Poverty "Ages" Genes of Young Children, Study Shows

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I agree with you Brian, and you make a very good point. Many people think like you do, but unfortunately the majority of people abroad do not. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by BrianFlanders

....Having kids is not involuntary and it's not an accident. It's a choice

I for one am exceedingly grateful that you made that choice.

I have no doubt stress drives reproduction, and would not be surprised if the response has to do with maximizing opportunities for species mutation and adaptation in response to environmental change.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


When you say the poor are acclimated to handouts, etc., you think from a western perspective where some poor folk might get government (thus societal) help... what about the billions in the "third" world? No "govt teat" to suck off of there... but on to a general observation.

I choke on how people rationalize to justify their comfort (or ridiculous excess comfort) while "lesser mortals" scrabble to simply exist and then die in the hell of grinding poverty.

No "wealthy" person is truly individual and self sufficient in regards to material wealth... we all depend on the others around us in the economic web.

I hope the elitist "us" and "them" model of human thought dies a rapid death... I'm so tired of it.

soficrow
reply to post by BDBinc

 

....Parents believing these studies think that poverty damages their children's DNA....

I'm OCD about this stuff because the whole point is that DNA is NOT damaged, changed or anything.

edit on 11/4/14 by soficrow because: sp

Is "premature aging" due to stress not damage?
Do you see how the 'poor bashers' quickly came to attack the poor with trying to take away the right to reproduce following this article?
That was what it was written for .

No human being on this planet should be without food, shelter and water, that level of poverty is completely man made, by the same PTB who use media( mind control) releases .

Baddogma
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

When you say the poor are acclimated to handouts, etc., you think from a western perspective where some poor folk might get government (thus societal) help... what about the billions in the "third" world? No "govt teat" to suck off of there...

Which still doesn't put them on another planet, nor completely isolate them from the influence of those who have everything to gain from manipulating them (example - many religious people don't believe in birth control or abortion).

What I'm getting at is that the socialists are there no matter where you go quietly, subtly (or not so) doing their thing. They WANT poverty because they know people's emotions are the key that will unlock any door.

I choke on how people rationalize to justify their comfort (or ridiculous excess comfort) while "lesser mortals" scrabble to simply exist and then die in the hell of grinding poverty.

Once again, if they are so miserable, they should use common sense and not reproduce in any case where they can make a choice. They are choosing to condemn their own children to the same life.

I did not ask to be born but that was a choice that was out of my hands. Once I had a choice, I chose not to produce more useless people and blame the world for the fact that they aren't wanted. And yes. I consider myself to be useless. I am unemployable (long story short, I have epilepsy). I could have gone and fathered three useless children for no reason but my sad story ends with me. The bleeding hearts are not going to exploit my misery for their political gain. It's unbelievable what these people get away with.

reply to post by BDBinc

was "premature aging" due to stress not damage?

Yes - the genes "age" without being damaged - the DNA is NOT damaged. Epigenetic processes determine how genes are expressed without changing the DNA. ...Environmental contaminants and psychological stress cause cellular stress and influence the epigenetic processes that determine how/what the genes express. Not direct cause-and-effect like mutagens and carcinogens, but the processes are definitely being proved.

Do you see how the 'poor bashers' quickly came to attack the poor with trying to take away the right to reproduce following this article?
That was what it was written for .

This article highlights the difference between genetic and epigenetic, and better explains epigenetics - that's why it was written. NOT to justify eugenics policies. 'Course we could just burn ALL the books, make sure nobody ever knows enough to think about anything gawdforbid learn more.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


Dismissing breakthroughs in the science of epigenetics to play party politics.

Interesting.

soficrow
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

Dismissing breakthroughs in the science of epigenetics to play party politics.

Interesting.

Socialism isn't a party. It's an ideology. A scientist can be an ideologue just as easily as anyone else can. And most of them are.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


True. The Eugenicists hijacked genetic science after WWII, and now they're hanging on by their fingernails.

It's now clear that gene expression is influenced -if not controlled- by environmental factors. Ergo - makes sense to control the environment to protect peoples' health. Don't need to be a socialist to come to that conclusion.

reply to post by BDBinc

Do you see how the 'poor bashers' quickly came to attack the poor with trying to take away the right to reproduce following this article?
That was what it was written for .

This is an old, old fight - dates back to Darwin's cousin starting the "science" of Eugenics, based on the idea that some people are just genetically "superior" or "inferior" - and you can tell which by whether they're rich or poor. More recently in 2004, the "Personal Responsibility in Health" movement came on strong to define peoples' health problems as either self-inflicted by “unhealthy personal choices” or as “genetic.” Wrong.

The Epigenetic Science behind the OP proves that environmental factors influence -if not control- gene expression by turning genes off and on, and by modifying proteins after genes produce them. So it's obvious we should try to control environments, not people.

As I said, it's an old fight - and the Eugenicists try to appropriate every breakthrough to prove their point. But it won't work. Don't let them get away with their bull puckey and don't give up. Here's something I wrote back in 2004.

“PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN HEALTH ACT”

Targets sick, weak and chubby – marks return of Eugenics Laws to USA.

The “Personal Responsibility in Health Act” goes beyond race in profiling America’s “visually identifiable unwanted” – adding sick, chubby and fat people to the list. The Act supposedly prevents frivolous lawsuits stemming from the “obesity-related” epidemics that started 20 years ago and now affect 60% of the American population.

The Act ignores “proteomics” – the “science of proteins” that identifies weight gain as a symptom of disease – and the exploding international proteomics industry. It disregards evidence that today’s epidemics are caused by underlying sub-clinical infections from microbes called “infectious prion proteins.”

Tests and filters for infectious prions were available by 1999 to protect food, vaccines, blood supplies, water and everything consumable. Industry did not use the technology voluntarily. Government chose not to intervene or set requirements for prion tests and filters, or to regulate against infectious prion contamination in any way. The tests and filters were never used.

Instead, Bush made infectious prion research illegal in the USA under the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act – even though prions are useless to terrorists (they take decades to work). He “tightened up” prion security under the Classified National Security Information Amendment in Executive Order 12958 – and made it an Act of Treason for US scientists to talk openly about infectious prions.

As it’s written, the “Personal Responsibility in Health Act:”

1. Prevents people from claiming injury if they are infected with unregulated infectious microbes like prions through food or non-alcoholic beverages;

2. Equates sickness with “irresponsibility,” and obstructs accurate diagnosis. It opens the door to liability charges against individuals for irresponsibility in health, and to penalties and punishments:

(It) is the first step towards denial of medical coverage and other benefits on grounds of personal responsibility or irresponsibility; and
Launches the USA’s return to eugenics laws – to forced sterilizations, imprisonment and euthanasia on grounds of irresponsibility, personal incompetence and genetic inferiority. Some of the original eugenics laws stayed on the books until the 1970’s. Many decision-makers were sorry to see them go and want to bring them back.

The Act works with other ‘national initiatives’ to: 1) Inaccurately define modern diseases as either self-inflicted by “unhealthy personal choices” or as “genetic;” 2) Deny the possibility of infectious cause; 3) Block efforts to mass-produce already-existent protein-based drug therapies; 4) Obstruct ongoing research to identify new prion mutations and better understand how prions mutate and spread; and 4) Protect industry and government from charges of negligence by simultaneously denying the problem and shifting blame – and targets sick Americans as the newest “enemies of the State.”

Called the “Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act,” Bill H. R. 339 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 10, 2004. It’s now on the Senate Calendar.

Darwinisim and other T PTB mind control ideas aside, you saw how quick this study was used to promote the idea of eugenics control of reproduction in the poor . As though the poor are different and have genetic defects if the study had been done properly it would show how middle class and rich people all get effected the same by excessive /prolonged stress.We are all humanity not just "poor and rich " genes.

I do not agree that the study eliminated other gene influencing expressions (such as hereditary) and think since it was used to try to stop the poor persons right to reproduce you can see what it was intended for.
That stress and negative feelings manifest as physical illness and can switch off and on genes is not yet published .
We control our environment and the conditioned mind controls people. How has control worked out?
I would go further and stop people from believing they are just a string of DNA (as the pseudo science used by TPTB want them to think )that they are a victim controlled by their gene expressions and they have no way to stop such things as stress damage.
Is genetics really important as the eugentic agenda tells people it is, are human beings to be reduced to the function of DNA and told they are powerless to control their feeling and thinking?
We agree on the bottom line -of keeping people aware of the agenda of these PR released media studies and how they are being used .
Stress (environmental) is something each one of us can eliminate by meditation (or since so much of it is caused by imagining we can be fully present in the moment) .

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I am truly sorry about your situation and understand the resultant bitterness... but so what if some poor people, somewhere, think they are "getting away" with something because they have shelter or food given to them by naive richer people?

So what? The poor getting 'something for nothing' are getting away with not starving or freezing to death... not a big coup.

These "socialists" who are envisioning a better system are usually naive and slightly misguided, true... but their hearts are certainly in the right place.

My stance is that as we are now able to provide everyone on Earth some level of subsistence and relative comfort, it is our duty to do exactly that... and drop the whole "deserves" attitude.

There will always be people who deserve it... and those that don't... and who's to make that broad judgement that varies from individual to individual, day-to-day, action to action?

Giving everyone a base level of food, clothing, shelter, medical service and education to work up from is completely possible (logistically and mathematically) ... and without any noticeable reduction in the lifestyles of the average well-to-do Westerner... so why not work, or at least support a vision, for that world?

Why the heck not? We should adopt the view that every human "deserves" basic essentials by simply being born and let them rise or fall from there... again, why not?

Yes, ignorant people creating more ignorant people is not something that is desirable, but the solution is education, resources and hope. Educated, comfortable people do NOT reproduce thoughtlessly and have the medical resources to curb it.

We are brainwashed into an elitist ideology and that brainwashing must stop if we are to continue.

I first noticed a long time ago that poor people look older than their age. I see it every day.

reply to post by Baddogma


The belief goes something like this:

"I have it, because I deserve it. Because I deserve it, I have it. You do not have it because you don't deserve it. If you deserved it, you would have it."

Clearly this means that congress should lower taxes for the rich which should solve all these problems.

reply to post by JingLi


Yes... basically magical thinking that conveniently forgets that the ones that have something could have been the ones that have nothing... except for random chance.

The Western Protestants (and others, of course) are behind this. Their ideology is that the reasons for some prospering and some suffering is because their God favors some of his creations more than others.

Leaving the argument over God alone... this is a self-serving, evil stance based on covering one's own butt and ignoring the misery of others.

It is horrible at every level. It is time we all grow up and realize we are only helping ourselves by being kind to others as circumstances change and the 'haves' can easily be the 'have nots.'

reply to post by Baddogma


Well said. It seems that narcissism has replaced good character. They believe that the world belongs to them, when in realty it belongs to us all.

Read my signature - LOL!

reply to post by BDBinc


The study is not about genes - and in fact, presents arguments against "superior" and "inferior" genetic inheritance. True, fools who cling to disproven ideas of genetics "jump all over" studies like this and try to twist the results to serve their own agendas - and so do other ignorant souls.

JingLi
reply to post by Baddogma

 

The belief goes something like this:

"I have it, because I deserve it. Because I deserve it, I have it. You do not have it because you don't deserve it. If you deserved it, you would have it."

As baddogma says, "Magical thinking."

And most of the magical thinkers are about 2 pay checks or 1 exposure and illness away from their own worst nightmare.

Baddogma
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

I am truly sorry about your situation and understand the resultant bitterness...

First of all, I'm not bitter with anyone over my situation. The only thing that bothers me is that people knowingly put their future children in the same kinds of situations every day.

That's to say that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you and your wife are living in your car and begging the government for money, it's probably not a good idea to have kids. Especially if you have problems that will almost certainly be passed onto your kids. But even if you don't, poverty itself (and/or begging for money and living on that money) is a self-perpetuating condition.

Kids grow up in this environment where their parents don't work and don't get money from working. They see that their parents are getting basically free money from the government. These are their formative years. Everyone knows how heavily your future life can be influenced by the circumstances under which you grew up.

That's not to say every kid who grows up living on food stamps will be a bum but it certainly will bump up the chances.

but so what if some poor people, somewhere, think they are "getting away" with something because they have shelter or food given to them by naive richer people?

I don't think you understood what I said but I'm really not in the mood to explain it in more detail. I'll just say that what I meant was the people who are exploiting the condition known as poverty for political purposes are the ones who are getting away with a disgusting travesty. They don't really care about these people. All they care about is their ideology and concocting these political cheap shots to make it work.

That's right. When you see that fat dude on MSNBC scowling out at you and wiping his fake tears about the poor people who can't afford food, he's basically using their misery as a kick to the groin on his political opponents. An emotional exploit. This guy is happy about poverty because it gives him political leverage. This is what his ideology is all about. Without poor people, he doesn't have votes.

These people are not going to let poverty go away until they get what they want.