Okay Mods, before you move this read it. IT BELONGS HERE.

The other night i was thinking about something while trying to fall asleep. MOST people like their parents and relatives. They didn't get to choose their parents. they didn't even get to choose what they were looking for in their parents/relatives. And yet with our partners (Wives and Husbands, Girlfriends and Boyfriends, ETC ...) we get to choose who we want. This made me think that if people are introduced ata young age they will learn to like eachother. Many people say my theory is not true since 25% of arranged marriges end in divorce. But arranged parteners are not put together when they are really young.

Here is my idea.

When a child is it is put in a government database. A child of equal age and opposite gender and race is then chosen for that child by the computer. The reason for opposite race is inter-racial reproduction creates stronger DNA. Thus the person is less prone to disease. Also a record of families would be kept so inbreeding would be impossible. Inbreeding also leads to weak DNA. Then the female person would move into the house of the male partner. I don't mean to be sexist but i think this would be better. Fathers of girls are usually really protective of their daughters so i think it would be best to seperate the two. This way parents lose female children at a age of 1-2 months. This may seem mean but they will get new females when they have males. At first the two kids are treated almost as if they were brother and sister there is no specail relationship stuff yet. They are encouraged to play and learn together to improve their relationship. Later on at about age 10 or 11 the children start sleeping in the same bed. But not sexually. this will get them even more comfortable with eachother. Between ages 16 and 20 the children move out and form a family of their own. And the cycle repeats

Here is some data that supports my idea.

A. This would mean people would get perfect matches breed to live together.

B. It would save years wasted on daiting

C. People would have somebody they can talk to and trust from a very young age.

D. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would be spread easily. People with AIDS wouldn't be allowed to have kids. So the disease would die with them.

E. It would decrease demmand for deoderants like AXE thus getting there stupid ads off my TV. Death to AXE.

Maybe when i move out i adopt some babies and try this on them.

PS. if you're just gonna flame me don't bother. It's a waste of your time. I really don't care what you think.

No.

You said two bad words. Government and Database.

The method of what you are saying is strange socially today but if someone grew up like that who would care?

Seems to much like slavery. Mating isnt exactly the biggest goal in most people's life either.

Try refining it a bit more I like to hear these things.

i'm going to start by saying that i would not condone a social system designed by someone who can't spell social. apart from that it's reasonably interesting though there are a few obvious flaws.

1.assuming you are in the U.S. there's something of a discrepancy between the numbers of white people and other races.

2.you could get stuck with a complete lemon of a partner. they could be fat, ugly and stupid with an annoying voice which everyone who hasn't been immersed in their revolting personality since they were one would notice.

3.what would you do with the people who have serious genetic defects? would you place them with a healthy specimen in the hopes that a child would not be affected? or would you pair off such genetically fucked up kids in the hope that they would soon disappear? you could always kill/neuter them.

ya, its a good theory...key word here, theory...but humans, by nature, are polygamous...polygamy for those who dont know meens having more then one partner. Let me explain, the female looks for strong, capable men, who they shall mate with as to create a strong child...selective breeding you could say...but then monogamy(sleeping with one partner) came in when the little man who didnt get any pussy, because he wasnt the choice of the female, he created this new way...

and as Kyoki said, what about genetic disorders, and just plain ugly, fat, bitches...i meen, ya, your theory could work, but not in every case...which would, in a way, bring us back here...

I dunno, this is sort of the idea behind arranged marriages, which is an age-old tradition in quite a few cultures. Is just the computer-database part meant to be a new idea?

It's a very bad theory. I'm sorry, but it is VERY bad. I don't mean to flame, but if Hitler came up to you and explained his "Final Solution" to you, wouldn't you try to stop it? Such a controled society is not a good thing, especially if it denies our freedoms. I mean, what kind of freedom would we have if we can't even choose our mate? I mean, come on, arranged mates? That's a step backwards in time, when daughter's fathers would force them to marry their wealthy business associates, and it was legal.

Anyway, I don't think such a system would even be practical. Despite all of the "compatability" tests, some of them just wouldn't get along with each other. Trying to have government control over something as basic as sexual reproduction would have drastic effects on the very fabric of our society.

quote:Originally posted by TheParkinator:

Mating isnt exactly the biggest goal in most people's life either.

This saves time so people can have more to achieve their biggest goals. And even though it is not our biggest goal it's our strongest subcouncious instinct (Or something like that, I know it's the strongest something, But not sure what)

quote:Originally posted by Kyoki:

i'm going to start by saying that i would not condone a social system designed by someone who can't spell social. apart from that it's reasonably interesting though there are a few obvious flaws.

1.assuming you are in the U.S. there's something of a discrepancy between the numbers of white people and other races.

2.you could get stuck with a complete lemon of a partner. they could be fat, ugly and stupid with an annoying voice which everyone who hasn't been immersed in their revolting personality since they were one would notice.

3.what would you do with the people who have serious genetic defects? would you place them with a healthy specimen in the hopes that a child would not be affected? or would you pair off such genetically fucked up kids in the hope that they would soon disappear? you could always kill/neuter them.

Kids who had genetic defects would be executed or imprisioned or just not paired with anyone. Although mixed race is ideal it would not be nessecary in all pairings. Since you would be raised from a very young age 1-2 months by the same parents. Any defects IE: your partner is ugly. You would probably be ugly to becuase of your parents not attending to proper grooming or whatever. If both partners were ugly you would tolerate eachother. Unless both partners are ugly and intolerant In which case it would get really messed. I think my system would still allow divorce. A draw back would be there would be extremely few single people so if you were divorced the pickings would be slim.

PS. sorrry about my bad spellling. In the previous message. I typed the first post really quickly. I do know how to spell social.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

I dunno, this is sort of the idea behind arranged marriages, which is an age-old tradition in quite a few cultures. Is just the computer-database part meant to be a new idea?

The computer database is not nessecary (Just Ideal) this could have been done 1000's of years ago without even written documents. The new idea is to have partners matched within several weeks of birth. The computer database just helps insure a proper genetic & age match.

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:

It's a very bad theory. I'm sorry, but it is VERY bad. I don't mean to flame, but if Hitler came up to you and explained his "Final Solution" to you, wouldn't you try to stop it? Such a controled society is not a good thing, especially if it denies our freedoms. I mean, what kind of freedom would we have if we can't even choose our mate? I mean, come on, arranged mates? That's a step backwards in time, when daughter's fathers would force them to marry their wealthy business associates, and it was legal.

Anyway, I don't think such a system would even be practical. Despite all of the "compatability" tests, some of them just wouldn't get along with each other. Trying to have government control over something as basic as sexual reproduction would have drastic effects on the very fabric of our society.

They would get along with eachother becuase of them growing up together. Most people get along with their parents. You DO NOT get to choose your parents.

Your theory is nothing new. Similar eugenicists, such as a man you might know, his name was Adolf Hitler put these "theories" into practice to achieve aesthetic perfection. All the handicapped/unfortunate people were sent to the gallows, the mentally ill were executed, etc, it is truly disgusting and disregards human sexual liberty.

I'm not a liberal in any way, but proposing the execution of people who cannot control how they are is just wrong from a moral perspective. Perhaps we can sterilize people who have inheritible diseases and force them to adopt, but definetly NOT execute them.

[This message has been edited by VladimirIllyichLenin (edited 07-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by VladimirIllyichLenin:

Your theory is nothing new. Similar eugenicists, such as a man you might know, his name was Adolf Hitler put these "theories" into practice to achieve aesthetic perfection. All the handicapped/unfortunate people were sent to the gallows, the mentally ill were executed, etc, it is truly disgusting and disregards human sexual liberty.

I'm not a liberal in any way, but proposing the execution of people who cannot control how they are is just wrong from a moral perspective. Perhaps we can sterilize people who have inheritible diseases and force them to adopt, but definetly NOT execute them.

[This message has been edited by VladimirIllyichLenin (edited 07-10-2004).]

I know the perufication isn't new. But the matching at a young age is. Thats what i said before. Read my full message before you reply you anti-abortionist tree huger. Nah just kidding i don't mind your opinion

I am nto anti-abortion. In fact, I think abortions should be mandatory for every human being. There are already too many people in this fucking world.

let me put it this way, would you want to marry/ reproduce with your brother/sister? because that's what they'll basically be. they were raised together and everything, so it would be as if they were related.

You can't force people to like each other. Some twins hate each other, and they were in the womb together.

You can't take children away from their parents. That would be the most heartbreaking thing ever. As much as you'd like to think someone else's kid would replace their daughter, it's simply not true.

There's way too much government interference in your plan. Taking away children, breeding (note the choice of word) different races together, forcing people to be together... it's truly horrible.

People have feelings, attachments, personality traits. In order for your idea to actually work despite the horrors of it, everybody would have to have basically the same personality. Some people don't get along with other people, and that's just the way it is.

EDIT: I forgot to say, why would anyone even want to have kids if they knew they would just be taken from them? People choose to have children so they can love them, watch them grow and care for them. Not so the government can take them away and essentially give them to another family just because they happened to have a boy instead of a girl. People love their kids. This might result in a high number of illegal abortions because couples want boys instead of girls. This would be dangerous for the mothers, and there would be more boys than girls for "pairing".

Not to mentions that people might just stop having kids altogether. Who wants to mate with their adopted brother/sister?

[This message has been edited by stephanina (edited 07-10-2004).]

This is a very interesting theory, but if you tried to implement it you'd be murdered. There were a couple of things I was wondering:

- In order for this system to work, the people would have to be completely ignorant. They could never be exposed to the concept of choice, which would ruin everything.

- What about racism? A lot of people would oppose having their children being married to someone of a different race.

- Would the children be aware that they were betrothed?

- If they were to be treated as siblings, what about sibling rivalry? It happens even when the children are the exact same age.

- In response to the above, you have to take personality into question. There's always a chance that the children's personalities could be so different that they would hate each other.

- What about homosexual people? Do they just die, since they can't procreate? And what about bisexual people? They would be able to procreate, but would live unfulfilling lives.

- What exactly is the purpose of this social system? Simply creating stronger DNA?

- What the hell is the Axe deoderant problem? I don't understand.

And of course, I think it's wrong to kill people who are retarded or ill unless they want to die. They can't control the way they were born. I suppose you could simply not allow them to procreate, but that would piss them off. You could allow them t procreate with other individuals who are also 'genetically defective'. But then, if you allow them to procreate with other 'genetically defective' people, what's to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want, since they're already the scum of society and not contributing to the major gene pool of strong individuals. They'd be like the proletariats in 1984. They could be put in camps or ghettos, and left to run amok. The people who weren't defective would eventually discover the concept of choice by themselves, instinctively, and those who wanted out would find ways. Eventualy everyone would hope to be genetically defective, simply for the possibility of having choices available to them. What would you use to keep them in line?

I've had fun thinking this through, actually. There should be a whole forum category dedicated to hypothetical questions like this.

Sigh...to all the people who read the original post and thought it was a horrible idea because it was "immoral", "unnatural", or even unusual: shut up.

Mad Bomber, your idea has merit. the one problem I perceive with it is the "brother/sister" vs. "husband/wife" relationship. I'm sure there are ways around this, but I'm no psychologist. The other problem is, as said above (and this would only apply for the first few generations), disabled/mutated people. If we were really to go ahead with this idea, they would be sterilized - still, that sounds too "final solution"-esque for my tastes.

And come on people, it's a good idea. It's got merit.

Trench Coat, besides your juvenile name, you are wrong. People may be polygamous by nature, but what we have today can barely be called nature. Monogamy is so strongly ingrained into our society that relatively few people have extra-marital relationships. And with the bond formed in the poster's idea, infidelity would be even less common.

Mad Bomber, your idea isn't bad. It's a little too authoritarian for my tastes, but the ends are definitely valid. I don't like it, because of the government control (I'm a libertarian), but I'm going to dangle the tastiest piece of flamebait and say that Hitler's idea was right - now most of you won't read past that part (that's why I put it at the end), but what I mean is that his "master race" idea was right. Sensibly, we could even combine people of weaker genetic makeup and stronger, and we'd still have a very strong result at the end.

I don't know about you guys, but living for a long time is at the top of my priority list, and if somebody had had the sense to implement a plan like this 1000 years ago, I'd be counting my stars for being able to live 20 or 40 years longer.

What's the point of living longer if you have no choices and are unfulfilled? You wouldn't even be thinking about the point, you'd be a slave. You wouldn't care when you died, because you wouldn't have a choice in anything you did. You want to live longer because life is fun, right? You enjoy it? What if it wasn't and you didn't? That's the entire point. You wouldn't give a shit about breeding (that's what it would be) or living longer. I might also point out that if someone had implemented a system like this 1000 years ago, you wouldn't be counting your lucky stars (even if you did enjoy your life and were lucky enough to marry someone you like and have a son) because you would have no idea that you live longer because of this system.

The people who pair the other people. What happens to them? Once they realize they get to choose things, what happens next?

Edit: Oops again. According to that Erickson guy, Eric Erickson (I think it was him), the final stage in one's life is reflection. You look back on your life and you either despair because you didn't do anything worthwhile, or you are content because you accomplished something and made good choices and all that crap. Um, how do you take away a stage in someone's life? Nobody would feel fulfilled, because they wouldn't have accomplished anything. They wouldn't be happy. I thought I should have some sort of evidence to back up the point I made earlier in this post.

[This message has been edited by stephanina (edited 07-10-2004).]

You have just described exactally what the jews want to do. Race mix 100% of america. What evidence do you have of race mixing creating stronger dna? The white (northern european) race is superior. We have created almost all that we have today.

Sounds like a crackpot idea. A bit too fascistic to me. I want to be able to choose who I hook up with. You're system is shit.

quote:Originally posted by mandarinorange:

let me put it this way, would you want to marry/ reproduce with your brother/sister? because that's what they'll basically be. they were raised together and everything, so it would be as if they were related.

Yes but society wouldn't consider them as brother and sister. I don't have a sister or brother so i don't know if i would wan to do it with them.

It doesn't matter if they're legally your brother or sister. You've known them all your life, been naked around them in bathtubs and stuff, and you just know them too well. There's not mystery involved. You probably played cops and robbers with them when you were little. It would be boring and gross to hook up with them. No fantasy, and you know them and their icky habits too well. It doesn't matter if you call them your brother or sister or not. I would be just as grossed out fucking my brother if he were not actually my "brother".

Hey, topic creator, why don't you have a kid, then adopt another kid around the same age from the philipines and try out that idea. I know some people who were adopted, and they think it would be sick to have sex with their adopted brother/sister no mather what they look like, and what if you were a guy and you saw some babe walking down the street and started flirting with her or vise versa, would you and her be exterminated if you had sex with her?

This idea would basically end up another halocaust for gays, mentally handicapped, and people who went against the system.