Sayonara

You don't see a dichotomy there then? That's not necessarily true, even if sustained, highly specific and mandatory genetic planning were carried out. Social forethought - exactly that. Wolfgang is suggesting that instead of shacking up with the first viable partner that one quite fancies, one should instead think about how the offspring of such a union will benefit the population in which one lives. "The state", and whatever ominous overtones you can manage to attach to that, don't necessarily have to come into it. "Previous shifts in mate selection" refers to changes in the past that have affected the way males and females select their mates, and therefore affected the human population on either a local or wide scale. Which Orwell story are you referring to? It doesn't particularly remind me of any of his works. While I believe that we should learn from history, when used in this way "Hindsight is 20/20" is an extension of the Appeal to Tradition. You may not currently believe that there is a time and a place for eugenics, but there are plenty of possible and existing scenarios that call for it, especially on small scales. Eugenics seems to work perfectly well in livestock husbandry, horticulture, botany, and the dog/cat/horse pedigree lines, and I can't think of many more effective ways to establish foothold populations once we finally start blasting colonists off to unfamiliar habitats. Since when did a lack of proof of a concept working in reality mean that the possibility is not worth discussing? I think that it is, seeing as you appear to have plucked it from thin air. I am sure you have your reasons for stating those points, but they're no good to me if they aren't on the page. Yes, that's true. His post does suggest a (possibly causal) link between poor people and a lack of intelligence, which is by no means a certainty and, to be honest, most likely codswallop. However an argument against Aryanist eugenics is not the same as a discussion of why that link is not supportable. I did not say anything about experimentation, nor about American society. Wolfgang appears to be asking for a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of encouraging socially responsible mating decisions (I realise "socially responsible" is highly subjective, but since we are way off-topic already it isn't really going to present a problem in this context.) Let's take the example of America, I have no problems with that: In what ways do you believe an essentially cultural change in a population of 285 million (bearing in mind that the change will not affect all members of the population, since it is not mandatory) is going to have a major impact on a planetary population of over six billion? Additionally, why should any impact effected through these means be considered in a different way to any other population-mediated change that has affected the course of human development? God knows there have been plenty of them. The form of eugenics you have been discussing, and the result of which you cautioned, are indicative of a complete and mandatory system of genetic guidance. The use of nasty things, as you put it, is directly implied. If you can think of ways to achieve a programmatically modelled genetic pool without them, that would be a very interesting route for this discussion to take. I don't see that I have, and I think the accusation is somewhat premature - particularly since you quoted the crux of my argument above and plainly stated that you did not understand what I meant.

The point is to either answer the question or explain where the problems lie. Don't you see a dichotomy in asking "what's the point of answering this question" after you took the time to reply to it without actually answering? But you don't know that the gene pool will be decreased. Certainly there was no mention of sterilisations, ethnic cleansing, arranged relationships or licensed mating. Nor was any geographical scope suggested. All the o/p is suggesting is that people could be encouraged to use social forethought in their mate selection strategy. How is that different to any other previous shifts in mate selection? That's a tenuous statement, because you can approach virtually anything in the same way. Like anything else, eugenics can only be "non-flawed" when implemented in a certain situation, at the right time, for the right period, under the right circumstances. Sweeping statement ahoy. I don't think anyone would argue with that, but Wolfgang does not appear to be proposing some massive change to the whole species. He is talking about "society", and we have no reason to believe he is not referring merely to the one in which he lives. He gives no indication as to any mandatory requirements or forced breeding programs, nor does he indicate any kind of "genetic ideal" which is supposed to be adhered to. Those are better points of discussion, provided they aren't treated as conclusions awaiting justification, which currently seems to be the case.

Never heard of it, and I can't see how he'd know who could or could not solve a puzzle. Do you have a link to it?

Oh yes, that thing.

That argument is fairly pointless as it works either way. Also, nobody is proposing that a chronically reduced genetic monoculture is a good idea. I think it's 'Ubermensch' (just finished Schindler's Ark ). Genii is not a real word - the pl. is geniuses. You don't know that. In fact, that is pretty contentious as you are suggesting (assuming this follows on from your Aryan comments) that vulnerability to a given pathogen is a racially determined trait. I urge you all to re-read the original post, because constraints were set in there that you are simply ignoring.

Can you source that?

Limits on what?

That doesn't really tell us anything though.

The original post seems to have been carefully worded to avoid the quagmire of ethical debate. This thread is about society acting in the best interests of society, as determined by that society.

Substitute "are" for "can be".

Ah ha ha, I had already deleted my post and now you look crazy.

Given that "giftedness" is utterly random, there's no difference whatsoever between gifted people being eliminated through eugenics, accident, disease or selective pressure.

Just because it's essentially a joke doesn't mean you can reproduce it word-for-word without the owner's permission. Now you don't seem to care about that, but you've seen other people being beasted here for breaking the same rules.

It was more a general comment on that approach than it was a rebuttal against you.

It's not a matter of people being lazy, it's a matter of copyright.

I think you mean different mechanisms - the definition is always the same, otherwise you aren't talking about a wormhole.

You know better than to copy-and-paste news articles - please provide a link to the source and credit the owner. You might also consider that everyone who reads this (and has a brain) will want to corroborate it with the appropriate services.

The problem with getting souls involved is that you end up having to invent rules, such as "when the soul enters a new body" and "why it is a bad thing that a soul gets bumped on to the next place", which is a poor position to argue from.

That's not really exactly what you were told, now is it? This is not the place for such a discussion.

I assume you mean for humans, now?

Your post with the link? That has nothing to do with the fact that the "live creature dated as being 732895687265872 years old" argument usually involves a penguin.

This is coming from someone who wants to fly use-once entangled atoms across the universe.

He's disputing your answer.

Yes, it does.

Because of the highly convincing evidence. It doesn't matter what they are, what matters is that (assuming they are uncatalogued life, which is quite possible) they are only as close to being dinosaurs as sharks are. That particular load of bollocks usually involves a penguin rather than a mollusc.