The believe they were talking about Sarah Murnaghan type situations, not 'ramps are expensive.'Colour-Scientist said:
I'm not saying I agree.
Poll: Natural Selection
- Thread starter SadisticFire
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not saying I agree.
Well that's the first world all done for then. We live off the toils of the second and third world, and what exactly do the majority of us actually produce?SadisticFire said:
Of course a decent counter to that would be judging using economic status rather than sheer quantity manufactured goods, but then we're still be fucked anyway - most western countries are running a budget deficit, meaning that on one level we all use more than we produce.
Guys...
FIRST of all, it's probably artificial selection...
SECONDLY, it's not even possible to not have it. ALL your actions affect the real world, which in turn affects you and everyone and everything in it.
Third, bio-engineering, biochem, mechanical engineering, AI development, Neuroscience and the like would be a better alternative to selection. This discussion I feel is outdated since the sciences will soon approach the point of being able to re-program a human being's both software and hardware. The debate should be what is allowed, during what circumstances, and understanding shit so when we reach that point we can utilize everything to it's fullest potential instead of having morons holding up pitch forks and fire saying "Down to satanism! Stop playing god!". It's stupid to know that even if we as a species find a way to abolish all suffering, some overly fanatic under educated idiots will be against it thinking it's their religion's (or other non-nonsensical beliefs) evil counterpart.
Agree? / Disagree?
FIRST of all, it's probably artificial selection...
SECONDLY, it's not even possible to not have it. ALL your actions affect the real world, which in turn affects you and everyone and everything in it.
Third, bio-engineering, biochem, mechanical engineering, AI development, Neuroscience and the like would be a better alternative to selection. This discussion I feel is outdated since the sciences will soon approach the point of being able to re-program a human being's both software and hardware. The debate should be what is allowed, during what circumstances, and understanding shit so when we reach that point we can utilize everything to it's fullest potential instead of having morons holding up pitch forks and fire saying "Down to satanism! Stop playing god!". It's stupid to know that even if we as a species find a way to abolish all suffering, some overly fanatic under educated idiots will be against it thinking it's their religion's (or other non-nonsensical beliefs) evil counterpart.
Agree? / Disagree?
Pretty much this. Anything we do, no matter how abhorrent and vile, is natural to us. Don't hate on the holocaust, various genocides or the crusades, that's just humans doing what comes naturally.Daystar Clarion said:
OT: Well more on topic anyways. I like the Louis CK thing about "of course... but maybe". Of course we have to look after the weak and help them out. Of course. But maybe... 7 billion people is way too many. I mean of course it would be terrible if we lost half our population. But maybe... a bunch of lanes would open up on the freeway and the remaining people wouldn't really give a shit.
What you've got there has been put forward before. It's called eugenics.
Hitler was a fan. It doesn't end well.
Hitler was a fan. It doesn't end well.
I think most human beings don't really do all that much that really matters. Basically most people think that just by having a job, thats enough to count them as being worthy. I can tell you right now that most of the people on this site will just consume resources, then breed. As a person that kind of knows he worthless, I am not doing anything either. Think most people like to thumb their noses at lesser species, they are not doing anything better.
I am not trying to endorse this idea, I think its a terrible one. However, eugenics should not be traced to Hitler or the Third Reich. It is much much older than that, Plato talks about his vision of the ideal society (which eugenics plays a prominent role) in The Republic.
No the effect a person has on the world is much greater than what they contribute or cost. What if you could prove that on average every disabled person makes the world better by making those who care about them more considerate and understanding. This change than leads to a more successful society because the heightened levels of cooperation and reduced conflict. That is just one possibility of literately infinite possibilities of the effect of a group of people can have on the world as a whole. The world is way way to complex to deiced what is "better" on a grand scale, not to mention that it has no built in goals that mean we are working towards something. That is why the best thing to do on a large scale is to make systems that allow people the greatest ability to work towards their own goals. (Note I am not advocating anarchy. Having the option to kill people without consequence means them having the option to kill you. This makes you only viable option to spend time not getting killed, reducing the time you have to do what you want. this same logic can be applied to less extreme circumstance accordingly till its obvious government provides more options than it removes.)
Well, definitely a no as far as killing people goes, generally doesn't end well.
As far as sterlizing people goes, I'd be lying if some of the people I see didn't make it tempting as hell, but also not likely to work out too well.
What I am in favour of is good old voluntary, organized selective breeding. No being assholes, no doing anything to anybody who doesn't meat your criteria, just generally trying to pair people up for the best possible outcome. Like a genetics based dating service, perhaps. Then let natural selection go from there, a few generations of quality control should improve the offspring chances of superiority,
As far as sterlizing people goes, I'd be lying if some of the people I see didn't make it tempting as hell, but also not likely to work out too well.
What I am in favour of is good old voluntary, organized selective breeding. No being assholes, no doing anything to anybody who doesn't meat your criteria, just generally trying to pair people up for the best possible outcome. Like a genetics based dating service, perhaps. Then let natural selection go from there, a few generations of quality control should improve the offspring chances of superiority,
No matter what, just killing people just cause you(or in this case probably a government) deem them unworthy is all kinds of messed up. I know if we somehow implemented such policies, soon it won't be a person's physical or mental defect to get them terminated, but their beliefs and ideals may be deemed unworthy.
There's an excellent old Twilight Zone episode about when people are deemed obsolete and thus killed by the government. It shows that once someone gets into power under this system of eugenics, their targets will become less about the good of society, and more about who they personally find unworthy of living.
There's an excellent old Twilight Zone episode about when people are deemed obsolete and thus killed by the government. It shows that once someone gets into power under this system of eugenics, their targets will become less about the good of society, and more about who they personally find unworthy of living.
Someone just finished reading the Time Machine.
Alberta had a eugenics program that wasn't ended till 1978. The government would use social services to register disabled children and make them wards of the province the government went so far as to forcefully sterilize the children they took as wards.
Parents of disabled children were closely monitored by social services and made to think they were bad parents incapable of raising a child with a disability. Someone who thinks eugenics is a good idea is no better than a Nazi. People that take the ignorant stance that people with disabilities are a bane to society are the major problem with the world.
Alberta had a eugenics program that wasn't ended till 1978. The government would use social services to register disabled children and make them wards of the province the government went so far as to forcefully sterilize the children they took as wards.
Parents of disabled children were closely monitored by social services and made to think they were bad parents incapable of raising a child with a disability. Someone who thinks eugenics is a good idea is no better than a Nazi. People that take the ignorant stance that people with disabilities are a bane to society are the major problem with the world.
Someone just finished reading the Time Machine.
Alberta had a eugenics program that wasn't ended till 1978. The government would use social services to register disabled children and make them wards of the province the government went so far as to forcefully sterilize the children they took as wards.
Parents of disabled children were closely monitored by social services and made to think they were bad parents incapable of raising a child with a disability. Someone who thinks eugenics is a good idea is no better than a Nazi. People that take the ignorant stance that people with disabilities are a bane to society are the major problem with the world.
Double post sorry.
Alberta had a eugenics program that wasn't ended till 1978. The government would use social services to register disabled children and make them wards of the province the government went so far as to forcefully sterilize the children they took as wards.
Parents of disabled children were closely monitored by social services and made to think they were bad parents incapable of raising a child with a disability. Someone who thinks eugenics is a good idea is no better than a Nazi. People that take the ignorant stance that people with disabilities are a bane to society are the major problem with the world.
Double post sorry.
Killing people because they aren't "worthy" is a no no.
Sterilizing? I don't no. It brings up the old nature vs nurture question on how much of our personality is genetic. Until we have more research on how much of our physical and mental development is genetic and how much of it develops during childhood I don't think it's a good idea. Also I'm not sure telling people they can't have children is in the spirit of democracy and all that. Improving people via non-restrictive means (i.e. better education) would probably be both more effective and more widely accepted.
Also, since this is going to come up sooner or later, the nazis believed in racial eugenics which has little to no concrete scientific backing. As opposed to selective breeding which has been proven to work in many animals and has no reason to not work in human.
Sterilizing? I don't no. It brings up the old nature vs nurture question on how much of our personality is genetic. Until we have more research on how much of our physical and mental development is genetic and how much of it develops during childhood I don't think it's a good idea. Also I'm not sure telling people they can't have children is in the spirit of democracy and all that. Improving people via non-restrictive means (i.e. better education) would probably be both more effective and more widely accepted.
Also, since this is going to come up sooner or later, the nazis believed in racial eugenics which has little to no concrete scientific backing. As opposed to selective breeding which has been proven to work in many animals and has no reason to not work in human.
That's a fair point and eloquently stated. But the accent on that "e" is weird. "Doo-shay-bag?"Henrik Knudsen said:
Genetic defects aren't really becoming more prevalent either; people are. More people means more defects. We're also much better at identifying them (at least the internal ones) and treating many of them today than we were even just a few decades ago.