And humans have developed ways of coping with this problem: posture, proper shoes, weight control, supportive chairs and mattresses/ pillows, exercise, sensible lifting and snow shovelling, avoidance of heavy purses for women on one shoulder/ heavy book bags, better baby carriers, avoidance of stress building up in the neck region. My mother's back problems were her un-doing between a early horseback riding accident and cyst on her spine in her 20's which was drained- she lost her hair- which grew back curly- and spent the summer in the sun drinking a mix of raw liver and orange juice. Then a later disc problem and postponement of surgery which she delayed and sought alternative treatments which worsened her problem.At 50 her health was ruined with a 20 year decline. Added to this was her love of bad shoes which ruined her feet. How this woman made these stairs was a tour de force.
On Jul 21, 6:38 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_02.html > > This link should explain to you the evolution of the human being's > practice of walking on its hind legs, and it's associated problems. > > And I never stated that inherent back pain happens without a cause. > There is a cause. That cause is the stresses and strains on our spinal > column that result from our physiology's ability to support our > practice of walking on hind legs. > > On Jul 21, 11:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “It's not really relevant because it doesn't refute, support or amend > > my point.” – BG > > > First, I don’t play by whatever rules you appear to demand. I discuss > > things. I add things. I comment on things etc. Formal debate is not my > > goal. This said, I still question your axiom that “That [inherent? > > back pain] happens without cause in a lot of cases.” This is why I > > added possible other causes that may be overlooked. And, the notion of > > “inherent back pain” itself is suspect and was another cause for me to > > add possible unexamined causes. > > > Now I do admit that I am generally ignorant when it comes to both > > evolution and any possible ‘inherent back pain’. Perhaps you supported > > your claim earlier. Perhaps you defined your terms earlier. If so, I > > clearly missed it. > > > So…even now when you say “…that humans have a particularly common > > problem with back > > pain as a result of our recent change to walking on our hind legs, and > > this is true.”, it would appear that one must either already know this > > ‘truth’ or blindly accept it as fact. So far, I do neither. > > > On Jul 21, 12:56 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It's not really relevant because it doesn't refute, support or amend > > > my point. > > > > Evolution did us a good turn by providing us with pain in general. It > > > did give us a cue to alter the way we were doing things, or a warning > > > not to do certain things again. Yes, pain that you experience in your > > > back included in this, and yes, back pain can be an indication that we > > > are to do things differently, or not do certain things again. But > > > evolution has not done us a good turn with regards to the switch to > > > walking on our hind legs as rapidly as we did, as that has caused a > > > physiological problem which results in inherent back problems and > > > chronic pain. This pain is not an indication that we need to do things > > > differently, or avoid certain things. It is pain that has resulted > > > from too rapid a change in our walking practieces coupled with a not- > > > rapid-enough change in our physiology to cope with it. > > > > Not all back pain is a result of this, and I never said it was. I > > > simply said that humans have a particularly common problem with back > > > pain as a result of our recent change to walking on our hind legs, and > > > this is true. > > > > On Jul 21, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…We cannot learn not to do something by having inherent physiological > > > > back pain. That happens without cause in a lot of cases.” – GM > > > > > As to the last part of your sentence, I intentionally left it off. > > > > What I am suggesting is that many cases of back pain, although > > > > appearing to be ‘inherent’, need not be. A few examples would include > > > > back pain that turns out to be kidney pain…sometimes merely due to > > > > inadequate amounts of liquid intake. Also, mere tension and/or poor > > > > posture can cause back pain. The pain in this case can tell us that we > > > > need to relax and/or carry ourselves differently. Also, without going > > > > into detail, other medical modalities identify numerous different > > > > causes/treatments and cures for back pains than the western AMA model. > > > > > In all cases, “we” have much to learn about this topic. > > > > > On Jul 21, 2:16 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Please, don't omit the end of the sentence, which I feel is all > > > > > important. > > > > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > > > > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > > > > > on its hind legs<b> - and that's not a lesson for us.</b> > > > > > > It's not a lesson for us, because it was not 'us' who consciously > > > > > decided that we would walk on our hind legs and abandon our front > > > > > paws. It wasn't even our ancestors. Nobody consciously decided that > > > > > this should happen, so it is not a lesson for anyone to learn. > > > > > > I was refuting the point that all pain acts as a warning for us to > > > > > learn not to do something again. To teach us a lesson about touching > > > > > fire, etc. I was saying that, yes, situational pain such as being > > > > > burnt by touching fire serves the purposes of teaching us not to do > > > > > such things. But chronic physiological pain does not 'teach' us any > > > > > lessons. We cannot learn not to do something by having inherent > > > > > physiological back pain. That happens without cause in a lot of cases. > > > > > > On Jul 21, 12:27 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > “…We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than > > > > > > that we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals > > > > > > which > > > > > > walk on its hind legs…” – GM > > > > > > > This is quite a sweeping commentary Garrie. I would posit that the > > > > > > ‘we’ you suggest here have much to learn about this specific topic. > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:35 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Situational pain is an evolutionary benefit, but chronic > > > > > > > phsyiological > > > > > > > pain as the result of our particular course of evolution is not. > > > > > > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which > > > > > > > walk > > > > > > > on its hind legs - and that's not a lesson for us. > > > > > > > > A comparison to things like back pain is within the species of the > > > > > > > Cheetah. Cheetah's have had to evolve rather quickly to account > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > the increasing speed of their prey. Their physiology, however, is > > > > > > > having a hard time compensating for these changes, and as such, > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > modern cheetah has very chronic inherent problems with its limbs. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > is largely the reason why the modern cheetah is near extinction. > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > kind of pain and suffering simply isn't beneficial to the species. > > > > > > > Situational pain and suffering is, I grant you. But that's not > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > we're discussion when we talk about the things I was talking > > > > > > > about. > > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 4:27 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > > > > > > > > > > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. > > > > > > > > > Natural > > > > > > > > > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful > > > > > > > > > to not > > > > > > > > > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts > > > > > > > > > not in > > > > > > > > > evidence. You just don't know. > > > > > > > > > I missed this quote in the original so I might be taking it out > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > context but our vulnerabilities to pain and discomfort are > > > > > > > > absolutely > > > > > > > > a survival benefit. We learn what not to do and how to be more > > > > > > > > careful by learning what causes us pain. Some people with rare > > > > > > > > conditions don't experience pain and have to be very, very > > > > > > > > careful to > > > > > > > > avoid injury. Lepers come to mind. Various neurological > > > > > > > > disorders > > > > > > > > that might cause insensitivity to pain are very dangerous. > > > > > > > > > djOn Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM, > > > > > > > > Justintruth<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to > > > > > > > > > "After all, > > > > > > > > > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > > > > > > > > > third of our lives.." > > > > > > > > > > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a > > > > > > > > > nocturnal > > > > > > > > > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed > > > > > > > > > awake and > > > > > > > > > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with > > > > > > > > > that, the > > > > > > > > > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at > > > > > > > > > night. It > > > > > > > > > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime > > > > > > > > > activity > > > > > > > > > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually > > > > > > > > > die in > > > > > > > > > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my > > > > > > > > > childhood says > > > > > > > > > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out > > > > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me. > > > > > > > > > > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime > > > > > > > > > environments > > > > > > > > > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an > > > > > > > > > Algorithmic > > > > > > > > > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct > > > > > > > > > survival > > > > > > > > > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is > > > > > > > > > akin to > > > > > > > > > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage. > > > > > > > > > > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of > > > > > > > > > evolution: > > > > > > > > > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it > > > > > > > > > survived > > > > > > > > > it must have a survival benefit! ;) > > > > > > > > > > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
