← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 7933 | Posts: 34 | Started: 2003-07-07
2003-07-07 02:48 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/eug.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/eug.htm[/url]
Eugenics is Back! Will the next 100 years bring about new super-human species with the rest of mankind enslaved or dead?
Eugenics is back! A new species looms on the horizon. Eugenics is alive and well, and especially in countries that are free of liberalism and the roadblocks put up by the radical environmentalists. They see it as a challenge to their own intellectual dominance as well as a threat to the established dogma that all people are alike, except for opportunity.
Eugenics in the West is being practiced at the prenatal stage, where genetic disease is tested for and the child aborted if it is abnormal. But this is a form of negative eugenics and for me at least not very exciting in the whole of eugenics. It would be a much better world if we could eliminate many genetic diseases; especially childhood diseases that cost society so much in resources that could be better spent on children that can someday contribute fully to the nation's well being. We need productive citizens that can pay for the life that they have been given. On the other side -- positive eugenics -- forward thinking couples will chose mates that are compatible for raising intelligent and healthy children. Fundamentally this means looking at your mate's intelligence and health, including looking at their family history to see if they are unique or typical. If typical for the family the better chance the genes have been filtered through generations of quality breeding and not just a statistical fluke.
Complete article is at [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/eug.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/eug.htm[/url]
2003-07-07 08:14 | User Profile
I can't believe anyone actually advocates this barbaric evil. All children have a fundamental right to life and even handicapped or retarded children can be a wonderful blessing to their families.
2003-07-07 08:49 | User Profile
How much can they give back to society if they can't even take a shower? If they are lucky they will get a Mc-Job, for the rest of their lives, suck up the disability welfare, and do nothing to further society.
2003-07-07 09:08 | User Profile
*Originally posted by ÃÅbeltäter@Jul 7 2003, 03:49 * ** How much can they give back to society if they can't even take a shower? If they are lucky they will get a Mc-Job, for the rest of their lives, suck up the disability welfare, and do nothing to further society. **
And so you would kill them. No wait, I suppose have someone else kill them.
Just out of the curiousity of probing a depraved mind, where would you draw the line? Just children? How about stroke victims or elderly shut-ins? Would paraplegics as the result of car accidents merit your death sentence?
2003-07-07 11:07 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 7 2003, 03:08 * ** And so you would kill them. No wait, I suppose have someone else kill them. **
No. Where it can be prevented, it should be. We can certainly make a system inwhich they can contribute. They shmooze off the other people's hard work shouldn't be tolerated. It should because "their families love them?"
Just out of the curiousity of probing a depraved mind
Shame, shame.
Where would you draw the line?
The line should be drawn near here - "practiced at the prenatal stage, where genetic disease is tested for and the child aborted if it is abnormal."
2003-07-07 15:59 | User Profile
My wife & I have talked about children, and what if? they are born retarded.
If prenatal diagnosis is they are going to be born w/down syndrome or w/o legs, I have to do the honorable thing and abort. Terrible to say, but I'm not dedicating my entire life to caring for a retarded person. Yes, I feel guilty saying it but that's the way I feel.
-Jay
2003-07-07 18:51 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jay@Jul 7 2003, 09:59 * ** Terrible to say, but I'm not dedicating my entire life to caring for a retarded person. Yes, I feel guilty saying it but that's the way I feel. **
My childhood best friend had a brother with down syndrome. He was 20 years old, but he was like a child of 3 or 4. His parents (and taxpayers, since he recieves discibility welfare) will have to care for him the rest of his life. If it can be prevented, what is the wrong? There is none - so don't get yourself down Jay.
2003-07-07 19:31 | User Profile
Tex,
How about vowing to have two healthy children after aborting a retarded one?
2003-07-07 20:00 | User Profile
TD:
What would your opinion be as to outlawing procreation for severely retarded individuals?
2003-07-07 20:04 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jul 7 2003, 14:31 * ** How about vowing to have two healthy children after aborting a retarded one? **
Two rights won't erase one wrong, mr.
2003-07-07 20:05 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Jul 7 2003, 15:00 * ** What would your opinion be as to outlawing procreation for severely retarded individuals? **
Are severely retarded persons able to procreate?
What is the Church's position?
2003-07-07 20:09 | User Profile
Emabarrasing question. I can't tell you with any authority, but knowing the Church's position on Life, I would say the Church would be agin' it. Walter may know for certain.
Though whether this is dogma, is another question.
The reason I asked was because I agree with you on the abortion issue. But I must say, I do not find a prohibition on their procreation particularly disturbing, offensive, or given my limited theological understanding, verboten.
2003-07-08 00:08 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html]http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html[/url]
I.) Isn't human genetics and biology too complicated to practice eugenics safely ?
1) The Jews practiced eugenics, increasing their IQ by 15 points over the population average. They knew nothing about genetics, but their cultural system made sure the most intellectual and the most intelligent had more opportunities to reproduce.[MacDonald, 1994]
2) We have been doing selective breeding on animals since we started domesticating them. People have been selecting for desired traits for centuries without knowing anything about the complexities of genetics, and it worked. Many different breeds with specific personality traits have been created. The problem here is that they did it via inbreeding, which led to an increase in the occurrence of genetic diseases -- but more recently animal breeding groups have decided to select without using the inbreeding method (i.e. same process of human eugenics, phenotype selection). The result is that it works, if only less efficiently than it did with in-breeding selection (that is, there is a bit more variation within a breed created this way for the trait for which it is notable -- which is not a problem since a decent degree of variation is something we want to keep). Another example is the enhanced longevity of a fruit fly strain created by articial selection. Using phenotype selection for late fertility, in a laboratory at the University of California, Irvine, evolutionary biologist Michael Rose has bred fruit flies that live for 70 to 80 days, nearly twice that of the average fruit fly. Rose first collected eggs laid by middle-aged fruit flies, and let them hatch in isolation. The progeny were then transferred to a communal plexiglass cage to eat, grow and breed under conditions ideal for mating. When they reached advanced ages, the eggs laid by older females and fertilized by older males were again collected and the process was repeated all over again. After 15 generations, the new fruit fly had nearly twice the life span of the average fruit fly. Since these early experiments, even better results have been attained by selecting for other characteristics, such as ability to resist starvation.
3) Some ancient civilizations used negative eugenics. Sparta, one of those who practiced eugenics in selection of physical strength and health, has been one of the most militarily powerful city-states of ancient times. And, despite the fact that these civilizations have been practicing eugenics, nothing negative or destructive happened to them because of that -- quite the opposite.
4) Whether our eugenic program will work or not will itself be part of natural selection. In other words, if human genetics really is so complicated that eugenic programs won't work, then our project will be "eliminated" in some way or another, and natural selection will have accomplished its work, favoring the evolutionary laisser-faireists, culturally and perhaps even genetically. Group selection at work.
That selection can be achieved by simply selecting according to the phenotypical desired trait is not questioned by anybody as far as I know, especially when it is a multifactorial, polygenic trait -- such as intelligence.
True, recessive single-gene diseases that "keep hiding in everybody's genotype" cannot truly be once-and-for-all eliminated from the gene pool, but their incidence CAN be reduced within our gene pool. According to John Armstrong, of the "Canine Diversity Project" -- an animal breeding project --: "Though it is not practical to eliminate all deleterious mutation, the incidence of affected individuals may be significantly reduced through a combination of intelligent breeding practice and the development of DNA tests."
And it makes sense to anyone with at least the most basic knowledge of population genetics. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to humans, and I would even less see why multifactorial traits could not be selected for in the same way.
III.) Don't IQ tests fail to distinguish between the effects of genetics and environment ? How can you know, then, if there is higher genetic IQ in an individual than in another ?
Since IQ is not merely genetic, it is true that a part of your IQ reflects purely environmental influences. However, this is a moot point.
First, statistics will make sure that "injustices" -- i.e. scores in which one is higher than another one because of environmental effects -- are averaged out. Sure, at the individual level you will have some cases where one should have been considered with higher reproductive value because his high score is more substantially due to genetics than another one, but as a group this will tend to average out.
Second, as generations pass, the genes passed on will go through several different environments as they go through several different bodies, and those that are passed on because they happened to be favored by the environment, will tend to be "cleansed". In other words, with generations the effects of environment will be statistically averaged out, just like in one generation the effect of the environment tends to be averaged out.
Third, environment generally goes in the direction of "genetic IQ". That is, high IQ people will surround themselves with a more intellectually nourishing environment. This is why there is broad heritability: it is the heritability that comes from the interaction of genetics with environment as in a kind of feedback. And the broad heritability of 'g' is mostly estimated at around .80 to as high as the test-retest correlation around .93 ! In other words, most of what the 'g'-loaded IQ scores reflect is essentially genetic ability AND the better environment that results from better genetics. At best you could attribute .10 of the variation to totally environmental factors such as pre-natal environment.
When comparing two individuals, this slight uncertainty is indeed a problem. But when acting on an entire group, this is far from being a problem: it will at worst only slightly reduce the efficiency of eugenics.
IV.) By what right do you decide that less intelligent people, or people with "genetic defects" are somehow less valuable ?
We do not decide that they are less valuable, we decide that we want their traits to decrease in frequency from our Promethean gene pool. We have an objective -- to increase intellect and creativity -- and this is going to be achieved by reducing the occurrence of undesired traits and increasing the occurrence of the desired traits. We do not make value judgments about the individuals in question, we only want some of their traits to either be reduced or increased for the benefit of future generations.
As for the case of "genetic defects"(hereditary diseases), it is obviously something we want to see less often in the future generations, and therefore it is a trait we select against -- not because we believe that the individuals who possess them are "worthless", but because they suffer from them and we do not want to pass on this suffering.
I think we have a right, as a group, to decide which traits we want to see enhanced and which traits we want to see removed from our future gene pool. If we were imposing this on others, then I would understand you ethical concerns. But we are not: we are voluntarily choosing this, as willing members of Prometheism.
V.) Isn't intelligence or IQ a learned ability ?
No. Its basis is genetic. Environment can affect it, but even then it is mostly nutrition and things such as serious sensory deprivation that can affect it. Every experiment that has attempted to raise IQ (mostly on children) by practice and learning gave either one of two results: the gains were lost after a few years or when reaching mid-adolescence, or the gains were only on one type of test and did not transfer to the common component of IQ tests ('g') or other tests. In other words, the individuals had been "taught to the test", but their intelligence had not increased.
Also, Professor Plomin has found the first gene, located on chromosome six, that influences intelligence.
VII.) Isn't eugenics unethical ?
It depends on how it is applied. Not practicing eugenics is unethical.
If you are talking about state-imposed coercive eugenics, then maybe. It becomes a never-ending debate on individual versus collective rights, and happiness of the masses versus happiness of future generations.
If you are talking about what Prometheism supports -- voluntary eugenics applied to a private consenting group -- then no it isn't, and I don't see why it would be.
VIII.) In a high-IQ society, who will do the dishes, flip hamburgers ? Who will be the janitor ?
1) The occupational level is relative to the population's mean. So in a high-IQ society, one can suppose that it is still the left part of the bell curve that will have the lower-skill jobs. 2) Having a high IQ doesn't make you incapable of enjoying simple things, just like having a low IQ doesn't make you love washing dishes. 3) As the IQ of the population rises, the need for simpler jobs will diminish as the rise in technologically-oriented professions replaces these by automated processes. The intellectual/technological solution to problems will increasingly be chosen instead of the physical solution -- where possible. Besides, the economy leads us in this direction with "automatization" and "digitalization", which suits the right part of the bell curve's interests: it is more efficient. So this is actually a welcome development for a society with a rising IQ, a society with an intellect that progresses along with its culture and technology. 4) As for low-skill jobs, there will always be students who need them... 5) The economy will adapt to anything: even if it happens that low-skill jobs are in higher demand, then people who do such jobs will be better paid...
IX.) What if this FAQ didn't answer my question ?
If you have more questions, specifically about eugenics, you can view Marian Van Court's Q & A on eugenics, not affiliated with the Church of Prometheus, at [url=http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Q&a.html]http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Q&a.html[/url] And while you're at it, be sure to visit the Future Generations website at [url=http://www.eugenics.net]http://www.eugenics.net[/url]
If that still doesn't answer your question, you can join our discussion group, [url=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheism-pgroup]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheism-pgroup[/url] and ask.
References
2003-07-08 03:32 | User Profile
Here is a free online eugenics book, by Robert Klark Graham: [url=http://www.eugenics.net/index2.html]http://www.eugenics.net/index2.html[/url]
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-08 22:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 7 2003, 02:14 * I can't believe anyone actually advocates this barbaric evil. All children have a fundamental right to life and even handicapped or retarded children can be a wonderful blessing to their families.*
Tex: I think that you're confusing eugenics with euthanasia. I am a firm believer in humanitarian eugenics myself (thought unlike areas I do not think that whites have to resort to miscegenating with Jews and Orientals in order to improve the quality of their genepools). Speaking as a former evangelical Christian, I do not think that there is anything about neo-eugenics that contradicts the moral tenets of Christianity. Take a look at the [url=http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mission.html]Future Generations Mission Statement.[/url]
2003-07-08 22:42 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Prodigal Son@Jul 8 2003, 17:23 * ** Speaking as a former evangelical Christian, I do not think that there is anything about neo-eugenics that contradicts the moral tenets of Christianity. **
Thanks, PS. While admitting that I am no eugenics scholar, my main concern would be the "discarding" of fertilized eggs. As far as I'm concerned, life begins at conception. From that point on the deliberate killing of that life is morally and ethically wrong, no matter the circumstance.
Going further, I have no faith in fallen man to perform God's job. There's not too much out there that scares me more than man screwing around with human genetics on any level. You can be sure that those that are doing so will eventually commit a grave error and I shudder to think of the results of that.
2003-07-08 22:58 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 8 2003, 16:42 * ** There's not too much out there that scares me more than man screwing around with human genetics on any level.
**
Actually, man is screwing with genetics simply by choosing mates: the choices man makes affect the genetic characteristics of future generations. If you have read Marian Van Court's review of Richard Lynn's "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations," which I posted here at OD, it shows that man has played with genetics for the last 150 years.
Actually, there are only two choices: a decrease in genetic intelligence, or an increase. IQ and morality are currently decreasing each generation due to playing with genetics in a negative way, but if we decided to screw with genetics in a positive way, we would actually be improving.
Actually, vaccinations, organ transfers, surgery, and artificial medicines would be screwing with God's plan, because God made us to be susceptible to cancer, viruses, bacteria, and cardivascular disease. Thus to alter what God has planned for us would be anti-God behavior.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-08 23:25 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 8 2003, 17:58 * ** Actually, vaccinations, organ transfers, surgery, and artificial medicines would be screwing with God's plan, because God made us to be susceptible to cancer, viruses, bacteria, and cardivascular disease. Thus to alter what God has planned for us would be anti-God behavior.
**
No, God has given man a mind to learn and practice things that better his condition. I am not anti-medicine, but there are ethical constraints on what should be allowed and/or disallowed.
Being at the forefront of these issues, I'm sure the Catholic Church has something addressing the ethical considerations and constraints of eugenics, but I don't have the time right now to go looking for it. As I mentioned above, a couple of things I would be against would be intentional killing of fertilized human eggs or forced sterilizations.
2003-07-08 23:41 | User Profile
No, God has given man a mind to learn and practice things that better his condition. I am not anti-medicine, but there are ethical constraints on what should be allowed and/or disallowed.
Hello Texas,
I have not read the Bible, but from my understanding, the Bible does not say what medical procedures are endorsed by God and which ones are not.
a couple of things I would be against would be intentional killing of fertilized human eggs or forced sterilizations.
I can understand your position here. As I see it, the actual part of the human body that is the "person" is the brain, for in the brain is where consciousness resides. Thus, since there is no brain in a zygote, I don't consider it murder to distroy one. But, once a functional brain develops in the womb, then I can see the validity in claiming murder when that point is reached.
Sterilization is not even needed for eugenics. Instead, people can be given welfare if they VOLUNTEER to get sterilized. No voluntary sterilization, no welfare. Second, the state can provide financial incentives for the very smart individuals to have above replacement levels of offspring.
Then the whole biotechnology branch of eugenics comes into play, like cloning and genetic engineering. No Zygote is distroyed in this method, and no sterilization is required.
So, as you can see, there are many ways of improving the cognitive capital of a nation. We just need to decide which methods are "ethical" and which ones are not.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-09 03:51 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 8 2003, 16:42 * ** I have no faith in fallen man to perform God's job. **
I'm sorry if I don't believe in ancient myths. I do believe in my people, and I would want them to be strong. It is our job to see that we are strong, and will survive - our survival and development as a species has always been in our own hands.
2003-07-09 13:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jul 8 2003, 16:42 -->
QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jul 8 2003, 16:42 ) Going further, I have no faith in fallen man to perform God's job. There's not too much out there that scares me more than man screwing around with human genetics on any level. You can be sure that those that are doing so will eventually commit a grave error and I shudder to think of the results of that.* I have no faith in * fallible * man to screw around with something as fundamental as our race. Both eugenicists and Marxists are utopianists, both pave the road to hell with their delusions. We have no need of a world populated by Goldberg's coffee-coloured cattle or Ares' Star Trek idiot savants.
Ares as much as you vaunt empiricism you choose to ignore empirical evidence - the most [url=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/derjude.jpg]obvious example[/url] of breeding for intelligence and ethnocentrism. Evolution is a vastly complex process of near infinite tests, checks and counter balances; the sum of human knowledge is pathetic in comparison. It is clear from the many links you have posted that the proponents of neo-eugenics and ââ¬ËTranshumanisimââ¬â¢ share more in common with ââ¬ËAge of Aquariusââ¬â¢ kooks than scientific rigor.
<!--QuoteBegin-ÃÅbeltäter@Jul 7 2003, 02:49 * How much can they give back to society if they can't even take a shower? If they are lucky they will get a Mc-Job, for the rest of their lives, suck up the disability welfare, and do nothing to further society.
Our National Socialist comrades tend towards pessimistic Darwinism; they perceive a problem and seek to eliminate it. Such a view is based on the notion that if an attribute is contextually dysgenic, e.g. super low intelligence, it follows that it is also universally dysgenic.
On the other hand am an optimistic Darwinist; everything has a potential place in the natural order - even that which may be perceived as dysfunctional. 99% of our dysgenic problems would resolve themselves with the elimination of overweening social welfare. Let individuals and families face their own Darwinistic choices, if man stays his hand than nature will take its course. A Down Syndrome individual can push a broom as well as the next person so there is no reason why they cannot be gainfully employed in this capacity.
White nationalists should bear in mind the example of our own raceââ¬â¢s inclination toward altruism. In the light that this attribute has allowed a highly evolved social parasite attach itself to our group body it may be viewed as pathogenic. However it is this self-same attribute which enabled our race to thrive in an environment considerably more hostile than the terrain which nurtured our dusky brethren.
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-09 14:11 | User Profile
Let individuals and families face their own Darwinistic choices, if man stays his hand than nature will take its course.
Humanity is a part of nature. What ever humanity does will always be natural, because that is our nature - kinda wierd, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Homo spien spiens beat out all other related spieces long ago and claimed dominance to this panet. We did it through our enginuity and strength, we could think of new things and ideas that other spieces couldn't, and they became extinct. Eugenics (if we decide to do it) will be part of our natural development as a spieces. This is what has been taking place of millions of years already, but unknowingly. Males and Females selected a mate that would give them the strongest children, usually the alpha-male is more stronger and gets to mate more. This is survival of the fittest. The ancient greeks would leave any abnormal new-born in the wilderness. Probably also practiced around the world too. This way they insured a geneticly healthy population.
I am not saying kill all handicaped people - quite the opposite. I am saying that we find a capacity that they can work - without having to be parasites - for the rest of their lives. Then for scientists and doctors to start screening out abnormal embyos. I see how this can be considered life, but untill we can engineer DNA, so that we can choose a baby's outcome, this will have to do. No parent wants to raise an abnormal child. No society wants to spend money on them. Choose the most effiecent way to do it and get it done. Our development is up to us.
Hilaire Belloc
2003-07-09 17:10 | User Profile
White nationalists should bear in mind the example of our own raceââ¬â¢s inclination toward altruism.
That's true na Gaeil is gile. I don't know of any kind of altruism equal to that of Europeans, and that in many ways make our civilzation so unique and superior to others. People don't realize the role Europeans played in abolishing many cruel and brutal pratices around thw world, often when guided by Christian principles.
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-09 17:35 | User Profile
What good has that done us? Look where we are now. Your friends are standing with a bible in one hand and a flag in the other, cheering bush on, as your glorius christian soldiers march through Iraq, to make the world safer for the chosen people. Nothing christianity has done, has been good for our people. The church kept europe in the dark age, sucking our potential out of us. Burning people to the stake and bannishing others for being great scientific thinkers. Christianity is something our people must give up, if we are to become stronger and stand agianst the ever rising tide of the New world order.
Conservative
2003-07-09 19:07 | User Profile
Both eugenicists and Marxists are utopianists
Hello!
Eugenicists believe in constant improvement, they don't accept the idea of a utopian paradigm because things can always be better than the previous status quo; their is limit to improvement. But aside from that, let's say eugenicists were utopianists, then what would be wrong with that? And how does making the claim that both eugenicists and Marxists support utopianianism rebutt the idea of eugenics? Both eugenicists and Marxists like to take $hits, both like women, both like beer, ad infinitum. Does this fact rebutt the validity of $hitting, of prefering women to homosexuality, of intaking alcohol?
What you are actually doing is engaging in the same irrational debate tactic that the main political parties do. Democrats say that Both Hitler and Republicans oppose affirmative action, thus affirmative action is a good idea, because to reject it is to be a National Socialist. But then Republicans say, both Hitler and Democrats support limiting gun rights, thus to oppose guns is to be a National Socialist.
We have no need of a world populated by Goldberg's coffee-coloured cattle or Ares' Star Trek idiot savants.
You are using the word "we" when you should be using the word "I." In other words, YOU have no need for a society filled with geniuses, but I and many others do. My type prefer a nation filled with cognitively enhanced citizens; but you don't, and that is fine. To each his own. But, don't speak for everyone else by using the word "we."
**Ares as much as you vaunt empiricism you choose to ignore empirical evidence - the most [url=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/derjude.jpg]obvious example[/url] of breeding for intelligence and ethnocentrism. **
I could turn your argument around and say that your dislike of Blacks due to their low intelligence means that you actually value intelligence, as did the Jews, so you acting like a Jew. But, in any case, Jews selected for extreme/pathological levels of ethnocentrism, which is why they are very parasitical; but I want to select for a healthy level of ethnocentrism only, the level found in East Asians, for example. Aside from that, yes, I admire the Jewish selection for intelligence; the Jews control the world today because of their eugenics - that is one hell of a success story.
Evolution is a vastly complex process of near infinite tests, checks and counter balances; the sum of human knowledge is pathetic in comparison. It is clear from the many links you have posted that the proponents of neo-eugenics and ââ¬ËTranshumanisimââ¬â¢ share more in common with ââ¬ËAge of Aquariusââ¬â¢ kooks than scientific rigor.
Ahhh, name calling, now who is acting Jewish? Name calling of course is the equivalent of admitting defeat in any debates; when there are no more facts, the only solution is to throw insults at your opponent.
But aside from that, you are using the old argument "it is too complex, so let's just not do it." This is the same argument of course by racial egalitarians: "the human brain is too complex, the 'racists' have no business saying Whites are superior to others." To answer the question of the complexity of eugenics, see [url=http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html]http://www.prometheism.net/FAQII.html[/url]
Also, a quote by Dworkin comes to mind:
"Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown."
Our National Socialist comrades
I am not a National Socialist, I am a White Nationalist
** if man stays his hand than nature will take its course.**
Nature will take its course whether we apply eugenics or not. Nature includes the collective actions of every organism interacting with each other and the environment. Whether we apply transhumanism or not, either path is still natural because nature includes all actions in any direction by any organism.
White nationalists should bear in mind the example of our own raceââ¬â¢s inclination toward altruism. In the light that this attribute has allowed a highly evolved social parasite attach itself to our group body it may be viewed as pathogenic. However it is this self-same attribute which enabled our race to thrive in an environment considerably more hostile than the terrain which nurtured our dusky brethren.
Pathological ethnocentrism has enabled Jews to thrive for a long time, but that does not mean they sould avoid trying to select AGAINST it.
Same with hyper-altruism; with Whites, it has reached a point where they cannot function in a rational way. So I would choose to breed this trait out and replace it with a more healthy blalance of altruism.
Regards,
Ares
Aidos
2003-07-09 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Seems more like coercion than 'volunteering.'
Hilaire Belloc
2003-07-09 22:31 | User Profile
**What good has that done us? Look where we are now. Your friends are standing with a bible in one hand and a flag in the other, cheering bush on, as your glorius christian soldiers march through Iraq, to make the world safer for the chosen people. **
Those are Evangelical christians who are cheering Bush on. Almost every other Chrisitan denomination opposed the war. The Pope opposed the war. The Orthodox Church opposed the war. Lutherans, etc.
So as Texas dissident told me, using a small minority to critise the majority is no different than Clinton using Timothy Mcveigh to attack all citizen militias and all 2nd amendement advocates as domestic terrorists.
** Nothing christianity has done, has been good for our people. The church kept europe in the dark age, sucking our potential out of us. Burning people to the stake and bannishing others for being great scientific thinkers. Christianity is something our people must give up, if we are to become stronger and stand agianst the ever rising tide of the New world order. **
Oh how ignorant you are of history. It was the Christian church that saved so much of Europe's intellectual heritage that gave birth to the Renassiance. Many historians agree that if it weren't for Irish monks copying many of the most important texts of Classical times and preserving them, almost any book written before 1000AD would've been lost forever. What a loss that would've been to Western civilization.
It was theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's and 1300's that gave rebirth to intellectual and scientific research in Europe. [url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/staamp0.htm]http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ete...ext/staamp0.htm[/url]
In fact it was St. Thomas Aquinas who helped to revive interest in classical Greco-Roman philosophers like Aristotle and Plato.
In fact many of Europe's greatest scientists of the Middle Ages were men of the church, and their influence on modern science cannot be overlooked.
It was the christian concept of the universe(that it is of God's creation so therefore man must understand it in order to better understand God and his creations) that laid the foundations for modern science. Many of the first modern universities and centers of learning in Europe were of religious character.
It was Christian concepts of "free choice" to follow or not to follow God's laws and will that laid the foundations for Western concepts of individual freedom.
About the Inquisition. Well since the release of the Vatican archives to the investigations of scholars, many are now realizing that much about the popular image of it was wrong. The numbers of people burned at the stake were grossly over-estimated. In some cases, documents showed that the institution burned less than 10 people a year. [url=http://www.catholicleague.org/research/inquisition.html]http://www.catholicleague.org/research/inq...nquisition.html[/url]
And here's info on the trial of Galileo [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm[/url]
To deny the contributions of Christianity to the West is to deny much of what makes the West so great. It was the Church that helped Europe survive and ultimately move out of the dark ages.
Not a threat: the Contributions of Christianity to Western society [url=http://www.probe.org/docs/threat.html]http://www.probe.org/docs/threat.html[/url]
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-09 23:00 | User Profile
**Those are Evangelical christians who are cheering Bush on. Almost every other Chrisitan denomination opposed the war. The Pope opposed the war. The Orthodox Church opposed the war. Lutherans, etc. **
Could've fooled me with the overwealming support the country gave him.
**Oh how ignorant you are of history. It was the Christian church that saved so much of Europe's intellectual heritage that gave birth to the Renassiance. Many historians agree that if it weren't for Irish monks copying many of the most important texts of Classical times and preserving them, almost any book written before 1000AD would've been lost forever. What a loss that would've been to Western civilization. **
Oh yes, monks recording history was good. The people would've recorded their own history, by the way, if they weren't kept iliterate and dumb.
It was theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's and 1300's that gave rebirth to intellectual and scientific research in Europe.
I am well aware of that "saint."
It was the christian concept of the universe(that it is of God's creation so therefore man must understand it in order to better understand God and his creations) that laid the foundations for modern science.
Obsurd. We wouldn't have explored science if people's belief in god didn't compell them. Christianity limited science. The Heliocentric theory was dammed by the Chruch - How dare you say the earth revolves around the sun! Everyone knows Earth is the center of the Universe! Then there was the persicution of doctors who wanted to understand the human body, by exuming corpses and studying them. Galieo excommunicated. How many scientists did we miss throughout the years? The countless chances for progress kept down through fear, the church taught to not care about this world - that the afterlife is all that mattered. While the church taxed the people and got rich off their belief in this false hope.
To deny the contributions of Christianity to the West is to deny much of what makes the West so great. It was the Church that helped Europe survive and ultimately move out of the dark ages.
I didn't mean to say that I deny some good things christians have done. But Christianity did nothing! If Emperor Constantine never became a christian and the Roman Empire also, we would have progress just a good, if not a whole lot better. There is no changing the past, but the future is yet to be written. It is my opinion that christianity will do nobody any good. I'd rather prefer a Moslem friend - at least they see the jew as an enemy, unlike most christians.
Hilaire Belloc
2003-07-10 03:09 | User Profile
Could've fooled me with the overwealming support the country gave him.
Yes but the majority of America's religious leaders were opposed to the war. Maybe because of our highly secularized society were people don't pay any attention to their religious leaders anymore.
** Oh yes, monks recording history was good. The people would've recorded their own history, by the way, if they weren't kept iliterate and dumb.**
The vast majority of people were illiterate even during pagan times, so don't blame Christians for that.
** Obsurd. We wouldn't have explored science if people's belief in god didn't compell them. **
So are you admitting that belief in god advanced scientific research?
** Christianity limited science. The Heliocentric theory was dammed by the Chruch - How dare you say the earth revolves around the sun! Everyone knows Earth is the center of the Universe! **
If your version of history is true, please explain why one of the earliest admirers of Copernicus's theories was Pope Leo X (1513-1521) who also expressed an interest in hearing them advanced. Oh by the way, Copernicus was an ordained priest and studied the church's recent discoveries in astronomy.
In fact it was Pope Gregory XIII that introduced the "major achievement of modern astronomy". Judging from recent discoveries in astronomy, Gregory decided to replace the old Julian calander with a more accurate calander. Thus the Gregorian calander has proven so accurate that it is still used today. Yes the Church did so much to repress knowledge.
The church had no problems with the ideas of the earth moving around the sun, only if it was represented as theory, not undisputed fact. Considering that technology at the time couldn't truely prove Copernicus's theories as undisputed fact, this was somewhat wise. So the church was simply being cautious on what scientific theories they supported, especially those that lacked suficient evidence at the time. Something scientists often fail to do themselves.
** Galieo excommunicated.**
Funny since Galileo insisted until his death that he was a devout Catholic. He never had any animosity towards the Church. Most the theologians that condemned Galileo were more influenced by the Ptolemaic theories that held the earth to be the center of the universe. So their judgements were as much based on accepted scientific theories at the time as they were on scripture.
The condemnation had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation. It should be mentioned that Galileo was as much condemned by fellow scientists for his theories as he ever was by theologians.
** How many scientists did we miss throughout the years? The countless chances for progress kept down through fear, the church taught to not care about this world - that the afterlife is all that mattered. While the church taxed the people and got rich off their belief in this false hope.**
Depending on what Christian denomination's theachings you are referring to, but at least the Catholic view is that one gets into heaven based on what the person does in this life. Blind faith is not enough as it is in Protestant teachings.
As I said before, the Church helped preserve and ultimately spread knoweldge in Europe that gave birth to the Renaissance. In fact the earliest creations of the Renaissance(architecture, paintings, sculpture, philosophy) were of a Christian or Christian influenced nature.
** I didn't mean to say that I deny some good things christians have done. But Christianity did nothing! If Emperor Constantine never became a christian and the Roman Empire also, we would have progress just a good, if not a whole lot better.**
Can you prove that or is this just pure conjecture? The Roman Empire was already weakening, Constantine help give a temporary revival in Roman civilization.
** There is no changing the past, **
I agree but it can be distorted.
** but the future is yet to be written. It is my opinion that christianity will do nobody any good. I'd rather prefer a Moslem friend - at least they see the jew as an enemy, unlike most christians. **
I agree that the future is yet to be written, just what kind of future will that be. Oh and the Jews, you should really study the writings of traditional christianity before condemning the religion. You should read the writings of the 18th century French Jesuit Abbé Barruel, who wrote a whole treatise about how Jews were responsible for the French Revolution and how they wished to destory all civilizations.
In many cases Jews recieved better treatment and tolerance from Muslims than they did from Christians.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-10 12:54 | User Profile
Here is the only article in the [url=http://www.ziplink.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/kerygma/a.pl]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url] that I found containing the word "eugenics," and it seems on point:
2268. "The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.[Cf. Gen 4:10 .] Infanticide,[Cf. GS 51 # 3.] fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for EUGENICS or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority. "
I would say that the Catholic Church is concerned about procedures; so long as proper forms are kept, the individual has freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of his or her conscience. It isn't a restrictive thing at all, it is rather what might be called "ordered liberty."
For example, the Church is all for sex, so long as it's within marriage and nothing artificial is used to prevent child birth, but natural family planning is just fine. There's a whole theology about why justice dictates that sex outside of marriage is immoral, and so marriage is the thing. But once you're married, have at it, so to speak. The more the better. On the other hand, there's no requirment to have a lot of children (although the decision to have ZERO children would bring into question the validity of the marriage from the outset), and couples are free to decide family size so long the guidelines are followed.
So, too, in regard to other issues like eugenics - if you marry a smart person in the hopes of having smarter children, I see no problem with that. Why not? As long as you follow a few simple guidelines, do your thing.
In vitro operations are allowed to correct genetic defects, and I would think that even future vectored genetic treatments will be allowed so long as they stay within the guidelines of respecting life that has been created and (I would guess) correcting genuine ailments.
The main guideline is that we respect life at all of its stages, and if we don't do that then we're on a slippery slope to where nobody's rights are protected. Killing people because they're retarded is right out, as is killing the old and infirm.
Here are some articles on Euthanasia:
**2277. "Whatever its motives and means, direct EUTHANASIA consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. "
- "Intentional EUTHANASIA, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. "**
That said, there is no requirement to take extraordinary measures to prolong life, and painkillers like morphine are fine even if the side effect is to "shorten days."
**2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. **
My Dad (may he rest in peace) died of lung cancer 12 years ago, and really I have to say that once he started on morphine that his trajectory was nearly straight down. I'd say that morphine comes awfully close to euthanasia, but it doesn't cross that line, and that's the important thing. One argument for euthanasia is that it ends pain, but I saw with my own eyes that pain can be dealt with effectively. Dad was okay those last days, albeit happliy STONED on morphine. We all talked over our lives together, all the good times and all the not-so-good times. And we were all with him when he crossed over, chanting the rosary. I want to go out like that.
I believe in keeping the rules and staying in bounds. I think that even fig leaves are important - legal, moral or otherwise. They remind us that some lines must never be crossed, lest we slip into the abyss. Dad was like that, so is Mom. Broad freedom within the moral guidelines laid down by Nature, Revelation, and Magisterial Authority. That's the Catholic way, IMHO.
My own dear mother (who is one of the few living candidates for canonization and is in fact far more Catholic than the Pope) has lived with cancer for 12 years now, and she's refused treatment that seemed to her beyond the price in time, expense and pain that she was willing to pay. (She's managed it quite well with drugs and radiation, and is now again in remission). I say good for her. And that's all in keeping with Catholic theology. Death is inevitable, hurrying it for the sake of hurrying it is always wrong.
God forbid our society should ever abandon the broad moral guidelines within which all sane human societies operate for some Brave New World of euthanasia, invasive eugenic treatments, forced abortion, and so forth. Those things all take one class of human beings (the sick, the old, the unborn) and turn them over to the arbitrary disposal of other classes of human beings (doctors, family members, pregnant women). It's slavery, pure and simple. All of those evils - abortion, euthanasia, involuntary sterilization, and so forth - are forms of slavery.
Walter
Texas Dissident
2003-07-10 18:04 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 10 2003, 07:54 * ** God forbid our society should ever abandon the broad moral guidelines within which all sane human societies operate for some Brave New World of euthanasia, invasive eugenic treatments, forced abortion, and so forth. Those things all take one class of human beings (the sick, the old, the unborn) and turn them over to the arbitrary disposal of other classes of human beings (doctors, family members, pregnant women). It's slavery, pure and simple. All of those evils - abortion, euthanasia, involuntary sterilization, and so forth - are forms of slavery.
**Very well said, Walter. In my opinion, the Catholic Church and the current pope deserve much credit and praise for steadfastly holding the line on the sanctity of all life issue.
jeffersonian
2003-07-10 20:49 | User Profile
My childhood best friend had a brother with down syndrome. He was 20 years old, but he was like a child of 3 or 4.
Some diseases are worse then downs syndroms, retardation, or birth defects. One is believing that any child regardless of disability is conceived without a soul.
Good of society nonwithstanding.
Aidos
2003-07-10 22:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 9 2003, 21:09 * The church had no problems with the ideas of the earth moving around the sun, only if it was represented as theory, not undisputed fact. Considering that technology at the time couldn't truely prove Copernicus's theories as undisputed fact, this was somewhat wise. So the church was simply being cautious on what scientific theories they supported, especially those that lacked suficient evidence at the time. Something scientists often fail to do themselves.*
ÃÅbeltäter and Perun, your posts contain truth, both when speaking for and against the Church in terms of its support and constraint of scientific advancement. That is to be expected when you try to present a one-sided, uniform view of 500 or so years of human history across a continent. Many churchmen were devoted scientists, who wanted to change the 'system' to include scientific advancement from within. That struggle goes on to the present. Many higher prelates tried to suppress any such thing, on the basis that it upset status quo. As to literacy, for hundreds of years the Church more or less supported the feudal system which acknowledged just 3 classes: the nobility, the Church and the upper clergy (priests were often illiterate and ill-educated themselves) and the vast peasant class, whose job it was to provide labour. A few promising peasants might enter the Church, but overall, that was not much encouraged. The Church in general supported the conservative political forces, as a means to support the status quo. After all, rehabilitating Galileo only a few years ago, can be construed as glacial progress! The Irish monks were instrumental to recording many works of classical learning, and during the Dark Ages, the monasteries really were beacons of learning and the preservation of classical knowledge, in a pretty disfunctional political system. But Perun, I think you give far too much credit to the Irish monks and Aquinas for being the motor that started the Renaissance. That seems to have been infuenced and started more from re-translations of classic Greek works of philosophy, mathematics and science, from ARABIC! Mostly Italian traders expanding commerce across the Mediterranean, and bringing European learning, in terms of the ancient Greeks, back to Europe. The ironies of history! The Arabs were far more advanced in astronomy and mathematics than Europe in general, during the time that they occuppied large tracts of current Spain. Our number system is Arabic, for example. Many classical works today, would have been lost forever, had the Arab translations not been around after the fall of the Roman Empire. There was a real flowering of Arabic learning in the Middle Ages, from today's perspective, the last great gasp of Islamic civilisation before collapsing into various forms of religious absolutism. Another lesson for us to learn from? And Perun, about Galileo, the Church in 1992 could not even apologise to Galileo posthumously. Cardinal Poupard (ah the irony of the name!) said the declaration was 'a formal recognition' of error. [QUOTE] Here I would like to quote James Reston from his book 'Galileo- A life' in speaking about the declaration with Poupard. " ...he repeated again the standard church line about Galileo that I had heard often in 3 years of writing: Galileo had been condemned because he insisted on treating his Conernican theory as truth rather than hypothesis, and could not prove it. [COLOR=red]This position deflected attention from a simple fact: The Copernican theory was true, and the church had used extreme and rigorous methods to crush that truth and protect its falsehood." [COLOR=blue]" If you read up on the inquiries and the trials, you will see that a little bit more than scientific cautiousness was at work in the Church's prosecution of the case.
As to rehabilitating the Inquisition, really. The witchhunts alone became an institutionalised business which rolled in waves across Europe, looking for fresh victims. That year with only 10 deaths you mentioned must have been one where the whole Inquisition was on sabbatical or at an 'Implements of Torture Expo', as estimates of witches burned are close to 1 Million, less than 10% of them being men. This business was given over to the Franciscan and Dominican orders, the local clergy being deemed too lax in uncovering local witches. (Acquinas was a great believer in demons and witches by the way) If you review the Hexenhammer- the Witch-Hunters original source book, you can see how the whole thing was a sort of mass psychosis embued with suppressed sexuality. The methods used to extract confessions are not only brutal, they are sexually loaded with sadistic lust. On the balance, I would say that overall, the Church's contributions to science have been minimal, even considering the preservation of knowledge in the Medieval Ages. The counterbalance of terror and abuse of privilege was certainly a high price. And for the anti-Catholics out there, the Reformed Church continued the witchhunts, and profited in the same way as the good Francisans and Domincans, so let's not go there. Really seems to be a kind of anti-feminist phenomenon, looking at it from today.
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-10 23:07 | User Profile
Good post Aidos :nerd: