Eugenics: Selective Breeding

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I agree with you on the need for education and evironmental care. But as I said, your genes limit your potential. No amount of exercise and healthy living is going to fix my bad eyesight.

There is always time during a person's life to change their environment. But there is only one chance to avoid genetic disorders.

Here where the problems arrise as you said there only one chance to avoid genetic disorder. My father died of cancer in 2003 (please no one respond with "I'm sorry" or such unless your holding onto a cure for cancer you don't need offer any emotional sentiments) I was told by his doctor that 30 years of his body trying to battle the buck shot that was floating around in his body had caused the cancer. There is a article where they say our immune systems have the power to cure cancer on their own but that ability is largely effected by our environment.
Fundamental Methodology of Winning the War on Cancer

Buts that not the point; in some ways I'm with Wolfen I think modern culture in the US needs a major over haul. I follow Niezche's philosophical view that competition breeds strength, I also think eugenics has allot to offer us, but our environment is a primary issue. Now when I say environment I mean total environment social environment and physical environment.

I personally feel that eugenics to mean anything we would have to break things down to basics. We are already here and we have our own genetics defects to deal with, however if we remove the harmful effects from our environment that we commonly encounter (certain foods, exposer to certain chemicals, certain actions which effect of gene patterns) because are genes change to deal with our environments. We will reduce the effects of those genes on our off spring. Then of course selective breeding of healthy adults to produce health children would have a greater impact. Why apply eugenics if the factors that erode are genes are still present and will resurface in a matter of generations?

Then from that stand point eugenically breed children should be taught that self-imporvement and materialism are the foundations of society. Thus we don't end up with kids who have natural ability but are too damn lazy to be use to society. The reality is society is a crap shoot and does nothing but serves as a buffer for the individuals who are weak, lazy and stupid (most are weak and stupid because they are lazy). The whole of society leeches off the individuals who rise above the average thus in our society where the average is the desired norm we are breeding social and creative weakness. All this goes back to teaching children to actively seeking improvement, so that any gains from eugenics aren't lost or distorted.

[Wolfen]

Eugenics is defined as a movement devoted to improving the human species through the control (domination) of hereditary (natural selection) factors in mating.

Nature implements its own eugenic controls (via natural selection and evolution, of course) but also population controls in the forms of rabies (primarily for wildlife) and then the myriad diseases, such as AIDS, Influenza, MRSA, and the like.

However, if we let eugenics equal "improving of the human species through control of hereditary factors, or weaknesses and anomalies," then we have to define what we consider to be those "unfavorable hereditary traits." In the real, natural world--LOL--we pretty much don't stand a chance. Even the most physically superior human being now is lacking essential traits for species survival in reality.

This means that our definition of the undesirable traits is subjective, which means that someone has to decide what they are, relative to what society finds useful, attractive, effective.

That means that Hitler practiced eugenics. He was an authoritative leader who eliminated what he defined as an inferior and weak human element so that he could promote a stronger, healthier, and more attractive nation.

Vlad the Impaler did the same thing. He crossed eugenics with economic darwinism, and he tortured and annihilated peasants.

When the Europeans came to the Americas, they eliminated millions of indigenous peoples, then enslaved several races because these other races were considered inferior in religious and intellectual ways, thus making their genetics associatively inferior. (Inter-racial marriage and even sharing air with an inferior race would be intolerable. Oddly, raping them was fine, but the child would be outcast in two worlds.)

In the master-slave concept of oppression, a powerful group (and powerful can be defined in a couple of ways) stereotyps an "inferior" group in order to justify its unfair actions. By establishing a stereotype, it prevents the oppressed group from fighting back. In other words, the powerful group dominates (which is usually accomplished by underhandedness or brute violence out of aberrant and displaced aggression) and then pins the oppressed group. How is this pinning accomplished? Sheer masses must be of an aligned consensus or belief system in order to maintain oppression. It began with the attempt of Catholic crusaders to convert the inhabited world to their own form of religion. When that didn't work, then torture and murder (genocide) was the next form of "cleansing" the planet. This is fact.

The aligned masses swarmed the "new lands" like a plague, and then stereotypes were assessed by prejudicial influences, which equals those with the clout and power who set the standards of society.

Obviously this momentum has carried quite far in American evolution. There are places that exist that firmly maintain this mindset, and familial influences (as well as social identifications) will probably continue to carry it into further generations. Meanwhile, we not only accept, but we cater to, genetic anomalies that actually incapacitate individuals and compromise their health, in missing functional, physiological or bioligical traits. If we have individuals who cannot take care of themselves, they need to be taken care of (a sick irony in a culture that puts its own elderly in facilities instead of returning the personal care to the people that raised them).

Now modern society is wholly influenced by popular presentation. This means that we are persuaded by popular views and fads. This is most effectively accomplished by the media. In fact, we give so much clout to "celebrities" in several forms, whether they are actors or singers or sports, political, or religious figures that we have enforced a tacit following, again as a response to identifying ourselves with these individuals or groups. We pay attention to our peers, our families, and our "idols," and we respond with compliance and identification in order to fit-in or give ourselves relative purpose and place.

Our views are directly influenced and swayed by the presentations in the media. The powerful figures have the positions and means by which they may set trends and memes. Add to this that the typical person in the workforce is negatively affected by the stresses of this role to the point that there are numerous symptoms from lack of sleep to depression, which are offset with even more "band-aids," from self-help classes to drugs to vacations. (Vacation was a concept that did not exist in indigenous cultures, by the way.)

Brainwashing is a form of persuasion that resets a belief system (which is described above) by using a means of torture and discomfort coupled with exposure to the desired information and beliefs.

Hmmmm.

Again, I'm presenting facts; however, only in a nutshell here.

What this means--well, it actually means TONS of things--but what it means regarding eugenics is that our actions are defined by our beliefs, and our beliefs are defined by our influences. If our dominant influences are corrupt or detached from reality, then our beliefs can be altered thusly. That is the paradigm of the master-slave relationship. This system uses, primarily, a passive form.

That means that eugenics (again, quite closely associated with economic darwinism) is determined based upon subjective views. The more we concede to the influences of those figureheads or "heroes," then the more we give power to them. And this goes much further than eugenics, we're also talking about inherent freedom and rights. If we keep complying to corruption, then we get to a point of no return. What if you or your family were to be subjected to oppression, eugenics, or other detrimental impacts? If you wanted to defend yourself against oppressive powers, do you really think you'd have a chance? Could you, or could even thousands fight against the American Military, for example, and stand a chance with the power we've given them, particularly considering the power we've given-up by conforming to the memes?

[CyberWar]

Unfavourable hereditary traits:

a) incurable or difficultly curable genetic diseases that cause chronic physical and/or mental impairment (sickle-cell anemia, fibric cystosis, Down syndrome, haemophilia)

b) genetic anomalies that may lead to development of cancer or other forms of malignant growth

c) genetic anomalies that may result in disfiguration (cleft palate, polydactily)

d) genetic anomalies that may cause aberrant or antisocial behaviour (attention deficiency syndrome, schizophrenia)

Point A is problematic, since some genetic disorders also have beneficial side effects, for example, sickle-cell anemia offers near-immunity to malaria. Discovering and implementing a way to isolate and introduce the desirable genes without parallel malignant genes should be a prime task to modern geneticists. A step further would be the removal of human element in reproduction - mass implementation of IVF, embryonic screening and genetic enchancement, all under state control to avoid overpopulation.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Draven

Here where the problems arrise as you said there only one chance to avoid genetic disorder. My father died of cancer in 2003 (please no one respond with "I'm sorry" or such unless your holding onto a cure for cancer you don't need offer any emotional sentiments) I was told by his doctor that 30 years of his body trying to battle the buck shot that was floating around in his body had caused the cancer.

So your father's death was caused by buckshot. What's your point here? That buckshot is a health hazard? I don't see what this has to do with eugenics.

Originally Posted by Draven

Why apply eugenics if the factors that erode are genes are still present and will resurface in a matter of generations?

It will take many years to restore the environment. Eugenics can be done right now, and offers life-long benefits for the subject. A naturally-bred child will face the same environmental issues as a eugenically selected one, so not applying eugenics doesn't offer any advantage.

Just out of curiosity, what would your Cherokee ancestors have done with someone like me who had bad eyesight? It's hard to imagine that I would impress a woman with my inability to hunt, track, or even recognise my own tribesmen at any distance greater than 30 feet.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

So your father's death was caused by buckshot. What's your point here? That buckshot is a health hazard? I don't see what this has to do with eugenics.

The point was that my father's cancer was caused by the buckshot; the stress on his immune system resulted in his body not being able to fight cancer. Your body have the ability to "cure cancer" within your immune system. Hense the link I left for you, talking about how our immune systems already have the power to destory the cancer cells but our environment effects our immune system actually wearing down said immune system.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

It will take many years to restore the environment. Eugenics can be done right now, and offers life-long benefits for the subject. A naturally-bred child will face the same environmental issues as a eugenically selected one, so not applying eugenics doesn't offer any advantage.

Ah, but thats where you misunderstand me, I'm not saying fix the planet. The earth is in a way its own living organism and is fully capible of fixing itself so long as we act within moderation. I'm specifically talking about our social environment, altering the way we think as a society. For the most part that "lets be lazy attitude" would kill any gains of eugenics because people are utterly worthless otherwise.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Just out of curiosity, what would your Cherokee ancestors have done with someone like me who had bad eyesight? It's hard to imagine that I would impress a woman with my inability to hunt, track, or even recognise my own tribesmen at any distance greater than 30 feet.

Eh hard to say Squall maybe? lol Nah I'm only kidding, actually you'd probably end up farming. We already had things like farming, fishing, domestic animals, pottery and houses (well more like cottages) before the Europeans got here. We even had the first city on the east coast in North Carolina. The Cherokee weren't exactly stone age level "cave men."

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Just out of curiosity, what would your Cherokee ancestors have done with someone like me who had bad eyesight? It's hard to imagine that I would impress a woman with my inability to hunt, track, or even recognise my own tribesmen at any distance greater than 30 feet.

When a bat gets sick, the other bats in the colony take care of it; however, if it takes advantage of the colony after it gets better, then they will kick it out.

In a tribe, your care would have been taken by your family. You would have been a detriment, however, if you could not contribute to the welfare of the tribe. Breeding would be largely discouraged, not in a coercive way, but just in the way that a woman seeking a mate would look for someone worthy of her lineage and carrying on the genetics. Indigenous people were very much for thinking altruistically. So technically, your anomaly would end with you. It had to, or the people would simply die out, unless they developed technological crutches, which would ultimately allow them to become a pandemic cancer.

Just because we can tamper with genetics doesn't mean we should. It is important to look out at the larger picture. Every time humans try to change things in nature, from trying to transplant a species native to California to somewhere in Virginia, or in trying to control "pest" (relatively speaking again) species by introducing non-native "solutions," we always screw things up. We're just not connected enough to the environment, and we keep trying to solve symptoms of our selfishness instead of stopping the selfishness in the first place.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Unfavourable hereditary traits:

a) incurable or difficultly curable genetic diseases that cause chronic physical and/or mental impairment (sickle-cell anemia, fibric cystosis, Down syndrome, haemophilia)

b) genetic anomalies that may lead to development of cancer or other forms of malignant growth

c) genetic anomalies that may result in disfiguration (cleft palate, polydactily)

d) genetic anomalies that may cause aberrant or antisocial behaviour (attention deficiency syndrome, schizophrenia)

Point A is problematic, since some genetic disorders also have beneficial side effects, for example, sickle-cell anemia offers near-immunity to malaria. Discovering and implementing a way to isolate and introduce the desirable genes without parallel malignant genes should be a prime task to modern geneticists. A step further would be the removal of human element in reproduction - mass implementation of IVF, embryonic screening and genetic enchancement, all under state control to avoid overpopulation.

Okay, cool. Now we have a great model from which to begin the process. Let's start eugenics.

We implement the concept to society by alluding to it in commercials and prompting doctors to encourage people to "think of the welfare of the future," meanwhile, we're still at over 6.5 billion people who are killing the planet, but at least now they're going to be physically superior people!

Then, once the brainwashing is employed, we can start implementing the program by actually controlling our citizens. There should be no resistance at all. Abortion and the US Patriot Act have gone swimmingly, so this will be a breeze. Nobody will feel as if their natural rights are being violated at all.

Then we have to consider that since our system is fueled by greed and power, the incentive to employ eugenics is to create a people that can serve the system better, like better parts for newer cars. So they must be bred to be what, more productive and immune to the stresses of work? Better looking in order to boost the entertainment dollar? Faster and stronger in order to be more effective soldiers to dominate other nations?

Oh, and there needs to be something done about those pesky emotions, too, 'cause as a species that still fears mortality, we are still going to be a parasitic cancer on the planet, sucking the life out of it and building tumorous cities and the like.

We're going to have to keep a militant vigil on the existing humans with any anomalies, though, or they could breed with others and really mess-up our effort, costing us millions if not more.

Then we start actually getting the products of our efforts, a virtual little master race in diapers. When these suckers grow up, they are still going to be disconnected from the environment even more than we were, so they'll attempt to dominate it and ruin it, killing themselves off eventually anyway.

In the meantime, though, they could come up with ways to genetically alter specific physiological traits and processes, turning the human body into a cyborg-like creature! Then they could even make some humans like living vegetables only useful as biological batteries to fuel the system so that the dominant cyborgs can live in luxury.

There will probably be no side-effects, psychological or otherwise, because nature doesn't have any way to "fight off" its own infections, which we'll try to bandage once again. And population control will be easy, because it will be based upon economics instead of maintaining a natural balance of biodiversity since nobody really knows what a balanced biodiversity is anymore, and what sense would there be in having balance as long as we can suck from the planet whatever we need?

Ever wonder why all these genetic anomalies like infertility and immune deficiencies, not to mention tendencies toward same-gender preferences have evolved in the first place? Eugenics may even have the potential to work for a short time, but since it is implemented in an artificial environment, something is going to evolve to counter the unnatural application, and it will never stop. It's not like the latent genetic deficiencies listed above were necessarily easy to spot in otherwise "healthy" or "normal" looking parents in the first place, so how do we know which genes to alter until after it's too late, and they present? Does everyone need to be tested and "marked" at birth? Well, there goes the whole violation of natural rights again.

Perceptions of what's "attractive" change with society's memes, as well. In the old days, a larger more voluptuous woman was the rave. Now, the media is throwing skinny, waif-like girls in our faces. Who's going to decide who breeds with whom? Not to mention international travel having a part in the whole thing. If a gigantic Norwegian dude mates with a tiny Korean girl, and she has a twelve-pound kid--she's going to die at childbirth or need technological intervention. So how does eugenics handle that kind of thing? And then where does freedom of choice go? And what happens to the whole intimacy thing? Does sex just become a global pastime with no natural purpose any longer?


My point is: What is the end that justifies the means? How far does it go? If we continue to base our perceived needs upon a fabricated reality, then there is no consistent carpenter's level, and there will never be a realistic, viable equilibrium. There will always be power and greed based upon fears and unnatural circumstances that will be ruled by one class or force, rather than a naturally stable environment or ecosystem.

It cannot work in the long run without a valid grasp of reality. And if we could globally grasp reality, then there would be no need for us to implement our own clinical version of eugenics. Otherwise we're playing "God," and that is not going to go well at all.

[Draven]

The end to the means is simple, my own will... The same way a termite infests a tree and reshaped it to suit its needs or an ant colony, we (and every other animal on the planet) shapes our environment to our will. However, only us and primates are the one's with have thumbs and use tools.

Why would embrace eugenics? Because it gives my children a better chance at survival, but of course I place them in a social environment where they had to struggle to become stronger, I would encourage them to become better, smarter, fitter and better at everything they did. I wouldn't do this for some system based on false social order. I would do it because society is a leech that drains from the gifts of the individual. Every advance of technology, science, philosophy, medicine etc was the result of the individual. Every new-aged-wonna-be-hippy who hugs a tree should be nailed to the damn thing. I hear some much about how the world will end because of human innovations, we can't even kill ourselves profiscently what makes you think we can kill this planet.

Take the Global Warming myths: NCPA - BA #230 - Myths of Global Warming
The 10 Enviromentalist Myths: Ten Environmentalist Myths
Human Population Myths: The Population 'Problem' : Exploding Myths by Laxmi Murthy

***Over-Population Refers to a Government's Ability to Control and "care for" its population.

In fact, it repudiates the approach adopted by numerous countries, including India, after the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994 on the grounds that it is not appropriate for countries like India. The Paper states: "The principles of advocacy, quality of care and right of individual choice may be relevant for developed countries where the population problem is absent and the health care infrastructure is well-established."

Women's groups have also emphasized the fact that policies of 'population control' are targeted at women, who have larger numbers of children for complex reasons that range from immediate survival and necessity, to high infant mortality, lack of access to health services and patriarchal control over reproduction. In the absence of state-supported social welfare, children are the only security in illness and old age, and are viewed as additional working hands and family support, rather than extra consumers who will drain the family resources.

The hysteria about 'population explosion' overtakes concerns of empowering women and provision of adequate nutrition, water supply, sanitation and primary health care. It is well known that birth rates are affected by the means of production (i.e. whether it is a subsistence economy or an industrialized economy), women's status and education, family structures and women's entry into the labor force. States like Kerala are often quoted as having successfully achieved demographic transition, but the Kerala development experience is not emulated. Though it was Indian representatives at the first World Congress on Population in Bucharest in 1975 who popularized the slogan "Development is the best contraceptive", official policy has concentrated almost exclusively on provision of contraceptives.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by Draven

The end to the means is simple, my own will... The same way a termite infests a tree and reshaped it to suit its needs or an ant colony, we (and every other animal on the planet) shapes our environment to our will. However, only us and primates are the one's with have thumbs and use tools.

Your own will has nothing to do with the governmental control over whether you will be "allowed" to have children if your genetics are inferior. Your own will is precluded when you give control to the government that makes laws based upon subjective ideas of justice in a system that does not work for everyone. Your only "free will" is boiled down to whether you want to conform to the masses and support the raping of the planet, or whether you want to go to jail for not conforming to the system you otherwise support.

Once again, you're missing the point of reality. A termite colony or an ant colony utilizes a tree for survival as part of a natural process of biological progression. They play a real part in a cycle of progression as a food source for birds and other mammals and insects, as well as being part of the "breakdown" species that assists in re-integrating trees, for instance, back into the environment for recycling. They do not cause entire species to go extinct, and they actually contribute to the welfare and function of their environment.

Humans, however, are the only species that cause damage, including irreversible damage, such as extinction of entire species--and many, at that. We destroy in order to self-progress, but we do not fit into the natural cycles. We also happen to be the only non-water dwelling animal that defecates in its drinking water as a rule, thumbs or no thumbs.

I've already made these points before, and they are facts. Ignoring them and creating straw-man rebuttals does not change the facts, and it doesn't make for viable debate.

Originally Posted by Draven

Why would embrace eugenics? Because it gives my children a better chance at survival, but of course I place them in a social environment where they had to struggle to become stronger, I would encourage them to become better, smarter, fitter and better at everything they did. I wouldn't do this for some system based on false social order. I would do it because society is a leech that drains from the gifts of the individual. Every advance of technology, science, philosophy, medicine etc was the result of the individual. Every new-aged-wonna-be-hippy who hugs a tree should be nailed to the damn thing. I hear some much about how the world will end because of human innovations, we can't even kill ourselves profiscently what makes you think we can kill this planet.

Not if your children are genetically inferior. And if they are not inferior, then they are competing with equally superior specimens, as well. How does that better their chances? No matter how much you condition them, they are going to exercise their own (limited) free will anyway, just as you've stipulated. And if they don't happen to conform to what society demands, then they will not succeed any more than a genetically inferior person.

Define "false social order." How is human-tampering with nature's laws real? If we create a product of humans with a relative worth based upon what an artificial system needs or wants, then how is that not a false social order?

Society is only a leech that drains from the gifts of the individual if the individual is defined by the parameters of society in the first place. Free will should negate that, but we give too much power to society, so our free will is restricted, and we either contribute to the system as whores and hosts to the leeches we've created and supported, or we don't contribute and face tons of hardship and discrimination by exercising our free will to decide to emancipate ourselves intead of being a brainwashed sheep.

On the one hand, you tout the progression of technology, which supports weak genetics, complacency, materialism, and lack of necessity to be stronger, faster, and whatnot, but then you say you will make your children stonger, faster, etc. than everyone else in spite of technology. I'm confused. What does one have to do with the other?

Your last statement about "tree-huggers" and killing efficiently is rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Draven

Take the Global Warming myths: NCPA - BA #230 - Myths of Global Warming
The 10 Enviromentalist Myths: Ten Environmentalist Myths
Human Population Myths: The Population 'Problem' : Exploding Myths by Laxmi Murthy

***Over-Population Refers to a Government's Ability to Control and "care for" its population.

The global warming thing is futile. As I've said, there is easily as much proving it's real and our fault as there is saying otherwise. I'm not even going there.

The environmentalist "myths" are still basing the concepts of sustainable living in relation to current practices, and it all still resides within the parameters of the fabricated world. It still support creating technologies that we don't need. It still supports materialism. It still supports economics. It still supports overpopulation. It does not in any way leave the "box" of modern society and see things from our true place and purpose in the natural world. Basically, it's a new "book cover" for the cancer that we really are.

And this whole myth about overpopulation being a myth is getting cheesy and cliche. Talk about disinformation, holy crap.

Sure, all people on Earth could technically fit into Texas and have nearly five acres and blah, blah, blah . . .. How about if we go ahead and consider how much arable land we need to use to support over 6.5 billion people, and climbing? What about landfills, sewage treatment plants, roads, stores, parking lots, and all the other crap we have created to take-up space on the planet? Then let's factor in the anthropogenic impact of over 6.5 billiion CO2 contributors that clear-cut land for housing, agriculture, medicine, fuel, and products. Have you ever worked out a simple chain of cause-and-effect based upon anthropogenics?

Here's one: We clear-cut land for houses. We've eliminated established ecosystems right off the bat. Then, after the house is built, the land will start to recover with pioneer species. That means that animals such as deer and mice will take advantage of grasses and shrubs. That means that ticks will flourish because of the increasing deer populations because we've just created an ideal, biased habitat. That means that the ticks nymphs will feed on the mice, who also fourish, and they will contract diseases like Lyme's. That means that we've just perpetuated disease, and since we don't take care of the land the way we're supposed to, it means that the ticks will continue to flourish and spread. It also means that mosquito populations will increase because they overwinter in the detritus that we let accumulate unless we turn our yards into sterile golf-courses, which means the more people we have, the more sterile our planet becomes over time. Or, the alternative is to put down poisons, which creates more issues across the food web.

This isn't even to mention the residual crap that comes from human habitation, whether we all squeeze into Texas or not, including all the oil that seeps into the waters every year from our infrastructures, all the phosphates and other accelerants and toxins that leach into the environment from lawn fertilizers to rodent poisons to laundry detergents to weed killers and so on.

All these "environmental myth" and "population myth" propagandists take a simplistic and completely biased perspective of half truths and disseminate garbage to an ignorant society that doesn't really want to see reality in the first place so quite readily buys the disinformation in order to justify their selfish actions and memes. It's garbage. You go ahead and tell me how the fact that we cause damage to the environment and live in a dream-world and do not contribute beneficially to natural laws and cycles is living in reality and can be justified without being shallow, selfish, and in denial.

The definition of overpopulation from a societal perspective may include how a government does or does not take care of its people. On a global scale of real anthropogenic impact, it is quite a bit more extensive than that, and only displays how the governments are a mockery and only serve to perpetuate our romanticized and idealistic fantasies of subjective self-worth.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by Draven

In fact, it repudiates the approach adopted by numerous countries, including India, after the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994 on the grounds that it is not appropriate for countries like India. The Paper states: "The principles of advocacy, quality of care and right of individual choice may be relevant for developed countries where the population problem is absent and the health care infrastructure is well-established."

Sorry. I don't indulge in political blather. It is irrelevant and doesn't preclude reality. Governmental decisions based upon pretend concepts relative to fabricated systems and laws are convoluted and irrelevant like a snake eating its own tail. Nothing to do with reality.

Originally Posted by Draven

Women's groups have also emphasized the fact that policies of 'population control' are targeted at women, who have larger numbers of children for complex reasons that range from immediate survival and necessity, to high infant mortality, lack of access to health services and patriarchal control over reproduction. In the absence of state-supported social welfare, children are the only security in illness and old age, and are viewed as additional working hands and family support, rather than extra consumers who will drain the family resources.

Great. All the more reason that eugenics won't work. Everyone's going to take it personally, and it will counter what many people apparently consider to be survival tactics in having more children in the first place. The system doesn't work.

The hysteria about 'population explosion' overtakes concerns of empowering women and provision of adequate nutrition, water supply, sanitation and primary health care. It is well known that birth rates are affected by the means of production (i.e. whether it is a subsistence economy or an industrialized economy), women's status and education, family structures and women's entry into the labor force. States like Kerala are often quoted as having successfully achieved demographic transition, but the Kerala development experience is not emulated. Though it was Indian representatives at the first World Congress on Population in Bucharest in 1975 who popularized the slogan "Development is the best contraceptive", official policy has concentrated almost exclusively on provision of contraceptives.

All of this information about birth-rates is irrelevant. You're still speaking as if it has been established that the paradigm of society is concrete, the rule of nature, the stable foundation by which these debates can persist. If I were that easily duped into believing what I'm "supposed" to instead of what's real, then I could see a productive progression. But you're telling me that your store-bought cookies are awesome tasting, and that everyone in your fenced-in pasture agrees, so I should be considering the amount of cookies we all should get, and how they get passed-out as the point in hand, while I'm sitting outside the fence telling you that you don't need the damned cookies at all, and you're so close to being able to hop the fence, but you're giving-in to identifying, conforming, and living-out a self-fulfilling prophecy because that's what they condition us to believe. It's like you're leaning on the fence, but you just can't get over it.

On the other hand, I don't know you at all. I have no way to say one way or the other. What I do know is that your information is wholly subjective within a man-made, unnatural existence, which has no application in reality.

[Wolfen]

Let’s try this approach:

We have to agree that Nature is reality. It is the only thing that bonds all life, all humans, all creatures in the Universe; we are made of it, we live in it, we depend upon it for survival.

Fact: Nature has predetermined cycles of existence. It has ecological systems that function for the progression of life within a system of chaos and order.

Fact: Humans live in a world that defies natural law. It is a world that is created from the dreams and inventions of the human mind. Our society destroys its environment and other entire species in order to serve its artificial existence. We exceed our survival needs and cater to our luxuries and aberrations from the natural cycles.

Fact: One of the driving forces in nature is natural selection, which seeks to maintain the health and adaptability of a species within its natural environment in order to maintain a stable bio-diversity of interconnected elements within a functional system.

Fact: The driving force of the manmade world is money. Money purchases everything from our basic needs to our perceived needs to our desires. In the manmade world, money determines status and worth, thus making some even genetically inferior individuals more deserving of better lifestyles and more luxuries by virtue of their perceived value.

Fact: In society, personal worth is relative. In society we define ourselves by our function in the artificial world made by man’s dreams. We define ourselves by our looks, money, popularity, and our contributions to economic flow and, therefore, technological development.

Fact: We have developed a dependency upon technologies that cause harm and disruption to natural cycles, by virtue of their creation, disposal, function, or all three factors.

Fact: Eugenics is a design of society to make the human species stronger and more efficient and adaptive to its environment according to the principles of natural selection. The concept is to rid the species of aberrations from natural parameters, thereby eliminating weaknesses and undesirable, unhealthy traits from the species.

Fact: The function of society directly opposes natural law, which is an aberration from natural cycles. Therefore, anyone that supports the artificial system of modern culture tacitly supports an aberration from natural law. Thus, supporting eugenics displays a predilection toward supporting an aberration, which further indicates a personal aberration from natural laws and natural order. Supporting eugenics means that one is a hypocrite, thus, one needs to be eugenically eliminated as an aberration from natural order.

This is why eugenics and sustainable living are crap concepts. The artificial world is one gigantic aberration from nature trying to justify eliminating smaller aberrations from nature based upon artificial grounds. If you support eugenics, you become the focus of the eugenic purpose.

Eliminating the genetically anomalous in order to make the species stronger in a system that makes its own environment sick in spite of itself in the first place is a direct contradiction to its purpose.



If you support a system that destroys its own livelihood, then you are one of the aberrations from natural laws, which makes you a detriment that should be eugenically terminated. However, if you call modern society a natural progression and result of human nature, then you must accept that genetic anomalies are also natural presentations within the human world, therefore hold as much worth as any other human.

[CyberWar]

First of all, there is no such thing as "natural" rights, contrary to what some smart-ass utopians try to propose. Every right MUST be consequential to duty - rights should only be provided until the individual is mature enough to earn them.

Consumer society as it is cannot exist for much longer. I am certain that facing a very real danger of extinction, humanity will adopt the necessary changes.

Controlling a population is not a bad thing - the average human is an incredibly stupid creature that is neither able or deserving of governing himself. Some more talented individuals must obviously take the lead.

Neither is becoming a cyborg a bad thing - replacing parts of body with superior machinery will decrease our dependence on the ecosystems, better allowing us to survive adverse conditions that will eventually require such step. After all, life will find a way in any case, as it always has, while our species might not.