Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 08-24-2002, 07:51 PM

And what about the chance of hybrid vigor coming into play if you've got these different "races" that are so separate and distinct in their abilities interbreeding?

cheers,
Michael

lcb · 08-24-2002, 07:55 PM

l.Assuming there is no God:2.Nature is governed by predation 3.species survival is predicated on proliferating that species' genetic material successfully.4. When species compete, the most predatory species usually wins.4.assuming there is no God, then homo sapiens evolved from earlier hominid and pre-hominid species.5.It would seem obvious that at some point in the competition one pre human group had to have killed off the other groups 6. humans have now evolved to be highly intelligent and sophisticated in organizing themselves but humans have problems still. 7.Humans have developed nuclear weapons and other WMD's and there is over population threatening to destroy the eco-systems ability to sustain life..

(oops , sorry for the lack of pparagraphs)
8.Humans can now use genetic engineering to create smarter,healthier, more competitive humans and have the technology to use selective breeding,cloning, and selective forced abortion/sterilization etc, to now exponentially improve the human gene pool.9.With all of the afore-mentioned plus euthanasia humans could actually become pro-active in not only producing better humans but also in eliminating existing humans who are inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome etc,

10.inferior individuals could be eliminated and even otherwise genetically acceptable individuals/groups could still be eliminated if they were causing problems. 11.Strategically doing all of these things would restore the earth's eco system, eliminate crime and poverty,hunger,infectious diseases(for the most part) and would eliminate war and humans would become increasingly healthy, smart,physically fit,wealthy and better educated and yadda yadda..12.you could also eliminate highly irrational humans, including religious zealots and those who would oppose this genetically pro-active progress. 13. If there is no God and no God created rules then why not do these things and create a paradise analog here on earth?

lcb · 08-24-2002, 10:30 PM

bttt

case · 08-25-2002, 12:08 AM

Icb:

1. What?

2. I don't even know where to begin to critique your...um...something. You either have an excessivly optimistic view of the technological capabilities of mankind, or have access to information that the rest of the world seems to lack.

On the whole, your entire single paragraph seems to be one steep slippery slope arguement. No, I take that back: you skipped the slope altogether and descended 90 degrees straight down. So, in no particular order:

"5.It would seem obvious that at some point in the competition one pre human group had to have killed off the other groups"

It would? To whom? You seem to not quite understand how natural selection functions.

"4. When species compete, the most predatory species usually wins."

See above statement.

"7.Humans have developed nuclear weapons and other WMD's and there is over population threatening to destroy the eco-systems ability to sustain life.."

I'm not sure what these two statements have to do with each other exactly. Are you suggesting that we should nuke excess people? I think that might have a minor impact on the eco-system as well.

"8.Humans can now use genetic engineering to create smarter,healthier, more competitive humans and have the technology to use selective breeding,cloning, and selective forced abortion/sterilization etc, to now exponentially improve the human gene pool."

At the risk of sounding condescending, it sounds as if you are aquiring your grasp of genetic engineering from sci-fi movies. Perhaps you saw Gataca one too many times, I don't know. Either way, even if this were possible, you still are relying on a slippery slope: just because it could be possible to improve the human gene pool doesn't mean we would engineer humans to be "perfect" competitive beings. It could be used in quite another way: to correct any deformaties before birth, such as down syndrome or physical deformities.

"9.With all of the afore-mentioned plus euthanasia humans could actually become pro-active in not only producing better humans but also in eliminating existing humans who are inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome etc,"

This is where your "argument" starts to seriously break down. You are 1) assuming entirely too much of human behavior and 2) grossly oversimplifying too many issues. First of all, just because society can get rid of a certain area of the population doesn't mean that they will; if this were the case, mimes would only be found in the encyclopedia. Secondly, your catagory of inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome(?) is...well...not really a catagory, unless we're judging on Nazi standards. We already have institutions to deal with criminals. As for your other two sub-headings, I'll just ignore those, as they are meaningless.

"10.inferior individuals could be eliminated and even otherwise genetically acceptable individuals/groups could still be eliminated if they were causing problems."

See above.

"11.Strategically doing all of these things would restore the earth's eco system, eliminate crime and poverty,hunger,infectious diseases(for the most part) and would eliminate war and humans would become increasingly healthy, smart,physically fit,wealthy and better educated and yadda yadda.."

Again...what? I think you forgot, oh, a few dozen statements in your argument. I'm failing to see how we go from getting rid of undesirables to curing infectious diseases and world hunger, and making life seem otherwise like a Brady Bunch episode. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me.

"12.you could also eliminate highly irrational humans, including religious zealots and those who would oppose this genetically pro-active progress."

Again, your assuming too much of human nature.

"13. If there is no God and no God created rules then why not do these things and create a paradise analog here on earth?"

First, I don't see how this would at all constitute a paradise on earth. Aside from that, I don't see how this at all has to do with God, which is the other problem with your argument: you are assuming that if there is no God, then humans should (and would) behave in this way. In other words, you are assuming that morality is dependent on God, and if God did not exist that people would do whatever they wanted. But all your argument has shown is that this is what YOU would think would happen if God didn't exist. You are perhaps betraying what you would do if there wasn't a God? For most of us posting on these boards (and most unbelievers everywhere, along with most believers, I would think), your scenario would not only be morally repugnant, but outright ridiculous as well, with or without a god.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: case ]

99Percent · 08-25-2002, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
bttt

What does this mean?

ex-preacher · 08-25-2002, 07:20 AM

luvluv,

I think you are confusing the "is" of evolution with the "ought" of human relations. Clearly, this was the mistake in taking the step from darwinism to social darwinism.

You seem to argue that evolution = social, cultural, racial darwinism. Yet, I thought you accepted evolution?

You want to claim that Christianity provides a compassionate alternative to evil atheistic social darwinism. Among the many problems this arguments encounters is that fact that, historically, many Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were highly supportive of social darwinism. Many used BIble passages (such as the Ham story in Genesis 9) to prove that God had distinguished between the races.

Oddly enough, most conservative Christians are Republicans, the party that favors economic (and sometimes social) darwinism, true?

lcb · 08-25-2002, 11:58 AM

bttt means back to the top. nutshell redux: if there's no God then why cant humans socially engineer a race of "uber men" living in an ecological paradise? Humans now have all the genetic,military,scientific tools necessary, so why not do it? and if there's no God, the world should be getting progressively better, so why isnt it? and if the atheists/secular humanists were in total control what would they do differently? and why arent they in control if there's no God?

ex-preacher · 08-25-2002, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
bttt means back to the top. nutshell redux: if there's no God then why cant humans socially engineer a race of "uber men" living in an ecological paradise? Humans now have all the genetic,military,scientific tools necessary, so why not do it? and if there's no God, the world should be getting progressively better, so why isnt it? and if the atheists/secular humanists were in total control what would they do differently? and why arent they in control if there's no God?

Answers to lcb:
1. non-sequiter
2. no we don't
3. another non-sequiter
4. end tax subsidies of churches; have complete separation of church and state
5. and a final non-sequiter for a hat trick

case · 08-25-2002, 03:54 PM

Ooo...hat trick...

lcb · 08-25-2002, 04:32 PM

oooh afraid to answer the real questions!! If you dont have God to blame then who do you have to blame? and what are your solutions?

08-25-2002, 12:08 AM	#34
case Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 420	Icb: 1. What? 2. I don't even know where to begin to critique your...um...something. You either have an excessivly optimistic view of the technological capabilities of mankind, or have access to information that the rest of the world seems to lack. On the whole, your entire single paragraph seems to be one steep slippery slope arguement. No, I take that back: you skipped the slope altogether and descended 90 degrees straight down. So, in no particular order: "5.It would seem obvious that at some point in the competition one pre human group had to have killed off the other groups" It would? To whom? You seem to not quite understand how natural selection functions. "4. When species compete, the most predatory species usually wins." See above statement. "7.Humans have developed nuclear weapons and other WMD's and there is over population threatening to destroy the eco-systems ability to sustain life.." I'm not sure what these two statements have to do with each other exactly. Are you suggesting that we should nuke excess people? I think that might have a minor impact on the eco-system as well. "8.Humans can now use genetic engineering to create smarter,healthier, more competitive humans and have the technology to use selective breeding,cloning, and selective forced abortion/sterilization etc, to now exponentially improve the human gene pool." At the risk of sounding condescending, it sounds as if you are aquiring your grasp of genetic engineering from sci-fi movies. Perhaps you saw Gataca one too many times, I don't know. Either way, even if this were possible, you still are relying on a slippery slope: just because it could be possible to improve the human gene pool doesn't mean we would engineer humans to be "perfect" competitive beings. It could be used in quite another way: to correct any deformaties before birth, such as down syndrome or physical deformities. "9.With all of the afore-mentioned plus euthanasia humans could actually become pro-active in not only producing better humans but also in eliminating existing humans who are inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome etc," This is where your "argument" starts to seriously break down. You are 1) assuming entirely too much of human behavior and 2) grossly oversimplifying too many issues. First of all, just because society can get rid of a certain area of the population doesn't mean that they will; if this were the case, mimes would only be found in the encyclopedia. Secondly, your catagory of inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome(?) is...well...not really a catagory, unless we're judging on Nazi standards. We already have institutions to deal with criminals. As for your other two sub-headings, I'll just ignore those, as they are meaningless. "10.inferior individuals could be eliminated and even otherwise genetically acceptable individuals/groups could still be eliminated if they were causing problems." See above. "11.Strategically doing all of these things would restore the earth's eco system, eliminate crime and poverty,hunger,infectious diseases(for the most part) and would eliminate war and humans would become increasingly healthy, smart,physically fit,wealthy and better educated and yadda yadda.." Again...what? I think you forgot, oh, a few dozen statements in your argument. I'm failing to see how we go from getting rid of undesirables to curing infectious diseases and world hunger, and making life seem otherwise like a Brady Bunch episode. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me. "12.you could also eliminate highly irrational humans, including religious zealots and those who would oppose this genetically pro-active progress." Again, your assuming too much of human nature. "13. If there is no God and no God created rules then why not do these things and create a paradise analog here on earth?" First, I don't see how this would at all constitute a paradise on earth. Aside from that, I don't see how this at all has to do with God, which is the other problem with your argument: you are assuming that if there is no God, then humans should (and would) behave in this way. In other words, you are assuming that morality is dependent on God, and if God did not exist that people would do whatever they wanted. But all your argument has shown is that this is what YOU would think would happen if God didn't exist. You are perhaps betraying what you would do if there wasn't a God? For most of us posting on these boards (and most unbelievers everywhere, along with most believers, I would think), your scenario would not only be morally repugnant, but outright ridiculous as well, with or without a god. [ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: case ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-24-2002, 07:51 PM	#31
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	And what about the chance of hybrid vigor coming into play if you've got these different "races" that are so separate and distinct in their abilities interbreeding? cheers, Michael

08-24-2002, 07:55 PM	#32
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	l.Assuming there is no God:2.Nature is governed by predation 3.species survival is predicated on proliferating that species' genetic material successfully.4. When species compete, the most predatory species usually wins.4.assuming there is no God, then homo sapiens evolved from earlier hominid and pre-hominid species.5.It would seem obvious that at some point in the competition one pre human group had to have killed off the other groups 6. humans have now evolved to be highly intelligent and sophisticated in organizing themselves but humans have problems still. 7.Humans have developed nuclear weapons and other WMD's and there is over population threatening to destroy the eco-systems ability to sustain life.. (oops , sorry for the lack of pparagraphs) 8.Humans can now use genetic engineering to create smarter,healthier, more competitive humans and have the technology to use selective breeding,cloning, and selective forced abortion/sterilization etc, to now exponentially improve the human gene pool.9.With all of the afore-mentioned plus euthanasia humans could actually become pro-active in not only producing better humans but also in eliminating existing humans who are inferior/criminal/otherwise troublesome etc, 10.inferior individuals could be eliminated and even otherwise genetically acceptable individuals/groups could still be eliminated if they were causing problems. 11.Strategically doing all of these things would restore the earth's eco system, eliminate crime and poverty,hunger,infectious diseases(for the most part) and would eliminate war and humans would become increasingly healthy, smart,physically fit,wealthy and better educated and yadda yadda..12.you could also eliminate highly irrational humans, including religious zealots and those who would oppose this genetically pro-active progress. 13. If there is no God and no God created rules then why not do these things and create a paradise analog here on earth?

08-24-2002, 10:30 PM	#33
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	bttt

08-25-2002, 07:20 AM	#36
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	luvluv, I think you are confusing the "is" of evolution with the "ought" of human relations. Clearly, this was the mistake in taking the step from darwinism to social darwinism. You seem to argue that evolution = social, cultural, racial darwinism. Yet, I thought you accepted evolution? You want to claim that Christianity provides a compassionate alternative to evil atheistic social darwinism. Among the many problems this arguments encounters is that fact that, historically, many Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were highly supportive of social darwinism. Many used BIble passages (such as the Ham story in Genesis 9) to prove that God had distinguished between the races. Oddly enough, most conservative Christians are Republicans, the party that favors economic (and sometimes social) darwinism, true?

08-25-2002, 11:58 AM	#37
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	bttt means back to the top. nutshell redux: if there's no God then why cant humans socially engineer a race of "uber men" living in an ecological paradise? Humans now have all the genetic,military,scientific tools necessary, so why not do it? and if there's no God, the world should be getting progressively better, so why isnt it? and if the atheists/secular humanists were in total control what would they do differently? and why arent they in control if there's no God?

08-25-2002, 03:54 PM	#39
case Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 420	Ooo...hat trick...

08-25-2002, 04:32 PM	#40
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	oooh afraid to answer the real questions!! If you dont have God to blame then who do you have to blame? and what are your solutions?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.