Our actions on future generations, epigenetics and disappearing beneficiaries argument

[luke1i1]

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

[Strange]

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?

[luke1i1]

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

[Strange]

Just now, luke1i1 said:

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

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.

Quote

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

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."

[luke1i1]

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 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, luke1i1 said:

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?

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.

[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

[Strange]

You are not being a pain. I'm just trying to encourage you to think critically. 

[lifechariot]

Strange, I don't think you get the epigenetic principle to which Luke is referring.

If I understand Luke's questions correctly, he is referring to the epigenetic gene modification that stressors place on a persons.
Epigenetics shows that stressors can 'turn on' or 'turn off' gene expressions, so I think what Luke is asking is:

"When Mr X who works in health care has a depressive gene (Type Y) activated - for example - by accumulated workplace stress, the potential of Mr X's offspring inheriting the Type Y activated gene expression is found true, so how can it be reasoned that his workplace setting in health was 'good' for humanity?"

  

Edited February 5, 2018 by lifechariot

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, lifechariot said:

Strange, I don't think you get the epigenetic principle to which Luke is referring.

If I understand Luke's questions correctly, he is referring to the epigenetic gene modification that stressors place on a persons.
Epigenetics shows that stressors can 'turn on' or 'turn off' gene expressions, so I think what Luke is asking is:

"When Mr X who works in health care has a depressive gene (Type Y) activated - for example - by accumulated workplace stress, the potential of Mr X's offspring inheriting the Type Y activated gene expression is found true, so how can it be reasoned that his workplace setting in health was 'good' for humanity?"

That seems to be a slightly different question. But if stress could increase the probability of depression in the next generation (and I'm not aware that such a thing is possible) then that suggests everyone should avoid stressful situations "just in case". That doesn't seem a very practical plan.

[lifechariot]

Just now, Strange said:

That seems to be a slightly different question. But if stress could increase the probability of depression in the next generation (and I'm not aware that such a thing is possible) then that suggests everyone should avoid stressful situations "just in case". That doesn't seem a very practical plan.

As far as I'm aware, that's pretty basic stuff in epigenetics, and no it does not mean people should avoid stress. It means that genetic expressions adapt (turn on or off) to highly specific stressors for environmental adaption reasons.

It's not only about depression either. There are numerous examples in epigenetics of how stressors - say famine - in one generation leads to an adaptive gene expression in next generation. The issue isn't if it happens, but what are the mechanisms as to how it happens.

[CharonY]

Epigenetic inheritance is actually still under discussion. For starters, epigenetic markers would need to find a way into germlines, and then, there are mechanisms that allow elimination of these markers. However, more recently evidence were found that some can in fact be passed down, though it is still unclear what the health impact could be for humans. Data is still fairly limited and in some cases it seems that these modifications did not happen in the germline (and thus passed on) but rather that these epigenetic markers may be acquired during embryonic development. I.e. the status of the mother during pregnancy would be a critical factor. In other words, the effect of transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic markers is still under active research and it is still difficult to draw clear conclusions.

[arc]

    This thread touches on something remarkably close to what I had wondered and had contemplated on over a dozen years ago. One evening my wife and I had taken her mother to a major HMO hospital for an ER visit. While my wife assisted her mother with the check-in I stayed out in the lobby/entrance and studied the comings and goings of humanity. I was really struck when a nurse walked through the door in her scrubs who was by any measure, very morbidly obese. It was shift change and every few minutes another nurse walked in as heavy as the last one.  They were men and women alike. One of the last ones through the door had a rather large chocolate cake under his arm. I assumed this behavior was stress related and then wondered if this had any possible effect on their children, either as the OP alluded or simply as an environmental/relationship connection. It would seem having a parent work at night and missing that evening companionship could affect their children in some way, and if the parents dealt with their stress the same way at home it would be difficult for their children to avoid the same fate with those same foods and the pressures from loneliness.

Edited February 6, 2018 by arc

[Strange]

10 hours ago, lifechariot said:

As far as I'm aware, that's pretty basic stuff in epigenetics, and no it does not mean people should avoid stress. It means that genetic expressions adapt (turn on or off) to highly specific stressors for environmental adaption reasons.

It's not only about depression either. There are numerous examples in epigenetics of how stressors - say famine - in one generation leads to an adaptive gene expression in next generation. The issue isn't if it happens, but what are the mechanisms as to how it happens.

I am certainly not saying it doesn't happen. I am well aware that it appears to (although I haven't heard of increased risk of depression being an epigenetic effect before).

But the idea that someone should change their career choice because of the epigenetic risks to their offspring just seems a bit odd.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Strange