Started By
Message
re: Meet the world’s first baby born from the DNA of 3 parents
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:28 pm to Supreme Tiger
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:28 pm to Supreme Tiger
quote:
I'm glad you don't see this as a positive
Oh, I see it as a positive, just not for the world we currently live on. We don't need to increase the birth of children, but radically reduce births world wide.
quote:
In a joking sense I'm in favor of a global virus or pressing the 'eliminate billions' button because a huge portion of humans are stupid and gross thanks to many inputs.
I don't want to kill humans, just make most of them infertile. Humans will never voluntarily submit to population control. Therefore it would take some application of medical science to cause a reduction in our numbers.
quote:
But I don't buy the over population thing. But I do believe it's overpopulated and unable to sustain itself under the paradigm that has progressed to industrial capitalism.
Humans are responsible for the earth's sixth great extinction event because of our use of natural resources. We can't denude the land and poison the seas and still expect everything to remain unchanged. Animals are going extinct at the rate of 52 per year because of loss of habitat.
1
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:29 pm to Supreme Tiger
Dp, dammit. 
This post was edited on 9/28/16 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:29 pm to Supreme Tiger
quote:
Exactly.
Perhaps it will be in your next update.
Again with the cryptic remarks. Nobody likes that, dude. Say what you mean.
This post was edited on 9/28/16 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:33 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Oh, I see it as a positive, just not for the world we currently live on. We don't need to increase the birth of children, but radically reduce births world wide.
Now we're talking. WPWW.
Joking aside...I dislike this less than conjoining consciousness with machinery.
Planning children to the genetic level is dangerous, and should only be to REMOVE life-ending illnesses if at all possible -- not manipulating your kid to be ''perfect''.
I don't necessarily disagree with the parents for trying to eliminate suffering, but their selfishness I won't ignore, either.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:34 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
Solve the poverty issue and birth rates will plummet.
Solve the over-population issue and poverty will evaporate. There are no problems that cannot be ameliorated by reducing the human population.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:37 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Solve the over-population issue and poverty will evaporate. There are no problems that cannot be ameliorated by reducing the human population.
Babies are the enemies of the human race... Let's consider it this way: by the time the world doubles its population, the amount of energy we will be using will be increased sevenfold which means probably the amount of pollution that we are producing will also be increased sevenfold. If we are now threatened by pollution at the present rate, how will we be threatened with sevenfold pollution by, say, 2010 A.D., distributed among twice the population? We'll be having to grow twice the food out of soil that is being poisoned at seven times the rate.
It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call freedom of the bathroom, go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And this to my way is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up, you have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, aren't you through yet, and so on. And in the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, but it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. -- Dr. Asimov.
This post was edited on 9/28/16 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:45 pm to vengeanceofrain
quote:
My fiancee had an Incident before we met that made it virtually Impossible for her to carry a child from inception to birth.
I'm sorry that happened to her. I had a neighbor when I lived in Georgia who had a similar experience. They adopted and were very happy.
quote:
I would give anything to have a son or daughter that is our flesh and blood.
You're probably the best person I could ask the following question. How would you feel about having a child that had your and your wife's DNA plus the DNA of a third person?
quote:
Congrats to the people in the article. I couldn't I Imagine losing 2 kids over something i had no control over.
What bothers me about this couple is that they knew the wife carried the DNA for Leigh Syndrome and still had two children, both of whom subsequently died at very young ages. We have a woman living in Kentucky who is single with six children, all of whom have severe autism. She kept trying to have a "normal" child. She and they are on welfare, of course, because of her extreme ego and selfishness.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:50 pm to Kentucker
There was nothing cryptic there.
It was straightforward, just went over your operating systems level of sarcasm detection.
The joke was you're a computer and maybe on your next update you'll be able to interpret what the essence of humanity means.
--------
You want humans to be infertile. You want humans to transcend into AI through tech advances.
Nothing can be said to shake you from this spell you're under.
Feel bad for ya.
It was straightforward, just went over your operating systems level of sarcasm detection.
The joke was you're a computer and maybe on your next update you'll be able to interpret what the essence of humanity means.
--------
You want humans to be infertile. You want humans to transcend into AI through tech advances.
Nothing can be said to shake you from this spell you're under.
Feel bad for ya.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:50 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Dr. Asimov was a visionary of the future and he didn't see much hope for humanity.
As a collective, mankind is not one iota different from any other species. We, as any other life form are just a branch of the chemical chain reaction that was randomly set forth nearly four billion years ago. This chemical reaction commands every species to "go forth and multiply," if I can use that awkward biblical phrase.
Even though we have become the first species with an intelligence and consciousness, at least in many of our members, there are no general considerations for preserving our biosphere for the generations to come. Every species follows the path of least resistance. We, like all the other plants and animals will when given the opportunity use every single resource to continue our branch of the chemical chain reaction of life. Only when resources dwindle or disappear will we look for alternatives.
It's easy to conclude that humanity will not change unless forced to do so. We evolved to participate in a hierarchical society with a "supreme leader." Religions and the ease with which dictatorships arise are grand examples of this evolutionary trait. Collectively, humans function best when given mandatory instructions. We have not evolved to a point where collective thought extends beyond adherence to our basic needs; those are food, water, shelter and offspring.
It's my thought and conclusion that the only way humanity will recognize and then ameliorate the damage we're doing is to use force. Because population expansion of humans is the problem that, if solved, will rectify all the problems facing our own as well as all other species, it must be stopped. An ideal way to do this would be the development of a virus that could sterilize 75-90% of the population. This would be the most humane way of adjusting the human population's demands upon the environment.
As a collective, mankind is not one iota different from any other species. We, as any other life form are just a branch of the chemical chain reaction that was randomly set forth nearly four billion years ago. This chemical reaction commands every species to "go forth and multiply," if I can use that awkward biblical phrase.
Even though we have become the first species with an intelligence and consciousness, at least in many of our members, there are no general considerations for preserving our biosphere for the generations to come. Every species follows the path of least resistance. We, like all the other plants and animals will when given the opportunity use every single resource to continue our branch of the chemical chain reaction of life. Only when resources dwindle or disappear will we look for alternatives.
It's easy to conclude that humanity will not change unless forced to do so. We evolved to participate in a hierarchical society with a "supreme leader." Religions and the ease with which dictatorships arise are grand examples of this evolutionary trait. Collectively, humans function best when given mandatory instructions. We have not evolved to a point where collective thought extends beyond adherence to our basic needs; those are food, water, shelter and offspring.
It's my thought and conclusion that the only way humanity will recognize and then ameliorate the damage we're doing is to use force. Because population expansion of humans is the problem that, if solved, will rectify all the problems facing our own as well as all other species, it must be stopped. An ideal way to do this would be the development of a virus that could sterilize 75-90% of the population. This would be the most humane way of adjusting the human population's demands upon the environment.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:52 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Solve the over-population issue and poverty will evaporate.
Is this real life?
Was there not poverty and great class division back when there wasn't overpopulation?
Was world history downloaded into your system? If not I can hold off on laughing at your statement.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:56 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Dr. Asimov was a visionary of the future and he didn't see much hope for humanity.
As a collective, mankind is not one iota different from any other species. We, as any other life form are just a branch of the chemical chain reaction that was randomly set forth nearly four billion years ago. This chemical reaction commands every species to "go forth and multiply," if I can use that awkward biblical phrase.
Even though we have become the first species with an intelligence and consciousness, at least in many of our members, there are no general considerations for preserving our biosphere for the generations to come. Every species follows the path of least resistance. We, like all the other plants and animals will when given the opportunity use every single resource to continue our branch of the chemical chain reaction of life. Only when resources dwindle or disappear will we look for alternatives.
It's easy to conclude that humanity will not change unless forced to do so. We evolved to participate in a hierarchical society with a "supreme leader." Religions and the ease with which dictatorships arise are grand examples of this evolutionary trait. Collectively, humans function best when given mandatory instructions. We have not evolved to a point where collective thought extends beyond adherence to our basic needs; those are food, water, shelter and offspring.
It's my thought and conclusion that the only way humanity will recognize and then ameliorate the damage we're doing is to use force. Because population expansion of humans is the problem that, if solved, will rectify all the problems facing our own as well as all other species, it must be stopped. An ideal way to do this would be the development of a virus that could sterilize 75-90% of the population. This would be the most humane way of adjusting the human population's demands upon the environment.
Ho
Lee
shite.
Speechless.
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:57 pm to Supreme Tiger
quote:
Is this real life?
Was there not poverty and great class division back when there wasn't overpopulation?
Was world history downloaded into your system? If not I can hold off on laughing at your statement.
I'll defend my honeybear.
Do you think that the capacity to produce was the same in the past as it is now?
Posted on 9/28/16 at 11:58 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Obviously no.
Let's see where this goes.
Let's see where this goes.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:02 am to Supreme Tiger
quote:
Obviously no.
Let's see where this goes.
P1: The world produces more than it ever has, and requires fewer people to produce articles necessary for life. (Housing, water and food.)
C1: With fewer people and more resources, poverty will become less prevalent.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:03 am to Supreme Tiger
quote:
The joke was you're a computer and maybe on your next update you'll be able to interpret what the essence of humanity means.
Perhaps if you had said upgrade, which is a better and more common term for what you were insinuating, I would have understood.
However, when I asked the question, I was seeking your definition of "essence of humanity," since that is a very subjective phrase.
quote:
You want humans to be infertile.
I want 75-90% of the current population to become infertile.
quote:
You want humans to transcend into AI through tech advances.
Your transcend is my evolution. AI can continue to advance into the Universe. Humans can't.
quote:
Nothing can be said to shake you from this spell you're under.
If you're using spell as a synonym for logic, then you're correct.
quote:
Feel bad for ya.
If I might paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it's better to be felt badly about than to never be felt about at all.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:06 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
P1: The world produces more than it ever has, and requires fewer people to produce articles necessary for life. (Housing, water and food.)
C1: With fewer people and more resources, poverty will become less prevalent.
Stone cold logic.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:09 am to Supreme Tiger
quote:
Ho Lee shite. Speechless.
I'm glad that you're dazzled but it's kind of annoying that you seem to want to just critique instead of participate. It's easy to judge. Much more fun to contribute to a discussion.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:23 am to Supreme Tiger
quote:
Ho
Lee
shite.
Speechless.
Yep, Asimov called it.
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:27 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Not going to finish this tonight.
I do believe we're overpopulated for the paradigm we're living in, but I think this path is grossly off course from our natural way.
Which can be traced to authoritarian agriculture -- which of course enabled the progression to industrial capitalism.
Ishmael by Dan Quinn. Great series of books. It'd be like mixing in a water during a long night of boozing. It'd be good for you'z guys.
I do believe we're overpopulated for the paradigm we're living in, but I think this path is grossly off course from our natural way.
quote:
In the end, almost every problem we have at this time is due to overpopulation
Which can be traced to authoritarian agriculture -- which of course enabled the progression to industrial capitalism.
Ishmael by Dan Quinn. Great series of books. It'd be like mixing in a water during a long night of boozing. It'd be good for you'z guys.
This post was edited on 9/29/16 at 12:28 am
Posted on 9/29/16 at 12:28 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Couldn't have said it better.
Some people get it but, regrettably, the vast majority don't. That's why, as the condition of our biosphere becomes more severe, some entity will have to step up and apply a measure to halt and then reduce the population.
We could wait for a natural calamity but that would cause extreme hardship and suffering for millions. It would be far better, in my opinion to look for solutions that would be effective, quick-acting but humane.
Some people get it but, regrettably, the vast majority don't. That's why, as the condition of our biosphere becomes more severe, some entity will have to step up and apply a measure to halt and then reduce the population.
We could wait for a natural calamity but that would cause extreme hardship and suffering for millions. It would be far better, in my opinion to look for solutions that would be effective, quick-acting but humane.
This post was edited on 9/29/16 at 12:30 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News