The "Ra's Al Ghul Belief"; An Open Letter to interested parties.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shai Gar
  • Start date Start date
alt ctrl del said:
How?
Click to expand...

It means we can have stuff, stuff, stuff! Tons of it! Sure we'll tire of that stuff pretty quickly but that's why we get more and more new stuff.

...and if you question it you're a complete weirdo!
 
Last edited:
Quinlan said:
It means we can have stuff, stuff, stuff! Tons of it! Sure we'll tire of that stuff pretty quickly but that's why we get more and more new stuff.

...and if you question it you're a complete weirdo!
Click to expand...
You're funny.
 
Part of me agrees that the human population on the earth is approaching critical mass.

The human biomass will eventually get to the point where the planet and the resources it can produce cannot support the diversity of fauna and flora life currently supported AND the human species.

However, I cannot sanction the wholesale slaughter of people in order to reduce the population by the 95% suggested.

Rather I propose an altogether more sinister alternative.

Selective Breeding Programs.

We breed for chacteristics in our domesticated animals. Heavier 'meat' varieties of poultry, pork, bovine. Specialized traits in our canines. Speed, endurance, draft, form, etc in our equines.

Hell, we do tons of genetic engineering of our most utilized agricultural products inorder to get the most yield per acre, and to be able to grow crops in climates that would be less than hospitible to the original species.

Why shouldn't we be breeding ourselves in order to produce the best possible products?
I'm just saying.
 
This is getting to be like a sci-fi adventure!
Interesting!
 
I think we make the breeding selection process computer generated. You load your genetic profile into a global system and are offered a selection of matches.

Nothing is saying you have to marry and cohabitate with the other half of the procreation process. And if you want to apply for procreation with your mate those requests could be tabulated by the computer process with a Genetic Quality Improvement Number (or some fancy name) and if it indicates that the match would be beneficial they'd be granted permission to procreate away.

Desirable traits.....

Off the top of my head I'd shoot for healthy longetivity....strong immune systems...wings....
 
...... I've had similar thoughts about selective breeding before. And it frankly creeps me out that I do.

There is something to be said for genetics.

But some of our most brilliant and gifted individuals have come from backgrounds and lead lives riddled with disease, failure, mental disorders, etc. Genius and a troubled mind/body seem frequent partners; at the very least they are not uncommonly paired. A breeding program would have culled their lines before they hit the ground.

There is also a question of the gray areas... where, for example, do the autistic fall in all of this? Autistic savants are simultaneously brilliant and disabled, and some with autism even go on to attain PhD's and perform groundbreaking research.
 
thataway brings up some great points. what about schizophrenia? the gene that produces schizophrenia also has produced some of the greatest mathematicians. then there's the depressed and down trodden, may of the worlds greatest artists and musicians have had horrible cases of clinical depression. I think selective breeding has the potential to harm the human race greatly
 
I do believe in many elements of promoting a decreased birthrate. Challenging the church's views on condom and birth control use... getting rid of abstinence only sexual education in schools... etc. However, I cannot support any plans for drastic de-population. I am not a fan of playing God, it always seems to backfire.

Also - about selective genetic breeding. I believe it would also cut down on genetic diversity if we were selecting for ideal traits. This could eventually lead to everyone being wiped out by disease, etc because they were too genetically similar. Like the poor Irish potatoes.
 
Shai Gar said:
Genocide is better
Click to expand...
I've been wondering about this: why do you say that genocide would be helpful? Which ethnic groups would you prefer to kill off? If you were serious about controlling population, wouldn't you want to kill off those who disagree with your plans, rather than all those of certain ethnic groups?
 
I don't care about ethnicity. I'd be wiping out a large percentage of our species, I don't know a word that encompases that besides Genocide.
 
A Cull?
 
Why kill when industrializing economies and securing equal rights for women (access to abortion and birth control, which leads to position in the job market, more jobs, etc) appears to be a very effective contraceptive?

Although we find it against expectations, there are strong negative correlations between birth rates and income.

I don't see kids becoming any less of a time intensive commodity anytime soon, so lowering mortality rates (which tends to happen as countries develop) should also lower the amount of children being born.

Also, this doesn't mean that economically developed nations care less about their children. It just means that there can be opportunity to focus on child quality rather than quantity. So not only do we have slower population growth, but we also have a clear focus on the quality of our children and their ability to survive.

Well.. however... Correlation never has seemed to imply causation... but we do know that there is a relationship there!
 
Last edited:
Chopsifer said:
Although we find it against expectations, there are strong negative correlations between birth rates and income.

I don't see kids becoming any less of a time intensive commodity anytime soon, so lowering mortality rates (which tends to happen as countries develop) should also lower the amount of children being born.

Also, this doesn't mean that economically developed nations care less about their children. It just means that there can be opportunity to focus on child quality rather than quantity. So not only do we have slower population growth, but we also have a clear focus on the quality of our children and their ability to survive.

Well.. however... Correlation never has seemed to imply causation... but we do know that there is a relationship there!
Click to expand...

So the solution is to throw money at parts of Africa, Central America, etc? ;)

Also, it's not a total relationship. China still has to enforce its procreation laws to keep the population in check, and China is the one lending bailout money to the USA. China has money, and would have high birth rates except for their birth restrictions.
 
Milon said:
So the solution is to throw money at parts of Africa, Central America, etc? ;)

Also, it's not a total relationship. China still has to enforce its procreation laws to keep the population in check, and China is the one lending bailout money to the USA. China has money, and would have high birth rates except for their birth restrictions.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but isn't China in trouble because they have much more females than males or something like that DUE to the procreation laws?

I mean, from what I know, a lot of Western European countries have reported fertility rates that fall below replacement levels.

Eh, I don't know. I just have a feeling that the procreation laws do more harm than good. Large families, so long as governments or businesses in industrialized have some means of providing for retirement or health care, don't seem to serve much of a purpose anymore. So why would that cost be incurred?
 
If you really believed in population reduction you would just start killing people. Otherwise I say you are not truely a believer in this fad you've grabbed onto. Grow some balls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top