Re: Re: Genetic predisposition (was: Sober as a Bush?)

[Guest guest]

Therefore, recovery paradigms based on an assumption that alcohol abuse/dependence is a BEHAVIORAL disorder, and that focus on changing that behavior, would seem to be more effective and appropriate than paradigms that lay a "permanent, incurable" status on the individual. And genetic pronouncements do just that. It's no surprise that steppers very much like to quote snippets from genetic studies -- it dovetails nicely with their already-held belief in alcoholism as an "incurable" condition that requires lifelong involvement with AA to keep "in remission".

Rita, I largely agree with everything you have posted, but let us not fall into the trap of rejecting truth because it is amenable to AA. The twin studies show a virtually inarguable genetic predisposition to over 200 traits, including heavy consumption of alcohol. These studies are useful in demonstrating, for example, that homosexual orientation is not a "choice" or even necessarily the byproduct of nurture. Too many identical twins, raised apart, are both homosexual than could be explained by chance or choice.

If there is a genetic predisposition to the heavy consumption of alcohol, that is not changed merely because AA finds the fact pleasing.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think it is very ill-advised to tell people they have a "biochemical/genetic pre-disposition" towards abusive drinking -- it presents an "I can't help myself" excuse for continued unhealthy behavior.

Instead, I feel that it's far better to simply say, "You've been engaging in unhealthy drinking behavior, but you have the power to change that behavior." There are, of course, many different methods of facilitating that behavioral change (of which AA is among the least effective and for those of us on this list, the most repulsive!).

Telling people the truth is virtually always the right thing to do.

Withholding from them that they have a biochemical/genetic predisposition to heavy drinking is morally wrong, because this is information about a person's own body to which he or she is manifestly entitled.

Armed with this information, a person could exercise greater care about how they use alcohol. Certainly it need not translate into an "I can't help myself" attitude, because a predisposition is just that -- not an irresistible compulsion.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

--------------

>

> Hi Steve --

>

> Well, first off, demographic studies consistently show that Asians

>e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese have in fact very low rates of alcohol

>abuse/dependence -- even third-generation Chinese living in American

> " Chinatowns " have many firmly held cultural restrictions against

>over-indulgence, and very moderate drinking is widespread. So no, the

> " Asian flush " to which you alluded does not cause or correlate with alcohol

>abuse/dependence.

Well, I wasn't sure it did, either. So, I that's why I said I didn't know

whether it was causative for alcoholism or not.

>

> But the crucial issue is that there is a tendency, when looking at

>genetic issues, to completely IGNORE cultural and socioeconomic factors in

>alcohol abuse/dependence. And the question should be asked, which subject

>is of more relevance to helping stop alcohol misuse? (Drugs as well, but

>let's keep the subject on alcohol for now.) " Alcoholism " , as says,

>is a folk expression that generally refers to the DSM diagnosis of Alcohol

>Dependence. It's only steppers who ascribe any other meaning to it -- e.g.

>an inborn " alcoholic personality " (completely discredited by research), a

> " spiritual emptiness " or " hole in the heart where God belongs " (mystical)

>-- and these beliefs then lead to the certainty that " alcoholism " is a

>permanent condition, and exists even if you become completely abstinent.

Wrong on your one sentence. It is NOT just steppers who ascribe " any other

meaning " to it. Those who believe in genetic causes (and other biochemical

causes, such as maternal hormones) do believe that the condition exists even

if one becomes abstinent. Just as mania potential exists even if one is

taking lithium

>

> But if you stick to the DSM criteria, it becomes obvious that

> " alcohol dependence " describes current and recent behavior only -- anyone

>who has not experienced any alcohol problems for over a year no longer can

>be diagnosed as " alcohol dependent " . And all studies show that the rate of

>so-called " relapses " falls off to near zero when more than a year has gone

>by with no drinking problems. Sobriety becomes easier with practice.

Actually, what I've seen, and yes, the surveys may be focused more toward

12-step members, 5 years is considered a " cutoff " point -- 90 percent who

have been sober 5 years, from longitudinal studies, remain so for life. I

don't believe that " just " one year offers that level of relapse guarantee.

Of course that depends also on exactly how you define relapse.

>

> Therefore, recovery paradigms based on an assumption that alcohol

>abuse/dependence is a BEHAVIORAL disorder, and that focus on changing that

>behavior, would seem to be more effective and appropriate than paradigms

>that lay a " permanent, incurable " status on the individual. And genetic

>pronouncements do just that. It's no surprise that steppers very much like

>to quote snippets from genetic studies -- it dovetails nicely with their

>already-held belief in alcoholism as an " incurable " condition that requires

>lifelong involvement with AA to keep " in remission " .

And non-steppers can believe the physical predisposition is permanent

without having any " recruitment agenda. " Plus, as I said in other posts, a

" genetic pronouncement " may offer a better hope for cure than does an

entirely behaviorial model. Third, again, I am not myself talking about

" either-or " -- I am talking about " both-and " , which, I notice in many online

forums, is quite rare.

> Though I disagree with many things Jack Trimpey says and does, I do

>like what he says about the genetic studies -- namely, what difference does

>it make if someone has a " pre-disposition " toward liking alcohol very much

>-- no matter how much someone loves or craves alcohol, he/she can learn to

>ignore and resist that craving. And the genetic researchers offer

>absolutely no advice in that direction.

Not true. Again, if that predisposition involves brain chemistry, and drugs

already on the market can help with that, the genetic angle says, look, we

may be able to help you in advance.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

From our belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent

sense to tell people, "Look, you have this certain genetic makeup."

Not only does it make practical sense, but it is information to which the person is entitled, if it is true. Genetic influence does make a difference; the only serious argument anymore with regard to everything from intelligence to illness, is to what extent it does so.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>Rita, I largely agree with everything you have posted, but let us not fall

>into the trap of rejecting truth because it is amenable to AA. The twin

>studies show a virtually inarguable genetic predisposition to over 200

>traits, including heavy consumption of alcohol. These studies are useful

>in

>demonstrating, for example, that homosexual orientation is not a " choice "

>or

>even necessarily the byproduct of nurture. Too many identical twins,

>raised

>apart, are both homosexual than could be explained by chance or choice.

>

>If there is a genetic predisposition to the heavy consumption of alcohol,

>that is not changed merely because AA finds the fact pleasing.

>

>--Mona--

Ditto here, Mona. And AGAIN, I will point out that my positing a genetic

predisposition has in NO WAY been to dismiss sociological or behavioral

factors. AGAIN, this is " both-and " not " either-or " in my book.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

I do believe "scientism" is an appropriate word for the philosophy that would make the scientific approach to the world, a reductionist approach, an overriding metaphysic for life. Science can't explain Shakespeare or Rembrandt, for example.

But, as unbiased as possible, science can explain the facts of material existence, and what we can do with those facts, far better than anything else.

I could have written that entire post, but you put it all so well I'm glad I didn't try. I agree, scientism is not adequate to the human condition, but that science has been of inestimable value to humanity could be denied only by an idiot. I would not be alive today had I been born even 200 years go.

Nor would I be communicating with people I like and enjoy, and experiencing the intellectually satisfying phenomenon of a world without borders.

Science is the greatest benefit to humanity ever. It is not sufficient to human happiness, but it surely seems to have been necessary.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> Well, yes, I agree with that. But -- how does acknowledging a

>genetic predisposition towards the enjoyment of heavy alcohol consumption

>help to solve alcohol problems?

As far as at least the potential to solve problems, I've answered this more

than once.

>

> As I said in a couple of posts to Steve, those who focus on

>genetic/biochemical issues tend to completely avoid or dismiss

>cultural/social factors in preventing and/or overcoming drinking problems.

Not all of us do, again, as I've noted more than once.

>

> As regards behavioral phenomena, we are most definitely not slaves to

>our genetics or biochemistry. Drinking, after all, is hardly the same

>thing as height or eye color. I think it is very ill-advised to tell

>people they have a " biochemical/genetic pre-disposition " towards abusive

>drinking -- it presents an " I can't help myself " excuse for continued

>unhealthy behavior.

I've never said anything about being slaves to genetics. Again, to take the

analogy from adult onset diabetes, a healthy diet earlier in life can avoid

it ever happening. As can the behavioral choice to watch one's drinking if

one knows he or she has a genetic predisposition.

Again, a multi-sided view on my part.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> OK -- but shouldn't EVERYONE " watch their drinking " ? The vast

>majority of DUI's are committed by people who are NOT " alcoholics " , and who

>therefore would not have the " genetic pre-disposition " of which you speak.

Yes, but I believe that those with a biological/genetic predisposition have

a *greater need* to watch it.

>

> My point is not that there IS no genetic variance, but rather that

>teaching/learning responsible drinking is appropriate for everyone,

>regardless of genetics or biochemistry. (As is teaching healthy eating

>habits.)

>

> In short, I'm not a big fan of seeing the human population as sharply

>divided into " alcoholics " and " non-alcoholics " . The behavioral

>understanding involves seeing alcohol use and alcohol problems as being on

>a continuum, and that in different periods of one's life, one can very well

>move in any direction on the continuum. Longitudinal studies bear this

>out.

Oh, I agree that's true. And glad to hear you say it, too. I also believe

there's fuzzy boundaries on the definition of alcoholics... maybe that's a

better way, or a nuanced way of saying it. In other words, my POV is that

its a continuum with a pretty thin midsection.... boudaries are pretty

fuzzy at times, but there are nonetheless bondaries.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> > Telling people the truth is virtually always the right thing to do.

> > Withholding from them that they have a biochemical/genetic

>predisposition to

> > heavy drinking is morally wrong, because this is information about a

>person's

> > own body to which he or she is manifestly entitled.

> >

>----------------

>

> Well, I certainly agree with you on the right to know medical truths

>about yourself -- but as of this writing, " biochemical/genetic

>pre-disposition " is merely speculation, not concrete scientific fact.

>There IS no way to test for this purported " pre-disposition " gene -- people

>who have problem drinkers in their family are simply TOLD without any

>proof, that they are " pre-disposed " to alcoholism.

I believe it is truth. And it will prove to be more than one gene, which

will make matters more complicated.

> I wasn't referring to prevention of future alcohol problems -- I

>meant that when a person is already engaging in irresponsible, unhealthy

>drinking patterns, telling them their biology makes them do it is

>counterproductive as well as unprovable. It often IS interpeted as

> " irresistible compulsion " -- most definitions of " addiction " involve such a

>concept.

Well, let's turn this thread back to prevention of future alcohol problems.

That was the focus of my posts, and I believe, of Mona's as well. From our

belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent sense

to tell people, " Look, you have this certain genetic makeup. "

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> Hi Rita,

> I concur. On the other side of the coin, I think the theories and

>fantasies about " curing alcoholism " genetically, ought to be avoided

>and dismissed (by people who want to deal with their alochol

>problems) at least until there is some substance to to back up the

>theory, and when something relieable has been found to deal with

>those genes... And since I believe that whole notion to be a fantasy,

>I don't see that day arriving soon, and therefore people who reject

>the idea, at least until it is proven, will have much better chances

>in dealing with their alcohol problems.

>

> > As regards behavioral phenomena, we are most definitely not

>slaves to our genetics or biochemistry. Drinking, after all, is

>hardly the same thing as height or eye color. I think it is very ill-

>advised to tell people they have a " biochemical/genetic pre-

>disposition " towards abusive drinking -- it presents an " I can't help

>myself " excuse for continued unhealthy behavior.

Once again, tho many may saw these things, many others, myself included,

haven't.

>

> Like you said, this notion that major alcohol problems have a

>genetic cause doesn't do the person " still suffering " a damn bit of

>good, and actually causes harm in most cases.

Other than giving them an " excuse " to drink (and they'll find another anyway

if they're looking for one), how is it harmful?

> Absolutely, and these ideas are not a part of the entire XA

>movement. Just another thing wrong with XA, not focusing on the Real

>problems, and causing more problems with its BS.

And again, for the umpteenth time, there are many non-steppers who believe

in a genetic predisposition.

Cool Guy, you've said in a previous post that the genetic predisposition

idea scares you.

Do we have a bunch of anti-hard science Luddites running around here?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> You are correct again Mona, and strangely enough I have never

>heard someone say, " you have a genetic predisposition to alcoholic

>drinking " wihtout being followed by " and that is a disease that can

>not be cured except by working the steps. "

> So, when the truth comes out as part of a lie, it does just as

>much harm as good, and in most cases does more harm than good. Most

>often it used as part of the XA lie, which conveys that one can't

>help himself, that only the group and the higher power can. And I

>sense that that is what Steve is trying to do, use the truth as a

>part of a bigger lie. By convincing us of this predisposition... I

>have a feeling he is about to lay something on us. Or I could be

>wrong; maybe it just seems that way. At least I am curious what the

>hell his point is/ or where he is going with all this?

My point is clear enough. If you're not obtuse. I'm defending the theory of

genetic predisposition against a ***behaviorist-only*** theory of

alcoholism. Isn't that clear enough?

And if you're that paranoid that I'm about to " lay something on you, " that

might be part of why you think " unbiased science " on genetic matters is so

scary.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> > From our

> > belief that there is a genetic disposition, to me it makes excellent

> > sense

> > to tell people, " Look, you have this certain genetic makeup. "

> >

>

>Not only does it make practical sense, but it is information to which the

>person is entitled, if it is true. Genetic influence does make a

>difference;

>the only serious argument anymore with regard to everything from

>intelligence

>to illness, is to what extent it does so.

>

>--Mona--

Exactly. People who say it has no influence at all, IMO, just aren't arguing

seriously. If, like Cool Guy, they apparently have some Luddite fear of

genetic engineering, well, that isn't going away. Wishful thinking didn't

make atomic power go away, for both good and evil. It won't make genetic

engineering disappear either.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> And Christians believe Jesus is truth. If you take something on

>faith rather than fact, then what good is it? And what right have

>you to convince others of your faith, especially when it concerns

>their physical and mental health so greatly? Especially when what

>you want to convince them of will be of such little use to them?

>What makes it so important to convince people of your theory? If it

>is so important, why don't you actually do the required work and

>prove your theory rather than spending your time trying to convince

>people of something non-factual??

*** I *** don't need to prove it. Clinical studies, such as the twin

studies, have already proven it.

Why don't *** you *** actually open your mind to something factual?

And, even if it is of little use now, it may be of tremendous use later. Ben

lin's kite experiments with electricity were arguably of little

use...... until Edison invented the light bulb.

Finally, this is not a matter of faith. Your fear of matters genetic,

already spoken of by yourself, is obviously part of your unbelief, your

lack of faith, in what research has already demonstrated.

> I am more aligned with Rita: proper parenting plays a key role in

>how people live their lives, regardless of whether they have a

>hypothetical disposition for alcoholism or not.

And for the umpteenth and first time, I've never denied that.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

You are correct again Mona, and strangely enough I have never heard someone say, "you have a genetic predisposition to alcoholic drinking" wihtout being followed by "and that is a disease that can not be cured except by working the steps."

So, when the truth comes out as part of a lie, it does just as much harm as good, and in most cases does more harm than good. Most often it used as part of the XA lie, which conveys that one can't help himself, that only the group and the higher power can. And I sense that that is what Steve is trying to do, use the truth as a part of a bigger lie. By convincing us of this predisposition... I have a feeling he is about to lay something on us. Or I could be wrong; maybe it just seems that way. At least I am curious what the hell his point is/ or where he is going with all this?

Steve isn't "going anywhere" with anything he posts, except to the truth. I know Steve well from the LSR egroup list, and he is both intellectually honest and strongly critical of AA. He does not, however, fall into the error of assuming that that which is useful to my "enemy" must be false.

Like Steve, my first allegiance is to the truth, not to castigating AA.

AA and those who are supportive of it are not wrong about everything.

Actually, I am persuaded that for a small minority of hardcore drinkers, primarily male, it may be the only kind of path away from self-destruction that will save them. That it sucks for the vast majority of people who experience a dependency on alcohol -- and I believe it totally does -- does not change either the true things it has contributed, or its usefulness for a tiny cohort of people dependent on alcohol.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> > > Like you said, this notion that major alcohol problems have a

> > >genetic cause doesn't do the person " still suffering " a damn bit of

> > >good, and actually causes harm in most cases.

> > Other than giving them an " excuse " to drink (and they'll find

>another anyway

> > if they're looking for one), how is it harmful?

>

> It can (and does for lots of steppers and stepper hopefuls) alter

>a person's belief system to the point even once they want to change,

>they will be unable to because they are convinced they are helpless.

Oh, my god!!!! You mean, they will be ***so convinced*** they are helpless

that they are powerless over their own beliefs???? Why, Cool Guy, you sound

just like a....... Stepper, now, don't you?

> No. That idea doesn't frighten me, but the predictable " cures "

>for it are about as disgusting as XA itself. What scares me is that

>moralists will be able to decide who needs genetic " enhancement " and

>who doesn't before one is even born. That doesn't scare me

>personally, as I've already been born. I don't like the fact that

>people with different morals from me (example - people like you) will

>be able to decide who comes out as what. Of course you have faith in

>regulatory agencies (run by such moralists) whereas I do not.

It's not faith in government regulatory agencies alone. It's faith in the

marketplace of ideas, the moral codes most scientists follow, the

involvement of ciizens in a democracy, and above all, being a member of the

press myself, the watchdog work of the media.

And ultimately, as I've said more than once... faith has nothing to do with

it. Hitler tried to get his soldiers to have " faith " they could stop Soviet

tanks. Didn't happen. Unless you're going to start bombing research labs,

you can't stop further work on genetic studies, even if that gets to the

point of genetic engineering.

Beyond that, to follow the thought of Brave New World this time, big

business scares me far more than big government ever will. If anybody winds

up practicing genetic engineering for moral or psychological reasons, it

will be Microsoft before Washington.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> I find a person who Believes in unbiased science both obtuse and

>scary.

First, I don't " believe " in unbiased science. It's nothing like religious

faith. It is simply recognizing that the power of the modern scientific

method, over the past two centuries, has extended the average human lifespan

by 30 years, greatly eased human toil, allowed the senior years of one's

life to be productive and healthy, created the potential for inexpensive

world travel for all, and now, allowed instant communication via the wonders

of email, the Internet and computers. In the future (not that I don't have a

few reservations), genetically modified foods will allow us to eat more

healthily while not putting so much strain on agricultural land. Irradiation

will be fine-tuned to safely preserve even more produce foods. And more.

If you really are going to be logically consistent about your beliefs above,

you ought to unplug your computer, sell it for some stationery (after

unsubscribing from this and other online forums), buy some candles, go chop

some wood and plant your own garden.

Second, I should slightly qualify my POV. Science is a human endeavor and no

more unbiased than others.

I do believe " scientism " is an appropriate word for the philosophy that

would make the scientific approach to the world, a reductionist approach,

an overriding metaphysic for life. Science can't explain Shakespeare or

Rembrandt, for example.

But, as unbiased as possible, science can explain the facts of material

existence, and what we can do with those facts, far better than anything

else.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> > > > > Like you said, this notion that major alcohol problems

>have a

> > > > >genetic cause doesn't do the person " still suffering " a damn

>bit of

> > > > >good, and actually causes harm in most cases.

> > > > Other than giving them an " excuse " to drink (and they'll find

> > >another anyway

> > > > if they're looking for one), how is it harmful?

> > >

> > > It can (and does for lots of steppers and stepper hopefuls)

>alter

> > >a person's belief system to the point even once they want to

>change,

> > >they will be unable to because they are convinced they are

>helpless.

> >

> > Oh, my god!!!! You mean, they will be ***so convinced*** they are

>helpless

> > that they are powerless over their own beliefs???? Why, Cool Guy,

>you sound

> > just like a....... Stepper, now, don't you?

>

> It takes a lot of time, knowledge and empowerment to change your

>beliefs - sometimes people don't find what they need to overcome

>those beliefs, and so they end up in AA or mental hopsitals, or on

>drugs/alcohol most of their lives. I don't like the idea of handing

>someone such atrocious beliefs just so that they can struggle with

>changing them. Yes, I do think there is something wrong with that

>and plenty of harm caused by it.

I think you're making a mountain into a molehill. If an alcoholic is

anywhere near that point, he or she will use anything as an excuse to keep

drinking. An alcoholic who wants to keep drinking (leaving aside the

biological disposition or no), is, by definition, engaged in irrational

behavior.

> It's too bad Deiner is not here to tell you about " the moral codes

>most scientists follow. "

It is too bad. Mona told me a bit about him. I would have loved to meet

another assured liberal.

> > Beyond that, to follow the thought of Brave New World this time,

>big

> > business scares me far more than big government ever will. If

>anybody winds

> > up practicing genetic engineering for moral or psychological

>reasons, it

> > will be Microsoft before Washington.

>

> Another joke... the US government is the biggest of big business.

NOT!

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>> Now, to address your point -- if you acknowledge that drinking

instruction learned in the home has a significant effect on adolescent/adult

drinking decisions, why the posts advocating meds for all children deemed to

be " potential future alcohol abusers " ?? You have presented the position

that those who are labeled by someone else to have the hypothetical

POTENTIAL for alcohol abuse ought to be PREVENTED, by chemical means (or

even in-utero manipulation of some kind) from ever being able to even TRY

moderate drinking.<<

Let me rephrase. I don't advocate mandatory meds. I think the offer of such

meds, should we reach that state, should be made. Similar to say, naltrexone

is now offered.

And, in line with your thought, those meds might help some people become

moderate drinkers. I don't advocate moderation for alcoholics myself. I was

advised a lot of people do on this list, and that's fine for you. I don't,

is all I'm saying.

>

> > I am certainly no Luddite. I welcome scientific research and

inquiry. But genetic/biochemical manipulation to rid fetuses/children of

hypothetical future " undesirable " traits and behaviors seems dreadfully

reminiscent of eugenicism and Nazism to me. <<

Ahh, now we get to the heart of the matter. As I noted in earlier posts,

this is exactly why behaviorism became ***the*** school of psychological

thought in America after WWII. (Not to mention unenlightened sterilizations,

etc. here in America.) However, that's an illogical line of thought, of

course. First of all, Nazi eugenics ideas were not scientific. None of their

racist ideas were. Modern genetic engineering would be focused on

individuals, not races. And that's a parental choice. To me, it's similar to

arguments over abortion. Controversial, indeed. Individual rights are

involved at the bottom. (And hopefully, as I wish were the case with

abortion, where I am a true moderate, these individual rights are balanced

by informed societal ethics.)

>>Who gets to decide what is an " undesirable " human trait? You are the one

who mentioned homosexuality -- many people are frightened of the

phenomenon -- but what kind of society would encourage parents to attempt

genetic/biochemical experimentation/alteration on fetuses/infants/children

in an attempt to wipe out the " undesirable " future trait of

homosexuality??<<

Some parents might want to do that precisely to save their children from the

bigotry that many homosexuals now face. I'm not saying I agree with thoughts

like that. I'm not saying I condemn them either, though. And, speaking

purely from a scientific point of view, homosexuality is not the " normal "

sexual preference.

People are already talking about having genetically engineered kids -- at

least those rich enough to do it. If doctors can't do that here in the US...

the Bahamas are just a quick flight away. Like I said, it's like atomic

power. The ability is there. The desire for it to be further developed is

also there. Why try to put an escaped genie back in a bottle? Instead, as

people like Oppenheimer did after Hiroshima with atomic power, and to quote

Isaiah, " come, let us reason together. "

>

>> Though genetic/biochemical factors may prove to be of some

significance in the level of CHALLENGE involved in keeping drinking behavior

within healthy parameters, I cannot support any ideology that seeks to

prevent the challenge from being met. It really does sound to me like

advocating the creation of an Uebermensch who excels at everything and finds

nothing to be a challenge. There is something less than human about such an

image.<<

Genetic engineering would never be that effective. Now, the behaviorist is

worried about the ultimately triumphant power of uebergenes? Won't happen.

First, as I alluded to in one other post, many medical scientists are coming

to a rough consensus that maternal hormones may have almost as much effect

on a developing fetus as genetics. Barring a true artificial womb (which

does sound sterile), that's unavoidable.

And otherwise, genetics just set out parameters of behavior. For example,

let's say 0 represents extreme shyness and 100 represents, say, Tony

Robbins. Let's say, as per Kagan, a certain child has the genetic makeup to

be moderately shy. That " moderately shy " could run from 20 to 35. Behavioral

development will say where on that range. And that whole range may have

shifted by the time the kid is 40. It may be, say 27-42 by that point.

Steve

>

> I have rare occasion to agree with CoolGuy -- trust me, if he and I

see eye-to-eye on this issue, it is very significant.

>

> ~Rita

>

>

[Guest guest]

I get that Steve is implying that Indians become alcoholic more readily because

it takes

less alcohol to get them drunk (apart from socio-economic factors).

Ummm...it also takes less alcohol to get *women* drunk. I would therefore

expect there to

be a larger percentage of alcoholic women than alcoholic men.

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

> I get that Steve is implying that Indians become alcoholic more readily

because it takes

> less alcohol to get them drunk (apart from socio-economic factors).

>

> Ummm...it also takes less alcohol to get *women* drunk. I would therefore

expect there to

> be a larger percentage of alcoholic women than alcoholic men.

>

I said that was possibly so, not necessarily so. Just a little bit of

difference there in thoughts.

Steve

[Guest guest]

writes:

So, if debatable scientific methodology claims that there is an inherent

preinclination to alcoholism, that is acceptable; but if dodgy theology

claims that there is the same condition then they have arrived at that

correct conclusion by erroneous means. Which temple or laboratory do we

attend to worship your form of logic and thought process Mona?

-----------------

The problem is these dodgy theology claims are further accompanied by the

claim that one has to attend aa meetings for life in order to abstain from

substance abuse. I fail to see how " religious conversion " , whatever the fuck

that is, is supposed to cure alcohol abuse, pot abuse, overeating, gambling,

and the list goes on.

aa, in case you haven't noticed is a religion based entirely on the

controversial Oxford Group Movement. What the hell do any of the steps have

to do with an inherent genetic disposition to drink too much? Since many of

my ancestors where alcoholics, I could be persuaded to believe I have a

genetic predisposition to addiction. However, I have a brain and free will,

and CHOOSE not to abuse substances. Which doesn't mean I don't occasionally

want a nice joint. I just CHOOSE not to get one. That statement alone would

cause an aa groupers hair to stand on end. That I was continuously abstinent

for 10 plus years is my choice of behaviors not to engage in. god didn't

have anything to do with it.

Jan

[Guest guest]

writes:

Using pseudo-facts to frighten people into agreeing with your postulations

is acceptable to you Steve? Does it keep your own world view intact? Ok, we

know where you stand. Thank you

---------------------------------------------------

: Are you a stepper? If so, goto WWW.AADEPROGRAMMING.COM right now and

" get your brain out of hock. "

Steve: I rather find your world view interesting. It's apparent you're

educated and well read.

Jan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/29/01 3:40:01 AM Central Daylight Time,

W51@... writes:

<< Nevertheless inexactitudes remain and your faith in science is as

debatable

to some as the faith others have in Jesus. False claims abound. >>

:

Are you a fundamentalist christian? I thought you might be a stepper, still

do.

Why are you so hostile to science? If so, don't vaccinate your children

(better yet, don't reproduce), quit drinking pasteurized milk, get rid of

your doctor, build a shack somewhere in Montana and live off the land. You

could be the next Unabomber.

Jan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/29/01 5:21:06 AM Central Daylight Time,

W51@... writes:

<< A Stepper? Good heavens no. Does everyone that has a variant on your views

have to be labeled and thus discarded so the views you hold remain firm in

light of contradiction? I have been to aadeproramming.com on many occasions

but i have little time for extremists on either side. >>

:

No, I don't need anyone to agree with me completely about anything. I don't

believe aadeprogramming.com is extremist. It's very factual and a good

source of information as to the true nature of 12 step groups. aa is scary

and well financed by the federal govt. to the tune of millions of dollars. I

apologize if I have labeled you. You do seem anti science, and kind of

hostile to Steve. Steve's post are usually more specific than yours - you

tend towards generalities. But keep on posting. I don't have to agree with

you. I don't have to agree with anyone. If you would read the posts between

Mona and Steve, it would be apparent that they respectfully disagree many

times. However, you have flamed at Steve with questions like how old is he?

What the hell difference does that make? Such a question undermines your

credibility, not his.

Jan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/29/01 5:27:25 AM Central Daylight Time,

W51@... writes:

<< I'm sorry you remain so blinkered in your approach Jan. It is common for

a

person who becomes so disallusioned with one form of BS to immediately go ot

the other extreme, which usually, in the fullness of time, turns out to be

just as crazy. A Christian? Me?? How far you are from hte truth jan, how

far. Vaccination can be dangerous as well as unecessary, humans are the only

mammals that take milk after weaning and the benefits of the milk of other

mammals are now also in doubt and i try to take care of my health at a

primary level via diet and lifestyle prior to illness. Science can and is

beneficial in certain circumstances but not all. I also use acupuncture,

homeopathy and other complimentary approaches to conventional medicine which

appear to work quite well. >>

:

What extreme have I go to that you refer to? What does blinkered mean? Can

you disagree without labeling and belittling? BTW - vaccinations have saved

far more lives than not. Thanks to them, you don't have to fear polio, for

instance. What form of acupuncture cures or prevents polio? I get strep

throat frequently. What alternative medicine do you propose I use to keep it

from progressing to scarlet fever and rheumatic fever which damages the

heart? Antibiotics always seem to work for me. They are also very helpful

for the ear infection I seem to get every summer. And I got a pneumonia shot

last fall, and a flu shot. I didn't get either of those illnesses this year,

though many around me did. Science has its uses. Please refrain from name

calling in your posts. It's not necessary to make your point.