Peter F Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 And, do you really want to live in Sparta? All they produced were warriors. The great art was produced by other cities with a softer approach to life. Same with the great philosophers and mathematicians. Many would. Sparta has the mythology attached to it of the home of 'real-men' to the modern 'society has gone soft' crowd. It never occurs to them that 'soft society' is the successfull one. Apparently becuase of its collective brains to thwart Darwin - and thats just wrong! Softies should be eradicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Ie, if only handsome, healthy and intelligent people were permitted to breed, would this not eventually improve the race dramatically? Improve how? More pleasant to look at? More eye-candy at work? What kind of circle-jerk society are you pining for? We're all healthy and smart and good lookin to boot and those others aren't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) Ie, if only handsome, healthy and intelligent people were permitted to breed, would this not eventually improve the race dramatically? Soooo... Let's forget about Dr. William Shockley and go right to a bigger and better fan of eugenics... I see you line up with the likes of Heinrich Himmler... By the way,this provides a little more insight into your personal preferences for immigration,doesn't it? Edited May 27, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Improve how? More pleasant to look at? More eye-candy at work? What kind of circle-jerk society are you pining for? We're all healthy and smart and good lookin to boot and those others aren't? Considering his preferences for immigration,his opining about the merits of eugenics leaves little to the imagination... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Old Guyser can always be relied on for a banal insult in place of anything thoughtful. What? That wasnt a banal insult. It was an answer to your question. It is a dumb post due to the obvious errors in logic from the get go. No one who posts such tripe tend not to stop and think about it, hence the answer. Lets see the 1st paragraph is , generally, all wrong. People thru history looked after the stupid , incompetent downtrodden. Perhaps if they lived apart from civilization they may meet an early demise, but so too did successful hunters, smart people and so on. I grant you the lazy probably bhad no one to get help from, so there is a nugget. The 2nd p ignores that society has evolved to provide basic necessities on an overall spectrum. We dont really like having rotting bodies lying about the streets, people coughing up blood on others,starving people begging on the doorstep. So if one truly wants banal , just go here . http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20934 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Well on the other side of the argument we have people like Stephen Hawking, for instance. If he were put on an ice flow, we wouldn't have the benefit of his fine scientific mind. With modern society we have the luxury of keeping the sick and needy alive, and we find that they are not always a useless burden to society. People can still contribute in surprising ways. Technology plays an important role in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Well on the other side of the argument we have people like Stephen Hawking, for instance. There are thousands like that w various disabilities like him who society has benefitted from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Isn't there a possibility that governments with their polices make losers within society? How many have lost their jobs because something the governments has done or haven't done. Besides, what's one definition of a loser? Does on have to be rich not to be a loser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 Isn't there a possibility that governments with their polices make losers within society? How many have lost their jobs because something the governments has done or haven't done. Besides, what's one definition of a loser? Does on have to be rich not to be a loser? Every society creates winners and losers. Being a loser in Hopi society would make you a winner in ours. Or a criminal - some of the winners are just criminals who haven't been caught. Was Joe Kennedy a winner or a loser? Argus defined the winner as being handsome, healthy and intelligent. Pretty broad definition, and I'm not sure I want the govt deciding who can breed and who can't based on their arbitrary set of rules. Many highly successful people, even by Argus' defnition, were born to parents who were neither handsome, healthy or intelligent. His idea is insane, we would lost all sorts of genetic positives if we set some arbitrary standard and then stopped people from reproducing based on them. Or killed babies we decided didn't meet our standards as per the Spartans. As for keeping losers alive, let's take one definition of winner, ie wealth. Surely the only winner is the richest person in the world, everybody else is in some sense a loser - should everybody kill themselves who isn't the richest? I know this is absurd, but so is the original premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don't think you understand fitness or Darwin's theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Argus, ISTM, you are making two separate points in your OP. The end result is the same: morons get to thrive, survive, and reproduce their defective genes, thus thwarting Darwinisms desire that only the fit should survive.... Has anyone figured out what part of the genetic code contains the stupid gene? First, you've got evolution all wrong.As they say, cockroaches would survive a nuclear hecatomb. After all, society will support them in the end.And this isn't just about welfare, by the way. Donald Trump and other rich kids, can be as idiotic as they want, for starting out life with a silver spoon in your mouth and millions in the bank makes it almost impossible for you to fail. Second, should other people work to support loafers, the lazy and/or trust fund kids?In the case of Trump's kids, leaving money to children is a way to motivate (some) people to work harder while they're alive. As to wards of the State, it's a social safety net that - like any insurance scheme - reduces risk and provides peace of mind. Edited May 28, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudius Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 "Are we thwarting Darwin by keeping losers alive?" Probably: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 There are thousands like that w various disabilities like him who society has benefitted from. And millions it hasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Considering his preferences for immigration,his opining about the merits of eugenics leaves little to the imagination... Oh come on. Like you have an imagination... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Soooo... Let's forget about Dr. William Shockley and go right to a bigger and better fan of eugenics... I see you line up with the likes of Heinrich Himmler... By the way,this provides a little more insight into your personal preferences for immigration,doesn't it? HMmm, here I am merely musing aloud on a Sunday morning, and the ever vigilant little PC cop gets his panties in a knot again and starts screaming about Hitler. Gawd. Grow the fuck up, why don't you or go find a web site that caters to the barely literate so you'll feel more at home. Edited May 28, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Sorry about the snide remark. I came to this forum to do better. There was no need for it. Read my post again. She's "handsome" and healthy, so if 2 out of three criteria are used, she would be in. Apology accepted. Few people ever both to around here. I don't think given our culture's present beliefs in what would constitute a 'superior' person, Britney would qualify., Handsome should already by taken care of by natural selection, no. Yes, and probably is. I wonder if we could travel back a few thousand years whether we'd see a difference in the average "attractiveness" of the people we'd see. Probably not since physical appearance was not very high on the priority list for mating up until recently. But what does healthy mean. Should people with a history of heart disease in the family be prevented from breeding? First, I'm not actually advocating any sort of policy, you know, merely discussing the theory of such things. We do breed animals for a wide variety of traits, after all, and try to breed certain things out of them. If we actually did this with ourselves would this not eventually do away with most genetic failings? Once they have the DNA code fully understood, I'm presuming we'll be plucking out all such things before birth. Would that be wrong? And, do you really want to live in Sparta? All they produced were warriors. The great art was produced by other cities with a softer approach to life. Same with the great philosophers and mathematicians. No. I wouldn't want to live in Sparta. I wonder what their selective breeding habits would have eventually wrought, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Many would. Sparta has the mythology attached to it of the home of 'real-men' to the modern 'society has gone soft' crowd. It never occurs to them that 'soft society' is the successfull one. Apparently becuase of its collective brains to thwart Darwin - and thats just wrong! Softies should be eradicated. I wasn't suggesting we would benefit from simply destroying all imperfections, though I suppose we might possibly. But if brains are the important thing perhaps we should only allow really smart people to breed. And if we did would that not eventually result in a generally more intelligent population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I wasn't suggesting we would benefit from simply destroying all imperfections, though I suppose we might possibly. But if brains are the important thing perhaps we should only allow really smart people to breed. And if we did would that not eventually result in a generally more intelligent population? I doubt it. Restricting the gene pool is generally not a good idea. It confines the population to a particular niche with less chance of surviving a change to the niche thus thwarts Darwin. But the deeper question is whats wrong with having dumb people around and breeding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) First, I'm not actually advocating any sort of policy, you know, merely discussing the theory of such things. Yes, it's a sort of thought experiment, i get that. I don't see the harm. It also depends on the poster, mind you; Argus is one thing, but if the ol' Lictor fellow wrote just what you did, we'd know he was advocating it. We do breed animals for a wide variety of traits, after all, and try to breed certain things out of them. If we actually did this with ourselves would this not eventually do away with most genetic failings? Not if animal breeding is the example we wish to use: certain undesired traits are bred out, but this tends to have unanticipated effects, such as other bad traits being bred in. For example, purebred dogs, arguably with a couple of exceptions, tend to be in many ways weaker and more likely to die than breeds that mix and match willy-nilly. Once they have the DNA code fully understood, I'm presuming we'll be plucking out all such things before birth. Would that be wrong? People quite reflexively thinks so, it seems, but I honestly don't know. But I'd be cautious about it because...well, because...those fucking dogs, man! The diseases, the bad joints...good Christ, some of those cherished, carefully bred monsters can hardly breathe! No. I wouldn't want to live in Sparta. I wonder what their selective breeding habits would have eventually wrought, though. A cult of masculinity, and higher-than-average rates of homosexuality? Not that that's a bad thing (if I can indulge in that always-presented addendum. ) Edited May 29, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 Evolution always keeps working, just the environmental stimuli are different. We have replaced the pressures of the natural world (predators, the need to find food, etc) with new pressures in our modern society. With the resources to survive easily available, and the ability to prevent births also easily available, the evolutionary pressure is clear: towards those that voluntarily want to have kids. Many people aren't having kids, or are having less than 2 per couple, and these people will die out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 I doubt it. Restricting the gene pool is generally not a good idea. It confines the population to a particular niche with less chance of surviving a change to the niche thus thwarts Darwin. But the deeper question is whats wrong with having dumb people around and breeding? The smarter the people, the better off, surely? And despite breeding only, say, the smartest 10% there will always be some that are much smarter than others. I presume, though, that the general intelligence level would rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 The smarter the people, the better off, surely? Not necessarily. There is no guarantee they would be any happier , or as happy as others are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 The smarter the people, the better off, surely? And despite breeding only, say, the smartest 10% there will always be some that are much smarter than others. I presume, though, that the general intelligence level would rise. One problem is, who defines what is truly "smart". Does smart mean, making technological advances in the name of progress? Because there could be examples where that is not the smart thing to do. Think of a balanced system, where only limited change is tolerable, or else the balance is lost. In that case it is "maintenance" that matters more than "progress". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 The smarter the people, the better off, surely? Nope. the one does not follow the other. And despite breeding only, say, the smartest 10% there will always be some that are much smarter than others. I presume, though, that the general intelligence level would rise. you forget that you and I are the ones who were not bred for intelligence. I know of no way to determine genetic intelligence. Your theory is based on humans breeding animals to achieve desired traits and I know of no animal that was bred for intelligence. In the dog world mutts generally appear more intelligent than pure-breds Its best, I think, to just leave things alone considering that we have no idea what we would be meddling with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 There is a family in Milton where the father had what was considered a "mild" peeanut alergy where he could use an inhaler if there was an emergency.. When his daughter was born, she was diagnosed with a severe alergy to the same item.. The School board later (i think 3 years ago) took the steps to completely eliminate any and all peanut-butter in kids sandwiches as well as snack with peanuts in them. THIS year, there is a boy who is deathly alergic to Orange food coloring (orange number 7) and that has also been banned from the same school.. They arent "losers" but it does make you think about this darwinism thing and why the human body would allow itself to change to such a hapless state! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.