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.

 

Toxic Families- A case for reconsidering eugenics?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It would be stated that your outlandish belief in eugenics would be a reason for YOUR sterility since you are inherently flawed. Only someone similar to Hitler would want eugenics in place. The only difference is that someone might POTENTIALLY have a runin with the law. That is a VERY draconic and asinine belief that killing the different will resolve the issue. The whole purpose of the USA and it's beginnings were that several someones wanted to live a life not ran by the government (King/Queen). You are already breaking one of our tenants of the law in everyone has the right to pursuit of happiness.

Now, should welfare be in place? No.

Should someone receive MORE compensation for having children? No.

If not able to remove welfare then should there be a program in place that if you need to receive welfare then you must abide by the rules? Yes. A mandatory shot or procedure to temporarily deny pregnancy while receiving welfare benefits should be allowed and even required. There should be penalties for having more than 2 children within a tax bracket. You lose so much money for each child over a limit of 2. It might even be feasible to have a requirement that anyone with 2 or more children submit for sterilization to obtain welfare. These thoughts are based on the lowering welfare payouts. Is this draconish... possibly. Would it lower welfare payout... you bet. The only thing welfare babies like more than getting money is having more babies to get more money. It is a cycle that must be changed. Welfare "lifers" or "babies" as I call them are born into the welfare cycle, live the welfare cycle, and die in the welfare cycle and raise their children to live that way VERY comfortably.

Now having gone off on a tangent. We cannot force sterilization on a person. However, denying or greatly reducing gov't benefits for lack of sterilization requirements would amount to the same issue without looking like Hitler AND then also require educational training or retraining for a job skill. Also requiring a limit of how much can be given to an individual. Say 4 full years of welfare with required educational training with a requirement of GPA of at least 2.5.

Within 3 generations of starting these requirements the issue would probably resolve itself.




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I agree with most of the posters that environment plays a much bigger part than genetics in someone's potential. As far as your idea of should we be able to look at genetic links even though it is not PC, at first sounded logical to me. Of course we should further knowledge of our species without fear of offending someone....but then what?

When we find a genetic marker for violence, do we sterilize? How about one for addiction? What about a marker for below average intelligence? Sexual inclinations? Liberal ideology? Disrespect for authority?

My point is where does it end? Had Eugenics, even by your standards, ever been allowed, we would have been denied some of our greatest thinkers, leaders, and revolutionaries.

So while there may be some genetic causes to the problems of our world, identifying them is not a viable means of fixing those problems. Instead we should identify/rectify the environmental variables that lead to your "Toxic Families".



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





1. Phil Zimbardo--who did the famous prisoner/guard experiment . . . in the intro to one of his great INTRO TO PSYCHOLOGY texts noted . . .


I'll use your post as a springboard into Phil's own presentation which he gave at TED. It's a fascinating look into human behavior and how reliant we are on social circumstances and external stimuli in our decision making process.



Dan Ariely also has a wonderful video along the same vein, though he focuses more on just what the border is and circumstances behind what causes people to moralize immoral behavior, such as cheating and stealing.






Scripture declares that the heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it . . . apart from Holy Spirit's shining His light on our interiors.


I'd say we're doing a fairly decent job of figuring it out. Though it's much more complex than what the bible goes into, we are perfectly capable of understanding our own behaviors. The problem is, however, disseminating that knowledge and putting that knowledge to practical use in everyday situations - identifying, and perhaps correcting it, in ourselves and others.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Zero knowledge, you are looking for a 1 in a billion genius. The “what if”. Really, you would breed a billion misfits in hopes of one genius? That is not the logical approach.
Behavior is heritable.
Intelligence is heritable.
That is why the Jews are smarter than anyone. They invested in learning, and the smartest ones subsequently married each other so that today they generally have an IQ of about 117.

If humanity gets wiped out, who would there be to care?
Only survivors have problems.

Sensitive issue? Only to those who are afraid that they will be on the list.
The subject should be discussed. Most people have a negative impression of the matter, as there has been a lot of negative propaganda. Facts have been twisted to suit the opposition’s agenda.

It is a matter that should have a wider audience, and those in favor are the ones who should do the educating.

I dove into the subject on the prison planet forum and boy did I get flack.
They were so desperate that they brought up some pretty wild irrelevant info as their argument.

I do not back down. Convincing some of these people who have their minds made up is like trying to deconvert a religious diehard.

None of the detractors either here or there offered any good reason to maintain the status quo with regard to eugenics. All they do is come up with various defamatory labels, and their opinion that it is somehow wrong.

What is it that you are afraid of? How does it harm you that repeat criminal offenders are sterilized?
How does it harm you that folks with cleft pallet are sterilized so that they do not pass it defect on?
How does it harm you that folks with other heritable defects are sterilized to prevent further generations of them?
How does it harm you that welfare dynasties are broken up by sterilization?

They won’t even accept that humans should do selective breeding to improve their offspring and eliminate heritable defects. There are over 4000 of them. Shouldn’t we be working to breed a stronger, healthier, smarter more beautiful human?

Since humans do not take the responsibility for their own breeding, because those who should not breed do not know any better, someone has to take over for them. And who else has the power to do so? Only the government. Fact is we are being overrun by undesirables. There are more and more people who seem to not have an inherent ability to know right from wrong.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Simple question...

Where does God fit into this plan of yours?

Does eugenics have anything to do with religion or spirituality? NO it doesn't. Why is it worth our time then when we should be working towards spirituality, to create a better world on Earth for EVERYONE.

It's not important and a big waste of energy to implement or ever consider. People need to fix themselves, it's like the blind leading the blind. People that are basically atheists are not going to lead the world into a good situation.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Sorry, Eugenics is flawed. Genetics is not everything. A rich family will not necessarily have rich kids. Two poor people will not necessarily create a poor child.

There is no "rich" gene. There is no "poor" gene.

We aren't livestock, and we aren't dogs in a dog show. That is what you fail to see.

One's personality is outside the scope of genes. You don't have to be a thing like your parents, if you decide not to be so. Yes you can have a bearing on your children, but your child will ultimately decide what they will be in life. Don't think that you can just breed humans like animals to have better personalities, or something. That's not how it works.

Me personally, I refuse to live out my life like past family members have. Poor. Poor. Poor.

And, birth defects can happen to normal people, correct?

And, you can't just sterilize your way to a happier world. It won't work.

Troy



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
None of the detractors either here or there offered any good reason to maintain the status quo with regard to eugenics. All they do is come up with various defamatory labels, and their opinion that it is somehow wrong.


The same could be said for a lot of things. But most people in our society think eugenics is wrong. It's not an issue that we're split on, like whether or not abortion should be legal.


What is it that you are afraid of? How does it harm you that repeat criminal offenders are sterilized?


Directly, it doesn't harm me at all. Indirectly, it may harm my descendants as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. Morally and spiritually, I am not completely separate from the society I live in. The values of my society are reflected in my well-being; when my society increases its intolerance, my guard has to go up a little further and I become a little less connected to the people around me.


How does it harm you that folks with cleft pallet are sterilized so that they do not pass it defect on?


Now you have to be kidding. Have you met some born with a cleft palate? Because I have, he had had it surgically fixed and was in the middle of applying for colleges. A cleft palate is not a moral defect, does not adversely affect the person's behavior or contribution to society in any way. Even by your standards it's pretty absurd, unless you really are trying to create a physically perfect master race.


How does it harm you that folks with other heritable defects are sterilized to prevent further generations of them?


See the above answers.


How does it harm you that welfare dynasties are broken up by sterilization?


See the above answers. Welfare needs reform so that there is no incentive to have children. But not sterilization. What of people who get off welfare?


They won’t even accept that humans should do selective breeding to improve their offspring and eliminate heritable defects. There are over 4000 of them. Shouldn’t we be working to breed a stronger, healthier, smarter more beautiful human?


Why? we are strong, smart, healthy, and beautiful the way we are.


[edit on 3/21/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
No matter how moral or intelligent somone is... all it takes is the sniffles to kill them. Kill off all the so-called riffraff and you will severly decrease your chances of surviving a pandemic. Also its so funny how Jews have their own diseases.... maybe some groups breed themselves for intellegence, but now they drop like flys to disease. Very funny stuff!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
survival fitness is not in the eye of the beholder, if your alledged idiots prevail they're better, by definition.

it really is that simple.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 





Really, you would breed a billion misfits in hopes of one genius? That is not the logical approach.


Would you cancel innumerable future generations based on the flawed idea that a person's genetic make up determines their future? At this point science shows us that there is no way to predict things like aggression, below average intelligence, or even disorders that do have a genetic correlation.


With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability to carry out its normal cellular function.

Human Genome Project



Sensitive issue? Only to those who are afraid that they will be on the list.


I have no reason to fear being on "the list". By your own thinking, my family would be considered "genetically superior". What I do fear, is anyone that professes to be able to to a better job of evolving the human race than 160,000 years of natural selection.



It is a matter that should have a wider audience, and those in favor are the ones who should do the educating.


How very reasonable of you! This matter should be handled like the Inquisition, where those that place themselves at the top of a percieved hierarchy should be the teachers of us all. [/sarcasm]



What is it that you are afraid of? How does it harm you that repeat criminal offenders are sterilized?
How does it harm you that folks with cleft pallet are sterilized so that they do not pass it defect on?
How does it harm you that folks with other heritable defects are sterilized to prevent further generations of them?
How does it harm you that welfare dynasties are broken up by sterilization?


I am afraid not for myself, but for the future that you propose to enhance. Genetic diversity is one of the leading reasons we are still around today. Those with toxic familial connections contribute to that diversity. When they are sterilized, their contributions disappear. In one generation, our diversity will be drastically diminished.

Remember that we are very far away from understanding all of our own biology. By removing even a percentage of our gene pool, we could be sentencing our race to die. When given a choice between that outcome and a prettier, more intelligent, more "moral" species, I would rather us carry on and trust that survival of the fittest will succeed as it always has.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
By your logic, I would have been sterilized.

I am just a normal married soccer mom. I married fine. My husband is an upstanding citizen and father. I have an enviable job myself. I am above normal intelligence. My children , all three, are all bright and healthy.

So are both of my siblings. Even the one with the most problems is a good Dad and Husband.

Once you are alive in the world, you are condemned to be free. You are responsible too and for all the decision you make.

You know what the ultimate difference was? We were held to be responsible and accountable to our actions. My father finally pulled a rabbit out of his butt, and started to hold himself responsible for his actions. He got himself help for his addictions, his problems. Throughout he has continued to CHALLENGE himself to continually improve. And it WORKED.

It isn't enough to know what you do not want to be. You have to know what you DO want to do. What sort of person you want to be. Not be dragged down by the story of your family.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Just to give you a recent example of this.

My brother got into trouble as a kid and a teen. And some as an adult.

Him and the "buds" all did the same things.

My brother couldn't read until he was around 10, because no one until then realized he couldn't see. He has a learning disorder.

One of the buds killed himself at 11. He came from a "good" family. All the qualities you could ever wish for. Why? Because he got caught doing on of the bad things, got in trouble for the first time and shot himself because of it.

Another one came from a "good" family. He just this week got himself shot 4 times by the police for trying to run one of them over. You know what the difference is? His parents NEVER held him accountable, he never learned a lesson when he did finally start getting caught by the law.

The difference is that he was also taught to care for others. So while my sibling was stabbed once....it was for stopping a guy from beating on his girlfriend. Not because a drug deal went bad.

Out of all of them it is my siblings, and my brother who had the horse and truck load of issues that would predispose one to be the one to die of suicide or be shot by the police after an ignoble life.

Only he is now just a good dad and husband, and makes good money as a journeyman. His children are lovely and bright.

What is the difference? You won't find the difference in his testicles.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
For a species to survive the largest genetic pool the better . This would wipe out whole lines . One of these line could hold the future to survival of our species .

There is a DNA mutation that prevents some people from getting AIDS if both parents have it Delta 32 from a mutation during the black death plague . They are immune to the virus .

www.science-frontiers.com...

What other things are hiding in our DNA ?

And to haphazardly wipe out DNA lines because of labels attached to people by society is a very poor choice and i feel is very unsound . And who make the labels and who chooses who is and who isn't sterilized

To weed out violent tendency threw genetic markers we could lose future Patton or McArthers . The best warriors I am sure have a violent marker in their DNA .

You are what you make of your self not what your family has right now ! There are thousands of rags to riches stories out there . Many notable people came from less than perfect homes .

As for sterilizing criminals where do you draw the line in the USA 1 in 30 to 1 to 50 depending on which statistics you read is under some kind of ward of the state being in jail , prison or probation ect .

The toxic families issue is a social issue not a genetic issue . We as a society have enabled the toxic families to exist . The tv and movies portray cheating on a spouse as a lesser sin and its no big deal tell that to most husbands and wives, peer pressure in schools to be sexually active early . And of course when things get tough dont work it out get a divorce the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence . And being happily married is not a instant perpetual bliss of happiness . You have to WORK AT IT !

They HAVE TO WORK AT IT that is a big problems in the toxic family issue .

As for me I see how the government handles most things and they totally screw it up . And I am to trust them with the issue of sterilizing segments of our population . What criteria will they use and 10 years down the road it shifts to include more undesirables and more . Just like the prison system it started with violent offenders now victimless crimes are punishable with jail time. A traffic ticket can yield jail time if not paid in a timely manner . DWI can get you prison time as well as a DR prescribed drug you can get prison time for driving under the influence of narcotics . Failure to maintain a machine that brakes down and kills some on people can go to jail for that also involuntary manslaughter. You can get time for not doing your taxes right and repaying the fines in a timely manner .

I find this avenue of thought wrong on so many levels.

This draconian idea reeks with the smell of failed Nazi policies and Orwellin big brother nightmares.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
To ghalean 12: Where does god fit in? Well, it seems that his creations are far from perfect, and so the brightest of them want to fix it. “He” also made our domestic animals less than perfect. They too have many genetic problems. We have been trying to fix that, but this “god” has cleverly hidden many of them, the same as “he” has done with humans.
It is important and what exactly do you mean by “spirituality”?

Cybertroy, what does being rich or poor have to do with genetics?
Behavior is heritable. Do the research. Why do you think hunting dogs hunt, and herding dogs herd? Sled dogs are hyped up and want to run all day, because that is the behavior that they were bred for.
They had a job to do and they were bred to do it.

Birth defects? You mean the mishaps that ruin what would have been a normal healthy baby?
Yes, that sort of thing can happen to anyone. That they have been working on.
Congenital defects that were part of the genetic makeup is something else, and that is what we need to be working on.
“Sterilize your way to a happier world”? Well it sure would ease the misery of those born with severe defects, as not being born with them is a better way.


American, you are saying that you think that your family should just go on passing its defects on to succeeding generations? The whole idea of selective breeding is to pick the best, and I’m sure that your family must have some worthy individuals with a healthy genetic makeup, don’t you think? Therefore there would be no smaller gene pool. For someone else’s family that is loaded with defects, yes, and that would be no loss to humanity.

Just because some defects can be surgically repaired is no excuse to pass them on to your kids.

Since the welfare system will never allow people to starve, there will be no incentive for them to have fewer children. Just how many in the Wellfare Kingdom ever get off of it? I think it should be obvious which ones are likely to do that…like the ones who stay in school and work to get good grades; those who show and interest in taking up a trade.

You still have not offered other than you opinion on why this should not be done.

To wertdagf, Do the riffraff have some specially strong immune systems?
Yes, the Jews have their own diseases since they bred for intelligence and didn’t pay enough attention to physical health.

Long lance, idiots are seldom physically strong, and by their very lack of brain power would not have survival skills.

Yes, Cameo, I would cancel future generations of people who have shown that they are incorrigible aggressive criminals. Behavior is inherited. Look at your own family. How many of them for instance are just like Grandpa or Uncle whoever, even tho they had limited or no contact with same?
Baby ducks will run into a pond and swim, and they do so even if they are hatched and cared for by a chicken.

Since we still have over 4000 heritable defects, I would not say that natural selection has done a very good job, would you? And besides, it has not been simple natural selection for a long time. We have been civilized for a very long time and selection of the fittest was mostly discarded.

I never said that we should not have genetic diversity. I think diversity in all things is what makes this a wonderful world. Our “leaders” however seem to think otherwise, and would have us humans all be one homogenous species. That is the matter that should raise your hackles.

You think we need toxic families? What contributions do they make that you like so much?
Like murder, muggings, burglaries, destructionof property/vandalism; which one is your favorite?
Oh my, what would the nightly news be like without them?


Interesting that you put “prettier first in your reply, and then intelligent, while you completely left out healthier and stronger.
You seem to miss the point that survival of the fittest has long gone by the wayside. In today’s world the sickliest weakling can and does reproduce. Our governments have for thousands of years taken our strongest, healthiest males and sent them to the killing fields, leaving the weakest back home to breed.

Aeons, I’m not sure that addiction is totally genetic. As to the kids getting in trouble….even good kids do stupid things.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The things you call "heritable" are often effects of RNA or epigenetics. The interaction of the environment and the way your blueprints work.

These things are changeable. Influenceable.

Rather than work on the REASON for the problem, you just want to "kill them all and let God work it out" essentially.

The most ironic thing about that, is if you managed to pursue your set out course of action....you would change the way your genes work and the heritability of it would impact your children in a negative way. You would make your line into the thing that you want to get rid of.

The universe has a sense of humour. It is a very dry ironic sense of humour I admit.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

American, you are saying that you think that your family should just go on passing its defects on to succeeding generations? The whole idea of selective breeding is to pick the best, and I’m sure that your family must have some worthy individuals with a healthy genetic makeup, don’t you think? Therefore there would be no smaller gene pool. For someone else’s family that is loaded with defects, yes, and that would be no loss to humanity.

Just because some defects can be surgically repaired is no excuse to pass them on to your kids.

Since the welfare system will never allow people to starve, there will be no incentive for them to have fewer children. Just how many in the Wellfare Kingdom ever get off of it? I think it should be obvious which ones are likely to do that…like the ones who stay in school and work to get good grades; those who show and interest in taking up a trade.


First I want to make a couple of general comments about evolution and natural selection.

1) we often summarize it as "survival of the fittest", which is a nice catchy phrase. In reality it's more like "reproduction into the second generation by the best adapted to a certain environment" which is not nearly so bumper-stickerable.

But it's an important distinction that people like you who claim that we are no longer subject to the forces of natural selection miss: it's not the forces we're subjected to that have changed, it's the environment. It remains true that those who are best adapted to the environment reproduce and their children survive and reproduce at rates higher than those who are not so well adapted to our environment. They just aren't who you would choose; they're who natural forces (including human social and technological developments) choose.

2) you are completely missing as far as I've seen the basic fact that many of us have brought up: what you're advocating will make the gene pool smaller. We have no way to absolutely predict the results of that, but historically when humans have deliberately decreased gene pools we have had a lot of undesired consequences (think hip dysplasia and breathing problems in certain dogs, hemophilia and some mental illnesses in certain royal families).

3) a couple people now have brought up epigenetics, which is a fascinating and practically brand new entire field of research that promises to give a lot more insight into genetic and environmental factors in human characteristics and behavior. Until we have a much better understanding of this, we will never have a good grasp on how genetics works.

 


Now, your points directed at me:

(btw, I usually prefer "ADB" or "Ding" or "dingbat" to "American" just because there are other "American such-and-suches" around)

You say that a defect being correctable is no reason to pass it along to your kids as though you can choose just one trait to pass along. It doesn't work that way, though. At least so far, our best technology in terms of "designing babies" is to produce a number of embryos, check them each for the genes we're looking for, and throw away the ones that have undesirable genes or don't have desirable genes. So what if the embryo has a mix of mostly desirable with one or two undesirable genes? Toss it and wait for perfection? This is my main problem with the forms of eugenics that are already being practiced: notably the recent celebration of the birth of the first deliberately BRCA-1-free girl in the UK.

The choice is not between individual A with a certain gene and individual A without that gene. The choice is between two unique individuals; the one gene being selected for is responsible for only a miniscule amount of the difference. It seems like folly to want to select a complete individual based on the possibility that they might get breast cancer sixty years in the future.

About welfare: it is simply not true that it would be impossible to design a system that does not reward having more children. It will take commitment and probably more robust support than just handing over a check, but it could be done. You want to do it cheaply? require welfare recipients to account for their expeditures every month. If the extra money is genuinely going to feed and diaper the new baby, the mother loses any purported advantage.

Finally, a question about "selective breeding". This sounds like you're not only proposing that we sterilize the "undesirable element" but that we set up breeding programs among the "desirables" -- is that true?? Or will you at least allow those of us who pass your "desirability" tests to maintain control over our own reproduction?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I chose not to breed. The cycle of disfuncion stops here.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


It is very late and I know I should wait until morning to reply, but I will try to make this a quick reply...




Yes, Cameo, I would cancel future generations of people who have shown that they are incorrigible aggressive criminals. Behavior is inherited. Look at your own family. How many of them for instance are just like Grandpa or Uncle whoever, even tho they had limited or no contact with same?


How can future generations show that they are anything yet? Behavior is not only inherited it is also chosen. Otherwise every child that is born to alcoholic parents would become an alcoholic.



Baby ducks will run into a pond and swim, and they do so even if they are hatched and cared for by a chicken.


I honestly disagree with comparing animals with humans, as we are able to rise above our animalistic behaviors and instincts. However, since you keep bringing up animal anaologies, here's mine. Several breeds of dogs have been selectively bred to be aggressive killing machines. The one that comes to mind is Pit Bulls. We all hear stories of Pits killing humans, but if they all followed their genetics they would all eventually kill as that is what they were bred to do. Genetics do not make even animals behave in a particular way.



Since we still have over 4000 heritable defects, I would not say that natural selection has done a very good job, would you? And besides, it has not been simple natural selection for a long time. We have been civilized for a very long time and selection of the fittest was mostly discarded.


I would say that natural selection has done the job it is meant to do...keep our species alive and adaptable. I also say natural selection is still at work. Those in our species that are the most capable of adapting to their situation, mating and producing offspring, and protecting and nourishing that offspring to maturity, are the ones that will pass their genes on to the next generation. In the case of welfare families, we may not like the way they do it, but they do it very well.



Interesting that you put “prettier first in your reply, and then intelligent, while you completely left out healthier and stronger.


Honestly, this was a jab at proponents of this idea. Childish, I know, but my feeble attempt at a retort. I believe that selective breeding and sterilization will not produce any of these superior persons without unforseen side effects on the entire species.



You seem to miss the point that survival of the fittest has long gone by the wayside. In today’s world the sickliest weakling can and does reproduce. Our governments have for thousands of years taken our strongest, healthiest males and sent them to the killing fields, leaving the weakest back home to breed.


I have addressed the first part earlier in this post. Amazingly enough, it has always been the strongest that are sent to the "killing fields" (against animals and other nomadic tribes in the beginning) in our defense. It makes no sense to be protected by the weak or sick. However, there have also always been enough strong survivors to keep repopulating those "killing fields", because the fittest will survive.

Good night all.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone


Long lance, idiots are seldom physically strong, and by their very lack of brain power would not have survival skills.




typical.

what part of survival do you not understand?

brainpower? physical strength? they are just tools in this context, obviously. if your criteria do not mirror success in term sof survival then that's your fault, but i guarantee you that your so called idiots are too well aware that all your talk of eugenics will never threaten them.


on the contrary, it reinforces their postion, if they were truely useless, you wouldn't have to bother. adversity implies recognition.

i can even tell you where you went off the ledge: you believe that our current society is cast in stone and will never change (big hint), that material wealth, as it is today, is a reliable indicator of, heck IS the worth of a person....

.. which is wrong, many people who are rich today have contributed nothing but misery to humanity or their 'goods' are totally pointless, but brainwash goes a long way, doesn't it? you are rewarding the wrong people and the wrong actions, which leads me to my final point:

let me tell you one last thing, if society collapsed, your brainpower and strength wouldn't mean much - when you have to enforce them yourself - and those you now call worthless idiots would get along, as they always have, because they work together when it's in their interest and they don't waste their time on blood opera scenarios.

[edit on 2009.3.23 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Aeons, You apparently have no idea of what heritable defects are.
The reason for the problems has to do with defective genes. God made an imperfect product. Strangely it seems to mostly affect only humans and domestic animals. Don’t you wonder why?

Quote Aeons: “You would make your line into the thing that you want to get rid of. “
****You make no sense here. Obviously getting rid of defects involves putting the accent on the positive while eliminating the negative. .

ADB, First of all, there was not evolution. There have been minor changes and some adaptations, but no evolution. And no, I am not a creationist.
Man has not been naturally adapting to the environment for a long time. In today’s world the sickliest and weakest can be assured survival and reproduction of same.
I think we have a very long way to go before out gene pool is noticeably affected. The royals are in a class by themselves…they care only about keeping their bloodlines “pure”.
Breathing problems in dogs comes from the ridiculously exaggerated shortened muzzles.
Generally the farther you get from the natural dog shape the more problems there are….. Back problems in Dachies.
Your #3: I agree we do have a long way to go, but in the meantime, certain things, such as behavior is obvious across all species.

Quote:ADB
“You say that a defect being correctable is no reason to pass it along to your kids as though you can choose just one trait to pass along. Etc”
****Defects such as the cleft palet that I mentioned which are noticeable in the parent and has been shown to be a dominant trait leaves no room for doubt that this parent should not breed. News items in the case of the BRCA-1 free child didn’t make it clear whether this child might still be a carrier for that gene.

Yes, I am advocating selective breeding of desirables, and yes they would have control of it. They don’t have to pass a test. Most of them know who they are. They just need an organization of some sort, it can be quite loose, like an internet newsletter to give them the incentive and some clues. This has already been happening as college students marry each other and are having highly intelligent children. The more educated a person is, the more likely they will be health conscious.


Cameo, what is the difference between rising above behaviors and instincts and suppressing them. The tendency is still there and will be passed onto children who may or may not be able to rise above them. Comparing to animals gives good examples - genetics is the same across all species on the planet and likely the whole universe.

Quote Cameo: “Genetics do not make even animals behave in a particular way.”
****Oh, but it does, as you have just pointed out. The only thing that keeps all pit bulls from killing is that the ones that were not good fighters may have become someone’s pet and was bred to another pet producing lines of mild tempered pit bull. We have a lab-pit mix that is a wuss. She is very happy, sweet, loving and obedient.
My comment on sending our very best to the killing fields has an implied meaning that this has been done with some deliberation by TPTB to not only control population, but the weaken and dumb down the remaining. It hasn’t worked too well for them since there were women who had the genes to produce strong men, so they now are sending women to war and have bigger and better means; such as WMD & biologicals.

Long Lance, (sigh),
‘ idiots” are the worst of the mental retards. You don’t really think they understand very much do you?
I don’t think that material wealth is the measure of the worth of a person. Many of those materially wealthy are nefarious miscreants. How exactly am I rewarding them?
Who are you calling “worthless idiots”? The “toxic families”? The “welfare kingdom”?
If society collapsed we would have quite a little war for survival wouldn’t we?
Does that suggest that just maybe we are overpopulated?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join