Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)

Thom Madura wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Bill Blakely wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:24:20 -0600, Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Bill Blakely <wcblakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:47:22 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: wrote:
: :>orionca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
:>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:20:12 -0800, Toon <toon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>> :>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:51:33 -0800 (PST), Sirius Kase
:>>> <SiriusKase@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>>>> Just wondering, is there any evidence that breeding people works any
:>>>> thing like dog breeding? While purebred dogs may be beautiful to look
:>>>> at, many are very neurotic and there are some breeds that can't even
:>>>> give birth properly without help.
:>>> Nope. Look at naziscum. They thought they were the best, but they
:>>> had a clear mental instability. Their deluded himself into thinking
:>>> they and they alone were the descendants of Atlantis, and that
:>>> religion can alter physical appearance for easier IDing.
:>>> Eugenics is always a bad thing. as shown by dogs, making the best
:>>> looking doesn't work well. Beautiful package, horrid contents.
:>> :>> No, Eugenics works. It however takes *many* generations to breed the
:>> desirable traits into the stock you're working with. It helps if you
:>> have short-lived animals with large litters to work with, too. A
:>> friend of mine in college was a Biology major and over 4-years had to
:>> breed a rabbit with her hame written on it in fur. It was fascinating
:>> work: She had dozens of white rabbits with random splotches of black
:>> fur to start with and had to "assemble" a line that resulted in her
:>> Frankenrabbit. :>> :>> Early human eugenics programs failed because scientists didn't know
:>> what they were doing and based their breeding programs on flawed
:>> models. If you were black you were lazy and stupid; if you were
:>> Jewish you had poor moral character, etc. If however you want to
:>> breed for, say, height then skin color doesn't matter, ethnicity
:>> doesn't really matter, what matters is that you start with tall people
:>> and only keep the offspring in the program who grow up tall. As a
:>> human generations is about 30 years it takes *a lot* of centuries to
:>> achieve any significant results this way. Modern eugenics instead
:>> takes the human genome (which we finally finished mapping about 10
:>> years ago) and runs computer simulations to isolate and amplify the
:>> traits we wish to breed for. The next step will be to assemble those
:>> desirable genes on a molecular level and create our "superman" in a
:>> Petri dish, implant the fertilized ova in a test subject, and grow him
:>> in one generation. We're only about halfway through Step 2 now.
:>> Antieugenics laws be damned you'll probably see these "supermen" start
:>> appearing around 2070.
:>> :>> Also the poor temperment traits seen sometimes in purebred animals
:>> isn't because they were bred; it's because the breeders were greedy
:>> and bred inferior animals. A reputable dog breeder monitors his lines
:>> for temperment as well as appearance and culls pups that display poor
:>> behavior attributes. Puppy mills don't care: as long as the pup
:>> looks good they'll breed it into the next generation. Again, modern
:>> eugenics takes this into account and part of the process is to
:>> increase not just strength and size but mental stability. Supermen
:>> who Don't Play Well With Other Children will be screened out before
:>> they're even born.
:>> :>
:>While I see nothing wrong with encouraging people with the desirable :>traits to marry, and reproduce, by financial incentives, the methods you :>outline, which might work, will find more resistance in society than can :>be managed, and would result in social upheavals of massive proportions.
:>Of course I won't be around to see them....
: : The world has had a bellyful of would be supermen. The words "modern"
: and "eugenics" don't belong together in the same sentence.

Knee-jerk anti-eugenic prejudice is appalling.

That's like saying I knee-jerk anti-Nazi prejudice. Very much like it,
in fact. Will I ever live down the shame!! LOL

There's no virtue in refusing to see the difference between genetic
counseling for people who may have inheritable birth defects and
operating death camps.

I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying
to breed a master race. But you knew that. ;-)

Obsessive egalitarianism runs the risk of sending evolution backward.

I'm sure we'd do the same bang-up job managing human evolution that
we've done managing the earth's environment and natural resources.

Eugenicists should stay beneath the rocks they crawled under after
World War II.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to improve the species. It is METHOD used that may be flawed. Nature always manages to find some way to do away with the weak. It used to be disease, or war, not it is automobiles, and famine. If that doesn't work, then we will see more tidal waves, or more global warming to decrease the population, and stress the species, until it makes progress.

Yes - there is indeed something wrong with wanting to improve the species. It opens to question what needs "improving". It is the beginning of justifying the holocaust all over again by eliminating the "undesired" traits.

Who gets to decide what is an improvement? George Bush or Osama Bin Laden(pick only one)? At what point do we place the limit - height - weight - color of eyes - size of ....? Do we weed out those likely to be extremists, like George Washington or Ghandi? Should everyone be good at football? or maybe that other game they play in Europe? And Why can't all our children be perfect - just like us?

There was a time when progress WAS having coal powered electric plants.

If there is a perfect god/creator - and he had a right rough time getting things to come out - what makes anyone think we can do a better job? Sorry - I am not prepared to put the future of the species in the hands of those who would have the power to make these decisions. I cannot identify the person I would trust to do it. Can You?

So, you would suggest that if I wanted to marry a green-eyed redhead, I should be considered a Nazi? Each individual gets to choose these things. Do you want to marry someone who is really stupid, ugly, weak? I doubt it. So, if you don't just pick someone at random, then you ARE practicing eugenics. It is when governments FORCE the choices on individuals that abuses happen. The principle is ok, it is the application that offers opportunity for abuse.

Since you are a Nazi(lol) - it makes no difference what color haired girl you marry - and no - it is not an individual decision - the girl has to agree too. Bring back the good old days - let the parents set up the marriage. They lasted longer than they do today - or else!!!.

I agree it is when the "choice" is forced on you that abuses happen (Although it would then be a choice). My point was that there are only so many people in the position of power to be able to force that choice. Who would YOU prefer to make it for you - George Bush or Osama Bin Laden? Who has both the position of power and your confidence that they would make the right decision? Not in my lifetime.

I am sure that I would rather that kind of power be in GWB's hands. Others here would probably chose the other alternative.

OR given the choice - would you select NONE OF THE ABOVE?

Probably 'none of the above', but I would probably choose to take the advice of a medical professional I trusted.