On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 2:41 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote: >> This is a failure to acknowledge the is/ought problem, and is usually >> compounded (Rick is no exception) by the equally mistaken view that there >> exist >> "superior" individuals whose possession of a "quality gene-pool" entitles >> them >> to survival - an entitlement that is encroached upon by inferior sorts who >> take >> up space by insisting on not dying. Can you guess in which group those who >> hold >> this view place themselves? > > You'd be surprised which group i reside in. I know my place; but do > you know yours?
If you truly believe that only the best should be allowed to survive and that you are not of the best, then the logical thing to do is to immediately destroy yourself. Oddly enough, though, I don't see many eugenics proponents committing mass suicide for the benefit of the gene pool. > There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to > reproduce. Actually there is; I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't have been born if such policies had been in place, and I strongly suspect that you wouldn't have either. There was a country in the 20th century that adopted a lot of the sorts of policies you're talking about, and it's such a sensitive topic with MANY people that I'm not going to touch it. Suffice it to say that the world does not appreciate such things. >> If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the >> globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived. > > I love when people contradict themselves in the same sentence -- makes > my job much easier! No, he did not contradict himself - he drew a distinction between "superior" and "survived". You might argue that your definition of "superior" *is* the ability to survive, but that's a matter for logical argument, not for pointing and laughing. > It is our destiny to use our intelligence to > drive our own evolution at an ever accelerating rate. To NOT use that > power would be to spit in the face of evolution itself! Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, not by us using our intelligence to influence it. It's high time I stood up for who I am. I *do* spit in the face of evolution. I do not believe that we came here because we evolved from some lesser life-form, and I do not believe that the world is best served by such philosophies. God created us, roughly 6000-10000 years ago, and since then, many things have happened (both good and bad), but never has there been the emergence of any form of "next-species human". Look at history (just recent history if you like - the last few hundred years) and find the times when one group of people deemed themselves "more evolved" than another group. Why were Negros treated as slaves in the US? Why were Australian Aboriginals treated like animals? And the one I hinted at above. If you truly believe that evolution is the way forward, then go find some of the lobbyists for these groups, and say to their faces that you believe that some humans are lesser than others. If you come out of that alive, report back. Preferably with video. It should be interesting. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
