ZOMBIE FORUMS

You act like technological comforts make that whole survival of the fittest thing not take place. It does, we just as a species determine the environment in which the selection takes place, and (as a society) determine which kind of traits are desirable and which ones arn't. Darwin's theory still holds true, the environment is just artificially created. Nothing about Darwin's theory is interfered with by technology. Evolution as a whole is not interfered with by technology (in fact a city is just another type of environment, by evolutionary standards, subject to the same rules and such.)

So, in conclusion, I am for genetic cleansing. Starting with idiots like you.

-MiB

I thought we had gotten over Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" theories. I don't mean to start a debate about Darwinism, but there are inconsistencies and situations where Darwin's Natural Selection theories fall short. Species exist that shouldn't, according to Darwin's theories. (The Oak tree, for example, uses a highly ineficcient (not the 'fittest') system of reproduction.) Darwin's theories are really a "best fit" analysis of evolution. They work in most cases, but are no more than an attempt to assign meaning to a complex system we don't fully understand.

http://www.douknow.net/ev_A_total%20ref ... ection.htm

I am against it, if only for the same reasons as I am for free speech, even for reactionaries. Heh.

Genetic diversity is also good for the species as a whole. Positive traits sometimes become unimportant everyonce in a while, and occasionally even become negative. That is why we don't have only one type of milk cow, for instance. Even stupid people have some positive traits. Well, most of the time.



Counterpoints: Evolving to a state of perfect efficiency takes time, you know. Not like trial and error is the best method for getting perfect results.
Basically, if it works, it probably reproduces. Evolution is a game of chance, and the odds of getting something more efficient (especially if most of the more efficient designs have been already used) are incredibly low. That is why nothing like humans has come about for the 3,500,000,000 years (or more) that life has existed on Earth, until just a few thousand years ago.

As for evolution being nothing more than a futile attempt to assign understandable meaning to a complex system we know nothing about, I have one word: Existentialism. Heh. I could say that applies to everything.



Counterpoint: The process of natural selection is slowed down immensely by changing societal values, though (to Anti-Darwinists:yes, MiB is right, it still continues. Even if we suddenly were created by some incompentent deity who doesn't seem to give a shit, evolution is still taking place RIGHT NOW. *sigh* I'm okay, really). If some kid is stupid enough to try some stupid thing and get hurt severely, we don't let him die. We help him. And whether he has desirable traits or not, he often reproduces, often with other stupid people.

And genetic cleansing of stupid people has begun. We start bombing in 5 minutes.

MiB, do you know of ad hominem? It is a type of error in logic. You make it repeatedly. And not to offend, you also demonstrate a sad inability to spell Abunai's name right.

If there was humane way of genetic cleansing, I'd take it. Too many stupid people already. But there isn't. One could even say that sterilization by definition is inhumane. So, instead, I say "Dammit."

And 3,500,000,000 years is only how far back the fossil record goes. Is that what you meant the "(or more)" part, Abunai?

Okay, Abunai...



Er...that doesn't mean that evolution slows down, it just means that "undesirable traits" arn't the same as in a less technologically advanced society. Besides, survival of such an incident is usually an important lesson- perhaps, in the end, society benefits more from someone who has good reason not to stick his hand in the way of a power saw.

Also, the trait which would lead to someone doing this would be (I think) a whole lot of curiousity, which is not a bad trait to have (and in fact benefits the species.)

Anyone can see "this is dangerous, I might get hurt." The only way someone would do this out of stupidity is if they are mentally retarded- and they reproduce at very low rates, if I recall correctly. Thus the person is curious enough to do it, perhaps to just see what happens. How is this an unbeneficial trait? (if in fact this is determined by genetics at all- but thats an arguement for another day.)

Thus, I think the example in fact supports my point, not the counterpoint. The society saves a trait which it feels is beneficial (curiousity) which is passed on (or not...) to the person's offspring.



Intelligence isn't the only measure of survivability, or the only desirable trait. Please stop being an idiot.

Second...this isn't a formal debate. I'll insult who I please, when I please. Especially when its deserved. If it bothers you so much, feel free to ignore them and move on to my actual arguement.

-MiB

I don't buy the whole Nazi superior genetics idea; I think that the flaw is shared by the whole of humanity rather than those with some certain genes. Don't expect me to reply, I've been awake 26 hours now from a caffeine-high LAN party.

"Hey, I wonder what would happen if I touched this prong on the boat battery"

*ZAP*

"Ow....yeah...not doing that again"

Okay, I erred in my labeling of that. What I meant was that the undesirable traits are not as undesirable as they once were. Stone ages: you were born without a leg, you die. Now: Born without a leg, and you're taken care of. People will not dismiss you just because of one deformity. You might even luck out, fall in love and have kids.



1.Okay, let me put it this way: stupid people are more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors. They are less likely to see and/or understand the dangers involved. Do you debate this?
2.In milder cases, retardation often isn't noticeable. Just a tiny little thing I thought you might want to know.
3.Genetics are also involved in none-retardation cases of intelligence. Just look at someone who has smart parents, and you'll probably notice they have some intelligence of their own, too. You could argue that this is entirely environmental, but most scientists agree that things are a combination of nature vs. nurture.

Ero:If it is already potentially fatal, then how would the more serious version develop, and what would it be? Immediately fatal? Specify! Other than that, I suppose I must side with you, except for the killing part. People who reproduce and know they have genetic flaws that could kill any offspring should be charged with reckless endangerment (which, I think, can count as 2nd degree manslaughter), in my opinion.

We all have recessive (and damaging) genes. That is the reason why inbreeding often results in abnormal children. If this is what you're talking about, then realize that these genes exist in pretty much everyone.



Calling this debate club implies at least an attempt to follow common sense when it comes to debating. That means addressing the issue and points about it, not the person stating them.

MiB:

Ad hominem isn't just insulting a person, it's (as mentioned by Ghost) an error in logic. It does not serve to make your point any better than not doing it. It does, however, make you seem similar in maturity to your average 13-year old. I'm going to guess you're a bit older than that. "Please stop being an idiot," is not witty, does not make you seem any smarter, and doesn't help you make your points. Otherwise I would be flaming like a bitch right now.



This reminds me of FA.

And I was trying to (mostly) agree with you, MiB.

Forget it, Abunai. This one doesn't seem capable of trying to make any intelligent points without insulting the person who he thinks disagrees with him. MiB does not realize that politeness is a good thing. It helps one convince people. Insults do not. Until he gets this, it will probably be best to ignore him altogether.

.....honestly, what kind of person is unable to argue something without insults?

Abunai: There's a difference between evolution and Darwinism. I believe tycho is most likely an evolutionist. Darwin was the one who discovered evolution, i.e. that modern life is the result of minute genetic changes that have taken place over a period of millions of years. However, his particular understanding of evolution was flawed, and placed too much emphasis on the "natural selection" aspect of evolution. To make an analogy in psychoanalysis, one can believe in the unconscious and still think Freud was a crackpot.

As for whether evolution operates in the world today, you have to keep in mind that evolution, even in the Darwinian sense, isn't about who survives; it's about who is most sucessful in passing on as much of their genes as possible to succeeding generations. In the wild, this depends on surviving long enough to reproduce. (Whether you can survive longer doesn't matter - so many genetic diseases only kick in after 50 or so because that's after the age when most humans have stopped reproducing, and thus natural selection doesn't weed out mutations.) However, in a situation (e.g. modern America) where everyone (basically) survives, the main factor becomes who can produce the most offspring. Generally, human beings are attracted only to the strong and healthy. Like it or not, the fact is that most retarded people don't have kids anyway.

[EDIT: Keep in mind that the way a theory is understood all depends on the socio-political context. Evolution, as developed by Darwin in largely laissez-faire mid-19th-century England, was interpreted as a process of competition. Communist Russian scientists would later interpret it as a process of cooperation. In fact, the "evolution as cooperation" idea has been gaining quite a bit of ground in the scientific community today. Evolutiuon isn't about making sure other organisms don't survive; it's about making sure that you survive (more specifically, that you put as many of your genes into the gene pool of the next generation as possible). Often, survival is better guaranteed through cooperation than competition. This explains symbiosis, and the evolutiuon of morality, for example.]

Or you could realise that this isn't a serious topic of debate, at least for me. Its not morally justifiable, so unless we have people who like to wax sociopathic, the logic or cold justification of it doesn't really matter.

Of course, in the end, you are too sensitive to bother with. If you can't handle a personal attack along with a point, you're not going to survive in the real world, since thats how information is most often coupled.

Besides that, people should know that I insult good-naturedly (see IRC debates between me and Icy, me and Rand, and my 'greetings' to Barghest- all of which contain a lot of profanity and insults.) I expect you people to be mature enough to take such insults, process my points and respond- insulting back, if you wish. That is how I do debates (it might have something to do with the fact that my first series of debates was against someone who claimed that there was no holocaust, or that the numbers were exaggerated.

Either way, if you're not mature enough to take the insults not-so-seriously, I don't want you debating me. Period.

-MiB

I don't think genetics is really the problem. Thanks to technology etc. any genetic shortcomings are usually made moot thanks to all the advances there are.

I place a great deal of faith in human potential. However the current human state is pathetic. Ignorance, bias, violence, rudeness, intolerance, and shallowness are frequently encouraged. People are losing their natural urges of exploration and learning. In Greek times the search for enlightenment was seen as great entertainment and a very noble passtime. Now most people can't spell either.

Basically I think genetic cleansing would be almost completely ineffective since you would have a hellish time determining what is a beneficial traight without various civil rights groups being all over you like rabid badgers on wounded rabbits. I think the solution is mass forced reeducation and mandatory philosophy and psychology classes. In addition to required foreign travel and cultural immersion.

Eudaimonia
...I like Alpha Centauri.
- "Eudaimonic society encourages each citizen to acheive happiness through striving to fufill completely his or her potential."

WAY WAY WAY wrong. Read origin of the species sometime, Darwin was FAR from the first to advance evolutionary theories. Herbert Spencer did so LONG before he did. Darwin lists a ton of other scientists as sources in his book who advanced evolutionary theory.

Thank the Mind Worms, I thought I was the only one who remembered that game. Alas, I was never able to get the expansion pack, and I can't find it anywhere now...*sigh*

Anyways, back on topic.

To me, genetic cleansing seems futile. It could be attempted, sure, but people would rebel. I can't see how a strict system of genetic cleansing could occur without people protesting and fighting it.

Besides, genetic cleansing is one of the things people fear about the growing knowledge about genetics, DNA, etc. is genetic cleansing. Even a humane process would be harmful, as it would only breed fear.and prevent useful research, which leads me to my next point.

The closest thing we can get to a safe, humane form of genetic cleansing is gene therapy and repairing damaged genes that control genetic disorders. However, even with this people are going up in arms about it (both against and for). And even if we did succeed in it, there are still problems. For one thing, we don't know all about genetics. We're pretty much like kids playing in the park surrounded by rattlesnakes. However, the only way to learn how to survive the snakes is by trial and error.

The problem with trial an error in this, however, is that we could seriously fuck some stuff up.

However, there's another problem we run into with a lack of knowledge: lack of options. Eventually, we will reach a stopping point. We can't decode every gene...yet. There will be a stalemate for a time.

But then again...successful gene therapy using to weed out the bad genes has one disadvantage over natural natural selection (ie, things just dying off, and having the survivors go on without any scientific interference). It can cause a major imbalance in the system. I mean, take a look at death rates compared from a few centuries ago to now. The difference is staggering.

PS: This is not an attack on gene research a la Jack Chick, just pointing out some problems with it and/or problems it will have to overcome in the future.

Preppy fulfillment: Shop till you drop.
Jock fulfillment: Fight till everyone you don't like is dead
Goth fulfillment: Shoot yourself

Sadly some people just don't ever hope for more, they work until they are content in the most basic sense and assume that is as high as they have to go.

Though I have met some people who were very deep and philosophical people, though they found contemplation too depressing and stressfull so they have willing turned back to just the basics of life and avoid life's complexities. They are interesting to talk to if you can actually get them to talk about it.



Anaximander was the first and that was almost twenty six hundred years ago. He stated that man had originally had more fish-like properties. His conclusion was off but the evidence he used to support it was much the same as Darwin used.

It was a major leap to assume that man had not always been man. He also there were elemental forces in the world that caused things to happen rather than the Gods. Monumentous ideas yet he is relatively unheard of.

That statement is true, if you only count wealthy Greek males. The fact is, if you take into account women and slaves, right off the bat 75% of the Greek population was totally ignorant. (I'm mostly basing this on Athens. Sparta had a somewhat more liberal attitude towards women, but then they also had far less "culture".) The fact is, far more people are literate in America today than in Athens in the 4th century. The real academic superstars (Plato et al.) were generally part of the elite, who had a lot of free time to philosophize, what with slaves and all. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Greek philosophy (hell, I'm majoring in Philosophy and minoring in Classical Studies). However, the fact is that history only records the notable figures of every era. People 1500 years from now will likely think most people today were like Sartre, Camus, and Derrida.



Okay, I made a slip-up. I actually know that Darwin didn't discover evolution (in fact just before I posted, I read about Lamarck, a French evolutionist during the late 18th/early 19th century). What I meant to say was that modern evolutionary theory traces its roots back to him. He was the first one to really make evolution a viable possibility. Anyway, that was utterly besides the point. My point was that Darwin's ideas of evolution aren't the modern biologist's ideas of evolution.