Is it too late for a eugenics or selective breeding program to be worthwhile, with the immenent coming of genetic technologies? I know the mention of eugenics will automatically make some people angry, but this is merely a hypothetical on it's value with what will soon be available.
Methods to improve humanity.
- Thread starter blankc
- Start date
what could be improved in people?
No it is not to late… its just who would want to do it??? Maybe genetic engineered designer babies, gene therapy and cybernetics but good old fashion eugenics just is not look on as a good idea anymore (mostly because of the nazi’s over use and suffer distortion of it).
Blind late night madness…
All to follow should be sorted under drug taking fool…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans can be smarter, stronger, less susceptible to frailty, live longer, more outgoing and happy, better looking. Just look at a few TV ads and you’ll know what is needed to be better..
How many of you animals pick your mate on the basis of random chance. Culture drives eugenics.
Breeding is still the most effective method of genetic engineering.
I’m surprised that a state has not sprung up that totally controls all breeding of their population.
Immoral..
To produce a child with a know risqué of a genetically dysfunction is to breach the law of morality, it is immoral.. If you knew your child would have a strong chance of asthma and you still had one or more children, you are responsible for their (your child’s) misfortune (suffering). Children should be able to sue in le of their parent’s irresponsibility.
In general we should all try to live by Isaac Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics..
WE ARE THE ROBOT!!!!!
1. A “HUMAN” may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A “HUMAN” must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A “HUMAN” must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Then a few more rules…Blindman rules
1:It is the right of the individual to decide what is expectable suffering for their progeny..
2:It is the right of culture to define suffering (morality)
3:Law has the right to govern culture.
4:Law must be democratic and have boundaries ..
So if I state that my children have right to life as long as they follow accepted family rule, as long as it is inside the rule of law. Law should have the right to enforce such family law.
I still need to define new laws. Law as to right to life… Right to breed.. Right to die and right to Kill.
The right to die is first.
The right to life is next.
The right to breed is next
The right to kill is last.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All to follow should be sorted under drug taking fool…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans can be smarter, stronger, less susceptible to frailty, live longer, more outgoing and happy, better looking. Just look at a few TV ads and you’ll know what is needed to be better..
How many of you animals pick your mate on the basis of random chance. Culture drives eugenics.
Breeding is still the most effective method of genetic engineering.
I’m surprised that a state has not sprung up that totally controls all breeding of their population.
Immoral..
To produce a child with a know risqué of a genetically dysfunction is to breach the law of morality, it is immoral.. If you knew your child would have a strong chance of asthma and you still had one or more children, you are responsible for their (your child’s) misfortune (suffering). Children should be able to sue in le of their parent’s irresponsibility.
In general we should all try to live by Isaac Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics..
WE ARE THE ROBOT!!!!!
1. A “HUMAN” may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A “HUMAN” must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A “HUMAN” must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Then a few more rules…Blindman rules
1:It is the right of the individual to decide what is expectable suffering for their progeny..
2:It is the right of culture to define suffering (morality)
3:Law has the right to govern culture.
4:Law must be democratic and have boundaries ..
So if I state that my children have right to life as long as they follow accepted family rule, as long as it is inside the rule of law. Law should have the right to enforce such family law.
I still need to define new laws. Law as to right to life… Right to breed.. Right to die and right to Kill.
The right to die is first.
The right to life is next.
The right to breed is next
The right to kill is last.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blindman,
You would so be god of the philosophy sub-forum!
people are animals and will reproduce because their genes force them to. With the advent of modern technology the human races is suffering from genetic decay. More and more people are being born that could not survive in a natural environment. We could always switch to eugenics but most agree that it is inhumane and to controlling if not evil and abused in horrible ways (like the nazis). I see the future in genetic engineering, gene therapy and cybernetics. If you have a genetic ailment you can remove it from you progeny through genetic manipulation of the embryo of gametes. the aliment can be cure in you by getting a artificial or laboratory grown organs or getting a brand new body if you have the money.
You would so be god of the philosophy sub-forum!
people are animals and will reproduce because their genes force them to. With the advent of modern technology the human races is suffering from genetic decay. More and more people are being born that could not survive in a natural environment. We could always switch to eugenics but most agree that it is inhumane and to controlling if not evil and abused in horrible ways (like the nazis). I see the future in genetic engineering, gene therapy and cybernetics. If you have a genetic ailment you can remove it from you progeny through genetic manipulation of the embryo of gametes. the aliment can be cure in you by getting a artificial or laboratory grown organs or getting a brand new body if you have the money.
america are in a massive mess now, and they know it. all the world blames them for everything, and they simply do not have enough resources or will to fix the problems.
have the american people been told lies about how good america is and this supposed great free country. anyone looking at america knows it is not the country, that was built on those simple peoples ideals a couple of centuries ago.
with the american laws etc the american government knows it really cannot do to much in the public eyes, because to fix the problems would mean breaking the laws that america was built on.
have the american people been told lies about how good america is and this supposed great free country. anyone looking at america knows it is not the country, that was built on those simple peoples ideals a couple of centuries ago.
with the american laws etc the american government knows it really cannot do to much in the public eyes, because to fix the problems would mean breaking the laws that america was built on.
eugenics soft approach
The jews in america are, if i remember correctly, effected especially severely by a certain disease (forgotten the name) and they have taken a quite interesting approach to combat this. They have set up a database of the population and asked people to submit samples from which they have worked out whether each person has the gene for this disease or not.
Then if two people decide they want childrenor to get married they ring up this database, give them their unique reference numbers and they are told whether they should proceed. Neither knows if they have the gene and its totally anonymous.
Obviously we can't go about killing all the ill people but I think this is a morally acceptable method of achieving a very desirable goal.
The jews in america are, if i remember correctly, effected especially severely by a certain disease (forgotten the name) and they have taken a quite interesting approach to combat this. They have set up a database of the population and asked people to submit samples from which they have worked out whether each person has the gene for this disease or not.
Then if two people decide they want childrenor to get married they ring up this database, give them their unique reference numbers and they are told whether they should proceed. Neither knows if they have the gene and its totally anonymous.
Obviously we can't go about killing all the ill people but I think this is a morally acceptable method of achieving a very desirable goal.
andy1033,
As an American citizen I agree with you. My government leaders are corrupted war profiteers and most of our people are sheltered idiots. The way I see it this empire will soon go the way of Rome.
As an American citizen I agree with you. My government leaders are corrupted war profiteers and most of our people are sheltered idiots. The way I see it this empire will soon go the way of Rome.
The original concept of eugenics was simply to breed better people. Unfortunately aside from genetic disease and illness it is not easy to defined traits as good or bad or social or genetic. Even so they went along doing this here in the states back in the 10's and 20's, Nazi Germany got wind of this idea and took it to the next level: why try to breed better people why not kill off the inferior people then the problem is solve in one quick swooped of pure pain and evil. So they did it and kill over 11 million people almost all of which died for religious reason rather then genetic. Genetics has changed a lot since then for example geneticist now agree that hybridizing (breeding outside of a race) is better then inbreeding (inside a race). Even so it still not easy to describe many traits a good or bad for example: beauty is a changing and varying prescription: Once several hundred years ago fat people were considered beautiful and in many countries they still are, if we engineered people that could not get fat then we would make then very unlikely to survive a famine. Muscular people require more energy so forth, see it all a trade off. Modern day neo-eugenics or designer babies is about not trying to breed two good looking seemingly healthy couple of a strict pedigree together but instead engineering the normal embryo from a normal couple with “better” characteristics, when I say better that’s a very hard to define concept. Most will agree that there is nothing wrong with engineering out lethal or greatly debilitating genetic illness, but again beauty and bronzes very superficial. IF we engineered people to live long that would add more of a problem to over population, then again if we also breed people to not want to have children the problems is solved. Intelligence is a must these days but without stupid people there would be no lower labor and the world would collapse.
God? what does s/he/it have to do with anything? we have been breeding are food for thousand of years is so we have been tampering with gods creation for quite some time.
Trade offs have been with us for as long as evolution. The prevalence of the diseases sickle cell anaemia and cystic fibrois are i believe due to their disease fighting capabilities. If i remember they fight malaria and cholera.
Cholera and malaria are now less of a problem than sickle cell and CF and eventually the genes will be bred out of the human race. I see no problem with speeding this process up.
But i'm getting side-tracked from what i wanted to say. Is overpopulation such a massive problem? The world is in better shape than ever before as far as humans are concerned, whats the problem?
Cholera and malaria are now less of a problem than sickle cell and CF and eventually the genes will be bred out of the human race. I see no problem with speeding this process up.
But i'm getting side-tracked from what i wanted to say. Is overpopulation such a massive problem? The world is in better shape than ever before as far as humans are concerned, whats the problem?
the mutant alleles for both illnesses my be of some beneifit in heterozygous form (one good gene, one bad, pair) but the homozygous (only mutant gene no working copy) is leathal, so we can still engineering to prevent that from happaning.
The earth will eventually reach its limits in how many humans it can carry. Eventually technology will no long be able to keep up with our energy and food demands. At our present rate of growth the world will no long be able to supply its demand for oil within 20 to 30 years, coal in 40-50 years and natural gas in 80-100. This is not that we will run out of oil, coal and gas, but that are demand for these things is exponentially increasing and production for those fuels are bell shaped curves. It was predicted that in the mid seventies America would no longer be able to supply its demand for oil and it came true, those same scientist predicted the world will no long be able to supply it demand by 2020-30. That prediction is based off if we mined all possible oil reserves; more conservative predictions put oil supply and demand problems at 2006±2. Also using so much fossil fuels will increase C02 levels in the atmosphere cause global warming, within 100 years all of the Midwest will have the same weather as Nevada and all of Europe will have the same weather as Canada and in general the amount of farmable land will reduce. In a few hundred years all of the polar ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise by 350-400 feet, that means no more Netherlands, Malaysia, American west coast and Florida. After that the general imbalance in things will most likely trigger a reverse shift and another ice age; which is even worse!. All that because we had to many mouths to feed?
Yes That was my point, we need to speed up that alleles extinction, and to do that we should use every tool at our disposal.
Rubbish. Sorry but thats rubbish. The line I liked best was
It was predicted that in the mid seventies America would no longer be able to supply its demand for oil and it came true, those same scientist predicted the world will no long be able to supply it demand by 2020-30.
How can we run out of oil twice? Once its gone its gone, you can only run out of it once.
Our KNOWN reserves of oil are right now have never been greater. We have more years of supply left today than at any time in history. Doesn't sound to me like we are running out?
Lets assume however that supplies did start to run out. We have only taken the most profitable fraction from all the 'exhausted' well heads. As prices go up they will once again become economically viable. Lets say we eventually use up all the oil, hundreds of years into the future. Can we not simply use something else? Like for examples the thousands of years worth of oil trapped in shales? Yes it exists, its not profitable to extract it today but if prices go up in a real shortage it will become profitable.
I speak of prices going up, and this sounds terrible, but remember that raw products, even oil comprise only a small part of the cost of finished goods. Oil is no more than a couple of percent of global GNP. So what if it doubles? You'll be 1-2% poorer. OH NO!!!!!!!!!
Now onto global warming. What really makes me laugh is that only a few decades ago we were worried about global COOLING!! Remember the worse things scientists make things look the more money we will pay them to monitor them. If you financed a science project and the scientist came back and said everything was fine would you finance his work next year? No you wouldn't so he will highlight any anomaly, and get his funding. Its institution bias, its to be expected and so should be allowed for.
The computer models don't seem to agree with your predictions for sea level change. The sea levels will rise but not by that much.
Also its interesting point to note that the maximum temperatures don't seem to have increased much. The the minimum temperatures that have increased. What does this mean? Less frost, better growing conditions, MORE farmland!!
My suggestion, chill! The world isn't that bad a place. Oh and look at all the facts on this particularly interesting topic.
Maybe I did not say it right because you did not understand a word I said. America did NOT run out of oil but we did out demand are supply so we had to get oul form somewhere else: now most of are oil comes from other countries like Iran, Iraq, Vensuela, ect most are countries that hate use because of this.
We will never run out of oil, NEVER, it produced naturally. As our population goes up though are demand for oil increases at a exponential rate and our production of oil goes up only linearly and all wells only produce at a bell shaped rate. Back in the 50's it was noted that at Americas exponential growth in oil demand it would out run Americas oil production rate... even worse the oil reserve that were being mined would give out soon. and they were right. Many like you though assumed they were talking about the end of all mineable oil and thus forth wrongly assume they were wrong.
lol, I'm going to regret saying this but - we can run out of oil. It is increasing at a far slower rate than we are consuming it. Having said that it won't run out becauuse before it does other energy sources will be cheaper and so will replace it.
Are you sure oil supply is increasing linearly? Oh firstly it doesn't matter if America runs out of oil, the advantage of a free market economy is that everything is produced where it is cheapest.
What you are saying about oil production increasing linearly doesn't make sense.
I haven't seen any info on this so I can'r be sure of my facts but the price of oil as been roughly falling I think. Now the price is decided by supply and demand. So for the price to fall then supply must be increasing faster than demand. I see no problem.
Are you sure oil supply is increasing linearly? Oh firstly it doesn't matter if America runs out of oil, the advantage of a free market economy is that everything is produced where it is cheapest.
What you are saying about oil production increasing linearly doesn't make sense.
I haven't seen any info on this so I can'r be sure of my facts but the price of oil as been roughly falling I think. Now the price is decided by supply and demand. So for the price to fall then supply must be increasing faster than demand. I see no problem.
Nope it’s increasing linearly, that’s what I have read. I'm not talking about the price of oil I talking about oil production and the amount of oil the world sucks up every day. Oil prices are artificially low here in the states, mainly because we can makes deals I buy it at cheaper prices.