You are not logged in.
from a post i made on the AF...
Isambard wrote:
Moloth wrote:
I think eugenics is a good idea... but one that cannot be done in a moral way, at this point in human civilization.
Could always do what the (fictional) Howard families did. Offer cash and economic support for individuals with desireable traits to squirt out kids with other pre-selected individuals with desireable traits.
don't tempt me.
in order to prevent Idiocracy, we need to find SOME way to improve the human condition, now that natural selection is basically a moot point for us. Our technology is advancing orders of magnitude faster than our reproduction/evolution. As a species, I think we're in a weird, stagnant lull right now... between the Agricultural Revolution and the Technological Singularity. before, we had the slow process of natural selection to improve us. now, we're on a comfortable evolutionary plateau: we're 'good enough' to succeed and be the dominant lifeforms of the planet, BUT, we don't have any reason (or the time) to evolve further. Next, we'll need technology (hardware or wetware) in order to advance any further. ...if, of course, we don't destroy ourselves.
Offline

Basically, any moral implementation of eugenics will have to be voluntary. Within that framework, any pragmatic implementation of eugenics will have to make sure as many people volunteer as possible.
Offline

As long as you follow the rules, you can do whatever you want.
Offline

You know what? I've had a face-heel turn on this subject. The IQ test from "The Bell Curve" basically tested for middle class ethics, not for genius, and a widely mandated test would probably do the same..
I happen to feel that the middle class is essentially the lowest of the low intellectually, all it really has is consensus. The lower classes at least have a touch of chaos in them, lacking the resources and time to breed it out so completely.
Last edited by emo samurai (6/5/11 3:00 pm)
Offline