Should Eugenics Make People Superior to Yourself?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Norsemaiden
Are you saying that if two people with a genetic defect are kept alive by medicine and they breed there is absolutely no evidence that this their condition is likely to be passed on?

did you not even read what you quoted from me?

I didn't say anything about it existing or increasing, I accepted your claim 'for sake of argument' and said even if we could get it under control, and get on with a genetic-sickness free degradation into weak bodies and green complexions, what you'd complained about earlier would still be a problem... so it seems like this 'omg genetic sickness' thing is just a red herring.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Technology gives us a far greater ability to react to environmental change than otherwise.

Except in circumstances of apocalypse or social collapse, which seems not unlikely to happen sometime in the future. It is not inconceivable that we may once again be reliant on our genetic endowments, rather than medicine and technology, for survival.

 

[Blowtus]

Sure - bacteria, cockroaches and the like seem most able to deal with apocalypse - should we aim to devolve to that level?

 

[hibernal_dream]

Well, I wasn't talking about total destruction. The more likely scenario is we develop some kind of technology upon which we all become more or less reliant on for survival, then that technology fails due to power depletion or some other reason.

I mean, it may turn out we will have no use for limbs due to advances in robotics, but it would make sense to retain them just in case.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think you're being deliberately evasive and unwilling to confront the issue head on. Why is it better not to rely on 'artificial' (whatever that really is) props? Whatever state we evolve to, our survival is always reliant on the rate of environmental change not overtaking our ability to keep up. Technology gives us a far greater ability to react to environmental change than otherwise.

Basically you are asking why is it better not to be medically dependent, why it should matter if we are all born with conditions like a hole in the heart that require immediate surgery, why it is better to be born healthy.

That would be better because, as hibernal_dream pointed out, one day there could be a disaster that removes the possibility of having the necessary surgery and drugs - such as an epidemic of avian flu in which the population is decimated and most people don't turn up for work. The immunity of the population would be dropping through dysgenics all the time, making this scenario more and more likely.
Also the quality of life of a patched-up almost permanently sick population would be low. Are you going to ask me why I think that too?
And the amount of time, energy and finances wasted on patching everyone up would continue to increase and be unsustainable.

None of that has to happen. There are ways to naturally maintain and to improve the health of a population without even going so far as to involve sterilisation, culling or subjection to the ruthlessness of natural selection.

 

[Έρεβος]

You seem to be viewing evolution / natural selection as only occurring in certain circumstances that appeal to you. Survival and pro-creation is occurring even today, amidst our consumerist, tolerant society. To suggest that natural selection only occurs in specific circumstances is rubbish - the selection criteria merely change, further away from your noble caveman ideal. Perhaps the driving factors in the selection appear more 'temporary' and 'specialised' (as with funny looking pure-bred dogs) with 'possibly' less broad range scope for survival. If you want to start arguing coherently along those lines I might start to agree...

What exactly are you arguing, Blowtus? That our lifestyle of eating McDonalds and packaged foods, working monotonous non-stimulating corporate jobs, watching television, masturbating, and drinking/playing golf on the weekends is a system of positive natural selection? Well, yes, of course natural selection still does occur, in a sort of twisted moronic fashion - the fat idiots are selected, the worthy and strong are kept an ever-decreasing minority. The driving factors are not just specialized, they are completely degenerate. Trivial, shallow, absolutely worthless attributes are seen as desirable, while the greatest of attributes are seen as threats to be stomped out, having no use in a society where everything of basic meaning (necessity) is done for you. No great intellect is needed, no great anything is truly needed; group think runs everything, so the individual need be nothing more than a tiny puzzle piece of no significant individual worth.

We are headed exactly in the direction of cockroaches and bacteria, strength in individually moronic numbers. But, unlike cockroaches and bacteria, we've no natural balance, so our strength in numbers is more like suicidal sudden peak of strength, then sudden demise, kind of like bacteria in a controlled environment with limited food.

 

[Blowtus]

Basically you are asking why is it better not to be medically dependent, why it should matter if we are all born with conditions like a hole in the heart that require immediate surgery, why it is better to be born healthy.

You could take it to that extreme, but given our current technological state I think it's pretty clear that being born with a hole in the heart is still a bit of a shit. 100 years time and it may not matter in the slightest, though I imagine it's more likely that it simply would not happen at all.

That would be better because, as hibernal_dream pointed out, one day there could be a disaster that removes the possibility of having the necessary surgery and drugs - such as an epidemic of avian flu in which the population is decimated and most people don't turn up for work. The immunity of the population would be dropping through dysgenics all the time, making this scenario more and more likely.
Also the quality of life of a patched-up almost permanently sick population would be low. Are you going to ask me why I think that too?
And the amount of time, energy and finances wasted on patching everyone up would continue to increase and be unsustainable.

None of that has to happen. There are ways to naturally maintain and to improve the health of a population without even going so far as to involve sterilisation, culling or subjection to the ruthlessness of natural selection.

These paragraphs make it sound like we're seeing eye to eye, except for the 'ruthlessness of natural selection' bit... you're specifically arguing against relying on 'natural selection' and wanting to design a more contrived form of selection.

Of course I don't think a sick population is a good thing. But I don't see that a presently healthy population lacking the important attributes for life a millennia or more ago is an issue either.

What exactly are you arguing, Blowtus? That our lifestyle of eating McDonalds and packaged foods, working monotonous non-stimulating corporate jobs, watching television, masturbating, and drinking/playing golf on the weekends is a system of positive natural selection?

I feel for you if that's your lifestyle and you're unhappy with it, but regardless, no that's not what I'm arguing. I wasn't bringing that level of subjective judgement in to it. I argue that it merely is 'natural selection'. Whether it is positive or not is another matter. I have no qualms with the notion of stuffing 'natural selection' down the toilet and contriving ourselves a more effective method of achieving whatever it is we want. Of course, my present line of argument could be extended to suggest that that is still 'natural selection', merely with the criteria modified again...

Basically I do not believe the term 'natural selection' should be limited in scope to those situations that would be defined as 'primitive', I see no reason for it.

Well, yes, of course natural selection still does occur, in a sort of twisted moronic fashion - the fat idiots are selected, the worthy and strong are kept an ever-decreasing minority. The driving factors are not just specialized, they are completely degenerate. Trivial, shallow, absolutely worthless attributes are seen as desirable, while the greatest of attributes are seen as threats to be stomped out, having no use in a society where everything of basic meaning (necessity) is done for you. No great intellect is needed, no great anything is truly needed; group think runs everything, so the individual need be nothing more than a tiny puzzle piece of no significant individual worth.

We are headed exactly in the direction of cockroaches and bacteria, strength in individually moronic numbers. But, unlike cockroaches and bacteria, we've no natural balance, so our strength in numbers is more like suicidal sudden peak of strength, then sudden demise, kind of like bacteria in a controlled environment with limited food.

Sounds like an unhappy life...
Does group think run *you*? Do you require 'no great intellect'? Were we any less moronic over all in the past? Do you need to convince yourself of your grand worth in the scheme of things to find any value in life? Few humans throughout history could be said to have done anything other than subsist under the presiding environmental and social conditions, contributing in tiny ways to the slow progress (whether forward, backward or sideways I leave up to the individual perception) of their family / community / humanity / life / matter.

Have you read any / much Buddhism? I think I would be more reliant on it if I lived in the U.S

 

[waif]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's curious for you to expand on that sentiment with your reasoning for it. would you mind?


my personal view is if you want a boy, and you want him to be tall or strong or smart, why not genetically piss about if the science is at a stage where one can reliably do so... it's only going to make you a child you'll love even more than you would have loved whatever the lottery gave you. To me a sentiment like 'don't mess with nature' is like saying 'dont take vaccines'* because it's in our nature to die from tetnis infections and the like... I don't see why we shouldn't use our wisdom to improve ourselves after birth or before it.


*pretend, again, science is reliable in these concerns for sake of argument.

Err...the question was, should you consider someones genes when dating? And the answer is no. When you futz with a fetus that's completely different.

Europeans are much smaller and weaker than they were in ancient times. Archeological evidence shows that there were Celts in Britain who wore wrist torques that were as thick as a man's knee joint is nowadays.

Ok, so they found some huge fucker's wrist torque...so what does that prove? Caesar was 5'2...comparing hunter-gatherers to sedentary peoples is apples to oranges...compare to, say, the Romans or Greeks, or whatever...

Anyhow, this whole thread is pointless. People aren't "superior" because they're bigger, stronger, or smarter. Superiority is a measure of your ability to reproduce...which would make the early American settlers (average of 6 or 7 kids) some of the most "superior" people ever. But superiority itself is bullshit...because it's irrelevant to how you live your life. It doesn't matter who's better than you, you just live your damn life.

 

[Έρεβος]

Superiority is a measure of your ability to reproduce...

No, it isn't. Superiority is the ability to maintain balance. Attributes of individual strength and adaptability are vital for this (physical stature and mental capability). Ability to mass reproduce is the exact opposite of superiority; it leads only to excessive consumption of resources, and in the end extinction. If the human race were to reproduce unchecked, we'd be no different than bacteria in a small controlled environment with highly limited resources.

 

[Norsemaiden]

No, it isn't. Superiority is the ability to maintain balance. Attributes of individual strength and adaptability are vital for this (physical stature and mental capability). Ability to mass reproduce is the exact opposite of superiority; it leads only to excessive consumption of resources, and in the end extinction.

As much as I truly appreciate that you are on my side in this argument Έρεβος, I can never resist an opportunity to defend the idea that reproducing successfully is a necessary component in judging superiority. The most obvious point to be made in that respect is that the White race has such a totally pathetic reproductive rate that it is set for extinction, while other races are more than replacing their numbers. At the end of the day, how can a race that phases itself into extinction from a decadent birth rate be anything other than inferior?
And bacteria, by that standard are the most successful of lifeforms on the planet and thus superior in one very important function.
But superiority (as I feel confident you would agree Έρεβο&#962 does not apply ONLY to ability to reproduce. And if we are talking of who is superior WITHIN a race, it would be those who not only maintain or increase their numbers, but who also have the greatest health and intellect. For those who have this ultimately have the power to resist the others, while protecting themselves from being over-run by their inferiors.

Blowtus- our present population is becoming so sick that it is quite common for parents to outlive their obese,diabetic offspring. That is how quickly modern living is corrupting the younger generation.

 

[Έρεβος]

Reproduction is a base requirement. I wasn't contradicting that. But that doesn't mean the more reproduction the better. That's all I was saying. And I disagree that the white race has a pathetic reproductive rate, in fact I'd say it has, by far, the most superior rate - we nearly balance out. There are already far too many humans on Earth.

The problem is that other races have destructively far too high rates of reproduction, and this causes the white race, with our healthy balanced rate of reproduction, to be trampled.

 

[Seditious]

I can never resist an opportunity to defend the idea that reproducing successfully is a necessary component in judging superiority.

is it anything remotely close to a sufficient condition for superiority?---is there any way a Chinese man with one son could ever possibly be superior to a Mormon superbreeder?

 

[OldScratch]

Reproduction is a base requirement. I wasn't contradicting that. But that doesn't mean the more reproduction the better. That's all I was saying. And I disagree that the white race has a pathetic reproductive rate, in fact I'd say it has, by far, the most superior rate - we nearly balance out. There are already far too many humans on Earth.

The problem is that other races have destructively far too high rates of reproduction, and this causes the white race, with our healthy balanced rate of reproduction, to be trampled.

Unfortunately, this just isn't true at this point in time. While I agree that a 'balance'
would indeed be far healthier that the reckless fecundity of third-world populations in the bigger picture, the balance isn't there for White peoples. Caucasians on the whole are not reproducing at the accepted replacement-rate, and this percentage dips even further within various ethnic groups, ie. Italian, German, Russian, etc. Thus, the race is facing extinction over time - sooner for some nationalities than others.

 

[Blowtus]

Blowtus- our present population is becoming so sick that it is quite common for parents to outlive their obese,diabetic offspring. That is how quickly modern living is corrupting the younger generation.

We must live in different present populations...

 

[death metal black metal]

is it anything remotely close to a sufficient condition for superiority?---is there any way a Chinese man with one son could ever possibly be superior to a Mormon superbreeder?

For the purposes of being Chinese, he will be superior.

This is why ethnicity is important: each has its own take on how to do things, and these alternate methods are important as it's useful to have multiple approaches to a problem.

Multiculturalism of course would destroy these.

 

[kmik]

Different cultures may value different traits but generally some are universal. All cultures value health, honesty, strength, intelligence, respect, etc...

 

[death metal black metal]

Different cultures may value different traits but generally some are universal. All cultures value health, honesty, strength, intelligence, respect, etc...

Yes, but those are interpreted in different ways, thus are different values even if they have the same names.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Different cultures may value different traits but generally some are universal. All cultures value health, honesty, strength, intelligence, respect, etc...

Yes, but it's not enough to unite all the cultures. I was reading an interesting idea today - it said there is only one thing that might transcend culture, and that is the need to develop sometime in the future a worldwide space program. Thinking about this, it's true. It's the only thing that can really unite mankind to a common goal, and we could focus our genetic knowledge towards creating the ideal space traveler to overcome the limits of our modern bodies. It would probably take thousands of years, but who knows.

 

[BrandonS]

Lame question, lame answer...

If there is a future that goes past 2012, it would take countless thousands of years for people to mutate. I wouldn't know or care by that time if someone was genetically superior. Besides, the genetics of the current human races will combine to make a mediocre strain; not something fantastic, something generic that is compatible worldwide.

 

[death metal black metal]

Besides, the genetics of the current human races will combine to make a mediocre strain; not something fantastic, something generic that is compatible worldwide.

Sounds like McDonald's.