11,668.00 from home" lately. The ads are served up by google to sites like slashdot, and it's the same modus operandi: Ask you for $2 for information, then bill you $70 to $90/month for a "subscription" you supposedly agreed to.
For search pages, google can argue that it's just conveying information for free. For ads it serves, google has no such safe harbour - it's a for-profit business, and they really should crack down on these obvious scams.
Anything that breaks the membrane and allows moisture to come into contact with the anode will start a nice fire. Or you can microwave them. Or blend them.
First they came for boxcutters, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for hammers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for screwdrivers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for microwaves, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for blenders, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
Then they came for can-openers, but I wasn't a terr'rist, so I didn't say anything.
So here I sit starving, unable to open this frigging can of food, and even if I could, I'd have to eat it cold because I can't nuke it and without tools I can't fix the furnace. Now if only I could find a rock and a lithium battery, I'd be able to cook it!
First, I did read the article. The doctors said her brain was not developing, and the article I read did not give a brain age of 9 months. You yourself admit that even in my original post I wrote without more details ... and then you have the nerve to condemn me with YOUR suppositions?
What a fucking hypocritical lying little troll.
Take your useless little suppositions and use them like a suppository.
(sigh) Please re-read original post:
Quoted in full, with emphasis added:
"And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant ... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character.
"
People are taking exception while glossing over the "without any more details" ... never mind that I also preface it with a warning about how it's going to sound cruel (in the hope that people would pause for a second and read what I wrote, and not what they THINK I wrote).
My argument is simple: given someone who is not going to develop into a full-fledged, self-aware person, what DO you do? Shouldn't ALL options be on the table, so that parents can make a decision, rather than just accept the status quo. That if they decide NOT to euthanize, it's a decision that was made, not forced upon them by lack of the option? Similarly, that if they decide that euthanasia is the right thing in any individual case, that as a society we should support them socially and psychologically?
What I don't say is that they should have euthanized her. Having it as an option isn't the same as saying "you really should have done this." But people get all excited, and then read in things that aren't there. Why? The answer is simple ...
For so many people this topic is completely taboo, and for no logical reason. They want to continue to use extreme measures, even when the person is clearly brain-dead. Or they want to force people to keep on living with intolerable pain rather than allow doctors to help them end the pain while they still have SOME dignity, and can pick the time of their own goodbye. Why? Not because they have the other person's interest at heart, but because they selfishly want to force THEIR views on others.
Just like rape isn't about sex, but control and power, so is this taboo about euthanasia. In too many cases, it's religious nits who want other people to continue to sit and stew in their own shit and stink, in constant pain, because "It's god's will". I don't buy it. They have no right to tell others that they cannot make what, for many, is a rational choice, or that they cannot be trusted to responsibly act when considering it for their relatives.
For these people, nothing short of a brick to the face will work. Their "duty to god" has blinded them to human suffering, or rather, their duty to god is more important than your suffering.
But back to specifics:
Unfortunately, it's not a 1-to-1 cost ratio. It would take hundreds of people to pay the cost for each case. Now add in the cost for all other such "reasonable requests" that aren't individually a measurable drain, and soon you're drowning in debt. The death of 1,000 cuts has the same result - it just takes longer.
My bad ... I swapped names by mistake, I only realized it later, and of course, we can't edit our posts or post an update in the post itself.
I can understand not being allowed to edit the post by changing the original text - but we could avoid a LOT of the flame wars if we could ADD text to clarify what we meant, or point out a nuance that may have been unintentionally missed, or (like I just did by swapping the names) having a brainfart :-)
Of course that would cut down on the number of page views.
Which would cut revenue.
Which would be a "BAD THING".
Because $$$ > Quality.
Or am I missing something?
Maybe you should re-read what I originally wrote?
Kindly point out where I said that THEY should euthanized Brooke.
Oh, I never did.
What I did say was that, without any more details, this makes a good case for allowing post-birth abortion (or euthenasia). Not that it should be mandatory, or even that it's necessarily right in THIS case, since obviously we don't have all the details - and I pointed this out. Simply put, that it should be one of the options available for cases like this.
Here, I'll even make it easy for you - here's the full post (emphasis added):
"And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant ... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character."
So don't condemn me for things I never wrote. The mods who marked you as flamebait probably read my original post, and realized I didn't write what you accuse me of.
Now on to the REAL question - would I euthanize one of my own in such a case? I don't know. I'd like to think that I'd have to courage to do the right thing, and pull the plug, but I just don't know. And I'm honest enough to admit it. Just like I know that, no matter what I'd decide, I would always wonder if I had made the right choice.
As for your accusation that I am guided by he "level of inconvenience" when dealing with the infirm, the handicapped, etc., the fact is that I am guided by reality. If there's nobody home, taking extraordinary measures to preserve the flesh, even to maintaining respiration after they've shucked off their mortal coil or vacated the premises is just plain bent. Once the "person" is gone, turn out the lights. Anything else ranges from just plain indecent to macabre.
And don't wait until it's too late to tell people that you love them ... they need to hear it while they're still alive, while they're still able to enjoy hearing it, and while they can reciprocate. On their deathbed, or after Alzheimers has stolen them away, is just too late.
Calm down ... she doesn't have the mind of a 4-year-old. She doesn't have the mind of a 4-MONTH-old. Think more along the lines of a newborn infant. Except ... No permanent brain changes, so no maturation, no learning.
If you read the article (I know, this is slashdot, nobody even reads the summaries), the only ones saying otherwise are the family, who claim to "read in" more. Absent any other evidence, they're projecting their wishes onto Brooke, same as people do with the terminally ill, and even the dead ("I swear I saw her breathe!").
Can't say I blame them - it's a sorry situation to be stuck in. However, they really do seem to be treating her like a toy or a pet - because that's pretty much all she's ever going to be able to respond as. Not as an individual. It is what it is, which just goes to show that staying young forever can be a curse.
ALL memories require physical/chemical changes to the brain. No change == no memory. If the change isn't permanent, the memory is lost. The brain isn't a "get something for nothing" device - you don't get data storage without change of state.
My question back to you is "what is a being?" Leave off "human" for the moment - it obscures the true issue, which is sentience, be it human or non-human, alien or cybernetic.
Also, euthenasia doesn't necessarily require the consent of the subject - it's because they're often beyond the capability of functioning that euthenasia has to be looked at. If they were still functional and self-aware, there'd be no question of euthenasia.
Really? So even though she's incapable of giving informed consent to sex, you would want her to BREED if she could reproduce, because to do otherwise is eugenics? As others have pointed out - a pedophile's dream - an adult with the body of a baby. That's just fucked up. Or you're not thinking your argument through. Or if you disagree with it, why did you bring it up?
Or, to get back to being serious ... there's a good chance that this choice will have to be made at some future date. For example, if her brain DOES start to develop normally ... the skull has already consolidated, the soft tissue on the top is no longer soft, so there's no room for the brain to expand. Drilling holes to relieve the pressure works with adults whose brains are expanding because of injury, but won't in this case. Of course, if the brain never develops, she doesn't become self-aware, so she couldn't care less what happens.
Or any one of the diseases that kills people every day, and the situation becomes hopeless ...
It's an ugly situation. I don't envy anyone in that family, I just feel sorry for them.
There is no reason at this point to believe that Emily will ever be capable of any learning. You can't learn if, through a genetic fluke, your brain cells can't be permanently modified fast enough to retain a memory, or if they "reset" to their former configuration soon after.
Also, your examples bring up the whole "quality of life" issue. At some point, it's time to pull the plug. With time, hopefully we'll either conquer diseases like Alzheimers, or learn to replace the parts that break down with mechanical devices (there's already been some experimentation with prosthesis to help the brain).
If we don't figure out a solution, then the only other alternative is to cull the herd. That's just being realistic. Ugly, but the alternatives are ultimately uglier.
2 adult daughters. We get along great. However, if you've ever spent any time with parents, you've certainly heard at least one parent say that they could kill their kid. Most of them don't have a psych problem - they have a "darned teenager blah blah blah" problem ... and they get over it.
This isn't a toddler. That would be a BIG step up. Emily's brain doesn't change. You can't learn or develop and retain memories if your brain doesn't change. Think of a computer with no ram - just rom. Pretty useless. Emily is running on instinct. A newborn is not self-aware.
And that's their privilege. But what happens when the parents are pushing up daisies, or themselves in an old-age home? Which of the kids is going to be guilted into playing mommy to someone who is, like a doll, an empty shell?
Darned if I can remember ... one of them was about an individual who couldn't remember more than 5 minutes in the past - IIRC, it was a short story by Asimov (but I could be wrong - it was several decades ago), the other about how the Soviets developed an anti-aging treatment that took the world by storm, but their leaders refused to take it ... In the latter story, all was well for the first few years, but then people began to lose short-term memory function, as the brain became affected.
You can't learn if your brain undoes every chemical and physical change, or simply doesn't change in response to stimuli. Scary stuff, and it looks like we have a real-life case.
I'm a strong advocate of euthenizing those with Alzheimers when there's no longer "anybody home." Same with anyone who is brain dead. That which makes us beings is what is important, not that which makes us human, which is just genetics.
Beings are self-aware. It's intelligence that is important, not external shape. In other words, I would accord self-aware beings the same personhood as self-aware humans. This includes other animals that have exhibited self-awareness, or hypothetical aliens, or whatever. And we'd better start thinking more along those lines, because there ARE other self-aware creatures on this planet, and we also may have the same problem with our own creations becoming self-aware.
Memories and learnign require changes in brain cells - immediate changes - or they're lost forever. Her brain hasn't changed in 10 years. Even if it were to change slowly, the change would be too slow to store memories or aid learning, so the very thing that makes her interesting to doctors also dooms her to non-self-awareness. Talk about tragedy.
Of course, we're self-aware, and we tend to project how WE would feel in such a situation on others. However, Emily, not being self-aware, literally could not care less. It is this that I recognize, so I look at the larger picture. What about the effects on society as a whole if all of a sudden, people stop aging and stop learning? More narrow in scope - what happens when Emily's parents die? Which of the children gets to be the permanent baby-sitter?
Heck, just imagine the weaponization potential of this ... imagine you could develop a virus that could carry this to your enemies. All of a sudden, they can no longer learn, can't remember what they did an hour ago ... perfect zombie fleshbots. Or, to be a dumbass for a moment, imagine if a company like Microsoft got a hold of this.
The real story isn't about Emily at all ...
Maybe YOU need to learn a lesson in looking at the big picture ...
As I've posted elsewhere when being accused of a lack of empathy ...
The family's situation is totally screwed up. If nothing changes, at least one of the kids is going to be stuck baby-sitting for the rest of their lives, putting their own life on hold, after the parents kick the bucket. This isn't fair to them. Worse - what if the genetic defect is 50/50, and the kids are carriers?
This is not a blessing - it's a horror show. Imagine dying of old age and never having become self-aware ... you can imagine it because your ARE self-aware. Emily never will be. That's the difference between a human being, and a human animal. You're a being, a person - Emily is just a human animal. Not a being, and with no capacity to become one, since she can't learn, and is responding purely on instinct. The family has developed coping mechanisms, but they'll be ill served by them in the long run. Think about what's going to happen over the next few decades. Would YOU like to have a sister as a pet, along with the responsibility that goes with it? And the guilt when you get fed up? Because that's the future in this case, unless and until Emily kicks off.
Sure, be sympathetic for the family ... but also look at the reality - that for too long we've held euthanasia as being "unthinkable", a taboo, and that we then force other people to live lives that suck because of our taboos. Sometimes, you have to be brutal to overcome a deeply-seated taboo and get people to even consider the alternatives. Or to realize that form is not more important than function. Emily might have the form of a human being, but she will never function as one - one of the essentials - changes in the brain that allow learning - is missing. The same thing that excites doctors about the rest of her has sealed her fate in that most important area - the ability to become self-aware.
I wouldn't wish this on family. But I would make it easy and socially acceptable for them to change it.
Now, how does this make me into someone who needs to "learn a lesson in empathy" or an "inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick"?
The facts say that Emily is not developing - she is stuck, brain-wise, in infancy, and will always respond purely on an instinctive level. This is a hopeless situation. Hopeless. You are guilty of projecting YOUR sense of self-awareness onto Emily. She is less capable of self-awareness than your cat or dog. We put down our pets when they can no longer function, the prognosis is hopeless, they're crapping and pissing themselves, will never walk again, and simply can no longer live the life of a dog or a cat. What's the difference with Emily? The fact that she never WAS a toddler, or a teenager, and never will be. And that, unlike the cat or dog, who can actually LEARN, Emily doesn't.
But back to YOU:
And how arrogant are YOU, to be prescribing such treatment to someone who, unlike Emily, is self-aware? Oh, and BTW, I've been through worse - and you lack imagination.