What About Eugenics? - Page 2

quote:

---

Then what you say is that the natural population control for human beings is a good thing and that people should die?

---

Do you think all humans should live forever and reproduce indefinitely? Let's see, seeing as how it is a trend of most or perhaps all known life forms, yes, perhaps humans should die as well.

And, unless you are expecting a universe that eventually contains nothing but a clutter of human beings, then perhaps some restraint should be laid upon the spread of them.

You speak as though nothing that exists matters as much as humans, but you seem not to realize that humans would not exist without the universe around them. You speak as though there is no need of the concept of balance.

You asked if humans should die? Well, I ask you should everything else die so humans may live?

You phrased your questions to me as if I wish no humans existed, nonsense, I feel humans like all other creatures and forces should exist within their means, lest there be no means left to provide our existance.

quote:

---

The idea is that the conditions were favorable for their existence, and that's how these creatures survived. The case is different with human beings, why? because they have a more developed brain, that's it.

---

As far as I know, humans have not survived any dangerously unfavorable conditions any better then the rest of the existing life on earth. With one exception, naturally occuring viruses and disease meant to reduce the population of any creatures who are growning out of balance of their environmental ecosystem.

quote:

---

Actually you prove that the natural population control has no effect if it is taken from your point, since that all these organisms survived, right?

---

Wrong, population control allows for existance and survival, that is half of its point.

Another point is that most of the natural forms of human population control don't even affect other species to begin with.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

quote:

---

I didn't get that point, really. Please elaborate.

---

I was referring to diseases and viruses that affect humans but not other animals.

quote:

---

Why are you so desperate from humans? and why do I feel that you have nothing towards them except hatred and despise?

---

Why do you make silly assumptions?

You are focusing on a possitive, to a point that it is in danger of becoming a negative, I'm focusing on the negative to try to institute perspective. A negative that happens to need to exist for the existance of the possitive you so strongly advocate.

quote:

---

Well, believe it or not, new ones "emerge" and old ones "mutate" from one time to another, so all that happens is that scientists try to find cures and to "keep up" with the whatever disease and this is considered to be hard, and that is the reason of the bad reputation of the incurability of diseases.

---

And they will continue to do so, and you know why? Because we are out of balance with the rest of the natural world, and it will resist us. Just like our own bodies will fight anything that attempts to overpopulate, abuse and waste our resources, indescriminately destroy our internal indigenous life forms, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

quote:

---

Let me tell you this once more, this is not the goal nowadays.

---

You can say it all you want, it is obviously not your intent, or of those you follow in your studies, this means nothing in respect to those with other intentions.

quote:

---

And even if there are "people" who use eugenics in "evil" purpose, that wouldn't be their goal

---

You should stick to what others tell you, you make more sense.

quote:

---

Attempting racial superiority now is a pointless thing.

---

That doesn't stop people from desiring and attempting it. And I'm quite sure there are many "purposes" for it, be they irrational, financial, conspiratorial, whatever, regardless of your knowledge or understanding of them.

quote:

---

And what did you mean by Jesus man?

---

Nothing religious, thats for sure, just as sigh of frustration with those who think they know it all and dismiss realities evident through lines of research not their own. Tisk tisk.

quote:

---

Let me tell you one thing, in this point you are EXTREMELY wrong. In fact, reproduction rate decreased in the 20th century very much than it used to be.

---

Reproduction rates differ between regions and their degrees of development. Your statement is only wrong because it attempts to overgeneralize.

Third world countries birth rates and populations are still soaring, developed societies have studies indicating a leveling off of population growth, one that falls more in line with its death rates.

Like you like to say, there are far more intricate circumstances than you could ever fathom to these equations than your simplifications of them.

quote:

---

What are the resources? And how are they diminishing? And what is the idea?

---

Natural resources vs. consumption, peace, prosperity, and freedom vs. war, poverty, and tyranny. And the idea is that technology, if even allowed or physically able to continue to advance in the face of greed and self as well as general destructive behavior, will likely be kept for use by a select few, those with wealth and power.

quote:

---

First of all, eugenics was invented many years before WW2, and its purpose was the "good" one, but it was with a not-so-good methods. At that time, there was nothing like gene therapy and the focus was not on making a superior race but rather a better race from all perspectives.

---

Never all perspectives, good and bad are subjective, you have split hairs in defining what is good eugenics and what is not. Just a statement.

quote:

---

It's impossible by any means that you could use chemicals when conducting gene therapy

---

Then don't limit your imagination to chemicals.

quote:

---

Also, when you were talking about the use of eugenics in a racial way, this has almost stopped since WW2, almost 60 years ago so let's move on.

---

This is where you are so importantly mistaken. It is also why your inherent bias distaste for conversing about conspiracy, even in context to the topic of the thread being eugenics, will keep you ignorant to current, not just possible future, events in relation to it.

Before you mentioned eugenics in the wrong hands, do you think those wrong hands don't exist and do not hold eugenics, gene therapy, and access to all major and minor scientific breakthroughs?

See, where you think conspiracy and bad intentions are only a thing of the past, in no way currently visible, and in no way predictable nor of any consequence to the subject, I say you are mistaken.

I don't say so because I want to simply berate any technology, that would be silly of me.

Anymore, I'm simply correcting overgeneralizations you are making, especially in the realm of your defining conspiracy and ill intent as unimportant.

Eugenics, gene therapy, these like anything else hold both good and bad respective to their subjective opinions.

And as long as you keep saying conspiracy to use them in ways you yourself defined as "bad" or "wrong", no longer exists, I will correct you.

quote:

---

And also, why reduce the black population? What threat do they make? They are harmless, totally.

---

This is like asking why people bother to be racist, or do you think racism doesn't exist either? That alone answers your question, but of course, like usual, there is far more to the story than that.

First of all, I'm sorry for posting my reply late, but I didn't have any time to reply as I was busy. But I'm back now, heh heh...

Now back to the original topic.

To Summit- What is the reversal of evolution? Retardation? Evolution goes in one way only, and it cannot be reversed. For example, if our environment changes entirely, evolution won't get reversed. Even though that all the organisms will adapt to these conditions, none of them will return to its state at that time. This is because they have "already" evoluted, which makes them not able to return back to their state, though they might be even more adaptable to the proposed condition.

quote:

---

Over time, without an equilibrium, evolution of a species terminates (regardless of existing technology).

---

Evolution can happen from a single unicellular organism to form far complex organism and this is how humans were created. Actually this is the original hypothesis of evolution, proteins forming plasma membranes that coat a nucleic acid and later form a cell that later gets more complex and form a complete organism. And although that this process is far complicated and is based on chances and coincidences, it resulted in the human beings right now, who have a vast allelic biodiversity from only a single organism that resulted from one unicellular organism.

quote:

---

As a result, the level of resilience to an environment (which take in mind, a 'changing ever rapid' environment) will decrease dramatically.

---

Human beings have been able to defy their environment from a long time ago. Nowadays, by being at home and turning on the heater, YOU are defying your environment. The human resilience to the environment does not depend on the genetic structure, it depends on the human ability to contain the surrounding environment and adapt to it. Natural selection has already done it's role on humans and created the three main races. After that, the human adaptation started by creating tools, building homes, and creating communities, and until the discovery of electricity, the resilience, (which I prefer to call, adaptation) was according to the nature itself. Now, humans are able to do anything to survive and face their environment. However, with or without eugenics, evolution continues to move, but it won't depend on the natural conditions, it will depend on the artificial surrounding environment. Humans will constantly develop to become smarter, more intelligent, and more adaptable to their lives, hopefully.

And I will continue to say, the goal is to change the human race to a more intelligent, resistant to diseases, and with no faulty mutations, without altering the human being entirely. Thus will result in maintaining an available biodiversity for constant evolution, and with removing any faulty genes, such as low IQ for an example.

The part of the GAs is too long to elaborate, and I have never studied it thoroughly before. However, there are somethings that is could easily be noticed as "good" or "bad" traits. Inherited violence, or ultimately low IQ for an example should not be taken for granted...

For Leftwood-

quote:

---

You speak as though nothing that exists matters as much as humans, but you seem not to realise that humans would not exist without the universe around them. You speak as though there is no need of the concept of balance.

---

I am not saying that, and I believe that humans are, just as any creature, an important part in the ecosystem, even though that they're destroying it. I agree with you that humans must not increase to an increased limit, and I even believe that their population has increased dramatically. However, I do not agree with you on how can you get that population decreased, you should net let some disease overtake the planet, such as the 1920s flu that eliminated millions of people. If you want to reduce a population, use some population control method that would decrease the number of the human offspring, like China's "One Child Policy", for an example.

quote:

---

As far as I know, humans have not survived any dangerously unfavourable conditions any better then the rest of the existing life on earth

---

Well, if you have completed the paragraph, you would've read that. Don't take half of the paragraph and leave the other.

Here's the rest:

quote:

---

The case is different with human beings, why? because they have a more developed brain, that's it. And I'm talking about nowadays, with technology everywhere, any event before it should not be put under this category and just to add to your info, were living in a sort of a "technological world"

---

quote:

---

You are focusing on a possitive, to a point that it is in danger of becoming a negative, I'm focusing on the negative to try to institute perspective. A negative that happens to need to exist for the existence of the possitive you so strongly advocate.

---

Well, excuse my silly assumption, but what I feel in your words is hatred, well at least this is what I feel. I mean human malice and an ignorant desire for domination are not so bright words in the "normal" world according to my info...

quote:

---

And they will continue to do so, and you know why? Because we are out of balance with the rest of the natural world, and it will resist us. Just like our own bodies will fight anything that attempts to overpopulate, abuse and waste our resources, indiscriminately destroy our internal indigenous life forms, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

---

Actually, No... The real reason is the random mutation of these viruses and bacteria. They don't resist us, they are just reproducing, nothing more or less. Just as they have always did from the beginning of life on Earth.

quote:

---

You can say it all you want, it is obviously not your intent, or of those you follow in your studies, this means nothing in respect to those with other intentions.

---

Well, can I please know what is my intent? I mean that maybe some little "enlightenment" will do...

quote:

---

You should stick to what others tell you, you make more sense

---

Um, actually I used "if" which means a probability, not a solid thing, judgements should be put under concrete physical evidence, or else they become pretty unreliable. Or what?

quote:

---

That doesn't stop people from desiring and attempting it. And I'm quite sure there are many "purposes" for it, be they irrational, financial, conspiratorial, whatever, regardless of your knowledge or understanding of them.

---

Well my knowledge and understanding of racial superiority is somewhat stupid. I am someone who thinks that for those "hot-shot" people who are super smart and super witty and can play with the whole world as dolls "if they exist", will not put some stupid, minor, pointless thing jumps up in their scheme and that they would actually give it a thought. It's not worth it, and they won't be that shallow...

quote:

---

Nothing religious, that's for sure, just as sigh of frustration with those who think they know it all and dismiss realities evident through lines of research not their own.

---

Actually I think that you should really check up all your previous posts, where you are extremely deluded by that idea of conspiracy. And if a miracle happens and you noticed something, you'll find that in each and every single post you try to turn every topic and diverge it into the same lathery of conspiracy. From a logical view, you are the one who dismisses realities, and I mean logical realities, and try to come up with some idea of the conspiracy theory.

quote:

---

Reproduction rates differ between regions and their degrees of development. Your statement is only wrong because it attempts to overgeneralize.

---

Have you ever studied economics in your life? Or even read a book about it? Look, I can prove you wrong. However it's gonna take a lot of time proving it and explaining many things about the population growth status in 3rd world and 1st world countries. What I was saying at the beginning was right, and just to make things clear, I said reproduction rates decreased than it used to be, but I haven't said that the world population decreased nowadays. Have I? No...


And about the last words of yours,

Yes, if there's conspiracy, eugenics might be used for bad purposes. But it is not yet proved that a conspiracy exists, which makes you standing on non-solid ground regarding eugenics. Another thing, even if there is a conspiracy, and even if eugenics is used for bad purposes NOW, that wouldn't deny the fact that it will be used for good either. Any thing on the planet can be used for bad or evil according to how it is used. I can cut with a knife a fruit and share it with a hungry person, and I can bring the same knife and stab him with it. I think you understand what I mean, well I hope so...

quote:

---

However, I do not agree with you on how can you get that population decreased, you should net let some disease overtake the planet, such as the 1920s flu that eliminated millions of people.

---

Then in actuallity we would be in agreement, for I have no desire for such a method, I merely referenced my point of balance and the deflation speciecentric absurdity. Which you are self stated to be in agreement with in terms of a balanced ecosystem and the lack of it coming form humans.

quote:

---

Well, if you have completed the paragraph, you would've read that. Don't take half of the paragraph and leave the other.

---

The other wasn't necessary, you ignore the past and speak of the unspeakable future to bolster you point.

Most technology is still very fragile, as are we. The loss of an energy source in some grand calamity may very well knock out both humans and their technology in your non defined scenario.

But I will say that you are quite correct in that no other known species has technology and it is a force that can eventually rival that of nature, for it is simply the harnessing of nature to begin with.

quote:

---

Well, excuse my silly assumption, but what I feel in your words is hatred, well at least this is what I feel.

---

There is hatred in my words, but mine is directed towards human "evils", and utter frustration towards those who ignore them to bask in their possitives of a given subject. Otherwise the hatred is not mine at all, but a representation of the hatred of others who would cause ill will.

quote:

---

I mean human malice and an ignorant desire for domination are not so bright words in the "normal" world according to my info...

---

I would appreciate some elaboration. Not so bright as an opinion has nothing to do with the fact that it is the most common afront man imposes upon man. I don't think war is such a bright idea either, but there sure is lots of it.

This malice is not mine, but my example as extrapolated from history, and the present, in facts and, yes, speculation and dire attempts to separate fact from blatant lies meant to hide such facts.

quote:

---

Actually, No... The real reason is the random mutation of these viruses and bacteria. They don't resist us, they are just reproducing, nothing more or less. Just as they have always did from the beginning of life on Earth.

---

You are not addressing a reason, you are stating a fact out of context. They are part of this ecosystem, and their part, in part, is to keep humans in check.

And no, I may be mistaken here, but is it not true that indeed their mutations and reproduction have not remained consistent, have they or have they not mutated to a larger degree in specific response to our antibiotics etc. as you yourself have mentioned.

Which could be seen as further evidence of one of their specific roles being an attempt to balance the human equation, yes no?

quote:

---

Well, can I please know what is my intent? I mean that maybe some little "enlightenment" will do...

---

Your intent is of the "good" use of technology.

Unless I am mistaken again, which I agree has happened a few times in this agreeably muddled, not just on my part, argument.

quote:

---

Well my knowledge and understanding of racial superiority is somewhat stupid. I am someone who thinks that for those "hot-shot" people who are super smart and super witty and can play with the whole world as dolls "if they exist", will not put some stupid, minor, pointless thing jumps up in their scheme and that they would actually give it a thought. It's not worth it, and they won't be that shallow...

---

Well at least you think so, to bad you're not in power eh?

But you think too much from your own perspective, it limits this important aspect of this debate.

I understand how you would think that smart powerful people doing stupid things is hard to imagine, but you would be wrong to suggest that this does not happen.

quote:

---

Actually I think that you should really check up all your previous posts, where you are extremely deluded by that idea of conspiracy. And if a miracle happens and you noticed something, you'll find that in each and every single post you try to turn every topic and diverge it into the same lathery of conspiracy. From a logical view, you are the one who dismisses realities

---

There is no delusion in my point of focus, quite the contrary, however, as you still express, you have little regard or understanding of conspiracy or how it would be of any importance in any subject.

What you will hopefully see here is that I have not been deluded, but that you have created a thread, with a VERY open question, and I am relating information on that very subject in context to my main area of concern and research.

And that you have been insulted by my "tainting" of your thread with what you have, due to my mistakes, understandibly mistaken my points as a knock against eugenics in general. That yes, I reacted with a initial negative and overgereralized remark that became the muddeling of this debate.

But I'll further clarify in a second.

quote:

---

I can prove you wrong...I said reproduction rates decreased than it used to be

---

Yes, you did, in the 20th century and all that, which is a generalization, as I pointed out, are you claiming there are no areas that have increased in reproduction, none, anywhere? That was my only point there.

quote:

---

Yes, if there's conspiracy, eugenics might be used for bad purposes. But it is not yet proved that a conspiracy exists, which makes you standing on non-solid ground regarding eugenics.

---

What has been proven is that many conspiracies have taken place over many decades, and probably much more, where an ideological form of eugenics was specifically applied toward the eradication of other races, groups, indigionous peoples etc.

And the most recent known cases of specifically referrenced direct misuse of ideological eugenics in a conspiracy, that I'm familiar with, happens to have taken place in the US, within the time frame of the leadership of the same recycled crew we have in power today.

And that the most infamous of known cases, in terms of the Nazis, happen to again have direct links through lineage, ideology, business, etc. to members of my current administration.

Now, my clarification comes as pointing out that yes, this does not matter in terms of the "good" intended use of eugenics, that was never my point, and as a matter of fact, the reason I have twice retracted part of my initial response was indeed because I was not aware of much about eugenics and mistakenly overgeneralized, for I was introduced to the notion entirely through the vulgar misuse of it.

Nor is eugenics, or its misuse my main concern, again, you openned a thread with a VERY open question that happens to site a term that hits my main focus, corruption, conspiracy. Something you underestimate as most do. And I have simply responded with that aspect of it.

Your main argument was that it held no place in your thread, which you are mistaken, but in your intention of the thread, I understand (given my initial partially incorrect statement), but disagree given my retraction.

You do not have to respond to me, nor argue for I am not arguing against your good intentions.

I am merely bringing light to an important issue that happens to share a place in the past and present ideological use of eugenics. Which is all the solid ground on conspiracy and eugenics I need to bring it up. Regardless of how much you would rather I didn't.

And there is constant proof of conspiracy, to the point that people mock it as cliche, and thats a problem. One I happen to find more important than simply pointing out that there are good uses of eugenics. Which you can be the one to spend your time doing, and not arguing with me, while I spend my time relating information on either the other side of eugenics or the source of such minds that abuse it.

Which for some reason you have a notion that smart powerful people don't do bad things or something. And just because you think it would be stupid.

Well don't argue with me on that, tell it to those who live today and believe and practice just such stupidity.

You act as if racism doesn't exist, the driving force behind the perversion of eugenics. That there are not people in power who are racist, or otherwise ignorantly prejudice and willing to use their power innapropriately to suit their desires. And to this I will argue with you, but not about the good side of eugenics, for I do not dissagree.

This is going to be my last post in this argument as you have proved that you don't regard eugenics completely as a bad thing, but you are just saying that it it used in bad things, or this is how I got it... However, there are things that you need to know as facts and I'm going to say them in this post, and nothing more...

quote:

---

And no, I may be mistaken here, but is it not true that indeed their mutations and reproduction have not remained consistent, have they or have they not mutated to a larger degree in specific response to our antibiotics etc. as you yourself have mentioned.

---

Yes, I have mentioned that antibiotics are a very strong reason for mutating bacteria and viruses and well, that's a fact. However, you should not put in your mind that this is the only reason for the bacterial and viral mutation, that's one of many reason, however strong it might be... And they mutated in a large degree. Many other things contribute to their mutations, such as a completely normal disarrangement in the bacterium's chromosomes (and yes, that happens) which will make it vulnerable to mutate easily... Another thing, bacteria and viruses have no intention in keeping humans in check, hey just live, reproduce , and continue their life cycle without regarding humans. This is just how they live, nothing more and nothing less. And how they contribute to the balance the human equation is just coincidental. For example, in a lab, if you put any of these organisms in a suitable medium for them to live, they will live and they won't harm any other creature.

quote:

---

Yes, you did, in the 20th century and all that, which is a generalization, as I pointed out, are you claiming there are no areas that have increased in reproduction, none, anywhere? That was my only point there.

---

Yes, I am claiming that their has not been any increase in reproduction, except in many small minorities, which have their reasons. As I have already mentioned, the reproduction rated didn't increase, what made the difference is the vastly improved health care, which caused to increase the life expectancy, and decreased the rate of miscarriage and children deaths.

quote:

---

I understand how you would think that smart powerful people doing stupid things is hard to imagine, but you would be wrong to suggest that this does not happen.

---

If they do stupid things, their cover will be blown, and if their cover is blown, they are going to be dead meat, easy. Look, I believe that there are racists and I've seen racists and I know how do they think. However, the "smart" racists that I've seen, never show that they are racists and they try to hide it. And if they are in need of hiding the racial feelings, they do. Racism is feeling hate and superiority over another race, but hatred is something and practising that hatred is another thing, you can stop the practice if you need to, but hate will remain, it's a complicated thing, believe me.

Well, that's my last post in this topic, I won't write in that thread again. And I'm just satisfied that you understood that eugenics can be used for a good purpose, and that it could happen.

quote:

---

you don't regard eugenics completely as a bad thing, but you are just saying that it it used in bad things, or this is how I got it...

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Another thing, bacteria and viruses have no intention in keeping humans in check, hey just live, reproduce , and continue their life cycle without regarding humans

---

Though there is a chance you are correct, there is also the equal chance of you being wrong.

One thing I would suggest to you, I would refrain from too much claiming of facts that are not knowable. We don't know WHY we exist, last I checked, and I don't believe we've discovered the purpose of our lives or that of other living beings.

And in a food chain, in this life cycle on Earth. It is a perfectly workable theory to extend that we are indeed the food of many microbes, whose "job" it may well be to keep our population in check.

Your simple assertion that it is not so, yet does happen as a coincidence is more evidence to my direction then of your own, on that point.

quote:

---

if you put any of these organisms in a suitable medium for them to live, they will live and they won't harm any other creature.

---

A suitable environment? A host body? With what food source would they be given? Regardless, in the lab called Earth, they find hosts, some soley in human bodies.

quote:

---

If they do stupid things, their cover will be blown, and if their cover is blown, they are going to be dead meat, easy.

---

Wow, if only it were so. Thats a lot like saying that if people learn that something they are doing is unnecessary or even bad for them, they'll quit. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

When you are in a posisiton of power, one designed to control and influence public opinion and knowledge, firstly, its hard to catch them at all, secondly, it usually takes an insider to blow the whistle. But even then, its one or two people willing to speak out and their word and credibility has to survive "official denial".

There has been and still a mob, groups who work in illegal circles commiting illegal acts including murder. They don't get caught very often, and there are reasons for this. I suggest you look into them.

As for your racism point, they may hide it openly, like they may about their view on homosexuality or abortion, but they are the ones in posistion to pass legislation that supports their ideals.

This is why we had such things as slavery, it took war to really end this.

Never underestimate the desire of others to rule over others, to commit atrocity. And when you learn more about how our clandestine government works, which doesn't get displayed on national tv often mind you, you will come closer to seeing more of what I mean, and how it is of the utmost importance that you not be so flippant in your dismissal of corruption within power.

That alone would be going against the reality that has been proved over and over again through history. Which I'm guessing you need some more information on. Did you think Hitler was "caught" and thrown out of power by his people?

No, he lied and told them what they want to hear, promised them glory, and they followed.

Please, please don't allow yourself to be ignorant to the point of blatant dismissal of a known and common reality.

Kuja: The reversal of evolution refers to a metaphorical meaning. If you want a more succint term, perhaps 'abrogation' is more appropriate for you. Your rebuttal from my 'equilibrium' statement doesn't address the meaning of the genetic equilibrium process over time. Without a genetic equilibrium, evolution discontinues. You don't have to explain to us about the origin of life, that is a rather different topic.

It should be in your interest to realise that the terms 'adaptation' and 'resilience' are very much different. Adaptation is the organisms modification in structure, function, or behaviour suitable to the environment. Resilience on the other hand is the ability of an organism to recover from a particular or multiple envionmental stressors. Eugenics is the nullification of natural resilience and adaptation.

quote:

---

Humans will constantly develop to become smarter, more intelligent, and more adaptable to their lives, hopefully....And I will continue to say, the goal is to change the human race to a more intelligent, resistant to diseases, and with no faulty mutations, without altering the human being entirely. Thus will result in maintaining an available biodiversity for constant

---

Assumingly wrong and mistaken. See this is where you predominately misunderstand the concept and process of eugenics. Eugenics alters biological processes in the short term. It does not even acknowledge the fact that evolution and in particular; adaptation and resilience take time. A long time. Apart from some examples of adaptive radiation, which is totally besides the topic. Intelligence is not totally genetic, it also develops socially within the environment. Every genetic influence acts in an environmental context. There is no objective means of determining what is intelligent. Or even what is biologically 'normal', 'wrong' or what postmodernists like to refer to as 'The Other', in other words outcasts. That refers to a very subjective point of view, which quite frankly is totally inappropriate in modern scientific criterion. That concept, of course, leads to the morality discussion, of how eugenics can be unethical.

I would like to reinterate Kuja, that, eugenics is 'designed' to perform a method of reducing allelic variation within the human population. This ultimately as already stated before reduces biodiversity in the long term, and in affect increases envionmental vulnerability to resilience and adaptation.

quote:

---

Another thing, bacteria and viruses have no intention in keeping humans in check, hey just live, reproduce , and continue their life cycle without regarding humans

---

Out of simple curiosity, I find myself wondering if you are of the ilk that sees humans in this fashion, or if you, like so many, like to proclaim a greater reasoning behind the existance, purpose, destiny, etc. to mankind?

I found this recent article. Quite interesting to think about it once you read it.
23 Apr 2006. Zack Smith

Tyranny of the breeders

"Tyranny of the breeders" is the concept I have coined as of March 2006, the meaning of which is, that those who breed more children will become the majority, and in so doing they will come to dominate people who procreate less. The purpose of the term is to point out that procreation is consciously used as a weapon by some people, typically because they are racist, and/or because they want to dominate other religious groups, and/or because they are tribalistic and simply want power.

Whatever the motive, those who practice "tyranny of the breeders" should be identified and, in a perfect world, would be constrained and punished, because overprocreation is, ultimately,

- an assault on society
- an assault on the Environment.

Doing The Math
Imagine you start a new town with 4 families. Two families for some reason believe they must produce 8 children and teach their children to do the same. The other two families typically produce a more stable 2 or 3 babies, as will their offspring. Assuming no intermarriage between the two camps, the overprocreators will after only a few generations come to dominate the town. If the camps differ by race, religion, ideology or any other divisive factor, the normal procreators will surely suffer in the end, people being what they are. This is just simple math and common sense.

Being Honest
So let's be honest. We know that there are groups that deliberately practice internally mandated intra-group over-breeding i.e. tyranny of the breeders.
Whether it is practiced as a racist principle, as a religious mandate, as a "traditional practice", as an ideological directive, or with any other justification or motive, the over-breeders in question will, unless they are individually unconscious, typically be aware that such a practice will have real implications for their group in the long-term and possibly even short-term (if impregnation of teenagers is widely practiced), and negative consequences for other groups who breed less prolifically.

Calling it what it is
Let's also just admit that tyranny of the breeders is a description of a eugenic practice. Selective, deliberate over-breeding by race, religion or other characteristic is eugenics.
Its minimal characteristics are:

-Intentionally producing more children than the average, even if the parent cannot afford to do so.
Note 1
A favorite tactic of a racist over-breeders is to plead victimhood in order to get society to foot the bill for their children's upbringing. "You can't let defenseless children suffer!" they will say, never mentioning their own guilt in thrusting those children into poverty by the act of childbirth.
Note 2
More than likely the group will make an effort to organize members to help other members raise children.

-Selecting to procreate primarily with members of the group.
An exception is made for males who procreate with women who are outside the group, since this satisfies their machismo and makes the group itself seem more aggressive and dominating. Typically the women of such a group will not let themselves be targetted by outsider males.
- Codifying the directive itself, which typically does not involve writing it down per se, because that would be hard evidence of malicious intent, but may instead require repeating the message among members. For instance, this may take the form of mindless peer pressure to have lots of kids as early as possible.

Motives & Mechanisms
The fact is that in today's world, the same as 100 years ago, 1000 years ago and probably 10,000 years ago, one can find some ethnic groups, religious groups, and other groups who will at times quietly or brazenly declare their intention to "outbreed" others. It's vulgar, it's ugly, and it is real.
For example, in today's America, some Mexicans (even females) use it as a kind of terrorism against whites, blacks, and other Hispanics to drive them away.

Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, are more indirect and for instance may order their members not to use condoms, which has the same ultimate effect: increased numbers of believers. "More people for our team."

Others will produce too many children and justify it as a traditional practice or cultural norm. "We just have big families." Yet racism often has such a requirement. Make more of us, to combat the ones we don't like.

A typical argument used to defend this mandated overprocreation is to say mindlessly that (a) we just love children and (b) more love is always a good thing, therefore overprocreation is a good thing. This sounds like an argument that only a fool would accept, yet it is the ideological inclination of some to do so.

Another bad argument is that "god loves all people", so by implication there is no guilt in producing too many. This conceals the motive and transfers any guilt to an invisible person called a god.

Clearly, no god worth his salt would love idiots
who produce children out of loyalty to a power-hungry tribe
or even who produce more children than they can afford simply for personal gratification, e.g. out of a vain need to appear "fertile"
and certainly not people who knowingly thrust newborn children into lives of abject poverty and crime.

Consequences
While the eugenic practice described by the term tyranny of the breeders on its face may appear to be mere petty racism or Quixotic racial imperialism or inane religious eugenics, its practice has serious long-term consequences for society and the Environment and it must be combatted.

Characteristics
Let's classify the thing in question. Tyranny of the breeders describes a practice that is

-anti-diversity, because it seeks to attain domination by one group
-anti-equality, because it is essentially about power-lust
-anti-peace, because it is a quiet form of warfare
-anti-Environment, because it ignores the carrying capacity limitations of the Environment and seeks to fill it up with unlimited numbers of humans.
-anti-women (mysogenistic) because it turns women into child-making machines or robots, often brainwashing them into supporting if not being the major proponents of the practice.

The Gap
While it is the practice of some to point out the inanity of the Cold War Arms Race, in which the US obsessed over the arms "gap", few seem to care about the equally inane fight taking place perpetually over a Racial Gap, which the term tyranny of the breeders describes.

Environmentalism
Because tyranny of the breeders describes a practice that is engaged in by people who necessarily prefer to feign ignorance of humanity's burden on the Environment, lest their own impact be measured and judged, it identifies them as enemies of the Environment, or at least deliberate vandals thereof.
It is therefore of tantamount importance that environmentalists oppose immigration of people who typically engage in, for whatever reason, high procreation rate. They are a direct and serious risk to the Environment if their motive for overprocreation will endure long-term.

-finit-