Low Biological Quality of Humankind

[infoterror]

I also find it hilarious in this thread that somehow the measure of aptitude of surviving in forests and living by primitive standards is somehow equivalent to "strength". Jee, I wonder what'd happen if we pit a modern regiment against an army of hunters with bows & arrows?

If the modern regiment were fighting with bows and arrows, they'd lose.

Having technology do your work for you is great, except that it makes you weaker.

 

[Cythraul]

If the modern regiment were fighting with bows and arrows, they'd lose.

Having technology do your work for you is great, except that it makes you weaker.

I'm sure the modern regiment would get the hang of the complexities of the bow & arrow eventually. And what about the bow & arrow guys? Would they be able to aim and shoot guns like expert marksmen, right off the bat? Is there really a huge difference here? Personally I don't really think so and I'm wondering why you even give a shit.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Once again I'd like to point out I meant retards not idiots.

 

[ZoMb!M@N]

where before anti-bacterial soap was used when it was necessary, now its frequent habitual use to maintain "cleanness" has caused a weakening of immunity to sickness which the body had previously fought.

Not directed at SS per se, but a general comment. If soap wasn't always "anti-bacterial", what the hell was it doing when you washed your hands? Hasn't soap ALWAYS been an anti-bacterial product? If soap washes away everything including some naturally ocurring body oils, is it not effectively destroying bacteria? Just an observation. carry on....... :Smug:

 

[Kenneth R.]

i was referring to the super-strong product they make, it has some chemical in it that most soap does not. and the point was more general even: humanity uses technology as a crutch, and medicine as a substitute for the immune system.

 

[infoterror]

Not directed at SS per se, but a general comment. If soap wasn't always "anti-bacterial", what the hell was it doing when you washed your hands? Hasn't soap ALWAYS been an anti-bacterial product? If soap washes away everything including some naturally ocurring body oils, is it not effectively destroying bacteria?

No. Normally, soap doesn't destroy bacteria, but destroys their habitat and thus removes most of them. Anti-bacterial soap: I think its effectiveness is overrated and avoid it when I can.

 

[Demiurge]

i don't believe any system is capable of evaluating these things, and so i don't support it

You really like to throw your hands up in the air and say "no, no, this is all too wondrous for the human mind to analyze," don't you?

Saying that certain people shouldn't breed is pretty fucking stupid. If they have bred and you have not, it means you fail, and natural selection has picked them over you. Bad luck chump.

Natural selection in the modern world is different than it is amongst beasts; we keep dysgenic people alive. In the wild, they don't survive. Either we become significantly less humanitarian or we manage breeding synthetically.

I've never seen a post as ridiculously utopian as SI's.

 

[Silver Incubus]

You really like to throw your hands up in the air and say "no, no, this is all too wondrous for the human mind to analyze," don't you?



Natural selection in the modern world is different than it is amongst beasts; we keep dysgenic people alive. In the wild, they don't survive. Either we become significantly less humanitarian or we manage breeding synthetically.

I've never seen a post as ridiculously utopian as SI's.

Well, if you get rid of genetic defects, you increase the quality of human blood, and genes.

In tribal society they kill those who will offer nothing to the tribe. They know that keeping this human alive will be a burden to their way of life.

so my suggestion is more humane, let them live, but not reproduce. Simple

 

[Demiurge]

Oh, I agree completely with that. I found the part about trying to attain world peace, which will never be under any circumstances, through miscegenation was ludicrous.

 

[Silver Incubus]

ya that is very far fetched and not likely

 

[Krilons Resa]

 

[The_Isle]

Natural selection in the modern world is different than it is amongst beasts; we keep dysgenic people alive. In the wild, they don't survive. Either we become significantly less humanitarian or we manage breeding synthetically.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "in the wild". Do you see a regression to hunter-gatherer society as desirable for humankind? Or do you prefer a pre-industrial agricultural society? Even in the latter there will be people who will specialise in tasks other than survival.

 

[Demiurge]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "in the wild". Do you see a regression to hunter-gatherer society as desirable for humankind? Or do you prefer a pre-industrial agricultural society? Even in the latter there will be people who will specialise in tasks other than survival.

"In the wild" means without artificial meddling.

 

[The_Isle]

"In the wild" means without artificial meddling.

artificial meddling is one of man's defining characteristics. A bonfire is "artificial meddling". How do you define it?

p.s. "dysgenic" people who say, carry the cystic fibriosis gene already exercise discretion when they make choices regarding reproduction. In the end, if these kind of people do reproduce their offspring will die anyway.

Society cares for these people based on humanitarian principles, not out of some misguided "all genes should be allowed to propagate" mindset. Not caring for these people is immoral.

 

[Demiurge]

artificial meddling is one of man's defining characteristics.

I'm well aware. That was my point. The controlling of breeding is not unique as an artificial manipulation, so that it's not exactly "natural"(whatever that was supposed to indicate, anyway) is no argument against it.

Not caring for these people is immoral.

Note I haven't of yet suggested offing them outright, though, it's not too bad of an idea. At this point, I'm saying they ought not breed.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and yet its through mutations that our genes improve to survive

 

[Inchoate]

on what biological or genetic basis of understanding do you make such a claim?

sources are necessary when you make unfounded declarations - otherwise you come off looking like a fool.

 

[Kenneth R.]

what is unfounded about that? i thought all you science-types were learned in the theory of evolution. mutations allow for improvement in changing climate...

 

[Silver Incubus]

well some mutations are good, others... well not so good.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and none at all means any change = extinction... so why are people seeking to control the process?