The Science of Genetics shall be rendered obselete eventually.
I believe the future may rely on cybernetics.
Flaws can be fixed with technology, and bodies can be augmented.
Why wait for hundreds to thousands of years for genetic perfection, when our limitations can be surpassed in a few hundred.
We may all end up as robots, but by then, that would be insignificant, as those robots will be so advanced, they probably would be like partially organic super machines.
First, the only way to properly enforce an endeavor to keep your supposed "genetically inferior" (I know it's my term not yours, but it is what you mean) citizens from procreating is to sterilize them, and the community is, understandably, not going to even approach considering such an idea.
Second, power corrupts. If people are genetically modified to be superior, then they will feel obliged to lord said superior ability over others and treat people who are "normal" as lesser beings. Which brings me to me next point...
Third, people usually fear what they do not understand or find to be different. I thought we as a society were just getting past all the bigotry, and now you want to create a way to make it worse.
Good job using a strawman statement. I was saying that correlation is not causation then offered an explanation of why they were correlated. If you are overweight, there is a chance that the reason why you are overweight would also lead to diabetes. However, that does not mean being fat will directly cause diabetes.
I wasn't terribly moved by it. As long as we make sure to educate the improved humans to be compassionate towards unmodified persons, why the bloody hell shouldn't we improve humanity? We're essentially at an evolutionary bottleneck. As soon as we can figure out how to make better people, we should. That is, to me, the ultimate promise of genetic manipulation.
You know, as long as we have medical procedural treatments and the advancements of such, there really isn't a need for eugenics. If there ever is a case in humanity where we don't have access to such, it's cold, but they'll die off on their own. Putting a evolutionary goal on anything is useless because EVERYONE has a different interpretation of what makes a good human being. So you'll have these authority figures trying to decide which people they'll allow or prevent from breeding based on their preconceived notions of "the perfect human". So, basically human censorship.
"As long as we make sure to educate the improved humans to be compassionate towards unmodified persons"
See the last sentence on #1. That's what this reminds me of. It also paints a picture of a member of a higher caste throwing coins to peasants of the bottom caste. It's such a simple solution, but it would never work out the way it's made out to sound.
It's amazing how many complaints I've heard and read about the remixes of the songs from that game. I'm sorry, but the songs from the Dreamcast Era onward took some getting used to, especially when you have Amy's theme sounding like a sexed up Britney Spears song (for the time) and the boom of characters that ended up becoming one-shots like Tikal.
I have a huge date with the one girl I've talked about before. Bought her a Nook Color for Christmas, taking her to one of the nicest places in town, then drinks on the river. Fingers crossed.
Everyday I feel like I fit in less here. For one, I feel like some here feel like their opinions count more than that of others, and with others I mean the mass. I mean, sure, apparently it's fun to hate Justin Bieber (does that woman really deserve the hate though?), but especially with things that are popular I see the trend here that it's cool to dislike something. Even if it's Telltale's own library of piss-easy games.
When I came here, I came here to discuss the fun elements about things, not what sucks about certain elements. But, apparently, it's cool to hate these things. I came here around the time SBCG4AP came out, a fun and challenging games. I have to agree that starting with Tales of Monkey Island the Telltale games became considerably less difficult or complex, but that didn't stop me from having fun. I really enjoyed playing the Back to the Future series.
It's like I can't even like something, because otherwise some random person would tell me I have bad taste because I like certain stuff. Except it's not a random person, it's a frequent flyer of Telltale Airline.
Everyday I feel like I fit in less here. For one, I feel like some here feel like their opinions count more than that of others, and with others I mean the mass. I mean, sure, apparently it's fun to hate Justin Bieber (does that woman really deserve the hate though?), but especially with things that are popular I see the trend here that it's cool to dislike something. Even if it's Telltale's own library of piss-easy games.
When I came here, I came here to discuss the fun elements about things, not what sucks about certain elements. But, apparently, it's cool to hate these things. I came here around the time SBCG4AP came out, a fun and challenging games. I have to agree that starting with Tales of Monkey Island the Telltale games became considerably less difficult or complex, but that didn't stop me from having fun. I really enjoyed playing the Back to the Future series.
It's like I can't even like something, because otherwise some random person would tell me I have bad taste because I like certain stuff. Except it's not a random person, it's a frequent flyer of Telltale Airline.
So it's bad to have people disagreeing with you, but if it were flipped, if people with negative opinions were stifled and "told [they] have bad taste" because their thoughts were DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN, I guess that would be fine? It's only fine to say having certain opinions is wrong when you don't happen to share them, but when you have an idea it's fucking sacred, and you're entitled to not have to deal with contrasting ideas?
People like to complain, there's no doubt about that.
It's also widely viewed that the TTGs getting easier is alienating some of their older fans who've grown up with adventure games. People can say what they want about BTTF, but I know people who have never heard of Telltale, who have never played an adventure game, who bought it and loved it. Sorry people who hated it, but THAT is exactly what companies want. The fans who didn't like BTTF and JP, for the most part, instead of providing constructive criticism, just complained... most of the reviews... just complained. While there are quite a few highly intelligent, well spoken users here, this tends to be overshadowed by ones who seem to have never been involved in a formal debate, written a proper essay or have great people skills. Others, just didn't bother giving us, the company, or the game the time of day to explain "why" and just felt like saying "it sucks". It happens.
While many users are verbal and maybe a bit hostile with their opinions, most of the frequent users don't care what people think as long as they're not trying to convince them to like it. Take the modern whipping boy "Twilight" for example. Someone posting that they like it will generally just be ignored except by maybe one or two users. Someone posting about how great it is and why you should like it, will be totally harassed with negative responses. Look at coolsome posting about wrestling. 99% of the users either don't care or don't like it. Him enjoying it is his choice, he doesn't try to make others enjoy it or go on and on about why we should like it, so his opinion is respected.
Personally, I didn't mind BTTF and JP. I voiced my opinion as such in both forums and no one jumped on me for it...but yes, both forums are FULL of complaining. People tend to do that on the internet these days as I've stated. There's not much you can do about it besides ignoring individual posts and avoiding negative threads.
Why do people see positive eugenics as a bad thing? Do they not understand the concept and conflate it with forcible eugenics as practiced by the Nazis? We could do so much good for the world if we made sure smart people with less or no genetically inheritable maladies bred more than those with a slew of genetic defects. Type I diabetes, for example, could be eradicated, saving society an untold toll.
Hell, I'm going to adopt (or practice selective implantation) if Comrade Mortis and I want kids later down the line simply because there's a chance my condition is genetic and I wouldn't dare continue it in my family. Eugenics can be a very good thing.
From a scientific perspective, I say it's a bad thing. We need diversity, even if it's bad diversity. Because without variety, there's no hope for evolution. If we artificially restrict the gene pool, then we decrease this variety and make ourselves more vulnerable as a species.
Also, Type I diabetes is probably one of the easiest genetic illnesses to deal with. We can produce insulin artificially so all a diabetic need do is inject it. And in the future, they maybe won't even need to do that. Positive eugenics also wouldn't be much help in preventing late onset Type I diabetes, which one of my cousins has and NOBODY knows how she got it (no one else in my family has Type I diabetes). Or Tay Sachs disease, which would basically require stopping reproduction from the entire European-descended Jewish population. Or Huntington's Disease, which most people don't know they even have until they are forty or so, after they've most likely reproduced.
And even after all of this, genetics is still at an early stage where it's only possible to pinpoint a small number of genetic illnesses. And even so, a lot of the time, there's no knowing what other factors might be linked to it. Perhaps there is another gene linked to the "horrible pancreas" gene in Type I diabetes that would provide a selective advantage over a virus in the future? We don't know, and it would be foolish to cut out this possibility now and risk disaster in the future.
Think about it this way, Pants. You might be the savior of the human race someday for having different genetics! On the other hand, I seriously doubt your condition would have been predicted anyways if your parents had gone and gotten genetically tested. Some things just happen and nobody really knows why.
So it's bad to have people disagreeing with you, but if it were flipped, if people with negative opinions were stifled and "told [they] have bad taste" because their thoughts were DIFFERENT FROM YOUR OWN, I guess that would be fine? It's only fine to say having certain opinions is wrong when you don't happen to share them, but when you have an idea it's fucking sacred, and you're entitled to not have to deal with contrasting ideas?
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Backlash comes from being a jackass. I should know.
There are some opinions I wish would be stifled but for the most part, no I don't. But I don't think it's right to look down on someone because they like something you consider bad.
And even after all of this, genetics is still at an early stage where it's only possible to pinpoint a small number of genetic illnesses. And even so, a lot of the time, there's no knowing what other factors might be linked to it. Perhaps there is another gene linked to the "horrible pancreas" gene in Type I diabetes that would provide a selective advantage over a virus in the future? We don't know, and it would be foolish to cut out this possibility now and risk disaster in the future.
Also lots of people bearing genes that may cause type I diabetes never develope the disease. Genes are not everything.
Then again I have to think of a family where both parents are genetic carriers of a gene that causes a disease which is terminal within a few years after birth. Their children would have a 25 percent chance to be doomed to a short life of tremendous suffering, a 50 percent chance to become genetic carriers themselves, and a 25 percent chance of being perfectly healthy.
What would you say if this family lost their first child to this disease and after getting it diagnosed decided to have children nontheless? Would you call them crazy or irresponsible?
I dare not judge them this way.
All I know is, they love all of their children and care deeply for them like the greatest of all treasures. To lose one of them is hard for them and they would never think that any one of their children's lives was more important than another one's.
Could this suffering have been reduced by eugenics like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? Of course it could have.
Preventing yourself from losing a treasure by refusing to let the treasure get into your possession ...
Also to think that a falsely positive diagnosis could have prevented that sweet little baby girl from ever existing ...
There are some opinions I wish would be stifled but for the most part, no I don't. But I don't think it's right to look down on someone because they like something you consider bad.
Well that's like the Rick Perry ad. Of course he's a douchebag, but I wouldn't ever try to stifle his voice.
What would you say if this family lost their first child to this disease and after getting it diagnosed decided to have children nontheless? Would you call them crazy or irresponsible?
I honestly think of people who have their own children to be irresponsible, in a way. We have a lot of children right now in need of families, and people go ahead and make more children instead for what seem like entirely selfish reasons. "Oh, I want to see myself in him/her", "Oh, I couldn't love a child who didn't at one point exist in some form in my ballsack". Adoption is always treated as though it's some last resort, a curse dropped on those poor, unfortunate infertile couples. It sucks, because it perpetuates a larger problem.
I honestly think of people who have their own children to be irresponsible, in a way. We have a lot of children right now in need of families, and people go ahead and make more children instead for what seem like entirely selfish reasons. "Oh, I want to see myself in him/her", "Oh, I couldn't love a child who didn't at one point exist in some form in my ballsack". Adoption is always treated as though it's some last resort, a curse dropped on those poor, unfortunate infertile couples. It sucks, because it perpetuates a larger problem.
Yh but then if everyone did that no more baby showers.
I honestly think of people who have their own children to be irresponsible, in a way. We have a lot of children right now in need of families, and people go ahead and make more children instead for what seem like entirely selfish reasons. "Oh, I want to see myself in him/her", "Oh, I couldn't love a child who didn't at one point exist in some form in my ballsack". Adoption is always treated as though it's some last resort, a curse dropped on those poor, unfortunate infertile couples. It sucks, because it perpetuates a larger problem.
I honestly think of people who have their own children to be irresponsible, in a way. We have a lot of children right now in need of families, and people go ahead and make more children instead for what seem like entirely selfish reasons. "Oh, I want to see myself in him/her", "Oh, I couldn't love a child who didn't at one point exist in some form in my ballsack". Adoption is always treated as though it's some last resort, a curse dropped on those poor, unfortunate infertile couples. It sucks, because it perpetuates a larger problem.
Having your own children is a bit like a mini!Eugenics project. I mean, adopted children are all well and good, but if you know you have better genes than everyone else then why WOULDN'T you want to pass them on? Also, according to my parents, having one's own children is a way of leaving your legacy behind when you die. I mean, if you think about it, every single one of your ancestors was both fertile AND had children that lived long enough to reproduce. That's pretty impressive and it would be a shame to put an end to such a line.
Those of you who are saying it's irresponsible for people to want to have children obviously are not and have not been involved in a successful, serious long-term relationship. No one who has been married for more than a few years would say that considering having children is irresponsible.
I honestly think of people who have their own children to be irresponsible, in a way. We have a lot of children right now in need of families, and people go ahead and make more children instead for what seem like entirely selfish reasons. "Oh, I want to see myself in him/her", "Oh, I couldn't love a child who didn't at one point exist in some form in my ballsack". Adoption is always treated as though it's some last resort, a curse dropped on those poor, unfortunate infertile couples. It sucks, because it perpetuates a larger problem.
Having your own children is a bit like a mini!Eugenics project. I mean, adopted children are all well and good, but if you know you have better genes than everyone else then why WOULDN'T you want to pass them on? Also, according to my parents, having one's own children is a way of leaving your legacy behind when you die. I mean, if you think about it, every single one of your ancestors was both fertile AND had children that lived long enough to reproduce. That's pretty impressive and it would be a shame to put an end to such a line.
I don't particularly care about my specific "genetic line". There's no problem with my family name, certainly. While I'll put an end to the branch that happens to contain my father specifically, his brothers and sisters, all five of them, have produced offspring and so the line will be left more or less intact anyway. The way I see it, if my specific differences of genetic material between my father and myself is the most important thing to leave behind in the world, it's not something that is particularly important. Others can marvel at their genetic lines, I don't see how it's something at all substantial.
Those of you who are saying it's irresponsible for people to want to have children obviously are not and have not been involved in a successful, serious long-term relationship. No one who has been married for more than a few years would say that considering having children is irresponsible.
We have:
1. More human beings in the world than we can feed.
2. Children who are without homes.
From a sheer numbers perspective, it's irresponsible and makes little sense. We have more children than we need and we have children who need homes. We have people who want to be parents. Why make *another* child, who will inevitably take up food and other resources that could go to an already existing child? Do you know how many children die of starvation every year? Do you know there are children who are unable to get basic education because their country forces a payment up-front for a year of schooling that amounts to $5 USD? Do you know that there are thousands of children in orphanages in the US alone?
I don't see how being in a relationship for a few years can possibly negate the basic math that shows the direct effect of continued childbirth on human suffering. Obviously SOME humans need to reproduce, but as of right now we're unsustainable and a drop in the numbers would help everybody. The best way to accomplish this, I think, is to eliminate growth rather than killing off currently living human beings. You either do this with war, genocide, or take YOUR approach, and simply allowing them to starve to death out of SHEER INDIFFERENCE because you want a kid that has your mother's eyes.
Those of you who are saying it's irresponsible for people to want to have children obviously are not and have not been involved in a successful, serious long-term relationship. No one who has been married for more than a few years would say that considering having children is irresponsible.
I seriously thought in a deranged mode of thought, for over thirty minutes, the most psychotic thoughts that have ever went through my head, about how much I wanted you to die, I was so pissed off by your flaunting your marriage around, telling everyone how to think and all that bullshit.
JUST ARGH! ARGH! SHUT UP! I WANT TO STUFF YOUR MOUTH WITH ROCKS! ARGH!
[tosses my furniture around the room like a madman, screaming at the top of my lungs at everything, before running out of energy, falling down on the floor, and laughing in a horrifically evil way]
I seriously thought in a deranged mode of thought, for over thirty minutes, the most psychotic thoughts that have ever went through my head, about how much I wanted you to die, I was so pissed off by your flaunting your marriage around, telling everyone how to think and all that bullshit.
JUST ARGH! ARGH! SHUT UP! I WANT TO STUFF YOUR MOUTH WITH ROCKS! ARGH!
[tosses my furniture around the room like a madman, screaming at the top of my lungs at everything, before running out of energy, falling down on the floor, and laughing in a horrifically evil way]
Pant. Pant. Where's the tylenol.
This, pretty much. It's as bad as when parents are all smug about how everyone should have children and how it changed their lives and so forth. Post natal hormones and delusion are a hell of a drug.
Yes....yes to beat him up....and watch him beg for mercy tears flowing from his eyes....and then to laugh at his misery....AHAHAHAHAHAHA it must be so WONDERFUL....AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Overpopulation problems are happening in developing (ie. "third world") countries.
The only reason why the United States' population is increasing is because of immigration, not birth rate. So, who is to blame? The citizens of developed countries for not alleviating the burden of poorer countries' overpopulation; the developing countries for creating the problem in the first place; or both?
The problem isn't so black and white. We can't just expect the entire populations of developed countries to pick up the slack by default, nor should we be callous enough to just say that developing countries made their beds and should therefore lie in it. You shouldn't also just assume that because a couple wants to have a baby that means they're automatically deemed irresponsible and uncaring about the problems of the world at large.
I seriously thought in a deranged mode of thought, for over thirty minutes, the most psychotic thoughts that have ever went through my head, about how much I wanted you to die, I was so pissed off by your flaunting your marriage around, telling everyone how to think and all that bullshit.
Wow. No need to get all jealous. I'm not telling everyone how to think; I'm saying that no one in the circumstance of actually deciding whether or not to have children of their own would look down on those who choose that they want to, and it follows that those who are looking down on same are not and have not been in said circumstance.
You shouldn't also just assume that because a couple wants to have a baby that means they're automatically deemed irresponsible and uncaring about the problems of the world at large.
No, you get that when people look at a worldwide issue and say "It's largely in a different geographical space and legal jurisdiction(the 'third world'), so it's not my problem."
Wow. No need to get all jealous. I'm not telling everyone how to think; I'm saying that no one in the circumstance of actually deciding whether or not to have children of their own would look down at those who choose that they want to, and it follows that those who are looking down on same are not and have not been in said circumstance.
I haven't, but I've certainly known people who have been through said experience and do.
It's easier to dismiss a problem when one is not directly affected by it. But that doesn't mean that those who don't get directly involved in solving it are heartless.
Personally, I don't think any couple should have more than 2 kids.... but that's my opinion. That's even, and with others not planning to have kids at all, it's helping a little. I'm not preachy about it, but I don't see a reason to have more than 2. What does bother me, are the families that have 3 or 4 and their reasoning is "well, we always wanted a boy/girl and after getting two/three boys/girls, we thought we'd try one more time".... I'm sorry, but in that case, where that is your primary reason,....it IS selfish.
Honestly, I've not really considered having children because it just looks exceedingly painful and disgusting. And then if the sex works out, you have to go give birth if you're female.
But I still think that people who have children aren't irresponsible. This is unfair, but going back to the original eugenics argument of this whole thing, if you were a very intelligent, hardworking, conscientious individual wouldn't it be a benefit to the human race in the long run to reproduce? Because how I see it, the only people who would adopt out of worry for the state of the world, would be those same people, while the people who don't care and would teach their children not to care would have more children. It's a matter of numbers. The solution, is for the smart people to have tons of children and outnumber everyone else. The solution is: MORE BABIES! BRING 'EM ON!
Comments
It's change I can use. I'm for it.
Superior ability breeds superior ambition.
First, the only way to properly enforce an endeavor to keep your supposed "genetically inferior" (I know it's my term not yours, but it is what you mean) citizens from procreating is to sterilize them, and the community is, understandably, not going to even approach considering such an idea.
Second, power corrupts. If people are genetically modified to be superior, then they will feel obliged to lord said superior ability over others and treat people who are "normal" as lesser beings. Which brings me to me next point...
Third, people usually fear what they do not understand or find to be different. I thought we as a society were just getting past all the bigotry, and now you want to create a way to make it worse.
If you say it fast it sounds like jpeg.
Good job using a strawman statement. I was saying that correlation is not causation then offered an explanation of why they were correlated. If you are overweight, there is a chance that the reason why you are overweight would also lead to diabetes. However, that does not mean being fat will directly cause diabetes.
You know, as long as we have medical procedural treatments and the advancements of such, there really isn't a need for eugenics. If there ever is a case in humanity where we don't have access to such, it's cold, but they'll die off on their own. Putting a evolutionary goal on anything is useless because EVERYONE has a different interpretation of what makes a good human being. So you'll have these authority figures trying to decide which people they'll allow or prevent from breeding based on their preconceived notions of "the perfect human". So, basically human censorship.
"As long as we make sure to educate the improved humans to be compassionate towards unmodified persons"
See the last sentence on #1. That's what this reminds me of. It also paints a picture of a member of a higher caste throwing coins to peasants of the bottom caste. It's such a simple solution, but it would never work out the way it's made out to sound.
Just for fun, here's an extra article:
Darwin Lives! Modern Humans Are Still Evolving.
CAN I KEEP IT CAN I!!!!
It's amazing how many complaints I've heard and read about the remixes of the songs from that game. I'm sorry, but the songs from the Dreamcast Era onward took some getting used to, especially when you have Amy's theme sounding like a sexed up Britney Spears song (for the time) and the boom of characters that ended up becoming one-shots like Tikal.
That made me laugh.
god i love this game
oh jesus
I bought their album yesterday, and I've just been listening to it all the time! XD
When I came here, I came here to discuss the fun elements about things, not what sucks about certain elements. But, apparently, it's cool to hate these things. I came here around the time SBCG4AP came out, a fun and challenging games. I have to agree that starting with Tales of Monkey Island the Telltale games became considerably less difficult or complex, but that didn't stop me from having fun. I really enjoyed playing the Back to the Future series.
It's like I can't even like something, because otherwise some random person would tell me I have bad taste because I like certain stuff. Except it's not a random person, it's a frequent flyer of Telltale Airline.
It's also widely viewed that the TTGs getting easier is alienating some of their older fans who've grown up with adventure games. People can say what they want about BTTF, but I know people who have never heard of Telltale, who have never played an adventure game, who bought it and loved it. Sorry people who hated it, but THAT is exactly what companies want. The fans who didn't like BTTF and JP, for the most part, instead of providing constructive criticism, just complained... most of the reviews... just complained. While there are quite a few highly intelligent, well spoken users here, this tends to be overshadowed by ones who seem to have never been involved in a formal debate, written a proper essay or have great people skills. Others, just didn't bother giving us, the company, or the game the time of day to explain "why" and just felt like saying "it sucks". It happens.
While many users are verbal and maybe a bit hostile with their opinions, most of the frequent users don't care what people think as long as they're not trying to convince them to like it. Take the modern whipping boy "Twilight" for example. Someone posting that they like it will generally just be ignored except by maybe one or two users. Someone posting about how great it is and why you should like it, will be totally harassed with negative responses. Look at coolsome posting about wrestling. 99% of the users either don't care or don't like it. Him enjoying it is his choice, he doesn't try to make others enjoy it or go on and on about why we should like it, so his opinion is respected.
Personally, I didn't mind BTTF and JP. I voiced my opinion as such in both forums and no one jumped on me for it...but yes, both forums are FULL of complaining. People tend to do that on the internet these days as I've stated. There's not much you can do about it besides ignoring individual posts and avoiding negative threads.
From a scientific perspective, I say it's a bad thing. We need diversity, even if it's bad diversity. Because without variety, there's no hope for evolution. If we artificially restrict the gene pool, then we decrease this variety and make ourselves more vulnerable as a species.
Also, Type I diabetes is probably one of the easiest genetic illnesses to deal with. We can produce insulin artificially so all a diabetic need do is inject it. And in the future, they maybe won't even need to do that. Positive eugenics also wouldn't be much help in preventing late onset Type I diabetes, which one of my cousins has and NOBODY knows how she got it (no one else in my family has Type I diabetes). Or Tay Sachs disease, which would basically require stopping reproduction from the entire European-descended Jewish population. Or Huntington's Disease, which most people don't know they even have until they are forty or so, after they've most likely reproduced.
And even after all of this, genetics is still at an early stage where it's only possible to pinpoint a small number of genetic illnesses. And even so, a lot of the time, there's no knowing what other factors might be linked to it. Perhaps there is another gene linked to the "horrible pancreas" gene in Type I diabetes that would provide a selective advantage over a virus in the future? We don't know, and it would be foolish to cut out this possibility now and risk disaster in the future.
Think about it this way, Pants. You might be the savior of the human race someday for having different genetics! On the other hand, I seriously doubt your condition would have been predicted anyways if your parents had gone and gotten genetically tested. Some things just happen and nobody really knows why.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Backlash comes from being a jackass. I should know.
Also lots of people bearing genes that may cause type I diabetes never develope the disease. Genes are not everything.
Then again I have to think of a family where both parents are genetic carriers of a gene that causes a disease which is terminal within a few years after birth. Their children would have a 25 percent chance to be doomed to a short life of tremendous suffering, a 50 percent chance to become genetic carriers themselves, and a 25 percent chance of being perfectly healthy.
What would you say if this family lost their first child to this disease and after getting it diagnosed decided to have children nontheless? Would you call them crazy or irresponsible?
I dare not judge them this way.
All I know is, they love all of their children and care deeply for them like the greatest of all treasures. To lose one of them is hard for them and they would never think that any one of their children's lives was more important than another one's.
Could this suffering have been reduced by eugenics like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? Of course it could have.
Preventing yourself from losing a treasure by refusing to let the treasure get into your possession ...
Also to think that a falsely positive diagnosis could have prevented that sweet little baby girl from ever existing ...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2003862,00.html
Well that's like the Rick Perry ad. Of course he's a douchebag, but I wouldn't ever try to stifle his voice.
Yh but then if everyone did that no more baby showers.
This is a great point.
Having your own children is a bit like a mini!Eugenics project. I mean, adopted children are all well and good, but if you know you have better genes than everyone else then why WOULDN'T you want to pass them on? Also, according to my parents, having one's own children is a way of leaving your legacy behind when you die. I mean, if you think about it, every single one of your ancestors was both fertile AND had children that lived long enough to reproduce. That's pretty impressive and it would be a shame to put an end to such a line.
Agreeching with Dash. There's a surprise.
Also,
F A W F U L - R E T U R N S
I don't particularly care about my specific "genetic line". There's no problem with my family name, certainly. While I'll put an end to the branch that happens to contain my father specifically, his brothers and sisters, all five of them, have produced offspring and so the line will be left more or less intact anyway. The way I see it, if my specific differences of genetic material between my father and myself is the most important thing to leave behind in the world, it's not something that is particularly important. Others can marvel at their genetic lines, I don't see how it's something at all substantial.
We have:
1. More human beings in the world than we can feed.
2. Children who are without homes.
From a sheer numbers perspective, it's irresponsible and makes little sense. We have more children than we need and we have children who need homes. We have people who want to be parents. Why make *another* child, who will inevitably take up food and other resources that could go to an already existing child? Do you know how many children die of starvation every year? Do you know there are children who are unable to get basic education because their country forces a payment up-front for a year of schooling that amounts to $5 USD? Do you know that there are thousands of children in orphanages in the US alone?
I don't see how being in a relationship for a few years can possibly negate the basic math that shows the direct effect of continued childbirth on human suffering. Obviously SOME humans need to reproduce, but as of right now we're unsustainable and a drop in the numbers would help everybody. The best way to accomplish this, I think, is to eliminate growth rather than killing off currently living human beings. You either do this with war, genocide, or take YOUR approach, and simply allowing them to starve to death out of SHEER INDIFFERENCE because you want a kid that has your mother's eyes.
I seriously thought in a deranged mode of thought, for over thirty minutes, the most psychotic thoughts that have ever went through my head, about how much I wanted you to die, I was so pissed off by your flaunting your marriage around, telling everyone how to think and all that bullshit.
JUST ARGH! ARGH! SHUT UP! I WANT TO STUFF YOUR MOUTH WITH ROCKS! ARGH!
[tosses my furniture around the room like a madman, screaming at the top of my lungs at everything, before running out of energy, falling down on the floor, and laughing in a horrifically evil way]
Pant. Pant. Where's the tylenol.
This, pretty much. It's as bad as when parents are all smug about how everyone should have children and how it changed their lives and so forth. Post natal hormones and delusion are a hell of a drug.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa
huff huff pant huff pant Okay. Okay now I'm calm.
The only reason why the United States' population is increasing is because of immigration, not birth rate. So, who is to blame? The citizens of developed countries for not alleviating the burden of poorer countries' overpopulation; the developing countries for creating the problem in the first place; or both?
The problem isn't so black and white. We can't just expect the entire populations of developed countries to pick up the slack by default, nor should we be callous enough to just say that developing countries made their beds and should therefore lie in it. You shouldn't also just assume that because a couple wants to have a baby that means they're automatically deemed irresponsible and uncaring about the problems of the world at large.
Wow. No need to get all jealous. I'm not telling everyone how to think; I'm saying that no one in the circumstance of actually deciding whether or not to have children of their own would look down on those who choose that they want to, and it follows that those who are looking down on same are not and have not been in said circumstance.
I haven't, but I've certainly known people who have been through said experience and do.
But I still think that people who have children aren't irresponsible. This is unfair, but going back to the original eugenics argument of this whole thing, if you were a very intelligent, hardworking, conscientious individual wouldn't it be a benefit to the human race in the long run to reproduce? Because how I see it, the only people who would adopt out of worry for the state of the world, would be those same people, while the people who don't care and would teach their children not to care would have more children. It's a matter of numbers. The solution, is for the smart people to have tons of children and outnumber everyone else. The solution is: MORE BABIES! BRING 'EM ON!