Is there some "higher" transcendental force that has determined moral order and law or has the human animal evolved specific regions in the brain that compel us to cooperate, to be repelled by antisocial acts and tendencies? Citing the research of Antonio Damasio and others, Matthew Alper's "The God Part of the Brain" (www.godpart.com) explores the possibility that moral consciousness emerged in our species as an evolutionary adaptation meant to keep our selfish inclinations in check so as to make us a more survivable species.

"Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from philosophers and priests and biologized." -E.O. Wilson

E O wilson kicks ass.
He's saying what I've been saying forever. We should look for the original code of ethics that is naturally ingrained in the homo-sapien species. These church ethics are fake and people are surprised when no one abides by them, we were never meant to.
Thou shalt do whatever the fuck comes naturally to them.

Original ethics? The idea is absurd. Morality is completely subjective, there is no secret code of objective morality that humans are "supposed" to follow. When it comes down to it there is no objective right or wrong, only right toward a specific goal, or wrong toward a specific goal. Objective morality works only if you feel that you have some sort of objective higher purpose in the world. I call that kind of thinking delusions of grandeur.

No, every animal has a code of ethics.
Its just evolved behaviour that breeds true. Humans would have it if there weren't so damn many unfit assplugs breeding.
Now each human has his own little natural ethics but because of the inefficiency of natural selection in humans we are getting some pretty screwed up codes. This was attempted to be put into order by religion and law but that system is fucked, it doesn't stop the problem it just keeps punishing the problems that it is allowing to carry on.
Let people like E O wilson who understand this decide who breeds and eventually you would see people becoming one species as opposed to a muddled up mess, there would be absolutely no need for law at all. Everyone would have the same ethics. They would be whatever E O bred for.
You could breed people like you could breed dogs. You can breed dogs to have certain traits and temperements, natural selection does it slowly to get the same result but we can do it pretty damn fast, we should be doing it to ourselves, we could fix EVERY problem in the world.
The problem people would have with this is would require culling, ironically the reason that bothers them is it clashes with their fake ethical codes that are the problem in the first place.

There is one rule: Survival of the species/self. All ethical codes generated from this basic rule.

To blatantly generalize: Do not Kill another human spurned Ok so now we can live together if you do not steal...which spurned... ok now don't fuck my wife...which spurned...since I think I think I can trust you...do not lie...bla fucking bla

Ethics 'biologized'? LMAO. Not as long as humans live in groups.

Why? :confused: are humans the only animals living in groups?

Ps: Don't LMAO EO :mad: He's probably the biggest name in science today. Anyone who is respected respects EO wilson.
Maybe, just maybe *gasp* he's a little smarter than us
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
No, every animal has a code of ethics.
Its just evolved behaviour that breeds true. Humans would have it if there weren't so damn many unfit assplugs breeding.
Now each human has his own little natural ethics but because of the inefficiency of natural selection in humans we are getting some pretty screwed up codes. This was attempted to be put into order by religion and law but that system is fucked, it doesn't stop the problem it just keeps punishing the problems that it is allowing to carry on.
Let people like E O wilson who understand this decide who breeds and eventually you would see people becoming one species as opposed to a muddled up mess, there would be absolutely no need for law at all. Everyone would have the same ethics. They would be whatever E O bred for.
You could breed people like you could breed dogs. You can breed dogs to have certain traits and temperements, natural selection does it slowly to get the same result but we can do it pretty damn fast, we should be doing it to ourselves, we could fix EVERY problem in the world.
The problem people would have with this is would require culling, ironically the reason that bothers them is it clashes with their fake ethical codes that are the problem in the first place.

HAHA don't tell me that you actually believe this garbage? Take a god damned history class, or just go turn on the television and turn it to the history channel. Do you know who already had this completely insane notion? Do you know what they called it? What you are describing is Hitler's Eugenics program.

Guess what, all of those Untermenchen whom you feel are unfit to breed are doing the species a favor. You clearly don't know anything about evolution, because in order for it to work reliably we need lots of variation. Unity makes the species weak. Diversity is what makes us adaptable and innovative, the alternative is stagnation and death.

Animals don't have a moral code, by the way. Morality is an arbitrary and abstract system, other animals simply don't have the capacity for it.

I hate to quote Jerrek of all people, but go get a refund on your education; you payed too much.

What?!
The species is weak as piss right now.
Diversity is good, but out breeding to any "runt" is called overbreeding, which is bad. Nature culls and thats what makes a wild species strong. Nature doesn't cull us so if we had any brains we would cull be culling ourselves. We realise this with dogs, the weak members of the litter wouldn't make it in the wild, they could in domestic situations, but we KNOW that letting them survive and breed would weaken the breed. I happen to be involved with breeding protection dogs so I know what I'm talking about. This isn't a matter of "what I believe" its flat out fact. I 100% know I am correct, I'll go so far as to say I've never been so sure of anything I've said at sciforums before.
If the majority of any species are allowed to pass on their genes they fuck up the species. There needs to be a balance. There's a thin line to tread that only nature seems to be able to walk straight on. "Survival of everyone because they are nice people" doesn't work. Even if you don't know your science it should be obvious after watching one episode of jerry springer, or watching the news for that matter.

You're completely off your gord, you don't know what you are talking about. Genetic diversity is what drives evolution, and what sets our species limits for adaptability, period.

As for "those people you see on Jerry Springier" do you really feel that their failure (in your eyes) is due to genetics? We've already seen your plan tried before, and guess what, it doesn't work. It's nothing but a hopelessly bigoted and evil philosophy based completely on your own little fantasies of who is a good person and who is a bad person.

CATFIGHT!

Whether you think its a good idea to selectively breed humans or not you can't deny overbreeding is detrimental to the genetic health of a species. Its scientific fact.

If I was serious about culling humans I'd probably include myself in the culling because I doubt I could survive in the wild. Especially in the wilds of africa where humans evolved and should be.
That would be the ideal requirement in my view. If you can survive with nothing in africa you deserve to breed, otherwise you are just hiding under mamma's skirt while she passes you sweets. (Keep in mind I too am hiding there and accepting sweets, but at least I know what i am; an incompetent organism not worthy of passing on my genes)

Originally posted by Xev
CATFIGHT!
Hey:(
That hurts...
I learned a valuable lesson today:(

Drop the pretense, get all oily and half naked and WRESTLE!

Umm, hurts? I thought it was funny. But what is it when two guys fight, it's not a catfight though. But a "dogfight"? That sounds wrong.
I'm interrupting an interesting discussion. Sorry.

Originally posted by Mystech
Animals don't have a moral code, by the way. Morality is an arbitrary and abstract system, other animals simply don't have the capacity for it.
They don't have a list of phoney morals like we have no. But they do have ingrained instinctual "morals".
If two male guinea pigs get into a fight the loser will expose his balls to admit defeat, the winner will never bite his nuts. All animals, especially mammals have a form of ethics that is ingrained into all the members of that species.

Humans don't share a common set, due to overbreeding.
I'll elaborate on this, you aren't an idiot mystech, you realise humans aren't magic super-animals right? It is agreed that the way evolution works is the same for all organisms correct?
Ok then you won't mind me explaining it in dog form, I just learned about this myself as I am just getting into breeding. I was like you, I assumed diversity would have to be beneficial. I always knew humans were screwed up but I never put it together untill a wise old bandog breeder pointed out the flaws in my program.

I was against line-breeding(which is basically inbreeding, you breed a particularly desirable dog to the most desirable dog from its own litter, daddy and daughter stuff, yeah gross), but with out doing that the crossing can go in any direction, producing unpredictable dogs and forcing you to cull more than you need to. You have to set a standard by selectively line breeding early on. Naturally, new species emerging will "set their standard" because there will be few of them. For a new species to evolve there needs to be something lacking in whatever species they are evolving from, when somethings lacking in a species they start lacking a vast population. The vampire finches of the galopogas evolved from 3 birds as recently as 1983. They didn't used to be vampires, they changed faster and set a standard due to their lack of genetic diversity. Now there's thousands of them.

Anyway, humans would have started out like that too, there would have been few aquatic apes or whatever due to el-nino and only a few survived. They then proceeded to incest it up and create homo-sapiens. Thats fine. We started out well. But when civilisation arose, the natural culling stopped. Families with 10 children would end up with 10 sets of grandchildren etc. Thats not a good thing, most of those kids should have died by way of lion or something, only the strong should have survived. Now all these shouldn't be organisms started breeding and shouldn't be babies were coming out, and breeding.

Its called over breeding in the dog world, people who want as much money as possible breed every pup they get, even if it has serious problems. This is frowned upon, for obvious reasons, its disintergrates and degrades ancient breeds of quality. You need to be selective with which dog from each litter will get the chance to breed. This improves the breed over time. It also sets temperement, which is something humans need. All members of a breed that has been well bred will share temperements. They will share ingrained morals.

Labradors have been bred to never bight people, neopolitan mastiffs have been bred to bite anyone that threatens their owner.
Humans have been bred to stick small animals in their asses, get off on having their balls crushed and fuck puppies. Some humans have been bred to care for the wellbeing of others and the state of the planet, others have been bred to want to eat other people while rubbing grease on their stomachs.
Now we "punish" people because they don't all share the same temperement, what a fucking joke, they've been bred to be criminals, they had the worst, most lenient breeder in town; society.

The only reason there is no set of morals ingrained into us is because we haven't been selectively bred to have a set like all other animals have. We made up an arbitrary set which just flaunts our shortcomings as a species.
In actual fact, mystech, we are the only animals that DON'T have morals, not the other way around.

This seems to be getting back to the nature vs. nurture argument. Our 'morality' as you call it could very well be the result of evolution(hence our ability to develop moral ideas) AS WELL as shaped and influenced by the people around us. . .

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
That would be the ideal requirement in my view. If you can survive with nothing in africa you deserve to breed, otherwise you are just hiding under mamma's skirt while she passes you sweets.

Hahah, do you understand what adaptability is? Guess what, the entire world isn't like Africa, in fact, Africa isn't even like Africa any more (not the Africa of 500,000 years ago, or whenever humans started popping up). The very reason that diversity, mutation, and aberration is a good thing is because the world itself changes. Africa ain't going to be around forever, and if we grow away from our original habitat that makes the survival of the species a whole hell of a lot more likely to survive. I don't believe that there is any such thing as "Over breeding" not until it gets to a point where there just isn't enough resources to go around to sustain such a large population, but then I don't think we're necessarily talking about that, now are we?

Why is a human who is suited to live in the wilds of Africa best suited to be a power broker living in a pent house suite in New York City in your opinion? Why should your standard apply to anyone who has their own very secure niche too which they have become very well adapted?

In case you hadn’t noticed Humans have survived and prospered as a species because of the fact that we are so adaptable. We can live anywhere, and when our own particular natural traits fail us we have the ability to shape our environment to be better suited to our survival. If we simply remained living as a small number of ape-like beings living off the land in Africa, we’d probably have died off by now.

Originally posted by Xev
Drop the pretense, get all oily and half naked and WRESTLE!

Umm, hurts? I thought it was funny. But what is it when two guys fight, it's not a catfight though. But a "dogfight"? That sounds wrong.


It's homoerotic is what it is, Xev. Go get the camera. With your steady hand filming it all I'm sure you'll make me a star.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
But when civilisation arose, the natural culling stopped.

Because compassion for our fellow man and becomeing masters of our environments rather than being subject to them has always been a central issue within civilization. The fact is that a civilized people do not "cull" their own, because there is simply no need to. If your African tribes had started killing people born with lighter shades of skin becaues they were not as protected from the sun and as such would get more skin cancer and "Weaken the species" then we certainly never would have ended up with people living in Europe, there would be no western civilization and nothing that it has produced would exist either.

What makes your criteria for a "Strong" species hold any weight at all? In the instance of your dogs, they are being bred for a purpose, bred toward a goal, and as such desireable traits are measured in terms of how they help or detract from that goal. In the instance of human survival, there is no such artificialy imposed goal to which we are trying to shape our genetic structure, and there never will be. Having a large diversity of genetic aberations makes the species stronger because we can never account for all of the situations which large population groups may eventualy encounter, and those who seem less suited for one environment may end up thriving in another while those who were on top in the old world now struggle just to stay alive. It's called adaptabililty and it's how Evolution works.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Families with 10 children would end up with 10 sets of grandchildren etc. Thats not a good thing, most of those kids should have died by way of lion or something, only the strong should have survived.

What about a world where there are no lions? Why in your opinion should these certain children have died? If they have not died by way of lion, then doesn't that indicate that they were doing something right? And be it Genetic or behavioral (Guess what the two are distinctly different) it doesn't really matter, now does it?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Its called over breeding in the dog world, people who want as much money as possible breed every pup they get, even if it has serious problems. This is frowned upon, for obvious reasons, its disintergrates and degrades ancient breeds of quality.

What it does is create pups that are farther and farther from the singular ideal model which the breeder is trying to achieve. This is a completely artificial standard and a completely arbitrary goal to try to reach. The only reason that these pups could be considered inferior is because they do not embody the same traits of the breed which the owner is trying to sell, or groom for dog shows, or chop up to put in hot dogs, or whatever exactly it is that you breeders do with your dogs.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
You need to be selective with which dog from each litter will get the chance to breed. This improves the breed over time. It also sets temperement, which is something humans need. All members of a breed that has been well bred will share temperements. They will share ingrained morals.

Take a psych 101 class, Doc. Moralilty isn't ingraned, it's not genetic, it is a learned pattern of behaviors. Animals havn't got morals, and Humans do. Humans are the only species with the capacity for a moral code. Animals live off of instinct and varying small degrees of learned behavior.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The only reason there is no set of morals ingrained into us is because we haven't been selectively bred to have a set like all other animals have. We made up an arbitrary set which just flaunts our shortcomings as a species.


Humans do not operate primarily off of primitive instinct. We often like to use our very advanced brains and use a bit of abstract thinking now and again. If you're not ready to do that you can go and continue breeding with your dogs.

if i'm going to take anyone's opinion of this matter at face value, it would be eo wilson's.

i think the problem arises because people have a tendency to ignore their bodies. you also can't assume that people are programmed with flawless morals. we have certain inherited tendencies that can be trained out of us while others are trained in. animals basically have instincts to protect their life, offspring, mates, families, property, and territory (though not all of the above at all times). typically, animals feel it is moral to do whatever it takes to acheive the afore mentioned protection. people are not very moral animals but we like to pretend we are, hence all the made up moral codes we live by.

You seem to be confusing survival instincts and moral conduct. There is a very large difference between the two.

Moral conduct isn't a real thing, realities equivalent is behaviour.

Are 'reason' or 'logic' real things? What are their equivalents in "reality"?

Dr. Lou Natic,

It's quite a bold statement to state that so much of the behaviour of an individual is derived from genetics alone. You are basically implying that if you put one half of a new born twin in the middle of a bloody civil war and the other in blissful utopia, they would end up having exactly the same morals twenty years down the line, regardless of their completely opposite experiences. It does sound a bit unlikely, doesn't it?

Or in a similar situation, if one kitten from a litter is left out in the wilderness (or just not given a home in some urban area) and another is taken in as a pet, do you think that one could be swapped for the other half way through their lives without the owner of the pet realizing any difference in behavior?

Lou,
I believe Mystech is doing a good job so i will simply watch.

I believe I've done my job.
But I'll address the last point.
I never said life experience doesn't affect behaviour. But a whole lot of someones self is born into them. Tonnes of evidence today is suggesting people are born murderers and rapists for example, their upringing might stop them from actually murdering or raping someone though. But it is still inside them, a person with out these traits bred into them won't become a murderer or rapist regardless of their upbringing.
You can look into this stuff yourself to get the scientific explanations, thats not my forte but I'm sure someone here could cover it, I know its true.

Originally posted by Mystech
You seem to be confusing survival instincts and moral conduct. There is a very large difference between the two.

nope. i'm aware we're all talking about morals. so was i.

our natural morals are not all that holy. the high and mightiness some people claim is an invention.

There's no such thing as "natural morals". Morality is a function of society. Whether there is such a thing as virtues or universal morals, is a question that has been asked since the earliest philosophers.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
our natural morals are not all that holy. the high and mightiness some people claim is an invention.

What exactly are our "Natural morals"? Are these supposedly moral standards of behavior which are inherent to our species? Do you really think that such behavior exists, or are there simply some moral codes, as arbitrary as the rest, which can be rationalized on an appeal to man's primordial urges? Something like the "moral" action of reproducing or building a fire to cook food or the like.

Refraining from killing a family member would be an example of natural morals that are hardwired into social animals.
If you don't think animals have morals you are very ignorant of the natural world.
Just because you see them breaking the rules of our fake morals doesn't mean they don't have their own. Its just that killing a baby that isn't yours is fine in lion society. Killing your own baby isn't(for obvious reasons).

The quote in the original post was politely saying the morals we have now obviously aren't working. If they were no one would be in prison. If we want people to act a certain way we need to make them act that way through biological means. Just telling them "this is bad" doesn't work because they are just animals with their own hardwired moral standards. But unlike other animals these differ from person to person. As I've said this is due to humans abandoning natural selection.
It is time we as a species try to fix that instead of punishing the people that WE are creating. That is a pointless venture.
You wouldn't hit a greyhound for chasing rabbits. Why electrocute a man for killing 48 people? The mechanics behind why each animal is committing these "crimes" are exactly the same.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If you don't think animals have morals you are very ignorant of the natural world.
Just because you see them breaking the rules of our fake morals doesn't mean they don't have their own.

Just telling them "this is bad" doesn't work because they are just animals with their own hardwired moral standards. But unlike other animals these differ from person to person.

So if you hold that people have ingrained "hardwired" morals, but these supposed morals differ from person to person, then what, in your opinion, is the best way to determine which morals should be kept and witch should be bred out, as it were? That is to say, what objective criteria make some of these "hardwired morals" good, and what makes others bad?

I firmly maintain that we are not born with morals, and anyone with the slightest experience with psychology can attest to this, I'm certain. Morality is a learned set of behaviors. Animals do not display it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
As I've said this is due to humans abandoning natural selection.

How has man abandoned natural selection? Could he even do so if he tried? Last I checked things still work in such a way that those who are suited to their environment continue to live, while those who are not don't. The only difference is that man changes his environment be more hospitable, and to make it easier for him to survive. Would you have us return to the wilderness? Is this "natural" state of being somehow superior to the world we have built for ourselves?

Originally posted by Mystech
So if you hold that people have ingrained "hardwired" morals, but these supposed morals differ from person to person, then what, in your opinion, is the best way to determine which morals should be kept and witch should be bred out, as it were? That is to say, what objective criteria make some of these "hardwired morals" good, and what makes others bad?

That would depend what you want the human species to be. There is no objective good or bad. There is an objective "right set" for each species that evolved naturally through trial and error. Humans had a set perfect for hunter and gatherer humans. They would have kept this unchanged untill civilisation arose. The natural selection stopped so it hasn't been trial and error, its been trial and success for every variation, this is why we see such a diverse range of "interesting" humans around. I'll go into more detail when explaining how humans have abandoned traditional natural selection.


I firmly maintain that we are not born with morals, and anyone with the slightest experience with psychology can attest to this, I'm certain. Morality is a learned set of behaviors. Animals do not display it.

For all animals a certain amount of instincts are set in the egg or womb. This is enough for sharks to get by on. Mammals are more complex and so the instincts continue to be established after they are born. The parent's instincts tell them how to mould their young's instincts to a set that will be beneficial to their youngs survival. We are clean slates in some aspects at birth, but oh so many aspects got locked in inside the womb as well. This is just how mammals work, its still just as hard wired as sharks, the only difference is some of the cable is still getting layed after mammals are born and while they grow up.
You'll find serious psychologists agree with this actually. A good psychologist is well read in animal behaviour. That should be the first step to becoming a psychologist. Every animal out there is our distant cousin, it makes sense to look to them to learn about ourselves, why you assume humans are some seperate entity I don't know.
When did you decide animals don't display behaviour? After looking at still pictures in a national geographic magazine? :confused:
If you read the "trials of life" my job would be alot easier, or even watched the dvd. Animals display so much more than you know. Even if your prerequisite for morals is that they be a learned set of behaviours you'll find thousands of animals displaying sets every bit as complex as yours.


How has man abandoned natural selection? Could he even do so if he tried? Last I checked things still work in such a way that those who are suited to their environment continue to live, while those who are not don't. The only difference is that man changes his environment be more hospitable, and to make it easier for him to survive. Would you have us return to the wilderness? Is this "natural" state of being somehow superior to the world we have built for ourselves?

Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time.
Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Congrats guys, you've "done" well:rolleyes: but its time to stop celebrating our "victory" and realise we aren't going anywhere but in a steep downward spiral.
No we shouldn't return to the wild, we should never have left, or at least waited untill we were more mature as a species.
Now that we have there's no point crying over spilt milk, but we can and should reflect on the spilling of the milk and learn from it.
The reason we've become so lousy is because we weren't experienced enough to be in control of ourselves. We are like an awkward teen in more ways than one. Wild animals have a certain innocence and dignity, an advanced civilisation could be something wise and great, but we think we know everything, we're arrogant and devoid of humility when in reality we don't know shit. Most people don't even think about why they want to have sex. We aren't as far away from the animals as we like to think or act. We're wearing make up and giving big boys head jobs but we're still very much children in adults clothing.
Even the world leaders are totally out of touch with reality. The ONLY people with any handle on all this are scientists like EO wilson but how many people know about EO wilson? He understands the very nature of the planet earth, the closest to deciphiring a meaning to life and how much power does he have?
We have archaic primal politics akin to wild animals. Logic escapes the human race replaced by tradition, law and order based on our ancient ancestors knowledge.
Well we know so much more now, clearly a panel of the worlds best scientists should make up "earth's government". They could tear down the very foundation of society and start over making one based on the knowledge we now possess. It would be drastically different and way more efficient. I'm sure todays society worked for the greeks 2000 years ago but its kind of laughably pathetic today.
Rather than lawyers and courtrooms and prisons the problems could be stopped before they started. Which is what the original quote was saying. We have the knowledge, well some of us, the vast majority doesn't. That makes me sick, utopia should be strived for at all costs.
But we keep on creating criminals and punishing them. Its such a moronic waste of time.

Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time. Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Natural selection is not "natural" anymore? When did this happen? If it was so succesful in getting us evolved thus far, why would we suddenly presume to know better and develop morals?

Originally posted by Jenyar
If it was so succesful in getting us evolved thus far, why would we suddenly presume to know better and develop morals?
Well thats the big question isn't it.
The answer? Humans are arrogant and retarded. Thats what I've been trying to say, thanks for the help jendawg:)


.... oh wait... aren't you friends with jesus? Why are you helping my argument? :confused:

To show how circular it is. Either natural evolution is natural, and morality falls within that natural process. Then morality is natural and intrinsic, and crime will disappear through the evolutionary process - there is no need to "enforce" moral values, since that would be like forcing people to fly before they developed wings. People can only be moral as far as they have evolved into moral people, and it is unethical for people with higher morals to require those with no morals to adapt "against their nature".

Or morality and immorality did not evolve, since people have developed no natural affinity to them. Like the appreciation of beauty and truth, they are learned over and above evolutionary conditioning. They are instilled through parenting, teaching and lawmaking. Then reason and morality are "supernatural", artificial elements imposed upon nature. If its rightful place is outside nature, but it is evident that the rules have to be imposed to sustain the quality of nature, then morality has authority over nature, and the more universal and overriding a moral is, the more valid and praiseworthy it is. It becomes a law to judge others by.

Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?

Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.' ["Evolution made me do it"]
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
Evolution: The dissent of Darwin', Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?

Where do my system of values come into it?
Flagrantly abandoning the sytem that made them what they are and creating a haphazard half-assed system without covering all the aspects needed for a species to thrive was a mistake. A wiser species would have learned the lessons nature taught it and kept ordered selection in their breeding patterns to compensate for the transition, but we didn't. Man thought he was smart enough to figure it all out by himself, he was ignorant of the world around him, he never noticed systems, he noticed the dirt under his feet and his own personal survival, the order to nature was invisible to him and is still invisible to many people despite science(aka reality) unveiling natures complexity for us.
I'm not refferring to any man when I say the human species is arrogant and retarded, and it isn't really meant to offend. Its a mistake you would expect a species with a skewed power to knowledge ratio to make. Knowledge is catching up which is a good thing but we need to let it in. Right now we aren't, the most powerful man in the world believes in a primitive superstitious religion. Clearly this is a problem. How can he be in control of a planet he knows nothing about?

Jaron Lanier: 'There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.' ["Evolution made me do it"]
Richard Dawkins: 'All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth.'
Evolution: The dissent of Darwin', Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

Thats an awesome quote.
Is this supposed to make me rethink my position for some reason? :confused:
I don't understand, do I quote something I don't agree with like the bible or satre or something now?
Seems like a wierd form of debate.

Where do my system of values come into it?
Right where you made a judgement. By what standards are you able to make such a statement?

Flagrantly abandoning the sytem that made them what they are and creating a haphazard half-assed system without covering all the aspects needed for a species to thrive was a mistake. A wiser species would have learned the lessons nature taught it and kept ordered selection in their breeding patterns to compensate for the transition, but we didn't. Man thought he was smart enough to figure it all out by himself, he was ignorant of the world around him, he never noticed systems, he noticed the dirt under his feet and his own personal survival, the order to nature was invisible to him and is still invisible to many people despite science(aka reality) unveiling natures complexity for us.
That's like blaming humanity for becoming self-aware. If we remained instinctive, we would have been unable to judge wars for being right or wrong, and Hitler would not have committed suicide. Treaties would not be broken, or in fact, even created - since who is to say where a peace treaty is either fair or unfair? By the way, Hitler did believe in evolution. The "Arian" race was the superior one, and it was their evolutionary right to take over the world. It was only natural. Jews were eugenically inferior, and therefore no more than animals - Hitler had a strict breeding programme to "compensate for the tradition". Hitler certainly thought he had all his bases covered. I can imagine that his surprise that the rest of the world didn't agree was much like yours.

It doesn't help blaming the system for our weaknesses, either. The weakness is one of rejecting morals, not creating them. The denial of God and any objective moral authority who can ultimately hold us accoutable, or enforce, a law of love, has gone a long way to promote this weakness. Humanism, Evolution and relativity are going the extra mile to deny the validity of any authorive values. Confirming only the individual's moral authority makes no provision for common law, and proposing only a secular judgement system makes no provision for the intention (the "genetic tendency") to do crime within a person.

We don't live in an inherently peaceful world. We have to build one. We can't build it on natural instincts. I'm not proposing that belief in God is the only way of achieving it. But disregarding the validity of a religious system that advocates a universal moral standard doesn't help either. If you want to point fingers at Christians, Muslims or any particular group, then ask yourself what the link is between breaking judicial law, and breaking moral law. Rather point them to their own laws, than abolishing their freedom in favour of yours.

If a people do not have a moral code that advocates love, peace and tolerance, then they are either obeying an authority that has none of these characteristic, or they don't see the use of them.

I'm not refferring to any man when I say the human species is arrogant and retarded, and it isn't really meant to offend. Its a mistake you would expect a species with a skewed power to knowledge ratio to make. Knowledge is catching up which is a good thing but we need to let it in. Right now we aren't, the most powerful man in the world believes in a primitive superstitious religion. Clearly this is a problem. How can he be in control of a planet he knows nothing about?
Knowledge is like electricity. You can use it for a light bulb or for an electric chair. Read my point above about religious/moral vs. secular (state/country/people's) law. Being told something is wrong, or even knowing something is wrong usually isn't enough of a reason not to do it. What compels anybody not to commit murder? Surely it isn't a natural aversion? People who believe in the might of the individual have no allegiance to the "survival of his species". We don't have a group-mentality anymore, at least when it comes to post-modern culture. When we choose a pair of jeans, then by all means, go with the flow. But with "primitive superstitions" like a religion or God who demands accountability, it's everyone for himself, right? Pop culture may have replaced religion, but has not replaced gods.

If you believe Bush has a skewed moral law, by what standards to you judge it? If you believe his country has a skewed foreign policy, why should he be "in control of the planet"? If he truly believes God is in control of the planet, he will advocate love as a law. Tell me, what would a person who had no fear of a moral authority, have done differently than Bush? "Defend" peace rather than fight for it? How do you know whether he does right or wrong? Why is is "clearly a problem"?

You reject Bush for having a religious group-mentality based on a moral law that should - if practised universally - ensure the survival of not just the species, but peace and prosperity for the whole planet. Yet you condemn any decision that would seem natural and evolutionarily acceptable by your own definition.

You say you draw no lines yourself, but it is clear you do - and rather hypocritical ones. You a content to be a parasite of other people's decisions, because you think you can have no convictions by which to decide what is right or wrong.

Man, Hitler sure didn't help selective breeding win any popularity contests did he?

Anyway, I'm not "blaming" humanity for anything. It was an honest mistake, but it definately was a mistake. Not enough thought was put into the transition to civilisation. Too many of the laws of nature were disregarded.
They tried to compensate with religion and law and maybe in the beginning this worked. People would get killed for blasphemy so I guess they were subconsciously compensating for natural selection. But the long term result has been distastrous. Today we keep the societal structure from those times, without any form of ordered selection whatsoever, all while we know so much about the natural world, its incredibly foolish.
If you think all worked perfectly you simply don't know the facts. The planet is in a terrible state all thanks to human beings. All because a species had more power than it could responsibly handle.
Is this where I'm making a judgement? I would have thought I was stating the obvious, if this is me voicing my moral standards then that is depressing. Depressing because if people can't see this we are in more trouble than I imagined.

"It doesn't help blaming the system for our weaknesses"
What do you blame? What do you blame when a building starts to fall apart? The planks of wood or the builder?
Of course people are going to reject morals written in stone. You are one of the lucky organisms who by chance of evolution happens to agree with those morals. Others clearly don't happen to feel the same way you do. Blame them all you want, but who's passing judgement now? At least I know people are what they are, whether this was born into them, taught to them throughout life or a mixture of that, either way they can't help it.

Whats the point of blaming these people for being born and poorly raised by people who instinctively only know how to raise poorly? If theres a problem stop it from happening. Employ a new builder. Or curse and kick at the planks of wood, but don't blame me when I call you insane.

I'll admit it, I think your set of morals doesn't work for homo-sapiens. Why? On what grounds? On precedent. Its been used, your set is the problem. Thats the one builder who we know sucks at building.

Its trial and error, and its time to trial something new, not necesarrily MY set of values, just something different, because christian values errored big time.

Using the knowledge scientists now possess accurate predictions and estimations could be made and through selective breeding the human race could be pushed in a direction that has been well thought out and has a good chance of working well.
It wouldn't be based on race, hitler obviously had a primitive understanding of all this, I'm sure he thought what he was doing was right just like you and me, but now scientific knowledge is indicating that something similar to hitler's idea without the nastiness is in order. If there never was a hitler I'm sure this would have been voiced to the public by now, he ruined it for everyone.

A logical program would not take race into consideration, there would be a test designed by the worlds top scientists. You would go and "try to get your breeding permit" and it would be an accepted part of life. It would also be accepted that most don't pass.

Oh well, people will get over it, and eventually more people would start passing because they would be the offspring of what scientists considered desirable for the betterment of mankind. Whatever that betterment may be, I don't know, I'm sure if enough funding was put into the study scientists would figure it out.

No one gets gassed or thrown into a pit, you simply don't have children if you don't pass a test, big deal.
How is this evil? How is it not a fantastic and inspirational idea? I see holding back the human race just to slightly please a selfish crowd as evil, and almost forehead-slappingly stupid.

On bush, I am not bush bashing, i'm politics bashing. I don't care that bush starts wars or whatever. Big deal.
I care that he is not a competent world leader. In fact no politician in history is a competent world leader.
Politicians spend their life studying an archaic art with no real meaning. To rule a world that simply doesn't work the way politics does, only politics work like politics, it should be a game for old people to play, not something to be taken seriously.
A leader of humans should have human betterment as the top priority. Actually, no, because humans rule the earth, a leader of humans should have the well being of earth and everything on it as the top priority(keep in mind "well being" doesn't mean not dying, quite the opposite, it means maintaining the health of all the species which actually requires death, at the very least it requires selective breeding)
Does that not make sense? The leader of earth should have the earth as his top priority, not the damn budget or any of that arbitrary crap, not foreign policy, foreign police men can take care of that:p the leader of earth maintains order on earth and keeps earth spinning smoothly, he shouldn't start a war with iraq for no reason, he should force japan to stop overfishing and brazil to stop clearing forests.
Makes sense to me.
Politics, now thats something that makes no sense at all and has no place in todays society, the world politicians shouldn't be people that studied politics, they should be people that studied biology, ecology, physics, psychology, zoology, philosophy, history and natural history, they should be scientists. This is a planet we are living on, not a pile of money and missiles.

A logical program would not take race into consideration, there would be a test designed by the worlds top scientists. You would go and "try to get your breeding permit" and it would be an accepted part of life. It would also be accepted that most don't pass.

Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? What you propose is a series of judgement calls that would subject the human race to the limitations of scientific knowledge. What if, after a thousand years of breeding, scientist discover that that "defective gene" actually had an important purpose, and it would take another thousand years to breed it back in. In the mean two thousand years, people will just have to live with bleeding from their eyes or whatever the consequence was.

You can't banish ethics and morality from any human system. It is innately human to make decisions, and morality is only the label put on those decisions. It is not a strength or a weakness by itself.

I would eye any person who claims the authority and knowledge to be able to "trial and error" on humans "for the greatr good of mankind". You have indicated yourself that we have not displayed any ability to make such decisions.

The law of love is mankind's only hope. When it ceases to be a law, it ceases to be a hope. Christian values did not err, the people who were supposed to live by them did, and still do. No selective breeding programme will create the perfect Christian, or a peaceful human.

Proposing a eugenics programme is no different than declaring war on the "inferior". I hope you can see that.


If you think all worked perfectly you simply don't know the facts. The planet is in a terrible state all thanks to human beings. All because a species had more power than it could responsibly handle.
This is obvious. Yet you propose we "take over" the situation - isn't that like a military coop over the established power, because you think it is lacking, ineffective and insufficient?


A leader of humans should have human betterment as the top priority. Actually, no, because humans rule the earth, a leader of humans should have the well being of earth and everything on it as the top priority(keep in mind "well being" doesn't mean not dying, quite the opposite, it means maintaining the health of all the species which actually requires death, at the very least it requires selective breeding)
Like what happened with Noah's flood?

Does that not make sense? The leader of earth should have the earth as his top priority, not the damn budget or any of that arbitrary crap, not foreign policy, foreign police men can take care of that the leader of earth maintains order on earth and keeps earth spinning smoothly, he shouldn't start a war with iraq for no reason, he should force japan to stop overfishing and brazil to stop clearing forests.
For someone who doesn't believe in morality you make some pretty moral statements: should vs. shouldn't.

Picture for a moment if God was that authority, with earth, life itself, as His top priority. Where America is in no better bposition to judge Iraq, than Saddam himself, but where America is right by fighting for peace, while Saddam is wrong by fighting for power? Why do you think God's laws don't promote such a life?That some people die and some live in the process is part of the process, but it is not for us to judge but for us to choose.

When our choices are based on power struggles and human authority, they will always fail. You eugenics programme will fail, because it puts one person above another - one gets to choose, and another doesn't. And it is because they do not keep the laws of their creator, who created everybody from one man.

Our selfishness and greed are the real reasons for our degeneration; the absence of moral conduct, not the presence of it.

What if selfishness and greed could be bred out of the human species? Isn't that something worth trying to accomplish? I'm pretty sure it could be done in a few generations.
Who are you blaming for selfishness and greed? I think its obvious these are traits ingrained into the human species. If I believed in god I'd be blaming god.
You say it as though you wish humans would just decide to stop being selfish and greedy, how can they do this when this is the animal they are right now? Its like asking a lion to stop chasing zebras, you can't do it. But you could selectively breed lions to the point where they are without their prey drive. It would take a while but it could be done.

The free will argument can only go so far.
So a guy murders someone, we can say he should have used his better judgement and should have known better blah blah blah, but at the end of the day the guy did it, he did it because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. End of story. What are you expecting from this guy? What if these same expectations were put on you? Yeah its easy for you to refrain from murder, but thats you, it wasn't for this guy so lets find something thats equally difficult for YOU to not do, hmmm, can you not believe in god please? Thanks. Yeah just.... don't... ya know? Use that god given freewill of yours and stop believing.
Was that easy? What you kept believing?!
You monster! Don't you have ANY control over yourself?

People, for one reason or another, aren't living by the morals of "god", what is your explanation for that? Maybe they are deciding not to, but do they have any control over what they decide?
Whats the difference between you and them jenyar? Are you a better person just because you happen to believe in god and everything he stands for?
I can honestly say, and I'm being as sincere as I have ever been here, I CAN NOT believe in god, I can try, I can try to accept jesus into my heart for hours on end and he will always be denied entry by something I have no control over. Am I the spawn of satan? What do jesus and god have against me? Nothing I can do can put me where you are, just like nothing you could do could stop you from believing. You can't just decide to stop believing and I can't decide to believe. This goes for everything about us, murderers can't not murder. A guy might come close to murder and back out and it might seem like he used his freewill, but its just the same thing happening, only this time he COULDN'T murder. He had no control over his decision to not murder.
A pro murder observer would say he should have used his free will and murdered.
True free will does not exist because you are basing your decisions off the person you are, and the person you are is not something you designed using your freewill. The person you are is a product of evolution. You had nothing to do with that.
Do you at least understand even if you don't agree?

Yes, I do understand, but I don't agree. If selfishness and greed is the product of evolution, who are you to question it? Are you somehow priviledged not to have those qualities? I know they are in me, even if I try not to exercise them. It's called self-control.

There is one thing that you have not taken into account. What if our environment promotes those qualities, and that is why they devloped? There is one test I usually do mentally: Imagine you were the last person on earth. Now test those qualities and see if they can still be exercised.

What do you think? Is one immoral person enough to corrupt many moral ones? What role does temptation play?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Yes, I do understand, but I don't agree. If selfishness and greed is the product of evolution, who are you to question it? Are you somehow priviledged not to have those qualities? I know they are in me, even if I try not to exercise them. It's called self-control.
Oh I have those qualities.
But I don't have much self control. You do huh?
So did you stop believing in god to test that like I requested?
Could you swear at the heavens and order god to make sure you go to hell?
Everyone has their weaknesses. I don't know you, but I know you do to. Just because yours are different weaknesses than mine or our friend mr murderer doesn't prove anything other than the diversity of the human species.
Lets say you have complete self control, you never eat chocolate or jack off or anything, thats amazing. But self control is just another trait that YOU have. Some people simply DO NOT. They can't help it, its how they are.
Maybe you should be the F1 in the breeding program;) Self control certainly seems like a desirable trait.

There is one thing that you have not taken into account. What if our environment promotes those qualities, and that is why they devloped? There is one test I usually do mentally: Imagine you were the last person on earth. Now test those qualities and see if they can still be exercised.
What do you think? Is one immoral person enough to corrupt many moral ones? What role does temptation play?

While a mammal develops they are usually very easy to influence, because this is the time their parents are supposed to "positively" influence them, thus fully forming them as a complete organism.

Other mammals are really good parents. Be they a single parent, a couple or a family group.
Humans often have poor parents(due to, as I have mentioned a million times, a lack of natural selection) and on top of that humans get parented, not only by 1 parent, a couple or a family group, but by the entire species(television, the internet and civilisation in general, the general public on the street etc)
This has positive and negative affects. The rate of human progress certainly owes its impressive speed to this, a human with incompetent parents can make it through by being parented by outside sources(in my case the discovery channel:p)
But it can also create organisms that are less than competent, merely because it can, it shields them from predators, thus allowing them to breed and become incompetent parents and continue the cycle.

I'm not judgeing people or accusing them of being incompetent based on my own preferences. I am merely using my knowledge of the natural world. No animal on earth has evolved to the point of only producing perfect specimens, it seems many of you assume humans have, but some people are born without the ability to move for example, people are born with mental disorders that make their brains stop developing after a certain age etc etc, we all know this. Humans actually have more defective offspring than any other animal.
I don't "hate" disabled people, I'd like it if no one had to suffer like that ever again.

The current breeding patterns of human beings creates both freakishly exceptional specimens that never would have been in the natural world but it more commonly creates incompetent specimens that never would have survived in the natural world. This is cold hard reality. I'm not "being a big meanie" when I say some people aren't life-worthy. I'm telling it like it is. The runt of a wolf litter isn't life worthy, it sure is cute and sweet, it means well, its a horrible fact of life but that wolf was born to die. I don't see you kicking up a stink about that, why don't you go punch a tree for being so judgemental of the wolf population?
You know its just the way it is, well humans are no different, humans that were born to die are growing up and having children, that should be of concern because its not normal.

As for your question, I guess an "immoral"(whatever that means) person could corrupt a young developing "moral"(" ") person.
Thats because nature designed us for family life, not city life. Our children are supposed to be raised by a family clan that cares about them and instinctively wants to raise them well. Nature designed young mammals to be like sponges because that works well if they are being positively influenced by good competent parents or family members. Thats is what they were designed to be influenced by, now they get influenced by all sorts of strange organisms that don't necesarrily have their development as a good human in mind. To put it lightly.
There are so many aspects of todays society that are doing an amazing job of deppreciating the human species. I wouldn't have ever needed to have met or seen a human to know they were in trouble, all I would need to know are the facts on paper.
Actually if thats all I had I would assume they were in an even sadder state than they are.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic


That would depend what you want the human species to be.

Those would be the large mostly hairless apes who walk on two legs, build elaborate settlements, and tend to live together in large social communities.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
There is no objective good or bad.

And as such no objective morality.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
There is an objective "right set" for each species that evolved naturally through trial and error.

A natural "Right set"? How do you figure? This has to be one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard of. There is no "Right way" to adapt to your environment, there are only those methods which work, and those methods which do not work (toward the goal of survival and reproduction, I suppose). It had occurred to you that all aberrations are evolved naturally through trial and error, as well, hasn't it?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Humans had a set perfect for hunter and gatherer humans. They would have kept this unchanged untill civilisation arose.

No we didn't. We'd evolved in such a way, and learned certain behaviors that allowed us to exist as hunters and gatherers, we weren't the "Perfect" hunter/gatherers, there's simply no way to even devise criteria for such a statement.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The natural selection stopped so it hasn't been trial and error, its been trial and success for every variation, this is why we see such a diverse range of "interesting" humans around.

Natural selection hasn't stopped, it's still in effect. Humans can not stop such a process. Our environment (which we are now largely responsible for creating) now allows us much loser standards for survival. Diversity would have popped up regardless of this, because not all humans would be living in the same parts of the world, or under the same circumstances, and as such the criteria for survival would not be the same. Why, in your opinion are varieties of people which would not have been able to survive in the wild inferior? If they are living in out modern world, then they have already proved that they have adapted well enough to survive, so why should we hold them to a standard of survival which no longer applies to humanity? It would be like calling a wild dog poorly adapted and unfit to survival because it can not program computers or drive a car.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
For all animals a certain amount of instincts are set in the egg or womb. This is enough for sharks to get by on. Mammals are more complex and so the instincts continue to be established after they are born. The parent's instincts tell them how to mould their young's instincts to a set that will be beneficial to their youngs survival.

All you are doing here is confusing the distinction between instinct and learned behavior. An animal can not mould another's instincts, but it can teach it a certain kind of behavior which could help them to survive. Raccoons, for example are not born knowing how to get the lid off of a trash can, but they can learn this from experience or from watching other Raccoons. This behavior will help them survive by providing them with a very convenient source of food, but it is not instinctual.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
When did you decide animals don't display behaviour? After looking at still pictures in a national geographic magazine? :confused:

I never implied any such thing. I said that animals do not display any sense of morality, it's a completely abstract idea and far beyond anything but a human. Animals are full of behavior, that’s why they don't just lay there on the ground not moving. . . I don't imagine that they'd still be around if they were like that.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Even if your prerequisite for morals is that they be a learned set of behaviours you'll find thousands of animals displaying sets every bit as complex as yours.

Yes morals MUST be a learned set of behaviors and ethics, that's simply what morals are, go look it up in the dictionary. An animal can not fathom the idea of an action being somehow indefinably and abstractly good and somehow indefinably and abstractly bad, as such they can not understand morality. Also I'd contest that there is no animal which is capable of such specifically complex behavior as a human, as none can learn such complex tasks as we can. I'd like to see a Dolphin put together an engine, or a pet cat type a response over the internet to another cat sitting at a computer who knows how many thousands of miles away.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time.

You are nothing but flat out wrong in this statement. Go back to biology 101, because they didn't teach you enough about evolution.

Natural selection does not produce perfect anything. It works purely on a "Good enough" basis, if a particular trait is good enough to allow a creature to survive and reproduce, then it will be passed along, and conversely if a trait is not so much of a drawback that it will prevent a creature from reproducing or surviving, then it will also be passed along. This is why humans have an appendix, it's why dogs can't see in color, it's why cancer exists in most every species, and why just about every other biological drawback or quirk exists. There is no such thing as a "perfect" organism, only organisms which are "good enough to do the trick" as it were, or simply suited well enough to fill their ecological niche, continue to survive and reproduce. You can look this up in any high-school biology text book, I'm certain.


Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Congrats guys, you've "done" well:rolleyes: but its time to stop celebrating our "victory" and realise we aren't going anywhere but in a steep downward spiral.

Through what means are we going into a "downward spiral?" We are perhaps one of the most astoundingly well adapted creatures on the face of the earth. This is because rather than being molded by our environment (though this does obviously still take place) we have shaped it to fit our own biological characteristics. We are ever in the process of creating an environment which is well suited to us, so where does this prophesized failure come in? There is a good reason that we are living high on the hog, throw a party, our species is suited better for it’s environment than any other species in the known universe!


Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
No we shouldn't return to the wild, we should never have left, or at least waited untill we were more mature as a species.

What exactly do you mean by "More mature as a species"? I hope you realize that evolution is not a linear progression, species do not start out "bad" and get "good" It's a wandering and meandering process fueled by random genetic mutations which slowly shape the species according to a "good enough " (or a "not quite bad enough") model.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
That makes me sick, utopia should be strived for at all costs.
But we keep on creating criminals and punishing them. Its such a moronic waste of time.

And one of this has a damned thing to do with biological evolution.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?

Where do my system of values come into it?
Flagrantly abandoning the sytem that made them what they are and creating a haphazard half-assed system without covering all the aspects needed for a species to thrive was a mistake.

But, Lou, we have changed the aspects needed for our species to survive, we're the ones who are in control of that now. Why, then should we bother paying any attention to any behavior or instinct which was developed by living under different circumstances? Doing that would make one completely maladjusted and poorly adapted to the world that they are actually living in. Let the past be the past and the now be the now. Don't live according to where you have been, live according to where you plan on going.

All you are doing here is making an argument against adaptation, and evolution.

Originally posted by Mystech
But, Lou, we have changed the aspects needed for our species to survive, we're the ones who are in control of that now. Why, then should we bother paying any attention to any behavior or instinct which was developed by living under different circumstances? Doing that would make one completely maladjusted and poorly adapted to the world that they are actually living in. Let the past be the past and the now be the now. Don't live according to where you have been, live according to where you plan on going.

All you are doing here is making an argument against adaptation, and evolution.
I sort of half agree.
We have changed the aspects need for our species to survive. We should have slightly altered the system. But we started from scratch due to our lack of knowledge and made a system that sucks. There's alot we could have taken from the natural system and incorporated into the one we live by. Surely that would have been the wiser thing to do.
What do we really know about the universe? Who are we to think we know so much better than the way things naturally occur?
The difference between you and me is I don't think humans necessarily know what they're doing. They have existed for a microsecond of evolutionary time and they are going about living rather haphazardly. There is such a huge difference between the system they are living by and the system every single other species is living by. Something must be right about the way things have existed since the begining of time, the way things naturally occur in the universe.
If you are saying the way humans live is right than you are automatically saying everything else is wrong because the way we live is not a modified version of nature, it is a grave contradiction of nature, it is the exact opposite. You are basically saying the universe is an idiot that should have taken a lesson from the book of man to learn how to be awesome.
Excuse me while I assume the universe knows more than an immature species with an uncertain future.
Species are disposable.

On natural selection;
I'm sure your high school biology book says alot of things, I never read one. I do know how natural selection works for every species though. Right now it is betterring and refining every single one, EXCEPT for homo-sapiens.
I only need to learn the breeding habits of animals and the trials of their lifestyles to see how it works.
Perhaps you should actually look at the real world as opposed to someones interprettation of it.

Instincts;
Yes most people don't refer to learned behaviour as instincts. I argue there is no need for the seperation. Some scientists would argue with me some would agree.
Mammals are simply more complex than what we call "instinctual" animals. Their instincts are learned in life, they are flexible and intricate. But technically they are still instincts. It was simpler for mammals to develop babies that are sponges ready to absorb their parents teachings than born with the instincts needed. It has proved to be risky, but it could work so it did.
Call it want you want, we actually are on the same page here and the word we use is irrelevent. I'm not confusing the distinction, I know what YOU think the distinction is, its feathers and fur, lets just say they have skin.

The old "i'd like to see a dolphin build an engine" statement;
Would you like to see one chug a beer or push his mamma down the stairs? :rolleyes:
Dolphins don't have hands. If they did we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Bottom line is their brains are as powerful as ours, they are using them for something, maybe its thinking? We should take a time out and do the same.
For all we know dolphins could be far more intelligent than we are. Failing to build an engine would only prove something if they wanted to build an engine. I consider myself intelligent, but I can't build an engine.
They spend their time frolicking and socialising and having sex. We spend out time doing things we don't even want to do like working crappy jobs. I know which seems more intelligent to me.

Like most you hold humans pretty highly and fail to be able to meet an animal with humility.
If you won't admit you are arrogant, will you at least admit you think you are better than everything else?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I sort of half agree.
We have changed the aspects need for our species to survive. We should have slightly altered the system. But we started from scratch due to our lack of knowledge and made a system that sucks. There's alot we could have taken from the natural system and incorporated into the one we live by. Surely that would have been the wiser thing to do.

Why? We've shaped our world to work for us, and it seems to be working just fine, why should humanity be satisfied with only those things that just happened to be here when we showed up?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
What do we really know about the universe? Who are we to think we know so much better than the way things naturally occur?

Haha, so seeking self preservation, and betterment as a species and individuals is arrogant because if we were meant to do these things then we would have been able to do them through some sort of biological means?


Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The difference between you and me is I don't think humans necessarily know what they're doing. They have existed for a microsecond of evolutionary time and they are going about living rather haphazardly. There is such a huge difference between the system they are living by and the system every single other species is living by. Something must be right about the way things have existed since the begining of time, the way things naturally occur in the universe.

And why should we be satisfied with "the way things are"? Nature is nothing but a system of events which have occurred randomly and managed to become self perpetuating. It's by no means perfect, for every natural cycle there are countless other dead end events, as it were, but if something happens to be "just good enough" to stick around then we'll be able to observe it for a while, really what is so sacred about that that we shouldn't go beyond it?


Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If you are saying the way humans live is right than you are automatically saying everything else is wrong because the way we live is not a modified version of nature, it is a grave contradiction of nature, it is the exact opposite.

This is an argument of false alternatives. It certainly doesn't have to be one or the other in this case, and I really don't see why it should be. Nature does it's thing, it's there it exists and it keeps itself going for the most part, and then humans consciously shape their own environment (which isn't exactly outside of nature) to keep themselves going and achieve all sorts of things that make life better for us. I don't see what could possibly make one of those inherently right or inherently wrong, there simply aren't any criteria to make such a judgement.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
You are basically saying the universe is an idiot that should have taken a lesson from the book of man to learn how to be awesome.
Excuse me while I assume the universe knows more than an immature species with an uncertain future.
Species are disposable.

You're a very young person, aren't you? I don’t mean that as an insult, it's just that you're making some very silly arguments here based on huge and pretty clumsy assumptions in a very heavy handed and grandiose manner, while managing to work in your general angst and hatred toward the world. It all seems to fit in place.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
On natural selection;
I'm sure your high school biology book says alot of things, I never read one. I do know how natural selection works for every species though. Right now it is betterring and refining every single one, EXCEPT for homo-sapiens.
I only need to learn the breeding habits of animals and the trials of their lifestyles to see how it works.
Perhaps you should actually look at the real world as opposed to someones interprettation of it.

Well do yourself a favor and go get an education on a scientific subject before you decide to go having debates over how you THINK a particular thing works. All you are doing here is showing for certain that your argument is based on ignorant assumptions, and I'd recumbent you fix this, because you've long passed the point where you sound like a completely arrogant bafoon.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Instincts;
Yes most people don't refer to learned behaviour as instincts. I argue there is no need for the seperation. Some scientists would argue with me some would agree.
Mammals are simply more complex than what we call "instinctual" animals. Their instincts are learned in life, they are flexible and intricate. But technically they are still instincts. It was simpler for mammals to develop babies that are sponges ready to absorb their parents teachings than born with the instincts needed. It has proved to be risky, but it could work so it did.
Call it want you want, we actually are on the same page here and the word we use is irrelevent. I'm not confusing the distinction, I know what YOU think the distinction is, its feathers and fur, lets just say they have skin.

Again, you can't go redefining well established scientific terms in the middle of an argument and then expect that everyone is on the same page as you. If you ask me it just sounds like you are doing some sloppy backpedaling here because you've realized that you're backed into a corner. Either that, or you are implying that a human being is born knowing how to build a car, fly a plane and do complex mathematics every bit as much as he is able to breath eat or screw. There is a very clear distinction between instinct and learned behavior, please become more familiar with these terms before tying to use them in a debate.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The old "i'd like to see a dolphin build an engine" statement;
Would you like to see one chug a beer or push his mamma down the stairs? :rolleyes:
Dolphins don't have hands.

Haha, oh, so it's simple as that, then is it? Dolphins haven’t displayed this supposed vast intelligence of theirs because they don't have hands? I suppose they don't wear glasses because they simply don't have ears to hold them up, right? The point is that they show no extraordinarily intelligent behavior, if they were even a fraction as smart as we are they'd busy themselves shaping their environment to be better suited to them, self preservation demands it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If they did we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Bottom line is their brains are as powerful as ours, they are using them for something, maybe its thinking? We should take a time out and do the same.

Thinking is, for the most part, what got our quality of life to where it is today, and you don't seem to be very pleased with it, so I find your statement here to be a rather odd contradiction. Dolphins have no hands, and we haven't any tentacles, that hardly matters. Intelligence doesn't come from hands, if an intelligent species wished to improve it's life or it's chances of survival not having hands would likely be the least of it's concerns, it would find a way. . . that's what intelligence does for an animal.


Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
For all we know dolphins could be far more intelligent than we are. Failing to build an engine would only prove something if they wanted to build an engine. I consider myself intelligent, but I can't build an engine.
They spend their time frolicking and socialising and having sex. We spend out time doing things we don't even want to do like working crappy jobs. I know which seems more intelligent to me.

Yes, but for the most part we don't spend our time being eaten by bigger animals, dieting of diseases and injuries which should be very easy to treat, or swimming all over the god damned ocean hoping to find some tasty fish so that we don't starve and die. If dolphins are anywhere as near as intelligent as we are then they sure do have a funny way of showing it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Like most you hold humans pretty highly and fail to be able to meet an animal with humility.
If you won't admit you are arrogant, will you at least admit you think you are better than everything else?

Well to this day I've never been out witted by my pet cat, and I've never read anything written from any animal which I found to be thought provoking, so yes I would have to say that I feel humans have a pretty good leg up on just about any wild animal. Given the choice to be any of the beasts I think I'd quite like to stay human, it's a pretty good deal.

Unity makes the species weak. Diversity is what makes us adaptable and innovative, the alternative is stagnation and death.

What are you a retard? There is no instance of this at all. Biodiversity within a system is important, but the key is that these are different species, NOT the same thing. Most liberal chimpanzee families corrode and die if they mate with outsiders, though some integrate without problems.

Sharks for example, are some of the most advanced creatures on the planet: they have no lifespan (they have a life expectancy), they are immune to almost all pain, and they regenerate their teeth. This is because they resisted change for so long, which assured purity.

Bees, Ants, Wolves, and Lions are like this as well, and resist diversity by being united against outsiders.

There is enough variation within a species to hault any 'in breeding', unless it is in very small communities (like a house full of cats or a bird cage, where inbreeding occurs).

On a social level: increased diversity (like immigration) has always spelled the death of a society. Rome and Egypt for example, corroded greatly because they allowed Jews and Christians into their state, who were counter to the ideas of the state. The others nationalities were more loyal to their own race than the state and formed non-fluid communities. Your teachers may have also told you that Sparta collapsed because it wasn't open to outside ideas. No, it collapsed because everyone died in battle.

China is highly homogenous, and they have no inbreeding problems. In fact, diversity wouldn't exist is animals were forced to mix constantly.

If I was serious about culling humans I'd probably include myself in the culling because I doubt I could survive in the wild. Especially in the wilds of africa where humans evolved and should be.

I agree. Despite the claims that I hate blacks (I don't), i think we have no environmental pressures left (psychological maybe). We put so much care into breeding animals, I see no reason why silly humanist morality should get in the way of doing it to humans. People say 'eugenics is evil' or 'we wouldn't have motzart'. It comes down to people who fight for 'personal choice' and throw out relativistic garbage like: 'how do you know that guy with the horrific nerve disorder isn't suffer? How do you know that obsese people aren't happy? People born with organs outside their body or people with hereditary diabetes don't care about it."

I'm also curious as to why everyone associates Eugenics with Hitler alone. Eugenics has been practiced by the majority of early civilizations, even as far up to 19th century europe. I have hereditary asthma as well as a variety of mental disorders, behavioral abnormalities, the chance of getting diabetes, as well as other things. Do you really think I am happy about this? Especially considering my father is of perfectly healthy stock and decided to breed with a trainwreck of health. Eugenics makes sense.

Originally posted by and2000x
Sharks for example, are some of the most advanced creatures on the planet: they have no lifespan (they have a life expectancy), they are immune to almost all pain, and they regenerate their teeth. This is because they resisted change for so long, which assured purity.


How exactly did they "resist change" what exactly is "purity" and if they resisted change, then how in gods name did all of those genetic traits come about?

You should also see about getting a refund on your education, someone screwed you up very well. I'm not talking astrophysics here, this is biology101 stuff. Genetic diversity is what drives evolution.

Actually I discovered this on my own, by talking to actual biologists. My education was pathetic, as are most schools these days. I learned more watching discovery channel than I ever did at school.

It comes down to the fact that averaging and evolution do not co-exist. Let's say breed A, which is a stronger breed, may mix with Breed B, which is a weaker breed.

By combining the traits they exchange immunities and resistance (which is what biologists mean by 'benefits'.) However, the key point is that Breed A has obtained inferior genes from Breed B which could show up in all sorts of troublesome forms. I have bred cats for example. Although the mutt cats seem healthier at first, they gain odd and uneven traits and lose their distinct evolutionary characteristics, such as specific fur colors, better eyesight, etc.

Mixing within like groups that are slightly different is healthy (which is probably what you are saying), but overmixing two very distinct groups that have little in common cancels out evolutionary traits that have been aquired after millions of years of adaptation.

You're using extremely archaic and unscientific terminology. What is a "strong breed" and a "Weak breed"?

The point is that if you allow only a closed group of genetically similar individuals whom you have judged arbitrarily to be genetically superior to others to breed with one another, then the effects are identical to inbreeding, and the problems inherent. There is no such thing as a perfect organism, and as such no perfect group of creatures which could survive any circumstance that nature throws at them. As such, any particular weakness which your little master race is vulnerable to, or does not have any particularly strong resistance against could quite simply all be wiped out by a single environmental change, whereas a group with great genetic diversity may contain individuals which would be able to adapt and thrive even in the new environmental conditions.

I recommend you take this to the biology board so that others there may set you straight better than I am able. No genetic diversity (which I assume is what you mean when you say “purity”) grants a species nothing but a very low range of adaptable traits, and extreme vulnerability to environmental changes, and possible extinction. It is only through having a very large and diverse breeding population that a species can develop new traits (yeah some times these new traits may not be overtly beneficial, or may even harm an organism) gain a larger capacity for adaptation, and have a much better chance at being able to survive.

Wow is this the thread of unsupported assumtions or what? Here are my rebuttals to some of the themes in this thread.

1. Evolution does not go backward
No matter how many rednecks you breed you wont get a primordial ooze, just a super redneck who is entirly suited to living in a shack in the mountains with a rusted pickup truck on his front lawn. The concept of "overbreeding" which im almost sure you just made up, or is a dog breeders term for making sure that dalmatians stay spotty, has no application to human populations who havnt got specific evolutionary goals in mind.

2. Evolution has not stopped
To my knoledge there are still people in the world who go thier entire life without breeding. Argument over, if there are still people who cant pass on thier genes and the reasons for this are not arbetrairy (we have no reason to believe they are) then evolution is working. Just because you didnt see a mountain lion jump off the top of that bus stop and eat a man dosnt mean that humans arnt still competing for limited breeding resources.

3. "Overbreeding" is not making the species weak
Define weak. Overpowering a mountain lion is not a realistic contemporary challange, and hence is an absurdly poor example. If this is the criteria you are judging how strong the species is on then you are under some false impressions about what might be the shaping forces of modern evolution

4. We have not grown away from our ancestors
6,000 years of civilization and counting, most of it not terribly cushy and layed back (and it isnt now either, turn on the news) this span of time is evolutionary insignificant. Any weakness you see in the modern species was there before civilization as well. Our modern life expectancys that perhaps are part of your false impression that evolution is stopping or going backward (Because more people are living and living longer) have been in existance for a bare handful of decades and in many reagons of the world have never existed, this modern weakness can be nothing more than observer error.


You seem to think that just because human evolution documentarys frequently feature the savahnas of ancient africa that this is the proper and natural setting for evolution. Perhaps you further think that situations much like it are the only ones where it can take place. I cannot stress enough that you are mistaken. Human evolution in highly modern sociotys will merely take different cources than if we were all faced daily with having to squat in the bush. We are still compeeting with one another for limited breeding resources and there will alwayse be those who cant cut it and they will be culled from the gene pool.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
You seem to think that just because human evolution documentarys frequently feature the savahnas of ancient africa that this is the proper and natural setting for evolution. Perhaps you further think that situations much like it are the only ones where it can take place. I cannot stress enough that you are mistaken.
I cannot stress enough how mistaken you are in thinking I think that.
Talk about unsupported assumptions.
This whole thread has degraded into people telling me things I knew litterally before I ever went to school of any kind.

I know very well how complex natural selection is. In fact I feel I have a firmer grasp on its complexity than you do.
Reason being you insist humans are still controlled by it.
All other animals(and traditionally humans as well) face so many trials throughout the day that we could not possibly imagine. Compared to say, the average family of elephants, a human family in a third world country is living on easy street.
"mapula needs to walk 3 hours every morning just to get water:( "- some commercial

Oh yeah? Well trunky the elephant and his family need to walk for 8 days through a hot rocky desert just to find a muddy puddle, then they need to walk back for 8 days to their feeding grounds only to need to return again after a couple of days.
And before you say it, no, elephants aren't suited for this lifestyle any better than we are, they are actually semi-aquatic but this is where they've found themselves so they tough it out, this is a true story(names have been changed).

But, like trunky, mapula actually is living by the laws of natural selection, even if hers aren't as harsh, and when we see her on the tv we are disgusted. Thats shows how incredibly seperated from reality we are. Starving children in africa is a natural occurence, just like starving seal pups on the galopogos are a natural occurence, just like starving dinosaurs and trilobytes were natural occurrences. This IS natural selection, its how it has worked since the dawn of time. Yes it is only one tiny aspect, but an aspect none the less, just like lion predation and oh so many more.

What aspects of natural selection are we as civilised humans confronted with?

Any one of those children starving in africa could easily survive and breed if they were born in america, england, australia, italy etc etc etc, as could any member of trunky's family if they were accepted into society.
Sure they MIGHT get hit by a train, they MIGHT get influenced by jackass and jump off a building, they MIGHT urinate on a box that has a "danger high voltage" sign on it, but its not likely, as I've said there is no order to societies selection. It is so much more forgiving that by comparison it could be considered non-existent.
You simply won't survive in the wild if you are lacking in ANY way, you will be faced by harsh trials every single day repeatedly, it is absolutely required that you excell at the art of survival, if you don't you WILL die, bottom line.

We are protected, not just by a family group but by doctors and police and farmers and "danger high voltage" signs etc etc, society is a big overprotective mother, and frankly, ANYONE can breed.

The people that die aren't always dying due to there shortcomings and the people that survive to breed very rarely get there due to their mastery of survival tactics.
As that lame chef would say; BAM!
The traditional system has been warped, and this should be obvious to everyone :confused: If it isn't then it is all too evident that you have no knowledge of what the traditional system is.

Now it IS fair for you to say "yes it has been warped, no question, but I happen to think its a good thing".
I can see why people would feel that way. I don't have a legitimate argument against that, other than the fact that we are now in unfamiliar territory and there could be serious repurcussions for all we know.
Perhaps we are already being faced by some of those repurcussions and we just accept them as facts of life or don't see them.

As pollux said in another thread "cheetahs don't need braces", aahh how true, and physical discrepencies are like small fish, when there is small fish around you know there must be big ones not too far behind. If a species is popping out countless physically flawed specimens, there is little doubt it is also producing specimens with minds that shouldn't be, hence overcrowded correctional facilities and fecofiliacs.

And those are just short term effects, we never saw them coming and long term effects could be something far more serious. I doubt we will see them coming either, we can see some problems but we ignore them, like the state of the planet.

As I keep saying, I don't think man is smarter than the universe, man has made a system for himself that is different than the one the universe made for him, he is still very much just one of the universes animals so I have no reason to think that's going to fly and I see millions of indications that support my pessimism. You are relying on your faith in the human brain alone, and although it might be powerful, I fear a lack of intellectual equals within our environment has lead us to assume its alot more powerful than it is.

And before you respond, don't treat me like an idiot, some of the "you seem to think..." 's that have been aimed at me have been absolutely ridiculous and insulting, raise the fucking bar, jesus christ:rolleyes: