GENIUS FORUMS

As of late, I’ve been contemplating genetic superiority and I found a few passages by UG Krishnamurti that I thought were interesting:

“In modern societies selection has been relaxed to a great extent. There is no longer natural selection in the Darwinian sense. Selection does not operate in favor of the survival of the fittest -- that is to say, the genetic survival of the fittest through more numerous progeny. Intelligence, ambition, and courage are the parameters of success in modern societies. But the success is personal, not genetic. What matters in evolution is genetic success. We know the negative correlation between the intelligent quotient (at the cultural level) and the average number of children per couple. Also, we see a high positive correlation between the intelligence quotients of marital partners. This situation is dangerous, since it leads to a gradual drain of the highest genetic potential into an elite which is shrinking in relative size.”

“The situation gets further aggravated by the absence of the weeding out of the physical and mental unfits most of whom would otherwise have been eliminated automatically under natural selection before they even reached their puberty. Today many of the genetic cripples not only survive but marry and produce progeny, thereby increasing the number of genetic cripples for future generations. This is due to the great medical advances that enable genetic cripples to survive. Thus the natural mechanisms whereby genetic cripples were once eliminated stand suspended today (Monod, 1970).”

“Molecular biology has shown a way to improve the genetically affected children, but only with regard to the individual child. It has not shown any way to repair the genetic flaw in the germ cells like spermatozoa or eggs. The present knowledge rules out such intervention.
Thus the only way that we can improve the human species is to introduce deliberate selection. But who can do this? Can the governments do it? Perhaps only a country like China can. They have already prohibited the marriage of genetic cripples.”

“The present-day conditions in advanced societies pose a greater threat to the species. But it would take about 20 generations to increase the number of genetic cripples. Can the state afford to keep them healthy? And for how long?”

“We face today the much more burning problem of population explosion which has resulted in the death of the natural environment and scarcity of natural resources. This is further complicated by a much more deep-seated spiritual sickness.”

“The social organization of mankind is seen again only in ants, termites, and bees. Social behavior in them is innate. But man's social institutions which are cultural in nature cannot attain such stability. For his survival man needed the invention of religion and philosophical systems -- a price he had to pay to survive as a social animal. But cultural heritage alone is not enough to hold social structure. It needs genetic support to provide something essential to mankind. That is why the religious and philosophical ideologies keep recurring in some form or other. We have yet to see how mankind will tackle the degradation of its own species. Tampering with nature has brought enormous problems, as can be witnessed in the case of natural resources.”

“Every cell in the body has all the information -- genetic information. Everything is genetically controlled. You cannot change your genetic structure through an act of will, We only live in hope and die in hope.

“Tampering with the heredity of man is fraught with grave danger.
The capacity to learn is genetically determined. Thus we end up with genetic limitations. Unless the genes function we cannot. A tendency like alcoholism is due to the genes. Manipulating genes will give a substantial edge in making man the way we want him to be. Education and preaching morality will take a long time, but gene manipulation is by far the shorter route. Man is the captive of his genes. This is the determinism of his life. He has to function within the radius of gene-imposed reactions.”

That is right out of a page of the Nazi playbook, but he is correct. If any race or nation became actually convinced that their genetic survival and excellence was the new religion - that group would be superior in every way in about ten generations. Mormons, blacks and Jews have a form of this. Mormons and blacks believe in survival by numbers and are committed to have as many children as possible. Jews are committed to becoming indistinguishable from the Caucasian race by intermarrying with them.

In Darwinian natural selection the fittest animal is that which is best adapted to the environment in which it lives, in the sense that it is most capable of successfully reproducing. Lower intelligence can in fact be a positive adaption given the right environment.

UG is mixing up his idea of what he sees as fittest according to his values, with that which is fittest in terms of reproductive success(Darwinian fitness). Darwinian natural selection hasn't slowed down with humans, what has happened is that the environment in which humans now live, and thus have to adapt to, has been radically altered compared to most other animals on the planet. Lower intelligence statistically leads to more reproductive success in the current environment, thus those with lower intelligence are generally fitter in terms of natural selection.

Natural selection is not about a constant march toward a collection of absolute "higher" traits such as more intelligence, more physical strength or more resistance to disease. There are many thousands of niches for differing strengths, from high intelligence, to high breeding rate, to those which can digest certain types of leaves. Higher intelligence may end up shortening the lifespan of our species - more chance of technological disasters with H-bombs, germ warfare, nanotech etc.

Jason wrote:

Lower intelligence can in fact be a positive adaption given the right environment.

I don’t follow you Jason, Natural Selection is not merely about successful reproduction, it also includes passing on genetic traits that will increase the chances of the whole’s survival. UG is simply saying that civilization allows genetic cripples and unintelligent genes to be passed on more readily because the stupid reproduce while the wise refrain.

And these genes are actually decreasing the chances of the whole’s survival which is a vital component of natural selection. An untelligent human being is weak genetically speaking and this human being should not be reproducing.

Only the strongest survive incorporates intelligence, always. You are suggesting that there are certain circumstances where lower intelligence is a positive adaptation, but you are incorrect.

Weak human beings are stupid ones. They have defective genes and these traits should be eliminated from the genepool.

but dont get any funny ideas Jason, I dont want another Hitler on my hands. Hitler had the right idea, but his methods were a tad on the brutal side...

To the untrained eye, it seems as though the stupid humans are stronger because their weak morality keeps them united while the wise are displaced in pockets, but we are headed towards self-destruction, which is counterproductive as far as natural selection is concerned.

Even though it appears that these humans are well adapted to their environment, they are not because they threaten the survival of the species and the planet as a whole.

Natural selection takes in consideration the survival of the whole and the quality of the genepool in the given population. You are isolating it down to primarily reproduction and you make absolutely no sense.

Jason wrote:

Higher intelligence may end up shortening the lifespan of our species - more chance of technological disasters with H-bombs, germ warfare, nanotech etc…

These are not intelligent things Jason. They are created at the hands of silly humans such as Einstein and others who were terrified of a complete ending of the self.

You didn’t see the Buddha or Jiddu Krishnamurti opening up weapon shops or doing research on germ warfare in labs, it is only frightened confused scientists that do these things and these jokers have defective genes.

Higher Intelligence transforms the entire genome of the individual and surely this is the future of natural selection, it will only be these humans that will be favored as far as reproduction is concerned. Natural selection becomes a little more complicated when you apply it to humans because one must take in consideration consciousness/intelligence.

We’re not on the Galapagos Islands observing parrots spooning each other anymore Jason.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:...Natural Selection is not merely about successful reproduction, it also includes passing on genetic traits that will increase the chances of the whole’s survival. UG is simply saying that civilization allows genetic cripples and unintelligent genes to be passed on more readily because the stupid reproduce while the wise refrain.

And these genes are actually decreasing the chances of the whole’s survival which is a vital component of natural selection. An unintelligent human being is weak genetically speaking and this human being should not be reproducing.

Perfection doesn't need any mutation or variance, even less breeding since it won't pass on like that; it only can degenerate from there.

So it's the imperfect that engages in mutation and variance, as that is its nature. Not for the survival of a 'whole" but to reach now and again some manifestation of perfection in individual cases, the genii; manifestations which keep on defying description.

In the mean time all you can see are the parts, chunks and freaking mutants.

Diebert wrote:

So it's the imperfect that engages in mutation and variance, as that is its nature. Not for the survival of a 'whole" but to reach now and again some manifestation of perfection in individual cases.

But don’t you feel that this is a rather crude, inefficient way to create the sage? To have millions and millions humping their brains out to create the odd gem here and there, it’s incredibly sloppy, the planet cannot withstand such unbridled humping…

And what is the point of this random manifestation of genius in a world of ignorance? If the genius has no relationship to anyone then what is the point? His existence is tragic, he has very few actual relationships to his fellow man because they are all asleep.

Diebert wrote:

the genii; manifestations which keep on defying description.

You’re not getting all magical on me are ya Diebert? What do you mean defy description? If everything has a cause as Quinn preaches like the gospel in this forum then surely the sage has a genetic blueprint that can be isolated, studied and used to correct defects in inferiors…

I say the sage is born with the genetic blueprint to be a sage, it is destined for him. If this is true then if we can isolate his genome and compare it to the masses and then were in business.

However I’m not suggesting that the modified fetus would be born wise, but his intellect would be much more receptive to wisdom than lets say the son of alcoholic crack head that has a line of cancer in the family…

Genetic manipulation as a means to increase the chances of sagehood seems perfectly acceptable and absolutely necessary.

Philosophy books can only help those who are destined to be helped anyway and this has always been a small number. In the meantime the world needs to grow wise if the species is to have any sort of prayer.

Moreover I suspect that scientists will begin to correct defect after defect in the genome until we come closer to the perfect blueprint to foster genius…

So the combination of self-negating philosophy and genetic manipulation could compliment each other nicely. It could foster global transformations on mass.

The specialists have already succeeded in locating the genes responsible for many hereditary diseases and this is impressive considering the human genome was only mapped five years ago.

And the question is how far can they go?

How many sensual tendencies, psychological disorders and diseases can be corrected?

CP wrote:But don’t you feel that this is a rather crude, inefficient way to create the sage? To have millions and millions humping their brains out to create the odd gem here and there, it’s incredibly sloppy, the planet cannot withstand such unbridled humping…

It's not only about humping of course. But you're free to suggest less crude ways and practise them too! You might end up shaking the tail of an elephant.

CP wrote:And what is the point of this random manifestation of genius in a world of ignorance?

You desire a point then? What's the point of having that desire or perhaps prerequisite?

CP wrote:If the genius has no relationship to anyone then what is the point? His existence is tragic, he has very few actual relationships to his fellow man because they are all asleep.

The genius would be one who has re-established all relationship, as opposed to the lost ones. His existence is beyond tragic and comical now. He might choose to see tragic-comedy in his fellow 'man' though, for a fleeting moment.

CP wrote:You’re not getting all magical on me are ya Diebert? What do you mean defy description? If everything has a cause as Quinn preaches like the gospel in this forum then surely the sage has a genetic blueprint that can be isolated, studied and used to correct defects in inferiors…

You could breed perhaps a race of Quinns or CP look-alikes, but the only way to recreate the "sage" is to recreate all the causes that formed and defined him, which is totality itself.

CP wrote:I say the sage is born with the genetic blueprint to be a sage, it is destined for him. If this is true then if we can isolate his genome and compare it to the masses and then were in business.

Ha!

CP wrote:Genetic manipulation as a means to increase the chances of sagehood seems perfectly acceptable and absolutely necessary.

But what if sagehood would be relative? Then a society of cancer ridden drunks has its genius in the same manner as a society of healthy hermits. These genii you cannot compare without losing context. And it's the distance that defines them, not an absolute measuring scale of some kind.

CP wrote:Philosophy books can only help those who are destined to be helped anyway and this has always been a small number. In the meantime the world needs to grow wise if the species is to have any sort of prayer.

It will always be a small number. If the world grows wise, the numbers will decrease but the wisest of them will still be a smaller number.

CP wrote:Moreover I suspect that scientists will begin to correct defect after defect in the genome until we come closer to the perfect blueprint to foster genius…

Personally I rather see the human race nuke itself. I see more chances that way.

CP wrote:So the combination of self-negating philosophy and genetic manipulation could compliment each other nicely. It could foster global transformations on mass.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like that hadn't been tried before. The current Homo Sapiens is exactly the thing I would expect as result.

CP wrote:The specialists have already succeeded in locating the genes responsible for many hereditary diseases and this is impressive considering the human genome was only mapped five years ago.

I never heard of learning of any importance without pain and suffering involved. Which genome could ever change that?

CP wrote:How many sensual tendencies, psychological disorders and diseases can be corrected?

The disorders and diseases of one generation can become a blessing in disguise for the next. With your corrective therapies we wouldn't have a Quinn and Solway with their diagnosed 'disorders', not their work, nor this board. Just beware which kind of future you are wishing for.

This whole idea of genetically engineering genius is extremely redundant. First of all, if society wanted to genetically engineer genius, they would have to value it in the first place. So, if society already valued genius, there would be no point of trying to genetically engineer it if people can achieve it on their own. This would also get rid of the desire to create the perfect genius, because people would obviously want to reach their potential, rather than worry about someone elses. There's also the fact that once one gains enough wisdom, they see it doesn't matter whether anyone relates to them, in the manner you are speaking, because one knows he is, has been, and always will be related to everything. He has realized his relationship with God so to speak.

Honestly Diebert I don’t believe strongly in this argument, but I’m creating it for fun to see what happens. That is why I’m going all the way, As the captain, I’m going down with the ship….

Diebert wrote:

I never heard of learning of any importance without pain and suffering involved. Which genome could ever change that?

Yes, I agree humans primarily learn through suffering, but most are too stunted intellectually to learn.. And this 'stunted' quality that most suffer with, are there genetic links?

Diebert wrote:

but the only way to recreate the "sage" is to recreate all the causes that formed and defined him, which is totality itself.

Yes, I agree that it is only the infinite complexity of the totality that ‘creates’ the sage so to speak, but if the flaws in the genome are corrected before birth, does this increase the chances of the totality molding a sage?

Diebert wrote:

Ha!

Ha! Ha!, Now were both having a good time Diebert.

Diebert wrote:

It will always be a small number. If the world grows wise, the numbers will decrease but the wisest of them will still be a smaller number.

How can you be absolutely certain of such a thing? Where do you derive certainty here?

Diebert wrote:

The disorders and diseases of one generation can become a blessing in disguise for the next. With your corrective therapies we wouldn't have a Quinn and Solway with their diagnosed 'disorders', not their work, nor this board. Just beware which kind of future you are wishing for.

If you were having a child and you could prevent it from developing prostate cancer, alcoholism and by-polar disorder, would you do it?

The child would still have pitfalls to grow from, but his imperfections would be less gross…

Nick wrote:

This whole idea of genetically engineering genius is extremely redundant. First of all, if society wanted to genetically engineer genius, they would have to value it in the first place. So, if society already valued genius, there would be no point of trying to genetically engineer it if people can achieve it on their own. This would also get rid of the desire to create the perfect genius, because people would obviously want to reach their potential, rather than worry about someone elses..

Yes, It is only genius that can value genius. An ignorant man cannot value genius precisely because he lacks the awareness/genius to see the importance of genius! Woah I feel like an ignoramus here for how many times I used the word genius.

But perhaps the scientists may improve the health of humanity’s genome without valuing genius. First, Many hereditary diseases that run in people’s families will be removed, and then they will probably try to create more aesthetically pleasing people which will be a disaster, but then certain compulsive disorders and tendencies could be removed which could prove beneficial.

There will always be imperfections and pitfalls, but can many of the large ones be removed from the genome to increase the chances of the totality molding an individual into a genius?

Again, I don’t believe strongly in this argument, but I see genetic manipulation is on its way whether we like it or not and I’m trying to understand what sort of positivity (if any) it will bring with it.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Honestly Diebert I don’t believe strongly in this argument, but I’m creating it for fun to see what happens. That is why I’m going all the way, As the captain, I’m going down with the ship….

Hey, many topics on this board are like that. Maybe not created for 'fun' but at least to explore and sharpen, which is the origin of 'play'. And sometimes I write lines that I cannot or don't want to explain or reason out completely at the time. In those cases I just leave them undefended for the time being, unless someone clearly can show the wrongs contained in them.

Beware of the ones who let the weight of their own seriousness drag them down! But lightness does not mean that there's nothing at stake. The more at stake the better, even in games; it brings the play to a higher level.

CP wrote:

If you were having a child and you could prevent it from developing prostate cancer, alcoholism and by-polar disorder, would you do it?

I wonder if the genetic engineers will be interested in finding the on/off genes that create dishonest, cowardly, proud, immitative, exploitative, opportunistic, calculative, power-hungry, narcisists?

I say this because, it seems to me, that problematic phenomenon like alcoholism, bipolar, and cancer are created via the conditions created by the strong, aka; the dishonest, cowardly, immitative, exploitative, exploited, opportunistic, paternally attatched, calculative, power-hungry, attention craving, narcisistic....

The vain activities of the so called strong create the evil symptoms one sees in the weak.

I don't think one can aspire to be a genetic engineer and be a sage..........this is because the sage is 'aspireless' and fearless.


The sage understands that good and evil are one.


If you try to improve the whole by eliminating evil,
by eliminating the pests, the symptoms....well.....unfortunately the evil will only grow back in an unpredictable way probably stronger.


The wise thing is to understand what it means to go beyond good and evil.


A man who aspires to be a genetic engineer or gets excited about what engineering can do, isnt a sage,
and doesnt know what a sage is - he merely fools himself into thinking he does.


The only genes the engineers will be interested in turning off will be the ones that are responsible for the mere superficial symptoms, while the root of those symptoms will go ignored.


What about the gene that creates the man who prides himself on being 'dependable?'

who prides himself on how predictable he is?

Who is proud of his mere ability to enslave his people to his specialized skills, and fearful of letting his people do for themselves what he esteems himself by doing for them?

The sort of man who likes to feed others his fish, but fears to teach them to fish?

What do we do with the sort of gene that creates the man Who fears to teach the people the shoddy insignificance of what he knows so proudly, so cravenly?

How do we turn that gene off?

Lao Tzu reportedly said:

"A scholar who cherishes the love of comfort is not fit to be deemed a scholar."

Do you think the genetic engineers are going to remove mans love of comfort?

Who in their right mind will turn that gene off?

Cory Patrick wrote:

A man who aspires to be a genetic engineer or gets excited about what engineering can do, isnt a sage, and doesnt know what a sage is - he merely fools himself into thinking he does.

Sometimes you are quite the drama queen Cory Patrick. It must make you feel quite powerful and secure to give these all encompassing judgments of yours. You are a very godly man...

Moving on, Let me tell you all a little story: Gather around children....

As a child, one of my friends was Steven. Steven came from a long line of alcoholics. For many generations the male force in his family tree were rank drunks and Steve inherited that genetic code. I say he was double-screwed because he was surrounded by weak memes that guaranteed that the genetic flaw was reinforced.

I can remember that our fathers would give us sips of beer as children. My father really had to push it on me because I didn’t like the taste. Steve on the other hand couldn’t get enough even as a young child. When his father gave us sips of beer Steve would wait until he went out to the garage and then he would steal an entire beer. He did this from a young age and he did it quite frequently.

I could never understand why he enjoyed it so much, but I noticed that it seemed to satisfy some sort of deep craving. It was never like that for me, I did it for acceptance, distinction and coolness, but I could turn it off whenever I wanted to. Steve cannot and will never be able to turn it off, never. He will drink until the day he dies.

Moving on, Genetically speaking, I come from a background of French and German. There is strong sexual conditioning in my family. My French grandfather is 77 years old and he still masturbates to French pornography. He had 5 daughters. My parents still watch weird porn that I suspect has German origins and they micmic the strange things that go on in these videos. And I have developed unique fetishes to Internet pornography that I cannot change or stop, you do not want to know the details of this thing, it has a mind of its own. It doesn’t matter how worthless I see the behavior as, it is still there, very strong.

Also on my father’s side there is a long line of collectors. The males collected anything that they think are valuable. I have collections of hundreds of dvds, books, computer software, and most recently I have found myself surfing ebay looking at RPG games for old consoles that I feel will be rare and valuable some day. I do this even though I know the activity is worthless, but it is so strongly conditioned that the desires cannot be stopped.

There are many many other things, I also have inherited racist tendencies from the german side, and hence my genetic superiority thread... much of my day I do things I really don’t want to be doing. I’m completely controlled you see, I’m like a puppet being moved by forces that are beyond my control.

So the individual is double screwed. That is all I’m saying. We seek out the memes/behavior that satisfy the information encoded in the genetic code just as much as the memes we are surrounded by mold us.

Our unique imperfections are genetically caused. And if we see the worthless of them, but the behavior will not end then I don’t see a problem with gene therapy as a means to alter the tendencies themselves.

If there is a libido gene, why wouldn’t I get the damn thing shut off instead of masturbating to internet pornography until I am 77…? Do you follow sir?

I don’t see the point myself. There is no need to hold on to these imperfections. They are going to go out the window anyway, we might as well speed up the process.

Another reason that I am excited about genetic engineering is that there are over one hundred hereditary diseases that will eventually be eliminated using gene therapy. Perhaps Gene therapy will never be able to correct things such as unusual libido drives, but eradicating hereditary diseases from the genome will prove significant and I believe that the vocation will be a invaluable one to humanity even though it will have a dark shadow like anything else humanity does.

This is also why I feel that nanotechnology will also probably prove quite significant as a force. It will cause a lot of damage, but overall it will be fairly beneficial to humanity. Nano-tech will represent the intelligent evolution of the blacksmith.

The blacksmith has evolved into the assembly worker and the assembly worker will evolve into the nano-bot.

Manufacturing is a necessary vocation and cannot be negated. The homesteader needs things manufactured and he cannot do it himself.

And the quality of the product made by the hands of a blacksmith will be shoddy in comparison to what nano-bots will do.

Nanobots will create a shovel that will last a farmer’s entire life because it is constructed atom by atom.

So yes, Nanotechnology will rein havoc on the world, but what hasn’t reined havoc on the world?

Overall I still feel there will be invaluable contributions from both Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering.

The future will be minimalism for the sages, but they will still weld the highest quality technology.

Cory Patrick wrote:

The vain activities of the so called strong create the evil symptoms one sees in the weak.

Allow me approach it from another angle:

Alcoholism can also be regarded as a coping mechanism for the man with low intelligence who works in difficult climates/overpopulated areas. A man born without cleverness in the northern hemisphere is only suitable to work difficult labor to survive. The difficult physical labor puts a strain on their body and they use alcohol and marijuana to dull the pain.

It is a vicious cycle, Steve works for a concrete company making foundations for houses. Very hard labour, but some would argue it is necessary for houses in the northern hemisphere. You may bring out your comfort argument, but comfort is necessary in these extreme conditions. Man should be comfortable. He should not be freezing cold and sick for 6 months of the year.

A foundation was created because it is more efficient, it keeps the heat in.

Also the strain on his body wouldn’t be as severe if he didn’t work as many hours, but he works so many hours because there is a high demand for his services. There is a high demand for his services because civilization is overpopulated.

Much of humanities problem comes back to overpopulation, it creates unhealthy demands for services which causes friction on the body which are responded to with drugs and alcohol.

So the vain activities are a factor, but also the biological urge to reproduce and a blind migration to northern climates are two other factors. Your statement is an over simplification to a complicated problem.

It is the price we pay for living this far north. We suffer because we have migrated too far north, we are overpopulated and we are inheritably vain.

The baby boomers are proud of the hell they have adapted to and they drink to celebrate on the weekends. Very tragic for all.

Jason wrote: Lower intelligence can in fact be a positive adaption given the right environment.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I don’t follow you Jason, Natural Selection is not merely about successful reproduction, it also includes passing on genetic traits that will increase the chances of the whole’s survival.

As far as I know it has nothing to do with some "whole's" survival(what do you mean by whole, species?), it is about the passing on of an individuals genes. It does not have a goal such as future survival, natural selection is simply the mechanism that explains how and why certain animals of the past and the present existed and evolved.

I can see how having traits that increase the chance of the broader population surviving could be beneficial to the survival of the individuals genes, but that is not a rule that is set in stone. In certain situations that could be a negative thing for the individuals genes.

I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but I think you're understanding of natural selection is off, have you got any links that show that your view is the scientifically accepted one? I've read the Wikipedia article on it and it seems to agree with my understanding and disagree with yours.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Even though it appears that these humans are well adapted to their environment, they are not because they threaten the survival of the species and the planet as a whole.

Neanderthals didn't pose a threat to the species or the planet, maybe we should lower the intelligence of humans to ensure survival?

Jason Wrote:

Have you got any links that show that your view is the scientifically accepted one?

Taken from google:

"Natural Seletion: the process by which an organisms with helpful adaptive qualities are permitted by nature to transmit their genetic information to offspring. It is also the process by which an organism with harmful qualities are removed from the environment."

This is one of many definitions of natural selection, there are many out there. I interpret this one as saying “harmful qualities are removed from the environment” meaning qualities that decrease the chances of the whole’s survival.

And these characteristics that favor survival apply to both the particular species and the entire ecosystem as a whole because remember it is really just one undivided movement that is constantly communicating back and forth…

Kinda like you and I Jason…

Jason wrote:

Neanderthals didn't pose a threat to the species or the planet, maybe we should lower the intelligence of humans to ensure survival?

Neanderthals were antisocial, they had a difficult time with communication. And they were afraid of the homo sapiens whereas the homo sapiens were not timid at all, they stole the Neanderthal’s women.

The Neanderthal’s genetic characteristics were more limited and therefore it was their fate to go extinct. The qualities they possessed would have made the species weaker if they would have stayed in the genepool hence their “harmful qualities were removed” because it threatened the health of the human genepool as a whole.

I must say, cosmic prostitute is an evil elitist nazi. When we start prejudging that certain TYPES should be eliminated we're also eliminating the possibility of their genius, a trait cp claims to value.

It's a myth that the world is overpopulated. This anti-human meme is elitist, dehumanizing, and evil. My two cents.

How smart is it to be elitist when history is a record of elites being toppled by the greater population they've come to feel it's their right to abuse?

The social structures of ants and bees have been referenced. Keep in mind these are racist structures in the extreme, with all ants in a colony being from one, maybe two queens maximum. Ants are nazis.

I thought it was interesting in Starship Troopers, that the BUG enemies we're actually a cooperative coalition between distinct bug species. There were the warriors, the brain bugs, and the brain bug chamber bugs, at least.

Millipede wrote:

When we start prejudging that certain TYPES should be eliminated we're also eliminating the possibility of their genius, a trait cp claims to value.

What I’ve created here is an open debate to whether or not certain genetic traits could be removed from the human genome to increase the chances of the totality molding the common folk into genius…

The common folk tend to be stunted intellectually because they have so many genetic flaws all occurring at once, if genetic engineering removed a few perhaps this would be a positive thing.

Again I don’t know, I’m just creating an open argument for debate here.

I came out strong in my beginning argument for comic affect.

Milli Vanilli wrote:

It's a myth that the world is overpopulated.

Have you walked around in the crowded shopping mall lately? Isn’t it quite alienating? A bizarre experience?

In India and China, there are >500 per square KM, and In Africa the numbers are rising as well. Most larger western cities I would consider drastically overpopulated.

Too many people and not enough fertile land to go around, we have enslaved ourselves in large numbers. Actually Humans are ants and I am the Queen Mr Millimetre... beware!

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Millipede wrote:

When we start prejudging that certain TYPES should be eliminated we're also eliminating the possibility of their genius, a trait cp claims to value.

What I’ve created here is an open debate to whether or not certain genetic traits could be removed from the human genome to increase the chances of the totality molding the common folk into genius…

The common folk tend to be stunted intellectually because they have so many genetic flaws all occurring at once, if genetic engineering removed a few perhaps this would be a positive thing.

Again I don’t know, I’m just creating an open argument for debate here.

I came out strong in my beginning argument for comic affect.

Milli Vanilli wrote:

It's a myth that the world is overpopulated.

Have you walked around in the crowded shopping mall lately? Isn’t it quite alienating? A bizarre experience?

Where's the debate? There's not doubt eugenics is possible. I say it's evil and naziisitic. You're not god, nor should you play one.

Milli-Dilly-Willy wrote:

I say it's evil and naziisitic

Do you feel that it is evil and Naziistitic to correct hundreds of hereditary diseases that people now suffer with? The genome is imperfect and scientists are learning why it is imperfect. They are finding flaws in the code you see…

Should we sit around and wait for God to fix the flaws while we have the technology to do it ourselves?

Surely this is a moral thing to do, to ease the suffering of mankind?

George Bush takes a similar stance as you, he is agaisnt stem cell research because he feels it is wrong to kill a developing fetus. However I believe that a fetus is barely conscious, if it is killed before it develops its nervous system then there is no suffering so I say Kill the damn thing if it further helps humanity understand genetics.

He also takes a similar moral stance on superificial issues such as gay marriage.

The guy is behind the times...

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Milli-Dilly-Willy wrote:

I say it's evil and naziisitic

Do you feel that it is evil and Naziistitic to correct hundreds of hereditary diseases that people now suffer with? The genome is imperfect and scientists are learning why it is imperfect. They are finding flaws in the code you see…

Should we sit around and wait for God to fix the flaws while we have the technology to do it ourselves?

Surely this is a moral thing to do, to ease the suffering of mankind?

If they can be corrected without destroying fetuses I'm all for it.

I believe in individual rights, meaning the you can't arbitrarily destroy individuals because it "benefits the whole". I consider that evil. Shall I drink the hemlock, you sophist you?

Silly-Milli wrote:

Shall I drink the hemlock, you sophist you?

I don’t believe in gentle deaths such as hemlock, I wouldn’t let you off that easy. If you make me mad enough I’d probably go with the gas chamber, there’s more suffering that way…

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Silly-Milli wrote:

Shall I drink the hemlock, you sophist you?

I don’t believe in gentle deaths such as hemlock, I wouldn’t let you off that easy. If you make me mad enough I’d probably go with the gas chamber, there’s more suffering that way…

lol. I've fantasized about death by paint shaker. Can you say "massive head trauma"!

CP,

I have a little hurtle to jump.

When I cross this hurtle, perhaps I will find myself in agreement with your despicable ways.

It had always seemed to me, that Alcoholism, Cancer, and Bi-polar are mere tendencies that will manifest only if superfluous stimuli is present to trigger them.

The first question that comes to my mind when I think about how to eliminate something like alcohol is:

What about the fellow who wants to sell alcohol to make a living?

Why aren’t we interested in the sort of gene therapy that functions to eliminate the sort humans who want to make a living off of gratifying and helping people experience more and more pleasure and comfort?

I say this because - entertainment and drug seem to be what rules the world these days.


It seems likely to me that gene therapy will merely conform to the inherently problematic tendency (which I say is the true disease) of man to maximize his sensual/aesthetic gratification, to narcissistically seek attention and approval – and it seems unlikely to me that gene therapy will advance to the stage where we can engineer humans to be profound.

(i've contemplated whether or not we can make robots that surpass human intelligence - and I realized that if we can't engineer human genes to make profound and perfectly efficient beings, then we can't make robots that exceed human intelligence)

Anyhow,

Attempts at gene therapy have been exorbitantly expensive so far, and so gene therapy as a service will only serve the rich.

A far more rational solution is to eliminate the tendency of man (perhaps through genetic engineering and definitely via education) to buy into and sell the pleasuralble stimuli that provokes and causes disease.

The problem here is that in order to do that, one would have find away to make man submit to an agenda which systematically sets out to eliminate mans tendency to not only want excessive stimuli, but also to want others to want it.

Cancer and alcoholism have proven to be quite lucrative. Bi-polar with all its mood stabilizing medication has also made for good business.

Gene therapy will be great business as well.

The so called flaws seem to be created by a bigger flaw.

Why not focus on that flaw CP?

Bipolar, cancer, and alcoholism are merely tendencies that manifest only after superfluous and unneccesary stimuli is imposed upon the individual.

I've been convinced for the past few years, that diseases are the result of mans ignorance of himself, of his tendency to exploit, his tendency to escape from himself, his tendency to believe he can improve nature via an oversimplified system of ideas.

If I had no choice but to say yes to genetic engineering, I would say that the best way to eliminate probabilistic diseases such as cancer, bi-polar and alcoholism would be to make humans who are free from what seems to me to be an even greater disease.

And that disease is mans tendency to seduce and exploit others for his personal betterment via going beyond the natural allotment of gratification.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Gene therapy is coming.

But I just think that gene theraphy enthusiasts are typically oblivious to the fundamental disease.

Are perhaps thats because they have it.

?