Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Eugenics
    #5650685 -

First, I know the dangers and potential disasterous consequences of implementing a eugenics program. These dangers have the potential effect of undermining human rights so eugenics is definitely something to be thought well out before implementing.

Now. I was watching a television show a while ago called "Little People, Big World". This program featured a mother and father dwarf and their children's lives. One of the dwarf couples had 4 kids, all where dwarfs too. Other families had a mix of dwarfs and non-dwarfs (all probably carrying dwarf genes even if not physically manifesting the traits). This of course promotes a dwarf gene pool, so dwarf traits will be passed on to the unwitting generations produced from the gene pool.

Personally, I think it is unfair for a dwarf couple to reproduce, potentially distributing dwarf traits to their offspring. Their offspring have no say as to whether or not they want to be a dwarf and may, as a consequence, spend their entire life handicapped. I don't know anything about most dwarve's lives but I imagine a sizeable porportion of them to develop inferiority complexes due to their handicap and consequently live unhappy lives.

There are plenty of children worldwide that need a loving home, this is why I believe dwarf couples should adopt instead of spreading their inferior seed, possibly ruining the lives of their biological children from the very beginning, not even giving them the chance to lead a normal and healthy life (again, I'm not saying that all dwarves are unhappy but I would think more are porportionally to the rest of the population).

Dwarves are just an example, but the eugenics program could also be used to cleans the population of traits like schizophrenia and other diseases/disorders with a high probability of being passed on genetically and manifesting itself in the life of a person who had no choice but to be born with inferior genes.

Sure, people with genes marked as undeseriable (resulting in their reproductive sterilization) would be unhappy about this, but I think their unhappiness should have to stand if they would otherwise have passed the genes on to their children who's lives would be ruined if they show the marked gene's debilitating traits.

Comments, criticism, all are welcome.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651197 -

eugenics is not right. genetics change with naturally occuring mutations etc. its the process that makes some species able to adapt and survive rather than die out. to make a generic model of the human genome is limiting evolution


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: rickpsfuckyou]
    #5651342 -

rickpsfuckyou said:
eugenics is not right. genetics change with naturally occuring mutations etc. its the process that makes some species able to adapt and survive rather than die out. to make a generic model of the human genome is limiting evolution


yeah right, evolution, for the most part, has ceased to exist within the human gene pool.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: d33p]
    #5651372 -

who are you (or anyone else) to say dwarfs are handicapped to the point of being a defect in human evolution?


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: rickpsfuckyou]
    #5651379 -

I know about the process.

The fact is, there are genes in the pool that will never serve a useful purpose. These genes, that cause certain diseases and such, should be eliminated from the pool so as to promote a better quality of life for individuals because they won't be born with handicapping traits.

Still, mutations will continue and new traits will emerge, some positive and some negative. Lets cut the negative ones out I say.

As far as your quotation "to make a generic model of the human genome is limiting evolution", I disagree. Evolution keeps going because mutations keep occurring. If a few genes leave the pool, there are still many that may mutate and establish themselves, if need be. By eliminating undesireable genes, you effectively put the evolutionary process into human hands. As long as human hands handle this process responsibly then the greater good of eliminating genetic burdens from your fellow man will be the result.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: kotik]
    #5651395 -

kotik said:
who are you (or anyone else) to say dwarfs are handicapped to the point of being a defect in human evolution?


why are you asking me that?

Dwarfs are funny, i say keep them. I wouldn't like to father one though.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651396 -

Quote:
there are genes in the pool that will never serve a useful purpose.


thats funny, last i heard scientists just finished sequencing the last chromosome in the Human Genome. and that was yesterday, may 19th.

are you implying that somehow between yesterday and today scientists not only successfully understand how all of the genes work, and all of their purposes / potentials, but that there is a general conensus among leading geneticists on this very issue? already?

I do not intent to be argumentative just for the sake of it, I try to prove a point. that no one really knows right now. even with science to provide answers, it takes multiple generations to even get a measurable change, and by then the context has been lost.


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: kotik]
    #5651416 -

Right on, I understand that humans don't understand the function of every gene but it seems reasonable to me that schizophrenia or dwarfism serves no useful purpose. Mutations are mutations, that is, they are deviations from the norm. A deviation from the norm can either be useful or not useful.

Useful mutations result in a better fit to the environment and in nature this generally means a better ability to survive and reproduce. In nature, mutations that are not useful hinder the organism's ability fit the environment and chance has it that the organism will not survive to reproduce and that mutation will die with the organism.

In human society, people with undesireable traits do not die, they are taken care of and provided for. This is a waste of resources and of life (assuming that the debilitating trait effects the person's life negatively/makes it difficult or impossible for them to enjoy life). I propose that we take those traits out of the pool so nobody is hindered, so that we may all be a little bit closer to having equal opportunities at living enjoyable and meaningful lives.

I still say, with a little more of an explanation, that some traits are useless and ridding them would be for the better.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651418 -

Your determination of negative traits vs positive traits is entirely arbitrary.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5651428 -

just out of curiosity, do you pin yourself as one who could reasonably judge each group of cases for survival or death?

which groups would go first? should it be taken beyond that level, even to sterilization or even genocide?

are you familiar with monocultures and the negative aspects of their results?


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: kotik]
    #5651436 -

kotik said:
who are you (or anyone else) to say dwarfs are handicapped to the point of being a defect in human evolution?


I was just thinking that parents who pass on the gene to their children are selfish. If I were a dwarf (and I'm not so you may very well disregard my opinion) I would probably feel like a defective or failed human, an accident, mistake, etc. I especially wouldn't want to pass on the gene that made me feel this way to anybody else. I would adopt children rather than chance bearing a 'defective' one.

The preteen boy (who is a dwarf, with a regular size brother) on the show made a statement something like "I don't know why God made me a dwarf. I know He has a plan for me though and I know it was for a reason that I am a dwarf." Well, I don't believe in things like fate so I saw a sad child trying to figure out why he is different but finding no answer other than his parent's telling him that God made him a dwarf for a reason. There is no reason for being a dwarf other than the unlucky chance of being born as one. I say, lets take that chance away and lets take the chance of being born with other debilitating conditions away as well.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651441 -

Quote:
If I were a dwarf (and I'm not so you may very well disregard my opinion) I would probably feel like a defective or failed human, an accident, mistake, etc. I especially wouldn't want to pass on the gene that made me feel this way to anybody else. I would adopt children rather than chance bearing a 'defective' one.


i think its safe to say that would be a quite pathetic and depressing look on life in general. What about Stephen Hawking, should he feel like a mistake as well? Your views on the entire thing seem to be very naive, even for someone advocating eugenics.

also, this thread seems more suited for mental / physical health than this forum, not that i really care, curious as to why you posted it in here. also wondering if you will answer my previous questions.


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Edited by kotik (05/19/06 08:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5651449 -

MushmanTheManic said:
Your determination of negative traits vs positive traits is entirely arbitrary.


I believe I defined a positive trait as one that allows an organism to survive in whatever environment it lives in and a negative one as the opposite of a positive trait. Is that arbitrary? Seems pretty much to the point to me but if you could point out what's wrong with that definition.

Of course, in regards to humans, survival isn't a concern because if you are born in a country like the USA, you will more or less be taken care of. Now, the definition of a positive or negative human trait is a bit trickier to define for this reason that survival dominates over environmental fitness in human society.

As far as a defnition of a positive or negative human trait goes, we'd have to collaborate on that and figure it out. The beginnings of this definition may include asking what traits would you rather not have if you had a choice? Dwarf...nope, don't want to be one. Schizophrenic...nope, don't want to be one. Hemophelliac...nope, don't want to be one. Brown eyes...well, a purely asthetic thing like eye color should not be considered. You get leading authorities to participate in the brainstorming and debate and you figure things out from there.

I don't really know what to say about monocultures right now, sorry Kotic, gotta be honest.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: kotik]
    #5651465 -

kotik said:
Quote:
If I were a dwarf (and I'm not so you may very well disregard my opinion) I would probably feel like a defective or failed human, an accident, mistake, etc. I especially wouldn't want to pass on the gene that made me feel this way to anybody else. I would adopt children rather than chance bearing a 'defective' one.


i think its safe to say that would be a quite pathetic and depressing look on life in general. What about Stephen Hawking, should he feel like a mistake as well? Your views on the entire thing seem to be very naive, even for someone advocating eugenics.



Such a view on life may come from the fact that a dwarf was smaller than everybody in school, they made fun of the dwarf and his big head and short limbs, he couldn't get a date in high school which continued to fuel his self-hate and low self-confidence. He settles down with his tail between his legs, subjugating himself to the world he never fit in with.

In the case of a dwarf, I wouldn't want somebody to be put in that kind of situation. Not everybody can take ridicule and a dwarf certainly receives more ridicule than the average person. Eliminating dwarfism (and other undesireable traits) brings a bit more equality to the table for everybody. If you aren't born a dwarf then you don't have to deal with what they deal with, you get a more fair chance at an enjoyable life.

Here's a question for you Kotik, what is desireable about dwarfism? schizophrenia? hemophilia?


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: kotik]
    #5651474 -

kotik said:
just out of curiosity, do you pin yourself as one who could reasonably judge each group of cases for survival or death?

which groups would go first? should it be taken beyond that level, even to sterilization or even genocide?



I am not the judge (it would be pretty high and mighty for me to claim to be an expert in all of this, I am simply stating an opinion by creating this thread). Collaborators from all walks of life and from professional backgrounds would judge undesireable traits. Experts in the field of genetics and biology and politics would all have a say. Forced or incentive based sterilization would be the way to go. Also, if the majority of people in a society don't like this, it won't happen...we live in a democracy after all.

A big problem in all of this is people who say "everything happens for a reason." Of course, I can't prove it doesn't, but logic says that statement is wrong.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651594 -

This is one of those borderline topics that could fit in more than one forum. The way it is developing so far, it seems to me it would be better suited to the Philosophy and Spirituality forum than to the Political forum, so that's where I'm sending it.

If the moderators of P&S disagree, I guess they could always send it back.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651603 -

Man, life with be boring without dwarfs.........


You know what the advantage of getting a blowjob from a dwarf is?

When they grab your dick, its make it look big!!!!!


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651625 -

I believe I defined a positive trait as one that allows an organism to survive in whatever environment it lives in and a negative one as the opposite of a positive trait.

Then dwarfism, schizophrenia, etc, should all be considered positive traits.

The beginnings of this definition may include asking what traits would you rather not have if you had a choice?

A group of 'authorities' should prevent others, who have characteristics they would rather not have, based on value judgements which are definitional in character (as opposed to empirical), from procreating?
  :dancinghitler:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Eugenics [Re: TODAY]
    #5651901 -

The problem with that is that the gene pool will get smaller and smaller until everyone starts suffering from it and we all become a world full of mediocre looking simpletons.


Now, with that being said, some day when I get about 28 zillion dollars, I'm gonna buy an island or a string of islands then build cities on them, then only let a carefully balanced blend of different races move in, and over time through interacial breeding and advanced education, after a few generations we'd create a new race that is sexy as hell as sharp as a razor blade. I'm thinking 30% ''white'',40% ''black'' (american black mainly), 15% latin, and 15% asian. These are rough figures though, but the main two would be black and white cause caramel complexions are sexy. Oh yeah, and no ugly folks allowed, only smart pretty people. Ha, that'd be the shit. The rest of the world would probably be hating and come blow us up though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Is there any merit to the idea of Eugenics? *DELETED* Mufungo 470 5 03/22/09 08:17 PM
by grymmtymm
* Eugenics
( 1 2 3 all )		 daimyo 3,627 40 05/23/14 07:11 AM
by LunarEclipse
* Gattaca, Genetics, Eugenics, and Destiny
( 1 2 3 all )		 AnxietyDrive 4,664 44 05/03/13 11:29 PM
by hidenseek1
* primordial dwarfism: debunking brain beliefs? SneezingPenis 1,048 12 08/03/09 02:08 PM
by MHbound
* Sex with the mentally handicapped.
( 1 2 all )		 Phluck 3,074 27 09/24/03 12:25 PM
by Anonymous
* Mentally Handicapped
( 1 2 all )		 trippindad82 2,813 32 05/15/07 11:46 AM
by trippindad82
* A new perspective on the Handicapped
( 1 2 all )		 circastes 1,033 22 06/23/10 11:34 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Evolution Eugenics
( 1 2 all )		 usulpsychonaut 1,047 21 11/07/12 03:51 PM
by usulpsychonaut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,169 topic views. 1 members, 314 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.