License to breed

[cryosteel]

License to breed moves whole civilizations in a healthier direction by denying the rise of populations that consist of the diseased, the criminally insane, the self-centered and the stupid. In every case, the growth of such populations result in ecocide, failed societies, ruined civilization, widespread suffering, chaos, the loss of recorded and spoken experience, a human species in decline and a sicker world.

Every living organism comes programmed with the will to survive and part of survival is reproductive. However, human beings are not more morally special than other organisms, a view invented by Judaism (for one tribe, not every human), propogated by Christianity (for every human being) and enforced by liberalism. Human beings are more intelligent than other organisms - there is a large difference here. Our superior intelligence should govern our breeding. Our false fantasy moral specialness and the individual freedoms that follow, which strangely in the case of breeding makes us equivalent to bacteria rather than equivalent to the highest lifeform, prevents intelligently controlled breeding in our modern time.

http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1163103409/0#00

 

[Alex78]

would your parents have gotten that license?

 

[MetalBooger]

Why not let nature/will of God sort that stuff out? You sure have alot of strong opinions for someone who has yet to live a life time. Im just wondering how succesful you are in this world, how many friends you got? How much sex you have? How rich are you? If a programmed organism is what you are, then i see no reason why you shouldnt be fed to the lions, and if you dont qualify in any of the above categories than do yourself a favor and execute your twisted and incredibly wrong ideology.

 

[judas69]

In my opinion of course, arguements such as this are created typically from a standpoint of intolerance and prejudice by elitists, having little or nothing to do with a genuine concern for the future of mankind.

That said, there is however a growing problem of over-population and children being born into deplorable conditions. Thus, I do feel something has to be done in this regard but I think it must involve a number of concurrent approaches aswell, of which conveniently get left out.

 

[Justin S.]

While I am extremely cautious about the assumptions and terms involved in such systems, eugenics is- there is no way to not engage it. The issue is not if, but how one comes to terms with it. The disastrous eugenics programs the world has seen have been the failings of those particular systems (I would argue due to the inherent problems of the idea "system") not an attention to the status of the population per se.

 

[hibernal_dream]

License to breed moves whole civilizations in a healthier direction by denying the rise of populations that consist of the diseased, the criminally insane, the self-centered and the stupid. In every case, the growth of such populations result in ecocide, failed societies, ruined civilization, widespread suffering, chaos, the loss of recorded and spoken experience, a human species in decline and a sicker world.

How is a population that is selectively bred based on intelligence better adapted to solving these problems than one that is not? After all, you said it yourself, humans are more intelligent than lesser lifeforms, yet have more wars, disease and ruin than any animal I know of.

 

[MetalBooger]

have more wars, disease and ruin than any animal I know of.

tell that to those dirty little fish, sharks would kill everything if they could.

 

[Seditious]

so long as they rig the calculations to have me breeding with Jessica Alba I'll support any nutjob purist system.

 

[Blowtus]

However, human beings are not more morally special than other organisms

What basis do you have for this statement? I'm pretty comfortable with the presumption of my greater 'moral importance' (given, of course, the desire / ability to attach importance to anything - without which any discussion on the matter would be rather pointless ) in the scheme of things than a single cell organism - whether I am pre-disposed to view more complex life forms as more valuable purely because I am one, or because of some innate, logical purpose to that belief, seems fairly irrelevant.

 

[Seditious]

What basis do you have for this statement? I'm pretty comfortable with the presumption of my greater 'moral importance'

I would imagine ever since The Enlightenment that the burden here is on you.

"By all evidence we are in the world to do nothing." . . . "Nothing proves that we are more than nothing." - Emile M. Cioran

whether I am pre-disposed to view more complex life forms as more valuable purely because I am one, or because of some innate, logical purpose to that belief, seems fairly irrelevant.

I'm a complex lifeform and I don't value complex lifeforms just because I am one, so that dismisses your concept that it is by nature of being complex you value the complex.

indeed I would even say oxygen, or mold/bacteria is more valuable than the duck-billed platterpus, and I'm well aware which seems more complex.

 

[Blowtus]

I would imagine ever since The Enlightenment that the burden here is on you.

"By all evidence we are in the world to do nothing." . . . "Nothing proves that we are more than nothing." - Emile M. Cioran

I guess if I was posing it as a statement of fact rather than a vague belief / feeling I'd agree with you Was really just using my vague belief / feeling to point out what 'seemed' an unsubstantiated assumption upon which logical thought was added on top of...

I'm a complex lifeform and I don't value complex lifeforms just because I am one, so that dismisses your concept that it is by nature of being complex you value the complex.

indeed I would even say oxygen, or mold/bacteria is more valuable than the duck-billed platterpus, and I'm well aware which seems more complex.

I guess I'm looking at it from the 'rarity / likelyhood' angle - complexity is built on simplicity, thus simplicity seems more common / normal, and complexity adds variety. 'Nothing' on it's own would seem to be simply an absence of variety, so I extrapolate from there and come to the flaky conclusion that variety is of value. To what end this discussion goes I dunno Sculpture vs clay? Bricks vs house?

 

[cryosteel]

While I am extremely cautious about the assumptions and terms involved in such systems, eugenics is- there is no way to not engage it. The issue is not if, but how one comes to terms with it.

Mapping the human genome and identifying the components that make us who we are is underway.

The disastrous eugenics programs the world has seen have been the failings of those particular systems (I would argue due to the inherent problems of the idea "system") not an attention to the status of the population per se.

There have been no "disastrous eugenics programs". Our overlap of narrow and humanist moral opinions, in conflict with reality, about how our species should exist within the world has consistently been disastrous.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Licensing for this purpose has never been tried out - probably it is too impractical. There have been many regimes that could have attempted this and didn't, even up to present day China. Eugenics can be applied without the beaurocracy of a licensing system - which is also difficult to enforce. Also, there is no guarantee that the government would apply the licensing in a sensible way - there is room for corruption and social engineering that is not necessarily beneficial depending on who is in charge of the process.

 

[BloodSword]

License to breed moves whole civilizations in a healthier direction by denying the rise of populations that consist of the diseased, the criminally insane, the self-centered and the stupid. In every case, the growth of such populations result in ecocide, failed societies, ruined civilization, widespread suffering, chaos, the loss of recorded and spoken experience, a human species in decline and a sicker world.

Every living organism comes programmed with the will to survive and part of survival is reproductive. However, human beings are not more morally special than other organisms, a view invented by Judaism (for one tribe, not every human), propogated by Christianity (for every human being) and enforced by liberalism. Human beings are more intelligent than other organisms - there is a large difference here. Our superior intelligence should govern our breeding. Our false fantasy moral specialness and the individual freedoms that follow, which strangely in the case of breeding makes us equivalent to bacteria rather than equivalent to the highest lifeform, prevents intelligently controlled breeding in our modern time.

http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1163103409/0#00

Where the fuck do people like you come from? Are you kiddin'me?

 

[derek]

Yep, I think the impracticality of such a notion is its main weakness, but this has already been reflected upon.

I'd rather take a more pragmatic attitude for the moment and try to solve the social problems we have just now, and it can be done with effective leadership. Problem being, that seems unlikely now too.