Home > ACNE >

What are other examples of human diseases that are inherited

Health related question in topics Diseases That Are .We found some answers as below for this question “What are other examples of human diseases that are inherited”,you can compare them.

A:Inherited diseases: hemophilia, color blindness, Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and Huntington’s disease, Leber’s hereditary optic atrophy, an eye disease and mitochondrial encephalopathy, a form of dementia. [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-are-other-examples-of-human-diseases-that-are-inherited ]
More Answers to “What are other examples of human diseases that are inherited
What are other examples of human diseases that are inherited?
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-are-other-examples-of-human-diseases-that-are-inherited
Inherited disease s: hemophilia, color blindness, Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and Huntington’s disease , Leber’s hereditary optic atrophy, an eye disease and mitochondrial encephalopathy, a form of dementia.

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

What theology/philosophy is this?
Q: The idea that the ultimate objective is to create the most happiness for the most amount of organisms. More specifically, forgetting sentiment and bias to make decisions. For example, eugenics is a necessary practice in my philosophy, to increase average intelligence and reduce inherited diseases. The most valuable reproductive cells would be saved. This is where the lack of bias comes in. If, hypothetically, there is one man who was raised in a good environment and became a good, hardworking man. However, his genes make it less likely that is children, given an average upbringing, will become good citizens. There is another man, a rapist and a killer, who was raised in such a way that he became a killer, but his genes are good, and if his offspring were raised in a average environment, would be more likely to succeed and be more intelligent than the successful mans offspring. Using my philosophy, the prisoner should be able to reproduce. By that, I mean donate sperm to impregnate women. Even though he lead a bad life, his offspring will most likely lead a better life than the good mans offspring. If we could kill 10 people, where all other variables are equal, to save 11 people, we should. Unless, we are dealing with overpopulation, where the goal would be to reduce the population. If we could choose between killing a baby or an 18 year old person, we should kill the baby, because society has already invested in the 18 YO, and he has many more complex relationships. (this is all other variables being equal, if the 18 YO was a bad person with bad genes, the baby would live). We can also put a value on human life. For example, if there was a man with the genes of, say, Einstein, and 100 babies, we should kill the 100 babies instead of the genius man, because his expected contribution is much greater than that of 100 average people. Another thing is that there are no such thing as good or bad. A person makes his decisions based solely on his genes, and the environment he lives in, both of which he can’t control, and decisions he made about altering his environment are based on his past experiences in his environment. Therefore, humans only have freewill within a certain context. However, we must discipline those who are a negative influence on society, for if we didn’t, more people who have a negative impact on society. Also, if a person is a killer, but by not being punished would create a new invention for society, helping society more than if he was locked away, he should be not locked away. Religions should be discouraged, because they have no positive effect on society, outside if there really was a god, which in any type of philosophy or government, should be used in making decision as a delusion, that god doesn’t exist. In short, major decisions should not be made with any human emotion, sentiment, or bias, and should soley focus on improving society, not on whats fair. Is there any name for this philosophy?Edit: FWI, I wasn’t taught this to form some type of agenda, I am 14 years old, and my family and friends have central left political beliefs. I thought up this idea by myself, as I have damage to the frontal lobe, which made me gradually lose emotion, bias, and sentiment starting at age ~9. I think that some people will be offended by what I think because it was apparently similar to the argument that Nazi’s used to kill millions of people. However, I believe that what they did is the antithesis of my idea, they killed very smart, creative people to fulfill their own agenda. I think that anyone with any set of genes is capable of either great good or great evil, but certain people we can estimate to be more good or bad, and in the long run help more people.
A: Pragmatism ala Hitler and company.
What philosophy/political system is this? (Informed, unbiased answers only)?
Q: The idea that the ultimate objective is to create the most happiness for the most amount of organisms. More specifically, forgetting sentiment and bias to make decisions. For example, eugenics is a necessary practice in my philosophy, to increase average intelligence and reduce inherited diseases. The most valuable reproductive cells would be saved. This is where the lack of bias comes in. If, hypothetically, there is one man who was raised in a good environment and became a good, hardworking man. However, his genes make it less likely that is children, given an average upbringing, will become good citizens. There is another man, a rapist and a killer, who was raised in such a way that he became a killer, but his genes are good, and if his offspring were raised in a average environment, would be more likely to succeed and be more intelligent than the successful mans offspring. Using my philosophy, the prisoner should be able to reproduce. By that, I mean donate sperm to impregnate women. Even though he lead a bad life, his offspring will most likely lead a better life than the good mans offspring. If we could kill 10 people, where all other variables are equal, to save 11 people, we should. Unless, we are dealing with overpopulation, where the goal would be to reduce the population. If we could choose between killing a baby or an 18 year old person, we should kill the baby, because society has already invested in the 18 YO, and he has many more complex relationships. (this is all other variables being equal, if the 18 YO was a bad person with bad genes, the baby would live). We can also put a value on human life. For example, if there was a man with the genes of, say, Einstein, and 100 babies, we should kill the 100 babies instead of the genius man, because his expected contribution is much greater than that of 100 average people. Another thing is that there are no such thing as good or bad. A person makes his decisions based solely on his genes, and the environment he lives in, both of which he can’t control, and decisions he made about altering his environment are based on his past experiences in his environment. Therefore, humans only have freewill within a certain context. However, we must discipline those who are a negative influence on society, for if we didn’t, more people who have a negative impact on society. Also, if a person is a killer, but by not being punished would create a new invention for society, helping society more than if he was locked away, he should be not locked away. Religions should be discouraged, because they have no positive effect on society, outside if there really was a god, which in any type of philosophy or government, should be used in making decision as a delusion, that god doesn’t exist. In short, major decisions should not be made with any human emotion, sentiment, or bias, and should soley focus on improving society, not on whats fair. Is there any name for this philosophy?FWI, I wasn’t taught this to form some type of agenda, I am 14 years old, and my family and friends have central left political beliefs. I thought up this idea by myself, as I have damage to the frontal lobe, which made me gradually lose emotion, bias, and sentiment starting at age ~9. I think that some people will be offended by what I think because it was apparently similar to the argument that Nazi’s used to kill millions of people. However, I believe that what they did is the antithesis of my idea, they killed very smart, creative people to fulfill their own agenda. I think that anyone with any set of genes is capable of either great good or great evil, but certain people we can estimate to be more good or bad, and in the long run help more people.So far, it looks like people are offended by the question. Please don’t answer if you are offended in anyway, as your answers will be to biased and wrong.
A: SociophathocracyThe Nazis were sure they were killing sub-humans, they were wrong, but they didn’t think so, it was all for the genetic good. Oh, so wrong. Then you say anyone who disagrees with you is biased and wrong, total sociophathocracy. All the variables you need to sort thru your victims are impossible to verify and insure, as if you could know everyone’s potential. Therefore the killing would fall to whim and prejudice, very similar to the Nazis.
can anyone help me finish off the conclusion at the bottom……?
Q: Global WarmingThe world is presently facing a crisis called Global Warming that should be stopped. It is important that people must get to know about this crisis that will affect the whole humankind, and try to stop it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has states and local governments and businesses play an important role in meeting the national goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. Al Gore and other scientific experts can’t change global warming but we can take steps in order to decrease global warming: 1. Conservation and greater efficiency in the way you use your energy and resources. 2. Being a conscious consumer and being aware of the environmental implications on everything you buy, and every transaction you make in the marketplace. 3. And then becoming politically active regardless of what party you may be aligned with by insisting that the politicians of all parties take this as their top priority. Agricultural output in many poorer countries could be significantly reduced. An additional 80-90 million poor people could be at risk of hunger and malnutrition later in the 21st century; hundreds of millions of people will be at increased risk of malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, encephalitis, and other infectious diseases because of global warming. Another fact, is contributing to the problem is a phenomenon known as Thermal Expansion- as seawater warms, it takes up more space so as higher temperatures from global warming heat the oceans and melt ice, the oceans will rise and encroach on what is now land. Also global sea level has already risen by four to eight inches in the past century, and scientists’ best estimate is that sea levels will rise by an additional 19 inches by 2100, and perhaps by as much as 37 inches. Of course, CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. They are looking at pumping liquefied carbon underground into old gas fields and oil wells. And, doing so might help get more oil from oil fields. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases. Another example is might be due to normal natural events but it could be also be that humans are accelerating the natural process by creating excessive amounts of pollutants. Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise as human activities continue to add carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other green house (or heat-trapping) gases to the atmosphere. Most of the United States is expected to experience an increase in average temperature. Unless we act now, our children will inherit a hotter world, dirtier air and water, more severe floods and droughts, and more wildfires. Most frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical disease as well. Therefore if the world does not start to take steps to end global warming soon, the outcomes will prove to be castrophic.
A: An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Other consequences include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions.
People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *