It’s only moderately heritable. But I do agree that we’re trending towards idiocracy here in the USA.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
…
Is this a real report? the guy’s name is Dr. Cock? AKA Kevin de Cock?[/quote]
I just googled it. Looks like the real deal.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
tedro wrote:
MrChief wrote:
[/quote]
and for human diseases that scientist have cured in the last 50 or so years?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Since intelligence is inherited, humans as a whole are getting dumber.
It’s only moderately heritable. But I do agree that we’re trending towards idiocracy here in the USA. [/quote]
Any part that is not inheritable is due to nuture. Who does the nurturing? The unintelligent parent. Hence, the exact amount of intelligence passed through genetics is irrelevant, as ultimately the intelligence of the offspring is almost completely dependant on the parents.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
tedro wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
tedro wrote:
MrChief wrote:
and for human diseases that scientist have cured in the last 50 or so years?
[/quote]
Measles, chicken pox, polio, rheumatic fever; how many do you want?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?
“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW
Heterosexual women can get it from men and the biggest risk is anal sex.
It is very very very very hard for a man to get it from a woman.[/quote]
Quite true. Think of it this way. The HIV is delivered through the semen into the vagina or anus. To contract the disease there would have to be a tear in the membrane which is much more probable in the back door. Men contracting HIV from a woman is very unlikely but it CAN happen. I know a man who got HIV from his wife. She was formerly married to a IV drug user.
[quote]Geminspector wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?
“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW
Heterosexual women can get it from men and the biggest risk is anal sex.
It is very very very very hard for a man to get it from a woman.
Quite true. Think of it this way. The HIV is delivered through the semen into the vagina or anus. To contract the disease there would have to be a tear in the membrane which is much more probable in the back door. Men contracting HIV from a woman is very unlikely but it CAN happen. I know a man who got HIV from his wife. She was formerly married to a IV drug user.
[/quote]
Is it wrong that this post turned me on?
Shame on me.
[quote]tedro wrote:
At some point we have to start letting natural selection run it’s course again, lest we continue this reverse evolution.
[/quote]
That’s fairly ignorant. “Evolution is a directionless process that sometimes makes an animal’s descendants more complicated and sometimes simpler.”
Progress is relative. Evolving is not a goal, but a means to solving a problem. Evolution should be looked at as a treadmill not a ladder. Darwin was misunderstanding things quite a bit, and I think someone reading this thread with HIV might be a little disgruntled.
I understand that this website is steeped in notions of self-improvement, but as interesting as evolution is we often take it out of context.
Some of you are morons. ‘Natural selection’ ?
So, if you come down with a genetic disorder, something that was entirely out of your control but hereditary, should science and medicine cease to do research on treatment options for people with your condition because, they should let ‘natural selection’ do the work?
Imagine of doctors thought that way. We’d have no doctors.
What about parents and young children? Let’s not take care of toddlers. if they get hit by a car, that’s natural selection!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Darwin said the same thing. Darwin said we shouldn’t vaccinate anyone and just let natural selection run its course. I’m not defending the idea, I’m just throwing it out there.
I disagree about it affecting us all though. Well, maybe not. I’m sure some of my tax money is paying for HIV research. [/quote]
Source?
Regardless: he forgot to take into consideration that vaccinations and cures themselves are a part of human evolution.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
tedro wrote:
At some point we have to start letting natural selection run it’s course again, lest we continue this reverse evolution.
That’s fairly ignorant. “Evolution is a directionless process that sometimes makes an animal’s descendants more complicated and sometimes simpler.”
Progress is relative. Evolving is not a goal, but a means to solving a problem.
[/quote]
With the result being a species better suited to its environment. Evolution cannot occur without reproduction, barriers to reproduction, and competition.
There is very little competition preventing people from reaching reproductive age, and once there, there is nothing preventing people from breeding.
If everyone gets to breed, and all new offspring are allowed to reach breeding age and in turn breed, then there is no competition to make some individuals better equipped for survival than others. Therefore, the superior traits will only pass on in a straight line, and never spread to a greater porportion of the population. If the superior traits, in terms of adaptability, cannot spread, evolution cannot occur.
What does happen is everyone gets to breed, and since the unintelligent tend to reproduce more, the average intelligence of human beings is slowly brought down.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Some of you are morons. ‘Natural selection’ ?
So, if you come down with a genetic disorder, something that was entirely out of your control but hereditary, should science and medicine cease to do research on treatment options for people with your condition because, they should let ‘natural selection’ do the work?
Imagine of doctors thought that way. We’d have no doctors.
What about parents and young children? Let’s not take care of toddlers. if they get hit by a car, that’s natural selection![/quote]
You obviously didn’t read to deep into the posts. I said everybody still deserves a right to life, but society cannot be held responsible for the choices of individuals. This means that by all means those with genetic disorders should be helped, but they shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to reproduce.
As for your sorry toddler example, part of reproducing is protecting your offspring so that they too can reach reproduction age, and in turn continue to pass on your own traits. If a parent is not intelligent enough to take care of there children, then it is in society’s best interest that those children don’t reach breeding age anyways.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Regardless: he forgot to take into consideration that vaccinations and cures themselves are a part of human evolution.[/quote]
No they are not. Vaccinations and cures give everyone the ability to live and reproduce, whether they are fit enough to do it on their own or not. When everyone lives and everyone passes on there traits equally, evolution can no longer occur. If the vaccinations were only given to the creators of the drugs, or even a select few, your argument would be valid.
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.
seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?
[quote]tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Regardless: he forgot to take into consideration that vaccinations and cures themselves are a part of human evolution.
No they are not. Vaccinations and cures give everyone the ability to live and reproduce, whether they are fit enough to do it on their own or not. When everyone lives and everyone passes on there traits equally, evolution can no longer occur. If the vaccinations were only given to the creators of the drugs, or even a select few, your argument would be valid.[/quote]
you better not vaccinate your kids then cause I don’t want you to further allow inferior humans to populate the earth.
unreal
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.
seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?[/quote]
Sky-diving looks like a lot of fun but it’s not worth risking my life over, despite the relative safety of doing it.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.
seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?[/quote]
Dumb example.
I hugged an HIV positive guy a week ago. How is that?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
I’d like to see those of you who say “contracting it is highly unlikely” have sex with an infected partner without protection.
seriously, say this super hot girl was willing to put out yet she tells you she is infected. Are you really saying that it is so unlikely to catch it, that you would knowingly do it unprotected?
Dumb example.
I hugged an HIV positive guy a week ago. How is that?[/quote]
how is that a dumb example. answer the question
Sorry if im being all paranoid here, but i doubt they’ll ever find a cure… not that they can’t, but they wont. There is no money in the cure, it’s money in the treahment. If someone gets a shot and it kills the virus, how much money will they make. Whens HIV patients have to take 20 different pills a day, that means big money. Wish this wasnt the case, but it’s atleast a theory. There arent really alot of cures out there come to think about it.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Regardless: he forgot to take into consideration that vaccinations and cures themselves are a part of human evolution.
No they are not. Vaccinations and cures give everyone the ability to live and reproduce, whether they are fit enough to do it on their own or not. When everyone lives and everyone passes on there traits equally, evolution can no longer occur. If the vaccinations were only given to the creators of the drugs, or even a select few, your argument would be valid.
you better not vaccinate your kids then cause I don’t want you to further allow inferior humans to populate the earth.
unreal[/quote]
Unreal? What’s unreal? You quoted my as saying that vaccinations are not a form of evolution. Do you disagree? How so?
I don’t understand what my children have to do with this particular issue, nor do I know by what reasoning you deem them “inferior”.