Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 23, 2021

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on:

In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed.
“It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that they influence what we do as adults,” says Tallie Z. Baram, a child neurologist and developmental neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine, who wasn’t involved with the study.
Asher Jones, “Early-Life Stress Exerts Long-Lasting Effects Via Epigenome” at The Scientist

All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics.

The paper is open access.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments

the best time to discuss the application of a possible new technology, before it has been realized?
It would be the first time in the history of mankind it has been done. Nearly ever technology ever developed has gone through several iterations before it’s fully applied. Some of it for effectiveness and safety before it becomes widely available. You seem to want to discuss speculations on the effects of speculations. There are so many unknown unknowns.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Jerry, with respect, isn’t the best time to discuss the application of a possible new technology, before it has been realized? As has often been said, once the Genie is out of the bottle...Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

it might be possible to prevent the expression of same sex attraction, or reverse it.
This is just what I said above. Is it a researchable topic? I doubt we are anywhere near answering it. The debate will take place when such treatments become available, if they ever will. Right now it is pure supposition and the potential permutations are nearly endless. There is nothing specific to debate now.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Jerry “ He left open another thread on “right reason” and I have commented on it on Friday and just left a comment. No reason to comment on homosexuality here except that it might be epigenetic.“ Except that Kairosfocus will not allow discussions on homosexuality in the linked thread, even though it is directly on topic for that thread. There is a theory that epigenetics may be linked to same sex attraction. If this proves to be true, and if the research in this paper is correct, it might be possible to prevent the expression of same sex attraction, or reverse it. This raises ethical and moral issues, and not just for same sex attraction. What if some behaviours that make it difficult for people in society also have an epigenetic trigger. Perhaps things like OCD, or ADHD, or Tourette’s, or extreme shyness. If treatment can prevent these before being expressed, is that ethical or morally acceptable? These traits, including same sex attraction, are very closely linked to our personality. By preventing them, or reversing them, have we changed who they are?Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Thanks. I didn't remember/find that thread. I posted my comment there. However, I'm guessing no one is going to respond, perhaps.Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

KF closed all the old thread on duties to use right reason
He left open another thread on "right reason" and I have commented on it on Friday and just left a comment. https://uncommondescent.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-726967 No reason to comment on homosexuality here except that it might be epigenetic.
but I do believe that it is relevant to the OP
I don't believe it is relevant except if it has an epigenetic origin and if it is reversible. That is what the OP is about.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

EDTA writes, "My personal opinion is that there is no strategy or guideline to follow to bring us back to unity ... But, I will continue to articulate the evidences for theism and Christianity, and hope for the best." And that is what we should all do, even when we disagree: make our best case for what we think is important and hope to influence others. This has been my point about "objective standards" all along: that each one of us makes choices about where we stand on issues, and then, to various degrees depending on their importance, try to live our lives to best help make the world reflect what we think it should be. So I and appreciate and respect EDTA's approach even though I disagree with him on significant issues.Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Jerry “ Why are you interested in my response? It’s irrelevant to the OP what I believe.” You are obviously not obliged to answer but I do believe that it is relevant to the OP. The research is about using clinical means to reverse the effects of epigenetics on phenotype. The application of this type of research obviously have some significant ethical and moral implications.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Viola, >The problem with that is...whose views are we going to unify around? And how are we going to govern ourselves so there is room for diversity in those areas where we are not unified? My personal opinion is that there is no strategy or guideline to follow to bring us back to unity like we once had in the US, i.e., no practical/voluntary/democratic means of getting it back. I don't think it will come back except perhaps through some sort of collapse, and that will be a hellish, enforced unity, which is not the kind I want. But, I will continue to articulate the evidences for theism and Christianity, and hope for the best.EDTA_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

EDTA “ Given KF’s points and links above, you have another opportunity to provide deep intellectual refutations to our points. Go.“ Myself and others have responded in great detail to Kairosfocus’ anti-homosexual opinions to no avail. I don’t really see much point in continuing this. Especially after his most recent anti-homosexual rant equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Some prejudices simply aren’t worth giving air to. “ If it represented a simple, reliable means to make them happier people (and independent of societal opinion), then progressive thinking would say do it!, no question.“ I consider myself to be a fairly progressive thinker but I wouldn’t advocate for this. Anymore than I would advocate for aborting a Downs Syndrome child. “ But that does seem to be the salient thing that separates it from all other male/male relationships.” Intercourse is what separates married opposite sex couples from all there other opposite sex interactions. The sex is not the defining part of who they are. It is not even the defining part of their relationship with there partner. I think we are placing too much importance on what consenting adults do with their naughty-bits. “ That doesn’t make it wrong.” No, but repeating his worldview without objective evidence, relying on unsupported fear-mongering and easily refuted pseudo-science articles isn’t the best way to advocate for his view. “ God defined it first, and the legal defns have sprung from that, and then veered from there.” With respect, that is a matter of faith rather than fact. “ But gov’t over religion? Now that is antithetical to the founding principles of the US! No, if the gov’t cnotradicts God, then gov’t is in the wrong.” Freedom of religion isn’t absolute. In early colonial America the minimum age of marriage was 12 for a female and 13 for a male. And the churches followed these rules. As the years went by, most states increased the age to 18. I am not aware of many churches violating these rules, and when they were, the marriage was not recognized by the state . When inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states I am not aware of many churches using their freedom of religion to marry inter-racial couples. Although, to be fair, I am aware that the Catholic Church fought for legalizing inter-racial marriages. This being said, I believe that a church can still refuse to preside over any marriage. With respect to SSM, all the government has said is that they are legal. As such, JP’s, as government employees, cannot refuse to preside over a marriage of a same sex couple. But churches can still refuse to do so.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

KF closed all the old thread on duties to use right reason, etc, so I'll post this here, as it relates to EDTA's posts on unity vs diversity, and on the ongoing topics of moral standards and the decay of civilization.. So here's a question: is it moral or immoral, by KF's oft-cited "seven inescapable first duties of reason" (truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, to neighbour; fairness and justice) to make it against the law to give water to people standing in line to vote, as Georgia just did? I say that is profoundly immoral, and is an example of the ways our democracy and civilization are being threatened. Is this an issue upon which we can agree, or not? If not, can someone explain to me what possible justification the Georgia legislature could have for this?Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

But I would be interested in your response to my question if we should use such techniques, either in-utero or in early childhood, to prevent homosexuality?
Why are you interested in my response? It’s irrelevant to the OP what I believe. I would be curious as to what causes various such traits and the safety of reversing them. Various tendencies in humans are often due to neuron connections and can be cultivated and eliminated. These are often called habits and sometimes addictions. So we know some very significant things can be reversed. The OP indicates that some epigenetic characteristics can be reversed. Can gene expression be reversed? Could habits be developed which are neurological that overcome an epigenetic characteristic? These are all interesting questions. I’m mainly interested in the science discussed here. Last week, Kf made an aside comment that has set me off getting books on innovation. He referred to TRIZ and I had never heard of it. I now have a book on TRIZ and am a third way through Matt Ridley’s book on innovation. I found this an invaluable site for C19 which led me to what I consider the most authoritative sites on the internet on it. You generally don’t get bad science on UD, except from several of the commenters.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

True. Earlier you made arguments for the value of unity. The problem with that is, among other things, whose views are we going to unify around? And how are we going to govern ourselves so there is room for diversity in those areas where we are not unified?Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

And continued discussion continues to reveal extremely deep societal division...EDTA_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Jerry “ This seems like a researchable observation. The OP described one such epigenetic trait and its reversal. Are there others?“ I suspect that there could be. But I would be interested in your response to my question if we should use such techniques, either in-utero or in early childhood, to prevent homosexuality? In spite of Kairosfocus’ hatred of homosexuality, thus question is in line with OP.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Given KF's points and links above, you have another opportunity to provide deep intellectual refutations to our points. Go. >And, if it is caused by epigenetic action in-utero, and we could provide pregnant women a medication that would prevent it, should we? If it represented a simple, reliable means to make them happier people (and independent of societal opinion), then progressive thinking would say do it!, no question. > But homosexuality is not only about anal sex,... But that does seem to be the salient thing that separates it from all other male/male relationships. >You opposition to the most recent change is rooted in your personal worldview, a worldview that the majority of the western world do not share. That doesn't make it wrong. The majority can be wrong, as they have been in recent history. I'm not a cultural relativist. >Marriage is a legal contract as defined by government. God defined it first, and the legal defns have sprung from that, and then veered from there. But gov't over religion? Now that is antithetical to the founding principles of the US! No, if the gov't cnotradicts God, then gov't is in the wrong. >Extending marriage to same sex couples does not change anything for those who wish to be married according to their religious beliefs. Answered above and in one of KF's links.EDTA_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Jerry, it seems that simply to keep the blog at a level of profitable discussion, it is wise to keep away from topics that will be used to pull the matter off topic into fashionable but ill advised agendas. This thread has a useful OP but has in significant part been side tracked needlessly. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

SA2, first, there are two relevant Whiteheads and in fact the summary is well founded; as is the summary of three culturally associated patterns. NAMBLA for example exemplifies the onward agenda to push the classical Greek pattern. To see how bad it was, note that the discussion on love in The Republic is about taste in boys, pardon me. The Sambia [a pseudonym] are known, as are other cases of that order and region. You can doubtless find patterns such as the extra effeminates and the hyper masculine warrior types in Germany in past decades. And so forth down into forms of "alternative" behaviour. The consistent result is, destructive to society as we are beginning to see; the consistent pushing on of the alphabet agenda is asking for a comeback that will not be pleasant. Attempts to find a so-called gay gene have all foundered, much for the reasons they gave; though the report on later undermining of widely headlined claims was given nowhere near the exposure that the claims were. It is reasonable to see that sexual habits require enough genetic inputs to establish behavioural possibilities and societal opportunities, beyond, cultural influences, circumstances, family relationships and one's choices shape habituation, INCLUDING in various heterosexual forms, some of which are destructive. Beyond, our civilisation's dominant elites are currently hell-bent on breaking institutions that are natural centres of independence, family, church etc are obvious. Further to such, the onward agendas addressed in the second linked should give pause, likewise the health issues admitted via buried lead in Lancet. Our civilisation's elites have betrayed us in many ways and there will be hell to pay, in blood and tears. I stand by my links, which were put up for record to show that the fashionable talking point agendas above, for cause, are ill-founded. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Epigenetic effects often take hold during development, either in-utero or in the first few months. Once in place, however, they tend to be irreversible for life.
This seems like a researchable observation. The OP described one such epigenetic trait and its reversal. Are there others? One start would be identifying epigenetic introductions, what led to them, how permanent are they, for how many generations are they passed on, how susceptible they are to reversal? All questions in line with OP.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Jerry “ At #5 I introduced the question of whether homosexuality was epigenetic or not and if it was epigenetic could it be reversed. A question in complete sync with the OP.“ Epigenetic effects often take hold during development, either in-utero or in the first few months. Once in place, however, they tend to be irreversible for life. If homosexuality acts like this, then reversing it is obviously not possible. This opens a question I touched on earlier. If epigenetic action shortly after birth causes homosexuality, and we could develop a “vaccine” against it, should society provide this “vaccine” as part of a child’s vaccine regimen? And, if it is caused by epigenetic action in-utero, and we could provide pregnant women a medication that would prevent it, should we?Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

I think the question of whether homosexuality can be reversed is central to the question of how we are to accept it: notice that Aaron mentioned it as an abnormality in the next post. Why does it keep coming up? For one, it is an important subject in society today related to several common issues here: are there objective moral standards, for one, and is civilization in danger (some of us think yes, but for diametrically different reasons and in different directions.) And last, KF, who seems to be a driving force in these posts and discussions, thinks it's a "sewer" topic, which some us feel we need to defend. His continued efforts to table it as a subject just feeds its continual reappearance, I think. Just a few reasons.Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

return to its due focus
At #5 I introduced the question of whether homosexuality was epigenetic or not and if it was epigenetic could it be reversed. A question in complete sync with the OP. In return a few took off on the never ending, never to be resolved question of homosexuality in society. It’s not the first thread for which this same thing has happened. The interesting question is why?jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

KF writes, " I trust, the thread can now return to its due focus." Uh, the thread has never been about the OP, so there is nothing to return to. Also, KF writes, "I trust these will be enough to help some at least to ponder where we are taking our civilisation on current line of drift." To the extent that that appears to be your main focus, the fact that some of us think that more broadly recognizing diversity in many things, including sexuality, is a good thing, not a bad thing, is on "due focus": it's just in disagreement with you about the matter.Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I note for record: “ 1] Contrary to widely promoted narratives of recent decades, sexual orientation/identity and associated habits and behaviours etc (found in three main culturally stamped patterns, the modern Western, the Greek, the Melanesian) are not credibly genetically determined. (Note here also.)” Although this has been widely disputed. https://www.wthrockmorton.com/tag/neil-whitehead/ As well Whitehead holds no qualifications in genetics or neuroscience or psychology and has been demonstrated to misrepresent the work of real scientists on the subject. “ 2] Linked, as a key 2012 Lancet Article admitted against interest and with buried leads, a commonly associated sexual practice (now widely promoted esp. through the addictive, morally undermining porn plague) is a major at-risk factor for exposure to HIV/AIDS, thus, other diseases. The obvious vector is, tissue damage and the potential for infections crossing into the blood stream.” I get it. You do not like anal sex. Nobody is forcing you to have it. But homosexuality is not only about anal sex, any more that heterosexuality is only about intercourse. STDs cannot be transmitted between two monogamous individuals unless one of the already had one. Regardless, are you aware of how many dangerous diseases can be transmitted through conventional sex, or kissing, or hand shaking, or breathing? Living has risks. We all balance these risks in our every day activities. “ 3] The further linked notion that laws and deeply embedded cultural institutions such as marriage may be freely redefined under colour of law is open to serious challenge and given the critical stabilising and nurturing role of marriage, is liable to have damaging civilisational impact” The marriage we have today (ignoring SSM) is legally different than it was 20 years ago, which was legally different than it was 100 years ago, and so on. 20 years ago it was not illegal for a husband to legally have sex with his wife against her will. 100 years ago a husband was legally allowed to use corporal punishment on his wife. I doubt very much if you have any issue with the previous legal changes to marriage. You opposition to the most recent change is rooted in your personal worldview, a worldview that the majority of the western world do not share. Marriage is a legal contract as defined by government. Various religious organizations expand on this with non-binding requirements, but they are still based on the legal requirements. Extending marriage to same sex couples does not change anything for those who wish to be married according to their religious beliefs. Unsupported fear-mongering does not change this. “ 4] The emergence of scapegoating and targetting of those who, for principled reasons refuse to go along with the moral inversion agenda by accusing such of bigotry is not healthy for civilisation. ” When principled reasons are based on faulty principles, they should be challenged. As we did for segregation, prohibitions on inter-racial marriages, and many other actions based on faulty principles. Centring out (public shaming) of individuals who falsely use a freedom of religion argument to deny services to a specific group is a time-honoured approach to challenging bigotry. I would think that religious people would support the public shaming of those mis-using the very important right of freedom of religion. Individuals that mis-use the freedom of religion defence undermine this right in the public’s eye.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

EDTA, thank you for the links at 93.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Seversky: The following fallacious argument caught my eye:
The free will defense simply does not work in the case of an omniscient Creator because, as the story of Peter’s triple denial of knowing Jesus illustrates, there can be no free will in the case of such a Creator. He was warned specifically in advance what he would do yet that is what happened. He could do nothing about it.
The free will defence is not a theodicy, and establishes beyond reasonable dispute that the theistic set, rightly understood is coherent. The augmentation with a clarifying proposition demonstrates that. Thus, instead of trying to prove to those who are likely to be hyperskeptical, that God exists despite their raft of objections, the free will defence sets up and thoroughly grounds the following framework argument, as COHERENT:
1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful [Clarification: Implicit, incorrect claim: ~~(2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil~~ Replace with: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.”] 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world [Augment: 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6.] _______________________ 6. The world contains evil
The coherence as clarified and augmented is manifest and the deductive form argument against God from evil fails. Of course, there is a book length discussion of associated details, and there is good reason to set aside inductive form atheistical arguments also. Let us note in the wider context, Boethius as highlighted by WmAD:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
Of course, the greater good in question is freedom and virtues stemming from it, including freedom to be truly rational and to exert love, pivot of the virtues. Abuse of freedom does not turn freedom into a bad. Where, just to argue, you assume and appeal to rational, responsible freedom and inextricably entangled first duties constituting built in law coeval with our humanity. Your known evolutionary materialistic scientism is in fact readily shown to be incompatible with rational, responsible freedom and is self-defeating. Let's start with Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
That you still try to cling to the deductive form, problem of evil argument fifty years after it decisively failed shows just how intellectually impoverished the associated atheism is. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

VL, SA2 et al, I note for record:
For record, let us note regarding the moral inversion being widely advanced under questionable colours of claimed rights (so, fairness/justice), seemingly established science and law/policy . . . and note, implicit appeals to our built-in first duties of reason: 1] Contrary to widely promoted narratives of recent decades, sexual orientation/identity and associated habits and behaviours etc (found in three main culturally stamped patterns, the modern Western, the Greek, the Melanesian) are not credibly genetically determined. (Note here also.) 2] Linked, as a key 2012 Lancet Article admitted against interest and with buried leads, a commonly associated sexual practice (now widely promoted esp. through the addictive, morally undermining porn plague) is a major at-risk factor for exposure to HIV/AIDS, thus, other diseases. The obvious vector is, tissue damage and the potential for infections crossing into the blood stream. 3] The further linked notion that laws and deeply embedded cultural institutions such as marriage may be freely redefined under colour of law is open to serious challenge and given the critical stabilising and nurturing role of marriage, is liable to have damaging civilisational impact. 4] The emergence of scapegoating and targetting of those who, for principled reasons refuse to go along with the moral inversion agenda by accusing such of bigotry is not healthy for civilisation. Those who go down that line would be well advised to ponder the fallacy of the closed, often hostile mind and the linked challenge of addressing cognitive dissonance by projection to the despised other, joined to the crooked yardstick effect. Particularly, ponder that what is straight cannot conform to crookedness and that there are naturally straight, upright plumb lines for law and its inescapable tie to duties to justice thus built in moral government coeval with our humanity.
I trust these will be enough to help some at least to ponder where we are taking our civilisation on current line of drift. I trust, the thread can now return to its due focus. KF PS: EDTA, as one who lived through a 4th gen in the shadows civil war, actually the USA has drifted into an ongoing 4th gen civil war since about 2016 or 17. As there is a spectrum of operations in such a struggle, it is hard to specify start date. Already, you have seen a neo-marxist, McFaul colour/culture revolution, manipulated election (theme colour black), and are currently going through a close analogue to the Reichstag fire incident and aftermath.kairosfocus_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

Here's one survey study on diversity and trust: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708 The effect of diversity would be mitigated if we were still assimilating people like we did 100 years ago, but those day are also over, and celebration of differences is emphasized now. Another one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596715000980 Results out there are mixed, of course, because it's a highly charged issue.EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

EDTA “ I mentioned that these are rather abstract and intertwined. I hope I’ve articulated them well enough to get the idea across.” I think you have articulated it quite well. It will take me some time to digest it all before I can respond in detail. But just a couple points. “ The true fundamentals include such things as moral unity.“ I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. What is being contested is what moral values are fundamental to the thriving of our society, and what ones are based more on cultural and/or religious inertia than on what is necessary to approach the goals that we previously listed. I think that it is safe to say that there is moral unity on things like killing, stealing and lying. It is easy to demonstrate that society cannot approach the goals that we previously listed if either of these was widespread in society. However it would be more difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that these goals are more difficult to achieve if we accept homosexuality, same sex marriage and premarital sex. I would argue that resistance to these has more to do with cultural/religious inertia than it does with their impact on achieving the goals. “ Sociologists have determined that it is innate with people that trust declines where cultural diversity increases, because we need similar culture in order to form trust.” Do you have some references. I would very much like to read some of this. My personal experience has been the exact opposite. Keep in mind, I am only talking about my personal experience, not about broad spectrum sociology. Over the last 15 years I have had the luck to travel extensively for work. This has resulted in interactions with numerous cultures. These cultures have shown me that we have far more in common than we differ. This has resulted in an increased level of trust with me. I will try to respond in more detail later as I think your points are important.Steve Alten2_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

When Christians were persecuted did they go around committing suicide? What about the Jewish people? Vegetarians were ostracized but I don't remember any uptick in their suicides. Do criminals have internal conflicts because of the way society treats them?ET_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply