It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The problem is we keep too many people survived

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

It seems very presumptuos to assume that you have walked through life with no advantages. It is unfair to assume that no one has watched out for your well being, even if you are oblivious to such things.

I believe that we all go at a time of God's choosing, and if the means to extend life exists, then it only exists by the will of God.

At this time, I believe that I would not seek medical intervention for my own ills, but I would never seek to rob others of modern medical advantages. If you so choose to be part of the solution, consider your own personal choices, and leave others to make their decisions. I do not know you, but there is always the possibility that I might find your own human genome to be inferior, but even so, I wouldn't strive to remove you from the gene pool.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Well, my first question would be... Does insurance/welfare/social security, etc cover things like this? Or is it just the rich people who can stay alive? Cause most (but definitely not all) mega rich people are inbred anyways due to obsessions over royal bloodlines, so they are a nasty cancerous tumor in the gene pool already.

Also, you mention the pollution of the gene pool, but I doubt that many people surviving on machines are reproducing in numbers high enough to be of any concern to a eugenicist...

Our gene pool is being polluted, in my opinion. But the mega rich pretty much stick to themselves so their defects are not really spreading into the rest of the gene pool. And the people who are vegetables are not physically able to reproduce or are not usually able to form a meaningful relationship that would lead to sex. And for the ones who do, good for them! They deserve some happiness too!

The reason I think I see our gene pool being polluted is something I have thought about for a very long time and it's very simple: Intelligent people are reproducing less often because they plan properly in order to be able to take care of their family and do not rely on the state to take care of them as a first resort. And in today's economy, many find that our future is uncertain and so there are many intelligent people who cannot afford to have children at all, or simply cannot in good conscience, bring a child into a world such as this.

Meanwhile, people with less intelligence are popping out babies like it's a contest or something. They don't worry about the future because the government (I.e. you and I) will take care of everything, and besides, they are "in love", so in love, and they think that they need to create a permanent link between them and the operson they love or else they will "get away"....such is the strength of the foundation of their so called "love".

It's quite amazing if you think about it.... Every man and woman on Earth need to be paired up and have 2 children just to sustain the population, and that is with no growth at all. Every man and woman would need to be paired and have 3 children each in order for the population to grow..

. But we know that some people stay single, some are coupled with a same sex partner (while they may adopt, they are not contributing to population growth), some babies die in childbirth, some people die before they reach puberty, and some couples as previously mentioned do not have any children... And there are tons of couples who only have one or two kids.

So that means, in order for us to have the population growth, or population explosion as some may call it, in order to make up for all these deaths, gay couples, single folks, etc... there has to be couples out there, or at least, women out there (in the case of cheaters and divorces etc) who are having waaay more than 3 children. Way more.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: candlestick
a reply to: Aldakoopa

I agree don't cure newborns who must use medical devices whole life to keep them survive.


Just out of curiosity,

What if the young child needed a prescription of medical marijuana to survive?

Or to live a decent life at least.

I look forward to your reply!



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The problem with us humans is we tend to do "what's right" as opposed to "what's best".

Doing what's right will only enhance your reputation; doing what's best will enhance your survival.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

If we did this Sir Winston Churchil would have been left to die plus these folk.

Sir Isaac Newton
Johannes Kepler:
Anna Pavlova
Stevie Wonder
Albert Einstein
Charles Darwin
John Keats
Mark Twain
Boymonkey74

All born premature and would have been left to die.

Once born you gotta help the child.

Sounds an a lot like eugenics this you know what the nazis loved.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
The problem will be the old people.
In 2050 one in four will be a pensioner, If we do not sort out age related illness who will look after them all?.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Eugenics? Are you really advocating eugenics? That's a laugh, considering your country of origin & how it wantonly pollutes yourselves into the 7th circle of Health Hell.

I gotta agree with previous posters. The more the OP posts, the less & less they seem like a socially awkward foreign individual, and the more they seem like a well-played troll. Now, I'm not accusing them of it outright, I'm pointing out the vibe as of late. Prove the vibe wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: douglas5

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
Did the Nazi's not have a similar line of thought?


No i think they borrowed it from America


No. This is untrue. Hitler asks "Who speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?"

Armenian Genocide.
1915 - 1923
1.5 million Armenians Perished.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

"I think you are a troll since your avatar design is ugly for me."
You want I say this ?It's too stupid...
But I think people who say others is a troll by different view points only are idiots ....

Did I say the word eugenics on this thread?
Did you toked some drugs before ?
(^I'm pointing out the vibe as of late. Prove the vibe wrong. )
edit on 11-7-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

You didn't say it but that doesn't mean it isn't.

eugenics
juːˈdʒɛnɪks/Submit
noun
the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Just like your OP.


edit on 11-7-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: candlestick

If we did this Sir Winston Churchil would have been left to die plus these folk.

Sir Isaac Newton
Johannes Kepler:
Anna Pavlova
Stevie Wonder
Albert Einstein
Charles Darwin
John Keats
Mark Twain
Boymonkey74

All born premature and would have been left to die.

Once born you gotta help the child.

Sounds an a lot like eugenics this you know what the nazis loved.


You misunderstood ,I said


I agree don't cure newborns who must use medical devices whole life to keep them survive.

Do you and Sir Isaac Newton must use medical devices to keeping survive after grown up?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

Interesting ,what kind of illness must need marijuana to survive?
I never heard about it ...



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
Well, my first question would be... Does insurance/welfare/social security, etc cover things like this? Or is it just the rich people who can stay alive? Cause most (but definitely not all) mega rich people are inbred anyways due to obsessions over royal bloodlines, so they are a nasty cancerous tumor in the gene pool already.


If those mega rich people have sick inbred babies who can't survive without medical devices whole life ,they should not cure them.

For example :alpha major thalassemia.
edit on 11-7-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

Read your OP again you talk about letting the ones with weak genetics die off and let the ones whom have good ones reproduce...just like the Nazis did with eugenics.

So what about people with autism? people born with learning disabilities? what about people with downs? let them die because they do not fit into your model?.
Shame on you everyone once born has the same rights as you or me and that includes medical care and such.
Sorry but your OP reads like a Nazi handbook.
I agree with others must be trolling or If not I never need converse with your type again.
Goodbye.
edit on 11-7-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Bye Bye ~Don't want to see you later.
I think you often misread the OP.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

Last one.

From your OP.

The nature would eliminate deleterious genes,for let this kind of people die .If people don't let this kind of people die ,let them have chance to reproduction,it's a pollution for human gene pool.Lead to population problem also.


Eugenics plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: candlestick

Last one.

From your OP.

The nature would eliminate deleterious genes,for let this kind of people die .If people don't let this kind of people die ,let them have chance to reproduction,it's a pollution for human gene pool.Lead to population problem also.


Eugenics plain and simple.






eugenics juːˈdʒɛnɪks/Submit noun the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.


Let them to go die naturally (don't cure) is controlled breeding?I don't think so .I think "cure" them is controlled breeding~

You still in here ?
edit on 11-7-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I find you quite rude. That's all I really wanted to say. You can't create a post like this and then just tell people to go away if they offer a different view or one that you don't like. Why bother posting at all if you do not wish to discuss it? You may as well just create your own blog and rant away on that to whoever may listen. I find you do the same thing on the majority of your posts. As for the op, I agree with previous commenters. Eugenics is what you are talking about whether you think so or not.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Also OP what genetic conditions would you deem bad and should not be allowed to reproduce?.
What about people born with one leg?
Please list the conditions you want gone from the populace.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: christmaspig

Did I said "go away "?The only sentence like "go away "on here is :



I agree with others must be trolling or If not I never need converse with your type again. Goodbye.


But I didn't say that .boymonkey74 said that.

And why I can't say "go away " to people ?It's a part of freedom of speech .


originally posted by: boymonkey74
Also OP what genetic conditions would you deem bad and should not be allowed to reproduce?.
What about people born with one leg?
Please list the conditions you want gone from the populace.


Why I have to answer your questions after you said "Goodbye"?Did you got a amnesia?

edit on 11-7-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join