Anonymous
7/21/2025, 6:34:40 PM No.16730315
Thoughts jotted down when i was half-awake this morning, can't be assed to edit:
>Modern medical science doesn't know shit about human growth and development, especially in terms of variability.
>I'm the second smallest male in my extended family (blood relatives and close friends similar culture); everyone is not just taller but bigger-framed
>I know in my 30s that there's nothing doing, i just want to know why
>The most common unsatisfactory answer is "genetics." Aside from there being a 4-inch difference between myself and my brother (a year younger, born premie, with asthma, etc.; I suspect that the difference is his tonsillectomy, shortly after which he passed me in height)->
>Genetics are just instructions. Instructions for what?
>What runaway processes causes a baby who might be 2 inches and 10 pounds off the norm to end up a foot taller and 200 pounds heavier, without trying? Or one kid to shoot up 8 inches in a few months while another doesn't? Is it some sort of hormonal positive feedback loop? What are the specifics there?
>I suspect that the reticence to research is born partly and unconsciously from the implications of the knowledge being widespread.
>Not just the interventions that would become justificable, but how it would reveal the ways that our current resource distribution systems potentially stunt growth.
>You'd have a full accounting of what was indelibly hereditary (or at least practical) destiny, and what wasn't.
>Contrary to eugenics concerns, revelation of the mechanics could make genetic advantage obsolete.
>Modern medical science doesn't know shit about human growth and development, especially in terms of variability.
>I'm the second smallest male in my extended family (blood relatives and close friends similar culture); everyone is not just taller but bigger-framed
>I know in my 30s that there's nothing doing, i just want to know why
>The most common unsatisfactory answer is "genetics." Aside from there being a 4-inch difference between myself and my brother (a year younger, born premie, with asthma, etc.; I suspect that the difference is his tonsillectomy, shortly after which he passed me in height)->
>Genetics are just instructions. Instructions for what?
>What runaway processes causes a baby who might be 2 inches and 10 pounds off the norm to end up a foot taller and 200 pounds heavier, without trying? Or one kid to shoot up 8 inches in a few months while another doesn't? Is it some sort of hormonal positive feedback loop? What are the specifics there?
>I suspect that the reticence to research is born partly and unconsciously from the implications of the knowledge being widespread.
>Not just the interventions that would become justificable, but how it would reveal the ways that our current resource distribution systems potentially stunt growth.
>You'd have a full accounting of what was indelibly hereditary (or at least practical) destiny, and what wasn't.
>Contrary to eugenics concerns, revelation of the mechanics could make genetic advantage obsolete.
Replies:
