Nobody should have power over anybody else, unless that person is directly causing harm to society. How would choose who is undesirable?

Society simply doesn't work like that, through and through.

"Ok guys, let's kill ourselves to save the burden on Mother Earth!"

"Yeah!"

"Ok...which one of you guys want to go first?"

"....Not me..."

China is already limiting it's births, technically you're not allowed to have more than 2 children.

www.vhemt.org

lollilops

Because it's not the place of any governing body to limit the human gene pool. More people = more potential to adapt to new situations. If the global population ever becomes so large that societies fall apart and people starve and die of diseases and kill each other, the surviving population will have a tendency to cope with these problems. The more people there are, the higher the chance that the human race itself will not go extinct. If only one person for every 30 million has resistances to a new disease or environmental factor, the chances that they will actually survive and find each other is much higher than it was 100 years ago.

Yes, it is likely that the consequences our species has on the overall environment will kill off quite a few other species. Food chains could collapse. But some things will always remain; enough for us to live on at the very least. So long as we survive, this doesn't matter.

Back to the point, it's counterproductive to our survival to impose artificial limits on breeding. Our technology isn't advanced enough to be able to determine what traits increase our chance of survival, or even to identify all relevant traits. This doesn't mean that limits irrespective of genetics shouldn't be applied, and in fact they have. Our underlying economic systems encourage people to have fewer children when the situation doesn't facilitate that, and the opposite when it does. You don't need overt government controls to prevent a person from feeding all of their seven children. There are ways to restrict the population and prevent overcrowding and starvation without imposing additional limitations to our current system of accepted freedoms.

Agricultural industrialization has allowed us to dramatically increase our population and further the survival of our species. Why is this a bad thing? Eugenics is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist that has the potential to cause irreparable harm to our species. There's a reason inbreeding causes mutations, and though the effects on a larger scale wouldn't be as severe, the conclusion would be the same- a weakening of our species.

Besides that, our society isn't structured in a way that would allow such controls to take place. You couldn't pass legislation to take reproductive rights away from people. Between the violent opposition to reproductive controls on even an individual scale and the widespread obsession with the ideal of diversity, anyone espousing the necessity of eugenics will be regarded by mainstream society as crazy.

The only way is a complete system crash. Maybe this could happen naturally, because of anything such as global natural disaster (a poleshift would accomplish that), or the inevitable cultural collapses that strike every empire. Even our modern ones aren't safe from those.

How would a "cultural collapse" let alone a natural disaster cause a revolution? Inevitable collapse? I think not, but if you define "cultural collapse" better, I might think about it.

That, or mass suicide. But I dont' think killing others is right.

There's always slave labor. :D


EDIT: Yes, blame ALL Catholics, the entire religion, for things people who HAPPEN to be Catholic do, fucking Nazis.

You sir, are the biggest moron of whose writing I have had the misfortune of reading. The whole last part was sarcasm. Read it again and tell me if any of those things are negative.

@ChickenOfDoom, excellent post, you made me rethink my position (which doesn't happen often).

Yes. Because A Brave New World showed us just how excellent this idea really is. A race of "super people" is Star Trek bullshit. Hitler tried it and it didn't work that well. The Soviet Union was experimenting with the same idea and got the same result. Eugenics is reserved for science fiction novels and cheesy space movies for a reason.

Who gets to choose who dies?

The claw.

http://symbii.com/images/stories/buster_claw_save_gob.jpg

On a more serious note:

Diseases like AIDS are a time bomb for third world populations. It seems likely that population in some areas will reduce itself.

As for the first world, it's tied in to my argument about fossil fuels. If we can't fuel our economy, there won't be food on the supermarket shelves. The West, home of cheap food and a place where people take basic supplies as given, could starve to death.


-deus-

Ive read/skimmed through this thing and I could not find any where this point had been made. In Canada our death rate is higher than our birth rate, and without immigration our population would be shrinking. Basically the rule of thumb here is as a society becomes more developed its birth rate starts to decrease. This is true for a couple reasons. People no longer need 7 or 8 kids to work the farm. The cost of raising a child becomes too high for most families to be able to afford more than one or two kids.

Exactly, so the majority of growth occurs in the developing world.

-deus-

Also you'll notice there's a direct linear relationship between the number of people alive and the number of technological advances in a year.

I stopped reading right there because of stupidity.

Correlation does not mean causation.

--Cr@sh

I stopped reading right there because of stupidity.

Correlation does not mean causation.

--Cr@sh

But correlation along with a logical connection between the two factors does give a good probability of causation.

That said, we can't ever be sure of future progress. There's nothing guaranteeing that we'll keep advancing technology. Things like Moore's law, for example, might not hold out for that much longer, as we reach the limits of silicon.

-deus-

We could just start looking into colonization of other planets.

That would mean we don't have to kill anyone?

Terraform! Terraform! Terraform!

Downrepped by pianoSpleen:

Cocky and misinformed. Maybe you would do better to actually try to understand his point of view rather than dismissing it out of hand. I get the feeling you do this a lot.


Afraid if you said that in this thread you'd show people your true colors, eh? How am I "misinformed"? Because I don't share his point of view you think I'm "misinformed"?? I understand his "OPINION" fully, and I do NOT agree with it at all, you must take his point of view as truth if you're defending it. I hope you die a slow, painful death and rot in hell with the rest of your family, friends, and pets for the rest of eternity...because God knows you deserve it prick. It's a motherfucking promise that YOU will.

^^^ Don't worry, there is no god.

I stand by what I said, and also claim it applies to this post as well.

Zig, piano, take it elsewhere.

I don't think colonisation of other planets is yet a viable option. We're going to have to hold out here for quite some time.

-deus-

We just need to get rid of this idea of "a right to life"

OK, I think you should be executed, i'm sure the majority of people who have seen this thread would agree with the proposition.
That's why we have "a right to life" dumbass.

And eugenics is a viable one?

Humanity would wipe itself out if it was attempted.

Whoah, dues is a mod? Nice!

My two cents-

Has anybody ever seen a population growth chart in bio? The population goes up really fast, peaks, then a fair amount dies off and it evens out. We aren't exactly rabbits, but this is bound to happen. It'll suck, but unless growth stops on it's own we can't do much to stop it.

And good call on Canada and Tech/Birth rate. How many people 100 years ago would even consider not having kids?

And eugenics is a viable one?

Humanity would wipe itself out if it was attempted.

I didn't say it was. But we just don't have the tech right now to even allow small numbers of people to live on another planet.

-deus-

I stopped reading right there because of stupidity.

Correlation does not mean causation.


Nor does it exclude it either.

In this case, he's essentially right. Cheap abundant energy and the resulting technological developments that have resulted from it has undeniably exploded the human population.

Notice in the chart below how population took off when we started using fossil fuels, especially oil. Which way do you think population is going to go when oil starts to deplete?

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/791/popsy8.jpg

Like as in birth defects?

Aside from the importance of biodiversity and the total subjectiveness of our claims of their inferiority you mean?

I would most likely advocate terminating a less than perfect fetus of my own, but I'm not going to attempt to mandate it. We need to cut back on scale, not try to interfer in darwinism.

I'm sure as fuck not going to put the fate of humanity in the hands of politicians who think the internet is a series of tubes, and are in the pocket of pharmicutical and health insurance companies.

Nor does it exclude it either.

In this case, he's essentially right. Cheap abundant energy and the resulting technological developments that have resulted from it has undeniably exploded the human population.

Notice in the chart below how population took off when we started using fossil fuels, especially oil. Which way do you think population is going to go when oil starts to deplete?

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/791/popsy8.jpg

A chart of that scale is meaningless. The bell curve of oil consumption is averaged to look pretty, the drop is a preditiction, oil is not the only energy source, and it's correlation to human population isn't even observable beyond the obvious at that level of detail.

The only thing remarkable about oil is it is practically a product straight out of the ground. Replace it as an energy source, and alternative means of production will replace it's source.

They will be more expensive. Eventually, we may run out of energy sources and will have to rely completely on solar. Taking in to consideration the impact of the disease/population density relationship control, provided medical advances slow down, nuclear power will carry humanity for a long time.

The increasing scarcity of wealth as a direct function of cheap energy will cause the population to level off or shrink in response, and I imagine the advances in aerospace resulting from the demand caused the by the increasing instability might eventually lead to interplanetary mining of fissible/fusable ore.

Or not.

The only thing remarkable about oil is it is practically a product straight out of the ground. Replace it as an energy source, and alternative means of production will replace it's source.

Oil makes up 40% of world energy and 90% of transportation energy. World oil consumption is 30.6 billion barrels a year and growing. That's 84 million barrels in 24 hours, 3.5 million an hour, or nearly a thousand barrels a second. All the energy in the oil was aready put there by nature over millions of years. Sources of energy we make ourselves require the input of energy and yield a fraction of the energy return we now get from fossil fuels

What do you propose we replace that with? Nothing we can imagine at this point short of cold fusion has the capacity to fill that role.

They will be more expensive. Eventually, we may run out of energy sources and will have to rely completely on solar.

All the solar panels in the world right now can't provide as much energy as a single coal firing plant when you factor in that they only run at around 20% of their rated capacity most the time. 25 years from now, we'll be lucky if solar and wind combined account for even an whole 1% of our total energy supply.

Taking in to consideration the impact of the disease/population density relationship control, provided medical advances slow down, nuclear power will carry humanity for a long time.

I doubt it, given that there is a global shortage (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9069-1735134,00.html) of uranium, which is unlikely to improve given the finite nature of the resource.

These two articles explain a lot about uranium production and consumption:

Uranium production is nearing the halfway point (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp)

Current uranium demand almost twice production (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/powers/2004/0601.html )

The following chart sums up the the problem:

http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/UprodWorld.gif

Check out the reactor requirements line and then the production levels.

Notice a disturbing trend there?

As it stands, U-235 isn't exactly the most abundant fuel in the world.

At current use (not current growth in consumption, but current use), uranium is estimated to last somewhere up around 40 years. The more of it we use, the faster it will go. France is already 90% nuclear. India and China are trying to expand their nuclear capabilities as well and make it their primary source of electricity. China especially since all their coal burning is wrecking their environment, buildings, and crops. So it's obvious that there is going to be some considerable growth in consumption of the resource an it won't last as long as the 40-year estimate with zero growth figured.


The increasing scarcity of wealth as a direct function of cheap energy will cause the population to level off or shrink in response, and I imagine the advances in aerospace resulting from the demand caused the by the increasing instability might eventually lead to interplanetary mining of fissible/fusable ore.


I highly doubt that, given the energy required to travel into space and back. Metal is recycleable after all, and there's plenty of it sitting in junkyards and landfills. As far as aerospace industry goes, as the era of cheap and abundant energy leaves us, there won't be much of an aerpospace sector left.

I blame religion to, especiially catholocism for denying the knowledge and learning of the romans and greeks though the dark ages and pretending the exact opposite. I blame them for being the only stable respected force during the twelth centery because it killed all the others before they were able to defend themselves, that it felt compelled to protect europe from the muslim agression that had but wiped out, pillaged and destroyed the previously predominately christian middle east Even tho the reason the muslims were attacking Europe is because of the so called holy war in Jerusalem and the christian Crusades. I blame catholicism for the philosophy of natural law, and the philosophies of locke, voltaire, and paine that laid the groundwork for the modern day representative government Or at least for accepting them and saying they supported it AFTER the entire population demanded it. I blame the catholic church for not burning the first great universities of europe because of the large bribes the Sorbonne and Oxford gave the church. I blame the church for resisting violently to our transformation from a bunch of serf/slaves and a few lords to a free and enlightened society.
12345

I hate people like you.

Yes, sometime we're gonna have too many of us.
But we cannot just simply kill people or take away the right for them to have children. That's fucking retarded.

Sometime we're gonna have to do something about it, but there is a long, long time until that point.

So long that i think a solution might actually be there at that time(Migrating to other planets?). If not, yes we're going under sometime, but we're going under sometime anyway because of something else that might pop up.

I would rather have a big, happy population with not a lot of space to be on, than a reasonable amount of depressed people on a lot of land(Yes, a lot of people would actually be depressed if their friends had to be killed and they themselves were not allowed to have children).

I do not believe in offering people for things.
If you do, ask yourself the question "Would i sacrifice myself for that". If your answer is truly yes, I respect you.

You can guess what i would think about you if your answer was No, there's no reason to elaborate that.

but the holocaust didn't exactly help.

I lol'd.

Oil makes up 40% of world energy and 90% of transportation energy. World oil consumption is 30.6 billion barrels a year and growing. That's 84 million barrels in 24 hours, 3.5 million an hour, or nearly a thousand barrels a second. All the energy in the oil was aready put there by nature over millions of years. Sources of energy we make ourselves require the input of energy and yield a fraction of the energy return we now get from fossil fuels

What do you propose we replace that with? Nothing we can imagine at this point short of cold fusion has the capacity to fill that role.



All the solar panels in the world right now can't provide as much energy as a single coal firing plant when you factor in that they only run at around 20% of their rated capacity most the time. 25 years from now, we'll be lucky if solar and wind combined account for even an whole 1% of our total energy supply.



I doubt it, given that there is a global shortage (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9069-1735134,00.html) of uranium, which is unlikely to improve given the finite nature of the resource.

These two articles explain a lot about uranium production and consumption:

Uranium production is nearing the halfway point (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp)

Current uranium demand almost twice production (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/powers/2004/0601.html )

The following chart sums up the the problem:

http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/UprodWorld.gif

Check out the reactor requirements line and then the production levels.

Notice a disturbing trend there?

As it stands, U-235 isn't exactly the most abundant fuel in the world.

At current use (not current growth in consumption, but current use), uranium is estimated to last somewhere up around 40 years. The more of it we use, the faster it will go. France is already 90% nuclear. India and China are trying to expand their nuclear capabilities as well and make it their primary source of electricity. China especially since all their coal burning is wrecking their environment, buildings, and crops. So it's obvious that there is going to be some considerable growth in consumption of the resource an it won't last as long as the 40-year estimate with zero growth figured.



I highly doubt that, given the energy required to travel into space and back. Metal is recycleable after all, and there's plenty of it sitting in junkyards and landfills. As far as aerospace industry goes, as the era of cheap and abundant energy leaves us, there won't be much of an aerpospace sector left.

I won't trust toothpick instructions produced in Australia.

Uranium isn't the only fissile material. Thorium is a popular suggested alternative.

I've heard the uranium scarcity argument before and I'm unconvinced. It seems to originate more from a hunt for dead ends rather than an exhaustive hunt for solutions. If uranium is so rare and scarce I'd really love to know how these assholes:
http://www.unitednuclear.com/uranium.htm
can just waltz in to closed mines and grab arm fulls off the floor.

If I remember correctly, you can coat a fuel rod in depleted uranium in a breader reactor and use that shit as fuel as well. Regardless, the shit is in our soil, and oceans, and a lolipops worth could power the entire united states for something like 10 hours. Last time I looked, the floor under the insufficient reserves argument fell out. Not to mention the HELLA reserves of retired fuel rods and other nuclear waste which could probably carry nuclear power with NO other uranium production for 10 times as long as nuclear power has existed.

Same site BTW:
http://www.uic.com.au/whyu.htm

uranium OWNS oil.

Call up and ask your local nuclear engineering professor at a local university and ask them how long nuclear could carry current energy consumption.

As for solar, my entire point was that with no other energy reserves remaining, we will have to resort to something as shitty as solar. with a small enough population to farmable land ratio, biofuels might make sense, but when you're out of reserves, you have to revert to what's being produced faster than you consume it.

As for space mining, I can only see that happening for nuclear fuel as nothing else could possibly justify itself.

Fuck it. I kept looking.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates the remaining uranium resources to be equal to 2500 ZJ.[24] This assumes the use of Breeder reactors which are able to create more fissile material than they consume. IPCC estimated uranium deposits for once-through fuel cycles reactors to be only 17 ZJ but then they go on to say that exploration for uranium is still at its infancy.[25]

Resources and technology do not constrain the capacity of nuclear power to contribute to meeting the energy demand. However, political and environmental concerns about nuclear safety and radioactive waste started to limit the growth of this energy supply at the end of last century, particularly due to a number of nuclear accidents. Concerns about nuclear proliferation mean that the development of nuclear power by countries such as Iran is being actively discouraged by the international community."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#Nuclear_pow er

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

My thread back when I was fresh on my research.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1488736&page=2

Oh yeah, population is the source of all human suffering. Ignorant people are ignorant.

Whatever happens, life, death, and the earth will balance itself out. The ebb and flow of life and its current is not weaker than the whims of humanity. Thats why global warming is the result of pollution and the destruction of nature. That is why wars follow the arrogance of nations, and why no matter what, destruction breeds creation. Fuck philosophies that assume to know or be able to tell the strongest genetics mixes. In this day and age of complexities where new biological information is revealed every day there is simply no space for such a psuedoscience.

Get rid of China.

Id vote for a politican advocating nuclear annilihation of china.

You want to kill me because I support eugenics...I do hope you see the irony.



No, I want you to kill yourself if thats truly what you believe in.
There are actually groups of people who have sworn never to have children and see no problem with self-termination.

Call up and ask your local nuclear engineering professor at a local university and ask them how long nuclear could carry current energy consumption.

Completely disingenuous, since "current consumption" only stays current for a small period of time. Growth is the rule, not the exception. When you factor in steady growth you see the life expectancy of the resource shrink exponentially.

They said back in the 70's that coal was expected to last "at current consumption" around 500 years. Problem was that they were including the entire resource base of coal (around half of that is estimated to be recoverable), and they didn't factor in growth. When you do both of those, coal is expected to last within the life expectancy of children alive today.

Considering the inevitable drop in population in the near future from disease if not conflict, consumption isn't going to continue it's current rate of growth for long. International discontent is on the rise. Discontent breeds nutcase leaders and nutcase leaders breed war. Dead people pacify the discontented, and the pacified people breed(literally) exploitation, which breeds discontentment.

It's a lemming race to WWOhFuck! vs. Black Plague Episode Jesus Christ!



The real question is, are we looking at antibiotic resistence or crazy exciting new pandemics? I guess that depends on how persuassive the free market zealots are. I'm sure increasing global competition is going to raise china's disease control standards and the number of paid sick days american employees get.


That's the real reason hippies love to stomp around the rain forrests. They want to be the next green monkey.

Even if you factor in the fairly predictible consumption bell curve, nuclear still owns. They're just rationing yesterday's sliced bread hoping the fighting will cut back the population/consumption enough to make tomorrows loaf last awhile. If you follow the 500 years coal math, with the actual returns, nuclear still would last for another thousand years or so.

I'm just praying my ass off the punchline to scientology is believer suicide bombings.

1. Earth's population is stabilizing; shit the developed nations have lower birthrates and their populations are declining. This is happening to many places

2. Space Exploration needs to start soon.

EDIT: Dark_Magneto, heard of Hemp Fuel?

There's Tidal power and I haven't heard many people attempt using geothermal power; look at Yellowstone and the other areas with hot springs.

I didn't say it was. But we just don't have the tech right now to even allow small numbers of people to live on another planet.

-deus-

Oh, we do. They may not release it but we do.

And there's O'Neill and how he thought of practical ways to build his colonies, working on Mass Drivers, etc.

Oh, we do. They may not release it but we do.

And there's O'Neill and how he thought of practical ways to build his colonies, working on Mass Drivers, etc.

Lol no, there's a textfile on this in tech, read it, and you'll see we're not even close.

EDIT: Dark_Magneto, heard of Hemp Fuel?


Yeah, and it's a realistic alternative on a sane scale. However when you try to run a quarter billion autos on the stuff, then you run out of space to grow food. This is a fundamental problem when one tries to salvage the inherently unsustainable mass individual transit concept, which was a product of cheap & energy abundant oil, and tries to port it over to an era of scarcity. It won't work like that. For mass transit ops or small sector transport, energy-positive biofuels actually feasible.

There's Tidal power and I haven't heard many people attempt using geothermal power; look at Yellowstone and the other areas with hot springs.

To quote LATOC:

"While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic."

I think that the main problem with the way it is currently is that the intelligent, well off people are smart enough to use various protection from having kids, or are smart enough to not want them. Poor people however insist on breeding like rabbits. The other problem is what gives someone the right to say that one person deserves to live over another. I think we'd be better if everyone was poor. If that were the case we would not only be less taxing on the environment but the poor wouldnt get support from the rich bringing natural selection back into play. Those who cant support themselves/family will die and not reproduce.

Yeah, japan is kind of like Toon Town in Roger Rabbit.

The funny thing to me is how eugenics are not being taken seriously at all, while insanely disturbing tings like genetically engineering our own food is looked up to like a savior.

Which is really worse, selective breeding that maintains some form of natural relationships on the molecular level, or splicing virus and bacteria DNA with the food we eat?

OH BOY! I love unforseen consequences.

Yeah, world's fucked. Best just try to be nice to everyone and make people's days batter! Make the depressed cashier cackle with glee as you lick your own nipples, I say!

I've heard some good arguments against genetically engineered food, but I bet you don't have any. Most antis are just science illiterates who are afraid of what they don't understand. I'm on the fence on that issue, but I think the real issue is organic farmers are scared shitless they won't be able to compete.

It needs to be regulated to prevent contamination of the environment, but I don't really give a shit if kellogs wants to breed jellyfish cereal plants in a quarantined warehouse.

Research an issue before you throw your weight behind a cause please.

lol... figures.

Sure there are visible "benefits."

It's like economics... it's all well and dandy and you can make astute predictions regarding finances if you know all about it; but when you start dissecting it down to the effects on people as people and not people as consumenrs, and it gets a little weak in the argument weight.

Genetically engineered food may not be eaten by pests. It may have unusually high levels of a lacking nutrient such as vitamin A precursors and whatnot. It may be able to grow completely out of season or be incredibly resistant to drought , or have an "antifreeze" gene in it [from arctic flounderI believe?.... mmm.... arctic flounder tomatoes...].

I mean fuck... steroids work. But then what? I realize there are immediate benefits like fast food, it's very alluring in a literal sense.

Like the day man first made fire, or picked up a club and beat his wife over the head to shut her up, genetically engineering is altering fundamental principles of life. We understand how to do it, but not enough time has elapsed for us to know the major components of WTF we are really doing. It is some serious shit... basically playing god.

I mean, selectively breed your exotic sugar gliders into little picachu things, I don't really care. Hell, inbreed them. Mate them forcefully with a squirrel from you yard and see what happens. There are many natural limitations.

I'm not trying to be a fucking missionary of smelly hippies here, I'm trying to open up your squinting little eyes a millimeter or so you little invalidator, you.

"Invalidator"?

Is that anything like a voice of reason?

I consider myself an anti-popularist because an irrational emotional voting public scares the shit out of me. By playing the devils advocate, I contribute to more carefully considered well thought out solutions than "BAN IT TO HELL!!!!1"

It is only through logical consideration of issues that you can be sure of the merits of your decisions. Having a "hunch" that you shouldn't mess with nature is almost universally a position of ignorance. "Playing god" is one of the more irritating expressions I've ever encountered. It isn't debating the merits of the issue. It's slapping a sticker of taboo on to the collaborative work of hundreds of thousands of people.

"Burn the libraries! Books are a transgression against god!"

These Pathos arguments are universally the front to ignorance or ulterior motivation. People who know what they are talking about will use a logos or ethos argument, and someone who knows but chooses pathos is being disgenuine and manipulative and shouldn't be trusted.

People far more educated on the topic than yourself who committed their lives to a science that you want to slap a label on because you watched one too many movies like "attack of the killer tomatoes."

Call for regulation with a good rational purpose. That's fine by me, but don't try to stifle progress just for it's own sake. It really makes you look dumb when the next day you want the benefits of antibiotics.

It's like economics... it's all well and dandy and you can make astute predictions regarding finances if you know all about it; but when you start dissecting it down to the effects on people as people and not people as consumenrs, and it gets a little weak in the argument weight.

Genetically engineered food may not be eaten by pests. It may have unusually high levels of a lacking nutrient such as vitamin A precursors and whatnot. It may be able to grow completely out of season or be incredibly resistant to drought , or have an "antifreeze" gene in it [from arctic flounderI believe?.... mmm.... arctic flounder tomatoes...].

I mean fuck... steroids work. But then what? I realize there are immediate benefits like fast food, it's very alluring in a literal sense.


I find an economist who can raise numbers like quality of life, and lower numbers like inflation, unemployment contagious infections, teenage mothers, and poverty rate, over 10 years, much more comforting than a sweetheart like bono who can wind up the spring tension and have the exact opposite results.

May, may, may, may... I MAY kill a motherfucker for looking at me the wrong way. I once dated an ESKIMO! mmm... Eskimo pussy...

This is what I'm talking about. No more info than Dafur. If you care so much YOU find ME some hard facts and convince me. I'm not you, and I favor hard facts over yellow journalism. Skeptics aren't here to justify evil. They are here to run arond like chickens with their heads cut off trying to keep impuslive ignorant people in need of a cause from doing any misguided damage at the direction of agents of special interests.

Steroids do work, and I don't suggest we allow Silvester Stalone compete in baseball anymore than I suggest we allow McDonalds potatoes in an organic mashed potatoes contest.

Hey I just realized the mad face means actual anger outside HB.
I seriously am never angry, and it is always a mistake to use that icon out of the humor forums, lol.

Usualy I use it like "I hope a polar bear mates with your sargento cheese "

That's why I said invalidator. It was much more accurate than just a generic, even insulting thing like "u douche"

I said something... it sort of had a point... and you were all like "u not loox at faxts! U dunno wut u talk 'bout. [HB summary, not verbatim]." I beleive that is a fairly fitting definition of invalidator in that circumstance. Since I am not going to make the fundamental error of attribution, you may have had a tiresome monday, or know someone who you do not like and transferred their ...schema? archetype? whatever... onto me and my opinion injection. Maybe you just don't like my user name or my opening sentence. I do not care though, and I am not angry.

I clarify. That's what I do. Trying to make me angry is like trying to catch a loose bead of mercury with only your penis and a toothpick. Now that I feel no more obligation to clarify for the moment, I will post this and read the last 75% of your post above from this one.

"Invalidator"?

People far more educated on the topic than yourself who committed their lives to a science that you want to slap a label on because you watched one too many movies like "attack of the killer tomatoes."

Call for regulation with a good rational purpose.


:D

Ok, slow down I think you read my posts too fast or something. The belief that it is "wrong" is my opinion. I am a realist, not a dictator. I realize most people will hold a differing opinion. I am open to compromise.

THE FUNNY THING.... is that my honest opinion on a solution to the matter is the EXACT SAME thing you stated.

Regulation with good rational purpose? Sounds fucking dandy to me. That would be as good as it can get realistically. You can't make masturbation go away, and my analogy was meant to show it's sudden drastic onset, but also it;s permanence. It WILL NOT go away. I can cry or be emo, but that's for turds.

I was expressing my opinion on the matter, and you misinterpreted my opinion as a desire on my behalf to control everyone else's destiny.

You want to know the funniest thing about our little chat here that may or may not have raised your blood pressure?

This:

"Invalidator"?

People far more educated on the topic than yourself......

Can you see the way I am reading your posts? How you are appearing? Right after you questioned me and probably raised an eyebrow in real life at the term "invalidator" and immediately dismissed the idea, you belittled me and INVALIDATED me in your very next words.

The only thing that I am going to take away from this little interaction here, iis that you are very reasonable like I am, but you have some sort of axe to grind, some need feel superior, and some need to react so staunchly to my "dopey-ly" expressed analogies that denote personal views.

Good day to you, sir.

My appologies. I've got no grief with you. I assume irrationality/idiocy in debate, and preemptively react, and have no issue with appologizing if I miss my mark.

IMO the obvious facts are always a carefully groomed deception sourced from a financially motivated special interest PR campaign. I see these movements getting momentum and feel I need to shout to be heard over the pied pipers song. I may be wrong some of the time, but it does my part to balance things out. The beauty of democracy.

Cool. :)

In other news, I was just out cutting up ugly privet saplings out of my ivy, and got attacked by bees and stung 3 times.

Obviously I was seeming like a douche to an extent, because karma just kicked me in the ass!


lol....

The biggest thing that people in this thread need to do is define pronouns. Who the fuck is this "we"? I bet the "we" isn't anyone who doesn't stand to benefit from all the eugenic ideas in here and elsewhere. How about we just kill off everyone with an IQ under 150? That'd be sweet. But wait.... How many of us have an IQ under 150? Now maybe eugenics doesn't sound that cool. Or what if we do, and the rest of our family and friends don't? The thing is, no one wants to get eliminated because they are "unfit".

see a therapist

Eugenics isn't taken seriously because it seems most people don't know what eugenics is.

This entire thread has been about how no one has the right to say who lives and who dies. As if implementing eugenics necessitates setting up death camps, and implementing lotteries to see who lives and who dies like in some scifi dystopia. Which it doesn't by the way. There is no inherent coercion required to practice eugenics.

Eugenics is merely humanity taking control of it's genetic destiny. No one has to die to improve the human genome.

Should mentally retarded people really be allowed to have children?
Should we just sit back and not try to eradicate genetic disorders?
Should we not engage in genetic research on the human genome?

Eugenics is just common sense.

You are quite right. Eugenics can be just common sense. But some people on here have been talking about more extreme implementations of eugenics, and those have sparked lots of big arguments. Conservative eugenics is something everyone can agree to.

Like HPV vaccines and emergency contraceptives?

You are quite right. Eugenics can be just common sense. But some people on here have been talking about more extreme implementations of eugenics, and those have sparked lots of big arguments. Conservative eugenics is something everyone can agree to.

I agree. On a simple level, maybe this means not letting the dumb jock squirt his semen into everyone and spawn more dumbasses that he can't support financially.

Personally, I think the world just needs another World War.

the reason people hate it is because you kill people.....if you could prevent the pregnancies of people who were going to give birth to children who were unfit to live, it'd work out nicer....BUT the religious people ruin this too. because abortion is wrong and evil.........nowadays, the same could be achived by selective breeding and sperm banks being used in conjunction. for example, only healthy people are allowed into miliatry service, yes? have all the soldiers jerk off into cups, and have it shipped back to the US with categories of "types" of people. such as "tall, white, brown hair" or "short, asian, black hair" and so on. people choose from these categories and get a fit persons seed. good idea? i think its alright...

Fuck you, communist.

DarkWonders:

You seem to like the idea of Eugenics, but it's all well and good for you behind your computer.
Try and look at Third Reich Eugenics from the Jews point of view, ( Now I know this is TOTSE, Largely irreverent )
But really, the Jews, man for man, woman for woman, were no less intelligent, physically fit or genetically sound than the German race which Hitler was trying to purify.
The reason that Hitler is largely considered a tyrant is not because "The world is just ignorant", it's because the means he chose to achieve his ( already ethically questionable ) end were morally unsound.
I'm not even going to go into the ethical pitfalls of 'the perfect race', or the implications for our world, and all of humanity. ( Culture, society etc etc ).
But i'll just raise one point which you should sit and think about a moment.
I mentioned the Jews up there, what I was trying to make you think about was the fact that, really, who is to decide who is superior to who?

Now read this point well, kid.

Who is to say, that in the perfect world you're talking about, YOU wouldn't be one of the ones that society either neuters or culls?

Are you six foot four? Perfect eyes, skin, hair? Are you physically fit, muscular, intelligent? Free of any hereditary disorders? Do you have acne? Asthma? Any history of illness in your family?
For all I know, ( and am going to assume. ) you are just another whiny nerd sitting behind a computer frothing with alienation from society due to your lack of looks/charm/social graces. We've seen it a thousand times before.

And also,
Next time people want to start romanticizing things like Eugenics programs, think about your own willingness to fight against societal norms, and think freely outside the box. Now imagine yourself inside a society where people like you who think sideways ( not that the majority of you are even thinking for yourselves. ) are culled and their numbers replaced by genetically pure, obedient supermen.
Seriously people, grow the fuck up.

There is alot we can learn from Brave new World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984 etc etc.

Idiots.

You made me laugh quite out loud. You just spent several times the words necessary "explaining" what has already been hashed and re-hashed a few times already in this thread alone, not to mention the huge ass arena of eugenics debate elsewhere. Try being a little less pompous and demeaning next time, or I might just have to eugenize you.

The Pot calls the Kettle black,
But anyway, I didn't feel like reading 8 pages of pre-school banter. I just wanted to say my piece.
Regardless, you were correct up there in your post at the top of this page. So I won't dig into you.
But yeah, this is such a tired debate. Just felt like adding my two cents.

.... And here's my 2 cents... go fucking read before you try to spout your opinions, I read 20 fucking pages of the shoplifting thread before I even thought of commenting, this is totse, you're going to get flamed the fuck out for not reading, and talk about people who can't form their own opinions, you claim yours without even looking at somebody else's point of view... my opinion of eugenics changed after I read this thread, but you won't spend 10 fucking minutes to become more educated. Pre-school banter lol, STFU/GTFO, what you said was preschool banter, we at least spent 2 pages without having to mention Nazism. But now there's no point since your opinion's formed and that's unchangeable.

http://tinyurl.com/ywdn8t

Random slightly relevant information. I am not going to even say anything because I may start an argument or something. I'll save everyone the typing and just spit up the beef.

Take it as you may, but please don't take it as a pine cone up your butt.

KTHXBAI.

Any country that has a welfare system already has the means to impliment a eugenics policy simply by saying " If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em".

Interesting... nothing to do witht the topic at hand, but still quite interesting... how did you get past the Times having to ask me for an account?

Yeah, and it's a realistic alternative on a sane scale. However when you try to run a quarter billion autos on the stuff, then you run out of space to grow food. This is a fundamental problem when one tries to salvage the inherently unsustainable mass individual transit concept, which was a product of cheap & energy abundant oil, and tries to port it over to an era of scarcity. It won't work like that. For mass transit ops or small sector transport, energy-positive biofuels actually feasible.


won't genetic engineering and/or breeding traits help with that?


To quote LATOC:

"While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic."

Oh, I forgot that.

Lol no, there's a textfile on this in tech, read it, and you'll see we're not even close.

because people say so. If people put more focus into this, that would change RAPIDLY

Oh, Eugenics could be a good thing as in simply removing genes through genetic engineering.....as others said.

It's not seriously because the US (second largest Euenics program, largest sterilization program), Germany, etc used it to sterilize and kill millions

because people say so. If people put more focus into this, that would change RAPIDLY

Read the textfile and get back to me, it's useless, Von Neumann machines are 2 decades away at an absolute minimum.

Considering that one member of the developed world is ecologically equivalent (in terms of resource consumption) to 3 members of the 3rd world, perhaps its us with computers that are the "undesirables" that need to have their numbers culled.

I can't believe this is a serious thread. Eugenics is morally wrong and also hugely illogical.

The only "undesirables" are people with severe genetic defects like retardation (i.e. the OP), and they don't reproduce themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nWbRz-X_3o

12345

belive me you are not special, or in power to make such assumptions..

what if some Japanese kid is saying : lets just kill all Americans, they have so much land, and we have this little island......


you are just an immature asshole, in my opinion.

How can you just think it is acceptable to make a whole country to"vanish"

Just sit back and let Darwin work his magic, when people are dying from aids, acquired diabetes, cancer.

Let the people stuff their faces with McShit, let them dance to the media, go to war for stupid reasons... trust me Darwin will work his magic.

eugenics could be a beneficial industry for the good of human kind

trust me Darwin will work his magic.

Eugenics lets Darwin work his magic faster; monkeys have evolved faster than humans in the past hundred years, eugenics and genetic engineering is desperately needed to advance this magic.

Best thread ever

I totally agree with OP, which is why I had a vasectomy--I figured there were already too many people in the world.

Besides, it took the worry out of being close.

This thread is pointless because eugenics is in full force. It's called criminal justice.

Not true, a lot of the criminals I know (especially myself) are geniuses who happened to get caught or had somebody snitch on them. The justice system usually helps, but eugenics is certainly not in full force because of it. There are still many idiots who don't go to prison.

I think that you should have to get a license to have kids.

You already have to for everything else...

But that would be expanding government, and we all know what that brings...

ocean cities are the answer.

some people like to think of the holocaust as effective population control, particularly of undesirables

...a lot of the criminals I know (especially myself) are geniuses...

At least you're modest.

I see things everyday that makes me wish that there was a system of eugenics in place. It seems as if natural selection does not work among the human population. The best and the brightest aren't pumping out kids left and right. It is the highschool dropouts who aren't smart enough to buy condoms who are. I see it everyday. I work at a convenience store, and see these people with all their kids and food stamps. It sickens me when I hear a 19 year old high school dropout girl talking about how she had another baby.

No it won't. In like 50 years there will be 15 billion of us or whatever, and we will either have to colonise mars or something, or live in biodomes to not die from the fucked up climate. :(

Climate? Lol. Try pandemic. If you don't like the thought of ultra-hygenic society completely deficient in immune defenses, you're not going to like the future.

I just pray to god that border controls get taken seriously enough that these problems are isolated. There's a reason why north american is a TB-free island in an infected world. "The Sum of all Fears" should have been about a truck full of illegals with Ebola, SARS, or some fucked up version of the flu.

As for Japan, who the fuck would want to live there./QUOTE]

I would

[QUOTE=Diesel;8346682]Get rid of Africa.

Fixed

I doubt the government would sanction it, at least in the current day and age. Hypothetically, humans could be chemically sterilized on a massive scale without their knowledge.

Well if it came to a bad situation they would not officially 'sanction it' but behind the scenes in secret...

Remember almost all of Germany during WWII didn't know about the concentration camps even though 6million people died.

We need to get some things straight here. Tibet and China are different countries. Just because China unlawfuly occupies it doesn't mean anything...

Free Tibet!

Well if it came to a bad situation they would not officially 'sanction it' but behind the scenes in secret...

Remember almost all of Germany during WWII didn't know about the concentration camps even though 6million people died.

A large group of people not knowing what's cooking 50 miles down the road is one thing, the same group of people remaining ignorant about why they're unable to produce offspring is quite another.

We need to get some things straight here. Tibet and China are different countries. Just because China unlawfuly occupies it doesn't mean anything...

Free Tibet!

Careful, because by that reasoning white people unlawfully occupy America.

Read the textfile and get back to me, it's useless, Von Neumann machines are 2 decades away at an absolute minimum.

Well put more money into research then!

(like that'll happen :(:p)

and a link...
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/3000ad.html

Careful, because by that reasoning white people unlawfully occupy America.

More like stole the land and committed genocide against the natives.

More like stole the land and committed genocide against the natives.

I personally don't have a problem with that.

We need to get some things straight here. Tibet and China are different countries. Just because China unlawfuly occupies it doesn't mean anything...

Free Tibet!

Tibet is a nation; China is a country... just like Turkey/Iraq/Iran (countries) occupy Kuridstan (a nation) and Russia (country) occupies Chechnya (nation).

Huge difference.

Well put more money into research then!

(like that'll happen :(:p)

and a link...
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/3000ad.html

However, on a few-hundred-year timescale, I believe
ART or something very similar is inevitable.

From the article; ART refers to the Von Neumann machines.

I personally don't have a problem with that.

heh...

However, on a few-hundred-year timescale, I believe
ART or something very similar is inevitable.

From the article; ART refers to the Von Neumann machines.

sure. Also now that you mention nations.

Yeah if I get to become US president of get in the UN I'll try for Self-determination for all groups and peoples in a Terran Confederation :D.

Well or there's the second American Revolution and spread the revolution like what Trotsky tried.

EDIT: nshanin you mean "state" instead of "country"

State: Region with at least partial autonomy, i.e. Nebraska, Saskatchewan, Crimea.

Country: A nation that has a government and is fully autonomous, and may take over other nations. i.e. USSR, Brazil, New Zealand

Nation: A region that has a distinct culture from the mother country and is usually not given autonomy. i.e. Kurdistan, Lapland, the Basque region in Spain and France, etc.

State: Region with at least partial autonomy, i.e. Nebraska, Saskatchewan, Crimea.

Actually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

"A state is a political association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) with effective dominion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) over a geographic area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area)."

There are actually several definition of "state"; the one you use is a US-centered definition given that the US was built around colonies that were independent states at once that merged together.

Country: A nation that has a government and is fully autonomous, and may take over other nations. i.e. USSR, Brazil, New ZealandWasn't the USSR supposed to be a confederacy of socialist nations that was theoretically voluntary (At least under Lenin, somewhat for Kruschev and more under Gorbachev)?

And the term you're looking for is nation-state

Nation: A region that has a distinct culture from the mother country and is usually not given autonomy. i.e. Kurdistan, Lapland, the Basque region in Spain and France, etc.Isn't the definition simply a groups of people with a shared culture?

Stalin said this:
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

My definitions, useful for real arguments, not backed up by semantics though. It gives more of a distinction between the various terms so people aren't confused.

okay. fine

Because Hitler.

killing innocents...
sounds good to me, any ideas besides mass murder

How about mass sterilization and minimal murder of those who don't contribute to society, huh, how about that? Not all eugenics is the evil you purport it to be.

Nothing benificial about technology? I hope then you don't benifit from living without the fear of smallpox, typhoid, malaria or polio. That you con' befifit or know someone who hav benifitted due to surgery make possible by advances in drug technology.

Ironically, it's correcting these things that made the population get out of control to begin with.

I would let all this stuff go untreated, and let nature sort out who is worthy of playing in the gene pool.

what about the mentally ill. yes we dont need people talking to them selves and subway perverts but thats a shot in the foot too. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin to name a few were bi-polar. I agree with eugenics otherwise. id like to see a virus that is only activated for sterilization by certain genes or the surface protein of a pathogen (ie AIDS) so it can be mass released and only be effective on those targets and by the time its gotten them all the virus has not suitable host once there gone. Then once we have good genes in the pool we bring natural selection back since lack of it cased this.

How about mass sterilization and minimal murder of those who don't contribute to society, huh, how about that? Not all eugenics is the evil you purport it to be.

How is mass sterilization better than mass murder? Human suffering isn't the worst thing out there. You are proposing to force peoples choice to reproduce, a thing comparable to rape. What you are proposing is the rape of humanity as a whole, to remove individual rights and power on a massive scale. From my perspective, to force such a change is far worse than motiveless murder.

Don't people ever get bored about whining over being denied a handful of their myopic and self-serving 'rights'?

Unfortunately, the global ecosystem gives not one fuck for your rights. As such neither should society as a whole, if the maintainence of stable civilisation requires that some of those rights be denied.

Get rid of China.
yea...and then russia would stick a cold metal cock up our asses...alliances are what keep countries from nuking eachother...that and trade...

How is mass sterilization better than mass murder? Human suffering isn't the worst thing out there. You are proposing to force peoples choice to reproduce, a thing comparable to rape. What you are proposing is the rape of humanity as a whole, to remove individual rights and power on a massive scale. From my perspective, to force such a change is far worse than motiveless murder.

who cares if you can fuck all you want and never have kids...so what...we would adapt to the process...over time...non sexual production of human beings would be just as common as your habbit of massaging your feet while staring at a picture of your grandmother..very common..hell, its almost ritual for you by now, isn't it?:D

How is mass sterilization better than mass murder? Human suffering isn't the worst thing out there. You are proposing to force peoples choice to reproduce, a thing comparable to rape. What you are proposing is the rape of humanity as a whole, to remove individual rights and power on a massive scale. From my perspective, to force such a change is far worse than motiveless murder.

ROLFCOPTER.

You heard it here folks!

"Vasectomy=Rape"

"Give me a high sperm count or give me death!!!!1ONE!!1"

"Vasectomies are fascist and communist! This medical procedure is ANTI-FREEDOM!

Binary searches, airport security, drug dogs, REAL ID, the PATRIOT Act, traffic cameras, illegal wiretaps, and the suspension of habeus corpus on the other hand are for F1HTGN1G T3H TURRISTSSSS!!!1 and are therefore AOK! ;)"

Let's get something straight--having children is not a right. When someone has children, they are affecting the lives of each of every child that they bring here and they are also affecting the world at large. It's just not your decision when you are affecting other people. Second, eugenics is necessary. Each generation is getting sicker and sicker. Every where you turn there are rising asthma rates, children who can't eat or do this and children taking more medications and potions than their grandparents. People underestimate the power of genes. If a disease is not contagious, it likely has a genetic component. It's that simple. Years ago, nature would've taken care of the problem. Let's say someone has severe asthma which predisposes you to all sorts of respiratory infections. You're always at the doctor's office and at the hospital. Well let's say you were born many many years ago when we didn't have modern drugs and surgeons and all of that stuff. You would've likely died before you reached reproductive age and your fucked up genes would've died with you. But now, we're keeping people alive who normally would've died before reaching reproductive age. And what's worse when they reach reproductive age, we're telling them it is their right to have children!

I don't agree with killing people of course, but I do think that certain people don't need to be replicating themselves. And I think that you do need to be careful who you have children with. Life brings enough...old age brings enough. Why make thing worse for your potential children? Why fuck up their youths with all of this crap that young people have today (juvenile diabetes, obesity, heart defects, lung problems, mental retardation)? Your youth is supposed to be the best time of your life. People don't think before they breed and that is the root of so many problems today. Health insurance rates are skyrocketing while some dumb sow squirts out a bunch of sickle cell having brats and we taxpayers pay for their expensive care on Medicaid.

So,who' going to volunteer to die?

It's not necessarily death, it's sterilization; read the fucking thread.

Eugenics is not about death...it is about life. Many people have suffered and died before their times due to inherited illnesses and defects that could be prevented if some people didn't breed and/or were more careful who they had children with.

I'm voluntarily sterilized.

I never have to worry about getting woman pregnant and I do not want to ever have kids.

I'm voluntarily sterilized.

I never have to worry about getting woman pregnant and I do not want to ever have kids.

Elaborate?

Elaborate?

I made myself abundantly clear.

I made myself abundantly clear.

As to why you don't want to have kids?

Sorry, my posts tend to be pretty vague.

Because they're expensive(even if everything goes right), time consuming, a legal liability, and a civil liability?

And then your daughter gets married to a black man, your son turns out gay and your unborn 8 month old baby is diagnosed with Down's.

Personally I only just survive from one fart and grunt to the other. Being required to care for someone else on a daily basis, for at least the next eighteen fucking years, is just a bad joke.

Extreme population growth will take care of itself. We dont have to kill all the undesirables to make it happen no matter how cool it makes you and your ego feel to say "We should kill the weak, you know I'm not weak b/c I just suggested it."

Give me a fucking break.

If we started Totse would have very few members left.

"The population taking care of itself" includes plague/pandemic, war, crime, and starvation.(which actually all seem to serve to the benefit of the US economy, but my repressed humanitarian doesn't want to be selfish)

I personally think a self aware people should act self aware as a community, and try to prevent things from going to shit because they don't have the discipline to prevent it.

It's just like deficit spending and the resulting recessions. How fucking hard is it to restrain spending? Aparently as hard as it is to restrain breeding.

What a surprise that the poor lower class is characterized by an inability to do either.

We should take away their right to vote for their own good.

I totally agree; neo-fascism is the only solution.

Definately.

Definately.

Honestly?

Honestly?

Tough question. Depends on my mood.

Let the state's decide. I'd much rather try to micromanage society on a smaller scale. If federalism is anything, it's a success by the rich to disillusion the poor from complaining about their situation.

It really doesn't matter. I agree with Bill Hicks. "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever... Kill 'em all adolf!"

Tough question. Depends on my mood.

Let the state's decide. I'd much rather try to micromanage society on a smaller scale. If federalism is anything, it's a success by the rich to disillusion the poor from complaining about their situation.

It really doesn't matter. I agree with Bill Hicks. "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever... Kill 'em all adolf!"

I never understood that; I mean, why are conservatives usually anti-federalists if the blue states subsidize the red ones? :/

The idea is totally insane, and judging by what you have posted, so are you.

Anyway, if there is going to be a genocide, I propose we start by killing off all the intellectual elitists who feel they have the right to kill others without justification.

The idea is totally insane, and judging by what you have posted, so are you.

Anyway, if there is going to be a genocide, I propose we start by killing off all the intellectual elitists who feel they have the right to kill others without justification.

Just wait 60 years: they don't reproduce.

That's why touchy feely empathy for fellow man is the norm, and selfishness and cold apathy is the exception.

The idea is totally insane, and judging by what you have posted, so are you.

Anyway, if there is going to be a genocide, I propose we start by killing off all the intellectual elitists who feel they have the right to kill others without justification.

There's plenty of justification; you just didn't read the thread

Just wait 60 years: they don't reproduce.

That's why touchy feely empathy for fellow man is the norm, and selfishness and cold apathy is the exception.

That could not be farther from the truth.

Nash equilibrium theory proves that the only long term stable solution to society is to have everyone act as selfishly as possible.

That could not be farther from the truth.

Nash equilibrium theory proves that the only long term stable solution to society is to have everyone act as selfishly as possible.

OdayJuarez overcomphensation theory states that anyone making a show of being touchy feely empathetic is anything but in the sum total of their actions, and anyone making a show of being selfish is burdened with those qualities in excess.

I've had 0 luck with finding the name of that theory so thanks for the reference.

We gotta work together, not kill eachother, stupid.

We gotta work together, not kill eachother, stupid.

"Mars attacks" flashback: "We come in peace!"

Fun fact - eugenics was widely advocated in the States until the horrors of what the Nazis did came to light. After the realisation of what Nazis did, it was widely vilified. Was that a moment of realisation for the practitioners, or a realisation that no-one would get elected by doing, or calling for, what was practiced by the enemy?

After the war this idea pretty much disappeared.

I suppose the question is is power, control over people everything (despite your beliefs). Is power all that matters?

Yes manacle. They used to have such things such as the "Fitter Family" contests and all of that as well in the U.S. People forget a lot of things.

Id vote for a politican advocating nuclear annilihation of china.

Why does everyone hate China?

First post was on: 2007-05-22, 21:40

Jesus...

I'm cool with the idea that the human race should be eliminated.