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

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:13:45 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Bill Blakely wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:31:24 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Bill Blakely wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:30:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Bill Blakely wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:10:30 -0500, Thom Madura
<Tommadura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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>
wrote:

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.
Eugenics without force becomes nothing more than genetic counseling,
however warped and twisted the eugenicists' vision of "improving the
breed" and "directing" evolution may be, counseling those so counseled
are free to reject. Eugenics and coercion of one form or another have
always gone hand in hand, and there is little point to eugenics if the
eugenicists are unable to force others to comply with their vision.

How do you feel about incentives? Would it be unethical (immoral) to
offer, say $100,000 to the couple if they married from a pool of
choices, and $10,000 for each child they had afterwards, along with
guaranteed full medical coverage? Do you think that would work?
I think the money would be much, much, much better spent on health
care and education than on trying to breed a master race.


I would agree with that statement, but something does need to be done to
prevent the decline of the race due to 'medical meddling'. We live much
longer now, but much of the later part drains the economy, and is less
than rewarding to some who are really ready to go, but are kept alive
beyond their time.

One, there is no reason to think "the race" is declining. You just
don't like some of the people who are moving next door (metaphorically
speaking, if not literally.) And two, "medical meddling" has not been
around nearly long enough to have had an impact on human evolution.


Yes, it has. Look at the incidence of certain mental problems, such as
bipolar disorder, autism, etc. Some of this may be environmental, but I
strongly suspect some is because of current medical practice. The
practice of giving Ritalin to children to 'calm them down' replaces
discipline, and the kids have problems later. It is disquieting when
research into the history of kids who shoot up schools, and malls turn
out to all have been on the drug in the past.

Whatever deleterious social effects modern "medical meddling" may be
having, it has not been around anywhere nearly long enough to be
affecting human evolution, Ron, you need read up on evolution and the
time frames over which it operates.


-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)
    ... many are very neurotic and there are some breeds that can't even ... :>>> Eugenics is always a bad thing. ... I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying ... I think you will find that a lot of the developmental problems with children today are happening because of the delay in women having babies - and then the use of fertility drugs to force the issue. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)
    ... is there any evidence that breeding people works any ... many are very neurotic and there are some breeds that can't even ... :>>> Eugenics is always a bad thing. ... I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)
    ... many are very neurotic and there are some breeds that can't even ... :>>> Eugenics is always a bad thing. ... A reputable dog breeder monitors his lines ... I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)
    ... :>> eugenics takes this into account and part of the process is to ... I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying ... There is nothing wrong with wanting to improve the species. ... Who would YOU prefer to make it for you - George Bush or Osama Bin ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Did anyone else notice (Of course they did)
    ... :>> eugenics takes this into account and part of the process is to ... I hardly equate genetic counseling to operating death camps and trying ... There is nothing wrong with wanting to improve the species. ... Who would YOU prefer to make it for you - George Bush or Osama Bin ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)