Eugenics
Sep 1 2008, 7:08 am
By: Ultraviolet
Pages: < 1 2 3 49 >
 

Sep 1 2008, 4:53 pm Kaias Post #21



Quote from ClansAreForGays
I believe the ugly/stupid should be limited to 1 child.

I have a ridiculously high metabolism would be very desirable to the majority of the gene pool. I've never had to diet or watch what I ate unlike the general population. If everyone had my same beneficial gene I believe the world would be a better place.
Sorry that gene propagation is being out sourced to me.
Quote from name:O)Silent
Well im totally against eugenics. I view the best possible society for mankind in which the weak are protected by the strong, it might sound nice to have a 'spartan' society, but in reality eugenics seams to be a recipy for disaster. Who would be the one to decide who cant and can live? If we all were pushed to be the best we could be, wouldn't that just make the chances for accidental incest occur frequently, causing even moar problems than we had with a large gene pool? This sounds like something that were happen in a terrible dictatorship, because ppl will ALWAYS have disagreements, and if there were to be cutbacks on who is allowed to live, then how would a decision on who ever be achieved?
Eugenics isn't about who can and can't live, it's about who can and can't breed. Just thought I'd mention.



None.

Sep 1 2008, 4:55 pm CecilSunkure Post #22



Quote from Kaias
Quote from ClansAreForGays
I believe the ugly/stupid should be limited to 1 child.

I have a ridiculously high metabolism would be very desirable to the majority of the gene pool. I've never had to diet or watch what I ate unlike the general population. If everyone had my same beneficial gene I believe the world would be a better place.
Sorry that gene propagation is being out sourced to me.
Quote from name:O)Silent
Well im totally against eugenics. I view the best possible society for mankind in which the weak are protected by the strong, it might sound nice to have a 'spartan' society, but in reality eugenics seams to be a recipy for disaster. Who would be the one to decide who cant and can live? If we all were pushed to be the best we could be, wouldn't that just make the chances for accidental incest occur frequently, causing even moar problems than we had with a large gene pool? This sounds like something that were happen in a terrible dictatorship, because ppl will ALWAYS have disagreements, and if there were to be cutbacks on who is allowed to live, then how would a decision on who ever be achieved?
Eugenics isn't about who can and can't live, it's about who can and can't breed. Just thought I'd mention.
I guess so, but that still applies to all the effects I listed :O



None.

Sep 1 2008, 5:31 pm Vi3t-X Post #23



Without the lowerclass, who will succumb to do your dirty work that allows you to be of a "higher class".

All these luxuries and technological advances you'd hope for would not exist. A utopia of everyone with everything and happy?

1) Small Countries Provide Material Access, Bamboo, Minerals, Crops, Whatever it may be (Most of the work force consists of lowerclass families).
2) The Upper Class hire Lower Class members to work and process such materials. Oil needs to be refined, Steel needs to be made, Food has to be processed.
3) Lower Class members ship these goods, wether Raw Materials, or Proccessed Goods, to wherever it needs to go next.
4) Even SuperMarkets have Lower Class members working inside to sell stuff.

Wipe out the lower class, and you wipe out your race.



None.

Sep 1 2008, 6:07 pm ClansAreForGays Post #24



Wipe out the lower class, and replace them with machines.

Of course there are plenty of poor people that are smart and/or beautiful/healthy, but are just being held down because of the filth that surrounds them. These people would only be positively effected by eugenics.

And we all know that sometimes 2 ugly/stupid people inexplicably make a beautiful child or a genius. That 1 child limit for them would be their hope of having their lineage being allowed back into the unrestricted gene pool.

And if we really sat down and got serious about it we could set up something, like we did our constitution, where we could foresee and protect against corrupt biased practices in favor of 'noble' bloodlines.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 1 2008, 6:16 pm by ClansAreForGays.




Sep 1 2008, 6:36 pm SiN Post #25



Quote
Wipe out the lower class, and replace them with machines.

Who would make the machines? Who would provide the parts? Who would forge the steel?
It sounds bad, but in our society there simply has to be a lower class.
If you were to wipe it out and apply Eugenics, every single person would be fighting for the upper class, creating a lot of competition.

(unrelated note) But man, just think of the Olympics that we would have lmao



None.

Sep 1 2008, 7:14 pm ClansAreForGays Post #26



Quote from SiN
Quote
Wipe out the lower class, and replace them with machines.

Who would make the machines? Who would provide the parts? Who would forge the steel?
It sounds bad, but in our society there simply has to be a lower class.
If you were to wipe it out and apply Eugenics, every single person would be fighting for the upper class, creating a lot of competition.

(unrelated note) But man, just think of the Olympics that we would have lmao
The lower class would be commissioned to build machines capable of making more machines. This would be their dying act.

If we wiped out the deformed potential-less lower class, the upper class would not have this problem as the over populated world would be fixed.




Sep 1 2008, 9:55 pm The Great Yam Post #27



You people are assholes.

You talk about fellow man like he was a tool, a beast, a burden. Shameful.

Absolutely disgusting.



None.

Sep 1 2008, 10:30 pm Demented Shaman Post #28



Quote from The Great Yam
You people are assholes.

You talk about fellow man like he was a tool, a beast, a burden. Shameful.

Absolutely disgusting.
I'm not surprised.



None.

Sep 1 2008, 10:49 pm BiOAtK Post #29



Quote from The Great Yam
You people are assholes.

You talk about fellow man like he was a tool, a beast, a burden. Shameful.

Absolutely disgusting.

As indiviuals, we can be intelligent, rational, emotional and empathetic. As a mass, a group, we are devoid of humanity and mercy. Never before in the history of humanity has there once been such a morass, a terrible network of the peer-pressure that forces us to become one, become evil.
Welcome to the soulless mass of blunt immorality known only as the Internet.



None.

Sep 1 2008, 10:49 pm BiOAtK Post #30



I just realized how fucking awesome that quote was.



None.

Sep 2 2008, 2:02 am Kaias Post #31



Someone doesn't believe in teamwork



None.

Sep 2 2008, 2:19 am midget_man_66 Post #32



when ever the idea of "the betterment of the human body" is brought up... it is a generalization of the entire human race. At the point of whatever strategy your using, it has no present effect, only one that should show up later in life. I support eugenics.. but only if tactics stay within the limit of not allowing birth/reduced childhood rates. genecide or "IQ"ecide i dont think would be acceptable.



None.

Sep 2 2008, 3:08 am Hercanic Post #33

STF mod creator, Modcrafters.com admin, CampaignCreations.org staff

Dear everyone:
Quote from ClansAreForGays
I have a ridiculously high metabolism would be very desirable to the majority of the gene pool. I've never had to diet or watch what I ate unlike the general population. If everyone had my same beneficial gene I believe the world would be a better place.
And therein lies the limitations of humanity's foresight. You identify a fast metabolism as beneficial without adhering to any circumstances, essentially assuming it is the most ideal trait. While the examples you list are seemingly a plus, what you did not factor in is that a higher metabolism means faster cellular division.

Every time your cells divide, they are prone to replication mistakes. You lose bits of your genetic integrity as you age, the ends of the helix wearing away over time. Mistakes are propagated every time those cells multiply, and further errors compound the effect. Cells become less efficient, mitochondria shrivel, and the common symptoms of aging encroach.

When your body enters into starvation mode, chemicals are released that slow down your metabolism (and thus mitosis) in an effort to conserve energy. Experiments with lab animals kept in a semi-starved state have shown a marked increase in lifespan, in some species even doubling their natural life. The hearts of humans who have undergone these experiments appear to be many years younger than someone of similar age. There is actually a group of people living on a very low-calorie diet, keeping themselves in a semi-starved state and low metabolism, aiming to increase their lifespan.

A genetically higher metabolism may be helpful in today's society in the short-run, but it may actually cause you to age faster. Also, what would happen if a disaster of some sort brought about a massive famine, depriving your hungry body? Would you survive better against someone with a slower metabolism who doesn't burn through their energy as quickly?

The original Eugenics movement was a significant factor in polarizing various religious groups against evolution. While farmers and animal breeders were well aware of proper husbandry long before Darwin's theories, applying the same to humans is ill-advised. We consider ourselves an advanced and educated society. People of the 1900's considered themselves just the same, and they too drew numerous erroneous ideas about "good" genes. (War on the Weak)

Genetic diversity increases the odds of us, as a species, surviving unforeseen calamities. You may divert your eyes from a physically unsymmetrical face, but should a viral epidemic break out it could very well be them who survives. The antibodies their immune system produces could then potentially be synthesized into a cure, saving your judgmental self.

We don't know everything. We shouldn't act like we do, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugenics is inherently flawed because those who would administer it are.




I've read some people wanting eugenics to promote intelligence. As an interesting side note:

Quote from What">http://www.howardism.org/Philosophy/Questions/Troodon.html]What does it take to evolve an overly-large brain? Nerves were evolved soon after the first multi-celled animals since it formed a faster cell-to-cell communication than the old fashioned chemical responses. Brains came about to coordinate some of this. But brains are costly to an animal, so they have to … uhm, carry their own weight, so to speak.

Brains have clearly proved useful, as many species have them, but only to a limited level, beyond which, they aren't as useful as the resources and nutrients they require.

I mean, brains don't need to be so big as ours to prove useful enough for an animal's survival, and something large enough to induce sentience seems too much. Which is probably why only one species has one this large. But what are the criteria for evolving overly-large brains?

One theory is our weaknesses. Early humans lacked claws, teeth, armor, etc. We didn't have either offenses or defenses, and so we compensated by adding cranial capacity, which in turn, built tools to hunt and strategy to defend itself.

Too bad we killed off all of the other large-brained competitors for our spot… but that would lead to another question.





Sep 2 2008, 4:47 am A_of-s_t Post #34

aka idmontie

My report on genetics:

Genetic Engineering
The Catalyst for Human Health
By: Ivan Montiel


Genetic engineering is not harmful -- on the contrary, it can produce new benefits in agriculture, disease, and health to assist the human race. One application of genetic engineering can result in better diabetic assistance. Insulin -- an essential agent for diabetics -- could only be obtained in tiny amounts from the pancreases of animals -- and even then, some diabetics were allergic to it. With the help from genetic engineering, insulin can be produced in immense quantities for diabetics.

The solution for the insulin problem was found in the early 1970’s (Bender 22). A bacterium called E. coli was discovered to have DNA in circular pieces -- or plasmids -- which meant that scientists could examine the components of DNA. With the utilization of enzymes, scientists split DNA into desired strands. Since the ends of these split strands easily form bonds with other pieces of genetic material, a new gene can be added to the circular plasmid -- adding a whole new function to the E. coli bacteria. This idea of instilling new genetic information into bacterium eventually led to the production of various crops -- corn, soybeans, and cotton -- with new traits to increase productivity.

Genetic engineering can assist in producing better crops. New biotechnology has provided tools for increased crop yields due to recent discoveries in DNA mapping. Most applications of biotechnology have involved major crops with genetically engineered traits such as herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance (Cornejo 2). With these new technologies, agricultural productivity has risen; and with increases in production comes declines in food prices. Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants allow greater simplicity and flexibility for farmers (Cornejo 2). With less management and time consumed by farm work, farmers can now benefit from additional income from off-farm activities. Thanks to these two developments, farmers have used less pesticide on genetically modified crops and have adopted soil conservation practices (Cornejo 2). Corn and cotton -- major insecticide users -- now require less management due to the insecticide-resistant gene that was genetically added to these crops (Encarta Encyclopedia 1). Now that DNA splicing was practical, steps in human development could occur.

Curing hereditary diseases, genetic engineering can alter the genetic structure of an individual for beneficial purposes. Through somatic cell gene therapy, cells of an individual are altered. “Somatic gene therapy alters only the genetic structure of the individual who receives it” -- the change is not passed down to the next generation (Gert 1). The premise that genetic engineering will affect the normal evolutionary course of nature is simply not true with somatic cell gene therapy. However, serious controversy arises in germ line gene therapy (Gert 1). “When it is possible not merely to add a gene, but to replace an unwanted gene, this gene will be completely removed” (Gert 2). When a dominant, unwelcome section of DNA must be replaced by a normal gene, the unwanted gene musty be completely removed so that its effects are removed. “Germ line gene therapy not only is permanent during the entire lifetime of the affected individual, the [modified gene] becomes inheritably transmitted to countless members of future generations” (Gert 3). However, “no evolutionary problem is caused by eliminating dominant genes that cause serious genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease” (Gert 2). With these new technologies, the thoughts of curing humans from sickness came closer to reality. All that was now needed was a way to track what the function of each segment of DNA.

Genetic engineering can improve the health of humans. By mapping the human genome -- the complete set of instructions for making a human being -- the world can benefit (Bender 95). Knowing every set of instructions within human's DNA can increase the understanding of human health; it can allow scientists to determine the cure for a genetic based illness. “This information will usher in the Golden Age of molecular biology” (Bender 96). With the mapping of the human genome, the entire process of which the human body works will unravel. Scientists could examine the code by which humans are programmed and identify maladies in one’s DNA, research how evolution forms through the changes within genes, or identify how essential proteins are formed for the maintenance of the body.

Opponents of genetic engineering deal with the concerns of eugenics’ safety, morality, and future effects. One problem with eugenics is that the future hazards are not known, nor researched. Scientists of genetic engineering do not concern themselves with the effects their research will have -- they concern themselves with the research itself. Even though genetic engineering has not caused a misfortune, it does not indicate that future risks do not exist. As the logical argument goes -- “past events do not portray future events.” Another argument arises with the use of knowledge obtained by eugenics. Will the technology be used to try to “control nature” (Bender 105)? Another thought is how this technology will affect the way people “think -- especially about ourselves” (Bender 107). Will the ability to “screen embryos” lead to a market in “buying and selling high grade embryos” where mothers are “contracted” (Bender 107)? These ideas all affect the morality of genetic engineering’s implications. “Since it is impossible to draw a non-arbitrary line that distinguishes positive from negative eugenics by defining what a genetic disorder is, genetic therapy may cause more serious maladies in future generations that it prevents for the present one” (Gert 2). Negative eugenics -- emphasizing the restriction on breeding for particularly "unfit” types -- has always been practiced. People with maladies were often restricted from producing offspring. In genetic engineering, however, the case is that certain alleles will be eliminated -- those alternate forms of a gene may prove useful in the future of the species. However, no alternate forms of a gene are eliminated. Many genetic maladies are caused by the lack of a dominate allele. If a dominate allele is added, then nothing is removed, and the malady is passed down to the individuals offspring. “In the case of sickle cell anemia, gene therapy for recessive disorders will work, even though the mutant and non-functional alleles remain” (Gert 2).

With the help of genetic engineering, bacteria can be modified to produce insulin. These bacteria are placed in large fermentation tanks -- which allow the bacteria to grow and multiply, since these modified bacteria are weakened to the extent that they cannot survive outside the laboratory environment. The bacteria are then harvested for the insulin proteins (Bender 23). Genetic engineering, and the several biotechnologies that stem from it, can prove beneficial to the health of humans and improve everyday life.



Works Cited
Bender, David L., and Bruno Leone. Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven, n.d.
Gert, Bernard. “Genetic Engineering: Is It Morally Acceptable?” USA Today Jan. 1999: 28-30. SIRS Researcher. ProQuest. Barry Goldwater High School Media Center. 11 Mar. 2008 <http://sks.sirs.com/>.
Grunwald, Micheal. “The Clean Energy Scam.” TIME 7 Apr. 2008: 40-45.
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.
United States. Agriculture Department. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. By Jorge Ferandez-Cornejo and Marggriet Caswell. April 2006. SIRS Researcher. ProQuest. Barry Goldwater High School Media Center. 14 Mar. 2008 <http://sks.sirs.com/>.



Personal GitHub
Starcraft GitHub Organization - Feel free to request member status!
TwitchTV

Sep 2 2008, 6:32 am midget_man_66 Post #35



One example of a consequence of genetic alteration is a disruption of a certain genetic function. Two things need to happen in a row (just an example) unknowingly, an experienced bio-chemist cuts and pastes a "produce x chemical" function in between 1 and 2. the two things do not happen in a row, and a strange protein chain is made. that is just a lame, quick example. A real example would be soybeans that crack a lot easier in the sun.



None.

Sep 3 2008, 12:15 am Jello-Jigglers Post #36



Quote from midget
One example of a consequence of genetic alteration is a disruption of a certain genetic function. Two things need to happen in a row (just an example) unknowingly, an experienced bio-chemist cuts and pastes a "produce x chemical" function in between 1 and 2. the two things do not happen in a row, and a strange protein chain is made. that is just a lame, quick example. A real example would be soybeans that crack a lot easier in the sun.
It is possible to scientifically determine all the outcomes of genetic alterations, as long as all considerations are taken for account.


Ever read "The Giver"? They people are so trained to their lifestyle they don't know any better. They don't understand killing a child because it isn't quite up to social standard the same way we do. Same as the movie "The Island". Their intelligence is that of a child, because thats the only nurture they received. Provided these are fiction, the reality they provide for superimposed society is eye opening.

Because it isn't in our instinctive nature to know the things we know, it would be relatively simple to "fool" a society into a different standard of thinking.

As for the matter at hand, I don't think it will ever happen(in my lifetime), therefore, it isn't a concern of mine(yet) because I don't have offspring(yet). Even when that time comes, I might still be pro eventual Eugenics.



None.

Sep 3 2008, 1:24 am dumbducky Post #37



I can't believe 3 people have suggested mass murder in the name of a vague goal. There are so many flaws, I don't even know where to begin. Who's to say you wouldn't be selected as inferior and killed?

But whatever. If you want to follow in Hitler's footsteps, so be it.



tits

Sep 3 2008, 2:08 am Dapperdan Post #38



Quote from dumbducky
I can't believe 3 people have suggested mass murder in the name of a vague goal. There are so many flaws, I don't even know where to begin. Who's to say you wouldn't be selected as inferior and killed?

But whatever. If you want to follow in Hitler's footsteps, so be it.

Maybe the people who believe in it should be the ones selected as inferior. Poetic justice.

(also highly contradictary)



None.

Sep 3 2008, 3:45 am Jello-Jigglers Post #39



Quote from dumbducky
I can't believe 3 people have suggested mass murder in the name of a vague goal. There are so many flaws, I don't even know where to begin. Who's to say you wouldn't be selected as inferior and killed?

But whatever. If you want to follow in Hitler's footsteps, so be it.
Vague? And Hitler wanted a "pure" race, not a genetically enriched people.



None.

Sep 3 2008, 4:16 am ClansAreForGays Post #40



Quote from dumbducky
I don't even know where to begin.
You can't think of anything, or you just don't want a point of yours to be refuted.

Anyways, Hercanic already gg'd most of my points and some that I had not even brought up yet. If you don't know where to begin, try reading his post.




Options
Pages: < 1 2 3 49 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[05:02 am]
Oh_Man -- whereas just "press X to get 50 health back" is pretty mindless
[05:02 am]
Oh_Man -- because it adds anotherr level of player decision-making where u dont wanna walk too far away from the medic or u lose healing value
[05:01 am]
Oh_Man -- initially I thought it was weird why is he still using the basic pre-EUD medic healing system, but it's actually genius
[2024-5-06. : 3:04 am]
Ultraviolet -- Vrael
Vrael shouted: I almost had a heart attack just thinking about calculating all the offsets it would take to do that kind of stuff
With the modern EUD editors, I don't think they're calculating nearly as many offsets as you might imagine. Still some fancy ass work that I'm sure took a ton of effort
[2024-5-06. : 12:51 am]
Oh_Man -- definitely EUD
[2024-5-05. : 9:35 pm]
Vrael -- I almost had a heart attack just thinking about calculating all the offsets it would take to do that kind of stuff
[2024-5-05. : 9:35 pm]
Vrael -- that is insane
[2024-5-05. : 9:35 pm]
Vrael -- damn is that all EUD effects?
[2024-5-04. : 10:53 pm]
Oh_Man -- https://youtu.be/MHOZptE-_-c are yall seeing this map? it's insane
[2024-5-04. : 1:05 am]
Vrael -- I won't stand for people going around saying things like im not a total madman
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: RIVE, graciedmoss