Add a Comment
Email This
On an evolutionary scale we as a species seem to keep getting weaker and less tolerant of our environments as time goes on. It is precisely as you say; by taking extra care of the weakest amongst us, the weakest are allowed to propagate.
Um, I think you're confusing evolution with eugenics.
On an evolutionary scale, we're not getting weaker. The only question that's relevant in evolution is whether the organism survives to reproduce. In the evolutionary picture, all of our technology, our family behaviors, our sociological structures, even our religions, are tools by which we human organisms manipulate our environment so as to improve our reproductive success.
If we're (individually) becoming more susceptible to environmental allergens it's really only indicative of the fact that we so thoroughly control our environment that we can afford to discard our evolved resistances to them.
Moreover, this ain't the Victorian era - science doesn't retain the illusion that nature is progressing towards some goal, and that such "progress" is inherently a good thing. Evolution does what it does, for good or for ill. The notion that it's somehow morally correct for the weak to die is false.
Evolutionary forces are about adapting to our environment. When we control the environment, there's no "push" to adapt. As a result, we enter a phase in which a broader range of variations can stably enter the gene pool. One might also argue that this broader variation makes us more suited to migrate to radically new environments, say in colonizing space. With a broader range of stable genotypes, it's more likely that at least some of them will adapt well to the new environments.
Leave old Thomas Malthus alone. History's long proved him wrong, and ideas like that are part of why the religious nuts hate evolution so much. "Survival of the fittest" isn't a moral guideline - it's just an observation, like the second law of thermodynamics.
Also, it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. What it means to be fittest is that you survive. Humans evolved (brains and hands that can invent) Epi-pens as part of their survival strategy. Humans with Epi-pens are more "fit" than humans without them.
Um, I think you're confusing evolution with eugenics.
Your right, I was caught up in the idea more than the wording. (The idea put forth by VNutZ79):
If we [society] continue to placate to the least common denominator, we will inevitably continue to breed that very weakness into increasingly larger proportions.
So under eugenics (or lack of in this case) we could theoretically breed ourselves into more of these situations. I was really only agreeing with the basic concept of what was put forth and even if it has some truth pertaining to food allergies, my response was along the lines of ,"That's fine, but what are we going to do about little Freddy over here in the meantime?"
On an evolutionary scale, we're not getting weaker.
And
If we're (individually) becoming more susceptible to environmental allergens it's really only indicative of the fact that we so thoroughly control our environment that we can afford to discard our evolved resistances to them.
People are living longer healthier lives as time goes on. It's interesting that you wrote about discarding resistances because it reminded me as to what an allergic reaction even is. It's the healthy (but for whatever reason confused) body's immune system responding to what it thinks is a foreign or harmful substance. The point is, the allergic person isn't necessarily weaker, he/she just has gung-ho soldiers without a real war for some reason.
So discarding resistances is actually what the allergic person needs, and in fact many treatments work by actually suppressing the immune system.
The notion that it's somehow morally correct for the weak to die is false.
And then:
"Survival of the fittest" isn't a moral guideline - it's just an observation, like the second law of thermodynamics.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to support my disagreement (in this peanut issue) with the statement, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Maybe someone can think of some crazy exceptions; but do we have a moral obligation to help those near us who need help in any reasonable way we can? Perhaps "reasonable" is the point of contention in this issue.
So under eugenics (or lack of in this case) we could theoretically breed ourselves into more of these situations.
Well, the point is more that it doesn't much matter if we breed ourselves into such situations, so long as our technology is adequate to compensate.
We (humans) are a very long way from having anything resembling real competition for our ecological niche. It would take a really radical change in the world's ecology to do it - something that happens over a fairly short period of time and seriously reduces our ability to reproduce. Even the disastrous consequences predicted for the global warming problem aren't likely to do that. Short of something like Frank Herbert wrote about in The White Plague, where a rogue geneticist develops and releases a virus that kills women, we're pretty much going to stay the top of the pile, and we aren't really going to change in any really significant ways.
Even if we do manage to breed in additional allergic sensitivities or other such problems, so long as we can address it technologically - like the immunosuppressant strategies you mentioned - it doesn't affect our fitness at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to support my disagreement (in this peanut issue) with the statement, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Well, my point was that it's not connected to it. Evolutionary concerns have nothing meaningful to do with moral concerns. Things that evolution selects for can be morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral. Evolution selects for parents who protect their young (morally good), marital infidelity (morally bad), and sugar cravings (morally neutral).
That evolutionary pressures favor something doesn't really speak to its moral value, so when we look at something that's fundamentally a moral/ethical question, like the statement "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", looking to evolutionary pressures for guidance is useless.
In this case, I think the argument is ultimately an economic one. Where's my incentive to support this anti-peanut crusade? It looks like it's all cost with virtually no benefit.
The school's costs (to provide required lunches and such) in keeping with the peanut ban are necessarily going to go up. In response, the risk to the kids is going to go down - but it won't go away entirely. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Frankly, I doubt it.
It seems like a better solution to simply require the parents to bear the costs directly. If the kids are only mildly allergic, they can probably go to school. If they're extremely allergic, that may not be practical - any more than it's practical for public schools to address the needs of deaf or blind children. The idea that the school could (or even should) remove all possible allergens from the environment is ridiculous.
It seems like a better solution to simply require the parents to bear the costs directly. If the kids are only mildly allergic, they can probably go to school. If they're extremely allergic, that may not be practical - any more than it's practical for public schools to address the needs of deaf or blind children. The idea that the school could (or even should) remove all possible allergens from the environment is ridiculous.
Sensible solution--but I'd suggest that we go one step further. IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
It's sort of like the 'voucher' program that keeps coming up. If I, as a parent, do not send my child to public school for whatever the reason, then I should be allowed to keep a portion of what I pay in school taxes. I realize that the taxes I pay are spread across the wider spectrum of X number of children in school--and that it's not a direct relationship to the tax dollars collected from each property owner. Ergo while I support a 'vourcher system'; I do not support a 100% refund either. As to apartment dwellers, maybe they get it in the form of a local tax refund, proportional to the amount of their rent that is used to pay property taxes on the building they inhabit. Home school material varies in price--and there are free resources as well. Some 'Home School' programs are taxpayer funded as well, usually through Title I, but some of the local dollars are used too. In the case of private/Christian schools, many of them usually have ways for people without the full tuition coast to let their children attend.
It only seems fair to me that those parents who do not have children in public school, should not bear the full burden of paying for school IF they have children of their own who are not attending. Beyond that, everyone should pay their fair share. Monies to pay for alternative schooling programs must come from somewhere, and it shouldn't by paid the parents of those children in those programs entirely; their tax burden should be lowered to help them. Whether this is done via refund/rebate/tax deduction at the local level is not material; I do not know which is best or most easily administered; though I suspect a tax 'deduction' is the easiest. Still, the monies need to come from somewhere.
IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
I'm not opposed to the voucher idea - I think it's a good idea for other reasons - but the logic can't be "my kid doesn't go to public school, so I should get to use that money for the school of my choice". If so, then I don't even have kids, so I should have to pay for schools at all.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school. But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
Vouchers are more about apportioning the tax money collected - not about shifting the burden around. The point of the voucher system is to put the forces of capitalism to work to ensure the school systems are high quality.
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
True, but I'm sure *some* formula could be arrived at based on the total number of children in school and the total school taxes collected for that particular district--at least for those parents who, for medical reasons, need to educate their child(ren) at home or elsewhere. The Private/Christian school attendees can get assistance in the form of scholarships so they're not as badly affected. I still think there should be something done for the home schoolers--but in many communities you can draw upon the schools for assistance with home schooling, and everywhere they are allowed to participate in extracurricular activities--even attend graduations. I don't feel as strongly about the home schoolers or those going to non-Public schools as I do about those with medical reasons for segregation.
Many states are also trying to find creative ways to reduce or eliminate school/property taxes for just those people who are childless for whatever reason. Personally, I don't think it's possible, given the education costs. I have no children living at home--they're with their mother in a different town. However, I still feel responsible enough to society as a whole that I won't grouch about paying taxes for the house I just bought.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school.
Absolutely! not only that, but the district has no way of making an 'allergen free' school. In many districts it would be virtually impossible--like Hershey PA or Stuarts Draft, VA. What if your parent(s) worked at the Reeses Plant in those towns? Peanut oil/butter is EVERYWHERE in the plant, you can't escape it. It would be on clothes, in the car, at home. If merely coming into contact with a microscopic trace of peanut oil is enough to cause anaphylactic shock in some patients, then there is no way that you can guarantee an allergen free school. It also opens the whole allergy issue up--Dust, Pollen, milk--the list is essentially endless.
But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
You won't get any argument from me--but the hard part is determining where education ends and 'extras' begin. I have my own ideas, but suffice to say that if a district has to sell candy/pizza/whatever to buy educational equipment or books, they're not spending the money right to begin with. We the voters need to be responsible enough to require an accounting, and require our elected boards to cut the extraneous expenses.
The school's costs (to provide required lunches and such) in keeping with the peanut ban are necessarily going to go up. In response, the risk to the kids is going to go down - but it won't go away entirely. Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Frankly, I doubt it.
This is probably true, but in the here and now, the Americans with Disabilities laws are set up in the favor of those with disabilities. The parents can file a 504 plan which can include things like a peanut free lunch environment. How that is achieved is worked out between each school and parent. I've remarked several times that I think there is still a lot of risk despite all intentions, and if I were a parent of one of these kids I would hesitate depending on the extent of the allergy before sending them into school.
The real question here is "Did the school officials make the right decision in enacting a ban?" Secondly, "Should the population of the school form an attitude of compliance in order to at least attempt to keep these kids safe?"
I feel the right decision was made in this case based on the laws currently in place and the possible consequences of doing nothing. The arguments made on the overall philosophy of what should be done on a wide scale could not be considered in the immediate situation. The people who opposed the ban in every way shape and form seemed to be doing so because of inconvenience, and wanted immediate gratification instead of "Let's make the kids safe as we can, and then figure out what to do."
(The police had to be called to the meeting because one guy was so rabid.)
This is probably true, but in the here and now, the Americans with Disabilities laws are set up in the favor of those with disabilities.
Yeah, I've always thought the ADA goes way too far on some issues. The 504 plan, though isn't about the ADA - it's to do with the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Though I think a relevant point is that none of the relevant law - ADA, Section 504, or IDEA guarantees that the child will be kept in the regular public school.
One strategy that the laws would allow but that the parents of the allergic kids would probably reject, would be to remove those seven kids from the regular classrooms and put them in a separate classroom - then only the one classroom need be kept allergen free.
I feel the right decision was made in this case based on the laws currently in place and the possible consequences of doing nothing.
Well, I've only seen the one article, and I don't think it gave enough information to judge. If the kids are really so allergic that merely "opening a jar of peanut butter" somewhere in the school could trigger severe anaphylaxis, then those kids don't belong in the public school. On the other hand, we could be talking about a very mild allergy and preposterously hypersensitive parents, too. The article was just inadequate - focusing on the controversy rather than the relevant facts.
RSS
RE: This will sound callous but ...
If we [society] continue to placate to the least common denominator, we will inevitably continue to breed that very weakness into increasingly larger proportions.
I completely agree with this statement, callous as it may sound. On an evolutionary scale we as a species seem to keep getting weaker and less tolerant of our environments as time goes on. It is precisely as you say; by taking extra care of the weakest amongst us, the weakest are allowed to propagate. This is all 'nod our heads in philosophical agreement' when we are standing on the moon looking down at humanity as a single entity, but not many people are willing to be the ones to suddenly apply " safer evolution" to someone on an individual basis. In other words, if you were standing in the lunchroom and a kid was going into anaphylactic shock, I would hope you would administer the Epi-Pen and call an ambulance instead of saying, "Whoops, sorry buddy-- survival of the fittest you know." And so, due to human compassion on many fronts at this basic level, the downward spiral will probably continue.
View Full Discussion