Eugenics' Future - speculation

Although there have been plenty arguments brought forward to show why Eugenics is a bad idea and also not quite a feasible idea, we shouldn't shy away from some speculation.

Imagine we have the necessary tools to do some actual eugenics, that is we have the knowledge and the capability to change a human genome in a purposeful and predictable manner.

Now what would really happen with society?

What are the qualities that are most wished for by individuals for their transgenic offspring?
A1. Looks. better looking people have it easier in life.
A2. Intelligence. Intelligent people have more career possibilities?
A3. Longevity and health. To live long and to live in health.

But will society allow for this? After some thinking on the topic, I think that society will choose quite other characteristics to modify.

B1. looks. No problem, although the plastic surgery industry will complain.
B2. Intelligence. Society has its place for intelligent people of course, but a society cannot function with intelligent people alone. There will have to be some kind of economic system in which you can buy IQ points for your child. You could have 1 child with an IQ of 180, or 3 with an IQ of 60. Although society will not allow anything under IQ level of 80 of course. That means you can have 2 children of IQ 80 and sell your remaining 20 IQ points or buy some more for the 3rd child.
B2a. A society benefits from obedient citizens. A higher level of obedience will be intriduced in every zygote offered for transgenic treatment.
B3. Longevity and Health. Indeed, a society needs good strong workers that are never sick. Preferably ones that will work also during weekends and have no problems doing irregular shifts. However, a long life is a bit of a problem. Society doesn't really want to end up paying for unreasonabl long pensions. In fact it would be better if there wasn't any pension. Therefore the maximum average lifespan will be 60. People can have a productive life and on average don't reach their pension age.

i don't want a max lifespan of 60, that sucks

sounds rather orwellian, how will space expansion play into all this? earth is not a self-contained container, we'll be jumping of sooner or later, and expansion does fun things to human developement.

Ummm, a "Brave New World"? What would you like to be, an Alpha or an Epsilon? Consuming Soma and that all?
seriously, eugenic ideas make me sick. If you choose a society that you desire to be composed of "good looking" people, maybe you have barred the way to a potential genius that could invent some useful gadget. Are Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman going to save the world?

Its been said millions of times - using genetics to improve people must go only so far, to get ridof birthdefects and retardness, blindnes, PD, crazy psycho genes or anything negative.

trying to improve on people when theres nothing realy wrong with them can only lead to evil, esp. if its done to some people + not others. It could bring masters and slaves right back, a cast system, power inherited only and imposible to earn. People bred for a set class + job in life... thered be no room for ambition or apsiring. so long American dream...

JBS Haldfane if Possible Worlds has an interesting essay on positive eugenics- encouraging the "right" people to breed and discourahing the "wrong"

A1. Looks. better looking people have it easier in life.
Whole generations that look the same :D
A2. Intelligence. Intelligent people have more career possibilities?
But there are only so many career paths to go around, we'd be in the same "boat" we're in now IMO.
A3. Longevity and health. To live long and to live in health.
I'll drink to that :)
B3. Longevity and Health. Indeed, a society needs good strong workers that are never sick. Preferably ones that will work also during weekends and have no problems doing irregular shifts. However, a long life is a bit of a problem. Society doesn't really want to end up paying for unreasonabl long pensions. In fact it would be better if there wasn't any pension. Therefore the maximum average lifespan will be 60. People can have a productive life and on average don't reach their pension age.
If we can do that we can build robots to do the same. I'd like to live for hundreds of years if not forever and I don't want to be "workin for the man" all that time.
earth is not a self-contained container, we'll be jumping of sooner or later...
Indeed, and a goal that I believe should have been started as soon as the Cold War finished. Much better to establish a space economy than a war economy...
seriously, eugenic ideas make me sick.
Get used to it, sooner or later people will be doing it in their back yards. Genetic screening is going to get very popular, I dont think there's going to be any way to stop that. Selective breeding can have a similar effect to genetic manipulation.
can only lead to evil, esp. if its done to some people + not others. It could bring masters and slaves right back, a cast system, power inherited only and imposible to earn. People bred for a set class + job in life... thered be no room for ambition or apsiring. so long American dream...
Evil? Like Lex Luther? We already have all that crap.

Eugenics will become obsolete once gene therapy starts to come into fruition.

Furthermore, the former would stall from political debate.

So I think it's pretty much dead.

trying to improve on people when theres nothing realy wrong with them can only lead to evil, esp. if its done to some people + not others.


The problem with this is of course that YOU are NOT going decided what is wrong and what isn't wrong. That is going to be done for you.

Yes, the foetus, baby, has no say. it is on par with circmcision, especialy female 'circumcisin' where the female is mutilated to suit the particular ideal of the male elite

so what is the ideal of this culture? Well the science is being run by the middle classes, with their love of IQs, and 'high-achievers', .....same as THEY think they are.
These people have no idea about their deeper selves, and about diversity in Nature. This is the really frigtening thing. they believe they are so right, and objective, and have left all the superstitions and prejudice of religion behind. But that's isn't so.

For examples, criminals. these middle classes have no problem with fat cat criminals in big business and politics and the military, yet scapegoat this culture's victims, the poor who turn to crime. So the former they deify, and the latter demonize.
same old same old. now that mindset has got its hands playing with peoples lives before they leave the womb?

female 'circumcisin' where the female is mutilated to suit the particular ideal of the male elite

Aaggghh!! :( please none of that!

For examples, criminals. these middle classes have no problem with fat cat criminals in big business and politics and the military, yet scapegoat this culture's victims, the poor who turn to crime.

but why would eugenicists want to breed crime? If crime can be caused by genes, they could at least help get rid ofit. Its easy to blame crime on up bringing or poorness, and that can be true of course but as you say, wealthy people are often criminals too even if the y didnt GET wealthy through crime. Perhaps there its b3st to take away the lure, the appeal of more money than to
try + breed crime out.

Aaggghh!! :( please none of that!



but why would eugenicists want to breed crime? If crime can be caused by genes, they could at least help get rid ofit.


d)))see what you did? Jump to the UNVERIFIEd conclusion that crime is caused by genes. how do you KNOW what you assert?






Its easy to blame crime on up bringing or poorness, and that can be true of course but as you say, wealthy people are often criminals too even if the y didnt GET wealthy through crime. Perhaps there its b3st to take away the lure, the appeal of more money than to
try + breed crime out.

CRIME is inherent in this VERy system you/me find ourselves!
Thing is that the one's with the power believe they can call the shots (and for many many gullible people they DO), and inform us what 'crime' is. They thus scapegoat the -usually poor- as being THE criminals. Yet fail to admit their part in the OVERALL inequality that breeds crime.

For a huge example. the war crimes of Bush and Blair. all seems forgotten about now by the mdeia don't it? tet their actions havecaused thousands of deaths--and over a million child deaths in the Sanctions against Iraq. They have ******** the environemnt of the Middle East with their illegal use of depleted uranium, causing unprecedented outbreaks of cancers--including new hybrids, and awful deformities of unborn babies. the polllution from their CRIMINAL actions has a half shelf life of over 3 BILLION years

do you now see what i mean?

youre right, sorry. I missed the point there - what counts as crime is defined by the judges + lawyers, not the doctors!

doctors/the medical profession, as are most institutions in our culture--are government AGENTS.

this has been illustrated very clearly lately in our news. For example, we have welfare help fro people who cannot work due to disablemnt in its various forms--called Incapacity Benefit. Our goverment is becoming more and more fascistic wanting everyone to work regardless of whether they are incapacitiated or not, so se what happenes..the medical profession has 'decided' that work is the best 'cure' for incapacity. this massive ashake-up of the welfare system will cause misery for many people who really cannot work for various reasons.
so do you see how all the bracnhes of this hierarchy work togther?

It all seems pointless. Retardation, blindness, psychosis, they're all mutations.
If you erradicate all of these, it will reoccur sooner or later naurally, just like how it did to get here in the first place. Eugenics is not only a logistical, social, and economic nightmare, but completely pointless.

P.S. my friend's a doctor and he seems completely normal (i.e. unaffiliated with any black-opps, conspiracy, or underground network of any kind)

It all seems pointless. Retardation, blindness, psychosis, they're all mutations.
If you erradicate all of these, it will reoccur sooner or later naurally, just like how it did to get here in the first place. Eugenics is not only a logistical, social, and economic nightmare, but completely pointless.

P.S. my friend's a doctor and he seems completely normal (i.e. unaffiliated with any black-opps, conspiracy, or underground network of any kind)

i am not ON about 'conspiracy' as you are painting it so as to duck what i am saying. i am saying that government agents dance to the piper's tune. obviously, their professionalism depends on prestige and not rockin the government boat

..the medical profession has 'decided' that work is the best 'cure' for incapacity. this massive ashake-up of the welfare system will cause misery for many people who really cannot work for various reasons.

Then you may aswell say that eugenics is good because itd try to PREVENT incapacity, not cure it.. Nature gets rid of incapacity by starvation, predatrs, illness etc kiling off the weak animals before they breed. Stopping people ever having problems wi body + mind must be a humaner way from that point of view :rolleyes:

For those of you who are opposed to standard eugenics... how would you feel about the direct manipulation of the human genome. One generation and the kids can be shaped any way you would like.

Then you may aswell say that eugenics is good because itd try to PREVENT incapacity, not cure it.. Nature gets rid of incapacity by starvation, predatrs, illness etc kiling off the weak animals before they breed. Stopping people ever having problems wi body + mind must be a humaner way from that point of view :rolleyes:

That is SUCH a disgusting inhuman view, words fail me!

For those of you who are opposed to standard eugenics... how would you feel about the direct manipulation of the human genome. One generation and the kids can be shaped any way you would like.

same reply above applies to your vision.

Why? I don't classify 'humanity' by outward physical appearances. It is sapience, instincts, and mode of thought. I am one to believe there is more than one 'right' way to be human.

Then you may aswell say that eugenics is good because itd try to PREVENT incapacity, not cure it.. Nature gets rid of incapacity by starvation, predatrs, illness etc kiling off the weak animals before they breed. Stopping people ever having problems wi body + mind must be a humaner way from that point of view :rolleyes:
Duendy says this is "a disgusting inhuman view". Unfortunately natural selection was not devised by human beings and has no regard for human- and humane- prejudices. We are near- perhaps beyond- the feasible limits of human population on earth. If we- the human race- do not act to drastically reduce our numbers and our effect on the planet then natural forces will do so. They may do so anyway, of course, but human disaster looks inevitable unless human numbers and human breeding are controlled.
The problem with Clockwood's proposal of genetic manipulation rests in the proposal: the children would be shaped "any way you like"- not the way the children would like or the way the children would need for future survival or happiness or whatever they think it worth living for.

Did I get any choice on how I was to be shaped? Did you? The choices of your parents, their ancestors, and random chance stuck you in whatever shape you are in now. For some of it was alright. For others, like myself, we want to kick genetics in the balls for what it did to us. That wouldn't change.

Legislate a little. When proposing something outside of a pre approved plan, you should have to take it before a board who would give it a stamp of approval. You just have to show that the alterations would not deny the individual quality of life or become a hazard to those around him beyond a certain boundry.

So you want your child to become an artist? I see no problem with slightly expanding the spectrum of light they can see. You are leaving to start a space colony? I think we can make him a little more oxygen efficient and possibly with some other biological systems up there.

Gross physical modifications could be handled the same way... though with a closer level of scruitiny.

what i am saying is that man has alreeady fuked up big style. the reason we are in this sorry mess in the FIRSt place........when i say 'man' i dont mean all men. i mean mechansitic-headed man who has no respect whatsoEVER for Nature.......Whose mind works like an analytical machine, and will just create further hells cause he's working from blindness!

Nature, as you think of it, doesn't exist. It is simply the result of billions of organisms endlessly cannabalizing each other in the desperate hope of survival in an uncaring world. Nature is blind and has no idea what it is doing. There is no plan or wisdom there.

If anything, what we are doing is a guided extension of nature. What works or works better will continue. What does not will change or die out. Nature's law.

Nature, as you think of it, doesn't exist. It is simply the result of billions of organisms endlessly cannabalizing each other in the desperate hope of survival in an uncaring world. Nature is blind and has no idea what it is doing. There is no plan or wisdom there.

d)))you defeat your own argument with your premise.
We ARE Nature. so if you presume Nature is blind with no wisdom, you are speaking about yourself.
But you see you are not are you? Your metaphysical premise is that you are some kind of superior consciousness that rises above 'brute nature' and like supermaaaan are here to show deal old nature how it's done...
all this idea is as old as the patriarchy mate. dressed up in mew clothes. same old same old. underlying it is FEAR of Nature, which includes your own depths. you call Nature dead sos you can exploit it. But of course, because you deny your Depth, explot it and make a sorry mess. not understanding the ever deepening subtelties of Nature's Intelligence you lot are like a Bull in a China shop. fukin up everything in sight, then tying to put THAT right and ...ad nauseum. cant you SEE that? obviously not...


If anything, what we are doing is a guided extension of nature. What works or works better will continue. What does not will change or die out. Nature's law.

OH, so now your a guided extension of 'dead old blind nature' are you. well how come you are poisoning everything. how come you are chopping down all Her Trees, and making all her species extinct, and making earth, water, and air, and people radioactive with your weapons of war, and making millions of people starve, and oppressing everyone......huh?

Its just what we do as a species. Why does a colony of army ants cut its way through the forest? Why does a swarm of locusts raze endless miles of vegitation and then move on? It is their nich to do that just as it is ours to pull apart and reengineer the world around us.

We get things wrong, but so did nature. When oxygen was first developed it was perhaps the greatest ecological disaster ever. It was poison to everything, even the creatures that produced it, and made the very rocks slowly burn. When cellulose was first developed in plants, nothing knew how to digest or degrade it. It just heaped up for millions of years in the world's worst litter problem. Most of the coal we have today is from that short period.

We wouldn't do any worse than nature and we might be able to get a few things you can't get through just trial and error. Its just that we will be doing it all in a massively condensed time scale.

Nature, as you think of it, doesn't exist. It is simply the result of billions of organisms endlessly cannabalizing each other in the desperate hope of survival in an uncaring world. Nature is blind and has no idea what it is doing. There is no plan or wisdom there.

I wonder what a whole living world DESIGNED by people to fit perfectlytogether and work in harmony would be like? sure, some stil say that god designed the world we know - but I dont think science supports that, its all evolved blindly like you said. could "nature" be somehow better + more eficient is if WAS all put together delibrately?

When cellulose was first developed in plants, nothing knew how to digest or degrade it. It just heaped up for millions of years in the world's worst litter problem. Most of the coal we have today is from that short period.

Im sure I heard that coal is stil forming in some places today, like stagnant swamps in the tropics.. its just that there was lots more of the right kind of swamps back then, before the dinosaur age.

Its just what we do as a species. Why does a colony of army ants cut its way through the forest? Why does a swarm of locusts raze endless miles of vegitation and then move on? It is their nich to do that just as it is ours to pull apart and reengineer the world around us.

d__look. BALANCE. Nature is Intelligence and it eats itself for dynamic balance. ....if say you remove a pradator of A animal, then usre that animal is gonna multiply and devastate. why? cause a balance has been disturbed. But we AREN'T squirrels, or foxes, or ants etc. we are supposed to be aware of things. but the mindset running things ISN'T. and it is fuking everything up. your way, explantion ..is to say that that's dandy cause we are all like that. well bro, i am NOT. i can see it is wrong. so whats that make me?....can one of them ants see what the others is doing is wrong? probably no, or i dont know cause i aint an ant. but i know what I feel. and your way of apporach firightens me cause it's so apathetic. people like yourself wont speak out against what's going on. THAT's the problem, cause then there is no counter activism to complete utter ignoreanace

We get things wrong, but so did nature. When oxygen was first developed it was perhaps the greatest ecological disaster ever. It was poison to everything, even the creatures that produced it, and made the very rocks slowly burn. When cellulose was first developed in plants, nothing knew how to digest or degrade it. It just heaped up for millions of years in the world's worst litter problem. Most of the coal we have today is from that short period.

d___going all the way back to the birth of oxygen......? forget that and focus on now. NOw is important that we get over ignorance and realize the Intelligence of Nature, instead of being like a cancer. i suspect your dream is for the space race, no?

We wouldn't do any worse than nature and we might be able to get a few things you can't get through just trial and error. Its just that we will be doing it all in a massively condensed time scale.

hah..you make it all sound so innocent. but it isn't. this shit is driven by an underlying myth that abhors Nature. analyse THAT!

Hate nature? No. I just think that we are gradually getting to te point where we can manipulate some sections of the world to work better, at least for our purposes. Would you deny that we did a good job making modern wheat or corn out of a couple of wierd little strains of grass? Would you deny that vaccines were an improvement for us over what was, despite the fact that they go against the 'natural order'.

What I have a certain degree of animosity is the people who worship nature so damn much that they want society to regress back to a purely agrarien lifestyle or even back to being hunter gatherers. I am not prepared to watch our species sid in stagnation for a million years until a big rock comes out of the sky and blows us to high heaven.

So you want your child to become an artist? Assuming for the sake of argument we can help someone become an artist....and then we find we have several million more artists than we need know what to do with.You are leaving to start a space colony? I think we can make him a little more oxygen efficient and possibly with some other biological systems up there. A big difference. You are discussing after-birth alterations here which presumably would not go on to descendants. I think that given the complexity of interacting factors in human genetics and the inevitable liomits of our knowledge it would be wiser not to permanently alter future possibilities. Amendments after birth- the equivalent of surgery for cleft palates, say, I am all for.

what i am saying is that man has alreeady fuked up big style. the reason we are in this sorry mess in the FIRSt place........when i say 'man' i dont mean all men. i mean mechansitic-headed man who has no respect whatsoEVER for Nature.......Whose mind works like an analytical machine, and will just create further hells cause he's working from blindness!There is a certain hypocrisy in saying that on the world wide web.
The people who have no respect for nature are the ones who said "Our religion is true and we will spread it everywhere." or the people who worship nature and forget that nature is blind and indifferent and has no human qualities at all. Man as part of nature merely wants to perpetuate genes. Man as an observer "whose mind works like an analytic machine" can find ways to make life more bearable for men.

We get things wrong, but so did nature. "In nature there is neither left nor right nor wrong."
Nature continues regardless. Life is only a small part of uit. If the human race and all of life became extinct nature- the natural order- would go on. If we "couln't get things worse than nature" it is because we have learned to see something of our position in nature and to learn a little of how nature works and to look for ways to make life more bearable for us. Nature won't destroy us. Natural events- an asteroid hitting the earth, a massive volcanic eruption, the consequences of human actions- might.

OH, so now your a guided extension of 'dead old blind nature' are you. well how come you are poisoning everything. how come you are chopping down all Her Trees, and making all her species extinct, and making earth, water, and air, and people radioactive with your weapons of war, and making millions of people starve, and oppressing everyone......huh?We do things like that because it is natural behaviour for a species like the human species to do things like that.

Hate nature? No. I just think that we are gradually getting to te point where we can manipulate some sections of the world to work better, at least for our purposes. Would you deny that we did a good job making modern wheat or corn out of a couple of wierd little strains of grass? Would you deny that vaccines were an improvement for us over what was, despite the fact that they go against the 'natural order'.

What I have a certain degree of animosity is the people who worship nature so damn much that they want society to regress back to a purely agrarien lifestyle or even back to being hunter gatherers. I am not prepared to watch our species sid in stagnation for a million years until a big rock comes out of the sky and blows us to high heaven.

Oh the rock! that s your hear ? th coming meteorite that your science is gonna save us from?... a pipe dream...or a rock deream dude
and the people you put down in your 'stagnant' estimation were around and survived sustinably HUGELY longer than your deified little cusp you seem to think the universe was waiting for. in your short time you have created SO much destruction it is unprecendented. and you just want to roll and roll till no trees are left. there NEEds to be a radical shift of emphasis
you simply dismiss my insight about the underlying fear your mindset has about Nature. thats simply denial

There is a certain hypocrisy in saying that on the world wide web.
The people who have no respect for nature are the ones who said "Our religion is true and we will spread it everywhere." or the people who worship nature and forget that nature is blind and indifferent and has no human qualities at all. Man as part of nature merely wants to perpetuate genes. Man as an observer "whose mind works like an analytic machine" can find ways to make life more bearable for


men.

But it AINT making it more bearable for ...'men'. it is making it unbearable for everyone but a small few. an elite of super rich, whve already lost any feeling anyhow

We do things like that because it is natural behaviour for a species like the human species to do things like that.

It is despairingly appalling you feel like this. and says a huge lot about the absolute failure of the 'education' you have received!

It is despairingly appalling you feel like this. and says a huge lot about the absolute failure of the 'education' you have received!
Why? I notice you do not produce any evidence that I am mistaken. Other species behave similarly. Humans have the advantage or virtue that they may be able to avoid the most disastrous effects.

But it AINT making it more bearable for ...'men'. it is making it unbearable for everyone but a small few. an elite of super rich, whve already lost any feeling anyhow
rlly? All humans have benefitted from improvements in agricultural techniques. We qouldn't be here if they hadn't happened. All humans have beneftted from antibiotics. Many have benefitted from computers. You can express your despair and elegantly circulate your misery to other people. It isn't the people with minds like analytic machines but the people whose religion told them to have a dozen children, no matter how many lived, that have made th ehuman specoes so common that it is having a disastrous- from a human point of view- on nature. It isn't the analysts who make wars but the sentimentalists who believe they are justified in killing the wicked other people.

The discussion taking here is not really about the pros and cons of eugenics but the pros and cons of eugenics implemented in a capitalist society. If the avilable genetic enhancements are made avilable to all instead of the select few then the personal and cultural impact will not be as great. Of course the easiest way to do this is to have government control eugenics instead of the corporations or any individual.

A minor problen I can forsee is the generation gap created when eugenics is first implemented. Having one generation far superior than the previous will cause social unrest. So implementation will need to take place far slower than what science will allow.

The problem is that a government which contols eugenics is going to set to work to produce "natural" supporters of the government.

Indeed, at the moment the government is adjusting itself to the will of the people during election time, but in the future that won't be necessary anymore. The government will simply adjust the people to its needs.

Just don't make the government responsible for coming up with modifications and be very strict with what they can be ban. As long as more diversity is coming out of the process and not severe behavior modification, it is not in the favor of totalitarianism.

Just don't make the government responsible for coming up with modifications and be very strict with what they can be ban. As long as more diversity is coming out of the process and not severe behavior modification, it is not in the favor of totalitarianism.
Equally, whoever is in charge of these modifications-if they are companies- will produce what they want. Behaviour modification is irrelevant: it has no effect on the genotype.

1 day it might. "If you can make people behav elike U wnt, U can make them breed wi whoever U breed them 2. We wil abolish the orgasm!"
- George Owell

I thought Orwell had better spelling than that... Ah, well.
Without a sexdrive that can overpower the lures of the internet and TV, I suspect the human race would be extinct damn fast.

With scientists preparing to land on and inhabit mars, they are already thinking in terms of modifying humans to be better adapted to life in these foreign worlds. Humanity is interested in preserving the conciousness and intelligence of humans, regardless of what they might have to look like.

Scientists are preparing to colonize the moon and mars, and they are considering the use of eugenics as a future tool of having humans adapt to the severe environmental conditions. This could mean having no legs in weightless conditions (no need) or having reduced metabolisms or or gamma shields as part of our epidermis. Humnanit is concerned with the continuance of the human mind and intelligence pervading an ever changing universe no mateer what the estshetics.

I think that idea is called pantropy - changin our bodies for whatevr world we go to. I read a story once bout microbe-humans living in a tiny pond on some watery planet - theyd been designed that way, bcause there was nothin biger to eat than amobeas.

Scientists have begun the colonization of the moon and mars. They are also thinking in terms of genetically altering the human genome to adapt to the severe conditions of the other planetsi,e, shorter legs anti radiation epidermis etc.is concerned with con Humanity tinuing human intelligence andknowledge they're not concerned with "appearances"

I remember some quote from a game along the lines of "Find out what ever your weakness is and make it a strength".

My overall view on the Eugenics is that taking out all those flaws that make weakness from out race, in turn would generate a greater flaw than leaving them in.

Namely if someone has the Flu, does that mean they are weak and should be remove from society? The truth is that perhaps they are "weak" to begin with, then they overcome that flu and gain the antibodies to protect themselves in the future from that strain, making them in fact a strength to society since they could have the building blocks to a vaccination housed within them.

If a pure breed race was created, then one flaw would exist throughout all of them (thats the greater flaw.)

This could cover an explaination why Ethnic and Cultural diversity actually generates strength instead of some attempted eugenic singularity where all have a common flaw.

LoL

If 'pure breeding' is a flaw then why not breed for diversity, to cut out the flaw?

With genetic engineering, you could create kinds of diversity the likes of which we've never seen- not to mention the fact that you could ensure a foot long penis for every man.

How is a foot long penis a flaw? Thats what I want to know.

You know humankind is incredibly homogenous... and becoming even more so by the minute what with niggers n white chicks getting it on so much and having threesomes with Chinese girls.

Your pal,

Bob

The foot long penis should be retractable when not in use then. It would be too easy to catch in things or be ripped off in a fight.

Diversity is one of the most important things to go for. Its mankind's way to try everything whenever we don't know the best course of action. Somebody has to get it right.

Way off target... but sure. They retract but not all the way. A foot long penis will probably still not go down to a convenient size for storage.

While we're on penises, would I be the only one to prefer that my testicles were inside my body? It'd make a kick in the groin much less painfull :)

Dolphins have it like that. its hard to tell the males + females apart, except whey theyre horny..

If eugenics would truly kick start it would never reach a level of general acceptance.
It would no doubt thrive itself into a state of elitism, aristocracy. It wouldn’t ‘perfect’ the masses.

Just think how much the banal opinion is against, for example, stem cell research and cloning.

General customizing of self would result standard populous into raising fantasies about perfection- selfish and greedy individuals out-bettering each others, you’re Hitler and your body is Germany.

I’m imagining Blade Runner implant fuckers running around getting upgrades.

Modifying both the physical and the psyche was after all somewhat experimented by Hitler, with no results other than the concrete slaughter of the ‘weak’ and ‘unfit’.



Way off target... but sure. They retract but not all the way. A foot long penis will probably still not go down to a convenient size for storage.

Yeah man, I’m telling you, it’s horrific.

Modifying both the physical and the psyche was after all somewhat experimented by Hitler, with no results other than the concrete slaughter of the ‘weak’ and ‘unfit’..

just the problem- its never been about improving everyone, its been about getting rid of the people below your made up standards. cant help all people grown physicaly or mentaly beter if its at the expense of some poor folks who arent good enough..

just the problem- its never been about improving everyone, its been about getting rid of the people below your made up standards. cant help all people grown physicaly or mentaly beter if its at the expense of some poor folks who arent good enough..


Actually, I thought it was kind of a neat idea. Too bad it was so ethnocentric.

Yeah man, I’m telling you, it’s horrific.
Talk to me after you catch yourself in the zipper, slam yourself in the toilet, or get kicked in the scrotal region.

Talk to me after you catch yourself in the zipper, slam yourself in the toilet, or get kicked in the scrotal region.

Thats a weakness I'm prepared to live with.

Besides, those things can be easily avoided. Slamming yourself in the toilet? wtf.

Was in California long enough to get my dick slammed in the toilet by an earthquake.

Well.. only HALFof us need toworry about those situations involvin a vital part..

The rest of the species has to deal with far more unpleasant biological difficulties. A couple days to a week every month plus nine months here and there. And the common need for a bra if one expects to move faster than a walk. The human body isn't perfect... for anyone.

Well.. only HALFof us need toworry about those situations involvin a vital part..

Is it very hard to think of the equivalent problem for females?