lol. Ok. Your right about that ^_^ Not really relevent to the point though Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Let me guess, blond hair and blue eyes? lol Who are you to decide which traits are beneficial to the gene pool or not? We're not at a point where we've identified every gene and their expression, so you're going to base the survival of our species on your fallacious superficial assumptions about who you find attractive or unattractive? Since when does everyone you don't find attractive have a bad life and everyone you find attractive have a good life? That sounds like a rash generalization to me that wouldn't hold up if tested. You hold the same pseudoscientific assumptions that make eugenics irrational. You can't base success or survivability on subjective traits. The only truly objective way of ensuring success and survival is to allow reality to test it. Natural selection will weed out those who aren't able to succeed. You may want to speed up the process, but you'd just end up fucking everything up if you tried, especially if you base everything on attractiveness. lol
Im not saying let only the pretty people breed im saying that attractiveness is usually an indicator of good genes and we should find the healthiest individuals and promote them having kids think about it, you have 2 obese people, with high risk of heart disease, not very useful in laboring activities, are the target of insults for their weight, and if they have a kid they are going to be pretty much the same now without the pressure of natural selection on us anymore the weak and sick have been able to breed and pass on their flawed genes, so instead of a mostly fit herd that most animals have because the weak dont pass on their genes, we have a mass of people with diseases and undesirable traits passing on to the next generation i know i sound cruel but what is worse, having a strong and healthy human race that has the means to support itself at the cost of people not being parents, or an overpopulated planet where everyone is clambering to get food and water and we have deaths of the millions each day because of starvation and war over resources Not just that but if you think about the individuals, in these 2 different scenarios 1 is more likely to live in an area with plenty of room, access to enough food and water and will be able to do physical tasks better since they are more healthy the 2nd individual would be going to bed hungry every night in a little shack because there is not enough food or space to go around, not to mention the human race would slow down its advancement a hell of alot when we spend whats rest of resources trying to feed the 50 billion of these poor people until the earth just turns into something resembling a city dump
The people deemed not fit to "breed" could still adopt kids whose parents died or whatever? Should make it a little less cruel to them and would help solve another issue.
There should be tax incentives, and private gift funds, set up for people who voluntarily get sterilized.
imo, to answer original question, if you wanna have babies upon babies you go right ahead. just don't get mad at me when i smack the little bastards because you don't know how to raise them properly.
How is it a moot point? What happens when people with certain genes arent allowed to reproduce? Let me guess "oh that will never happen thats just paranoid" Yea its not like power has ever been abused before Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
This inequitably targets people based on class, which itself is intersected strongly by ethnicity and gender. You may intend for this to be egalitarian, but in practice, these kind of programs simply discourage marginalized populations from reproducing. This is compounded further, because in many marginal economies that have a reliance on kin-base division of labour; the propagation of younger generations take the forms of old-age security. I think the context of this discussion is focused far to heavily on parochial concerns and personal anecdotes. I think this discussion would be much more illuminating and informative if we actually incorporated fieldwork on the subject. I would like to recommend The Malthusian Moment by Thomas Robertson. It offers a coherent summary of neo-malthusianism in modernity, within the distinct context of a political ecology.
what i was thinking Exactly, if people still want the experience of raisin kids there are bound to be alot of orphans out there
why not? I dont think anyone has the authority to tell someone they arent fit to breed. Survival of the fittest does that already. If theu cab make it they can. If not they cant. Not for you or anyone else to decide Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
1. Survival of the fittest/natural selection hardly plays a role in shit anymore 2. We do sort of decide already. Hospitals, advanced medicine keep people alive who probably shouldn't be as far as nature is concerned. This keeps the undesirable traits sticking around.
You, like many, do not understand what "survival of the fittest" means. Besides, to survive they need our help, and it's expensive and otherwise a toil for society.
One can't assume whether an individual's attribute is due to inherited or environmental factors. Does the child have an eating disorder due to a genetic predisposition or because they grew up having their meals prepared by people with eating disorders. Are the parents eating disorders caused by a genetic predisposition or something else like a traumatic event? Is their obesity caused by an eating disorder or something else, such as a thyroid issue. Are the parents capable of producing a child that isn't also obese. Could the obesity be mitigated or eradicated in another way? Is a non-genetic predisposition to heart disease enough to determine someone is unfit to have children? There is no "pretty much" in reality. One can't force such a thing on people based solely on assumptions, especially when nature will sort it out in the end. If those people truly have a predisposition to heart disease damaging to the survival of our race given our current developed tools of survival, then they will die off. Don't confuse our dominance on this planet and medical intelligence with a lack of natural selection.
Lol what are you, do you look like James Franco? 1. Being attractive is subjective 2. Just because a couple has "bad genes" doesn't mean they'll breed someone who will perpetuate that cycle. Ever heard of healthy eating and working out? 3. Having good genes does not promise intellect or intelligence. With your little irrational theory, we could have pretty, but stupid people running around.
That's why the incentive shouldn't be monetary, or permanent. My grandmother is a retired schoolteacher and she's said for years that we should offer to pay for kids' college if they agree to long-term birth control. That way, there's no class inequality because everyone is being given an opportunity to rise above class inequality with an education. Since upper classes are less likely to participate since they can already afford college, their population will likely increase, reducing wealth inequality.