genetic markers
Today I learned that pharmaceutical companies are getting together to try to identify what, genetically, causes some people to have adverse reactions to their drugs so they can avoid killing people. [Ed. note: the article didn't say anything about killing people. Just liver damage and life-threatening skin blistering.] If they successfully identify people who cannot tolerate their drugs, then it's entirely possible that they might be able to identify people who are at risk for environmental illness.
If we could establish by, say, blood test, that 15% of people were at risk from low doses of common synthetic chemicals, would the 'healthy' 85% cut back on the chemicals, just to be nice? Given that the general populace has been brainwashed by marketers to believe chemical products are necessary for their very existence, nice probably doesn't stand a chance. It might be more productive to have more Vogue articles telling people that chemicals are screwing up our species' ability to reproduce.
See, if we use so many chemicals that our reproductive rates are affected, in order to keep our economy growing, we'll have to import people from other places. Those of us who live an hour from our southern border are well aware that many people work very hard and sometimes die just for the chance to participate in the American dream. Those of us this close to our southern border are also very, very aware that many, many people are very fixated on illegal immigration, so if you say 'immigration,' they get all incoherent and red in the face instead of coming up with a more sensible solution to the problem than building a 700 mile long fence through some really, really rough country that would be better patrolled by appropriately placed towers like the ones they have outside of Arivaca that are currently broken.
But anyway, this wasn't supposed to be an immigration debate, but conservatives seem to be most upset by it, and they're also the ones least likely to be swayed by a polite request to limit chemical use. By arguing that chemicals cause immigration, I believe we could motivate positive change throughout the political structure.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
P.S. Pharmaceuticals'll kill you when you get old.
If we could establish by, say, blood test, that 15% of people were at risk from low doses of common synthetic chemicals, would the 'healthy' 85% cut back on the chemicals, just to be nice? Given that the general populace has been brainwashed by marketers to believe chemical products are necessary for their very existence, nice probably doesn't stand a chance. It might be more productive to have more Vogue articles telling people that chemicals are screwing up our species' ability to reproduce.
See, if we use so many chemicals that our reproductive rates are affected, in order to keep our economy growing, we'll have to import people from other places. Those of us who live an hour from our southern border are well aware that many people work very hard and sometimes die just for the chance to participate in the American dream. Those of us this close to our southern border are also very, very aware that many, many people are very fixated on illegal immigration, so if you say 'immigration,' they get all incoherent and red in the face instead of coming up with a more sensible solution to the problem than building a 700 mile long fence through some really, really rough country that would be better patrolled by appropriately placed towers like the ones they have outside of Arivaca that are currently broken.
But anyway, this wasn't supposed to be an immigration debate, but conservatives seem to be most upset by it, and they're also the ones least likely to be swayed by a polite request to limit chemical use. By arguing that chemicals cause immigration, I believe we could motivate positive change throughout the political structure.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
P.S. Pharmaceuticals'll kill you when you get old.
posted by missmolly at 7:13 PM
1 Comments:
I think that history and the ugly story of eugenics should have taught us that they will NOT be nice. They will try to spin their toxins in the environment as genetic suceptibilities *so they don't have to clean them up*. Companies are already paying database firms to compile genetic profiles of prospective employees so they can avoid hiring or insuring the genetic pariahs or their descendents. Insurance companies rabidly defend their 'right' to exclude people based on family background, genetics, and the like. They claim that laws limiting genetic testing threaten their entire business model.
Remember, Hitler killed thousands of sick people using eugenics as a rationale. His claim it was 'because their lives were not worth living' was an excuse for pure greed. (actually he wanted to free up hospital beds for his planned WORLD WAR) Some of his biggest supporters were in the US.
Rationalization is very powerful. Many toxins are so common that the first impulse statistically is to focus on genetics. For example, tobacco was like that. Plus, for some sneaky reason, thats where the money is.
If we only knew then what we do now.
Post a Comment
<< Home