[quote]BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21, your logic is incorrect.
EVERYONE could ALWAYS reproduce in the past.
Not true. The less adapted could not feed themselves enough or survive long enough to reproduce.
THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED. FOOD IS NOW MORE PLENTIFUL.
You should reread my posts then your posts.
[/quote]
You sir, are an exmaple of the reasons behind your own argument.
[quote]Fergy wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Simple, the people who reproduced, to produce us, did so by selectively breeding with the strongest.
It was not that they did not allow the other people to reproduce but that they were not alive to do so.
Unless of course you believe we were put here in present form and have not changed…
I think my problem with what you are saying stems from the fact that I am using a different definition of eugenics than you may be. Eugenics is a social philosophy in which human evolution is guided through intervention to produce a more desirable gene pool.
Simple, the people who reproduced, to produce us, did so by selectively breeding with the strongest.
This statement is more akin to natural selection than it is to eugenics.
[/quote]
True but I say people thru history did not breed with just anyone. People would produce offspring with the strongest, the reason being their offspring would have the best chance at survival.
I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two when we are talking say more than 5000 years ago.
[quote]BillO21 wrote:
True but I say people thru history did not breed with just anyone. People would produce offspring with the strongest, the reason being their offspring would have the best chance at survival.
I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two when we are talking say more than 5000 years ago.
[/quote]
Indeed. Voluntarily choosing the strongest mate in order to produce offspring with the greatest chance of survival would be natural selection.
Eugenics came about in the late 1800’s or so. The main point being that it is not natural, but rather is accomplished through forced intervention (i.e. sterilization of those deemed unfit, selective breeding, etc.)
[quote]Spry wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21, your logic is incorrect.
EVERYONE could ALWAYS reproduce in the past.
Not true. The less adapted could not feed themselves enough or survive long enough to reproduce.
THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED. FOOD IS NOW MORE PLENTIFUL.
You should reread my posts then your posts.
You sir, are an exmaple of the reasons behind your own argument.[/quote]
OK I will try one more time.
BillO21 wrote:
This was true 5,000 years ago but the best suited for the environment today are not the ones producing more offspring.
BillO21 wrote:
Not true. The less adapted could not feed themselves enough or survive long enough to reproduce.
Is this not what I was stating, today the best suited is not a factor in how people reproduce?
[quote]Fergy wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
True but I say people thru history did not breed with just anyone. People would produce offspring with the strongest, the reason being their offspring would have the best chance at survival.
I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two when we are talking say more than 5000 years ago.
Indeed. Voluntarily choosing the strongest mate in order to produce offspring with the greatest chance of survival would be natural selection.
Eugenics came about in the late 1800’s or so. The main point being that it is not natural, but rather is accomplished through forced intervention (i.e. sterilization of those deemed unfit, selective breeding, etc.) [/quote]
ahh ok. I was not thinking in terms of forced by humans. I see the line clearer but I would make an argument that they have more similarieties than not.
I know there is a difference when we are talking today but, in history the weak would be left to die. Is there that much of a difference between the two?
I was looking at it more from a history stand point.
[quote]BillO21 wrote:
ahh ok. I was not thinking in terms of forced by humans. I see the line clearer but I would make an argument that they have more similarieties than not.
I know there is a difference when we are talking today but, in history the weak would be left to die. Is there that much of a difference between the two?
[/quote]
Yea, eugenics refers to the self-direction of human evolution; meaning that people who are deemed unfit are not allowed to reproduce. This is the main point at which it differs with natural selection. With eugenics, you have humans acting as the deciding factor for what genes are being passed on, whereas with natural selection, nature (the environment) is what is doing the selection. You need to look at eugenics as a philosophy based upon the principles of evolution and natural selection.
[quote]BillO21 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
You mean you differ with medical science, geneticists, and biologists about what best fit is. It’s not me you’re disagreeing with, it’s all of genetic science.
Um no. Ive spoken with many geneticists and biologists and the general consensus is as I stated, TODAY reproduction does not equal fit.
You’re going to have to come up with another term for the undesirable characteristics of those you don’t wish to be able to breed anymore, but it’s not “fitness”, not in the genetic or biological sense.
you see fitness anywhere on this page? Eugenics Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
I was referring to the point of the thread.
Sure eugenicists used the terms fit and unfit to describe those they like and didn’t like respectively, but that doesn’t mean those terms have any modern scientific value.
Maybe start with a list of traits you want to select for or against. That might be better than mucking about with genetic terminology with already established definitions.
Again I was referring to the point of the thread and parameters outlined.
And one final point: not to Godwin the thread or anything, but the most famous eugenicists in history were the Nazis. Think about that for a while.
Reread my other post. I basically stated the reason this country is successful is because of the diversity of genes from immigration.
oh props to orion (and everyone else) for mentioning jared diamond-eseque theories
read the book. Thought it was excellent. Again reread my posts and tell me where I posted anything contradicting the theories.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it contradicted anything Diamond said, but though he’s an evolutionary biologist, Diamond isn’t a geneticist.
And you need to explain what definition of fit you’re using? because I don’t see how reproduction doesn’t equal fitness… when that is the very definition of genetic fitness.
I’ve read the whole thread and I still have no idea what definition of fitness you’re using. Please explain.
random thoughts on reading the thread:
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
I guess taking children out of their homes and training them for years gives a bit of an advantage? Whowouldathought?[/quote]
Nice, is that a weak excuse I’m reading? Must be. Most olympic athletes start training at a very early age, so that line doesn’t work. China winning the most gold medals this year = a legitimate reason to hear more about Yellow Supremacy. I want to change the dynamics of this stale, boring debate.
Well, America has gotten beaten before by determined nations. Don’t forget that those nasty Nazis in the Berlin '36 games also won more gold, silver, and bronze medals than the USA. The controlled mass media likes to spin that around by depriving you of the facts, but yeah Germany won the most medals that year.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/olympic-trivia/olympic-games-results/berlin1936.html
Man, talk about honkies on a mission!
They had only been in power for about 3 years, so they didn’t have the chance to take little children out of their homes and force them to become olympic athletes. There’s nothing more dishonorable than importing a bunch of congoids on your sports team, out of some illogical notion that they are somehow superior to athletes of your own race. Such disgraceful behavior reeks of political correctness and a serious lack of integrity. Then again, the only events Americans care about in the Olympics are the so-called “Dream Team” jive-ruckus and the 100m dash. They are compelled to cheer for their overhyped thug-heroes because it’s what the mass media incessantly shoves into their minds.
Anyhow, the Chinese, Soviets ('60s-'80s), and Nazis showed that it can be done in the Olympics without such dishonor. 
[quote]Squash85 wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
I guess taking children out of their homes and training them for years gives a bit of an advantage? Whowouldathought?
Nice, is that a weak excuse I’m reading? Must be. Most olympic athletes start training at a very early age, so that line doesn’t work. China winning the most gold medals this year = a legitimate reason to hear more about Yellow Supremacy. I want to change the dynamics of this stale, boring debate.
Well, America has gotten beaten before by determined nations. Don’t forget that those nasty Nazis in the Berlin '36 games also won more gold, silver, and bronze medals than the USA. The controlled mass media likes to spin that around by depriving you of the facts, but yeah Germany won the most medals that year.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/olympic-trivia/olympic-games-results/berlin1936.html
Man, talk about honkies on a mission!
They had only been in power for about 3 years, so they didn’t have the chance to take little children out of their homes and force them to become olympic athletes. There’s nothing more dishonorable than importing a bunch of congoids on your sports team, out of some illogical notion that they are somehow superior to athletes of your own race. Such disgraceful behavior reeks of political correctness and a serious lack of integrity. Then again, the only events Americans care about in the Olympics are the so-called “Dream Team” jive-ruckus and the 100m dash. They are compelled to cheer for their overhyped thug-heroes because it’s what the mass media incessantly shoves into their minds.
Anyhow, the Chinese, Soviets ('60s-'80s), and Nazis showed that it can be done in the Olympics without such dishonor. :)[/quote]
Not to mention East Germany. I think it’s easily the best succeeding country relative to population (if that’s even necessary to adjust) and during the short time it participated. Historically speaking and relative to population, Finland still holds the largest medal tally of all followed by nations such as Norway and Sweden. Of course the olympics started as a bourgeois event for rich nations with competition growing larger bit by bit, so the numbers are a bit misleading in that sense.
So it may be more fair to look at more recent times like the history of the IAAF athletics world championships history. World Athletics Championships - Wikipedia
Now relatively speaking, Jamaica outshines the rest of the competition with a huge medal tally and small population. And that must be because of track event superiority because field events are almost 100% white (which generally escapes a lot of people). More track events relative to field events equals more medals for them. Then there’s also the climate thingy, with other nations dividing powers between winter and summer games/sports and others specializing in summer. It’s fun to intellectually masturbate about.
[quote]Spry wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21, your logic is incorrect.
EVERYONE could ALWAYS reproduce in the past.
Not true. The less adapted could not feed themselves enough or survive long enough to reproduce.
THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED. FOOD IS NOW MORE PLENTIFUL.
[/quote]
THEN WHY IS MY SCHOOL STILL RAISING FUNDS FOR “STARVING” CHILDREN IN AFRICA?
my threads rock.
that is all.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21 wrote:
Spry wrote:
BillO21, your logic is incorrect.
EVERYONE could ALWAYS reproduce in the past.
Not true. The less adapted could not feed themselves enough or survive long enough to reproduce.
THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED. FOOD IS NOW MORE PLENTIFUL.
THEN WHY IS MY SCHOOL STILL RAISING FUNDS FOR “STARVING” CHILDREN IN AFRICA?[/quote]
sup brah? mind giving me a name to go with those titties?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
my threads rock.
that is all.[/quote]
Ye they do bro.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
sup brah? mind giving me a name to go with those titties?
[/quote]
Which? I change my avatar too much, so not sure which your referring to.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
sup brah? mind giving me a name to go with those titties?
Which? I change my avatar too much, so not sure which your referring to.[/quote]
the last one with that hot girl facing the camera.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
People are only considering forced eugenics, rather than voluntary.
The idea of a genius sperm bank may be offensive to many people, but I don’t really care. The potential is enormous.
I don’t believe that governments should actively attempt to stop less intelligent people from breeding, but they also shouldn’t implement policies that disproportionately encourage less intelligent people to have kids.
[/quote]
That’s the problem with the U.S., the PC invasion. We, as a society are so afraid to offend people, but as Gonzo said here,the potential is enormous. I believe the government should implement some restraints on less intelligent people breeding. I don’t mean less intelligent like here-take-this IQ- test intelligent, or based on income or race, but rather lifestyle. If a 35 year old ex-con and a 35 year old unemployed drug addict marry, the government should implement some sort of system to defer them from reproducing until they meet some government given incentives, such as she has to get clean and employed and he has to do X amount of community service before the government permits the couple to have a child.
Now, there are flaws with this.
In all honestly, come up with a solution to these loopholes and this is a great system.
It is interesting that over all whites have been in charge, but it is also misleading to say that whites are racially dominant.
A lot of it is culture. All through the ages, Europe served as a cultural epicenter, absorbing, learning from and propagating pieces of other cultures. The mid-east / north africa did have it’s day though.
Over time, European innovation and progress eclipsed all others, giving Europeans an advantage where they took over lesser developed areas exposed to less over all knowledge. They wrote laws and formed countries that last to this day.
White dominance has more to do with location and experience than it does race.
[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
It is interesting that over all whites have been in charge, but it is also misleading to say that whites are racially dominant.
A lot of it is culture. All through the ages, Europe served as a cultural epicenter, absorbing, learning from and propagating pieces of other cultures. The mid-east / north africa did have it’s day though.
Over time, European innovation and progress eclipsed all others, giving Europeans an advantage where they took over lesser developed areas exposed to less over all knowledge. They wrote laws and formed countries that last to this day.
White dominance has more to do with location and experience than it does race. [/quote]
You cannot base anything on location, as you don’t know how a certain race would have done in a different location.
No, but you can study history and know that certain regions were exposed to more outside influence than others, which led to great levels of practical education which does lead to superior societies.
Race has nothing to do with it.
When Europeans show up to africa or n. america with guns powered by the Chinese invention of gunpowder they had been exposed to, they are bound to trump bows and arrows.
KHAAAAAN!!!