destroying the genepool?

[chesters1]

are humans destroying their own future?

i have been watching a very entertaining programe called bondi rescue ,now i cannot fault the dedication of the lifeguards but are they needed?

surely it would be cheaper to put up notices telling people they go on the beach at their own risk and have just one bloke with a fork lift and a skip to do the rounds dumping the foolish that drown into it?

 

now it seems theres a policy of denying nature the completely normal task of survival of the fittest so the genepool is being fiiled with rubbisg genes that really shouldnt be there

 

same with mandatory seat belts use,hard hats on building sites a simple warning on car doors or building sites (if theres space for any more in such places) telling you you doing something risky (perhaps that is wrong as well ? people should realise for themselves what risk is) .

 

now i will never drown on bondi i know "foreign" is risky its where the plaque came from and of course foreigners themselves are dangerous they enjoyed polluting our health and raping our women (we do in return so not so bad ) historically.

 

so what are doing to help? making it worse by wrapping kids in cotton wool so even the risk of risk is risky?

 

are we dumming down life itself ,i heard somewhere if the electric supply failed for a week a huge number would die ,i poo pood the notion but if it was reall would it be that bad?

 

perhaps this black gold we use in everything is making humans soft? dont think i'm against the stuff but i know for sure i can get round using it if really really pressed ,when its gone and man finds towns and cities uninhabitable will those fleeing to the country have an inkling how to live in it? ,luckily this bloke from deptford can but i think the chap with the forklift and skip may need an awful lot of co-workers

 

america and most of the rest of the world maybe fine but i think in our modern "civilised" society were on the downward slope of a very slippery mountain ,most of the population is denied hand guns and more powerful "hunting" weapons beyond most people scope today.

 

we can then go onto health care but thats another post

 

millions of £ are being spent on schemes telling people what unsafe is! should we?

Edited December 8, 2012 by chesters1

[Ken L]

Not so much "destroying the genepool" as adding a little Chlorine.

 

The properly stupid still can and do destroy themselves on a regular basis. Australians go swimming in croc infested waterholes, British tourist leap from balconies in Spain and the thousands of fools who walk in front of cars worldwide manage to remove themselves from the gene pool every year.

 

Going a bit further.... Eugenics is quite an interesting subject but one that is forever tainted by antics of a certain Mr Hitler.

In some ways, it's very much back on the agenda with genetic screening for hereditary disease fast becoming the norm in the developed world.

It can go much further without falling into the Nazi trap (Godwin's Law alert) with a little social engineering but any such suggestion tends to set off peoples emotional hair triggers.

If someone were to for instance suggest the abolition of child benefit and the redistribution of that money as tax breaks and flat rate increases in benefits that are not dependent on the number of children someone has, would that be:

 

"Encouraging people to seek work by increasing the proportion of their wages that they take home whilst simultaneously removing the incentive to have a large family that they can't support through work" - and removing a lot of pointless bureaucracy in the bargain.

 

or would it be

 

"Preventing the poor from breeding through starvation tactics" ?

[corydoras]

There are so many wrong things about this that I don't know where to start, but I'll take a stab with your total misunderstanding of the term "survival of the fittest" in evolutionary terms. It has got nothing to do with physical fitness. It is about the survival of the species that is the best fit for it's environment.

[corydoras]

Not so much "destroying the genepool" as adding a little Chlorine.

 

The properly stupid still can and do destroy themselves on a regular basis. Australians go swimming in croc infested waterholes, British tourist leap from balconies in Spain and the thousands of fools who walk in front of cars worldwide manage to remove themselves from the gene pool every year.

 

Going a bit further.... Eugenics is quite an interesting subject but one that is forever tainted by antics of a certain Mr Hitler.

In some ways, it's very much back on the agenda with genetic screening for hereditary disease fast becoming the norm in the developed world.

It can go much further without falling into the Nazi trap (Godwin's Law alert) with a little social engineering but any such suggestion tends to set off peoples emotional hair triggers.

If someone were to for instance suggest the abolition of child benefit and the redistribution of that money as tax breaks and flat rate increases in benefits that are not dependent on the number of children someone has, would that be:

 

"Encouraging people to seek work by increasing the proportion of their wages that they take home whilst simultaneously removing the incentive to have a large family that they can't support through work" - and removing a lot of pointless bureaucracy in the bargain.

 

or would it be

 

"Preventing the poor from breeding through starvation tactics" ?

The problem is that those who support or supported eugenics, like Mr Hitler, do not understand evolution or genetics. Such policies would result in watering down the gene pool by making it less diverse. The more genetically diverse a species is the more likely it is to survive in the long term.

[Andrew]

The problem is that those who support or supported eugenics, like Mr Hitler, do not understand evolution or genetics. Such policies would result in watering down the gene pool by making it less diverse. The more genetically diverse a species is the more likely it is to survive in the long term.

 

Oh i'm sure Mr Hitler and his doctors thought they was right.

Whats your take on human embryo genetic experimentation, the likes of getting rid of certain " bad genes ", selection of gender, hair colour, eye colour etc

Edited December 8, 2012 by Andrew

[Ken L]

The problem is that those who support or supported eugenics, like Mr Hitler, do not understand evolution or genetics. Such policies would result in watering down the gene pool by making it less diverse. The more genetically diverse a species is the more likely it is to survive in the long term.

 

Yes, but in the short term at least*, we are in the rather unique evolutionary position of being able to control the environment in which our genes propagate.

As a society, do we want to provide an environment where those who are perhaps genetically predisposed to laziness, low IQ or criminality have more reproductive success than those who are prepared to work for a living, are brighter and more inclined to social responsibility ?

 

*We can only create a benevolent society for so long because in a global economy, it has to be funded and at some point, the money runs out and it's back to every man for himself.

[chesters1]

There are so many wrong things about this that I don't know where to start, but I'll take a stab with your total misunderstanding of the term "survival of the fittest" in evolutionary terms. It has got nothing to do with physical fitness. It is about the survival of the species that is the best fit for it's environment.

My post had nothing to with fitness that was hinted at in the other unmentioned line ,fittest has as you say nothing to do with fitness but the act of surviving or having the instinct to survive in the conditions you live in, if you drown then nature has decided your times up. The act of knowing you may drown and avoiding the action is far better for the gene pool than being saved by a lifeguard and passing this flaw to further generations ,ofcourse learning to swim helps but is not flawless.

Eugenics isnt a bad thing everyone hopes their children are better fitted for survival but at the moment man is not helping man by saving the dead from death

Its not just saving us are we harming africans who should starve because they cannot or cannot be bothered to feed themselves from natural starvation?

If only those that could survive by their own volition survived their lives would be better not competing with those who cannot

Edited December 8, 2012 by chesters1

[corydoras]

genetically predisposed to laziness, low IQ or criminality

Suggestions that anyone is genetically "predisposed to laziness, low IQ or crimiminality" are psuedo science. This is social Darwinism, Something that Mr Darwin cautioned about in the Origin of the Species.

[Phone]

Cory,

 

I'm with you on this one. Far to deep. If 'science' is right, survival depends on genetic adaptability to change. I'll lay it off on zinc deprivation and sexual excess since that's what my wife told me last night.

 

Phone

[corydoras]

My post had nothing to with fitness that was hinted at in the other unmentioned line ,fittest has as you say nothing to do with fitness but the act of surviving or having the instinct to survive in the conditions you live in, if you drown then nature has decided your times up. The act of knowing you may drown and avoiding the action is far better for the gene pool than being saved by a lifeguard and passing this flaw to further generations ,ofcourse learning to swim helps but is not flawless.

Well there we agree. then. I will never need the services of a lifeguard, nor is it likely that I will ever be eaten my a shark because I don not ever intend to enter the sharks environment on a voluntary basis. So yes if you meant "if you get your legs bitten off by a shark, don't come running to me" then I'll buy that one. Edited December 8, 2012 by corydoras