andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-02-13 01:26 pm
andrewducker) wrote2003-02-13 01:26 pm
All men are created equal
As some of you know, Erin has PCOS. The solution to this is to basically give her drugs that return her body to normal levels of insulin/glucose so that her testosterone levels drop and she's normal again.
Now, I have insulin problems too. And according to recent statistics a large proportion is ending up with type 2 diabetes because of dietary problems. So it'd be great if we could brute-force a solution to this.
In some ways.
How far from the norm do people have to be before they are considered eligible? Do you allow people to self-medicate away their problems? Do we allow people to use this tech to make themselves thinner (or fatter) than normal by medicating? Is it reasonable to allow people to basically make themselves dependent on this technology so that their hormone levels are constantly monitored and adjusted and tuned to keep them at optimum levels.
More to the point, lets extend that to a general level. We're gaining more and more control over our bodies and brains. Are we going to take control of our bodies on a deep invasive level (eventually redefining what it means to be human) or are we going to decide that only certain changes are to be allowed? This underlies many issues facing modern politics, from cloning to genetic manipulation to human/machine interfaces. At some point this basic issue is going to have to be faced, or the decisions will be taken piece by piece and not in the directions we necessarily want them to.
Now, I have insulin problems too. And according to recent statistics a large proportion is ending up with type 2 diabetes because of dietary problems. So it'd be great if we could brute-force a solution to this.
In some ways.
How far from the norm do people have to be before they are considered eligible? Do you allow people to self-medicate away their problems? Do we allow people to use this tech to make themselves thinner (or fatter) than normal by medicating? Is it reasonable to allow people to basically make themselves dependent on this technology so that their hormone levels are constantly monitored and adjusted and tuned to keep them at optimum levels.
More to the point, lets extend that to a general level. We're gaining more and more control over our bodies and brains. Are we going to take control of our bodies on a deep invasive level (eventually redefining what it means to be human) or are we going to decide that only certain changes are to be allowed? This underlies many issues facing modern politics, from cloning to genetic manipulation to human/machine interfaces. At some point this basic issue is going to have to be faced, or the decisions will be taken piece by piece and not in the directions we necessarily want them to.
Intersting, but...
Heron, you think any changes should be permitted, whether illness-driven or otherwise, presumably, as long as the individual is happy. What about the effects of mental illness?
You are effectively saying anorexia is OK. Bearing in mind this is now a medically recognised mental disorder, which I have had personal experience of. It's not pretty. It is, in fact, life-threatening. However, according to your argument, people should be able to starve themselves thin, as long as they are happy with the way they look. Dumb. Fucking dumb.
We're far too ready as a society, especially in the "anything goes" 21st century, to accept anything without question. If anoerxia (which is, at it's core, an unhealthy desire to change one's appearance) exists, and was only relatively recently medically accepted, who's to say there are not other mental illnesses of a similar nature which are not yet recognised?
We're obsessed with how we look. All human beings are - even the most remote tribes wear jewellry, piercings and tattoos. But these are just 'decoration'. Decoration, or "plumage", is understandable. We all want to make ourselves look good, whether it's with the clothes we wear, or makeup, or jewellry, or whatever. But that's as far as it should go. When we start to desire to actually alter ourselves physically, or, perhaps more accurately, feel a 'need' to do that, we have to start questioning why.
Bodymods. What a fucking disgusting term. Heron, are you aware there are people out there who have limbs amputated to be happy with themselves? Is this acceptable? At which point does this desire from change become questionable? At which point to we start to consider why the desire is there in the first place, instead of just allowing it to be?
This really angers me. The first thing we should be considering is tolerance, acceptance. We're obsessed with how we look, and how everyone else looks too. We're happy to mock other peoples appearances, regardless of the damage it does. WHY do people want to change themselves? And why should it be OK? Is it not far preferable that people can accept themselves for who they are, and be accepted for who they are too? Yes, this applies equally after any 'mods' - but why bother with the mods in the first place?
Take Michael Jackson as an extreme, but very good, example. Does anyone not think he has mental problems? Does anyone here not pity him? Anyone? Hello? And look at the changes he ahs made. The two aren't separate - they are directly related. The problems with his family, the childhood that none of us can imagine - these have resulted in his mental state, which has affected the way he views himself. He's clearly an individual deeply unhappy with himself, and has felt the need to drastically alter his physicl appearance. Surely, Heron, you recognise it would have been far better if he'd been able to deal with the mental problems, than to be where he is now. In fact, I'd argue that despite the changes he's made, he still isn't happy, and probably never will be. Hardly 'healthy'.
Re: Intersting, but...
What other moral option is there? If someone wants help to stop being anorexic, then I heartily agree that they should have access to free and effective treatment. However, what about people who don't want to stop. Should jack-booted normality police haul them in and force treatment on them? How likely do you think that would be to work? I believe that anorexia is a very bad choice of lifestyle, but it is a choice and forcibly attempting to take away people's choices is IMHO immoral and also typically ineffective.
We're obsessed with how we look. All human beings are - even the most remote tribes wear jewellry, piercings and tattoos. But these are just 'decoration'. Decoration, or "plumage", is understandable. We all want to make ourselves look good, whether it's with the clothes we wear, or makeup, or jewellry, or whatever. But that's as far as it should go.
Why? Because these sort of changes don't bother you and others do? What right do you have to dictate other's actions?
I would also like to have a social climate where anorexia was less common, but I firmly believe that the most effective way to do this is to increase diversity - it is is acceptable for people to look like whatever they want then I'm guessing that the barbie/supermodel look that most anorexics seek to emulate will become less popular. We have rigid standards of what is acceptable and attractive. People into body modification challenge those standards and will hopefully expand them, if they are not stopped by people like you who hold rigid views about acceptable appearance.
Bodymods. What a fucking disgusting term. Heron, are you aware there are people out there who have limbs amputated to be happy with themselves? Is this acceptable?
Yes, who are you to say that their choices are right or wrong?