Originally posted by King Kandy
Easiest thing in the world. It worked for breeding dogs. It'll work for breeding men.
Believe me it didn't work for dogs. And the Irish Setter is living proof of that. It was bred for its fur and I think its brain activity might have suffered. My aunt had one and it jumped off a fifty foot sea wall three times.
Originally posted by King KandyWas it man, or did the wolves control this? The more tame wolves drifted near the humans, showed a tame attitude and were allowed to eat scraps, the more wild ones in the group died due to lack of food, natural evolution led to tame dogs because a tame dog was more suitable for proximity to man than a wild one was. Now variations on the tame dog were often controlled by man, thus the genetic problems in pure bred animals. Eugenics only has scientific problems if the population used is too small and lacking in genetic diversity. Given a larger population such is irrelevant as long as you allow the unfit breeders to breed amongst themselves and from time to time adequate specimens are added to the desired population to broaden the gene pool some.
Technoligy is the anti-evolution force.It worked for dogs. The only reason dogs are no longer wolves is that we bred them for tameness.
I am not pro eugenics, but such is practiced today. We place criminals in prison, extending the sentence dependant on the crime, we are in effect limiting the possibility that these individuals are reproducing. We nearly unanimously avoid procreating with those we find unattractive physically and behaviorally, and discourage our acquaintances from procreating with such individuals as well. It is a mild form, but it exists.
Originally posted by Regret
I am not pro eugenics, but such is practiced today. We place criminals in prison, extending the sentence dependant on the crime, we are in effect limiting the possibility that these individuals are reproducing. We nearly unanimously avoid procreating with those we find unattractive physically and behaviorally, and discourage our acquaintances from procreating with such individuals as well. It is a mild form, but it exists.
However, things like sexual preference are not eugenics. ALL species have sex selected characteristics. Eugenics is outside of nature. I would argue that sexual attraction is as much as genetic construct as an imprinted one.
Eugenics is applied on a more societal level. Capital punishment is eugenics, but imprisonment doesn't stop or encourage anyone from procreating in the long run.
I see your point, but I think you give to too mcuh weight.
Originally posted by AllianceAccording to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.
However, things like sexual preference are not eugenics. ALL species have sex selected characteristics. Eugenics is outside of nature. I would argue that sexual attraction is as much as genetic construct as an imprinted one.Eugenics is applied on a more societal level. Capital punishment is eugenics, but imprisonment doesn't stop or encourage anyone from procreating in the long run.
I see your point, but I think you give to too mcuh weight.
Originally posted by Regret
According to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.
Technoligy blocks evolution, but Eugenics can circumvent this.
Originally posted by Regret
According to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.
Then define the line between evolution and eugenics.
Originally posted by Regret
Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.
I understand, and it makes sense, but I am not convinced.
I grew up being taught that being Gay was not only disgusting, but wrong, "evil", and made you somehow less of a person....
I was never given any encouragement or positive regard for Gay people by any one of my influences...
Yet, I'm pretty Gay today, aren't I ? 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I understand, and it makes sense, but I am not convinced.I grew up being taught that being Gay was not only disgusting, but wrong, "evil", and made you somehow less of a person....
I was never given any encouragement or positive regard for Gay people by any one of my influences...
Yet, I'm pretty Gay today, aren't I ? 😉
Originally posted by King Kandy
Then it didn't work. Mild forms don't always work. The more mild something is, the less effective it is, generally.
Mild, eh ?
Does this sound mild to you?
1) Having your parents comment how disgusting Gay people are
2) Having your freinds comment how disgusting Gay people are
3) Having your Church comment how evil Gay people are
4) Being beaten up repeatedly because I "acted" Gay
5) Having freinds abandon you after finding out my sexuality
6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"
Now....imagine all this occuring for 18 years......
Tell me that is STILL MILD 🙄
I am getting FED UP with this common Ignorance.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"
Real men naturally like the company of other real men. Nothing like a sweaty game of football before returning to the steamy showers for some real men bonding.
The comedians have it right.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]Mild, eh ?Does this sound mild to you?
1) Having your parents comment how disgusting Gay people are
2) Having your freinds comment how disgusting Gay people are
3) Having your Church comment how evil Gay people are
4) Being beaten up repeatedly because I "acted" Gay
5) Having freinds abandon you after finding out my sexuality
6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"
Now....imagine all this occuring for 18 years......
Tell me that is STILL MILD 🙄
I am getting FED UP with this common Ignorance. [/B]
...Very mild in comparrison.