Now you're saying we should do everything we can to help as many people as we can? That's not what it sounded like before.
I believe in the live and let die society system. By doing so, we eliminate poor genes passed from parent to child. If a baby girl is born with HD or something else similar, all her children are susceptible to HD. If we let this child die by natural causes and don't go out on every limb to save it, it will never be able to pass on this gene.
Your last post seems to imply that you want to be as charitable as possible, but your first post says we should let useless people die.
Also, I understand you didn't mean that useless people should be slaughtered, but that's just the natural progression. If we're going to let them die, why not euthanise (spelling?) them?
None.
Now you're saying we should do everything we can to help as many people as we can? That's not what it sounded like before.
Your last post seems to imply that you want to be as charitable as possible, but your first post says we should let useless people die.
No that's definately not what I was saying. To this problem, there's two sides: Save everyone Vs. live and let die. All I was doing was hitting the other side of the argument. It isn't even plausible to save everone, so you have to work on another solution... I like the quote from the guardian where he says "How do you pick who to save?" and the other guy replies "I swim as fast and as hard as I can for as long as I can. That's all I can do"(<-- or something to that extent). We should save people, but we only hurt more when we try to save everyone.
None.
We're going to evolve ourselves into useless species, because virtually every mutation, good or bad, is kept in the gene pool. So we'll get more cases of all genetic diseases or disorders, and it will only get worse, until everyone on earth ends up with a genetic disorder.
That's bad. Very bad.
So in a way, Hitler's Final Solution was not
wrong. But that is
NOT to say I support it.
[In relation to his murder of people with disorders, Jews are entirely different]
I'm not saying we should kill everyone with a genetic disorder, but educate them in how they will affect the future of humanity and the effect it may have on their children, if we can't persuade people, well, humanity's probably down the toilet anyway.
None.
We're going to evolve ourselves into useless species, because virtually every mutation, good or bad, is kept in the gene pool. So we'll get more cases of all genetic diseases or disorders, and it will only get worse, until everyone on earth ends up with a genetic disorder.
That's bad. Very bad.
So in a way, Hitler's Final Solution was not wrong. But that is NOT to say I support it.
[In relation to his murder of people with disorders, Jews are entirely different]
I'm not saying we should kill everyone with a genetic disorder, but educate them in how they will affect the future of humanity and the effect it may have on their children, if we can't persuade people, well, humanity's probably down the toilet anyway.
Stop talking out of your ass please. If you have a source to back up your seemingly baseless and contrived claims, then go ahead now.
Critical Thinking
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 23 2008, 12:29 pm by Dapperdan.
None.
I feel like humans belong in a sort of death-embrace with nature. The more we try to resist death and discomfort, the more our [figurative] backbones will dissolve and we'll slowly lose all connection with the physical world. Better to live in the scum and decay with all the rest of life, and we'll keep our grip on reality. I always feel best, my mind is always sharpest when I'm tapping into a state that feels primal and ancient and rooted in the dirt of the earth. Helps me keep perspective and be able to connect to people more.
None.
We're going to evolve ourselves into useless species, because virtually every mutation, good or bad, is kept in the gene pool. So we'll get more cases of all genetic diseases or disorders, and it will only get worse, until everyone on earth ends up with a genetic disorder. That's bad. Very bad. So in a way, Hitler's Final Solution was not wrong. But that is NOT to say I support it. [In relation to his murder of people with disorders, Jews are entirely different] I'm not saying we should kill everyone with a genetic disorder, but educate them in how they will affect the future of humanity and the effect it may have on their children, if we can't persuade people, well, humanity's probably down the toilet anyway.
Stop talking out of your ass please. I was tempted to delete this post. If you have a source to back up your seemingly baseless and contrived claims, then go ahead now.
Critical ThinkingWell we're supporting people with basic disorders like requiring glasses, thus increasing their chance for survival and breeding which didn't happen before the invention and wide distribution of glasses etc. So the genetics causing the eye disorders don't die out through natural selection leading to more people requiring glasses in future generations, that's my hypothesis, if you look at the number of people requiring glasses you'll find it's risen [the % in populationt hat is, obviously more people = more glasses] I just can't seem to find any statistics on the matter.
That's my hypothesis, if I could find some damn statistics I'd share =/
Also, if you think it's bullshit because I mentioned hitler's final solution, that's a bit discriminate, his ideas were sound from an entirely practical point of view, morally, no, not at all. [Again, discluding jews]
None.
I thought it was bullshit because for some reason you think 'everyone on earth will end up with a genetic disorder' and are offering no reasoning why. You just assume that things will get worse instead of better and I don't understand it...
And the glasses argument is nice but who cares. We're not going to start killing people off who wear glasses (making a point).
None.
My point is that we are stopping natural selection in favor of charitable selection, meaning helpful traits end up with equal amounts of negative ones
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 23 2008, 6:13 pm by Dapperdan.
None.
My point is that we are rtopping natural selection in favor of charitable selection, meaning helpful traits end up with equal amounts of negative ones
I like the way you phrase that, and I agree. Natural selection has kept the world running thus far, why change it?
None.
Common sense is telling me that millions or billions of people, possibly including you and me, would not be willing to kill themselves, let alone stop reproducing, for the good of the "gene pool".
My point is that we are rtopping natural selection in favor of charitable selection, meaning helpful traits end up with equal amounts of negative ones
I like the way you phrase that, and I agree. Natural selection has kept the world running thus far, why change it?
I assume you consider yourself in the "worthy to breed" area of humanity?
I'm also guessing candle doesn't wear glasses.
None.
Common sense is telling me that millions or billions of people, possibly including you and me, would not be willing to kill themselves, let alone stop reproducing, for the good of the "gene pool".
Kill? No. Stop reproducing? Hmmm... I think some people are down for that idea, but that's not the
my idea.
Like I said earlier, saving everyone we can is making it worse than letting people die. Survival of the fittest type stuff: when we strengthen the weak, it weakens humanity as a whole. Take this view for a moment; 3 people each have $1000, individual #1 is sick and will die unless he gets $2500 to cure it, each individual needs $500 for basic necessities each month.
If individuals #2-3 give $750 each to cure #1, individual #1 will have $0, individual #2-3 will have $250 each. Now, because none of the individuals have the required $500 to live. Individuals #2-3 decreased their life span by 1/2(unless if one is willing to give $$$ to the other. DOUBT IT!), and individual #1 dies anyways.
On the other route, if they don't save individual #1, they will now each have $1500(when they take #1's money after passing). With that extra money, they've 1.5x their life span. (IMO why kill 3 when you can save 2: be optimistic in every situation)
My point is that we are rtopping natural selection in favor of charitable selection, meaning helpful traits end up with equal amounts of negative ones
I like the way you phrase that, and I agree. Natural selection has kept the world running thus far, why change it?
I assume you consider yourself in the "worthy to breed" area of humanity?
No. As the above statement says, let everyone fight their battle and see who comes out on top. May it be you, or may be me: either way, at least some1 moves on, unlike the first scenario played out above.
None.
If I sound like I'm against glasses or anything, I'm not.
It's just my hypothesis, it doesn't mean I'm going to kill people, I have normal moral boundaries, and I've got nothing against anyone with ny disability, I'm just saying it's a real thing that we should think about.
So I'm torn, morally I agree with Charitable Selection, just like all of you, but my practical side is 'well spoken' so I do come across as cold.
Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 9:40 pm by Dapperdan.
None.
Are you people aware of this awesome new thing called Genetic Engineering?
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 9:39 pm by Dapperdan.
None.
Ever heard of side affects?
Quote from (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998)
Side Effects—Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of the repercussions.
None.
Ever heard of side affects?
Quote from (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998)
Side Effects—Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of the repercussions.
effects*
Hopefully, 10 years later we have a better understanding of how genetics work. ;o
Just a side question:
Radiation randomly causes the genes to change, thus slightly different species are born with slightly different qualities and abilities. Then, natural selection gives more opportunities to reproduce to those species who were lucky enough to have 'helpful' mutations. So basically, radiation is the key. Right?
None.
Generally, radiation mutations are not good. However, genetic mutations are commonly good. And yes, that's the key.
None.
Ever heard of side affects?
Quote from (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998)
Side Effects—Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of the repercussions.
effects*
Hopefully, 10 years later we have a better understanding of how genetics work. ;o
Right, but as of now genetic alterations are a negative.
Generally, radiation mutations are not good. However, genetic mutations are commonly good. And yes, that's the key.
Agreed. Genetic mutations = Genetic engineering. Once you figure out how to control the mutations that is.
None.
