Comments for GenetiChemistry

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by rachre2

rachre2 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:14:57 +0000

“I already answered this earlyer:
Yes, of course it would justify it. that’s a tautology.”

We are talking about implications. The implications, I repeat, is that eugenics–defined as the “discarding” of PEOPLE–is justified given the presence of the (stated) super gene because it serves the good of the species.

It all comes down to that. Do you agree with it?

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by Paulginz

Paulginz — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:05:01 +0000

The species is not an abstract entity.
The species is currently composed of 6+ billion individuals.

IMHO the purpose of life (if there is one) is not to reach some genetic goal.
If the super-evolution gene were so important, then tuatara reptiles are genetically superior to us and we should add nuclear waste to our daily diets to catch up.

Maybe technological advancements invented by the sacrificed millions would have outweighed the supergene. We don’t even have a clue about the next 100y.

Comment on Homo Sapiens: Alien Genetic Influence by wildnutria

wildnutria — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:58:42 +0000

We are almost there, the time is near, we will all find out!

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by Paulginz

Paulginz — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:21:48 +0000

I believe that there are probably marginally realistic situations where the “”discarding” of PEOPLE” is justified.
For example, in case of economic meltdown and starvation, unplugging a few unconscious comatose people to divert funds towards feeding a large number of 20-year-olds would be wise.

The supergene is a bad example though. Fast evolution is so long term that it’s implications are unpredictable.
In terms of both genetic and cultural evolution a large diverse population is a key asset.

Comment on Homo Sapiens: Alien Genetic Influence by weatheredeyec57

weatheredeyec57 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:15:04 +0000

if they built us as slaves, why not destroy us after our duties were complete? did they love us as pets? are we their ant-farm? when the planet swings by again, will it be like a fast food drive-thru?(i’ll take 2 africans and an asain to go please)

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by rachre2

rachre2 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:38:26 +0000

Ok. Consider what these.

“The species is not an abstract entity..is currently composed of 6+ billion individuals.”

You have now demonstrated that the value of the species is determined only by that of the individual.

“IMHO the purpose of life..[all the way to the end]”

You have now demonstrated that the CURRENT population is more important than perceived ones (w/c theoretically are infinite).

Comment on Homo Sapiens: Alien Genetic Influence by jcfbell3001

jcfbell3001 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:35:57 +0000

They’ll be hungry again in an hour

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by Paulginz

Paulginz — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:51:21 +0000

The beauty of the Utilitarist “a-priori” is that it works both ways.

You can assume that the species as a whole has value, and deduce that the individual also has value since the species cannot exist without at least a few individuals.

The value of individuals is pretty straightforward: If I am valuable, then why not some other people too?

Why do you talk about “real” importance? The life of 6 billion people is AT LEAST 6 billion times more important than the life of a random individual.

Comment on Homo Sapiens: Alien Genetic Influence by weatheredeyec57

weatheredeyec57 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:41:01 +0000

lol, not enough msg.

Comment on Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #1 – Eugenics by rachre2

rachre2 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:29:11 +0000

So as not to further complicate this, I will have to ask you to explicitly address my previous question. (No response needed.)

“The implications, I repeat, is that eugenics–defined as the “discarding” of PEOPLE–is justified…”

The truth is I think I’ve given every point I need to support my reason for thinking that the utilitarian view IN THIS CASE is not the best argument. I see no more need to elaborate further. I’m sorry, I’ve run out of time and initiative.

Thanks for your time though!