Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Politics

Eugenics?

  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Tito



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: is everything
Eugenics?  Reply with quote  

Put aside the hot topic abortion angle, I'm not trying to start anything on that and I'm not going to argue it if anyone else does. The deeper question to me is whether it's acceptable to socially engineer the population, and if so, how?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg14-2009jul14,0,4640584.column

Post Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:42 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lisa



Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 6789
Re: Eugenics?  Reply with quote  

Tito wrote:
The deeper question to me is whether it's acceptable to socially engineer the population, and if so, how?




Population is and has been socially engineered only. There has been no natural population for at least a few thousand years.

What is the real question?
_________________
Your religion, you miserable man, begins in your stomach and ends in a lavatory - Nodar Dumbadze

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:40 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sgt_steve



Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5197
Location: Michissippi
 Reply with quote  

Before you continue on, Tito, I suggest looking up the article and seeing the full text of what Ginsburg said. The article's author neglected to include a fairly critical part of the paragraph, it's concluding line: "...then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." In short, the paragraph has a completely different meaning than what the article implies. Pretty scurrilous if you ask me.

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:56 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fortune cookie



Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 10534
Location: Easy street
 Reply with quote  

A full one third of the new population should be engineered EXACTLY like me.
They would then band together and subjugate the remaining population.
And proclaim me EMPEROR of THE WOOOOORLD!
That, or nuke the entire planet arguing amongst themselves who was really me. Rolling Eyes
_________________
We all enter this world in the same way: naked; screaming; soaked in blood.
But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have to stop there." Dana Gould

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:33 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Tito



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: is everything
 Reply with quote  

sgt_steve wrote:
Before you continue on, Tito, I suggest looking up the article and seeing the full text of what Ginsburg said. The article's author neglected to include a fairly critical part of the paragraph, it's concluding line: "...then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." In short, the paragraph has a completely different meaning than what the article implies. Pretty scurrilous if you ask me.


Ok, but that really has nothing to do with my question, which was whether it's acceptable to socially engineer the population, and if so, how?

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:31 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stewies Mom



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 877
Location: totally thinking it should cool off again
 Reply with quote  

fortune cookie wrote:
A full one third of the new population should be engineered EXACTLY like me.
They would then band together and subjugate the remaining population.
And proclaim me EMPEROR of THE WOOOOORLD!
That, or nuke the entire planet arguing amongst themselves who was really me. Rolling Eyes


Sorry, FC, but the other two thirds would be engineered like ME. What that means to the one-third of YOU, is that you just weren't evil enough.

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:50 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Stewies Mom



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 877
Location: totally thinking it should cool off again
 Reply with quote  

Tito wrote:
sgt_steve wrote:
Before you continue on, Tito, I suggest looking up the article and seeing the full text of what Ginsburg said. The article's author neglected to include a fairly critical part of the paragraph, it's concluding line: "...then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." In short, the paragraph has a completely different meaning than what the article implies. Pretty scurrilous if you ask me.


Ok, but that really has nothing to do with my question, which was whether it's acceptable to socially engineer the population, and if so, how?


Tito, isn't that a matter of opinion? In mine, the answer is a big no, social engineering the population is not acceptable.

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:53 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Tito



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: is everything
 Reply with quote  

Stewies Mom wrote:
Tito, isn't that a matter of opinion? In mine, the answer is a big no, social engineering the population is not acceptable.


Of course it's a matter of opinion. But as Lisa points out, kind of, it's already happened and continues to happen. The prison population is taken out of the reproductive mix. The tax code gives deductions for dependents. Tutsi v Hutu and the genocide there. China's one child policy. Welfare policies that (not so much anymore, but in the past) made it profitable to have more children. What about economics? Let's say you could establish a policy that would pay for a college education for poor/at risk teenage girls with the condition that they have no children until after they graduate - would you do it? I would.

Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:13 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ginjg



Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 6617
Location: Los Angeles
 Reply with quote  

making elective contraception & abortion safe, available & affordable to lower income women is perfectly acceptable. The well heeled have had such access even when illegal.

Mandatory contraception & abortion, no matter how safe or affordable, is untenable.

The real social engineering crime is the public assistance structure that makes it nigh impossible for intact families to receive help. This system forces fathers out of families so that the family can receive afdc. The really stupid thing is that an intact family would generally need assistance for shorter periods of time.

Women in such a situation are more likely to feel the need to terminate a pregnancy.

And Tito, it was never "profitable" for a woman on welfare to have more children. The per child increase in assistance never actually covered the living expenses of another child in the household, let alone exceeded it - at least not in any state I've ever heard of.
_________________
To Learn is to Know
To Know is to Love
To Love is our aim

~~~~~~~

Why should we bother with immortality when we are eternal?

Post Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:30 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
zendao42



Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 13570
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy near you
 Reply with quote  

Tito lives in the state of confusion, just saying... Razz

Around here, condoms are free at health dept.-
all ya gotta do is walk in & ask for them-
you can also get the pill & other stuff free if you're poor like me,
so there ain't no damned excuse to get pregnant if you don't wanna...

Can't we just stick to Darwinian eugenics & quit passing laws to protect the stupid? Twisted Evil

Post Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:11 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stewies Mom



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 877
Location: totally thinking it should cool off again
 Reply with quote  

Tito wrote:
Stewies Mom wrote:
Tito, isn't that a matter of opinion? In mine, the answer is a big no, social engineering the population is not acceptable.


Of course it's a matter of opinion. But as Lisa points out, kind of, it's already happened and continues to happen. The prison population is taken out of the reproductive mix. The tax code gives deductions for dependents. Tutsi v Hutu and the genocide there. China's one child policy. Welfare policies that (not so much anymore, but in the past) made it profitable to have more children. What about economics? Let's say you could establish a policy that would pay for a college education for poor/at risk teenage girls with the condition that they have no children until after they graduate - would you do it? I would.


Good points, all. I'll have to ponder...

Post Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:06 am   View user's profile Send private message
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  


Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken