Eugenics

[freydis]

I can see what you are saying...but non-selective breeding seems rather... well...not thought out... AT ALL...TOO OFTEN.

So you think you can change thousands of years of human history?

And simple animal instinct as well?

[Destroit]

I <3 you to death Munin, but I did have to laugh when I read this sentence.

Look at the suggestions and warnings of science fiction.

[Destroit]

So you think you can change thousands of years of human history?

And simple animal instinct as well?

....simple animal instincts advocates Eugenics. It's called survival of the fittest and the best man gets the mate. It's only now in modern times that we're ignoring that and just slopping around with whoever we feel like fucking and getting knocked up by, which imo, is a problem.

Refer to my post toward the top about the two bucks locking antlers out in the woods over a doe...strongest and most healthy buck generally wins and therefore passes on his strong healthy traits. Usually how it works in nature, why should we begin to ignore this as humans?

[Rev.Reverence]

So you think you can change thousands of years of human history? Over the span of thousands of years...absolutely.

And simple animal instinct as well?

My animal instinct is to breed with as many partners as possible.

Spreading the seed of my forefathers far & wide...the children that survive, will be strong. I do not. Therefor I see it can be done..

People go against instinct all the time... or elce there would be far more black eyes & bloody noses.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I <3 you to death Munin, but I did have to laugh when I read this sentence.

Sci-Fiction has predicted almost every scientific break though of major import.

It also, on a regular basis, tackles social issues, head on, that no other form of literature will touch.

[freydis]

I <3 you to death Munin, but I did have to laugh when I read this sentence.

Science fiction has long been deemed as an appropriate indicator of the future of science. What our human brains imagine, they long to make true. And if the human brain can imagine certain futures, does it not correlate that in the human brain, they are possible? Fiction has also been an indication of moral barometer, a voice to suggest or caution.

Technology is a social construction, and the idea that science fiction has often suggested pathways for modern science is not only far from ridiculous, it's an accepted idea. One such mention I ran across was in a book by David Nye called "Technology Matters". I thought it was weird at first when I'd read it, but as the arguement was supported, it made a lot of sense. How many old old old short stories or books have you read about the future that included things we now accept as reality?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

....simple animal instincts advocates Eugenics. It's called survival of the fittest and the best man gets the mate. It's only now in modern times that we're ignoring that and just slopping around with whoever we feel like fucking and getting knocked up by, which imo, is a problem.

Refer to my post toward the top about the two bucks locking antlers out in the woods over a doe...strongest and most healthy buck generally wins and therefore passes on his strong healthy traits. Usually how it works in nature, why should we begin to ignore this as humans?

It brings about bigger and dumber deer.

Eugenics, implys going to the smartest and most diplomatic toward others.

Nature goes about it blindly and often makes horrible mistakes. Like the suseptiblilty to TB that most dear in Michigan have. Resistance to desease is not brought up in that locking of antlers. It's who ever is stronger and more determined at that particular time. The females dont really care which one fucks them either... which ever one mounts first...

Eugenics requires active thought and still has huge risks of drastic mistakes. It would require breeding for resistance to desease, which does not always go hand and hand with "most healthy".

Besides.. playing God doesn't tend to work out well.

[Rev.Reverence]

Your idea of Eugenics is incredibly naive. I think your idea of Eugenics is both limited & jaded. I have stated (I thought clearly) that I do not stand for atrocity. I stand to move Humanity forward. You only see the dark side of this, ignoring the light. Half of the equation

Look at history. I do often.

Look at the suggestions and warnings of science fiction. EVEN MORE OFTEN.

You have more faith in humanity than you should.

Who are you to tell me about MY FAITH? & the amount there SHOULD be in my heart?

I do not understand what you have against PLANNING. What is it?

I do not understand what you have against people choosing who they BREED with...sorry that happens to be one of the most Spiritual things I think a person can do...if you disagree then say so...don't sit here & tell me I wrong for wanting to make the best tomorrow.. by making choices.

I'm being quite frank now..if you don't read the words, you will not know what I am saying.

[freydis]

....simple animal instincts advocates Eugenics. It's called survival of the fittest and the best man gets the mate. It's only now in modern times that we're ignoring that and just slopping around with whoever we feel like fucking and getting knocked up by, which imo, is a problem.

Refer to my post toward the top about the two bucks locking antlers out in the woods over a doe...strongest and most healthy buck generally wins and therefore passes on his strong healthy traits. Usually how it works in nature, why should we begin to ignore this as humans?

The "survival of the fittest" quote is one of the most misunderstood in history. (Darwin did not actually coin the phrase-- he favored the phrase 'natural selection'. Another philosopher actually made the phrase famous.) The thought that only the 'fittest' organisms will survive is not consistant with the theory of evolution. Anything that can reproduce, will, and will continue to and survive. And as for Social Darwinism? It's been said by some philosophers that man, as a species, did not get where it is by screwing over weaker members of society for their own benefit. We got here by an entirely different trait; cooperation.

"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress."--Peter Kropotkin

As far as animal instinct?

I was referring to fucking.

[Rev.Reverence]

The "survival of the fittest" quote is one of the most misunderstood in history. (Darwin did not actually coin the phrase-- he favored the phrase 'natural selection'. Another philosopher actually made the phrase famous.) The thought that only the 'fittest' organisms will survive is not consistant with the theory of evolution. Anything that can reproduce, will, and will continue to and survive. And as for Social Darwinism? It's been said by some philosophers that man, as a species, did not get where it is by screwing over weaker members of society for their own benefit. We got here by an entirely different trait; cooperation.

"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress."--Peter Kropotkin

As far as animal instinct?

I was referring to fucking.

I'm following you.

[freydis]

I do not understand what you have against PLANNING. What is it?

I do not understand what you have against people choosing who they BREED with...sorry that happens to be one of the most Spiritual things I think a person can do...if you disagree then say so...don't sit here & tell me I wrong for wanting to make the best tomorrow.. by making choices.

I'm being quite frank now..if you don't read the words, you will not know what I am saying.

I know what youre trying to say, and I'm finding it very short sighted.

You are seeing some sort of utopia where we breed out disease and traits we dont like.

You are seeing some sort of utopia where humanity can be trusted to do these things in love and trust.

You arent seeing the possibility, the inevitability of human greed.

You arent seeing human predispositions toward prejudice and hate.

You arent seeing the fallibility of science, how little we actually know.

You arent seeing the possible long-term effects of such manipulation.

Personally? You have the right to have children with whomever you like. But a national Eugenics program? This way lies EPIC FAIL.

[Oh_My_Goth]

It brings about bigger and dumber deer.

Eugenics, implys going to the smartest and most diplomatic toward others.

Nature goes about it blindly and often makes horrible mistakes. Like the suseptiblilty to TB that most dear in Michigan have. Resistance to desease is not brought up in that locking of antlers. It's who ever is stronger and more determined at that particular time. The females dont really care which one fucks them either... which ever one mounts first...

Eugenics requires active thought and still has huge risks of drastic mistakes. It would require breeding for resistance to desease, which does not always go hand and hand with "most healthy".

Besides.. playing God doesn't tend to work out well.

Who said anything about playing God?????

It is more like standing next to God and working on a plan.....

[Oh_My_Goth]

I know what youre trying to say, and I'm finding it very short sighted.

You are seeing some sort of utopia where we breed out disease and traits we dont like.

You are seeing some sort of utopia where humanity can be trusted to do these things in love and trust.

You arent seeing the possibility, the inevitability of human greed.

You arent seeing human predispositions toward prejudice and hate.

You arent seeing the fallibility of science, how little we actually know.

You arent seeing the possible long-term effects of such manipulation.

Personally? You have the right to have children with whomever you like. But a national Eugenics program? This way lies EPIC FAIL.

You are not seeing the good it it.....

Nobody said things would be perfect.....Just POSSIBLY better.....

[phee]

What if the "planner" decides that some things are "the good" that I disagree with?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I do not understand what you have against PLANNING. What is it?

I do not understand what you have against people choosing who they BREED with...sorry that happens to be one of the most Spiritual things I think a person can do...if you disagree then say so...don't sit here & tell me I wrong for wanting to make the best tomorrow.. by making choices.

I'm being quite frank now..if you don't read the words, you will not know what I am saying.

I have nothing against planning who YOU mate with or how you come to that decision.

We are not talking about individual choices.

We are talking about Eugenics.

Eugenics has nothing to do with individuals choosing anything. Eugenics is a breeding program to improve a species. It doesn't work on an individual basis. For it to work, it has to be on a grand scale... that means someone has to decide what type of genetic traits to breed for. That means someone else controls who YOU breed with, if you are allowed to breed at all. That means forced abortions for pregnancy's that result from unsanctioned sex. Forced sterilization of carriers of unwanted traits.

Thats takes away any implied Reproductive Right.

It could take away any Abortion Rights.

It could force someone with wanted traits but no personal need to breed... to breed "for the betterment of mankind".

Keep your Orwellian world vision. I'll have no part of it.

[freydis]

What if the "planner" decides that some things are "the good" that I disagree with?

As i said..... nobody learns from the past, or from science fiction.

How about learning cures for diseases, instead of weeding them out? Then, the ones that are already here can benefit, too. Or if there must be gene therapies, how about curing the gene problem in the fetus?

Although, that could still put us firmly in GATTACA.

[phee]

Eugenics would require enforcement

[freydis]

Eugenics would require enforcement

Indeed. However, is it surprising to find out how old the idea really is? If i recall correctly, Plato was a proponent of Eugenics.

*shudder*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Who said anything about playing God?????

It is more like standing next to God and working on a plan.....

Did he ask you for help?

[phee]

Did he ask you for help?

Along these same lines....

God or not....

Nature does this already... It is very good at it, although not very quickly (and what is the hurry?), we have trouble looking at things on a scale that is much beyond our own life time... but in a general sense, nature will continue to do so.

[freydis]

Along these same lines....

God or not....

Nature does this already... It is very good at it, although not very quickly (and what is the hurry?), we have trouble looking at things on a scale that is much beyond our own life time... but in a general sense, nature will continue to do so.

Yes. Presuming we know any better is folly.

[Rev.Reverence]

What if the "planner" decides that some things are "the good" that I disagree with?

In my example, Phee would be Phee's planner...if you have a problem with agreeing with yourself...oops.

[Rev.Reverence]

Along these same lines....

God or not....

Nature does this already... It is very good at it, although not very quickly (and what is the hurry?), we have trouble looking at things on a scale that is much beyond our own life time... but in a general sense, nature will continue to do so.

...hm how do you know we are not supposed to meddle?

A little push...not trying to change a plan...just tryin' to make "quota" early...

[freydis]

In my example, Phee would be Phee's planner...if you have a problem with agreeing with yourself...oops.

Eugenics implies the usage and enforcement over a population. Not one person.

[phee]

Eugenics implies the usage and enforcement over a population. Not one person.

That is my understanding as well....

If it is just me planning, then it is "family planning"