#281

roseweird posted:

natural selection, eugenics, and genetic modification are not easily distinguished from each other, however i think modifying astronauts to have high bone density sounds awful btw



Those are all completely different. What are you having trouble distinguishing.

Good lord this thread is bad. Now I know how y'all must feel when I talk about Marxism

Edited by Squalid ()

#282

Superabound posted:

caprimulgus posted:

even ignoring the fact that this is a fatuous appeal to nature, that definition is actually 0% identical to natural selection, because of the word 'desired' and the agency that implies

lol "agency". please, limiting yourself exclusively to social justice terms, explain exactly how the "promotion of higher reproduction of more desired organisms and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired organisms and traits" is 0% identical to the process of Natural Selection

is the only sticking point here really just the subtle difference between "desired" and "environmentally advantageous"? i mean yeah, youre going to run into significant moral issues with Eugenics if you let what is considered a "desirable trait" be determined by class position and various political factions rather than what actually confers the best survival benefits to the organism/species. But engineering astronauts to have higher natural bone densities is not even nearly the same thing as say, instituting a One Child Policy for all nonwhites



This is a bunch of gobbledy gook and doesn't mean anything. Artificial selection is not natural selection. They are different. Do not equate them. Just say selection. Jesus Christ

#283
[account deactivated]
#284
A fun thing to do is see how nmuch time passes between a rosenweld post and the keven downvote that follows
#285
This is my favorite example of Eugenics, courtesy of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/2/

Fifteen years ago, a strange-looking child suffering from severe physical maladies and acute retardation was brought into the office of Dr. Theodore Tarby.

The pediatric neurologist regularly deals with a wide range of serious childhood diseases as a doctor with the state-funded Children's Rehabilitative Services in Phoenix. Tarby says he quickly realized he was dealing with a very unusual condition that he could not diagnose.

He prepared urine samples and sent them to the University of Colorado Science Center's Dr. Steve Goodman, a professor of pediatrics who runs a laboratory that detects rare genetic diseases.

Goodman soon made a startling discovery: Tarby's young patient was afflicted with an extremely rare disease called fumarase deficiency.
...
Nearly everyone in Colorado City, Arizona, and the adjacent town of Hildale, Utah, was a member of a fundamentalist Mormon sect that practices polygamy and had long encouraged multiple marriages between close relatives.

By the late 1990s, Tarby and his team had discovered fumarase deficiency was occurring in the greatest concentration in the world among the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists of northern Arizona and southern Utah.

Of even greater concern was the fact that the recessive gene that triggers the disease was rapidly spreading to thousands of individuals living in the community because of decades of inbreeding.

Fast-forward to the present: About half of the 8,000 people living in the towns are blood relatives of two of the founding families that settled in the 1930s on the desolate high desert plateau against the base of the Vermillion Cliffs.
...
For more than 70 years, all marriages in the isolated towns have been arranged by the leader of the FLDS, a breakaway sect of the Salt Lake City-based Mormon Church.

Marriages among first and second cousins have been common for decades in the community, where religious doctrine requires men to have at least three wives to gain eternal salvation. Only the FLDS prophet can arrange and perform polygamous marriages, and those marriages are taking place in a community in which almost everybody is related.
...
FLDS marriages, Wyler and other community experts say, are an extension of a breeding program that began with Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith in the 1830s. The early Mormon Church practiced polygamy until 1890, when leaders abandoned the practice as a condition for Utah to gain statehood. The FLDS was formed by Mormons who refused to give up polygamy.

Warren Jeffs, like Joseph Smith before him, has emphasized the importance of obedience among members of the church. Jeffs is following a long-established practice -- started by Smith 170 years ago -- of excommunicating those who do not strictly adhere to church leaders' commands.

"The 'gene' that Warren is really selecting for," Wyler says, "is the 'obedience gene.'

"Joseph Smith was also selecting for the 'obedience gene.' He was kicking people out, too, who weren't obedient.

"I hate to talk like this about my own genealogy," Wyler says, "but, literally, they are keeping all the breeding stock -- the women, the men -- and weeding out the disobedient men."

The ultimate goal of the breeding program, Wyler says, is to create the perfect race.

"Remember how Hitler was trying to breed a perfect race?" he says. "Warren Jeffs is also trying to breed a perfect race."

#286

Squalid posted:

This is a bunch of gobbledy gook and doesn't mean anything. Artificial selection is not natural selection. They are different. Do not equate them. Just say selection. Jesus Christ



"the decisions of living things do not contribute to evolutionary processes" lol ok

#287
#288
human beings Artificially selecting mates instead of allowing Mother Nature to do it for them? what new horror is this?
#289
Darwinian evolution doesn't even apply to humans, and is probably false. See the article "So You Think You're a Darwinian" by David Stove: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/838691/posts
#290

roseweird posted:

but how can we speak neutrally of 'selection' without implicitly invoking the natural/artificial distinction? the categories are held in fundamental opposition—natural selecitoin is non-teleological, objective, and mechanistic, artificial selection is willful, subjective, and ethical, and they are ultimately paradoxical because objective natural selection is comprised of subjective and arbitrary human decisions. i mean, eugenics has been practiced, it is objectively already a natural part of our evolution, like, if you were documenting the natural evolution of humanity you would note their natural use of eugenics, so i don't see how the boundaries can be so clear. anyway i tried to present three variations on selection as a spectrum (from most natural to most artificial) and you told me they had nothing to do with each other, but then proposed a single category, "selection" to encompass all of them, so how can that be? Contradictions Abound on this internet forum for ridiculous humans



a poodle and a retriever are both dogs, but that doesn't make a poodle a retriever. Also I'm not sure what you mean by the natural use of eugenics, do you mean the use of eugenics in the 20th century? Or do you actually mean sexual selection? In general I don't like the use of the phrase "natural," except in a phrase like natural selection which is a well defined piece of technical jargon. Natural has too many connotations and is so imprecise it makes for confusing conversation.

#291

Squalid posted:

"Remember how Hitler was trying to breed a perfect race?" he says. "Warren Jeffs is also trying to breed a perfect race."



Warren Jeffs was breeding slaves. Hitler was breeding slave owners.

#292

Superabound posted:

Squalid posted:

This is a bunch of gobbledy gook and doesn't mean anything. Artificial selection is not natural selection. They are different. Do not equate them. Just say selection. Jesus Christ

"the decisions of living things do not contribute to evolutionary processes" lol ok



??? Who are you even quoting

#293
it was a more of a paraphrase than a quote. the point though is that humans are a part of Nature. Human scientists injecting gene segments into host cells is no less "natural" than a retrovirus doing the exact same thing
#294
humans are unnatural. humans have superseded nature
#295
#296
Ugh, I know I just said this but let's just stop using the word natural for the rest of this conversation. It doesn't help anything. It isn't descriptive, it doesn't elucidate any processes and we all already agree it is used arbitrarily.
#297

Superabound posted:

i mean yeah, youre going to run into significant moral issues with Eugenics if you let what is considered a "desirable trait" be determined by class position and various political factions rather than what actually confers the best survival benefits to the organism/species. But engineering astronauts to have higher natural bone densities is not even nearly the same thing as say, instituting a One Child Policy for all nonwhites



Some might say "desirable traits" will necessarily be determined by class position, like everything else. The history of Eugenics would seem to support such am assertion.

#298
jargon abuse is a good subtle sign that someone doesn't have any idea what they're talking about, but when they start actually trying to unpack and deconstruct jargon that's when it's just embarrassing for everyone involved
#299

slumlord posted:

jargon abuse is a good subtle sign that someone doesn't have any idea what they're talking about, but when they start actually trying to unpack and deconstruct jargon that's when it's just embarrassing for everyone involved



define "titty sprinkles"

#300
If you think artificial selection is natural selection then idk, enjoy your conversations with yourself and others who never took a biology class
#301

Squalid posted:

Some might say "desirable traits" will necessarily be determined by class position, like everything else. The history of Eugenics would seem to support such am assertion.



yes im sure the complete and slanderous political invalidation Eugenics has received in the western media is based entirely on an honest and objective weighing and accounting of its various positive and negative consequences. i mean why else would a soceity indoctrinated by the forces of Capital, which relies entirely on the continued disadvantageous disparity of vast underclasses, find the forced normalization and ensured equality of health and opportunity that Eugenics universally affords so inherently distasteful??

#302
pretty fucked up IMO that the national policies of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party have become so controversial on this forum as of late
#303
whatsit matter the Opinions of posters here; if ruling classes want Eugenics they will have it, & seems to me that they do
#304
big papa pump scott steiner.
#305

elemennop posted:

anytime someone who's not a research scientist says some technology or something is inevitable or bases social decisions on technology that hasn't even been invented, i just throw whatever books on math problems that have been open for hundreds of years i'm carrying at them and yell "THEN YOU INVENT IT"

books are easier to carry when closed

#306

xipe posted:

whatsit matter the Opinions of posters here; if ruling classes want Eugenics they will have it, & seems to me that they do


#307

xipe posted:

whatsit matter the Opinions of posters here; if ruling classes want Eugenics they will have it, & seems to me that they do



Hold onto your hat because im about to blow the top off your mind: the posters here are members of The Ruling Classes

#308
Except for me, I'm just a good old boy from back west.
#309
i support eugenics, but only in the direction of evolving humans to have a single upper and lower tooth ridge, rather than many individual teeth, saving this great nation a ton at the dentist office each year.
#310
I support Eugene, father of Mary
#311


Keven posted:

xipe posted:

whatsit matter the Opinions of posters here; if ruling classes want Eugenics they will have it, & seems to me that they do

Hold onto your hat because im about to blow the top off your mind: the posters here are members of The Ruling Classes



then it'll take more than downvotes to stop em!

are there any sci-fi books or movies on the theme of the rich turning themselves into a super race & abandoning humanity to barbarity?
i'd like to think about this scenario a bit

#312

xipe posted:

are there any sci-fi books or movies on the theme of the rich turning themselves into a super race & abandoning humanity to barbarity?



Capital by Karl Marx

#313
This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but have you tried A Song of Ice and Fire by Jokes from 2008.
#314

Superabound posted:

Squalid posted:

Some might say "desirable traits" will necessarily be determined by class position, like everything else. The history of Eugenics would seem to support such am assertion.

yes im sure the complete and slanderous political invalidation Eugenics has received in the western media is based entirely on an honest and objective weighing and accounting of its various positive and negative consequences. i mean why else would a soceity indoctrinated by the forces of Capital, which relies entirely on the continued disadvantageous disparity of vast underclasses, find the forced normalization and ensured equality of health and opportunity that Eugenics universally affords so inherently distasteful??



I don't understand what you're getting at. Instead maybe you could tell me about the positive consequences of your ideal eugenics plan? Like is making everybody smarter and taller supposed to cure poverty? What is the point. I guess getting rid or genetic illnesses is hard to argue against.

#315
the bone density in this thread is high.... bc youre all bone heads !!!
#316
edit. placeholder.
#317
[account deactivated]
#318
[account deactivated]
#319
[account deactivated]
#320
im gonna get my bs in biology this year, am currently taking a summer course "principles of human genetics", and i dont even know how to begin in this thread lol