EUGENICS R GOOD: TRUE or FALSE ??

Rememb er, that unless youre talking about "cloning" your desire for a specific genetic outcome is based upon "fixing" the genome to provide that positive outcome as a high possibility. THEN, its still a 25% shot at getting that outcome because youre still gonna have sex involved .AGAIN, unless you are talking clonefest here.

We will be able to do something about Sickling, Tay sachs, Maple "Syrup " methoglobinurea, if we remove the traits from a high possible rate of expression (well not ever remove it, too many bazillions of sites). SO that means that we will be "designing babies" based upon genetic testing of the parents. When you get down to it Dave, preselection of the parents is part of the routine also.(Nazis and Chinese tried that).
The reduced expression of a lethal trait will be a long time job security ofr the Pharma industry when they get their genomics gears in mesh.

It wasn't a scientific observation. As I said- I was wondering. I asked for your advice.

Does she favour birth control by artificial means for single teenagers as well as married couples, abortion, sex education, liberal divorce laws and homosexual couplings either transient or institutionalised? If she does, as I expect, then her position on these matters is both predictable and set fast and, as I showed, circular.

Has she a position on eugenics? It would be a gross abuse of the public platform to only reveal favouring eugenics after she has come to power.

Does she favour scientific research in the psychosomatic realm the very thought of which self-evidently causes anti-IDer's butts to clench tightly.

I have serious reticence about parables as lame as the one above.

Coming from one who praises substance and rationality..

You must be new to the experience of effemm Francois. He only praises substance and rationality. He actually has no interest in either. He thinks the mere praising of those concepts, and a few others, critical thinking say, is sufficient to persuade us of his orthodoxy.

They are just buzz words to be dropped in conversation to create a certain false impression in those who are not too gifted in the intellect department.

I was speaking of spendi , You are merely the vessel of the query.
ARe you a bit touchy this fine afternoon?

FRANCIS, who obviously has misunderstood my post re: spendi should really see the entire clip that he appended



Let us analyze this.
Spendi, (herein called the SUBJECT)
being an approval whore

will agree (the verb)

with anyone (I e you, or anyone herein unammed who gives spendi back pats)

who, like Mowgli (agreeably lame but not any less lame than youknowwhose)

inflates the mighty Pythons ego ( reference ; spendi)

As far as inflating spendis ego, we all do it inadvertantly because he clinically needs to be the center of attention and hes precious that way.
If you feel that I was maligning you, sorry. , but I dont know how you get that view. My actual post (in toto) refutes such a claim..

Yes, especially when labeled mere vessel..

You should be aware that I hold boats in the highest esteem. Remember that 'THE vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true"

Point taken.

However, your grammatical analysis doesn't fit my own views.

Obviously, I'm no English language expert...

I read it this way:



I have sycophants in high contempt..

How come I'm labelled an approval whore when I get lambasted from pillar to post on a daily basis. And whores get paid cash too.

So be warned folks. If you disagree with effemm you will be similarly labelled because by so labelling you he thinks he has pulled an intellectually clinching argument from out of his hat wherein resides many others of a similarly stupid nature.

I'm joint top of the NFL game after 8 weeks and he labelled me a sock picker on a lucky streak.

If anyone makes a consistent argument against effemm they will be declared, just like this, to be clinically needing to be the center of attention and precious that way but his argument and others agreeing with him will not be.

If that's not Stalinism I'm a debutante. He's assertion mad.

PS- Some more scientists have resigned from their positions advising the government here in the politics v science row. And more are threatening.

I have discovered that Dr Scott is a foundation member of the NCSE.

Your reading of my comment is, I have guessed a shortcoming of attempted communication by typewriter rather than speech. While youre analysis of my statement is , technically, correct, you must consider that a complement to spendi, of which he will preen himself over, can be both direct or inadvertent and theres your difference in my tone.I never accused you in any fashion of sycophancy. That is something that youve deduced for yourself. In fact, I never intended any of the kind.

Im gonna have to be way more carefule with you , blatham, and set when I speak. You guys seem to read negative motivations in others speech.

Only when we are touchy..

Then quit it.

The only evidence you have for such a desperate and ridiculous remark is that you preen yourself on receiving a compliment. It never entered my head that Francis had complimented me. He simply told it how he sees it. He knows I don't need compliments.

To get back to the topic--of course eugenics are good. Eugenics are practiced naturally in the animal world by the female selection of mates and the elimination of rivals in fights and displays. The powerhouse of evolution in the higher organisms. In the human world it results in males busting a gut to impress females. Eugenics are also practiced in the class system by mothers husband finding for their daughters. Sportsfields, dancehalls, pubs and gigs and suchlike are hotbeds of eugenics to those with highly tuned scientific observational powers which can go beyond reading numbers off instruments.

It is the mechanical practice of eugenics by cause and effect merchants which we are leery about. Such merchants have a tendency to arrange comforts for themselves usually because they have failed in the ordinary settings. And dependent on assertions.

Which eugenics are under discussion?

[/b][/size] U make it sound as if I were negligently remiss for failure to remember
whatever it is that u have in mind about that movie, from 30 or 40 years ago.

I did not take it seriously.

I vaguely remember Slim Pickens riding a nuke down,
waving his hat, going down toward Russia,
if that 's the same movie.





David

I suppose that's one way to waste your time and money.

I think the end result of eugenics on a mass scale would be constant war. First, humans would differentiate. Some people would choose to make their children stronger, faster, more aggressive, etc. You could see a military caste forming as these children continue to value these traits in their children and raise them in a military tradition. Just like you have families today with several generations of military tradition, you would have the same, but with genetic reinforcement. I could also see a political caste forming where emphasis is placed on appearance, communication skills, etc. Political dynasties could now be reinforced not just with money and aggregation of power, but with genetics as well. Then you have the technocrats, the artists and those who don't have the resources to do any of this. These opposing groups will be absolutely convinced that their approach is the best and that they are best suited to rule the others since that opinion has been reinforced by both genetics and upbringing. If they sufficiently differentiate, they probably won't even have enough in common with the other groups to form reasonable accomodations on little things, much less big ones.

Imagine should the "bell shaped curve" of the very brightest begin to deny status to the "IQ's under 140.

With gene manipulation, the issue of disease elimanation may move forward but there will be secondary prices to pay sort of like taking steroids. You heard it here first.

There won't be disease elimination because the process envisaged will cause disease. Things you haven't heard of yet.

Then you agree with me. Thank you.
PS howd your week go with the sock pool? Still a game or two neh?