Re: INfant circumcision. The best one
I spent ages (ish) writing out what I thought was a relative eloquent reply to you but it was deleted when I went to post, so here is the abridged and slightly more curt version (no offence meant)
My comparison is ridiculous, yet yours between attitudes between slavery and circumcision is not.... Um right.... You lost that one mate.
There are other methods, so what? Your perspective is based on the opinion that circumcision in some way is detrimental to a child's/adults development/life, so how come we do not have people coming on this thread lamenting their lack of foreskin?
Circumcision is only done for cultural religious reasons not health.... Why do you believe this is mutually exclusive? In my culture the medical and cultural reasons for doing it are intertwined I think you are showing your western bias here
How much do I know about medicine- really next to nothing substantial. science? A little bit more but still negligible in terms of those in the fields or with a keen amateur interest.
What I do know is this, what we think we know in these fields will be treated with scorn in a 100 years time, don't you agree? So in conclusion we as a society really know very little.
Did you read my clarification to Affy? I've also had a continued PM discussion with Affy about this topic, if you think I directly compared slavery and circumcision you're mistaken. If you want to discuss the impact of cultural relativism on the two issues feel free to pick it up from my clarification.
You want to compare circumcision to vaccinations? Alright. Vaccinations have helped prevent millions of childhood deaths, it's been the vital factor in eradicating smallpox. We as a species have completely stopped a virus that at one point caused hundreds of thousands of deaths per year just in Europe. We came within reaching distance of doing the same with polio by the way, but largely because of influenced by religious fundamentalists that battle has not yet been won. Vaccines culminated from a combination of scientific brilliance and a bit of fortune. That's just smallpox and polio, I've seen estimates that vaccines have been and are preventing millions of deaths per year. The benefits both in terms of preventing human suffering and the financial benefit to society are immense and for me well beyond quantification. It's also one of all too few equalizers in the world as vaccines benefit the poor without proper health care access more than the rich. Vaccines are one of our greatest victories as a species, it's history well worth reading up on.
Compared to that you have what with circumcision? At the very best (giving you a lot of leeway here) debatable health benefits when compared to other methods and with a direct risk-benefit analysis. A procedure stemming from religious and superstitious history. A procedure that hurts the poor more than the rich I might again add, probably for wealthy people in western countries it's a lot safer than for poorer people without proper health care access.
In short, yes it's a ridiculous comparison. It's about as one sided as if a morbidly obese geriatric was to compete in the Olympics.
I might be showing my western bias, I'm aware that I have one. I think in certain areas western culture is better*. One of the issues we are pretty good at, although not yet good enough, is that medicine is evidence/science based. I think medicine should be evidence/science based and I think it's better for any culture if medical evidence is evaluated on a scientific basis. Without having to be intertwined with religious practices.
I don't think what "we" think we know now will be treated with scorn. Experts in fields of physics and biology now know much more than Einstein and Darwin did at their time. You wouldn't have to go far to find examples of things that they got wrong, things that scientific progress (that they helped along) later disproved. They're not treated with scorn, they're treated with respect. Because they were champions of the fair evaluation of evidence, of critical thought, of intellectual honesty.
No doubt future generations will know more than us, but not by some automatic generational change, they will know more because of the hard work of scientists and engineers that help build on the accumulated knowledge. This was not always the case throughout history. In medicine like in other areas of science I think our current views might be seen as a bit quaint, but I think (and hope) that the people of the future will still value some of the same ideals that we appreciate in those who came before us. And I hope they will look back with respect on those of us willing to follow scientific evidence honestly to where it leads us in the process that will be the reason why they will know more than us in the first place.
*I don't think this should be a contentious or offensive statement, but I think for some it might be. So a slight clarification. I've already made my views on cultural relativism clear I think and I see any issue with saying that one culture is better than another in a certain area. Anyone who disagrees with this can go **** themselves (and accept by their cultural relativism that me saying this only makes me different, not worse and that they must respect my views on asking them to go **** themselves and that they have no right to criticize my go **** yourself opinions).
On issues like science and the scientific basis for medicine, along with a few others like democracy and freedom of speech I think western culture is a lot closer to getting things right than other cultures. In other areas this is not the case.
. If so not much of a herd risk in terms of take up in today's society.