WOW! We should kill all mentally handicaped people? Really? And seeing people leaning towards that point of view makes me wonder if they think we should kill all the Africans too? (See Troops in Uganda Thread) WTF is this world coming to…
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
WOW! We should kill all mentally handicaped people? Really? And seeing people leaning towards that point of view makes me wonder if they think we should kill all the Africans too? (See Troops in Uganda Thread) WTF is this world coming to…[/quote]
You know when people ask how the Germans could possibly accept what was happening under the Nazi regime? I think we are heading into that direction again, seeing the mindset of so many people.
[quote]eraserhead wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
WOW! We should kill all mentally handicaped people? Really? And seeing people leaning towards that point of view makes me wonder if they think we should kill all the Africans too? (See Troops in Uganda Thread) WTF is this world coming to…[/quote]
You know when people ask how the Germans could possibly accept what was happening under the Nazi regime? I think we are heading into that direction again, seeing the mindset of so many people. [/quote]
And thats why it is important that people call them out on their fascistoid tendencys, so they get a chance to think twice about their fucked up position regarding racism, sexism and eugenics.
ps. On the abort subject I am pro-choice, meaning that I think it is up to the woman alone if she will take an abortion or not. So I dont support this eugenics nonsense, because they go against the pro-choice position.
no, we should not.
It would be “colonialist” (which is apparently bad). And it would cost too much money.
[quote]
ps. On the abort subject I am pro-choice, meaning that I think it is up to the woman alone if she will take an abortion or not. So I dont support this eugenics nonsense, because they go against the pro-choice position. [/quote]
Then you’re perfectly okay with eugenics… as long as it is privately done by a woman. It’s governmental eugenics that bothers you.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Society has no survival instinct or rights.[/quote]
Evoluation doesn’t make sense on the individual level. It only makes sense when talking about a population. Therefore, individual variations exist to benefit the survival of the whole population. The only way you can even talk about evolution is from a population, not individual, standpoint.
[quote]
Animals strive only to pass on genetic material.
[/quote] Agreed. But some of these will be eliminated because they were counterproductive to survival, no matter how much they strove to pass on their genetic material, and therefore, it only makes sense to look at groups of individuals, not solitary individuals.
[quote]
A parent that is willing to do what it takes to raise a child is a positive in that respect.[/quote]
This was a GIANT generalization. For instance, if you have two children, both are starving, one is younger and nearly dead, and you can’t save them both, would you say it’s not positive for the mother to kill or pass off the younger and devote all of her efforts to the older? What about aborting at one point in her life so she has more time to gather resources to devote once she does reproduce?
Strategic reproduction is seen in all animals and it’s not a black-and-white-one-answer-fits-all-situations issue.
[quote]
It can be as easily said that parents willing to kill their children for convenience is a negative survival trait.[/quote]
Depends on the situation. If you mean in general, kill because they don’t want to take care of it even thoug they could, sure. If you mean kill because it would greatly set them back, prevent them from devoting resources to future children, and actually put their children in a worst situation than if they’d waited, then from a purely survival standpoint, killing for convenience would work.
It’s not just a numbers game. Whoever pops out the most doesn’t win. It’s whoever pops out the most who then live the longest, gain the most power, and therefore produce the best offspring who win. If you have 10 kids and they all die, well you failed. If you have 5 kids and they all live on social security…lol. What am I saying? No one here wants to pay social security.[/quote]
This is a gross misrepresentation of evolution.
It can make sense to look at evolutionâ??s effects on a population level, but it ONLY happens on an individual one. Traits that help an INDIVIDUAL pass on material tend to spread and traits that donâ??t or negatively impact an INDIVIDUAL tend to fade out.
For example: male lions taking over a new pride will kill the offspring of the previous male. Bad for the pride, good for the individual. They evolved the trait because evolution has lead them to do the best for themselves, NOT the society of lions.
About the only place Societal evolution is seen (debatably) is in insects like ants. BUT that society all shares one genetic line and so they are still helping pass on their own genetic material.
Lastly, parents aborting these kids arenâ??t doing so because it affects their ability to survive and pass on more genes. That isnâ??t the issue. They are doing it because raising the kid will be hard. They arenâ??t having to chose between starving kids. The parental drive to protect and sacrifice should go far above and beyond avoiding inconvenience. A willingness to abort ones own genes is definitely a negative trait in this case.
You are also entirely wrong that things like power or success (in material terms) has anything to do with evolution. It doesnâ??t. passing on genes is all that matters. Evolution has nothing to do with quality of said offspring.
You need to go back and read up on basic evolution.
kamui:
If the mothers reason for abortion is euginics then be it, but it doesnt have to be eugenics that are
here reason. But yes a govermental eugenics program was what I was talking about( and that is whats potentially dangerous )
Both are dangerous. And they are actually dangerous not potentially.
but thank you for your honesty.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Both are dangerous. And they are actually dangerous not potentially.
but thank you for your honesty. [/quote]
Well I have to disagree that a single womans own reason for an abortion is dangerous.
But yes you are right about goverment eugenics is actually dangerous not potentially.
thanks for pointing that out.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
WOW! We should kill all mentally handicaped people? Really? And seeing people leaning towards that point of view makes me wonder if they think we should kill all the Africans too? (See Troops in Uganda Thread) WTF is this world coming to…[/quote]
Notice it’s the same people in both threads, but yeah pretty appalling.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Given the recent trend in biological reductionism on PWI, i think some of you may benefit from an “introduction to human behavioral biology”.
enjoy 
[/quote]
My IQ has gone up 5 points from watching that.[/quote]
Soooo, your up to 6?
Sorry, wide open, I couldn’t resist…
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
I see nothing wrong with killing retards.
They are a waste of human resources.
Its inherently selfish of their parents to bring them into this world.
As when they die all of us will have to take care of their pet.[/quote]
Leader in the clubhouse for worst post of the year.
And in PWI, that’s saying something.[/quote]
You go Ad Hom as everyone else did.
What is morally obtuse about that statement?
It is okay to abort vast amounts of people with substantial intellectual potential but in the case of people with disabilities suddenly abortion is absolutely heinous?
In a system that was rational or reasonable, it would be illegal to bring mentally challenged people into the world if neurotypical people were murdered. To do the opposite makes no sense, if you ran a business would you kill your best work applicants, and hire those who are incapable of performing the job at all.
Use your head, or maybe you’re a downy browny so that is not possible.[/quote]
So any child who would be a drain on the resources of the whole should be killed in utero?
Using that logic, we should kill all the poor immigrants who drain the resources of the whole correct? Or just head into Africa and kill all those who do not meet a certain I.Q. level…correct?
Your “logic” can be applied to killing many humans that are a drain on the collective…but you choose to use shocking language to cover up the fact that your argument is just a way to piss off the religious folks, who hold life as sacred.
Nice down syndrome joke by the way in your post, just the sort of thing I would expect from you.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Both are dangerous. And they are actually dangerous not potentially.
but thank you for your honesty. [/quote]
This is a bold claim from someone so educated. Please do elaborate as to why it’s dangerous for women to individually chose abortion. I’m honestly shocked that you’re taking this stance. It stands in direct conflict with what’s been happening in human and other animal populations for literally millions of years.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Society has no survival instinct or rights.[/quote]
Evoluation doesn’t make sense on the individual level. It only makes sense when talking about a population. Therefore, individual variations exist to benefit the survival of the whole population. The only way you can even talk about evolution is from a population, not individual, standpoint.
[quote]
Animals strive only to pass on genetic material.
[/quote] Agreed. But some of these will be eliminated because they were counterproductive to survival, no matter how much they strove to pass on their genetic material, and therefore, it only makes sense to look at groups of individuals, not solitary individuals.
[quote]
A parent that is willing to do what it takes to raise a child is a positive in that respect.[/quote]
This was a GIANT generalization. For instance, if you have two children, both are starving, one is younger and nearly dead, and you can’t save them both, would you say it’s not positive for the mother to kill or pass off the younger and devote all of her efforts to the older? What about aborting at one point in her life so she has more time to gather resources to devote once she does reproduce?
Strategic reproduction is seen in all animals and it’s not a black-and-white-one-answer-fits-all-situations issue.
[quote]
It can be as easily said that parents willing to kill their children for convenience is a negative survival trait.[/quote]
Depends on the situation. If you mean in general, kill because they don’t want to take care of it even thoug they could, sure. If you mean kill because it would greatly set them back, prevent them from devoting resources to future children, and actually put their children in a worst situation than if they’d waited, then from a purely survival standpoint, killing for convenience would work.
It’s not just a numbers game. Whoever pops out the most doesn’t win. It’s whoever pops out the most who then live the longest, gain the most power, and therefore produce the best offspring who win. If you have 10 kids and they all die, well you failed. If you have 5 kids and they all live on social security…lol. What am I saying? No one here wants to pay social security.[/quote]
This is a gross misrepresentation of evolution.
It can make sense to look at evolutionâ??s effects on a population level, but it ONLY happens on an individual one. Traits that help an INDIVIDUAL pass on material tend to spread and traits that donâ??t or negatively impact an INDIVIDUAL tend to fade out.
For example: male lions taking over a new pride will kill the offspring of the previous male. Bad for the pride, good for the individual. They evolved the trait because evolution has lead them to do the best for themselves, NOT the society of lions.
About the only place Societal evolution is seen (debatably) is in insects like ants. BUT that society all shares one genetic line and so they are still helping pass on their own genetic material.
Lastly, parents aborting these kids arenâ??t doing so because it affects their ability to survive and pass on more genes. That isnâ??t the issue. They are doing it because raising the kid will be hard. They arenâ??t having to chose between starving kids. The parental drive to protect and sacrifice should go far above and beyond avoiding inconvenience. A willingness to abort ones own genes is definitely a negative trait in this case.
You are also entirely wrong that things like power or success (in material terms) has anything to do with evolution. It doesnâ??t. passing on genes is all that matters. Evolution has nothing to do with quality of said offspring.
You need to go back and read up on basic evolution.[/quote]
OMG.
Okay. I’m back. Here:
"
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution requires variation of inherited traits within a population. New variants of inherited traits can enter a population from outside populations, and this is referred to as gene flow.[2][3][4][5] Alternatively, new variants can come into being from within a population in at least three ways: mutation of DNA, epimutation (a change inherited in some way other than through the sequence of nucleotides in DNA), and genetic recombination. Natural selection, where different inherited traits cause different rates of survival and reproduction, can cause new variants to become common in a population.[1] Other evolutionary mechanisms can cause a variant to become common even if the variant does not directly cause improved survival or reproduction. These mechanisms include genetic hitchhiking, genetic drift,[6][7] and recurrent biased mutation or migration.
For example, evolution is the cause of speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Common descent stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth.[9] Both evolution within populations and speciation between them are thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another.
Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations and between species.[80] It can therefore be a source of variation that is new to a population or to a species. Gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.
And especially, please pay attention to these next parts:
Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a “self-evident” mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:
Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism’s genes.[90] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.
[quote]
This is a bold claim from someone so educated. Please do elaborate as to why it’s dangerous for women to individually chose abortion. I’m honestly shocked that you’re taking this stance. It stands in direct conflict with what’s been happening in human and other animal populations for literally millions of years.[/quote]
oh, it may be not dangerous for women.
It may not be dangerous for “the specie” or “the race”, if you’re interested in these abstractions.
It’s dangerous for their babies.
Like, lethally dangerous.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Society has no survival instinct or rights.[/quote]
Evoluation doesn’t make sense on the individual level. It only makes sense when talking about a population. Therefore, individual variations exist to benefit the survival of the whole population. The only way you can even talk about evolution is from a population, not individual, standpoint.
[quote]
Animals strive only to pass on genetic material.
[/quote] Agreed. But some of these will be eliminated because they were counterproductive to survival, no matter how much they strove to pass on their genetic material, and therefore, it only makes sense to look at groups of individuals, not solitary individuals.
[quote]
A parent that is willing to do what it takes to raise a child is a positive in that respect.[/quote]
This was a GIANT generalization. For instance, if you have two children, both are starving, one is younger and nearly dead, and you can’t save them both, would you say it’s not positive for the mother to kill or pass off the younger and devote all of her efforts to the older? What about aborting at one point in her life so she has more time to gather resources to devote once she does reproduce?
Strategic reproduction is seen in all animals and it’s not a black-and-white-one-answer-fits-all-situations issue.
Read my post above. It can make sense to look at evolution on a population bases but it takes place on an individual one. Period.
From the same wiki article in the natural selection section:
“Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals and individual traits, are more or less likely to survive.”
What you are talking about and claiming in this thread is group selection, and is not a widely accepted part of evolutionary theory:
“Group selection isnâ??t widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, itâ??s not an efficient way to select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, we simply have little evidence that selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made us prosocial. These reasons explain why only a few biologists, like Wilson and E. O. Wilson (no relation), advocate group selection as the evolutionary source of cooperation.”
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes it is, but it’s going to happen. I highly doubt any regulation or personal opinion on the matter is going to prevent abortions from happening.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.[/quote]
Double, you are wrong beyond belief on this matter. Evolution happens ON A POPULATION LEVEL!!! Take any textbook you want and look it up. No biologist (and I am one) is going to talk to another about “individual evolution” because such as thing DOES NOT EXIST (except for epigenetics which is new and way beyond the scope of this conversation)!!!
I cannot believe such a gross misunderstanding of evolution is possible. Evolution favors traits beneficial to population survival and hence the individuals that bare those traits have the most reproductive success, which is measured by number of genes found many, many generations down the line, not just one. These individuals are favored because they benefit the group .
My head is going to explode.
For example: your lion analogy is a good example of gene flow. A stronger male lion came into the group, wiped out the weaker genes of the previous male, and provided stronger genes for the group. The new male genes make the entire group stronger, which gives the group better reproductive success.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.[/quote]
Double, you are wrong beyond belief on this matter. Evolution happens ON A POPULATION LEVEL!!! Take any textbook you want and look it up. No biologist (and I am one) is going to talk to another about “individual evolution” because such as thing DOES NOT EXIST (except for epigenetics which is new and way beyond the scope of this conversation)!!!
I cannot believe such a gross misunderstanding of evolution is possible. Evolution favors traits beneficial to population survival and hence the individuals that bare those traits have the most reproductive success, which is measured by number of genes found many, many generations down the line, not just one. These individuals are favored because they benefit the group .
My head is going to explode.
[/quote]
How does this make eugenics a good thing?
[quote]orion wrote:
Allright, how bad is it that my first reaction was that I doubt he wrote that all by himself?[/quote]
pretty bad.
any regulation ?
so, no need for information, prevention, alternative propositions, promotion of other solutions, noncoercive detterence, etc ?
or just no repression/prosecution against women because they are women ?