PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th Feb 2017, 20:12   #41 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 257
One could say that the feeble minded and degenerates are being encouraged to breed whilst the more intelligent are penalised.

The burden on society caused by this is measurable. Welfare and medical costs are the largest impost on governments' outlays.

Seven billion humans on the planet and growing exponentially, it is no longer a question of survival of the fittest.

Millions are spent on ensuring even the most unviable child survives to breeding age, third world nations are supported to keep breeding in their millions to suck even more of the limited resources of the planet.
Eddie Dean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 20:46   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 75
In a scenario where there is no food for 2 months. Fat people are king !

Also human population will peak at about 2050-2070. Then collapse.
Look at Japan or Germany. It's already started. The next century's problem will be too few people. Not too many
SARF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 20:55   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 206
Quote:
degenerates are being encouraged to breed
Pray tell us:

What is your definition of 'generates'?

And please tell us what you would have us do with 'de-generates'?
Cazalet33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 21:13   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 2,295
Ye gods, It didn;t take long did it?

A nut case gets his finger on the trigger and all of a sudden eugenics is a topic worthy of discussion.

1. For it to work eugenics would have to be practised for thousands of generations. Good luck with that.
2. Survival of the fittest is nothing to do with physical prowess. Life survives and reproduces only if it fits it's surroundings.
3. Just because you have a laptop and can type a few words doesn't make you (or me) fit for purpose. When all the lights go out we will see how well eugenics works.
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 21:36   #45 (permalink)
jtt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 16
The levels of both stupidity and meanness shown by a number of "contributors" to this thread are simply mind-boggling. They have no idea what they're talking about but consider their ignorant believes to be a sound base for killing other people (but that never applies to them, of course)!

Just a few facts. The term "fitness" in "survival of the fittest" (a phrase avoided by modern biologists) has nothing to do with the word "fitness" as used in common-day language. "Fitness" in this sense means nothing but the mere fact that a species did not go extinct. So you don't survive because you're "fit" but you can be considered to be "fit" (for the current environmental conditions) if you don't go extinct. If e.g. some new disease would kill everyone with an IQ above 80 those that remain are, per definition, the "fittest". So would be obese people if the disease would instead wipe out everyone not genetically disposed for building up large deposits of fat in his body.

For those still not able to grasp what natural selection actualy is: it's not a process with a purpose that aims for some thing. It's a bloody game of trying random new combinations. Some of the results have, under certain environmental conditions, a better chance to reproduce, and thus stick around for a bit longer. That's all there is about "fitness". But there's no "plan" of natural selection to produce some kind of "super-fit" species. And the more the gene pool of a species is depleted the more likely it is that it won't be able to adjust to environmental changes (e.g. new diseases) and thus goes extinct. So killing parts of the population to "help out" natural selection is a pretty stupid idea - it might just help it to get us.

Contrary to what some people here claim IQ scores (and that's all what defines intelligence, there's no other agreed upon definition) have risen continuously and consistently ever since standardized IQ tests have been introduced about 1930 (look up "Flynn effect"). So there's not even the remotest merrit to claims that the average intelligence would have dropped due to missing natural selection. This additionally would require that selection favours intelligence per se, for which I never have seen any arguments (already since natural selecton doesn't favour anything, and especially not a single trait for something that can only be defined by how it's measured). But intelligence may indeed have given us a chance to avoid some of the bloodier edges of natural selection.

It's also highly dubious that intelligence is purely determined by genetics. How much it is continues to be the subject of research and the jury is still out. Tentative consenus seems to be that there are some genetic contributions, but genetics is definitely not the only factor (e.g. it's clear that malnutrition at a young age, i.e. while the brain is still developing rapidly, is highly detrimental to later measured IQ, without impacting the offsprings of the person that suffered from those conditions).

A claim that obesity would be linked to low intelligence is simply idiotic. As another poster already pointed out under certain environmental conditions a genetic disposition for obesity could very well be a "fitness" trait. Beside, of course, that there's no clear and simple genetic reason for being obese - current research seems to have found strong hints that the bacterial flora of the intestines has a major impact (i.e. not the DNA of the obese person but of what lives in his guts is to be blaimed). And then, if you're obese, you have to be damned fit to even climb the stairs...

That's only the beginning of an argument, of course, but all these facts are easy to find. But certain people are all for killing whole groups of humans without even bothering to learn the most basic things about what they base their ridicuious claims on, it' so much more convenient to make things up (and you don't need much intelligence for that). They should be very ashamed of themselves - but perhaps that's not in their genes?

Last edited by jtt; 5th Feb 2017 at 22:45. Reason: Fixinig typos
jtt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 22:13   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 69
Posts: 1,232
This suggest some interesting questions. I have Type 2 diabetes. The endocrinologist says that I got it early because I am overweight but he has no doubt whatsoever that I would get it eventually, as all the males in my family as afar back as we can trace had it. So I made a conscious choice not to have children.

Now because of that mrs radeng and I had, in my case, and still have in hers, very good jobs giving a family income way above the average and thus a tax bill that is also way above average. At the same time, having no children, there has been no demand on the State to educate them, thus saving a lot of the State's cash. This suggests that in all probability, I have more than paid for the cost of my illness.

Now, did keeping me alive contribute to the overall good of society as whole?? I had 16 patents during my working career; these related to diverse things and a number in the medical field - as well as some useful work on WLANs, TCAS and electronic warfare. You could argue that doing systems engineering on implanted medical devices was a waste of time because eugenics can be considered to suggest that people needing pacemakers or having digestive problems best investigated with capsule endoscopes would be a lesser drain if dead. On that basis, we shouldn't bother with a medical profession at all........

Where I am very dubious is that I am convinced that we are heading for an overpopulation disaster unless there is almost universal birth control introduced: the probability is that those who starve to death may well be those who have too many children.....

Still, as the financial advisor got me an 8% return on an annuity, the probability is that I won't be around too long any way.

But as for breeding for particular traits. Interesting what happens with pure dogs, yet pure bred Burmese cats have very long lives compared with most cats. My last one had to be put down at 18 with cancer, which is young: most pure bred Burmese reach the age of 20 or 21 and the vet had one on his books who was just over 22, and I don't know when it died - I presume it has or it would be well over 35 now. My two 16 year old ones still act quite often as if they're 16 week old kittens...

they could well outlast me.......
radeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 22:25   #47 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 257
When Europeans first settled Tasmania they found the natives had lost the use of boomarang and othe utensils that the mainland aboriginals still used. In fact they had to carry fire as they didn't have the technology.

From middens they found that this was a recent phenomenon and appeared to coincide with them stopping using shell food.

Supposition is that shell food had poisoned the older and very young.

Yet they were still surviving.
Eddie Dean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 22:34   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,044
If a minority group of people create a clique in which they have the bulk of the wealth and/or resources and prevent the masses from being able to join that clique, then a subsequent revolt against the clique is also part of natural selection at work. In addition to physical and mental superiority, attributes such as compassion may also necessary to ensure continued survival of a particular bloodline.

To discount anything that has happened in history as 'not part of natural selection' is being selective with the facts. Whatever happened, right or wrong, happened as the result of prior events and however high the collateral loss of life, it was part of natural selection at work.
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Feb 2017, 23:38   #49 (permalink)
jtt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 16
Quote:
One could say that the feeble minded and degenerates are being encouraged to breed whilst the more intelligent are penalised.
"One" could say everything. "One" could say, for example, that you're a complete moron. So man up and say what you think and don't make it some "one".

First, who are those "feeble mindend and degenerates"? How do you classify someone as "feeble minded and degenerate"?

Second, in what way are they incouraged to breed? And how are "the more intelligent" penalised? All you do is making claims without the slightest hint of any supporting evidence. But this here isn't the pub where you talk to some pals that don't mind you anyway since they're as drunk as you are.

Quote:
The burden on society caused by this is measurable. Welfare and medical costs are the largest impost on governments' outlays.
You've got all that numbers to support your claims hidden somewhere, haven't you? Why not share them with us? And what about the possibility that some influential groups game the system to get the most out of it?

Quote:
Seven billion humans on the planet and growing exponentially, it is no longer a question of survival of the fittest.
Whatever this is supposed to mean. Remember, this is not your pub where everyone knows you as the village idiot and, all being nice guys, they let you blather until you fall from your chair and sleep it out on the floor.

Quote:
Millions are spent on ensuring even the most unviable child survives to breeding age, third world nations are supported to keep breeding in their millions to suck even more of the limited resources of the planet.
You really leave no room for doubt about what you are. "Most unviable child" would be enough - or tell us what this is supposed to mean. And when it comes to "sucking even more of the limited resources" it's clear that you, as you're obviously living in a first world country, "suck" at least a hundred times more of those resources than the overwhelming majority of those living in third world countries. Without understanding what you're doing, you've just made a perfect case for them to get rid of you since it's you that gobbles up an insane amount of the available resources. Congratulations!
jtt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 00:05   #50 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtt View Post
"One" could say everything. "One" could say, for example, that you're a complete moron. So man up and say what you think and don't make it some "one".

First, who are those "feeble mindend and degenerates"? How do you classify someone as "feeble minded and degenerate"?

Second, in what way are they incouraged to breed? And how are "the more intelligent" penalised? All you do is making claims without the slightest hint of any supporting evidence. But this here isn't the pub where you talk to some pals that don't mind you anyway since they're as drunk as you are.



You've got all that numbers to support your claims hidden somewhere, haven't you? Why not share them with us? And what about the possibility that some influential groups game the system to get the most out of it?



Whatever this is supposed to mean. Remember, this is not your pub where everyone knows you as the village idiot and, all being nice guys, they let you blather until you fall from your chair and sleep it out on the floor.



You really leave no room for doubt about what you are. "Most unviable child" would be enough - or tell us what this is supposed to mean. And when it comes to "sucking even more of the limited resources" it's clear that you, as you're obviously living in a first world country, "suck" at least a hundred times more of those resources than the overwhelming majority of those living in third world countries. Without understanding what you're doing, you've just made a perfect case for them to get rid of you since it's you that gobbles up an insane amount of the available resources. Congratulations!
To continue the pub analogy, you sir are a mouth looking for a smacking
Eddie Dean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 06:35   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 401
Quote:
It seems more reasonable to suppose that we are part of "nature" and that we are governed by the laws of nature, and that anything we "choose" to do is not "overriding" natural selection but is simply a part of the natural selection mechanism.
Gertrude - most sensible post on here and exactly what I was about to write.

We are part of nature unless you assume an arrogance beyond comprehension.

Who's applying for the job "World Controller for Western Europe" ?
ExRAFRadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 07:03   #52 (permalink)
Drain Bamaged
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
To continue the pub analogy, you sir are a mouth looking for a smacking
Eddie seems "unfit" to accept "reality"
ehwatezedoing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 07:09   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 65
Posts: 801
Was Dolly the sheep an experiment in ewe-genics?
sitigeltfel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 08:24   #54 (permalink)
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 695
I suggest folks look up the opening few minutes of the movie Idiocracy, which take a humorous look at the differences in reproductive rates between social classes ... and the rest of the movie is about one possible future arising from that. It's from the guy behind Beavis & Butthead, which gives you some idea of the level of humour, and that's before we meet President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho ...


Last edited by bnt; 7th Feb 2017 at 19:09. Reason: added clip
bnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 09:36   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 2,295
jtt.

Excellent post.

Shame it will fall on deaf ears as it won't fit their world view.
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 12:34   #56 (permalink)
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 695
Yes, we're all part of nature, but that's not necessarily a good thing. A purely natural boom and bust in populations can be tracked using applied calculus - a couple of differential equations known at the Lotke-Volterra equations. The solutions to those equations show the population of a prey species (say, rabbits) increasing when times are good, which provides more food for a predator species (say, foxes). So the predator population expands, meaning more predation, causing a decline in the prey population, which in turn leads to a decline in the predator population.

What does this have to do with the question? Well, we're supposed to be better than animals, and don't have to experience the same population boom and bust, do we? Darwin was quite clear on this point: he was describing nature, not suggesting that as a model for humanity, which is better. So, the questions I keep coming back to are along the lines of: what is it that makes us better? How far away from animals are we, and can we say that everyone is equally far away?
bnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 13:33   #57 (permalink)
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 71
Posts: 233
Quote:
The solutions to those equations show the population of a prey species (say, rabbits) increasing when times are good, which provides more food for a predator species (say, foxes). So the predator population expands, meaning more predation, causing a decline in the prey population, which in turn leads to a decline in the predator population.
Now try replacing "prey" with "taxpayers" and "predator" with "benefits receivers" and you might get an idea what's coming next.
UniFoxOs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 13:47   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 60
Posts: 414
Seems that our earliest ancestor didn't have an anus, but a whole load of ar$ehole$ have evolved since then! Just because we, as humans, uniquely have the ability to contemplate eugenics it doesn't mean that it is a good idea. Selective breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals is one thing. Applying the same principles to ourselves is effectively relegating all of humanity to being no better than animals. Our ability to think, rationalise, philosophise, show compassion and communicate make us far better than that. Do the lessons of history mean nothing?

Those who are wealthy enough to own computers and who can afford the time to post to forums on the Internet on subjects like eugenics are in the minority in this world. They are outliers, departures from the norm. They are the prime candidates to be eliminated as being abnormal. You might want to consider that along with selective breeding programs.
G0ULI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 14:56   #59 (permalink)

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Maybe Darwinism is at work, perhaps the glut of obese people with low IQ dying young is just another one of natures dead ends.
But it doesn't matter if they die young [whatever that means] so long as they have already passed on their genes.

And the "underclass" [whatever THAT means] do so much earlier and more prolifically.... ISTR a recent-ish UK statistic, that more mothers had children in teens or 30s, rather than 20s.

Senior daughter [probably correctly] opined that this too was a class/income/IQ cause at work........ she didn't pass on her [and my!] genes until she was 36.

And in our village - on the other side of the tracks - there is a GREAT grandmother who is just turned 50........
teeteringhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2017, 15:06   #60 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 72
Posts: 1,741
When I was an infant, my mother was an 'older' mother among my schoolfriends.
She was 33 when I was born - and the post-war baby boom didn't start for a couple of years after I was born.

I confess that I was almost certainly a 'mistake' - with siblings born in 1935 and 1937 when my mother was 24 and 26.

My father served in the Fire Brigade, so was at home throughout the War (although my mother and siblings were evacuated away from the dangerous Tyneside docks into the Durham coalfield where her parents lived).

My point is that women were having their babies in their 20s (no doubt encouraged by the War threatening their existence).
G-CPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:59.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1