Eugenics

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-31 11:14pm

*laff* Fucking god man, look up some fucking history. Eugenics IS forceful. That it is advocated with benign intentions (like communism) doesn't make it so.

You do realize that there were/are communists and eugenicists who detest use of force as well, but that doesn't mean that they should be given a second chance on such a large scale as they both were during the 20th century. Both were abominations in history and never should be repeated.

Your argument that since the Nazis also used jets and electronics so someone like me shouldn't advocate them falls to pieces when we realize that these inventions aren't supported and implemented largely by politics supported by racists and fascists. Even if it has benefits in society, the fact that its major proponents are all-around assholes doesn't really help its cause.

Eugenics, by its very nature of intent, will never be seperate from elitist feelings and ideas. It cannot flourish or be effective without forceful induction into greater society.

So why don't YOU shut the fuck up.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 11:48pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:*laff* Fucking god man, look up some fucking history. Eugenics IS forceful. That it is advocated with benign intentions (like communism) doesn't make it so.

And how exactly is eugenics forceful by nature? Since when does eugenics have to be anyone and everyone instead of a group of volunteers? Stop talking out of your ass and think.

You do realize that there were/are communists and eugenicists who detest use of force as well, but that doesn't mean that they should be given a second chance on such a large scale as they both were during the 20th century. Both were abominations in history and never should be repeated.

Noone said fucking abominations should be repeated. Try reading next time.

Your argument that since the Nazis also used jets and electronics so someone like me shouldn't advocate them falls to pieces when we realize that these inventions aren't supported and implemented largely by politics supported by racists and fascists. Even if it has benefits in society, the fact that its major proponents are all-around assholes doesn't really help its cause.

Wait, you mean Nazis used planes and jets and electronics, but didnt support them or implement them largely so? Wow, could have fooled me!

Eugenics, by its very nature of intent, will never be seperate from elitist feelings and ideas. It cannot flourish or be effective without forceful induction into greater society.

Bullshit. We're already moving towards geneering thats entirely voluntary and nonelitist, the same could easilly go with eugenics. Noone needs to be killed or sterilised, it would just be voluntary selective breeding.

So why don't YOU shut the fuck up.

Because youre still arguing.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-06-01 02:04am

kojikun wrote:Because youre still arguing.

I'm done if you are. We're not going to get anywhere, neither will concede points, and this will just turn into a flame war. It's pointless to the extreme.

Now onto only slightly-Kojikun related rant (to get it out of my system):

Eugenics is one of those things that has never worked out in human civilization. Every time it is implemented it either failed, jepordized basic human rights and/or became elitist. Something that has failed so spectacularily shouldn't be given another chance. Just because the new polite way is said to be voluntary doesn't mean it'll stay that way. If you feel these volunteers and their offspring won't eventually start to feel elitist compared to the muddied masses, you put too much faith in humanity's good side, my friend. Eugenics is a social cancer, amoung many others that will not go away. It is too much a danger to let it begin again under disguised pretences of civility. If you want to, then do it. No one can stop a determined individual. Just get the fuck off my planet.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 02:06am

kojikun wrote:Forced eugenics is bad, I never denied that, but how would voluntary eugenics be bad?

Here's a question for you: how would voluntary eugenics WORK? You might get one generation of eugenicists, two at most, who nominate themselves as an elite and breed amongst each other, but unless they start with an initial breeding population in the thousands, they're very quickly going to run out of "pure" breeding partners without becoming incestuous. So they're either going to have to take in fresh blood from the "impure" population, or breed amongst themselves until they're so rotten with inherited diseases that their children can't survive until puberty. And that's assuming the children of the first generation of volunteers go along with this idiotic scheme and you don't have to cull any of them out thanks to undetected recessive traits.

No, the reason why eugenics always degenerates into a proto-Nazi horror show is because it can't work voluntarily, and sooner or later you're either going to have to abandon the program or start sterilizing people against their will. Saying, "Well, the Nazis fucked it up, but eugenics could still work" is like saying "Well, Stalin fucked up Communism, but it could still work". When every attempt at volutary implementation fails and every nonvoluntary scheme degenerates into forced sterilization of people with arbitrarily and/or pseudoscientifically determined "undesireable" traits, eugenics is a failure. It deserves to be "buried in the backyard next to Zoroastrianism, phrenology, and the rest of mankind's dead mental pets", not propped up in the living room while someone insists it doesn't stink.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-06-01 02:12am

THANK YOU, Red. I've been trying to say that but my mind is too clouded with Sweet Mary Jane residue.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 02:15am

UltraViolence83 wrote:THANK YOU, Red. I've been trying to say that but my mind is too clouded with Sweet Mary Jane residue.

In order to not get this thread locked for a potential "no substance abuse discussions" rule violation, I'm going to assume Sweet Mary Jane is a brand of Scotch, and so should you.

Oh, and you're welcome.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-06-01 02:24am

Horribly vague references is the key! Mmm...Scotch!

PS: 747th post.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-01 03:30am

Thanks Red for reminding us why eugenics has failed -- presumed necessity of "purity". Funny how you fail to realise that the entire species is up for grabs in the genetics game, not just a select few. And selective breeding doesnt even require all the descendents to agree, genetic samples are not likely to rebel against the eugenicists.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 04:48am

kojikun wrote:Thanks Red for reminding us why eugenics has failed -- presumed necessity of "purity". Funny how you fail to realise that the entire species is up for grabs in the genetics game, not just a select few. And selective breeding doesnt even require all the descendents to agree, genetic samples are not likely to rebel against the eugenicists.

And thank you, Koji, for showing the audience how to nitpick. Are you claiming you WON'T need to isolate a certain group's genes, regardless of whether you call it purity or not? And don't forget, there's another set of genes to be isolated: the undesireables. If your eugenically improved daughter decides to carry the child of some common prole, what happens then? And how precisely does a voluntary, species-wide eugenics system work past the first generation, when presumably the second generation would be more interested in making their own reproductive decisions than being a science experiment in progress for their parents? You STILL don't have an answer as to how you can ensure selective breeding will continue once the first generation is no longer fertile. That's another reason why eugenics is a damn joke--it needs thousands of years to work unless you're working with populations so small they rapidly become inbred, and even a coercive system won't survive that long. And YOUR program, which would involve millions of individuals per generation who have somehow magically decided they'll wait for a genetic matchmaker to show up rather than chose their own mate, would take to long to work that by the time you got any results, it would be completely obsolete (would you, in, say, 1903 have bred for results to produce better computer programmers, assuming for a moment those traits can be inherited).

Maybe you've forgotten, but all successful selective breeding outside of sexual selection is coercive--the best specimens are isolated from the general population and only allowed to breed with each other, while those with less desireable traits are either allowed to breed only with those who also share undesireable traits, or more often in the case of domestic animals, are outright sterilized.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-01 12:23pm

I already answered that question, but I'll quote myself just because youre blind

genetic samples are not likely to rebel against the eugenicists.

Tell me how a genetic sample is going to care one bit about whos dna its its being combined with?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 07:30pm

kojikun wrote:I already answered that question, but I'll quote myself just because youre blind

genetic samples are not likely to rebel against the eugenicists.
Tell me how a genetic sample is going to care one bit about whos dna its its being combined with?

That's genetic engineering, not eugenics, you stupid ass. Jesus Christ. Eugenics is selective breeding in human populations. Genetic engineering is recombining DNA in a lab. If you're artificially inseminating women with superman sperm, by the way, you're right back where you started with the second generation--how the hell do you guaranty those women will accept being artificially inseminated for the sake of the species? How do you prevent them from spending their entire breeding years with a common prole? And if you're recombining DNA, you still need to grow it into a person. Who carries them to term, or are we going to assume artificial wombs, too?

Oh, by the way...as for every other point I made which you made no attempt to refute: concession accepted.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-01 09:22pm

RedImperator wrote: That's genetic engineering, not eugenics, you stupid ass. Jesus Christ. Eugenics is selective breeding in human populations. Genetic engineering is recombining DNA in a lab.

Entirely false. Selective breeding using DNA samples is not genetic engineering, genetic engineering is when you take DNA and CHANGE IT.

If you're artificially inseminating women with superman sperm, by the way, you're right back where you started with the second generation--how the hell do you guaranty those women will accept being artificially inseminated for the sake of the species?

Does the word volunteer ring a bell?

How do you prevent them from spending their entire breeding years with a common prole? And if you're recombining DNA, you still need to grow it into a person. Who carries them to term, or are we going to assume artificial wombs, too?

If theyre volunteering they wont have wasted their eggs, now will they have?

Oh, by the way...as for every other point I made which you made no attempt to refute: concession accepted.

I've refuted, you just don't realize it.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-02 08:28am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Steven, you remind me of "Mohammed" who posted eariler on similiar theories. A characteristic of all civilizations is the protection of the weak.* Any evaluation of human history will reveal this.

Never heard of the guy...but I apparently share a few of his ideas.

Aside from your genetic determinism and unabashed eugenics leanings, I like your strongarm view of the world.

Hey just a quick question, do you read The Bell Curve?

Understand that I am not a person that is going to tell you that your genes control 100% of your destiny. We know for a fact that even cloned individuals can vary to a degree.

I know of it (the Bell Curve), but haven't yet had time to read it. Though it is on my list.

BTW, I love that Heinlein quote. So true.

Yeah, I didn't agree with all of the world he setup in ST, but there were neat elements.

Well I expected a serious flaming, but didn't get one...this gives me some comfort.

My solution to this, it requires a bit of technology that we don't yet have but probably soon will.

All individuals will be tested when they reach puberty, the screening will check the individual for genetic diseases and measure their physical and mental capabilities. Any applicant that tests postive for any serious genetic problem, or fails the mental/physical portion of the test is allowed one retest before they reach adulthood.

Those that pass the test are allowed to live and breed as they wish. Those that fail the test are surgically sterilized, but are allowed to continue on with their lives. Now, if a couple that one or both members wishes to have kids, they will be allowed to do so. A suitable donor (one that the parents choose) may volunteer his/her genetic sample to have a clone of that person be implanted in the mother.
It is in this way that even the sterilized individuals will be allowed to have children. In a few generations only a handfull of people will fail these tests and it will become more of a coming of age thing than anything else.

If you wanted to 'improve' the species you could gradually increase the standards of testing, but this would be at the leisure of the society, because at least their genome wouldn't be regressing.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-06-02 08:39am

Steven Snyder wrote: All individuals will be tested when they reach puberty, the screening will check the individual for genetic diseases and measure their physical and mental capabilities. Any applicant that tests postive for any serious genetic problem, or fails the mental/physical portion of the test is allowed one retest before they reach adulthood.

Those that pass the test are allowed to live and breed as they wish. Those that fail the test are surgically sterilized, but are allowed to continue on with their lives.

If you wanted to 'improve' the species you could gradually increase the standards of testing, but this would be at the leisure of the society, because at least their genome wouldn't be regressing.

Would you include, for example, motor neurone disease (or a tedency towards such) as a criterion for failure? And if so, would, for example, exceptional academic acheivement allow a reprieve?

As medical science progresses, I don't see the point. As long as we have glasses, contact lenses and LASER eye surgery, why do we need to select against myopia?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-06-02 10:39am

What's amusing about these pro-eugenics (donkey fucking intolerant biggoted fucktards) is that they always assume that they will one of those that "pass the tests", "are allowed to reproduce" or "aren't killed right off".

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-02 12:40pm

Sir Sirius wrote:What's amusing about these pro-eugenics (donkey fucking intolerant biggoted fucktards) is that they always assume that they will one of those that "pass the tests", "are allowed to reproduce" or "aren't killed right off".

Actually, I will NOT pass the tests and I will be sterilized. If I set the board my eyesight would prevent me from reproducing, though I would be perfectly happy with a cloned baby.

So are you done with the name-calling and stupid assumptions?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-06-02 12:50pm

Steven Snyder wrote:If I set the board my eyesight would prevent me from reproducing, though I would be perfectly happy with a cloned baby.

does your eyesight really diminish your quality of life so much that you wish you'd never been born and your parents had been prevented from reproducing?

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-02 01:04pm

Would you include, for example, motor neurone disease (or a tedency towards such) as a criterion for failure? And if so, would, for example, exceptional academic acheivement allow a reprieve?

MND, though it really affects those over 40 the hardest, is one of the variety of diseases I would like to see purged from our world. And so I think it must be balanced with the value of an exceptional individual. It would be nice to attempt to breed-out the MND while retaining the intellect or whatever attribute of the person. Of course to do that you are going to need a good amount of technology, a steel resolve, and/or a combination of both.

It would probably be a smart idea to create a special group of people that are truly extraordinary individuals and can reproduce, though they may have a genetic flaw. I think this would be accepable, knowing that you wiped out 90%+ of the disease or predisposition in the population. Though I would put their children through similar scrutiny, hoping to retain their gifts but breed-out the flaws.

I think I know where you are going with this Innerbrat. Yes it would be somewhat painful for a generation, maybe two. Though it would be eased a bit because they can still raise children, just not blood relations. Other generations have sacrificed a lot more in their time than this, and I really think the cause is worthy.

As medical science progresses, I don't see the point. As long as we have glasses, contact lenses and LASER eye surgery, why do we need to select against myopia?

A very good point Innerbrat and I am glad you brought it up. One of the reasons to begin a eugenics program or even genetic engineering is to stop the genome from getting any worse. The second reason would be to have a population that is healthy from the start, and wouldn't need surgery to function in the world.

Why is this important, because when (not if) we have a global catastrophy (Ice Age, world-wide economic collaspe or famine, energy crises) our society will crash along with the world. All these basic services will become virtually unavailable. This means that everyone with those problems will be the first to die, sure you may have LASIK done, but what about your kids?

Kaljamaha · Post by **Kaljamaha** » 2003-06-02 03:57pm

I'm sorry, I had to register just to respond to this madness. Mostly in response to Snyder.

First of all, what the hell is this "doing as nature intended" crap? You presume to know what nature intends? That alone makes you nutty, as nature doesn't intend anything. Nature IS. You probably think that evolution has a direction too, a goal it is progressing towards, yes? Care to explain what it is exactly that nature intends?

Why is it that you want to prevent some people from reproducing, instead of doing the much more humane thing of encouraging the "rich and successful" people to have more kids? Wait a second, if they're so awesome, why aren't they having more kids to begin with? And you speak of "compassion, this weakness". Ok, so if compassion will be the end of us, why hasn't it killed us off already? You know, modern society with modern technology has existed quite a few years less than "that weakness". Hundreds of millennia, to be exact. Also, these genetic diseases have managed persist in our genome (which, btw, is NOT deteriorating) all that time too. Why haven't they disappeared when we were still living in caves, wandering how to make fire?

And lastly, voluntary eugenics will not succeed. The reasons have been stated already. I'll just add that people will (generally) have kids with people they feel attracted to, not with people who have a "preferable" genetic makeup (though there have been some studies that indicate some correlation between these two). You'll never get a genetically superior general populace, not while emotions and instincts are still around.

Just relax, the human gene pool is not getting any worse. If the general intellectual capabilities of current youth are diminished (which I highly doubt), I suggest you look elsewhere for the answer.

Sorry for the incoherent post, its late, but this just got me so mad that I had to respond.

K.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-02 05:02pm

Sir Sirius wrote:What's amusing about these pro-eugenics (donkey fucking intolerant biggoted fucktards) is that they always assume that they will one of those that "pass the tests", "are allowed to reproduce" or "aren't killed right off".

Aint me. I fully intend enver to have my genes go anywhere.

Being gay also helps that u.u

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-06-02 06:01pm

Personally, i think it's time to have faith in nature, we don't really need to play around with our own gene pool, anything too severe to deal, nature'll weed out. No need for eugenics.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-02 06:32pm

Nature cant build humans that can survive in toxic atmospheres, unless we stick ourselves in increasingly toxic atmospheres.

You also have the issue of nature killing people while eugenics just seperates their genetics.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-03 09:05am

Kaljamaha wrote:I'm sorry, I had to register just to respond to this madness. Mostly in response to Snyder.

First of all, what the hell is this "doing as nature intended" crap? You presume to know what nature intends? That alone makes you nutty, as nature doesn't intend anything. Nature IS. You probably think that evolution has a direction too, a goal it is progressing towards, yes? Care to explain what it is exactly that nature intends?

Nature doesn't intend on us doing anything, it is not a sentient being and therefore has no intentions, it simply is. Evolution is the mechanism in which we were created, it is evolution and it's servant 'Survival of the Fittest" that we have turned our back on. Care to disagree with that?

Why is it that you want to prevent some people from reproducing, instead of doing the much more humane thing of encouraging the "rich and successful" people to have more kids?

Well lets see here...it seems obvious that you do not understand how people become rich and successful. To become prosperous, to become successful you have to work at it, and a lot. Look at Bill Gates, the guy is just now getting married and having kids...he has been pretty busy. Raising kids in this environment is difficult because, even if you are lucky enough to first get a spouse that can put up with your demanding schedule, finding time to properly raise a child isn't easy...and it gets progressively worse with every child.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the poor who are living off society, they do not work, they sit at home all day. They have little do to but wait for their checks to come in. Having kids for them isn't a problem, they have plenty of time. In fact the more kids they have the bigger the check they get.

Now then...which one do you suppose has more kids? Now why do you think that?
How the hell do you encourage the successful to have more kids, without drastically intruding in their lives and screwing with them? Unless you pull the successful out and force them to become breeders for society, you will never get them to even come close to having as many kids as the unsuccessful.

Wait a second, if they're so awesome, why aren't they having more kids to begin with?

Maybe because they are too busy?

And you speak of "compassion, this weakness". Ok, so if compassion will be the end of us, why hasn't it killed us off already?

Wow...this is just too easy. There are countless examples through history where a society has suffered needless casualties because they were just too compassionate to do the right thing.

The US had to go back into Iraq recently and finish the job we started over a decade ago...because back then we didn't want to 'offend' anyone and so we left a madman in charge of that country.

Hitler was allowed to run wild through Europe because the leaders there didn't want to spill any needless blood...oh now that would have been awful. They didn't have the strength to do what was needed until the wolf was quite literally at their doorstep.

In Israel right now there is an ongoing conflict where innocents die almost daily. Though the US has the power to step and and stop it...well we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

If dogs had compassion they would never scratch their fleas.

You know, modern society with modern technology has existed quite a few years less than "that weakness". Hundreds of millennia, to be exact.

Whoa there. We hadn't really turned our backs on natural selection until we implemented social welfare, which allowed everyone to survive and have kids. Are you suggesting that social welfare has been around before recorded history?

Also, these genetic diseases have managed persist in our genome (which, btw, is NOT deteriorating) all that time too. Why haven't they disappeared when we were still living in caves, wandering how to make fire?

http://www.sghms.ac.uk/depts/laia/952.pdf
The number of cases if Cystic Fibrosis rises each and every year.

It is known since long-time that in well off countries the relative frequency of genetic diseases is increasing with the progressive decrease of infectious and nutritional disorders. These, instead, are still a major source of morbidity and mortality in poor countries. For these countries it makes no sense to divert resources from supporting nutrition and hygiene to diagnosing and preventing genetic disorders, unless the frequency of a specific hereditary disorder is very high (e.g. thalassemia or other emoglobinpathies in some third world countries). In rich nations, on the contrary, a consistent fraction of resources for health should be devoted to genetic disorders, including the costs for diagnosis, prevention, and, whenever possible, therapies as well as expenses for limiting the psychological and social damages potentially deriving from the knowledge of genetic information.

Marina Frontali, Istituto di Medicina Sperimentale del CNR, Frascati (Roma)

There, a direct quote from a health professional saying that genetic diseases are on the rise.

And lastly, voluntary eugenics will not succeed. The reasons have been stated already. I'll just add that people will (generally) have kids with people they feel attracted to, not with people who have a "preferable" genetic makeup (though there have been some studies that indicate some correlation between these two). You'll never get a genetically superior general populace, not while emotions and instincts are still around.

Who said anything about this being voluntary? If you read my posts, I specifically mention sterilization.

Just relax, the human gene pool is not getting any worse. If the general intellectual capabilities of current youth are diminished (which I highly doubt), I suggest you look elsewhere for the answer.

It seems you haven't been reading the research and statistics which clearly says things are getting worse and the number of stupid people are increasing.

Now then. If you persist in this opinion, do me a favor.

State for the group that a popluation's genetic health is not affected by the influx of genes (recessive and dominate) that cause genetic diseases. And that this group's genetic well-being is just as good as a population whose environment selects out those individuals and prevents those genes from entry into the genome.

Just say that for the group so that we all understand your point.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-06-03 09:39am

Steven Snyder wrote:Nature doesn't intend on us doing anything, it is not a sentient being and therefore has no intentions, it simply is. Evolution is the mechanism in which we were created, it is evolution and it's servant 'Survival of the Fittest" that we have turned our back on. Care to disagree with that?

Sometimes I wish that the term 'survival of the fittest' had never made it's way into the public consciousness. To be 'fit' is to pass your geens on to the next generation. Itr has bugger all to do with your intelligence, eyesight, or how much money you make.

Unless you pull the successful out and force them to become breeders for society, you will never get them to even come close to having as many kids as the unsuccessful.

But if you're preventing the "unsuccessful" from having children, then you have to force the "successful" to breed like bunnies in order to produce all the children that you're proposing to give to the losers as a conpensation prize for failing your criteria for having good genes.

Hitler was allowed to run wild through Europe because the leaders there didn't want to spill any needless blood...oh now that would have been awful. They didn't have the strength to do what was needed until the wolf was quite literally at their doorstep.

Wait.. thisis a bad thing? Hitler was one of the biggest esposuers of eugneics since Wolfson. If Europe had sat back and let him proceed with his cleansing of the gene pool, we'd have a much purer population today.

Whoa there. We hadn't really turned our backs on natural selection until we implemented social welfare, which allowed everyone to survive and have kids. Are you suggesting that social welfare has been around before recorded history?

Humans have been altruistic sicne the birth of society. There are countless examples of bodies as far back as the palaeolithic that shw the healing of potentially fatal woudns, and survival with potentially fatal genetic disorders, that the owner would not have been able to live with without help from their immediate society.

--snip--

Marina Frontali, Istituto di Medicina Sperimentale del CNR, Frascati (Roma)
There, a direct quote from a health professional saying that genetic diseases are on the rise.

Because kids aren't dying of infections and malnutrition before they have the chance to express any genetic disorders, which are usualyl late-onset (like CF or MND). Because we can live with them. Because medical science has advanced to the point that enables a sufferer to continue to contribute to society So? Why implement a massive genetic cleansing program just because we have decent medicine?

Who said anything about this being voluntary? If you read my posts, I specifically mention sterilization.

clearly, he was addressing Kojikun's delusions that asking people nicely if they mind not having have kids becasue they fail some arbitary criteria is actually going to have an effect on the human gene pool

It seems you haven't been reading the research and statistics which clearly says things are getting worse and the number of stupid people are increasing.

Which are mainly based on a inherently flawed eam that has been taken out of context, misunderstood and hyped up beyond all recognition.
I sugegst to lok up the history of the Stanford-Binet testing system, that includes statistical 'proof' that non-english speakers are stupid, that poor people are stuipid, and that black people are the stupidest of the lot.

You still haven't address the fundamentla flaw in all eugenics arguments - restricting the gene pool is always harmful and creates more genetic diseases than it eliminates. Artifical selection in inherently dangerous to the genetic health of the group - go ask any domestic vet about the genetic diseases associated with pure bred dog breeds.

Most of the most important factors in determinign what makes a 'successful' person - education, wealth, personality etc are not genetic anyway. Do you think Bill gates would have made significantly more millions if he didn't have myopia?

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-06-03 11:10am

Steven Snyder wrote:*Blah*

This guy actually advocates a social program that would result in his own sterilization! Wow guess what, Steven: YOU JUST FAILED THE "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" CRITERIA FOR GENETIC PROPOGATION! Irony's a bitch, eh?

Darwin Awards ahoy!