luke1i1

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

No.

Do I really need to explain why? Really?

If there is a genetic component, then that will be passed on to children. If there is an external cause, then it won't be

For example, if there is a genetic disorder that means it is more likely to break a leg, then that could be passed on to your children. But if you fall off a bridge and break your leg then that will not be passed on to your children.

Sorry Strange I don't mean to be a pain.  Thank you for answering my questions though, it means a lot

Regards

Luke

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is quite possible. But if there is such a genetic component then I don't see why the chances of it being passed on would depend on career choices.

Do you have any evidence that working in health care causes depression?

Note that there might be a higher rate of depression among people working in health care, but that doesn't;t mean that working health care causes depression.

Write out 100 times: "Correlation is not causation."

Thanks for replying Strange, I will admit that I hadn't thought of it like that.  

Playing devils advocate though, say it was found that it did lead to an increase in risk of depression, would the remainder of my statement then be true?

Many thanks for helping

Luke 

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why do you think that working in health care increases the chance of suffering from depression?

Why do you think that would affect the offspring?

If there is a genetic component to depression then wouldn't Mr X would pass it on to his children whether he works as a nurse or a comedian?

Hi Strange, thanks for answering

Mostly from what I've read but the premise of what I was trying to convey means that any even a slight increase in rates of I'll health more so than an other occupation which Mr X could undertake would result in the same effect, that more offspring could suffer I'll health then they otherwise would. 

I'm sure that I've read (and heard) that if your parents have depression then you are more likely to experience it.

Finally I was trying to refer to depression specifically caused through working in that specific occupation.  

Thanks

Luke

Hi all

I'm new to the forum so please be kind!

I asked a question yesterday relating to epigenetics and if our offspring would be likely to follow our path of undertaking a similar occupation to ourselves.  I have had a few replies which was great so thank you to those who answered me!

I wanted to know if you would mind helping me come to terms with another train of thought that I have been experiencing.  It revolves around epigenetics (in terms of what we do now and it's implications on future offspring) but it also draws on the premise underpinning Derek Parfits disappearing beneficiaries argument of how by changing something today leads to different people being born in the future.

With that in mind this is my query:

If we understand that the concept of doing good is possible (not to one specific person but to humanity as a whole) and that we try to avoid doing bad to others, how do we justify our actions of helping others today when it may lead to suffering in the future?  

Let me try to break this down by providing an example.  

Mr X works as a nurse in healthcare and helps people everyday (say Mr X is a nurse and cares for people - some with minor injuries others with more serious injuries.  The type of healthcare profession is not relevant for this example, as long as he is working in healthcare).   

Some days Mr X only treats minor injuries, other days he is required to help people suffering from depression and anxiety.

Now I'm sure we would all agree that Mr X is doing something "good" and worthwhile with his life.  However what if working in this profession (in this case Nursing) leads to a high rate of stress, anxiety and depression and Mr X eventually experiences this himself.

Due to Mr X experiencing depression which seriously affects his health he passes it on to his offspring (through epigenetics) which his children later experience as a result of their father having experienced the condition.  In time they have children and this passes onto them etc etc.  

Basically due to Mr X engaging in an occupation (in this example Nursing) which has say a higher rate of depression, it leads to a future population of people who have had this gene passed down to them and they too experience this condition.

With this in mind, how can society say that what Mr X is doing now (i.e. practicing in healthcare) has benefited society if he is predisposing the future generations to a greater risk of illnesses such as depression?

Most people would argue that Mr X has done significantly more good than harm by helping others today, and although his children may also suffer from the condition, if they went into health they too would assist people to a greater extent then the harm they cause to the future and so forth.

However what if the extent of the depression (or other illness) was so great that future offspring wished they had never been born?

Although Mr X has assisted many people today lots of these people will have only slightly benefited, whereas it could lead to many people in the future (over many generations) experiencing very severe depression whereby they wish they had never been born.  Is this still considered good?

If Mr X was to undertake a different occupation altogether which decreased his chance of suffering depression (and hence reduce the likelihood of his offspring experiencing it) future offspring would be different to the ones in the first example (based on the disappearing beneficiaries argument) but in turn reducing the amount of future people who really suffer.  Future generations who are then born but suffer slightly could not complain, as if Mr X was to go into health (and so does his children and their children etc.) they would never have been born in the first instance.

If this sounds like a stupid train of thought please be kind with your response, to me it is something very real and has been on my mind a great deal.

Thanks in advance

Luke

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

All genetics impact future generations (by definition). Epigenetics refers to that part of inheritable features that are not based on alterations of the DNA sequence itself.

Hi Charon

Sorry but to clarify does this mean that what I purported was true?

Sorry I'm not very knowledgeable re: epigenetics!

Thanks

Luke

Hi all

I'm new to the forum so please be kind!

I have a question (well a few really but I'll start with this one) which I was hoping you fine people might shed some light on.

I have been reading about epigenetics which from what I understand relates to how our genes have an impact on our future generations.

My question is this, if what we do in life affects our genes (which is what I understand epigenetics is about) then does this mean that if we undertake a specific occupation in life (such as working in healthcare) would it alter our genes so that our future offspring (and thier offspring and so on) may also be more inclined to work in a similar occupation due to their genes somehow predisposing them to a feeling of wanting to work in this setting?

I know it may sound mad but it's something I have been trying to establish for some time.

Thanks in advance

Luke

Hi all,

Sorry if this has been asked before or if it sounds like a stupid question but I have been trying to understand something which relates to genetics and I was hoping you could assist.

This is difficult for me to explain but I'll try my best.

For some time now I have been pondering whether our day to day actions change who are born in the future.  I'm not talking about if we smoke will our children be more likely to smoke etc., but if our day to day actions change the person who is born.  

Let me try to put this into an example:

If a company decided to undertake a project aimed at helping future generations to understand our planet more (for example something like the Eden project in Cornwall) and many people worked on this to ensure it was built, would the action of these people doing something they would not have done otherwise (I.e. building something to help the future) change which sperm "wins the race" through the man having sex at a different time (due to different stress day to day) or through the sperm being in a different position.

I suppose putting it another way you could ask would a couple who would have had intercourse yesterday have the same child if they decided to have intercourse today?  Basically does time or what we do make a difference?  And if so how can we possibly help future generations?

I know that this may sound ridiculous but I can't help thinking that if people are doing things each day that they would not have done otherwise (such as trying to help future generations) then would their future offspring be different.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.  It has really been bothering me for some time.

Kind regards

Luke