Opinions on Corrupt.org

[Norsemaiden]

If breeders of animals do not discriminate about which specimens they use to produce the next generation, and indeed go out of their way to medicate the weakest specimens and breed from them as much as from the strongest, then it surely couldn't be more than a couple of generations for the stock to have generally become less fit. And this would continue to happen if the practice of non-discrimination continued.

Throughout our evolution, the weak and diseased died young and didn't pass on their genes. Now, because of modern medicine, people with numerous genetic diseases live long enough to reproduce and transmit defective genes to their children. (Examples: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, diabetes, pyloric stenosis, various heart defects, thalassemia, phenylketonuria, and sickle cell anemia.) The incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation. No one would deny sufferers treatment, but it's important to realize that, as a result of it, our genetic potential for robust good health is declining. Life-long care will require ever-increasing expenditures. Furthermore, while sufferers are grateful for medical advances, most would nevertheless be quick to point out that the quality of their lives would be far better if they'd never inherited a disease in the first place.

Richard Lynn: Dysgenics - a review by Marian Van Court
"The incidence of many of these diseases is doubling or tripling each generation."

 

[OldScratch]

If breeders of animals do not discriminate about which specimens they use to produce the next generation, and indeed go out of their way to medicate the weakest specimens and breed from them as much as from the strongest, then it surely couldn't be more than a couple of generations for the stock to have generally become less fit. And this would continue to happen if the practice of non-discrimination continued.


Richard Lynn: Dysgenics - a review by Marian Van Court
"The incidence of many of these diseases is doubling or tripling each generation."

This is an undeniably queasy subject for most folks(concerning humans anyway)as there is no easy way to discuss it without sounding cruel or unfeeling, or even being dismissed as a "Nazi" or what have you. Still, the empirical evidence suggests that these ailments are either that much more prevalent, or the methods of preserving the afflicted(and otherwsie doomed in the past) that much more advanced(or likely both to an extent) - either way there are a tremendous number of sickly people alive today, particularly among the younger generations. Being at the prime age to be in contact with folks with children on a regular basis, I find an alarming trend in all manner of ailments I (nor others I have discussed this with) recall even existing decades ago.
There is a dilemma in delineating which of these medical phenomena are entirely hereditary and which largely environmental. Some, I suspect are both as 'environmentally' acquired afflictions are passed down genetically.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This is an undeniably queasy subject for most folks(concerning humans anyway)as there is no easy way to discuss it without sounding cruel or unfeeling, or even being dismissed as a "Nazi" or what have you. Still, the empirical evidence suggests that these ailments are either that much more prevalent, or the methods of preserving the afflicted(and otherwsie doomed in the past) that much more advanced(or likely both to an extent) - either way there are a tremendous number of sickly people alive today, particularly among the younger generations. Being at the prime age to be in contact with folks with children on a regular basis, I find an alarming trend in all manner of ailments I (nor others I have discussed this with) recall even existing decades ago.
There is a dilemma in delineating which of these medical phenomena are entirely hereditary and which largely environmental. Some, I suspect are both as 'environmentally' acquired afflictions are passed down genetically.

Reading this reminded me of how peanut allergy has become a serious threat to many people's lives. So I googled it and found this:

Peanut allergy is an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction with an increasing prevalence worldwide. Despite its seriousness, to date, there is no cure. Genetic engineering strategies can provide a solution. The post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) model can be used effectively to knock out the production of allergenic proteins in peanut by specific degradation of the endogenous target messenger RNA (mRNA). Ara h 2, the most potent peanut allergenic protein, was selected as a model to demonstrate the feasibility of this concept.

Entrez PubMed

The above is further reference to the spread of genetic disease and also to the assertion that something must be done to stop it.

Genetic engineering of every person to get rid of their bad genes is not a good idea imo. Problems are: time, expense and the possibility that a bad gene may also encode for a good physical trait.
Eg - red hair gene makes melanoma more of a risk, but it protects against rickets. And diabetes genes are harmful at times of excess nutrition, but also confer greater resistance to the effects of famine . (Countries having suffered famine have a greater number of people with genetic dispostitions toward a type of diabetes).

Positive eugenics is the safest solution. The prospect of leaving things entirely to natural selection is the cruelest choice, especially when this occurs suddenly and inadvertantly during a collapse of civilisation, when people have become hugely overburdened with the dysgenic effects of decades of modern medicine.

 

[Nile577]

Please could you give a reference on the net (if there is one) about how modern athletes outclass the ancient Greeks at the olympics? Recently I saw a TV documentary which demonstrated that ancient Greek athletes jumped further in the long jump than a modern athlete can. I have spent half an hour trying to find anything on this matter (relative performance between ancient Greek athletes and modern olympic athletes) and had no luck at all. Perhaps it can be concluded that the matter is not clear cut in academia, as there would have been references that are easily found otherwise.

Sure:

SUM-UP

To answer our opening question, How good were the ancient Greek athletes? it can only be said that physically they were the best of their time and place. But their small bodily size, compared with that of today's champion athletes, would necessarily have placed them at a disadvantage in the great majority of today's competitive events. That the Greeks themselves recognized the advantages of greater bodily size is shown in their sculptured figures of gods and heroes, in which a proportion, on the average, of 8 1/7 head-heights to total stature indicates a standing heights of from 6 ft. 4 in.
How Good Were the Ancient Greek Athletes Part 4

I think I saw the same program, although I seem to remember that the Greek was defeated in nearly all, if not all events. If you've seen it recently though, you can pobably remember better than I. However, this source seems to argue otherwise:

THE RUNNING BROAD JUMP


One of the most interesting comparisons of ancient versus modern athletic capabilities is that which has repeatedly been made in connection with jumping, specifically the running broad jump. The reason for this is the claim of an astounding leap of no less than 55 ft. in this style, attributed to the jumper Phayllos of Crotona, who was said to have made the jump in one of the Pythian Games, at Delphi. One of the main sources of confusion in connection with this jump is that most authors have accepted the distance they have assumed that it must have been covered using two, or even three, adjoining jumps. However, when it was discovered that at Delphi the length of a "foot" was not 12 in., but only 6.99 in., the "55-foot" jump by Phayllos shrank to an even 32 ft.

While the latter distance is still several feet beyond that of the present-day record, it can be accounted for on the grounds that Greek jumpers customarily swung a pair of halteres (jumping weights) in their hands to add impetus and distance. By this means, anywhere from 5 to 7 ft. could be added to what would otherwise have been a broad jump of 25 ft. However, it is evident that the champion jumpers of the ancient games were highly skilled in their specialty, and quite possibly on a par with the best amateur jumpers of today. But when the best modern professional jumpers--who exhibited from about 1890 to 1910--are considered, it is doubtful whether any ancient jumper could equal the standing broad jump by John Darby of England of 12 ft. 6 in., or the same jump by R. P. Williams of the U. S., who used weights in the hands, of 15 ft. 4 in. (See "The All-around Wonder" in this chapter.) How Good Were the Ancient Greek Athletes Part 3

Conservationist makes a good point about there being more people. It's absurdly simple but I hadn't thought of it before, really. It certainly suggests it would be unwise to look at the performance of athletes as absolute proof for genetic improvement. I still don't think it can be entirely overlooked though. The human form is capable of running faster than at any point in history. Perhaps the most that can be concluded is that our comfortable lifestyles ensure that the potential which might have been reached has not been?

Anyhow, I'm not sure that one can/should cognitively overrule love's evaluation of an evolutionarily-sound partner. Or if one can/does, is love not bastardized and worthless; a motivator for 'evolutionarily-indiscriminate' attachment? This latter view is unappealing. If it were unnatural for people of different races to fall in love, why would they do so with such high prevalence? If you argue that society encourages it through the values it cultivates, how is this different from my assertion that culture is defined by values, not genetics? Or is Love, in all its platonic forms, (the prime agent affording reproductive potentiality) not genetic and, in fact, in need of didactic, external 'genetic' instruction?

 

[Nile577]

Hmm, perhaps you will argue that this 'instruction' is a need to put posterity/wider love ahead of self-love? One must not love men of different race because it is somehow selfish and betraying of your own race?

*tries to understand*

 

[Norsemaiden]

Hmm, perhaps you will argue that this 'instruction' is a need to put posterity/wider love ahead of self-love? One must not love men of different race because it is somehow selfish and betraying of your own race?

*tries to understand*

Sexual selection would have an influence on the physical types of future generations. Tall men are statistically more popular sexually than short men.

A good piece of information to shed light on your question here, Nile, is this: in chimpanzees (and some other apes like Baboons I think) males from other groups will be accepted for mating by the females, but the males will be enraged by this and fight off the strangers attempting to fertilise the group's females. These same males would happily go off and copulate with females from the others' group however. Double standards eh? Rather like how so many European men (but not the best) would copulate with women of other races, but if a man of another race is with one of the European females they are angry. This is all explained by primitive females being undiscriminating, while males want to spread their own genes but don't want males who are too distantly related and not one of "us" to deposit their genes into "our" group.

The most intelligent humans can rationalise all this and then the females don't have to be so undiscriminating and the males too can see that it is better for society to have a stable system. Also females who wish to select a husband who is going to stick around and rear the children are more likely to pick one who they feel more affinity with (hence the overwhelming tendency for people to marry others from a similar background and/or who look like they could be siblings - but aren't).
Racially mixed sex happens quite a lot, but it is not the norm. People will more often say it doesn't bother them if others do it (mostly women will say this - for the reasons that I hope I have made clear) but when it comes to preference for a married partner, both sexes will almost always choose someone of their own race.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Nile, if you really look at improvements in athletic performance, most of it has come in the last 40 years, and much in the last 15. That is far too short a time span for a genetic cause - especially when one takes into account that elite athletes in every country and among every race are getting vastly better performances than they did half a century ago.

The real culprits? Scientific training and dieting. We've gotten much better at augmenting athletic performance through supplaments, weight work, targeted cardio and flexibility training etc. Not to mention EPO, HGH, anabolics etc. etc. etc.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Nile, if you really look at improvements in athletic performance, most of it has come in the last 40 years, and much in the last 15. That is far too short a time span for a genetic cause - especially when one takes into account that elite athletes in every country and among every race are getting vastly better performances than they did half a century ago.

The real culprits? Scientific training and dieting. We've gotten much better at augmenting athletic performance through supplaments, weight work, targeted cardio and flexibility training etc. Not to mention EPO, HGH, anabolics etc. etc. etc.

That is a very good point. That must explain it. As you say the time scale doesn't fit with a genetic cause. Plus, the only genetic selection going on that could slightly counter the dysgenic effects of civilisation and medicine in particular, is sexual selection.

 

[derek]

I apologize for my absence, which wqas caused by a lack of anything to say. =\ I was planning on waiting until I finished a long, long essay I'm working on about the impossibility of a Utopia for me to come back so I could post it here and get some opinions on it, but I guess now works just as well.

Anyway, I was just wondering about other peoples' opinions on Corrupt.org. I know some people here read the site, and I just wanted to know what everyone had to say about it.

Ambivalent, in a word. I find some of the material witty and interesting, and some of it boring and trite. Nothing more I can really say.

In relation to the current discussion, I have personal experience of this. I play rugby at a semi-professional level, which requires a set-diet (the tolerance levels are reasonably low) and I do set workouts/exercises that rotate depending on what sort of position/game schedule I am playing. Even just 20yrs ago, my coaches as players would never have done this - indeed it is a running joke that we no longer have a quick pint and a smoke at half-time, like they did.

The standards of sports have increased a great deal in such a relatively short period, and I know first hand that more than 90% of this can be attributed to the increase in research with regards to sports physiology and psychology. Britains own University of Loughborough is one of the worlds foremost centres for sports research, the techniques they have uncovered in the past 20years alone have allowed for quantifiable increases in performance (a good example being the introduction of ice cold/warm dipping baths after a game. They allow for lactic acid to be dealt with much quicker in the muscles, allowing faster recovery). We may be learning to stretch the genetic blueprints we already had, but I'd doubt they have changed themselves in just the past 20years.

 

[infoterror]

Regardless of the intricacies of your Nietszcheasm, I'm sincerely glad you've returned.

<3 <3 <3

It's not anything other than time commitments to rapid growth of certain web entities that has kept me away. Most of you guys are cool, and I wither away without my daily dose of Norsemaiden repartee.

On Corrupt -- a really quick summary: we believe modern society is based on an illusion derived from what most people would prefer to believe, and that technology empowers this. Our goal is to create a society which keeps getting better and lacks the problems of all previous societies. Our method of reaching this is a form of realism that also uses pattern logic, and therefore can be realistic without becoming materialistic or short-sighted. I believe that what we're doing will be best for everyone on earth. While we espouse some "dangerous" ideas, we don't do it out of emotional psychology or hatred. Our goal is a self-sustaining, non-degenerate order and I know we can do it.

And from the looks of things, a whole new crop of readers agree.

Contact and CORRUPT banners

Also, you're all welcome at the Forum at CORRUPT, which is sorta like here but more emphasis on faggy synth music that I seem to enjoy. Oh, and classical. And some metal.

While I'm plugging, visit ABRUPT for another view. I have nothing to do with the site, but it's another apocalyptic view. Here's another. Don't forget to read your Spengler

 

[speed]

<3 <3 <3

It's not anything other than time commitments to rapid growth of certain web entities that has kept me away. Most of you guys are cool, and I wither away without my daily dose of Norsemaiden repartee.

On Corrupt -- a really quick summary: we believe modern society is based on an illusion derived from what most people would prefer to believe, and that technology empowers this. Our goal is to create a society which keeps getting better and lacks the problems of all previous societies. Our method of reaching this is a form of realism that also uses pattern logic, and therefore can be realistic without becoming materialistic or short-sighted. I believe that what we're doing will be best for everyone on earth. While we espouse some "dangerous" ideas, we don't do it out of emotional psychology or hatred. Our goal is a self-sustaining, non-degenerate order and I know we can do it.

And from the looks of things, a whole new crop of readers agree.

Contact and CORRUPT banners

Also, you're all welcome at the Forum at CORRUPT, which is sorta like here but more emphasis on faggy synth music that I seem to enjoy. Oh, and classical. And some metal.

While I'm plugging, visit ABRUPT for another view. I have nothing to do with the site, but it's another apocalyptic view. Here's another. Don't forget to read your Spengler

Well, its just not the same here without you.

No, I understand the time concern. I only post my long threads/posts when at work. And browse when at home.

Oh, sometime soon I will post a lengthy thread on Schumpeter. I hope you peruse it, as I think it would interest you.

 

[Horus]

I kinda wish I was missed like that here, but I don't even really respect my own posts. (I always feel stupid when I post here, since everybody here pretty much owns the crap out of me when it comes to stuff like Philosophy, but hey, I'm young. I still have time.

And thanks for all your opinions on Corrupt. I've been debating on how seriously I should take it, because I've been hearing bad things about it, I thought I'd consult people who actually have the capacity to think. (As opposed to the people around me who are all cynical and vain.)

 

[speed]

I kinda wish I was missed like that here, but I don't even really respect my own posts. (I always feel stupid when I post here, since everybody here pretty much owns the crap out of me when it comes to stuff like Philosophy, but hey, I'm young. I still have time.

And thanks for all your opinions on Corrupt. I've been debating on how seriously I should take it, because I've been hearing bad things about it, I thought I'd consult people who actually have the capacity to think. (As opposed to the people around me who are all cynical and vain.)

I appreciate your posts, and I think they're a hell of alot better than mine would've been at your age.

 

[derek]

I picture you a lustful, copper-haired bundle of hormones at 17, Curt.

Ptah, just the ability to realise that you should not just accept everything on Corrupt because of how its confidence is a clear sign of critical thinking.

The ability for the mind to develop that capacity is damn interesting. Quintillian had alot to say about the subject, and it seems no-one has ever since.

 

[speed]

I picture you a lustful, copper-haired bundle of hormones at 17, Curt.

God, Im not much different 10 years later! I truly live by my Blakean aphorisms.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I kinda wish I was missed like that here, but I don't even really respect my own posts. (I always feel stupid when I post here, since everybody here pretty much owns the crap out of me when it comes to stuff like Philosophy, but hey, I'm young. I still have time.

And thanks for all your opinions on Corrupt. I've been debating on how seriously I should take it, because I've been hearing bad things about it, I thought I'd consult people who actually have the capacity to think. (As opposed to the people around me who are all cynical and vain.)

I missed you when you didn't post for a while Ptah. You are too self-critical. Like Speed I am impressed by how thoughtful and wise you are for your age. (Not the first time I've said so!)

Just have to say to Infoterror

I wither away without my daily dose of Norsemaiden repartee

it's very sweet of you to say and I appreciate it.

 

[derek]

God, Im not much different 10 years later! I truly live by my Blakean aphorisms.

I can think of much worse than that.

 

[Έρεβος]

I thought I'd consult people who actually have the capacity to think. (As opposed to the people around me who are all cynical and vain.)

And the Kamelot forum . . . What an oh-so-intelligent discussion went on there.

 

[Korona]

shit I thought corrupt.org was intended to be satirical...

 

[derbeder]

utter rubbish

nicely complements anus.com