|
[ Human Genome Project Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
I think it's a very dangerous concept. Do we have the power to play God and to sterilize and maybe even kill people in order to justify the continuance of civilization? What do you think?
If you agree with the concept of Eugenics how would you implement such a program, what measures would you take and why?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 00:23:11:
Did you notice a link I posted? Did you read that page or, better yet, peruse the site?
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Hi R,
In a perfect world we could influence the future generations, but it takes millions of years to evolve even a different sized brain... How tiny a change could we preceieve in a few generations and could we communicate the change to those who follow in time to affect a correction?
Look at how difficult is it to convince the illuminati that climate change is going to progress on its' own merry way, regardless of the hopes that are placed on technology to
moderate the footprint that humans have made.
How can the predicted increase in global temperture be blamed on humans, when the past ice age could not be blamed on the dinosaurs?
What caused the ice age to go away in the past 20,000 years or so? Could we blame the SUVs of the natives or the cow farts of the Mastodon for raising the global temperture?
We are not as omnipotent as we would like to believe.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:43:36:
I read part of the link and skimmed the rest, why?
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
One faulty assumption of this paper is that we have all been duped into a belief that we're all equal in abilities. I don't know anyone who believes this.
Even the hated liberal agenda doesn't hold that assumption. Left-wing social engineering has attempted to provide "equal opportunity for all" through government-legislated programs. The emphasis is on *opportunity*; even the most liberal philosophy understands that some folks will not, or CANnot, take the opportunities even when provided, and will fall through the cracks.
It's a huge leap from questioning the fruits of the liberal agenda, to wanting to institute a government-sponsored eugenics program, as a solution for the perceived ills.
The liberal vision is for *opportunity* as there's no telling who is a bright star hiding their light under a bushel. This vision has not borne out its ideals as well in practice, for various reasons. It CAN be pondered to what extent this is an appropriate thing for government to be doing.
If it's not appropriate for government to enforce programs for human equality, why then is it appropriate for government to enforce programs for human differences? They are both social engineering by fiat.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 01:32:02:
"If it's not appropriate for government to enforce programs for human equality, why then is it appropriate for government to enforce programs for human differences? They are both social engineering by fiat."
Excellent point Jan S.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:06:16:
It was obvious.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [205.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 00:47:23:
What you said in the first paragraph is addressed, to some degree, in the page address of which I posted. It seems that you haven't read it.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 01:32:02:
Maybe you are right that the assumption is false. I do think, however, that promoting (not forcing) abstaining form reproducing among some people would be a good idea. There are probably many ways people could be convinced to go along. Not paying them to multiply (closing boarders is a variation of this) could be one way. Right now we do (pay them to multiply). Paying them not to is another.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:33:27:
I'm annoyed with your game playing and your lack of respect. Come out and say what you want to say. I got the gist of the article, I didn't have to read every single friggin word or spend an hour perusing the website to get it.
I asked you for your opinions and ideas. I gave you mine, and instead of providing me some reasonable answers you insinuate that I either don't understand or am completely uninformed. I'm niether. This is pure bullshit.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
I'll take their intelligence claims more seriously when they learn where to place an apostrophe.
Jane
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
I do think, however, that promoting (not forcing) abstaining form reproducing among some people would be a good idea. There are probably many ways people could be convinced to go along.
Everyone already knows who should and shouldn't reproduce: me and mine *should*, it's the other guy who shouldn't. Heh. It's not rational now, and allowing some groups the power to persuade other groups about this isn't going to make it any more rational.
Persuasion may sound voluntary and apolitical, but it's not. As soon as one group is persuading another group not to reproduce (or paying them not to), you're talking politics. You haven't answered why you would trust government with this type of social engineering if you don't trust them with any other.
Arguably the incentive to reproduce should not favor certain groups, as in stopping free medical services for illegals crossing the border, and the like. But this isn't eugenics.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:42:46:
Thanks. I agree with you that "the devil is in the details."
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Hi R:
Interesting article, but it seems to offer an unrealistic and skewed view of eugenics. If humanity's I.Q. is raised to "perfection" level, and this results in driven individuals desiring nothing less than to become doctors, lawyers and chiefs, who'll be left to change our bedpans, pick our mushrooms, clean our streets, pick up our trash, or simply care for our elderly? A healthy, well-balanced society needs more than its professionals and geniuses. Those are just some thoughts that occurred to me as I was reading the article.
P.S. A high intelligence does not offer guarantees against criminality or insanity.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
i think it's disgusting to be honest. what next? destroy all other other forms of life so that we can selfishly harness the whole of the earth's resources?
it's a generalisation to say life gets better with more intelligence.....try telling that to victims of hiroshima for example....
there is definitely an argument for it, but in terms of morality and ethics it's a non-starter.....this is the idea of an elite civilisation, one in which humans are slaves to their brains, and clones of eachother....
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:36:59:
Hi R,
It was a long read for two in the morning. I may have had my memory jogged when I skimmed the beginning to find the interesting parts.
I also remember this being dicussed on Coast To Coast AM about a year ago and my opinion may have been influenced by that.
It sounds like someone has an agenda or a book to push.
Hopfully it won't start a whole new movement of radicals in the teaching system. Could it be the new left-wing ace
to upset the masses into chinging their voting preferrence?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 07:27:33:
Hi Philly,
Right you are...
How could society function if there were no worker ants to do the lowly tasks?
We already have a vocal backlash against the educated immigrants who are demanding recognition of their foreign training not being recognized by western governing bodies.
Cabbies with masters degrees and hospital orderlies with PHDs may seem unfair, but when people emmigrate to a better country it takes a long time to fit in, sometimes a generation.
How could a beehive function if there were dozens or thousands of Queens to service?
Didn't we see the error in the ways of a radical dictator
during the Second World War, when selective extermination was the goal?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jane (1) [111.1399] on April 24, 2005 at 03:14:38:
Hi Jane,
The contraction of "WE ARE" is we're. Was there another more obvious one?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:15:42:
Hi Jane,
Did you mean "Nazi's" when there was no "possessive" case needed?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [205.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 00:47:23:
so the earth is going through a natural cycle of warming, that man has nothing to do with, and happened many times before ? What does archeology tell us is coming, a tropical paradise, with no snow or ice, and balmy temps in antartica ? I'm going to invest in some land down there, and import palm trees.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 02:48:16:
Hi R,
Isn't paying people to multiply what is suggested in the bible?
The words "Go Forth And Multiply" are prominent and do not
differentiate between the rulers and the masses.
The liberal agenda has the same goal in mind when they suggest that the masses need "taking care of" because they are too stupid to do it for themselves. This makes jobs for social workers and entitlements make jobs for bureaucrats.
They are against quality control because it makes their future less secure.
Republicans also have their agenda, since more useless
eaters make for more bottom-line dollars in the coffers of industry. If selective breeding were the norm, there would be far fewer consumers and business would suffer...
(hence their stand on Birth Control.)
China has been preaching population control by penalizing those who have more than one child, so... many have left for more tollerant pastures. One day, (if intelligence is the goal), we may find that the yellow race will be suggesting
Eugenics. Maybe they are already doing it in the US.
Funny that we have not heard much about One child per family
in China lately... They need the workers more than ever now.
Everyone has an agenda, so think for yourself and don't be to quick to support the newest "Pied Piper" on the block.
The cliff is approaching.
Ron
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [180.890] on April 24, 2005 at 01:42:46:
Hi Gabby,
During the Second World War there was Social Engineering by
"Volkswagen" (not Fiat)
Remember "The People's Car"?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Vince F [1194.1745] on April 24, 2005 at 09:36:57:
Hi Vince,
How long do you want to wait to movre? Remember the old addage..
"Buy Low. Sell High" Waiting too long can reverse the two.
Most of us will wait until all the condos are built down there and then say we missed the boat. Will the penguins be relegated to the same status as the Native People in the US?
Maybe they will be the ones running the Antarctic Casinos.
They already have the tuxedos.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 03:02:35:
Hi Gabby,
I am enjoying this string. Don't spoil it. You are starting to sound like "P"
Just ignore the posts that are supposed to get you riled. :(
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
Who does intelligence and civilization benefit ? The people who build the sophiscated weapons that kill many at a time, compared to one at a time? Do drugs that are harmful, allowed to be made, by those who know how to work the system, because of their smarts, that may benefit a few, and harm as many, and maybe harm everyone eventually. GM foods aren't going to be developed by dumb people or pesticides. Engineers can design and build projects that they find out did more damage than the seeming benefit, for a time, if they ever did. Build a dam and generate electricity, then the fish can't get up stream and reproduce. Minor loss of a speciaes, so lets design the ability to over fish the oceans, or produce crops and animals to feed more people, so everyone can overeat and get fat, and reproduce more, since they aren't worried about food, and what if the whole system crumbles, because intelligence wasn't That smart. Or a natural catastrophy destroys the bubble that was created by engineering, that wouldn't have happened naturally, and normal limits or restrictions would have prevailed, so which is better ? It seems like civilization and intelligence are good things, till we find out that they aren't. Animals Don't Need to reshape things to survive, but man may eningeer them into extinction. Does mans hunting do the same thing for the health of prey as predatory animals ? Does taking the bigest and strongest deer because it is a better trophy than the lesser or sick make for a healthier deer population? No.. I had a discussion with a hunter who said he kills dogs that he sees chasing deer. We killed off all the natural predators who pick the Right ones to keep the herd healthy but WE are Smarter !!! ??? I just saw a show where there was a dead deer that wolves had killed and left, and the guy said, that makes him Hate Wolves. What, Wolves are murderers, or maybe they ate and left it for later, Or their instincts and abilities make them kill more than they have to and Other animals who couldn't do the killing will survive. But mY Smarty Pants would probably get rid of All the wolves because His Intillegence saw that as wasteful. TOO dumb to realize that HE isn't the Only creature on the planet, and Maybe if he engineers it the way HE thinks Everything should be, HE won't be able to survive, because he is SO smart and doing all the things his intelligence has enabled him to do, that he will screw up Every system. With our superior intelligence, we haven't been able to stop storms, floods, wars, hunger, disease to where no one gets sick, we just get sick from NEW diseases, that some or maybe many, we probably created ourselves, and how many are coming that we aren't smart enough to realize or understand or our nice system of bribing those at the top of our intelligent civilization, at the detriment to life because dollars are what They want, and benefits Their Clan. ...Lets not worry about pollution, it will Cost our Friends to be responsible. The Other leaders in our CIVILAZED society. What does nature and natural know? Lead and mercury aren't a problem. Progress (??) is More important. Can't worry about global warming. That's Natural. We are Positive, and if it isn't, we'll Invent a Fix, that will cause Another problem.
There was a good show on the damage cause by introducing foreign species of plants and animals and then introducing Others to combat them and needing OTHERS to combat Them!! That takes Smarts... Progress ??? Eventually they May get things Back to where they were, Before They screwed it up.
Give me the dumb animals with no ability to destry their environment. You have to be Dumb to be Smart...
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Vince F [1194.1745] on April 24, 2005 at 10:39:15:
Hi Vince,
So... you were not in favour of introducing rabbits to Australia?
Ron
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by gabriella [87.890] on April 24, 2005 at 03:02:35:
I wasn't playing any games. I just wanted to ask for people's opinions (after they read the article).
By the way, it is interesting to observe how one can turn on a dime -- from appearing kind, gentle, soft, "spiritual" to a downright jerk. No one was/is forcing you to participate, mind you.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:00:25:
I just stumbled upon it when reading a web site developement article by a web developer. He happened to subscribe to this philosophy and had a link to the eugenics site.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Jan S. [3524.81] on April 24, 2005 at 05:12:18:
Arguably the incentive to reproduce should not favor certain groups, as in stopping free medical services for illegals crossing the border, and the like. But this isn't eugenics.
This would change the demographics, average IQ of the population (that the authors of the site are so concerned with), and level of living. Hopefully, for the better. I'd support these kinds of methods only, not forced castration or sterilization. I'd trust the government to do this because I agree with the idea, and the methods aren't violent but based on voluntary participation. The opposite approach hasn't worked so far, as far as I can tell.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? (Pied Piper) posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:40:31:
Isn't paying people to multiply what is suggested in the bible? The words "Go Forth And Multiply" are prominent and do not differentiate between the rulers and the masses.
Wasn't that said to Adam and Eve, (almost) perfect people then? He didn't tell that to parasites on the body of a society, did he?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 09:15:42:
They used "it's" in a place of "its" in one place that I noticed, but I am sure that was a typo. Everyone makes them. Not knowing what to use where would be a different issue. Paying attention to such details instead of important ideas is asinine.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 07:27:33:
Right, but I didn't notice that they promoted raising humanity's I.Q. to "perfection" level. I think they worry that the average IQ will get too low for civilization to be able to survive. There will always be enough people to "change our bedpans, pick our mushrooms, clean our streets, pick up our trash, or simply care for our elderly" (although, we could do these jobs ourselves too).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 08:24:20:
i think it's disgusting to be honest.
And your choice is to lie? Ha-ha-ha
Jane would not give you credit on an intelligence test [http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/348792.shtml].
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:30:56:
um...i believe i used the apostrophe correctly..
"it's" is a contraction of "it is"...
i guess you learn something new everyday huh?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by Ron [2014.1671] on April 24, 2005 at 10:06:39:
gabs didn't spoil it, the principle of a good debate is to have respect for your opposite number, some people don't understand this concept....so i don't blame her at all, and nor should you.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:53:02:
"Your wild homosexul mind is thinking of extremes."
try blaming that one on gabs too ok?
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:26:48:
Hi R:
If the average IQ is steadily decreasing, maybe we should look to other factors besides race and nationality which may be responsible. Illegal drugs, prescription drugs, tainted food supply, allergies particular to specific ethnic groups, pollution, lead poisoning, and vaccines could all play a role in the lowering of IQs. These are all possible contributing factors which can be found in a modern society.
As far as doing menial jobs ourselves, I doubt that most professionals would want to empty their elderly parents' bedpans, or go diving for their lobster dinners after a hard day in the courtroom:-)
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? (Pied Piper) posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 13:14:06:
Hi R,
If parasites went to church, they heard it too.
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by PhillyLady [1494.1599] on April 24, 2005 at 18:56:41:
If the average IQ is steadily decreasing, maybe we should look to other factors besides race and nationality which may be responsible.
From whatever I've read (not much) on that site, I haven't seen them promote race and nationality based birth control. I've noticed that they talked more about clinically mentally challenged individuals.
Personally (and probably not very scientifically), even though, I definitely see that individuals of some races/nationalities are less or more intelligent than others, on average, I have enough evidence (for me, at least) that environmental factors are hugely important. Although, I can't argue with of some of their arguments (e.g. one about twins).
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:43:18:
You missed the point. It wasn't about the use of the apostrophe.
i guess you learn something new everyday huh?
I most definitely do, by you don't, apparently.
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
R,
This article is utterly pathetic. I can't even believe you
posted this.
"To give you an idea of the power of eugenics, consider
this. Over one-third of all mentally retarded people have
a retarded parent. It therefore follows that if all mentally
retarded people refrained from reproducing, mental
retardation could be cut by one-third in one generation
(Willerman, 1984). It may be unrealistic to think they
could all be induced to adopt some permanent form of
birth control, but just imagine for a minute that it actually
happened. Do you realize what it would mean to have
mental retardation cut by a third? It would mean a
reduction in misery so vast it can't be comprehended all
at once. It would mean a dramatic decrease in all
social problems--crime, illegitimacy, chronic welfare
dependency, illiteracy, chronic unemployment. It would
be a huge boost to the economy. Taxpayers would save
trillions of dollars."
This is such irresponsible writing I have to wonder if the
person who wrote it has a slight retardation issue
him/her self. Where are the statistics to back up the
allegations that retardation is responsible for all of the
above listed, versus environment being responsbile for
creating these issues? And where does the author get
off saying that 1/3rd of all retarded people have a
retarded parent????? This is so utterly WRONG!!!!!!!
This person has NO understanding of HOW
retardation, or I should say WHY retardation is in some
cases considered genetic. It has NOTHING to do with
whether or not the parents are retarded, and most of
the time THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! I know this for sure,
and have been involved for OVER 20 years with the very
people that developed the original testing for fragile X
syndrome, which is one of the leading causes of
mental retardation.
I can't believe you posted such junk. Perhaps you could
have done a bit more reading to find out if these
statements were actually true? So, since you
didn't.....here I did it for you!! Below is a quote, and a
few links to explain to you why this person is full of it.
How laughable. It is morons like this that shouldn't be
able to reproduce. Uneducated idiot.
"About 5% of mental retardation is caused by hereditary
factors. Mental retardation may be caused by an
inherited abnormality of the genes, such as fragile X
syndrome. Fragile X, a defect in the chromosome that
determines sex, is the most common inherited cause
of mental retardation. Single gene defects such as
phenylketonuria (PKU) and other inborn errors of
metabolism may also cause mental retardation if they
are not found and treated early. An accident or mutation
in genetic development may also cause retardation.
Examples of such accidents are development of an
extra chromosome 18 (trisomy 18) and Down
syndrome. Down syndrome, also called mongolism or
trisomy 21, is caused by an abnormality in the
development of chromosome 21. It is the most
common genetic cause of mental retardation."
The above quote was taken from this site:
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00056550.html
Below is a link to another site to explain to you what
"hereditary" REALLY means in regards to genetics and
retardation. (How the whole thing truthfully occurs). If
you were to study it further, you will find that "they" don't
KNOW what even caused the original mutation.
Have a read R, and as you so graciously (bwah!!)
instructed Gabriella, don't respond until you have read
the entire article(s).
In Reply to: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 00:06:06:
This is another link to the same site that R posted
from. Very telling. The guy is a freak.
dd
In Reply to: Re: OT: What do you think about eugenics? posted by R. [27.1490] on April 24, 2005 at 12:53:48:
R,
You really have trouble, no, let me rephrase......You can't
comprehend that people have VARIOUS sides to their
personality. Including you. Somehow it seems you
expect soft and loving persons like Gabriella to never
get mad? Especially when it is someone like you that
is rude, irritating, game playing, cruel,
pompous.....ETC.!!!!!!!!! How can it be that after all your
time on this planet, that you never learned that people
are multi-dimensional? So, your argument and
judgement towards Gabriella is weak, uninformed, and
lastly, unintelligent. But, since you also said the same
of me while playing these same passive/agressive
games, I have learned that you just simply can't
comprehend reality. Therefore, I forgive your ignorance,
as I am sure Gabs will too.
dd
In Reply to: here's your evidence Ron. posted by ukchris [1400.1891] on April 24, 2005 at 16:54:18:
Where did that post go?
In Reply to: Re: OT: The ENTIRE website posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:18:04:
nmi
In Reply to: trying link again posted by dd [2174.26] on April 25, 2005 at 01:30:14:
link pasted fine, but didn't post.
I'll try one more time