Wayne

Just what is it you are suggesting? Massive overpopulation followed by survival of the fittest or a technologically created master race? So far you seem to be suggesting both.

Wayne

"The reason the greatest sportsmen come from Africa and other countries with a recent tribal past is that civilisation has had {less time to weaken these people"}
Less time? Didn't the Big Pharm's come to the rescue with their unproven AIDS treatments? for a disease which was man made in the first place and never proven to exsist? People are dying slowly so they (their Government) can be milked for every penny they got. So my point is,the Africans Do get a helping hand to cull their numbers. Who worries about genes then? Oh Monsanto would anyone for an investment in gene tech?

"Just what is it you are suggesting? Massive overpopulation followed by survival of the fittest or a technologically created master race? So far you seem to be suggesting both."

Massive overpopulation is unavoidable and already a reality.

So is survival of the fittest. We can't guess at the infinite number of challenges to be faced by future generations.

I don't recall recommending a technologically created master race or even suggesting one. Putting words in my mouth to try and make me out as some sort of Nazi is getting tiring. I've raised a very real issue and naturally I don't have an instant solution to this mammoth problem. I've merely pointed out that limiting the number of children will worsen it.

Devolution was certainly accelerated by the two major world wars of the last century. We sent our strongest and healthiest young male specimens to the front lines where they got massacred. Thus removing the best DNA from the pool. We are already a mere shadow of our ancestors.

I think we should stop immigration and assist the one in four couples unable to conceive a child by offering them suitable eggs, sperm or embryo's.

If you put a world champion race horse in amongst a herd of ordinary horses then over time you'll likely improve the entire herds racing ability. This is not creating a master race but improving the current one.

"Didn't the Big Pharm's come to the rescue with their unproven AIDS treatments?"

There is a man in England who apparently has a natural immunity to aids. I would ask people like him to be on the the list of 'exceptional people' and encourage IVF clinics to spread his seed as far and wide as possible. Obviously we can't have too many or else we risk accidental inbreeding, but a thousand kids would be helpful in stregthening the human immune system over time.

"We are already a mere shadow of our ancestors."

Do you have evidence to back this up? Is there any evidence for a genetic degradation of humanity as a result of modern civilisation? And I think that you would agree that breeding fast racehorses is an easier task.

You are tired of the Nazi comparison, but what better example is there to learn from? The Nazis did not see their actions as atrocities, but merely as a people acting in accordance with the rules of nature, where it was the right of the strong and superior to replace the weak and inferior. The Nazi regime conducted a large amount of scientific research to support their actions. One research paper determined that Jews took an average two hours to have a bog.

My suggestion is that you get a bit more grounding for your philosophy before concluding how best to create your utopia. Hitler left the Germans a mess.

Wayne,

Two points:

1. I said: “I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination.”

Your reply: “I can't be bothered explaining evolution or arguing its existence here in this thread. Just assume its a given or go and start another thread on the matter please” indicates that you haven’t understood what I was saying.

Steven Jay Gould wrote a whole book on the fallacy of evolution having a “direction”, and explained very nicely the statistical misconception that has led to this common misapprehension. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_From_Plato_to_Darwin if you can’t be bothered reading the book (and Gould does tend to labour the point a bit – I prefer Dawkins for his clarity).

Given that our understanding of evolution is central to your argument, I think it’s a bit churlish of you to dismiss an important insight from one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century.

2. “Survival of the fittest” is a highly problematic expression in evolutionary biology and tends to be avoided by scientists mainly because it is tautological. “Fittest” in a Darwinian sense means “that which survives natural selection”. The expression also has unfortunate and fallacious associations with what is sometimes called “Social Darwinism”, which has little to do with biological theory. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest.

I’m really puzzled how you saw my post as arguing against evolution by natural selection as scientific fact

While I’m at it, what on earth are you on about, eftfnc? About AIDS being man made, and at the same time never proven to exist? And AIDS treatments being unproven?

We possibly have some areas of agreement about the motivations and behavior of Big Pharma, and I think the fundamental injustice of Africans’ access to the best health care is indisputable, but I’m a bit concerned that your understanding of medical science might be a bit… umm… out there. Perhaps I’ve failed to pick up on some deliberate sarcasm?