I was watching youtube and came across this gem series
http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=8726

it sparked some curiousity.

Lets entertain the notion that a superior human race could be brought about through eugenics. That all disease and malfunctions of human DNA could be rid.

now having entertained the idea.......

HOW could humans as a race impliment Eugenics, and would the methods be acceptable?

does the end justify the means?

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

What a silly question. Get rid of losers. Sandy is not too bright but even she knows that.

When all the losers have been eliminated, society can be redefined as small winners and big winners. So get rid of the small winners.

Now the problem becomes one of seperating the big winners from the really big winners, and so on.

Not an easy job but where there's a will there's a way

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

well the main idea is to rid the race of certain traits and disease that were a hinderance or problem for living. such as cancer, heart disease, MD, dwarfism, diabetes, mental disorders, etc etc.....

its not to create a race of blue eyed light skinned blondes like hitler, but more to rid the race of unwanted/problematic genetic traits.

well the main idea is to rid the race of certain traits and disease that were a hinderance or problem for living. such as cancer, heart disease, MD, dwarfism, diabetes, mental disorders, etc etc.....

its not to create a race of blue eyed light skinned blondes like hitler, but more to rid the race of unwanted/problematic genetic traits.



But whoever is in charge would make the final determination wouldn't they? Then how do you know what THEY are going to actually do? Perhaps a few warriors along with the sheep??

Get rid of losers

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

I agree the notion is frightening because of the possibility of it being abused.....and it is HIGHLY likely it would be abused. However, for the sake of making a decision.....lets ASSUME there would be no foul play.



It is extremely difficult to bring this up in a discussion and stay "politicaly correct" and not imply genocide.

HOW would you "weed" out the weaker genes?

Depending on the method:
in your opinion and feelings, would it be right to "weed" out the weaker genetic lines for the better of future generations of the human race?

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

Haven't you heard of dollars and cents, real estate and so on. The true mark of a successful American is his wealth. And the wealthy will ,quite properly , run the show.

I agree the notion is frightening because of the possibility of it being abused.....and it is HIGHLY likely it would be abused. However, for the sake of making a decision.....lets ASSUME there would be no foul play.



It is extremely difficult to bring this up in a discussion and stay "politicaly correct" and not imply genocide.

HOW would you "weed" out the weaker genes?

Depending on the method:
in your opinion and feelings, would it be right to "weed" out the weaker genetic lines for the better of future generations of the human race?


It's been tried already by the likes of Hitler. If memory serves "weak-minded" people were sterilised in the US at one time, the last one being about 1956. I can't remember which state was the last to abolish the practice.

Many of the so-called diseases are the result of successful genetic adaptations to other environmental pressures. Sickle-cell anemia is the result of a good adaptation that protects against malaria. A genetic solution to both pressures is unlikely to come about merely through selective breeding.

Many of the so-called diseases are the result of successful genetic adaptations to other environmental pressures. Sickle-cell anemia is the result of a good adaptation that protects against malaria. A genetic solution to both pressures is unlikely to come about merely through selective breeding.

excellent point, so you would be against any form of eugenics i take it?

It's been tried already by the likes of Hitler. If memory serves "weak-minded" people were sterilised in the US at one time, the last one being about 1956. I can't remember which state was the last to abolish the practice.

Hitler was a bit more superficial......blue eyed blonde haired, etc etc. and his methods weren't the most practical and efficient.

I was unaware of the US steralization of weak-minds in the 50's.....interesting.

excellent point, so you would be against any form of eugenics i take it?

It's just that we don't know enough to know all the effects from selecting for our desired characteristics. What seems good for us today could be bad in future conditions. I think it's fine in research, that's how we got purebred dogs and domestic animals for meat. Applying this to society is much more problematic. It would seem to subvert individual rights for collective goals, and so couldn't happen in a free society.

It would be much better to concentrate on cures for diseases and genetic conditions.

Hitler was a bit more superficial......blue eyed blonde haired, etc etc. and his methods weren't the most practical and efficient.

I was unaware of the US steralization of weak-minds in the 50's.....interesting.

I'm not sure how widespread the practice was . I know Churchill was in favour of euthenisia but I have no information as to whether it was put into practice in the UK. At that time it was widely believed that it was "in the blood". That's the basis on which racehorses were bred. It was shown to be nonsense when we had an understanding of genetics.

Haven't you heard of dollars and cents, real estate and so on. The true mark of a successful American is his wealth. And the wealthy will ,quite properly , run the show.

But what about the rest of the world? Other countries don't always agree with your ideas of who is the "chosen" ones. Did you know that many people living in America were dirt poor when they were young? They worked their way up the ladder of success and are now very rich. According to your ideas those that are "poor" shouldn't have a chance but what if we all are born poor which, as I've stated, the majority were. :shrug:

But what about the rest of the world? Other countries don't always agree with your ideas of who is the "chosen" ones. Did you know that many people living in America were dirt poor when they were young? They worked their way up the ladder of success and are now very rich. According to your ideas those that are "poor" shouldn't have a chance but what if we all are born poor which, as I've stated, the majority were. :shrug:

You are on the wrong wavelength. You should think more like Sandy. Why should the rich remain inactive while the poor try to get rich. The poor are losers because they were bred in poverty. It's a self-perpetuating process.

Further, the process must start at some time and, if we listened to you. the program would never start. So stop arguing and let's get rid of the losers as a first necessary step!

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:
Absolutely, and since wealth is, sadly, generally 'in charge' we have little hope of weeding out the real losers

conspicuous consumers,

people who subsist on vast amounts of resources and cannot seem to survive without incredible waste and expense. Clearly lacking the genetic ability to be creative or social they must compensate with habits that are detrimental to the environment and even themselves.

I feel sympathy for them because I can see they never achieve happiness, and thus the consumption continues at similar or ever increasing levels. Many of these people end up rich because they lack other qualities - sympathy, social interests, creative ability - and so pushing past others, leaping before looking, and capricious use of power seem the obvious behavioral choices.

But however much sympathy I feel for people with such genetic deficits, we are only allowing their suffering and everyone else's by allowing them to be born.

Given their undue influence over all 'democratic' nations, however, it may take considerable time before the eugenics program can be introduced.

[QUOTE=Myles;1702252]Why should the rich remain inactive while the poor try to get rich. The poor are losers because they were bred in poverty. It's a self-perpetuating process.[QUOTE]


But the rich never remain inactive they are always changing the laws to make certain they get more than they need. It is the rich who take away from the poor to make them that way to begin with. That is why people are rich, they use and abuse the system that was set up to try and equalize things between peoples by creating a middle class. Without a middle class you only have poor and rich with no one being able to gain anything from the poor parts of society.

I was watching youtube and came across this gem series
http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=8726

it sparked some curiousity.

Lets entertain the notion that a superior human race could be brought about through eugenics. That all disease and malfunctions of human DNA could be rid.

now having entertained the idea.......

HOW could humans as a race impliment Eugenics, and would the methods be acceptable?

does the end justify the means?

Unless you can make sure everyone has access to the capability and that no one race/country gets it early, then it might work. But the most populous countries would get the advantage if any World Wars started.

I don't think its worth it. Nature will find some way to combat this.

Unless you can make sure everyone has access to the capability and that no one race/country gets it early, then it might work. But the most populous countries would get the advantage if any World Wars started.

I don't think its worth it. Nature will find some way to combat this.

I agree that nature will probably find a way, I was just entertaining the idea because chances are......we as people will not let nature just do its thing......

[QUOTE=Myles;1702252]Why should the rich remain inactive while the poor try to get rich. The poor are losers because they were bred in poverty. It's a self-perpetuating process.[QUOTE]


But the rich never remain inactive they are always changing the laws to make certain they get more than they need. It is the rich who take away from the poor to make them that way to begin with. That is why people are rich, they use and abuse the system that was set up to try and equalize things between peoples by creating a middle class. Without a middle class you only have poor and rich with no one being able to gain anything from the poor parts of society.

I see you are getting the idea. By eliminating the poor and middle classes, the rich can spend their time accumulating more wealth. Dont forget that the next round will seperate the big winners from the small winners who will then be eliminated. Then we'll have to weed out the rich from the super rich, and the super rich from the mega rich and so on. It's all quite obvious really.

My one regret is rhat Sandy will be eliminated in round two.

Who will clean the toilets and make running shoes for 10 cents an hour?

I do hope the rich think carefully before killing all of us.

The moment I see a japanse robot that can sew leather for less than 10 cents an hour I am heading for the mountain forests.

Who will clean the toilets and make running shoes for 10 cents an hour?

I do hope the rich think carefully before killing all of us.

The moment I see a japanse robot that can sew leather for less than 10 cents an hour I am heading for the mountain forests.

Ten cents an hour seems a bit extravavagant but with advances in technology the cost will soon come down. Part of the paln which I forget to mention is that some of the fittest will be retained and provided with a carefully balanced diet which matches calorific input/output. They will not, of course, be paid, to prevent them hoarding money.

Self-help books will be banned in case any of the underclass learn to read. Imagine the problems facing society if the lower orders gotto read "Think and Grow Rich", "Get Rich while You Sleep" and similar subversive literature. To keep them in good spirits, thus enabling them to work better, a few will be taught to read and provided with uplifting literature such as " My Dog Taught Me To Pray"

I wrote a long post about this topic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018

I wrote a long post about this topic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018


thanks for that! I read through a good portion of what you said I would have to say I agree with portions of it.

I think for some people due to religion and the concept of "GOD" it hinders their ability to accept genetic manipulation. Why? Well because it takes creation out of gods hands......which they contribute to him and only him.

IF you could turn on and off genetic traits to create a superhuman or "better" human I would be willing to bet the faithful and religious would STILL be against it.

but as was said earlier in that thread you linked......the problem mostly lies in the "process" by which eugenics would take place. Most of the processes I can think of involve force upon a person. Either by force of death or force of sterilization.

Hitler however has destroyed the idea to the point where it is very hard for some to even consider. Just like he destroyed the swastika and germany.

Spidergoat brought up an excellent point when showing that some "undesired" genetic traits could be in response or adaptation to other outside threats.

For Eugenics to be considered willingly there has to be a method of process that will be acceptable. I can't think of one honestly.

Can intelligent design beat evolution? I don't think so. Eugenics is intelligent design, and as such is a poor substitute for evolved solutions.

No matter how you do it, you'll end up with a guy in charge who resembles my first employer.

And when he's done, he'll have the human race set up to his specifications. The men will be lobotomized dwarf employees who don't need sleep. The women will be 3 - 4 feet tall, no teeth, with a flat head to balance the six pack on.

Ten cents an hour seems a bit extravavagant but with advances in technology the cost will soon come down. Part of the paln which I forget to mention is that some of the fittest will be retained and provided with a carefully balanced diet which matches calorific input/output. They will not, of course, be paid, to prevent them hoarding money.

Self-help books will be banned in case any of the underclass learn to read. Imagine the problems facing society if the lower orders gotto read "Think and Grow Rich", "Get Rich while You Sleep" and similar subversive literature. To keep them in good spirits, thus enabling them to work better, a few will be taught to read and provided with uplifting literature such as " My Dog Taught Me To Pray"

I believe any mature society offers the poor lotteries, casinos, television, exceptional rags to riches cases - to replace dissent with shame - theology based on positive thinking - see: infomercials, current business world buzz words - and affordable malnutrition.

We owe it to both humanity and Mother Earth to control the bloated dysgenic homo sapien population with eugenics.

sly1:
its not to create a race of blue eyed light skinned blondes like hitler,


Yeah, I'd much rather brunettes with hazel or brown eyes.

I believe any mature society offers the poor lotteries, casinos, television, exceptional rags to riches cases - to replace dissent with shame - theology based on positive thinking - see: infomercials, current business world buzz words - and affordable malnutrition.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will bring it up at the next committee meeting.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will bring it up at the next committee meeting.
Oh, dear me, no. I can only assume you are a ‘representative’ of a ‘developing’ nation. Didn’t you learn anything from the fall of the Soviet system?
Rule # 1 - Do not seat your PR division and your executive branch on the same committees. (in fact the former does not have to be yours, see below)

Rule # 2 – Don’t be proactive – God, I love that word – in your PR, be reactive.

Being proactive – such as having the committee topic you suggested above - just creates heat loss due to inefficiency. Simply wait for left wing and otherwise disgruntled groups and individuals to notice, excuse me, claim that the organizations responsible for some of what we both listed above are opportunistic, cynical and parasitical. Then come out and imply
a) at worst they are neutal
b) market forces will sort this all out in the long run
c) this is the best of all possible worlds.

Again imply. All that social realism and romanticism you can leave for whatever figurehead you place in ‘office’.

The wonderful thing is that these so-called parasitical organizations – corporations, for example – will pay for their own PR. You do not need to tax the people to pay for PR.

This is all assuming you have already
1) set up banking laws that allow banks to loan money and then, while earning small interest on this money, can invest that same sum in the market - talk about cake and eat it too - and
2) corporations are protected under law AS INDIVIDUALS.

But really these are the total preparatory steps you need to take. From there the corporations will handle everything. But notice. They will definitely separate their executive and PR functions via the creation of lobbyists and think tanks and de facto ownerships of the media – we can call the various media organizations client states.

No need to have a committee. No need to feed conspiracy theories.

(if you feel compelled while transitioning to our more subtle system to have single committees, we recommend the secret labeling of all minutes with this proviso: release the documents 15 to 20 years later with large portions blacked out in the interests of national security. Counterintuitively this works wonders. Hell, even if the documents are in no way embarrassing, black out a few sections. This keeps supporter and non-supporter intellectuals fussing over documents and the past, while the mass of humanity gnashes their teeth over someone like Britney Spears having or losing custody of her children. In the past, if you are really pressed, you can allow ‘bad guys’ to be found, via past documents. You cannot jail the dead and the elderly are looked at mercifully by juries of their underlings. I mean Henry K. gnashes his teeth at our get togethers, but the little snipe is old and he can certainly live without a lot of international flights, for Christ’s sake.)

For the intellectuals you can also imply – always better than stating directly, again, learn from the Soviets’s errors – that predestination is the reason the poor are poor and the rich deserve their money and no one is stealing except for that black drug addict in Newark or Birmingham last week.

Remember: much as the intellectuals think they are no longer Christian they still have a psychology formed by a few thousand years of interpersonal and social religion-based ruts. Use genetics to justify economic disparaties, (but definitely via an independent expert or think tank) which is a cue to the hind brain and the limbic system that the rich are the chosen ones – this works well as a kind of guilt in both Christian (read, neo-Calvinist or at worst neo-Lutheran) intellectuals and Jewish ones. Catholicism models work on the poor – perhaps especially non-religious ones, who await the day when the market evens things out, just as their ancestors awaited justice in the afterlife.

Never for a second believe the ruts made by religion are no longer useful because people don’t believe in God.

He who does not study ruts, is doomed to make them. (as the Soviets tried and failed. How silly. They should have used the ruts that were there, why build new ruts - more heat loss. Where they did use the neurological ruts already present, it was coincidence. Guidline # 1 - don't listen to your own PR. The Soviets had good intentions, control the population, demand labor, and brook no dissent, but they came right out and said those things, confident in their own Romantic panache.)

I hope this has been helpful. Contacting the IMF could be useful, but why not go to the horse’s mouth itself (and look in): any global corporation will do.

Don’t work so hard. Let the so-called parasites do all the work. It is their nature. As they said at Esalen: don't push the river.

And that is precisely what having such a committe would be doing.