- This topic has 41 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by slowoldman.
-
eugenics – how comfy are we?
-
yunkiFree Member
Toby Young, Bilderberg, humanity is exponentially increasing and has done since day dot. There have been hiccups in this steady rise and these causes are now the tenements followed by our leaders.
These people believe religiously that humanity is out of control. The use of War, Famine, Disease and Austerity, as documented by Rothschild, applied with geographic discrimination may halt this.
That’s why they are crashing the NHS. That’s why there must be more War. This is why vaccines are being pumped into our Western societies, why fracking must be done, neonicotinoids for bees, Single shot reproductive GMOs, closing of libraries, promotion of classless celebrities…..the list goes on and on and on.We often see each other here chuckling about Darwinism and baying for the death of bike thieves, bad drivers, drug addicts and neighbours whose cats shit on our lawns amongst other things.
With the rise of the unapologetic right wing, unashamed bigotry and unembarrassed xenophobia, are we seeing a societal shift towards a more pragmatic, but ultimately quite killy world view?
How comfortable are we with this solution?
yunkiFree MemberAnd with that one joke, you have just redeemed yourself from a place on The Naughty List
wallopFull MemberI preferred Annie Lennox’s solo stuff.
They often have good deals on TVs.
😆
5thElefantFree MemberNot sure if it falls into eugenics. Probably replaces it, but…
I’m all for genetic modification. It’s already becoming an underground hacking thing. No doubt some pioneers are using it for sports use. I look forward to hacking my genes in a decade or so. And there is absolutely nothing the state can do about it.
whitestoneFree MemberErr, the human population is not rising exponentially, in most regions the growth is slowing down, the exception being the continent of Africa.
Tenements? Did you mean “tenets”?
2/10
deviantFree MemberCurrent right wing attitudes are a response to 40 yrs of increasingly liberal and left wing politics….read up on the Centennials (the 15-20 yr olds coming through now)….they are supposed to be the most conservative generation since the 1950s….these things tend to be cyclical, I wouldn’t worry about it.
nerdFree MemberWhat’s wrong with vaccines? They keep people alive and everything else on your list kills people.
yunkiFree Memberthese things tend to be cyclical, I wouldn’t worry about it.
cool 🙂
oldnpastitFull MemberEugenics seems to usually be about white people finding a good rationale for killing (unborn) black people.
I’m not entirely comfortable with that notion, or the people who espouse it.
EDIT: I assume we’re talking about the conference Toby Young attended last year?
nedrapierFull MemberWhat’s wrong with vaccines? They keep people alive and everything else on your list kills people.
They’re too good. But if we overuse them and they allow much greater opportunity for bacteria to become resistant, and when we run out of vaccines that work, we’re back to days of being killed by an infected cut from doing the gardening, or falling off our bikes.
I think that’s where he was coming from.
5thElefantFree MemberEugenics seems to usually be about white people finding a good rationale for killing (unborn) black people.
It may be used an excuse for that, but it’s just selective breeding isn’t it?
Not very practical. Gene editing is though.
avdave2Full MemberThey’re too good. But if we overuse them and they allow much greater opportunity for bacteria to become resistant, and when we run out of vaccines that work, we’re back to days of being killed by an infected cut from doing the gardening, or falling off our bikes.
I think you might be thinking of antibiotics – probably as you’ve been brain damaged by MMR or something 🙂
Kryton57Full Memberwe’re back to days of being killed by an infected cut from doing the gardening, or falling off our bikes.
Theres a vaccine to cure falling off your bike? Where do i get some?
codybrennanFree MemberLiked the stuff he did with The Vaselines more. A big Captain America, Vaselines, BMX Bandits thing would have been a sight to see.
edlongFree MemberThe tenets of eugenics are far from the preserve of mouth frothing right wingers – not so long ago (and not for the first time) there were people on here trotting out the “black people are naturally better at running fast” guff on a thread that I can’t locate right now.
There have also been a few comments on the occasional “private schools are / aren’t evil” threads we have (a couple of which were my fault, sorry) along the lines of people from rich and successful backgrounds being more successful at school / university / life due to intrinsic, inherited characteristics rather than massive and overwhelming privilege.
They’re [vaccines] too good. But if we overuse them and they allow much greater opportunity for bacteria to become resistant, and when we run out of vaccines that work, we’re back to days of being killed by an infected cut from doing the gardening, or falling off our bikes.
You’re not a scientist, I’m guessing?
roneFull MemberCurrent right wing attitudes are a response to 40 yrs of increasingly liberal and left wing politics.
Aren’t current right wing attitudes the product of current right wing attitudes?
bainbrgeFull Member“black people are naturally better at running fast” guff
At the risk of outing myself as a closet racist, I thought there was some scientific basis linked to the proportions of fast v slow twitch muscle fibres? Or is that rubbish and actually the same variability exists within caucasians too?
tjagainFull Member[Devils advocate mode on]
We have stopped evolution by good medicine. Better educated people have less children. Are we heading for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
[Devils advocate mode off]
Tricky issue really but the end point of eugenics is sterilizing undesirables. Who decides who is undesirable? Who watches the watcher?. Its a malignant philosophy
theotherjonvFull MemberI’m not going to out myself in any way, just asking an open question here and I’ll be honest, i don’t know the answer or indeed if there is one.
We rely heavily on (biomedical) science to treat and cure the diseases of modern society. We zap cancers with radiation and chemicals, and we treat diabetes and epilepsy with drugs. We carry out medical procedures to correct birth defects, such as babies with heart defects, to other more minor stuff like tongue-tie, club foot or cleft pallet. We laser our eyes to correct sight defects. Yet when it is suggested that we pre-treat to prevent babies being born with these conditions, or now as part of genome sequencing and the effect certain genes have on us, that we selectively breed out these aspects it’s seen in some quarters as meddling with nature.
Every life is precious and we should all be valued as individuals. But why is it accepted to treat some post birth but not pre?
Discuss?
v8ninetyFull MemberComplicated subject but one thing is clear; humanity (in the safe first world, at least) has broken ‘natural selection’. Successful propagation of the species is not limited to the ‘fittest’.
HoratioHufnagelFree MemberIn many counties populations are declining.
Birth rate in US is 1.84, Japan 1.46. Germany 1.5.Needs to be 2 to maintain population levels.
tjagainFull Memberdeviant – Member
Current right wing attitudes are a response to 40 yrs of increasingly liberal and left wing politics.
simply incorrect. Its 49 years of increasingly right wing policies. Universal healthcare? Publicly owned utilities, free education for all are all left wing ideals that came about 40+ years ago and have been pushed back from the mainstream to the left wing fringes as the right becomes ever more powerful
jimjamFree Membertjagain – Member
deviant – Member
Current right wing attitudes are a response to 40 yrs of increasingly liberal and left wing politics.
simply incorrect. Its 49 years of increasingly right wing policies. [/quote]
You’re both wrong. Increased politicization of daily life, politics as news, the rise of the internet and social media have led to much more polarisation of political opinion.
You’ll always have people with liberal or conservative leanings, they are character traits. There’s no more of one or the other now than 10 years ago. The difference is you are being fed negative sterotypes of the group you don’t like by the news medium you’ve decided aligns with your own world view.
5thElefantFree MemberNeeds to be 2 to maintain population levels.
With automation and AI coming Japan has got the right idea.
tjagainFull Memberjimjam – I have been a political geek for more than 40 years. the centre of UK politics has moved a long way right in that time hence Corbyn – a leftish but mainstream in European terms politician – can be seen as a far left person when his views would have been centrist in the labout party of 40 years ago and are completely mainstream and normal across most of Europe. Heath would not be able to be leader of the troy party now – his views are far too left wing.
TiRedFull MemberWhen it gets to MC1R homozygotes – I’m out.
(genetic joke for us purebred gingers).
Seriously, there is a place for embryo selection based on serious genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy (which the NHS recognises already), but since the vast majority of phenotypes are not at all well-understood, it’s a nonsense based on scientific ignorance.
tjagainFull Memberbainbrge – Member
“black people are naturally better at running fast” guff
At the risk of outing myself as a closet racist, I thought there was some scientific basis linked to the proportions of fast v slow twitch muscle fibres? Or is that rubbish and actually the same variability exists within caucasians too? [/quote]
There are some genetic differences – not absolutes – and the overlap between races is bigger than the differences and lack of equality of opportunity explains much of the different rates of take up of sports ( black UK kids rarely have the opportunity to ride horses so are under-represented in equestrian sports whereas running is for anyone who can buy a pair trainers)
Afro Caribbean people are more likely to sink than Caucasians so its harder for them to be good at swimming but again afro carribean people tend to have longer legs for their bodyweight / height than caucasians and a longer heel so are better at running ( not all afrocarribeans even – some areas of africa this is true some it is not)
Horrendous oversimplification and social factors are far more influential in what sports folk take up than racial characteristics are but there are some genetic differences which give a slight tendency for some races to be better at some sports than others.
molgripsFree Memberhumanity is exponentially increasing and has done since day dot
No, it’s not. It was pretty stable for millennia, then it shot up, now it’s levelling off.
And you need an average of more than 2 kids per couple to keep the population stable, to offset those who die before they get to adulthood. But yes, all we need to do is have two or occasionally 3 kids per couple and we’ll level off. And there’s evidence this is happening already.
some areas of africa this is true some it is not
Correct. There is more genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire rest of the world put together – Europeans, Asians, Americans, the lot. They just all have dark skin so we tend to lump them together.
NicoFree Member[Devils advocate mode on]
We have stopped evolution by good medicine.
Or:
We have altered the environment from that in which we evolved. We started doing that a long time ago – cutting down trees, building bridges, using fire and so on. Now we’ve gone further with all those computers and things so we are starting to evolve wheels instead of feet, shrunken brains that just read the results of a google search, and, most famously, spavined linguistic skills that can’t work out that i.e. doesn’t mean “for example”.Stopping evolution comes into the category “quite hard”.
tjagainFull MemberNico – a thousand years ago type i diabetics would have died before adulthood so not pass their genes on. Now they live to adulthood so can . Thats the sort of thing I mean
whitestoneFree Memberspavined linguistic skills that can’t work out that i.e. doesn’t mean “for example”.
I use i.e.g – covers all cases 😉
nickcFull MemberWe have stopped evolution by good medicine
Too early to tell, hom hab was around for well over a million years and didn’t evolve much at all. Modern hom sap have only been around for 200k years.
tjagainFull MemberOK slowed it then. People with poor genes now get to breed when 1000 years ago they wouldn’t. Mind you gaia is getting her own back with the rise in autoimmune diseases and cancer 😉
wobbliscottFree MemberWe haven’t stopped evolution by good medicine, evolution stopped when we started to come together as tribes and manipulate our environment to suit our needs rather than evolving ourselves to suit our environment.
Evolution is all about the continuation of traits that increase the individuals chances of survival and therefore spreading their DNA. It operates over hundreds of generations in most cases. So as soon as it became the case where as a human your ability to be able to outrun a Sabre Toothed Tiger no longer mattered, then evolution through natural selection effectively stopped. The randomness inherent within our DNA will now run rampant without any filtering mechanism because ‘physically inferior’ or even ‘mentally inferior’ people now have as good a chance to survive, live full lives and multiply and continue their genetic line as more ‘superior’ people.
I would have thought that this is ultimately a good thing and a true sign of intelligent life. Whales and Pigs are intelligent, but still subjected to the survival of the fittest cycle. We have broken free of that and in effect taken control of our own destinies.
Unfortunately the downside to this is that sometimes those who are mentally inferior rise to the top and become leaders of the most powerful nations in the world.
stavromullerFree MemberThe two main problems with eugenics is a) The people that expound it don’t think it applies to them being filtered out of the gene pool and b) the people that expound it would never be able to sell the idea to the people they think it should be applied to.
The topic ‘eugenics – how comfy are we?’ is closed to new replies.