Darwinism and You

[Lemon law]

Pardon me Herr Arcex---but as I was reading your post I did so with the eyes of the the guy in the other lane. As he or she fleeting glances out at you and has that same blinding revaluation---wouldn't it be nice if the all stupid would suddenly just poof vanish---yep---there is one of them now---even has a name judging by the vanity plate on the car---and the vanity plate says arcex.

But I have to agree with the point you made----But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

But even then---I wonder if its a serious evolutionary threat to our species----we have not had a real rabbit type in the White house since the Kennedies---as our politicians are so busy screwing the American people that they scarcely have time to reproduce.

But for what its worth, I still have my 60's era button that says sterilize LBJ---no more ugly children.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pardon me Herr Arcex---but as I was reading your post I did so with the eyes of the the guy in the other lane. As he or she fleeting glances out at you and has that same blinding revaluation---wouldn't it be nice if the all stupid would suddenly just poof vanish---yep---there is one of them now---even has a name judging by the vanity plate on the car---and the vanity plate says arcex.

But I have to agree with the point you made----But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

But even then---I wonder if its a serious evolutionary threat to our species----we have not had a real rabbit type in the White house since the Kennedies---as our politicians are so busy screwing the American people that they scarcely have time to reproduce.

But for what its worth, I still have my 60's era button that says sterilize LBJ---no more ugly children.

Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right about politicians and breeding, unfortunately children tend to follow their parents / families footsteps so all too often poilticians will breed more politicians.

And the Hitler references are a little misleading. Yes, Hitler embarked on a Eugenics project. He wasn't the first and he wasn't the last. But just because one bad person used a specific idea for something evil hardly means that idea is forever considered evil in any application.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pardon me Herr Arcex---but as I was reading your post I did so with the eyes of the the guy in the other lane. As he or she fleeting glances out at you and has that same blinding revaluation---wouldn't it be nice if the all stupid would suddenly just poof vanish---yep---there is one of them now---even has a name judging by the vanity plate on the car---and the vanity plate says arcex.

But I have to agree with the point you made----But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

But even then---I wonder if its a serious evolutionary threat to our species----we have not had a real rabbit type in the White house since the Kennedies---as our politicians are so busy screwing the American people that they scarcely have time to reproduce.

But for what its worth, I still have my 60's era button that says sterilize LBJ---no more ugly children.

Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right about politicians and breeding, unfortunately children tend to follow their parents / families footsteps so all too often poilticians will breed more politicians.

And the Hitler references are a little misleading. Yes, Hitler embarked on a Eugenics project. He wasn't the first and he wasn't the last. But just because one bad person used a specific idea for something evil hardly means that idea is forever considered evil in any application.

Keep telling yourself that

:roll:

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree, it's a slippery slope,

Yes it is.

but

No "but".

/thread

Slippery slope is not a valid argument in and of itself.

In fact it's usually a fallacious one.

It happens to apply well here.

On second thought, I'm likely grossly misinterpreting your statement however my initial reaction was to think you were suggesting this would lead to the extermination of those people deemed inferior. As it is, I don't see much of a slope to slip down. Decisions to prevent a certain group of people from reproducing are going to be value judgements that would likely vary from person to person anyways. Its hard to get a system more open to abuse than that.

 

[ayabe]

While the idea isn't all that shocking or irresponsible the problem is that no matter who is put in charge of such a program it will unfair in one form or another and could be completely subjective.

Say for instance if radical Christians were put in charge, probably the first thing they would want to eliminate would be 'teh ghey gene'.

The only genes I would be in favor of eliminating if they do in fact exist would be -

1. The welfare mom, "government owes me gene" that predisposes certain women to believe that having 4 children from different fathers, none of whom are around and continuing to produce children all the while living on government assistance is not only OK, but is her right.

The real problem with this is that of those 4 children, 3 of them are likely going to be the same as their mom or worse. So we take one idiot and create three to replace her. Growing up in poverty is intimately linked with criminal behavior.

2. The child molester gene.

No explanation needed on this one, hopefully.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree, it's a slippery slope,

Yes it is.

but

No "but".

/thread

Slippery slope is not a valid argument in and of itself.

In fact it's usually a fallacious one.

It happens to apply well here.

On second thought, I'm likely grossly misinterpreting your statement however my initial reaction was to think you were suggesting this would lead to the extermination of those people deemed inferior. As it is, I don't see much of a slope to slip down. Decisions to prevent a certain group of people from reproducing are going to be value judgements that would likely vary from person to person anyways. Its hard to get a system more open to abuse than that.

Yes, the slippery slope to extermination is a terrible argument, but "who's next" is not, in terms of 'who will we prevent from breeding'.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

Well I'm all for it, but I hope you know that if I'm doing the culling you will be among the stupid.

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, some societies---under populations pressure have adopted a one couple one child rule. Which when enforced, can rapidly cull downward population in the space of a few generations.

Shortsighted parents---male and female alike---seem to prefer a male offspring when faced with that
draconian choice---and will use various effective means to insure that the lone famdamily progeny is indeed male.--resorting to all means including murder. Which is a short track to a next generation trainwreck because there will be a resultant shortage of females to pair up with.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For what its worth, some societies---under populations pressure have adopted a one couple one child rule. Which when enforced, can rapidly cull downward population in the space of a few generations.

Shortsighted parents---male and female alike---seem to prefer a male offspring when faced with that
draconian choice---and will use various effective means to insure that the lone famdamily progeny is indeed male.--resorting to all means including murder. Which is a short track to a next generation trainwreck because there will be a resultant shortage of females to pair up with.

*cough* China *cough*

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree, it's a slippery slope,

Yes it is.

but

No "but".

/thread

Slippery slope is not a valid argument in and of itself.

In fact it's usually a fallacious one.

It happens to apply well here.

On second thought, I'm likely grossly misinterpreting your statement however my initial reaction was to think you were suggesting this would lead to the extermination of those people deemed inferior. As it is, I don't see much of a slope to slip down. Decisions to prevent a certain group of people from reproducing are going to be value judgements that would likely vary from person to person anyways. Its hard to get a system more open to abuse than that.

I understand what you are saying, naturally I don't want a group of people deciding to a very specific scale what traits should and should not be allowed to pass on, like you said, value judgements like that would vary too much. Would I like it if we, as a society, could make the decision to remove severe defects from the gene pool? Yes, I think it would be great but I recognize the fact that we would never be able to decide when to stop.

The same problem exists with trying to cull stupidity, what defines stupidity? Low IQ? The IQ test is well known to be less than an accurate measure of intelligence. I agree it would take some thought as to what the deciding factor would be but I really think it would be worth it.

 

[Arcex]

I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Master Race Herr Arcex?

ya. it's called eugenics. it was the initially accepted application in genetics in the earlier days of the 20th century. One of its biggest fans was Hitler.

And yes, eugenics actually ignores, and compromises the genetic gain from sexual reproduction. (lessening variability)

Think of the California Condor, and the financial boondogle it was to try and bring that species back from 6 individuals. Wait until those lethal genes accumulate....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: smashp
The easiest way to cull our species is to have the phones explode massively whenever someone calls to vote for American Idol

Lol

actually, I support this application

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought?

All us right wing Christian creationists started out as men created in God?s image.

All you left wing atheist evolutionaries started out as mindless one celled creatures.

Explains a lot huh?

awwww,
you're so cute when you're ignorant! :heart:

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I'm all for it, but I hope you know that if I'm doing the culling you will be among the stupid.

Heh, well put

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex
First, at no point did I advocate culling an entire group of people based on personal views or beliefs, or due to completely cosmetic differences in appearence.

Second, no, I don't want to play God, that's an inaccurate analogy since if that was playing God then it would would mean he was already doing it. Trust me, he isn't.

Third, in regards to the belief that man was made in God's image, I hope that's not true solely because that doesn't say much for the original copy.

And last, I'm not talking about culling the weak and infirm. Yes, I feel that certain genetic defects should be culled but I was thinking a more important issue to work on would be simple stupidity. And the Rev. Jim Jones mass suicide makes an interesting point but hardly relevent, while Jim Jones himself and the organizers of the cult should certainly have been removed from the gene pool his followers shouldn't have had to suffer for Jones' insanity. He kept them doped up on LSD and shrooms, they were hardly in a position to make a reasoned decision about mass suicide.

**edited for typo**

fundamental misunderstanding of genetic variability and adaptability through natural selection. Many of those apparent genetic "weaknesses" infer other advantages to the individual that seemingly more healthy people may not have.

I give you the concept of Heterozygote advantage, and Sickle Cell Anemia

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Master Race Herr Arcex?

ya. it's called eugenics. it was the initially accepted application in genetics in the earlier days of the 20th century. One of its biggest fans was Hitler.

And yes, eugenics actually ignores, and compromises the genetic gain from sexual reproduction. (lessening variability)

Think of the California Condor, and the financial boondogle it was to try and bring that species back from 6 individuals. Wait until those lethal genes accumulate....

Oh absolutely, you can't supply enough variation from that limited a supply to populate an entire species, not without a plethora of harmful recessive genes. Just like in that episode of Star Trek...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

I think he's granting you special membership under the 'demonstrated idiocy clause' regardless of actual intelligence.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

I find it interesting that you think you can put aside questions of ethics and morality when discussing a question like this. The question in its very nature is a question of ethics. If we take ethics and morals out, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your proposal and it is a great idea. Only if ethics and morality are introduced into the problem could there be an issue with this idea. That is what got Hitler on his role- his fondness for Nietze who logically reasoned that if there is no God, there is no morality- relativism. Pure survival of the fittest.

Also, to suggest that the value of a human life is only measured by how he impacts society is also scary.

As far as survival of the fittest: it is definitely a working power in the world. This does not mean we need to run with it. I fear for the extinction of the polar bear. He might get wiped out due to not being able to survive when all the ice melts. But, I think since we have the power to intervene, we should try to save as many as possible however we can (obviously in comfortable settings- not just in zoos or whatever- set up some type of polar park way off in the wilderness. I don't know how, but you get the idea). My point is, just b/c survival of the fittest is an active phenomena, we don't need to embrace it. I believe we should resist it. There is no morality in nature, so to resist it is not doing wrong. However, put humans in the picture who have a sense of right and wrong- we have a decision to make- do we help out struggling species or do we let them flounder? Now it becomes an ethical question.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

that would most likely have the opposite effect. By selecting for more "desireous" genes and/or characteristics, you would likely be selecting a population that is more vigorous, and more able to adapt to changing situations. (unless of course you isolate one non-immunity among the entire population, thus creating a catastrophe in which the entire human species is wiped out because of one disease....)

This population would have less selective limits imposed on successful breeding (no crack babies being born, to use your example). Thus, far MORE humans would be born, leading to greater overpopulation problems.

You see the same thing happen with bear and deer populations and controlled hunting. Hunting limits actually help to increase the population of these species by reducing resource competition, among other factors.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

I think he's granting you special membership under the 'demonstrated idiocy clause' regardless of actual intelligence.

Oh well then that's fair

And spittledip, I've stated my previous opinion on all the Hitler references, he didn't invent eugenics, nor did he end it. Eugenics has a long history, he isn't the only person to take it and run with it in the wrong direction, but for shock value I guess that does make him the best person to reference.

Nietze is interesting to debate but on a basic level I think relativism is just plain wrong. God and morality are not joined at the hip, you can have one without the other.

Yes, to suggest the value of a human life is only measured by how he impacts society is scary, I don't believe that's the sole deciding factor to determine the value of human life, nor do I think a value can ever be placed on any life. Having said that, if there was an equation to determine that very thing I think a person's impact on a society or community would be taken into account.

When it comes to survival of the fittest we are arguing 2 different extremes, extinction vs. overpopulation. We are overpopulated with stupidity, could we stand to lose some? Yes. Should an endangered species be allowed to die out? Not if we can prevent it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

I find it interesting that you think you can put aside questions of ethics and morality when discussing a question like this. The question in its very nature is a question of ethics. If we take ethics and morals out, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your proposal and it is a great idea. Only if ethics and morality are introduced into the problem could there be an issue with this idea. That is what got Hitler on his role- his fondness for Nietze who logically reasoned that if there is no God, there is no morality- relativism. Pure survival of the fittest.

actually, it's an extremely bad idea from a genetics standpoint. It represents a flawed understanding of genetics in terms of Natural Selection, and ignores countless examples of intended and unintended culling of certain populations, in order to "increase their genetic vigor"

Dutch Elm Disease, the Irish Potato Famine, Tay-Sachs sydrome, etc...

It's a very, very, very bad idea from any angle. It sounds like a plot out of a James Bond movie. Wait...it is. It was Draco's plan in "Moonraker," and we all know how much that flick sucked...

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

that would most likely have the opposite effect. By selecting for more "desireous" genes and/or characteristics, you would likely be selecting a population that is more vigorous, and more able to adapt to changing situations. (unless of course you isolate one non-immunity among the entire population, thus creating a catastrophe in which the entire human species is wiped out because of one disease....)

This population would have less selective limits imposed on successful breeding (no crack babies being born, to use your example). Thus, far MORE humans would be born, leading to greater overpopulation problems.

You see the same thing happen with bear and deer populations and controlled hunting. Hunting limits actually help to increase the population of these species by reducing resource competition, among other factors.

This is a good point, the possible effects of any form of breeding control would be difficult to determine, it would be a massive undertaking (if it could be accomplished at all) to figure out all the nuances such a plan would entail. No doubt it's a tough thing to accomplish, but I think it bears looking into.

 

[mect]

My concern is we currently have the opposite of what most people want. Survival of the fittest does not mean strongest, best able to adapt, smartest, or any other positive attribute that is usually suggested, but rather, ability to procreate. So ask yourselves, who's having all the kids? What hoses are filling up your gene pool?

 

[slash196]

This topic is RIDICULOUS. You can't effectively cull PERSONALITY TRAITS using GENETICS.