OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 12:35:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. Jude's Hospital and stem cell processing  (Read 9691 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2008, 06:14:48 AM »

Quite possibly, but while I think the government can manage to impliment an objective scientific principle as policy, with well determined standards; I don't quite trust them for the subjective evaluation of who they believe to be a good parent and who might not be a good parent, that starts to encroach on issues related to freedom of conscious wheras an objectively designed eugenics programme does not.

Eugenics doesn't encroach on freedom as long as you are not the one being picked as "unworthy." And there would be a very good scientific method to determine "good parenting," I am pretty sure it would NOT include the belief in any sort of "higher being" since that can not be proved scientifically.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2008, 06:15:31 AM »

Natural selection has been proven completely unreliable. It simply does not work. That whole "birds" argument with the changing beaks is all based on faulty study and research. Once the adaptation to the beak is unnecessary the beak reverts to its former state. If natural selection truly worked then the changes within a species wouldn't be so cyclical.

But much of the genetic information from the previous state is still stored in the genome, if it some how becomes more beneficial in the future due to a changing enviroment it's far from impossible that it will again become dominate.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2008, 06:16:59 AM »

One would find all the children with high IQ's and study them. Then find the commonalities amongest the families that raised/birthed the higher IQ children and implement that as the standard of parenting. But that would ALSO mean that if the commonality was that each child was tied to as desk with a book and beaten with a cane, that we would have to make that standard practice too.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2008, 06:18:13 AM »

If you want to go down a road you need to take it to its logical conclusion, otherwise it isn't a theory worth pursuing. You can be "half pregnant" afterall.

And if education was a factor then we would see an increase in IQ's since the advent of standardized education. But the reality is that standardized education has hurt our young minds more than it has helped them.

You're assuming that standardized education was somehow beneficial, I tend to disagree with an assumption.

But I think that while the increased offering of education may not be directly beneficial to the overall improvement of intelligent it does serve the purpose of social engineering, those who are more highly educated are more likely to pass on an intellecutal cuture that will be beneficial to the intelligence of their offspring.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2008, 06:19:15 AM »

But much of the genetic information from the previous state is still stored in the genome, if it some how becomes more beneficial in the future due to a changing enviroment it's far from impossible that it will again become dominate.

But the issue is dominance of a certain characteristic in the birds/beaks. If the birds with the big beaks all died because they needed small beaks then it would only be a recessive gene, a gene that "acts" only on occasion. So then there would be more deaths each time the characteristic was needed and the population would decline, not grow or remain the same.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2008, 06:20:36 AM »

may not be directly beneficial to the overall improvement of intelligent it does serve the purpose of social engineering, those who are more highly educated are more likely to pass on an intellecutal cuture that will be beneficial to the intelligence of their offspring.

That can't be proven even a mite. In fact, a great number of "geniuses" were undereducated and considered complete dolts up until adulthood.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2008, 06:21:25 AM »

And if you want to sing the praises of social engineering without parental engineering, then you won't achieve the results you seek.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2008, 06:21:39 AM »

Eugenics doesn't encroach on freedom as long as you are not the one being picked as "unworthy."

It encroaches on reproductive freedom to a degree (but not as forcing it on anyone, merely by denying it to some), but it doesn't encroach on freedoms relating to what one does with one's own person it only restricts what you can do to other persons (i.e. potential offspring), so I have less of a problem with it from that perspective.

Quote
And there would be a very good scientific method to determine "good parenting," I am pretty sure it would NOT include the belief in any sort of "higher being" since that can not be proved scientifically.

Yet, some who grow up with parents who do believe in higher beings end up as perfectly good atheists, so obviously it's a bit more complex and there's a bit more too it, which is why I don't trust the government to be able to sort out these complexities.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 11:06:24 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2008, 06:24:13 AM »

Quote
It encroaches on reproductive freedom to a degree (but not as forcing it on anyone, merely by denying it to some), but it doesn't encroach on freedoms relating to what one does with one's own person it only restricts what you can do to other persons (i.e. potential offspring), so I have less of a problem with it from that perspective.

Denying/Forcing, no matter how you dance around the issue it is force.

If I deny my child food and don't allow them to get it for themselves I am forcing them not to eat.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2008, 06:25:39 AM »

Or do you believe that people will take the IQ tests and other criteria and then readily submit to sterlization?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2008, 06:26:53 AM »

But the issue is dominance of a certain characteristic in the birds/beaks. If the birds with the big beaks all died because they needed small beaks then it would only be a recessive gene, a gene that "acts" only on occasion. So then there would be more deaths each time the characteristic was needed and the population would decline, not grow or remain the same.

Not necessarily, if the dominate gene become disadventageous it will simply cease to propagate itself as effectively, initially there may be a decline in population as those with the dominate gene die off, but those without it will start to take over, they may have a few offspring with that gene, but they too will die and not substantially affect the gene pool, over time due to natural selection those with the dominate gene will become eliminated and those with the recessive gene will predominate the species, making it the norm for the species.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2008, 06:27:40 AM »

And if you want to sing the praises of social engineering without parental engineering, then you won't achieve the results you seek.

Eh, most people are merely the products of their culture and society, change the society you change the parents.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2008, 06:29:58 AM »

Or do you believe that people will take the IQ tests and other criteria and then readily submit to sterlization?

There are probably better approaches than forcing such people to be sterilized, such as heavy financial penalties. A tax system on non-moslems effectively converted the overwhelming majority of those who lived in the lands of the Roman Empire conquered by Islam to the Mohammedan religion, the power of economics cannot be underestimated.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2008, 06:31:37 AM »

Not necessarily, if the dominate gene become disadventageous it will simply cease to propagate itself as effectively, initially there may be a decline in population as those with the dominate gene die off, but those without it will start to take over, they may have a few offspring with that gene, but they too will die and not substantially affect the gene pool, over time due to natural selection those with the dominate gene will become eliminated and those with the recessive gene will predominate the species, making it the norm for the species.

It couldn't keep up quickly enough. The beak changes were in a very short space of time (I don't remember the exact figure, but it was a short space of time) So then, if the need was for a short thick beak and natural selection took place then all the birds with a long thin beak would die and the short/thick beaked birds would have a recessive genve for long/thin beaks. Then when the birds need the long/thin beak then only the birds that have the recessive gene activated in their offspring would survive. But recessive genes don't turn off and on en masse. So the die off would be so tremendous that they would be a severe population surge and drop over and over. And that is NOT what occured.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2008, 06:34:29 AM »

There are probably better approaches than forcing such people to be sterilized, such as heavy financial penalties. A tax system on non-moslems effectively converted the overwhelming majority of those who lived in the lands of the Roman Empire conquered by Islam to the Mohammedan religion, the power of economics cannot be underestimated.

Ah, but there is also the moving factor. If you can't have children in one country more to another. If your systems was to go worldwide then you would have to round up and force sterilization on those with undesireable characteristics. And you can't force anyone to pay finacial penalties. People with lower IQ's would still reproduce, and then the system wouldn't work.


Baby woke and is crying...now I really have to go to bed! Shocked
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2008, 06:38:57 AM »

It couldn't keep up quickly enough. The beak changes were in a very short space of time (I don't remember the exact figure, but it was a short space of time) So then, if the need was for a short thick beak and natural selection took place then all the birds with a long thin beak would die and the short/thick beaked birds would have a recessive genve for long/thin beaks. Then when the birds need the long/thin beak then only the birds that have the recessive gene activated in their offspring would survive. But recessive genes don't turn off and on en masse. So the die off would be so tremendous that they would be a severe population surge and drop over and over. And that is NOT what occured.

I doubt the situation was that dire, it was simply that those with shorter beaks were more adventageous, thus they were the ones who tended to survive and tended to dominate the gene pool. It may very well have happened in a short period of time, but for a minor change like that a short period of time is all that is needed. Consider today the presence of white people, the pigment producing proteins are dominate yet in a relatively short period of time in certain populations the non-pigment producing proteins came to be predominate. Now I do not know if this lack of pigment, in and of itself, was somehow evolutionarily beneficial or if it was an accidental part of a set of alleles beneficial to survival in the different enviroments to the north, but in either case it, though a recessive trait, came to be predominate in a very short period of time.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #106 on: January 07, 2008, 06:42:00 AM »

Ah, but there is also the moving factor. If you can't have children in one country more to another. If your systems was to go worldwide then you would have to round up and force sterilization on those with undesireable characteristics.

It would make the system take a bit longer (though probably not much, immigration only accounts for a very small percentage of our population), but they would be absorbed into the population and the system; the negative effects would soon be negated.

Quote
And you can't force anyone to pay finacial penalties. People with lower IQ's would still reproduce, and then the system wouldn't work.

You can't? could have fooled me; so how exactly can I get out of my taxes? I'm really interested in this one. Wink

Quote
Baby woke and is crying...now I really have to go to bed! Shocked

As do I, I stayed up way to late for this discussion. Good night.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #107 on: January 07, 2008, 01:39:37 PM »

My parents haven't paid their taxes in years. You move regularly and don't update your address. Then other than income tax, you pay nothing. My aforementioned father didn't pay his child support ever to my mom. He would work a job for a month, make enough money to get by and quit before wage garnishment could kick it. The goverment can't be all omnipresent and omniscent. Or you get a dummy SS# and use that instead when you are working, it is all too easy to hide your identity.

And I know I for one would give money to anyone on the run from forced sterilization. Heck, the Nazi's had a support network to help them escape from justice. I imagine the help for people being forced into sterlization would be even bigger. And the Catholic church would be involved in it too.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 01:43:40 PM by Quinault » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #108 on: January 07, 2008, 02:12:40 PM »

My parents haven't paid their taxes in years. You move regularly and don't update your address. Then other than income tax, you pay nothing. My aforementioned father didn't pay his child support ever to my mom. He would work a job for a month, make enough money to get by and quit before wage garnishment could kick it. The goverment can't be all omnipresent and omniscent. Or you get a dummy SS# and use that instead when you are working, it is all too easy to hide your identity.

And I know I for one would give money to anyone on the run from forced sterilization. Heck, the Nazi's had a support network to help them escape from justice. I imagine the help for people being forced into sterlization would be even bigger. And the Catholic church would be involved in it too.

Well, I guess the few who are willing to live like that can escape the financial implications for a time, at least until the IRS catches up with them. Of course, I'm not suggesting forced sterilization insofar as we arrest people and sterilize them by force. Rather, I believe that we could effect this change by simply having a tax on unauthorized procreation, those who have unauthorized children have their income tax increased by 10% on all income, whether normally taxable or not, for 18 years for the first child and an additional 5% per child thereafter.

It's not devistating, but it's sound economics and enough to engineer society which works on means, not on the statistical outliers.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #109 on: January 07, 2008, 02:18:08 PM »

I doubt the situation was that dire, it was simply that those with shorter beaks were more adventageous, thus they were the ones who tended to survive and tended to dominate the gene pool. It may very well have happened in a short period of time, but for a minor change like that a short period of time is all that is needed. Consider today the presence of white people, the pigment producing proteins are dominate yet in a relatively short period of time in certain populations the non-pigment producing proteins came to be predominate. Now I do not know if this lack of pigment, in and of itself, was somehow evolutionarily beneficial or if it was an accidental part of a set of alleles beneficial to survival in the different enviroments to the north, but in either case it, though a recessive trait, came to be predominate in a very short period of time.

When pigment lightens and stays lightened you are an albino. And no, that will never be the dominant charcteristic in society. Amongst american indians there are lighter and darker skinned varieties. A darker skinned group will be in one area and a lighter skinned group will be in another. It has to do with climate. Skin pigment or melanin is based upon gentics AND enviroment. So if you need more pigment/melanin then you have darker skin. But a person can also have a high amount of melanin and pigmint but have lighter skin. I can go out in the sun and barely get a tan or burn over the course of hours and yet have the "same" level of external shade to my skin as another person that will burn immediately. The biological make up of a person is what causes skin to be the color it is but a large portion is also dependant upon the enviroment you live in. And with people moving all the time the waters are further muddied.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2008, 02:19:28 PM »

Well, I guess the few who are willing to live like that can escape the financial implications for a time, at least until the IRS catches up with them. Of course, I'm not suggesting forced sterilization insofar as we arrest people and sterilize them by force. Rather, I believe that we could effect this change by simply having a tax on unauthorized procreation, those who have unauthorized children have their income tax increased by 10% on all income, whether normally taxable or not, for 18 years for the first child and an additional 5% per child thereafter.

It's not devistating, but it's sound economics and enough to engineer society which works on means, not on the statistical outliers.

You would have to take away the abilty to have exemptions from your W-2. People can have as many exemptions as they want on their record and then pay their taxes at the end of the year.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2008, 02:21:23 PM »

No matter your method, it will always end up as rounding people up and sterlizing them. And then why bother placing them back out in society? It would just be easier altogether to round them up and eliminate them. If a person is not worthy of procreation, why should they be worthy of life at all?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 02:22:06 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #112 on: January 07, 2008, 02:28:28 PM »

Unless it is physically forced it will never work. If a system of sterlization is put into effect it would have to be hands on. You would have to get your hands dirty so to speak.

But if say 20% of the population is deemed up worthy of procreation and the average couple has two children. You have 100 couples, 20 are deemed unable to have children. That is a decrease in humanity of 40. So then you would have to develop a hierarchy of fertility. The higher the IQ the more children you are mandated to have so that you will increase the IQ of the population at large. So a couple with an averaged IQ over 140 would need to have more than two children so that their stronger IQ genetics are predominant in society. So if you test everyone it would cut both ways. If you have a high IQ you would have no choice but to procreate or donate so that you contribute to societal IQs, if you have lower IQ's you couldn't have children. If you wanted to at least maintain current populations you would have to make up for the 20% reduction in population for several generations.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 02:29:38 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #113 on: January 07, 2008, 02:32:40 PM »

But if you only allowed two children per couple you would have to have quotas of males and females. Otherwise you would have the problem they do in China-many little kings, few queens. So you would have to have a 50/50 male female quotient. And then when you IQ test in childhood/early adulthood you should pair up people according to their IQ's. The highest together and the lowest together to weed out undesireables. Then marriage would be culturally mandated and overseen for the wellness of society. Then eventually you would no longer need to test for IQ levels. You would only allow the govermentally matched couples with higher IQ's to have children or marry at all. Finacially it makes more sense just to disallow all people with low IQ's marraige. Why spend all the money to sterlize when you can just keep them from sex and marriage. Then premarital sex would have to be a criminal offense to keep out undesireables from breeding. And homosexuality amongst desireables would have to be criminal too, since it isn't contributing to the gene pool.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 02:37:21 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #114 on: January 07, 2008, 02:45:47 PM »

Hey! I know what would work even better for your plan! When a child is tested as lower IQ, then we give them a virus or vaccine that causes them to be homosexual. Homosexual means no preocreation and the problem of less desireable people procreating is eliminated!
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #115 on: January 07, 2008, 05:33:08 PM »

  Just a quick note for any who might be confused or perplexed.  (This is not a warning.) Some of the opinions posted on this thread do not reflect Orthodox positions on the matters under discussion.

Thank you.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator
 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:33:52 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2008, 05:54:11 PM »

These are not my views either, but I am just taking Gic's views to their end result.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:54:37 PM by Quinault » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2008, 06:00:53 PM »

You would have to take away the abilty to have exemptions from your W-2. People can have as many exemptions as they want on their record and then pay their taxes at the end of the year.

No, you don't you can require the entire tax to be due at the end of the year, if it's not used you can use the current methods of the IRS to collect it. And even as it is, if you don't pay a high enough percentage of your tax before the year's end there's a penalty attached.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2008, 06:02:48 PM »

No matter your method, it will always end up as rounding people up and sterlizing them. And then why bother placing them back out in society? It would just be easier altogether to round them up and eliminate them. If a person is not worthy of procreation, why should they be worthy of life at all?

No, you're giving the feedom to determine their own method of birth control, be it sterilization, condoms, pills, abortion, etc. There is still freedom in personal activity and freedom relative to oneself, one simply does not have a certain freedom relative to other persons, that is to say the freedom to create other persons. In fact, they can even technically reproduce if they wish, they would simply have to pay a higher tax (or be eligible for fewer government welfare benefits) to pay for the damage they cause to society.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 06:04:48 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2008, 06:08:22 PM »

Unless it is physically forced it will never work. If a system of sterlization is put into effect it would have to be hands on. You would have to get your hands dirty so to speak.

But if say 20% of the population is deemed up worthy of procreation and the average couple has two children. You have 100 couples, 20 are deemed unable to have children. That is a decrease in humanity of 40. So then you would have to develop a hierarchy of fertility. The higher the IQ the more children you are mandated to have so that you will increase the IQ of the population at large. So a couple with an averaged IQ over 140 would need to have more than two children so that their stronger IQ genetics are predominant in society. So if you test everyone it would cut both ways. If you have a high IQ you would have no choice but to procreate or donate so that you contribute to societal IQs, if you have lower IQ's you couldn't have children. If you wanted to at least maintain current populations you would have to make up for the 20% reduction in population for several generations.

You forget that I believe overpopulation to be a problem, I'd quite like to see your population drop by 70% over the next few hundred years. Though we might be able to make use of a sliding scale based on IQ to place limits on how many children a couple may have, but I see no reason to mandate procreation considering the severe overpopulation we are confronted with. Furthermore, restricting procreation only limits the rights an individual has over another person, this is far more acceptable than mandating procreation which violates the rights one have over oneself.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2008, 06:15:27 PM »

But if you only allowed two children per couple you would have to have quotas of males and females. Otherwise you would have the problem they do in China-many little kings, few queens. So you would have to have a 50/50 male female quotient. And then when you IQ test in childhood/early adulthood you should pair up people according to their IQ's. The highest together and the lowest together to weed out undesireables. Then marriage would be culturally mandated and overseen for the wellness of society. Then eventually you would no longer need to test for IQ levels. You would only allow the govermentally matched couples with higher IQ's to have children or marry at all. Finacially it makes more sense just to disallow all people with low IQ's marraige. Why spend all the money to sterlize when you can just keep them from sex and marriage. Then premarital sex would have to be a criminal offense to keep out undesireables from breeding. And homosexuality amongst desireables would have to be criminal too, since it isn't contributing to the gene pool.

Hey! I know what would work even better for your plan! When a child is tested as lower IQ, then we give them a virus or vaccine that causes them to be homosexual. Homosexual means no preocreation and the problem of less desireable people procreating is eliminated!

You could create algorithms which give maximum reproduction allowed for a couple by taking the IQ of both into account; for instance, if you have two spouses with an IQ of 140 there would be no restriction on reproduction, but if you had one spouse with an IQ of 140 and the other an IQ of 90 they could be limited to, say, 2 children. Considering our culture I doubt we have to worry as much about the sex ratio as China does, but if it does become a problem we can solve the problem the same way China is, giving economic incentive to have children of the under-represented sex.

If we can determine a way to change someone's sexuality through some sort of gene therapy it could certainly be presented to them as a possibility and they could choose freely though I see no reason to mandate it, I think the moderate economic policies I have presented would be more than adequate.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 06:15:59 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2008, 06:16:37 PM »

  Just a quick note for any who might be confused or perplexed.  (This is not a warning.) Some of the opinions posted on this thread do not reflect Orthodox positions on the matters under discussion.

Thank you.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator
 


You could say as much about any thread on OC.net.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #122 on: January 07, 2008, 06:29:50 PM »

But then if birth control methods fail (believe me, they all fail) and you concieve a child a family would be forced into abortion or an 18 year tax. So then you are advocating forced abortion. If you can't afford the tax for the next 18 years the only choice is to end the childs life. Unless of course your "system" would have adoption and care in place for these children that are "undesireable." But then, who would want to have a child that isn't allowed to procreate when you can just give birth to the superhuman yourself? If you are able to have children that are allowed to have children, then why take on a sterlized one?

The IRS is not capable of forcing anyone to pay them anything. They can deduct from paychecks automatically, but if you have enough exemptions then that can't even do that. We are obligated to pay taxes teh end of each year, we are not forced to do so. And thru the court system you can stop the IRS from dedusting SS and federal taxes. My parents have a good number of friends that have done so.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 06:33:55 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #123 on: January 07, 2008, 06:36:27 PM »

The IRS would have to increase their workforce considerably to force anyone to pay anything. And that would cost more money, sapping this already "overpopulated" and failing world.


And you speak of GLOBAL overpopulation, so the only way to help that is to institute your "plan" globally, not within the US. Otherwise you efforts would be thwarted by other countries having low IQ babies left and right.

And while you think you are the devils advocate, you are no more than a man talking about theories and ideas without anything behind them. It is obvious you aren't DOING anything to implement or even start to implement your ideas. It is all play and talk for you. All you are doing is throwing out ideas trying to get a rise out of me. You won't get it, I don't care what you think. You don't have anything to back up any of your assertations about IQ or overpopulation. While resources may run low in some areas while population surges, there are enough places that have space and resources to spare so that everyone has more than enough. If an area is overpopulated then move to another.

And I am not the biggest fan of humanity either. I have always said that if there were no moral absolutes that I would a a heinous murderess. But there are moral absolutes, so there is no point pretneding that there are not. If you want to have these viewpoints abandon all the things that keep you from taking them to their end result. Otherwise you are intellectually dishonest and incomplete in your thoughts. Thoughts are nothing. Actions are everything. If you truly believed all this you would do something. And since you merely a single man staying up until 6am discussing theories, it is obvious that you only hold those views for shock value. I am not shocked. I am amused. But at this point, the amusement is over.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 07:06:12 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,497


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #124 on: January 07, 2008, 06:58:23 PM »

You forget that I believe overpopulation to be a problem, I'd quite like to see your population drop by 70% over the next few hundred years.

I hope that is a typo and not a personal attack against myself and the generations that follow me with my husband and I's genetic soup.


Ah, but even if it is, I don't paticularly care. My kids are beautiful gifts from God that I am thankful for. And no matter what you "think" I plan to have as many more as God has planned for me.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 07:08:37 PM by Quinault » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #125 on: January 07, 2008, 08:47:19 PM »

But then if birth control methods fail (believe me, they all fail) and you concieve a child a family would be forced into abortion or an 18 year tax. So then you are advocating forced abortion. If you can't afford the tax for the next 18 years the only choice is to end the childs life. Unless of course your "system" would have adoption and care in place for these children that are "undesireable." But then, who would want to have a child that isn't allowed to procreate when you can just give birth to the superhuman yourself? If you are able to have children that are allowed to have children, then why take on a sterlized one?

No one is forced to have an abortion, but the alternative is a tax increase. Perhaps this would encourage those who for some reason or another object to abortion to use a more permanente birth control method. Abortion is not 'forced', but it would certainly be encouraged in this situation.

Quote
The IRS is not capable of forcing anyone to pay them anything. They can deduct from paychecks automatically, but if you have enough exemptions then that can't even do that. We are obligated to pay taxes teh end of each year, we are not forced to do so. And thru the court system you can stop the IRS from dedusting SS and federal taxes. My parents have a good number of friends that have done so.

The IRS is significantly powerful for this; the vast majority of people don't want their wages garnished and liens placed on their house, there may be a VERY small minority that doesn't care, but there arn't enough such people to undermine the policy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #126 on: January 07, 2008, 08:57:17 PM »

The IRS would have to increase their workforce considerably to force anyone to pay anything. And that would cost more money, sapping this already "overpopulated" and failing world.

The IRS does a fine job of enforcing tax code right now, the few difficulities are hardly a problem in the grand scheme of things. This policy I have presented would simply be another change in the tax code which could be handled as easily as the current tax system is.

Quote
And you speak of GLOBAL overpopulation, so the only way to help that is to institute your "plan" globally, not within the US. Otherwise you efforts would be thwarted by other countries having low IQ babies left and right.

Well, I've long been an adherent to the 'America First' philosophy, other countries can continue to keep their IQ down, if we increase ours we will gain an additional edge over the rest of the world -- and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote
And while you think you are the devils advocate, you are no more than a man talking about theories and ideas without anything behind them. It is obvious you aren't DOING anything to implement or even start to implement your ideas. It is all play and talk for you. All you are doing is throwing out ideas trying to get a rise out of me. You won't get it, I don't care what you think. You don't have anything to back up any of your assertations about IQ or overpopulation. While resources may run low in some areas while population surges, there are enough places that have space and resources to spare so that everyone has more than enough. If an area is overpopulated then move to another.

This is an internet forum? What exactly do you suggest? Of course, there are lobbyist groups out there arguing for this very thing and the genetics is refer to is supported by scientific research.

As for me beng the devil's advocate, I'm just one of many, look around and I'm sure you can find several in your personal life.

Quote
And I am not the biggest fan of humanity either. I have always said that if there were no moral absolutes that I would a a heinous murderess. But there are moral absolutes, so there is no point pretneding that there are not. If you want to have these viewpoints abandon all the things that keep you from taking them to their end result. Otherwise you are intellectually dishonest and incomplete in your thoughts. Thoughts are nothing. Actions are everything. If you truly believed all this you would do something. And since you merely a single man staying up until 6am discussing theories, it is obvious that you only hold those views for shock value. I am not shocked. I am amused. But at this point, the amusement is over.

You may not be shocked, but there's a good chance someone reading this is, the forum moderater even thought what I was saying was scandalous enough to chime in and give a disclaimer.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 08:58:25 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #127 on: January 07, 2008, 08:57:44 PM »

I hope that is a typo and not a personal attack against myself and the generations that follow me with my husband and I's genetic soup.


Ah, but even if it is, I don't paticularly care. My kids are beautiful gifts from God that I am thankful for. And no matter what you "think" I plan to have as many more as God has planned for me.

It was a typo, I was refering to the United States in general.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 65 queries.