Posted by SLS on November 7, 2005, at 8:58:13
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » mama141, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 20:32:42
> > Secondly, WHEN was the part about "society" added? And WHO did the adding?
> I did the adding. I did the adding because somebody posted about native americans and how they seemed to have more of this alchohol disease thing going on than non-native americans.They don't?
I am guessing - perhaps incorrectly - that what you call "this alcohol disease thing" is what others call alcoholism.
> and about how they have a genetic difference that supposedly determines that they have this disease more than non-native american populations.
More and more evidence is accumulating that genetics represent a contributory factor in the expression of alcoholism. I have never stated or inferred that genes were the sole determinant in the evolution of alcoholism in any given individual or sociological group. Furthermore, the genetics of alcoholism does not involve any single gene. They have been difficult to sift out, but some progress is being made. It appears that the biological susceptibility to alcoholism involves multiple genes acting in concert with psychosocial factors. However, twin studies have shown that alcoholism is heritable.
Native Americans also have a genetic predisposition towards diabetes. On average, Native Americans are more than twice as likely to have diabetes as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. One tribe in Arizona has the highest rate of diabetes in the world. About 50% of these adults between the ages of 30 and 64 have diabetes.
Any focus on the predisposition of one population over another towards disease is important to identify. It serves to understand and treat disease; prevention being the goal. I could identify such conditions for populations all over the world. Why is bipolar disorder so prevalent in Amish populations? Diseases are not racist. Only people are.
> > Thirdly -- what about "choices" -- I sure didn't choose to get polio as a kid!! I did however CHOOSE to use alcohol the drown my sorrows so to speak, and I made that choice EVERY time I took a swollow.....
For some people, it is an insatiable craving for the chemical itself that drives their decision making process. The cravings are libidinal, not cerebral. Sorrows have nothing to do with it. For other people, their addiction to alcohol is the result of self-medicating for the disease states of bipolar disorder or PTSD. Sorrows have nothing to do with it.
> yeah. and the more sorrows you have... the more likely you are to choose short term high over long term benefits.
>
> at least... that sounds fairly common-sense to me....Whose?
Perhaps that leaves mine as being uncommon.
I doubt it, though.
For some, the more sorrows they have, the more they commit themselves to counselling for the long term benefit.
That's only common sense.
Or is it?
What differences must lie between the two people who choose different ways to address the same sorrows?
Is it genetic?
I guess it ain't that simple.
Hee hee.
:-)
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:575263
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20051106/msgs/576307.html