Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Eugenics

Re: Eugenics
March 09, 2010, 05:02:51 PM

I'm all for advancement towards a smaller, greater society. I just don't see a rapid killing of all the people who make the foundations as a wise course of action.

Agree.

Eugenics: "well-born, of good stock," from eu- "good" + genos "birth"... not "well-killed".

Talking about killing anyone 120- wouldn't take us very far from this internet ghetto.

I think the time has come for people to face this issue. The real question is whether we'd be happier if everyone under 120 vanished.

The answer seems to be yes.

We also want to evolve, no?

This is a good starting point. It's also what nature did to get us here, and what we only recently reversed with populist religion and secular humanism.

Why are you against a proven method that constitutes a viable partial solution to this problem? Obviously, the next step would be to take the exceptional and breed them like mad.

Re: Eugenics
March 10, 2010, 03:08:40 AM
I'm not saying it's impossible to be self sufficient and still contribute to a society, it's a matter of how much. In those times their written knowledge and advancements were nothing compared to what we have now i.e. there would be alot more expected of us now in terms of effort of the mind, which is no trivial thing and just as exhausting as the trade aspect (even if that meant everyone being a robot mechanic) we would also be expected to carry out.

I believe this is debatable. Bear in mind that at this point, we are left with a population who are in tripartite, more fit, more alert, and more intelligent. The rest we have somehow left behind.

I've experienced this first hand having 4 lectures per day and then after that going to my part time job for 4 hours. This happened 5 times a week and I was a mindless drone for most of it.

Did you remember each day to keep track of how many obliviot manchimps and how many of their designed systems got in your way while making your rounds?

But this isn't enough, you also want me to be self sufficient; how is this a better standard of living?

I don't believe we're singularly focused on your standard of living, but rather something that includes more than the wants of a given human individual, which is what we have now. We're looking at a whole system that is reasonably in harmony with how reality operates.

There seems to be a blurring here in what self-sufficiency means, how far do we allow the use of tools? Are you arguing for self sufficiency and simultaneously for robots to do most of the work? Then buying ready meals is about as self sufficient as anything from this view; processed and handled largely by robots then you switch on you're microwave oven and 'bing!' it's ready.

There is room for brainstorming here. Any combination of better means, any tools, and brighter people involved will do.

I'm all for advancement towards a smaller, greater society. I just don't see a rapid killing of all the people who make the foundations as a wise course of action.

Well, that's a method. It isn't the method. Please do not conflate the means of getting to the goal with the goal itself.

Re: Eugenics
March 10, 2010, 10:30:02 PM

But this isn't enough, you also want me to be self sufficient; how is this a better standard of living?

I don't believe we're singularly focused on your standard of living, but rather something that includes more than the wants of a given human individual, which is what we have now. We're looking at a whole system that is reasonably in harmony with how reality operates.

I've largely changed my mind about this part, though I'm pretty sure you mentioned standard of living which is why I brought it up. Exhaustion isn't necessarily a bad thing in fact it makes relaxation more precious and appreciable; I think what I'm really aiming for here is that human's are not machines (as you've mentioned for reduction of labour) and can never be so consistent and unrelenting in output.  But you're right, this is all hypothesising, we won't get far debating about this.

I'm all for advancement towards a smaller, greater society. I just don't see a rapid killing of all the people who make the foundations as a wise course of action.

Well, that's a method. It isn't the method. Please do not conflate the means of getting to the goal with the goal itself.


This was just me clarifying what brought about this discussion in the first place, trying to bring back the bigger picture; perhaps it was confusingly placed. Anyway, thank you for this discussion, like all good things, I feel it has reached its natural end.


I don't want to get tricky here, what I like about the criteria of 120 is that is not racist. But, how could you construct a strangeness between 120s+ and 120s-? There's a morality between, that I'm afraid, is not merely a social construction, even if so, is an extremely solid one. That if you want most of 120s+ in your side, in case that you don't want to lose this war against the vast number of -120s.

Especially when you consider the bright people that come from less than bright families.

Re: Eugenics
March 14, 2010, 12:37:10 AM
This is a good discussion and I have to confess that while I have been eager to deal out hypothetical death and judgement to 'degenerates' in the past I have more recently been pondering how realistic and practical these ideas are in a similar way to that which Octuple had presented. Perhaps we're also overstating the percentage of humanity that is actually a problem?

Everyday I see many repulsive people who seem both mentally and physically deformed (who are usually only capable of surviving on state handouts). I also see a lot of people who engage in idiotic behaviour but are not inherently 'bad' - they are capable of success if given a set of parameters but they need someone 'superior' to set better parameters for them.

I often 'jokingly' suggest to people that we should prevent the former type from breeding and the reaction I get 95% of the time is pretty enthusiatic. It seems that privately even 'normals' can agree that it would be a good idea to stop the lowest humans from dragging us downwards through veracious breeding. They just need someone in a position of authority to validate their gut instinct.

I realise that things would be much better if we could agree that only the top 10% of humans should breed but what sounds like a great idea in theory is unworkable in practice. Why not focus on what's realistic in the short term?

I'm moving away from the idea that some sort of mass movement or 'revolution' is the answer. As many articles on Anus have pointed out the degeneration of society is a slow decay. Perhaps we should stop worrying about the big picture and focus on living decent lives in accordance with our values and creating things of value within our local community, trying as best we can to instill healthy ideas in those around us. Modern society clearly has many problems but I think these problems are far outwith the control of 99.999999% of individuals (to pick an arbitrary figure!). If we head too far in the wrong direction and don't suceed in turning things round ourselves I think that things will likely 'self correct'. We have over six billion humans - 99% of us could die tomorrow and it would pose little threat to the continued exsitence of mankind. When this society we have created can no longer sustain itself nature will determine who is fit and who is unfit to survive. With all of our petty prejudices and judgementalism (regardless of how noble our intentions are) are we really in a position to take on that role ourselves?

Apologies for any lack of coherence or idiocy in this post - probably the result of half a bottle of rather good Scotch whisky.


Re: Eugenics
March 14, 2010, 05:08:18 AM
Mass 'tard death isn't the goal, but it is an effective cage for mental monkeys. A better world, elegantly, is the goal. Everyone is very interested in the mass 'tard death part; a secure thought-box of predefined bounds. The elegantly improved half is almost completely neglected. Fear and doubt consistently hobbles ideation, everywhere, right now. For every place this very topic has been unleashed, the pattern remains consistent. This piece of evidence alone distinguishes each of us based on our own reactions within the topic.

Re: Eugenics
March 15, 2010, 03:28:49 AM
Here is some Mother Nature elegance for cleansing unfit humanzee from her face. There isn't time or space available for tolerating every combination at once, so something must go, she says.

Quote
The researchers found that the T cells rely on vitamin D in order activate and they would remain dormant, ‘na´ve’ to the possibility of threat if vitamin D is lacking in the blood.

Professor Carsten Geisler from the Department of International Health, Immunology and Microbiology, said: "When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signalling device or ‘antenna’ known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D.

"This means that the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won’t even begin to mobilise. ”

The discovery, the scientists believe, provides much needed information about the immune system and will help them regulate the immune response.

This is important not only in fighting disease but also in dealing with anti-immune reactions of the body and the rejection of transplanted organs.

Active T cells multiply at an explosive rate and can create an inflammatory environment with serious consequences for the body.

After organ transplants, T cells can attack the donor organ as a ‘foreign invader’. In autoimmune diseases, like arthritis or Crohns Disease, T cells mistake fragments of the body’s own cells for foreign invaders, leading to the body launching an attack upon itself.

For the research team, identifying the role of vitamin D in the activation of T cells has been a major breakthrough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7379094/Vitamin-D-triggers-and-arms-the-immune-system.html

Quote
A study, released Thursday, found that 59 per cent of study subjects had too little vitamin D in their blood and nearly a quarter of the group had serious deficiencies.

"Vitamin D insufficiency is a risk factor for other diseases," said Dr. Richard Kremer, the principal investigator of the study at the research institute.

"Because it is linked to increased body fat, it may affect many different parts of the body. Abnormal levels of vitamin D are associated with a whole spectrum of diseases, including cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes, as well as cardiovascular and autoimmune disorders," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/05/mcgill-vitamind-study.html

But, like bird and swine flu vaccine panic this too is most likely a media fueled pharmaceutical stock promotion in the face of economic decline. It could be a normal overcast winter season deficiency seen in a test group that would return to normal levels by sunny spring time as usual.

Re: Eugenics
March 15, 2010, 05:38:49 AM
You know, although "massive 'tard death" is a good idea, we shouldn't be childish about it - it doesn't have to be NOW, but we can the LaBruzzo thing, which was aimed at making life more difficult for the unfit to the point they won't have children, and disproportionetaly reward the successful.

Re: Eugenics
March 15, 2010, 12:42:59 PM
In my experience, it is very difficult to keep stupid people from having children.  They usually do it with out even trying and a good portion of them have children without even knowing it.

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 15, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
The chinese goverment succesfully forced the people of the country to limit the number of kids. If they can do it, anybody could.
lol except China didn't "successfully" do it. Rich people will have their kids and then pay a fine because that's the only punishment for giving birth to more than one kid (they treat it as a fee), and people in the remote rural areas will give birth to as many kids as they please because government oversight in these areas is low. Some people have this weird notion that China is the model government for our over-liberalized world -- cool story, it's not.

If you want to go the forced sterilization route, make sure you have a totalitarian government capable of controlling every aspect of its people's lives or else it ain't happening. That said, this kind of society is a great way to suppress the rise of exceptional individuals -- people transcend by overcoming obstacles surrounding them, not by having the PRC kill off every neighboring imbecile. In many cases it is the imbecile which spurs the great person to action.

Re: Destroying the Weak [split]
March 15, 2010, 06:07:37 PM
The chinese goverment succesfully forced the people of the country to limit the number of kids. If they can do it, anybody could.
lol except China didn't "successfully" do it. Rich people will have their kids and then pay a fine because that's the only punishment for giving birth to more than one kid (they treat it as a fee), and people in the remote rural areas will give birth to as many kids as they please because government oversight in these areas is low. Some people have this weird notion that China is the model government for our over-liberalized world -- cool story, it's not.

Additionally, the government is considering repealing the program in the near future, given the fact that too few women and too many men are born (due to the importance of passing on the family name), or so I hear.

Re: Eugenics
March 15, 2010, 06:50:54 PM
Well, I heard it was succesfull. Sorry.

Re: Eugenics
March 15, 2010, 08:35:15 PM
Well, I heard it was succesfull. Sorry.

It both was and was not. It did limit their population which, had it boomed, would have prevented them from being economic top dog in the world as they are just about to become.

I think the point people are making when they criticize it is that it was too bureaucratic. I wouldn't limit everyone to one kid -- hell no. Let the productive people breed like mad!

Re: Eugenics
March 16, 2010, 05:43:33 AM
this nihilistic misanthropic forum, where most people disagree with genocide.

Out of curiosity, where you get this consensus?  Eugenics is more properly philanthropic by the way, especially looking at the word's etymology.

People over 120 leads production, people under 120 produces.

This was addressed earlier.

If the idea can be agreed upon as good (the idea being that eugenics in some form or another is good for the human race), then the methods and precise scope can be addressed later.  Anyways, this can all start on things most people would agree upon, such as more capital punishment in murder and rape cases, as well as immigration reduction to the First World (or cessation ideally).  If these are addressed, moving forward in anyway on this issue will be alot easier.  Whether or not the "kill everyone under the IQ of 120" statement is rhetoric or not, eugenics would be beneficial in the long run, and not tolerating weakness (especially where it will breed longterm parasitism) is a good principle to live by.

I also believe people forget that in the early 20th century, there was a movement in the US that gained significant approval and national momentum to institute eugenics, as far as limiting immigration, and sterilizing people went.  Though it was obviously fought and lost, there's possibility for it to happen again.

Re: Eugenics
March 17, 2010, 11:56:25 PM
So what is, specifically, your more plausible image of tard cleansing?

Nobody's image of 'tard removal is important. What matters:

  • Would we be better or worse off?
  • How?
  • Why?
  • Does anyone have a better way?

Re: Eugenics
March 18, 2010, 04:26:20 AM
So what is, specifically, your more plausible image of tard cleansing?

Nobody's image of 'tard removal is important. What matters:

  • Would we be better or worse off?
  • How?
  • Why?

Asking you for your image, was just asking for details in your conception in contrast to the cartoony image I was supposedly making. No pun intended.

A world without morons would be better. But, besides the big problem of feasibility, different methods would bring different peripheral results in both economics and culture.


-Does anyone have a better way?

One child policy, extra license for ▄bermensch. It will bring the necessary economic conditions of less people through less violent shift, therefore more politically plausible, and will also conform a culture who praises the best, with less risk of peripheral, unexpected results.

This could be proposed in different ways, yet, I really need to hear the critics against one chilld policy and extra license.