The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: divito the truthist on November 27, 2008, 12:28:37 AM
-
Yay, or nay?
Personally, it's hard to argue against the science (given the proof on display), but social customs seemed to shift radically throughout the 20th century.
-
What? Like forced sterilization?
-
By any means. Obviously forced sterilization is one of the most humane, if one could call it that.
-
I would say it's still too much of a pseudoscience to be taken seriously.
And there is the ethical considerations involved.
-
I would say it's still too much of a pseudoscience to be taken seriously.
What about it do you not take serious? Dominant traits are pseudoscience?
-
No, their attempted regulation is (at least at the moment).
-
Hmm. So you believe taking two families of pristine health and matching them together holds just as much likelihood in developing disease as matching a family of poor health with a healthy one? Or mixing people of different ethnicity?
-
Hmm. So you believe taking two families of pristine health and matching them together holds just as much likelihood in developing disease as matching a family of poor health with a healthy one? Or mixing people of different ethnicity?
More study needs to be conducted in the realm of genetics, psychology and sociology before we will be able to tell what "desirable" traits may be bred and which are the result of conditioning. And how does one decide which qualities are beneficial and which are not?
-
Obviously, homosexuality should be bred out. To ensure the survival of the species. ::)
-
Didn't the Swedes do a bit of eugenics at one point? Forcing steralisation of certain women? I'm sure I remember reading about it when I was researching something
-
The Norwegians locked a bunch of kids in mental asylums because their mothers had slept with German soldiers during the occupation. Is that what you were thinking about?
-
No, the Swedes were heavily into eugenics up until the middle of the century, I think. I'm not sure, though. Uppsala univeristy founded an institute for "racial biology" in 1922, which was then renamed in 1959 to the institution for medicinal genetics, and it exists to this day, as a centre for genetic research. We apparently have a proud tradition of being racist penguinbags in Sweden. :-\
-
I think being racist penguinbags is a general Nordic thing...
-
How will it be determined what traits are inheritable and which have been learned?
-
Trial and error, perhaps. Or maybe close examination of parents and their children.
-
We need to do something to stop the future turning out like Idiocracy
-
I would say it's still too much of a pseudoscience to be taken seriously.
What about it do you not take serious? Dominant traits are pseudoscience?
Lulz. Dominant traits including Huntington's disease?
Eugenics is a pseudo science because better is not a scientifically provable idea. Is it better for someone to be able to life twice their body weight, at the expense of years of life and quality of life at the end, or is it better for someone to be intelligent and live forever.
Eugenics is a wet dream perpetuated by people that have no perspective of true biology, or an incomplete misunderstanding at best. A trait that leads to a normal bacterium nearly dying, is also a mutation that will lead to a drug resistant bacteria being able to multiply at the same rate it would without the drug resistant gene.
Better is not a factual concept.
-
But divito is a fascist - and fascists and eugenics go together like nationalism and socialism! :D
-
But divito is a fascist - and fascists and eugenics go together like nationalism and socialism! :D
Well I'm mainly a biologist. I swear biologists must have more cringe moments than the majority of society combined. Everyone assumes that where they left off on biology in the 7th grade gave them a complete understanding of the subject. I was once asked why people in wet climates don't evolve fins, and all I could say was "Same reason you don't"
-
Yay, or nay?
Nay today. Yay tomorrow.
In today's society, you'd be viewed as the next Hitler and assassinated. Society needs to reach the point where they understand it is necessary and they willfully take part. Introducing it now, could be counter productive as far as getting it to happen.
-
In Britain you need a license to keep a dog yet you can bring a kid into the world no matter how much of a bad idea it might be
-
Yay, or nay?
Nay today. Yay tomorrow.
In today's society, you'd be viewed as the next Hitler and assassinated. Society needs to reach the point where they understand it is necessary and they willfully take part. Introducing it now, could be counter productive as far as getting it to happen.
This statement is stupidity. The basic urge of humanity and any species is to carry on our genes. You will never be able to convince people to not do so, and I believe it would be the greatest atrocity to do so. An interesting result of it would be recessive genes that tag along with genes that are perceived as beneficial, maybe a certain gene responsible for athletics leads to homicidal/suicidal thoughts. I'd lawl when the new master race has a tendency for self mutilation.
The future will be in engineering each child's genes not in preventing people from breeding. The rich will gain what they believe to be perfection, but the poor will be unable to afford this, and will be "normal." This is a much more reasonable result considering genetic engineering, the use of tumerous plasmids, and free markets.
-
I'd lawl when the new master race has a tendency for self mutilation.
Ever heard of the Yuuzhan Vong?
-
I'd lawl when the new master race has a tendency for self mutilation.
Ever heard of the Yuuzhan Vong?
Nope, but wikipedia doesn't mention self mutilation, just a hate of technology and an affinity for engineering parts.
-
I'd lawl when the new master race has a tendency for self mutilation.
Ever heard of the Yuuzhan Vong?
Nope, but wikipedia doesn't mention self mutilation, just a hate of technology and an affinity for engineering parts.
Wookieepedia it.
Or better yet, read the Expanded Universe.
-
I'd lawl when the new master race has a tendency for self mutilation.
Ever heard of the Yuuzhan Vong?
Nope, but wikipedia doesn't mention self mutilation, just a hate of technology and an affinity for engineering parts.
Wookieepedia it.
Or better yet, read the Expanded Universe.
I was in the process, but I was interrupted by school and the lack of a library with fun books. These books are in my library just spread out to the point it is not worth looking for them.
-
Nay today. Yay tomorrow.
In today's society, you'd be viewed as the next Hitler and assassinated. Society needs to reach the point where they understand it is necessary and they willfully take part. Introducing it now, could be counter productive as far as getting it to happen.
Right. Today's society would never permit it, especially in America's melting pot, where a lot of the problems are. Sweden had it voluntarily (for the majority) up until 1975, but it would be too much to surmount in today's liberalism.
Eugenics is a pseudo science because better is not a scientifically provable idea. Is it better for someone to be able to life twice their body weight, at the expense of years of life and quality of life at the end, or is it better for someone to be intelligent and live forever.
Eugenics was not about "better," is was about heredity. Heredity, the last time I checked, was not pseudoscience. Like I said originally, it's hard to argue against the real-life evidence. It's all about the ethics and the skewing of the science to argue otherwise.
-
Eugenics was not about "better," is was about heredity. Heredity, the last time I checked, was not pseudoscience. Like I said originally, it's hard to argue against the real-life evidence. It's all about the ethics and the skewing of the science to argue otherwise.
Heredity to what end?
-
To abolish hereditary mental deficiency and disease. We already know plenty about heredity, it's just a matter of time before genetics makes more progress and makes the idea of eugenics more prominent. It already exists worldwide, but in a more passive form.
-
And how exactly do you decide what is a deficiency or disease?
-
And how exactly do you decide what is a deficiency or disease?
deficiency - A lack or shortage of something essential to health (This is slightly too broad, but in regards to mental capacity, is much more easily established then that of a physical one)
disease - any abnormal condition that impairs normal functioning. Commonly, this term is used to refer specifically to infectious diseases, which are clinically evident diseases that result from the presence of pathogenic microbial agents, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, multicellular parasites, and aberrant proteins known as prions. An infection that does not produce clinically evident impairment of normal functioning is not considered a disease. Non-infectious diseases are all other diseases, including most forms of cancer, heart disease, and genetic disease.
-
What I'm getting to is that many traits are not easily characterized as a defect. Case in point: the sickle-cell (recessive) gene. Having one or two confers resistance to malaria. However, receiving two results in sickle-cell anemia and all of its resulting complications. So is that allele beneficial or deficient? Mental "defects" may be easier to classify either way, but you still have oddities such as autism-savantism (Daniel Tammet, Kim Peek). I'll find more examples if you want, but I believe my point is made. The "pseudo" label I'd assign to eugenics is because most of these difficulties would have to be resolved by opinion rather than science.
Anyway, I'm off for the night. Don't reply, concede my brilliance, or make me look like a fucktard, at your discretion.
-
What I'm getting to is that many traits are not easily characterized as a defect. Case in point: the sickle-cell (recessive) gene. Having one or two confers resistance to malaria.
Because it aids in resistance to a disease doesn't make it not a disease....
Mental "defects" may be easier to classify either way, but you still have oddities such as autism-savantism.The "pseudo" label I'd assign to eugenics is because of difficulties such as this, which are resolved mainly based on opinion.
More insight into autism and savantism would have to be made for more empirical and objective stances. It would, as you said, come down to opinion to resolve. If one were to establish that persons of those abilities were ultimately useful, an attempt towards breeding them could be made, or if the effort to care and deal with them was thought to be too much, they could choose to eradicate.
-
I'm not a fan of eugenics, mainly cos I have a heriditary disease
-
Being?
-
What I'm getting to is that many traits are not easily characterized as a defect. Case in point: the sickle-cell (recessive) gene. Having one or two confers resistance to malaria.
Because it aids in resistance to a disease doesn't make it not a disease....
Mental "defects" may be easier to classify either way, but you still have oddities such as autism-savantism.The "pseudo" label I'd assign to eugenics is because of difficulties such as this, which are resolved mainly based on opinion.
More insight into autism and savantism would have to be made for more empirical and objective stances. It would, as you said, come down to opinion to resolve. If one were to establish that persons of those abilities were ultimately useful, an attempt towards breeding them could be made, or if the effort to care and deal with them was thought to be too much, they could choose to eradicate.
Who would choose what to eradicate? Of course genetics is science. Eugenics is pseudoscience. Who decides what is better? Few genes have only one result. Even after that, there are tons of people with a few useful traits, but are otherwise worthless, people are the sum total of hundreds of thousands of genes, and even more minor genetic material that changes what these genes do. The answer is not removing people from the gene pool, it is editing the genes people have. Someone could have the genes for a nearly perfect person, but have one dominant gene leading to mental retardation, half their kids could be geniuses able to run the mile in 4 minutes flat, and the other half would be retarded. This isn't apparent from the person, so they would be killed. Evolution works because it works.
-
Didn't hitler have a similiar plan?
-
Didn't hitler have a similiar plan?
Hitler also took over most of Europe. Just because it is his idea doesn't mean it won't work. (not supporting it, just annoyed)
-
Being?
Coeliac Disease
-
Coeliac Disease
Ah, my mother has that, and diabetes.
Who would choose what to eradicate?
Democracy, government, take your pick. As for what, as I said, hereditary disease, whether mental or physical.
Eugenics is pseudoscience.
Whether or not it is, it is in practice today and the science does back it up.
Who decides what is better?
Above.
The answer is not removing people from the gene pool, it is editing the genes people have.
Eugenics doesn't remove people from the gene pool, it removes those genes from the gene pool.
Someone could have the genes for a nearly perfect person, but have one dominant gene leading to mental retardation, half their kids could be geniuses able to run the mile in 4 minutes flat, and the other half would be retarded.
Exactly.
Evolution works because it works.
And what of those that intervene in evolution?
-
Eugenics doesn't remove people from the gene pool, it removes those genes from the gene pool.
Some methods don't.
-
That's fine and dandy, but we're not arguing methods.
-
The basic urge of humanity and any species is to carry on our genes.
The basic urge of humanity is to have sex. Emotional care for the child is a consequence of having the child.
-
The basic urge of humanity is to breathe.
-
Alright fine. So there are multiple urges, but the point is that primitive instincts arise. No caveman wanted to have sex to make sure his genetic code was passed down.
He would be thinking sex is fun, as does everyone I know in this day and age. Evolution is reinforces what works.
-
The basic urge of humanity and any species is to carry on our genes.
The basic urge of humanity is to have sex. Emotional care for the child is a consequence of having the child.
Emotional care? The urge is to pass on your genes, not make Dr. Phil proud.
-
The basic urge of humanity and any species is to carry on our genes.
The basic urge of humanity is to have sex. Emotional care for the child is a consequence of having the child.
Emotional care? The urge is to pass on your genes, not make Dr. Phil proud.
Is passing on your genes your primary motivator for having sex? And my second point was actually saying child care was secondary to the first primal instinct, sex.
-
The basic urge of humanity and any species is to carry on our genes.
The basic urge of humanity is to have sex. Emotional care for the child is a consequence of having the child.
Emotional care? The urge is to pass on your genes, not make Dr. Phil proud.
Is passing on your genes your primary motivator for having sex? And my second point was actually saying child care was secondary to the first primal instinct, sex.
Child care is an instinct in women to help carry on their genes.
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
-
It's more hawt?
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
neh, that a spinoff of the not pull out urge I think. Also, bitches should swallow.
-
How will it be determined what traits are inheritable and which have been learned?
Well, if its part of your DNA, its inheritable.
That's simple genetics dude.
Learned traits( aka acquired traits ) are actually not traits at all. That is just a common name.
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
Thank you. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain it.
Swallowing has nothing to do with passing on genes. It just helps to fulfill the primitive desires.
-
Who honestly gives a fuck? If it involves mass murder and such then I'm not for it.
Wouldn't the failure children with diseases and such die out eventually anyways?
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
Thank you. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain it.
Swallowing has nothing to do with passing on genes. It just helps to fulfill the primitive desires.
I's assuming genes that make a guy want to not pull out are fairly vague on which orifice. Hell I've seen instincts lead to the wrong species before.
-
I believe strongly in compulsory sterilization and oppose dissemination (particularly of separate European stock). It would be nice if these races were able to remain distinct, but I admit that their overall survival should be considered in the long run and sacrifices made in the face of the current trend of liberalism and political correctness.
This website has only strengthened my resolve that certain people should not be allowed to breed.
This is a bad alt.
-
Do you deny the insight of racialism?
I'm not familiar with it.
That me wanting to preserve my culture and heritage makes me a "racist" and a "bigot"?
Not at all, but you are likely to be a fake account made by another user, there are lots around this forum.
That I didn't vote for CHANGE (Arab Socialism)?
That really gives it away.
Or is it just that I conform with the scientific (and sane) community in believing the world to be a globe?
The earth is an oblate spheroid, I don't deny that.
-
Okay, so I am a fake user because I refused to vote for Nasser (Obama)?
No, your persona is uncommon enough to be a character.
And why do you frequent a flat earth board if you admit the earth is not flat?
There are boards besides the flat earth ones.
-
On thing about Eugenics is that Science does not support it at all. Evolution says that a more varied gene pool is a stronger gene pool. Essentially the result of Eugenics is inbreeding, and in breeding is bad for genetics.
What occurs is that people only look at the term "Survival Of the Fittest" but then they think they know what is the "Fittest" (actually the term Survival of the fittest was not coined by any scientists, but by a journalist, but it is a good sound bite that encapsulates part of what evolution is all about).
Evolution is not just about survival of the fittest. It is also about variation, and as variation is a key part of evolution, if you ignore it (like Eugenics does), then you are not actually using evolution. I know that people (historically) have used evolution as a rationale for eugenics, but if you know even a little bit about how evolution works (or is supposed to work for any of you who doesn't think it exists), it is easy to prove that any application of Eugenics has nothing to do with evolution.
-
On thing about Eugenics is that Science does not support it at all.
So, different races and people of different geographic regions don't have advantages and disadvantages inherent in their biology over other such races and people? Don't think I've ever heard science say that.
-
Eliminating weak genes is not the same as inbreeding. It is induced competition in the gene pool when it would otherwise be stagnant and exposed to nonbenificial genetic drift.
-
How is "race" as a classification of human beings defined?
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
Thank you. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain it.
Swallowing has nothing to do with passing on genes. It just helps to fulfill the primitive desires.
I's assuming genes that make a guy want to not pull out are fairly vague on which orifice. Hell I've seen instincts lead to the wrong species before.
Which makes it evidence that he is fulfilling his desire for sexual stimulation and not his desire for a transfer of genetic data.
-
As for passing genes on being the primary motivator, why do guys hate pulling out so much?
Same reason they prefer it when you swallow.
Thank you. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain it.
Swallowing has nothing to do with passing on genes. It just helps to fulfill the primitive desires.
I's assuming genes that make a guy want to not pull out are fairly vague on which orifice. Hell I've seen instincts lead to the wrong species before.
Which makes it evidence that he is fulfilling his desire for sexual stimulation and not his desire for a transfer of genetic data.
The desire for sexual stimulation IS the desire for passing on your genes. Just like hunger is the desire to obtain energy not the desire to taste things.
-
No caveman wanted to have sex to make sure his genetic code was passed down.
-
No caveman wanted to have sex to make sure his genetic code was passed down.
Yeah they did. The fact that they were unaware of their urge's origin did not lessen the urge.
-
No caveman wanted to have sex to make sure his genetic code was passed down.
Yeah they did. The fact that they were unaware of their urge's origin did not lessen the urge.
Sexual drive may have been derived from an evolutionary imperative, but willfully choosing an action specifically to suit a purpose only works if they can know about the purpose.
-
No caveman wanted to have sex to make sure his genetic code was passed down.
Yeah they did. The fact that they were unaware of their urge's origin did not lessen the urge.
Sexual drive may have been derived from an evolutionary imperative, but willfully choosing an action specifically to suit a purpose only works if they can know about the purpose.
The urge is still there to have kids. Not just to have sex but to protect the child. Ever had a girl pregnant?
As I have said, the urge to pass on our genes manifests in many ways, and you will never convince someone not to pass on their genes because you see them as unfit. Perhaps someone will be unwilling to procreate because of a disease they have that would be passed on but even that is rare.
-
The urge is still there to have kids. Not just to have sex but to protect the child. Ever had a girl pregnant?
The desire may exist to have and protect kids but without knowing the connection between sex and babies, you can't have willfully act on your desires. Also, the desire to have and protect kids usually manifests from the hormones of having started that process. Like you say, pregnant girls aren't overprotective before they're pregnant.
As I have said, the urge to pass on our genes manifests in many ways, and you will never convince someone not to pass on their genes because you see them as unfit.
Who says I would be deciding? Why not the parents themselves, in this possible ideal future?
Urges are associated with behavior. If the urge isn't the act itself, and you have no knowledge/rational connection to the satisfy the goals of the urges they don't influence behavior. Someone who wants to have kids but doesn't know sex will help him achieve that goal is not more likely to have sex. Did you know that monkeys who have not seen sex will not have sex? There's a disconnect where the lack of knowledge of sex from observational learning inhibits their behavioral desires. In these cases, they actually tend to just avoid the females entirely. Of course if you can eliminate the capacity for knowledge by converting it to pure instinct (not goal oriented) you can circumvent learning obstacles. Rats for instance will mate without previous knowledge of sex.
The caveman with no knowledge of the causality behind sex will not have an urge for sex beyond that of sexual stimulation, but just a frustrating desire for kids that he doesn't know how to satisfy.
Perhaps someone will be unwilling to procreate because of a disease they have that would be passed on but even that is rare.
Unfortunately evolution tends to work against higher order logic. Those willing to sacrifice their urges are actually what we need in the gene pool. The largest hope I can think of is enlightening the society through education.
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
Evolution lacks a purpose. It is the overall result of the desires. Also the sum total of our actions is just as much our will as our conscious thought.
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
Evolution lacks a purpose. It is the overall result of the desires. Also the sum total of our actions is just as much our will as our conscious thought.
I'm not saying evolution has a purpose. I'm saying because of evolution, sex serves the purpose of passing on genes. A person looking to pass on their genes would turn to the option of having sex (assuming he knew that sex would help him reach his goal).
It can't be a motivator to the ignorant.
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
Evolution lacks a purpose. It is the overall result of the desires. Also the sum total of our actions is just as much our will as our conscious thought.
I'm not saying evolution has a purpose. I'm saying because of evolution, sex serves the purpose of passing on genes. A person looking to pass on their genes would turn to the option of having sex (assuming he knew that sex would help him reach his goal).
It can't be a motivator to the ignorant.
So you're saying sex serves the purpose of passing on our genes. And we have the urge to have sex. Would this not therefore mean that we have the urge to pass on our genes?
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
Evolution lacks a purpose. It is the overall result of the desires. Also the sum total of our actions is just as much our will as our conscious thought.
I'm not saying evolution has a purpose. I'm saying because of evolution, sex serves the purpose of passing on genes. A person looking to pass on their genes would turn to the option of having sex (assuming he knew that sex would help him reach his goal).
It can't be a motivator to the ignorant.
So you're saying sex serves the purpose of passing on our genes. And we have the urge to have sex. Would this not therefore mean that we have the urge to pass on our genes?
I'm thinking that wanting sex does not mean wanting kids.
-
So basically you admit we have the urge to bear children, raise them, and protect them, but you won't admit that the sum total of these urges is to carry on our genes?
Carrying on our genes is the overall purpose, but not a desire that would willfully influence behaviors dissociated with it.
Evolution lacks a purpose. It is the overall result of the desires. Also the sum total of our actions is just as much our will as our conscious thought.
I'm not saying evolution has a purpose. I'm saying because of evolution, sex serves the purpose of passing on genes. A person looking to pass on their genes would turn to the option of having sex (assuming he knew that sex would help him reach his goal).
It can't be a motivator to the ignorant.
So you're saying sex serves the purpose of passing on our genes. And we have the urge to have sex. Would this not therefore mean that we have the urge to pass on our genes?
I'm thinking that wanting sex does not mean wanting kids.
So?
-
So you're saying sex serves the purpose of passing on our genes. And we have the urge to have sex. Would this not therefore mean that we have the urge to pass on our genes?
I'm thinking that wanting sex does not mean wanting kids.
So?
So, the urge is not always to pass on our genes. A desire for the cause does not automatically mean a desire for the effect.
-
So you're saying sex serves the purpose of passing on our genes. And we have the urge to have sex. Would this not therefore mean that we have the urge to pass on our genes?
I'm thinking that wanting sex does not mean wanting kids.
So?
So, the urge is not always to pass on our genes. A desire for the cause does not automatically mean a desire for the effect.
You are giving the urge too specific a purpose.
The urge to overeat is the urge to store fat, it doesn't mean people are happy about storing fat.
-
The urge to overeat is the urge to store fat.
Nobody I know has an urge to be fat, though I know a good number of people who have urges to overeat. How could they be one in the same when they are diametrically opposed? I wouldn't even call it an urge, but a consequence.
-
The urge to overeat is the urge to store fat.
Nobody I know has an urge to be fat, though I know a good number of people who have urges to overeat. How could they be one in the same when they are diametrically opposed? I wouldn't even call it an urge, but a consequence.
So the direct consequence of an urge isn't the purpose of the urge?
-
No, not when the direct consequence is variable.
-
No, not when the direct consequence is variable.
Direct consequences are always variable in biology. It is the repetition of the urge that ensures the consequence.
-
So the direct consequence of an urge isn't the purpose of the urge?
It can be, but its not a rule. You can't make make a statement of equality.
Also, this doesn't even seem like a direct consequence.
The urge to eat is perusing the direct consequence of taste. Converting excess food into fat down the line is a likely consequence of over eating depending on exercise, metabolism, et cetera but it was not necessarily the motivation of the urge. It comes later on even though it is part of the same series of events.
One last thing. Saying a consequence is the purpose completely removes intentions and regularity of the consequences. Walking across the street may have been an action based on the urge to get to the other side, but the poor chicken may get hit by a cement mixer instead. That is a direct consequence of stepping onto the road at the time. ;)
-
Intentions do not matter when it comes to biology. We are biologically programmed to pass on our genes. Intentions or not.
-
Intentions do not matter when it comes to biology. We are biologically programmed to pass on our genes. Intentions or not.
We are biological programmed to want sex. A system of eugenics can occur without abstinence.
-
Intentions do not matter when it comes to biology. We are biologically programmed to pass on our genes. Intentions or not.
We are biological programmed to want sex + the urge to not want to pull out + a genuine sense of disgust towards sterilization of any sort + a feeling of remorse when unable to have a child. A system of eugenics can occur without abstinence.
Seriously Singularity, if you can't see anything beyond sex in this issue you are being intentionally dense.
-
Seriously Singularity, if you can't see anything beyond sex in this issue you are being intentionally dense.
We want sex because it is an evolutionary instinct developed from the successful impact it has for passing on our genes. The desire to have children is separate from the desire to have sex, though you can easily accomplish both at the same time.
This seemed obvious to me since people reach these desires at different times in their life.
To say they are the same urge, defeats the point of having birth control.
-
Seriously Singularity, if you can't see anything beyond sex in this issue you are being intentionally dense.
We want sex because it is an evolutionary instinct developed from the successful impact it has for passing on our genes. The desire to have children is separate from the desire to have sex, though you can easily accomplish both at the same time.
This seemed obvious to me since people reach these desires at different times in their life.
To say they are the same urge, defeats the point of having birth control.
How so? Have we never before ignored an urge in search of pleasure?
-
To say they are the same urge, defeats the point of having birth control.
How so? Have we never before ignored an urge in search of pleasure?
Please elaborate. Are you talking about inhibitions for self interest?
-
To say they are the same urge, defeats the point of having birth control.
How so? Have we never before ignored an urge in search of pleasure?
Please elaborate. Are you talking about inhibitions for self interest?
No, the opposite. Denying self interest in search of pleasure.
-
To say they are the same urge, defeats the point of having birth control.
How so? Have we never before ignored an urge in search of pleasure?
Please elaborate. Are you talking about inhibitions for self interest?
No, the opposite. Denying self interest in search of pleasure.
If by "denying self interest", you mean pleasure of instant gratification simply overrule pleasure from planning. Then yes, I'd say that happens. How does that apply to the use of birth control?