Darwinism and You

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm surprised no one (except possibly Moonbeam, although it's always hard to tell) brought this up before. Even if we put aside the moral and ethical concerns here (which I would argue are fundamental to the issue), as Arcex suggested, there is still a pretty major flaw in the idea. Namely, that there exists a human, or a group of humans, that could intelligently make this decision in a way that would benefit the species as a whole

The progress of a species through genetic variation and the evolutionary process is an extraordinarily complex thing, and the person suggesting human beings could improve on it is using "culling" people who's driving he doesn't like as a prime example. No offense, but if that alone doesn't convince you that we lack the intelligence to make good decisions about something like this, I think you must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Granted, but you are taking me too literally. I said that was how the idea first popped into my head, I didn't say I wanted to sterilize people who drive badly. Burn their licenses, sure, but not their gonads.

You, Moonbeam, and the couple other people who mentioned it do have a good point, who makes the decision? It's a valid question, but that's why I wanted to focus more on the extreme element that causes the most problems, or in my admittedly biased view demonstrates the most flawed decision-making capabilities.

You keep trying to revisit this as though there is some reasonable middle ground that still involves sterilizing people.

You're aware that we've enacted into retard-sterilizing policies before, right?

If you want a thread about whether it's justified to abort a pregnancy based on an 'undesirable' genetic profile, then we might be talking about something worth discussing.

 

[ericlp]

Tough Love is... Aborting premature babies that are born to meth/crack addicts or woman that can't figure out how to take care of themselves, IE, eating at burger king and mc donalds 24/7 because they are lazy and fat.... never mind the baby....

But, lets spend half a million on keeping them alive .. god forbid we lose one! Sheesh....

Good Luck getting any law passed that opposes someone not to be able to produce. Hell, we are some dumb we can't even pass out condoms in high school anymore. Right winged phreaks want all the 16 year old having babies with no future and dumb as stumps.

What a waste!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Have you seen what might well be the most controversial movie of 2006? A movie with a premise that is so politically incorrect and so controversial that it's possible that FOX decided not to promote the movie at all for that very reason? Many people would say that Borat was the most politically incorrect movie of 2006, but Borat made fun of its "protagonist" and in that context it may have been quite politically correct.

Rather, perhaps the most politically incorrect and profound movie of the year may have been...Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.

The main premise of the movie is dysgenics. As explained in the movie, the people with lower IQs outbred the people with higher IQs (such as college-educated yuppies hoping for the right times in their careers before having children), resulting in a massive dumbing down of the nation's populace over time.

The problem with this premise? It hits too close to home and it is probably true in a great many ways. It's thus possible that FOX didn't want to offend much of its audience and that for that reason it decided not to promote the movie.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: 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.

You seem to have confused nurture with genetics. Examples #1  usually have to be carefully brought up that way.

I was half joking - who knows there might be an 'entitlement gene', I doubt we've spent much money on researching it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: 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.

You seem to have confused nurture with genetics. Examples #1  usually have to be carefully brought up that way.

I was half joking - who knows there might be an 'entitlement gene', I doubt we've spent much money on researching it.

and there will be no funding to research it, for as WHAMPOM said, it is an issue of nurture, and not nature.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm surprised no one (except possibly Moonbeam, although it's always hard to tell) brought this up before. Even if we put aside the moral and ethical concerns here (which I would argue are fundamental to the issue), as Arcex suggested, there is still a pretty major flaw in the idea. Namely, that there exists a human, or a group of humans, that could intelligently make this decision in a way that would benefit the species as a whole

The progress of a species through genetic variation and the evolutionary process is an extraordinarily complex thing, and the person suggesting human beings could improve on it is using "culling" people who's driving he doesn't like as a prime example. No offense, but if that alone doesn't convince you that we lack the intelligence to make good decisions about something like this, I think you must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Granted, but you are taking me too literally. I said that was how the idea first popped into my head, I didn't say I wanted to sterilize people who drive badly. Burn their licenses, sure, but not their gonads.

You, Moonbeam, and the couple other people who mentioned it do have a good point, who makes the decision? It's a valid question, but that's why I wanted to focus more on the extreme element that causes the most problems, or in my admittedly biased view demonstrates the most flawed decision-making capabilities.

again...what you still fail to realize (outside of ignoring the ethics) is the fundamental genetic issues involved. You assume that those who would be deamed less "worthy" to contribute to the genepool have no genetic value to add. However, it is statistically probable that this group of people, despite their limits in social climbing, have very beneficial and necessary genes to contribute to the gene pool. (Hell, they've survived this far...)

Furthermore, when you consider that the majority of the social immobility problems that you describe are predominantly an issue of nurture, genetics isn't even involved in this "problem."

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: 1prophet

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.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.


Um, no, because what Darwin is saying in no way resembles the crap being spewed by Arcex.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

He states that the most able should not be prevented from having as many offspring as desired, NOT that some people whom twisted minds like Arcex deem inferior, should be euthanized, sterilized or marginalized.


There's quite a difference between what Darwin wrote and what most eugenicists promote.

Unfortunately most did not see it as you do not even his own cousin.
.......................................................................................................
As you state below, Darwin himself did not see this as a justification for eugenics.
I agree with Darwin, you and Arcex agree with Darwin's cousin.


Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, proposed that an interpretation of Darwin's theory was the need for eugenics to save society from "inferior" minds.

While Darwin himself did not call for eugenics (though he did consider women to be mentally inferior to men) he certainly laid the foundation for those that wished to use his ideology to promote their eugenics ideology.

............................................................................................................


Wth?, we were debating the interpretation of a passage from The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin; Not how his cousin, step daughter, barber or plumber chose to interpret it.

:roll:

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Have you seen what might well be the most controversial movie of 2006? A movie with a premise that is so politically incorrect and so controversial that it's possible that FOX decided not to promote the movie at all for that very reason? Many people would say that Borat was the most politically incorrect movie of 2006, but Borat made fun of its "protagonist" and in that context it may have been quite politically correct.

Rather, perhaps the most politically incorrect and profound movie of the year may have been...Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.

The main premise of the movie is dysgenics. As explained in the movie, the people with lower IQs outbred the people with higher IQs (such as college-educated yuppies hoping for the right times in their careers before having children), resulting in a massive dumbing down of the nation's populace over time.

The problem with this premise? It hits too close to home and it is probably true in a great many ways. It's thus possible that FOX didn't want to offend much of its audience and that for that reason it decided not to promote the movie.

See, that right there is one of my biggest fears.

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant **obligatory Dennis Miller reference** but we make jokes these days about Americans being lazy and fat while we watch jobs float away to countries that can do it cheaper and faster. I'm not saying outsourcing is always a good idea, anyone in this forum who's ever had to call Microsoft or HP or so many others I can't list them all knows the pitfalls of outsourcing, but clearly it works for enough people to make it worth it to us to devote ore time thinking about the effects it's having to our economy. if we don't start trying to make ourselves more competitive in the world market we will fall so flat on our faces our own parents won't be able to recognize us. And the more people we have with this "It's everyone's fault but mine, better change the channel and see what's going on with "Dancing with the Stars" the harder we will have to work if we ever want to pull out of this tailspin.

zinfamous, obviously neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need to stop the mutant mole people 223 years from now on a Tuesday. By the same token neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need tocull to stop us from becoming the mutant mole people.

Obviously I like to use the phrase "mutant mole people".

I admittedly came at this from a harsher angle than intended, I don't really think we could remove all undesirable elements from our chemical makeup and create better people, nor do I think we should. But I'm advocating removing some of the worst elements, and even though that is obviously a very biased judgement call in regards to who to isolate I honestly do think certain people should not be allowed to make a bad situation worse.

 

[piasabird]

There is a distinct danger to gene manipulation. The danger is extinction. If you study why one species becomes extinct, you will find out that more often than not they became too specialized for a specific climate or an environment. Then when things change, the species can not adapt and dies off.

There have been cases where men who would be considerd to have traits that were not that productive in one environment seemed to do well in other environments. Take the time of war and the need for good soldiers. Some people that seemed to amount to no good, sometimes, when thrust into a combat role have what it takes to be great heroes with the warrior instinct. There will always come a time in History or in the future when we need this trait.

What I am saying is it is this diversity of the gene pool that keeps us from going extinct.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Have you seen what might well be the most controversial movie of 2006? A movie with a premise that is so politically incorrect and so controversial that it's possible that FOX decided not to promote the movie at all for that very reason? Many people would say that Borat was the most politically incorrect movie of 2006, but Borat made fun of its "protagonist" and in that context it may have been quite politically correct.

Rather, perhaps the most politically incorrect and profound movie of the year may have been...Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.

The main premise of the movie is dysgenics. As explained in the movie, the people with lower IQs outbred the people with higher IQs (such as college-educated yuppies hoping for the right times in their careers before having children), resulting in a massive dumbing down of the nation's populace over time.

The problem with this premise? It hits too close to home and it is probably true in a great many ways. It's thus possible that FOX didn't want to offend much of its audience and that for that reason it decided not to promote the movie.

See, that right there is one of my biggest fears.

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant **obligatory Dennis Miller reference** but we make jokes these days about Americans being lazy and fat while we watch jobs float away to countries that can do it cheaper and faster. I'm not saying outsourcing is always a good idea, anyone in this forum who's ever had to call Microsoft or HP or so many others I can't list them all knows the pitfalls of outsourcing, but clearly it works for enough people to make it worth it to us to devote ore time thinking about the effects it's having to our economy. if we don't start trying to make ourselves more competitive in the world market we will fall so flat on our faces our own parents won't be able to recognize us. And the more people we have with this "It's everyone's fault but mine, better change the channel and see what's going on with "Dancing with the Stars" the harder we will have to work if we ever want to pull out of this tailspin.

zinfamous, obviously neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need to stop the mutant mole people 223 years from now on a Tuesday. By the same token neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need tocull to stop us from becoming the mutant mole people.

Obviously I like to use the phrase "mutant mole people".

I admittedly came at this from a harsher angle than intended, I don't really think we could remove all undesirable elements from our chemical makeup and create better people, nor do I think we should. But I'm advocating removing some of the worst elements, and even though that is obviously a very biased judgement call in regards to who to isolate I honestly do think certain people should not be allowed to make a bad situation worse.

And you sir, are a prime example of the the "certain people" who should never be allowed to make decisions in matters such as this.

Never again.
Eternal vigilance.
Back under your rock.

 

[Arcex]

I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

Maybe genetic research can solve that foaming at the mouth issue you have, Herr Doktor.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: 1prophet

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.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.


Um, no, because what Darwin is saying in no way resembles the crap being spewed by Arcex.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

He states that the most able should not be prevented from having as many offspring as desired, NOT that some people whom twisted minds like Arcex deem inferior, should be euthanized, sterilized or marginalized.


There's quite a difference between what Darwin wrote and what most eugenicists promote.

Unfortunately most did not see it as you do not even his own cousin.
.......................................................................................................
As you state below, Darwin himself did not see this as a justification for eugenics.
I agree with Darwin, you and Arcex agree with Darwin's cousin.


Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, proposed that an interpretation of Darwin's theory was the need for eugenics to save society from "inferior" minds.

While Darwin himself did not call for eugenics (though he did consider women to be mentally inferior to men) he certainly laid the foundation for those that wished to use his ideology to promote their eugenics ideology.

............................................................................................................


Wth?, we were debating the interpretation of a passage from The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin; Not how his cousin, step daughter, barber or plumber chose to interpret it.

:roll:


You were debating the interpretations, I was trying to show how by allowing those to shape those interpretations early on and legitimizing people like like Mr. Galton by including them in ones works without vehemently denying their ideology allows many to come to the conclusions such as Forced Darwinism, notice they don't call it Galtonism.

Instead what do you do

I agree with Darwin, you and Arcex agree with Darwin's cousin.

You lump me together with those that I have nothing to do with or their ideologies.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Have you seen what might well be the most controversial movie of 2006? A movie with a premise that is so politically incorrect and so controversial that it's possible that FOX decided not to promote the movie at all for that very reason? Many people would say that Borat was the most politically incorrect movie of 2006, but Borat made fun of its "protagonist" and in that context it may have been quite politically correct.

Rather, perhaps the most politically incorrect and profound movie of the year may have been...Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.

The main premise of the movie is dysgenics. As explained in the movie, the people with lower IQs outbred the people with higher IQs (such as college-educated yuppies hoping for the right times in their careers before having children), resulting in a massive dumbing down of the nation's populace over time.

The problem with this premise? It hits too close to home and it is probably true in a great many ways. It's thus possible that FOX didn't want to offend much of its audience and that for that reason it decided not to promote the movie.

See, that right there is one of my biggest fears.

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant **obligatory Dennis Miller reference** but we make jokes these days about Americans being lazy and fat while we watch jobs float away to countries that can do it cheaper and faster. I'm not saying outsourcing is always a good idea, anyone in this forum who's ever had to call Microsoft or HP or so many others I can't list them all knows the pitfalls of outsourcing, but clearly it works for enough people to make it worth it to us to devote ore time thinking about the effects it's having to our economy. if we don't start trying to make ourselves more competitive in the world market we will fall so flat on our faces our own parents won't be able to recognize us. And the more people we have with this "It's everyone's fault but mine, better change the channel and see what's going on with "Dancing with the Stars" the harder we will have to work if we ever want to pull out of this tailspin.

zinfamous, obviously neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need to stop the mutant mole people 223 years from now on a Tuesday. By the same token neither of us could possibly definitively state what gene, possessed by whom, could be the one gene we would need tocull to stop us from becoming the mutant mole people.

Obviously I like to use the phrase "mutant mole people".

I admittedly came at this from a harsher angle than intended, I don't really think we could remove all undesirable elements from our chemical makeup and create better people, nor do I think we should. But I'm advocating removing some of the worst elements, and even though that is obviously a very biased judgement call in regards to who to isolate I honestly do think certain people should not be allowed to make a bad situation worse.

I, too, am a fan of the phrase mutant mole people; and I live in fear of them on a daily basis.

However, your proposal is not one that will prevent them from appearing. Again, the argument you propose is no different from the same arguments in vogue at the turn of the 20th century; those in which Hitler was very fond of.

Perhaps you would better serve your case if you addressed specific gene targeting within individuals, rather than culling classes of people based on what you mistakenly assume are characterized by gene-specific abnormalities in their genome?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

I have a better proposal, and it is one that will seem far outlandish than what even you could have considered.

AIDS. Certain individuals throughout the human population are naturally immune to HIV. The virus can not infect them, b/c they have a gene that encodes for an HIV-specific receptor on cell membranes. Unlike any other species on this planet, we have evolved to the point where we have no natural predators. This has put us in danger, as you mention, of overpopulation, which is a problem that can indeed lead to extinction. Irnoically enough, however, it seems that the organisms that may be the biggest threat to us are the smallest ones in existence.

So, should we stop funding AIDS research, and stop treating the afflicted? Would it not be benificial to let this natural, and extremely effective system of population control run its course? Wrap your noodle around that one

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

I have a better proposal, and it is one that will seem far outlandish than what even you could have considered.

AIDS. Certain individuals throughout the human population are naturally immune to HIV. The virus can not infect them, b/c they have a gene that encodes for an HIV-specific receptor on cell membranes. Unlike any other species on this planet, we have evolved to the point where we have no natural predators. This has put us in danger, as you mention, of overpopulation, which is a problem that can indeed lead to extinction. Irnoically enough, however, it seems that the organisms that may be the biggest threat to us are the smallest ones in existence.

So, should we stop funding AIDS research, and stop treating the afflicted? Would it not be benificial to let this natural, and extremely effective system of population control run its course? Wrap your noodle around that one

No, I don't like the Aids approach as much because it's too random. If we are going to make a decision to decrease our overall population through whatever means I'd prefer we specifically target those that benefit society the least. As I've stated clearly that's a judgement call but so much of our daily lives is based on judgement calls I don't think of that as the sole reason to discard the idea.

True, the issues I mentioned are not directly caused by specific faulty genes, that's why it would be more of a judgement call based on someone's personality and history as opposed to a specific gene we could test for.

The way I see part of it working is like this, one of those afore-mentioned women who regularly give birth to premie meth-addicted babies goes to the hospital to give birth. In this specific example the mother in question has no insurance so of course the entire procedure, from check in to raising the child, is footed by the government. How about this, since she is in no way contributing to society, and in fact doing nothing other than draining our resources, we tell her in trade she must allow herself to be sterilized.

She could even throw in some stem cells while she's at it, she won't need em!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

I have a better proposal, and it is one that will seem far outlandish than what even you could have considered.

AIDS. Certain individuals throughout the human population are naturally immune to HIV. The virus can not infect them, b/c they have a gene that encodes for an HIV-specific receptor on cell membranes. Unlike any other species on this planet, we have evolved to the point where we have no natural predators. This has put us in danger, as you mention, of overpopulation, which is a problem that can indeed lead to extinction. Irnoically enough, however, it seems that the organisms that may be the biggest threat to us are the smallest ones in existence.

So, should we stop funding AIDS research, and stop treating the afflicted? Would it not be benificial to let this natural, and extremely effective system of population control run its course? Wrap your noodle around that one

No, I don't like the Aids approach as much because it's too random. If we are going to make a decision to decrease our overall population through whatever means I'd prefer we specifically target those that benefit society the least. As I've stated clearly that's a judgement call but so much of our daily lives is based on judgement calls I don't think of that as the sole reason to discard the idea.

True, the issues I mentioned are not directly caused by specific faulty genes, that's why it would be more of a judgement call based on someone's personality and history as opposed to a specific gene we could test for.

The way I see part of it working is like this, one of those afore-mentioned women who regularly give birth to premie meth-addicted babies goes to the hospital to give birth. In this specific example the mother in question has no insurance so of course the entire procedure, from check in to raising the child, is footed by the government. How about this, since she is in no way contributing to society, and in fact doing nothing other than draining our resources, we tell her in trade she must allow herself to be sterilized.

She could even throw in some stem cells while she's at it, she won't need em!

The elegance is in it's randomness. And again, in that it lets nature select who is unfit. You have to drop the notion that you, or any other fallible human is quallified to judge who is unfit. The crack baby example still doesn't hold water. Either that baby survives, and is deemed fit by nature, or it doesn't, and is selected against anyway (chances are, that baby will not be passing on that mother's genes...so the "problem" solves itself)

as for the bolded part...so now you're admitting that your proposal is irrelevant in regards to genetics? Why not drop it altogether then?

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Hmm, where to begin...


Oceandevi, please explain to me how having a diverse gene pool is our best defense against stupidity, that doesn't really make sense in the context of what I was discussing. And yeah, I don't remember saying we should feed crippled or retarded people to pigs, I think I'd remember that. I assume you were being ironic but I never said anything even remotely along those lines.

Stupidity is a choice IMO. I have known many dumb ass people who could not keep any good for long. They messed up everything they touched and it was all their fault. It really was.

About the diverse gene pool, this is a must have for any healthy species. Without it you lack the ability to adapt. Without it, accelerated evolution would be damn near impossible.

And I was referring to your apparent lack of empathy with the other comments. Caring for our wounded is a vital part of this human story.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I agree diversity in our gene pool is good, I'm trying to come at this from a very specific angle, the examples I previously stated. I understand the dangers of manipulating our gneses to the point where we become too specialized, I don't want to do that and never said I did so it makes little sense to bring that up as a counter-argument.

And I really don't think at this point in the history of our species we should over-populate the planet because we are afraid of going extinct. Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

Trust me, I get the thrust of what you're saying, but I think you're missing an important factor here...that while you might acknowledge and even try and avoid the obvious problems posed by eugenics, we (and by "we" I mean you, me, and anybody else on the planet) lack the knowledge to say HOW we could avoid those problems, or even what all the problems might be.

Tinkering with evolution this way seems a lot like a native from the jungle being trust into the job of repairing a nuclear reactor. Sure, you could probably make him understand that a meltdown is a bad thing, but there is no way in hell the outcome is going to be positive. You have an extremely oversimplified view of positive eugenics as "sterilize the stupid people", but the evolutionary development of a species cannot possibly be reduced to that kind of overly simplistic explanation.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is nothing more dangerous on the planet than the person who is certain and prepared to act. It's a disease called madness.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is nothing more dangerous on the planet than the person who is certain and prepared to act. It's a disease called madness.

No wonder I hate politicians so much.


Ok, this will be my last post on this subject, after this I think I'll be beating a dead horse (if I'm not already).

Rainsford, you're right, it would be highly unlikely for anyone on the planet to come up with the exact course of action that would perfectly solve all our problems, but I'm definitely not trying to reach that high, I'd just like to remove a few specific examples of what IMO are socially detrimental people.

Oceandevi, yes, sometimes stupidity is a choice, but there are many people who simply speaking don't have the choice to be anything other than stupid, or, choose to be ignorant and not care about the consequenses to others, in which case they also should have this decision made for them. Basically I'm saying if they aren't mature enough to make the call we should make it for them. Again, only for specific people.
I also agree that caring for our wounded is vital, I never said otherwise and if I came off sounding like that then I apologize.

zinfamous, I see your point on the aids idea but I'm still not a fan of the innocent people suffering part. Also, the sterilization thing would to me be slightly more humane. Or as humane as one can be when talking about forced sterilization.



Peace, I'm out.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Now, I don't want to go off on a rant **obligatory Dennis Miller reference** but we make jokes these days about Americans being lazy and fat while we watch jobs float away to countries that can do it cheaper and faster. I'm not saying outsourcing is always a good idea, anyone in this forum who's ever had to call Microsoft or HP or so many others I can't list them all knows the pitfalls of outsourcing, but clearly it works for enough people to make it worth it to us to devote ore time thinking about the effects it's having to our economy. if we don't start trying to make ourselves more competitive in the world market we will fall so flat on our faces our own parents won't be able to recognize us. And the more people we have with this "It's everyone's fault but mine, better change the channel and see what's going on with "Dancing with the Stars" the harder we will have to work if we ever want to pull out of this tailspin.

Americans cannot compete because the foreign outsourcing (and the importing of foreigners on work visas, such as the H-1B and L-1), is not a real form of "competition". The jobs are not being sent overseas because better productivity or better talent. Rather--the jobs are only being sent overseas because of a huge supply of available labor and thus lower prices. It's hard for one person to compete against five people who can be hired for that one person's salary.

How can America compete? Simple--accept a lower standard of living. Accept lower wages. Become price-competitive with the foreign competition, which means, become poorer. Adopt a third world standard of living.

That's what's going to happen. It's just basic economics. Supply and Demand (of and for labor).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Arcex Right now, on this day, extinction is not our main concern. Over-population is. We need to control our expansion and stop allowing people who are not capable of raising their own children to keep breeding, we cannot handle the onslaught of children that if anything need more nurturing than average due to coming from a troubled home.

Overpopulation almost never makes the news and it's essentially a non-issue here in the U.S. Why? Because it is a very, very politically incorrect issue.

Who are you to say that crack addicts shouldn't breed and have crack babies? Who are you to say that people who already have 10 kids have had enough kids? Who are you to say that people who cannot afford to raise children or who can't take proper care of them shouldn't have children? OMG! These people are trying to steal our baaay-aaaay-beeees!

The Chinese have figured all of this out and one day they'll benefit from this knowledge, and perhaps Europeans have figured it out, too. However, Americans are stupid and suffer from political correctness.

It's amazing how few people recognize the connection between population explosion and environmental degradation, not to mention the relatsionship between population increase and increasing real estate prices. ("They ain't makin' land no more.")

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I, too, am a fan of the phrase mutant mole people; and I live in fear of them on a daily basis.

Anyone who wants to see what "mole men" look like should check out the silly, stupid, and not very funny new Cartoon Network Adult Swim show "Saul of the Molemen".

http://www.adultswim.com/adultswimfix/index.html

It's the feature show for this week (through Friday) and will show up without your having to look for it in the shows list.

"We've had our accidents, that's true. In any case it's an inevitability with public works projects." -- from the current episode of Saul of the Molemen.