31–40 of 69 posts
Baby Boomers are going to die at a much faster clip than their parents (due to sedentary lifestyles/fast food/general excess), and that will cause a lot of unplanned destabilization. I'm willing to put $20 on both my parents (currently 69 and 63) kicking it in the next 5 years.
(On average, in general) men and women are fundamentally and biologically different making some of them more inclined towards one field or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree: it's the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary decisions. If I look for a genetically fit partner to have kids with, that's my decision, and it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all). If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all.
> it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all) But is your choice yours, or just your genes speaking? I'd also dispute the idea that there aren't universal indicators of genetic fitness that we all find attractive. Given free choice we would all prefer someone with better skin, brighter eyes, more lustrous hair, better teeth, etc. etc. wouldn't we? No one sets out to look for an u…
Search porn hub for BBW.
(On average, in general) men and women are fundamentally and biologically different making some of them more inclined towards one field or the other.
(It's also extremely popular for people who believe, or at least wish others to believe, that that is a sufficient explanation for all difference in observed results—or at least those favoring men in positions of economic or social power and privilege—to misattribute all disagreement on the source of those particular differences to disagreement with the uncontroversial generality.)
That people have agency and as such peoples life circumstances are at least partially of their making.
sometimes I think that I'm a genius
As a political centrist I feel like I'm surrounded by communists and fascists.
As a political centrist I feel like I'm surrounded by communists and fascists.
Except (at least in the U.S.) the field of political opinion is rotated 90 degrees. It should be Fascists vs Libertarians, but instead Republicans take the social side of Fascism and fiscal side of Libertatianism, and vice versa for Democrats. So IMO neither party takes a logical position.
Seems to me that of you are viewing the world through a Fascism vs. Libertarianism lens and trying to apply that to US party political the current Republicans take the social side of Fascism and also the fiscal side of Fascism.
Pretty much all of us are massive hypocrites when it comes to Eugenics: it is a taboo subject when applied to populations, yet everyone apart from the insane is looking for a genetically fit partner.
Saying that that makes us hypocrites about eugenics is like saying supporting adults freely engaging in consensual sex but opposing government-mandated compulsory intercourse as soon as one reaches the age of majority makes us hypocrites about sex.
Pretty much all of us are massive hypocrites when it comes to Eugenics: it is a taboo subject when applied to populations, yet everyone apart from the insane is looking for a genetically fit partner.
Your hypothesis doesn't hold any water on the face of it, even before getting into much more complicated edge cases.
I once saw a comment on a cystic fibrosis forum by a woman with CF who had a previous boyfriend with CF. CF causes significant reproductive problems, including that 97 percent of men with CF have vas deferens, so their ejaculate contains no live sperm. On top of that it is a homozygous recessive disorder, so it's very controversial for someone with CF to want biological children of their own since you have no hope of not passing on a defective gene. Two people with CF wanting a child together would be guaranteed to have a child with CF and it would almost certainly require medical intervention to happen at all.
The CF community frequently has heated, emotional discussions about the morality of having more kids if your first child has CF, having biological kids at all if you have CF, etc.
I also have read of people with certain disorders having intervention so they could have a biological child and select out the ones that got the bad genes because they knew how torturous the condition was and had no desire to do that to their own child.
The ability to identify problematic genes via testing and the option to have certain kinds of fertility intervention is creating a whole slew of new questions. This complicated by the fact that genetic disorders profligate when they offer a survival advantage.
This is the story behind Sickle Cell, which helps protect against malaria. It is also the reason CF is so much more common in Caucasian populations of European descent: Having only one of the genes doesn't give you a deadly condition and protects against an infection that rampantly killed people in Europe historically.
So it is entirely possible that after designer babies become a thing and we remove too many "bad" genes from the gene pool, someday this will come back to bite us for some reason.