Chinese Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I do wonder at any correlation between the “human population must be closely managed” and “genetic engineering of the human race, go for it” mentality. Are both views usually held, as opposed to one or the other?

In which case I have to wonder at their low opinion of humanity. Stop producing it, and replace it.[/quote]

Qualitaet ueber Quanitaet, nein? [/quote]

Whose?
[/quote]

Homo sapiens

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I do wonder at any correlation between the “human population must be closely managed” and “genetic engineering of the human race, go for it” mentality. Are both views usually held, as opposed to one or the other?

In which case I have to wonder at their low opinion of humanity. Stop producing it, and replace it.[/quote]

Qualitaet ueber Quanitaet, nein? [/quote]

Whose?
[/quote]

Homo sapiens[/quote]

I mean, whose “quality?” Who decides what makes a “quality” human being?

The poor folk in the trailer home park? Quality?

Is this easier, planning the master race, because “science can do it!”

I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? Makes me wonder who, if anyone, we really ought to have less of.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No, not late April Fools. Yes, for real. The scientific journal Nature is about as elite and solid a science source as you can possibly get. Not a joke–Nobel prize winners still dream about publishing papers in Nature. They report:

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

Let’s talk about the monumental move that just occurred. What happens now? [/quote]

Scary shit. I think a certain German 70 years ago would be keenly interested in this.

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No, not late April Fools. Yes, for real. The scientific journal Nature is about as elite and solid a science source as you can possibly get. Not a joke–Nobel prize winners still dream about publishing papers in Nature. They report:

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

Let’s talk about the monumental move that just occurred. What happens now? [/quote]

Scary shit. I think a certain German 70 years ago would be keenly interested in this.
[/quote]

Not to mention a certain Englishman a hundred and five years ago. Churchill and Eugenics - International Churchill Society

…or for that matter, certain Americans today.

http://www.biodemog.org

“The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology” has such a more pleasant ring to it than their previous name, “The American Eugenics Society”, doncha think? .

That pesky Austrian (not German, of course) fellow you referenced earlier (who of course drew his inspiration from the American and British eugenics movements of the 20s and 30s) has given “eugenics” sort of a bad name.

Here’s another American fellow who would have thought that these recent developments in China were just bully.

[i]"Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.

"Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two.

“Some day we will realize that the prime duty - the inescapable duty - of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type, at all.”[/i]

Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Charles Davenport of the American Eugenics Society.

And let’s hear what the honorary co-chairman of Planned Parenthood (founded by noted Eugenicist Margaret Sanger) had to say on the matter in 1965, before the United States Senate:

[i]"I must refer to reported instances, by no means exceptional, of the repetitive production of children by unwed mothers, apparently lured by the resulting increase in income from welfare funds. To err is human and certainly none of us would want to deny needed support for anyone who because of some emotional pressure gave birth to an illegitimate child.

"But, when this is repeated to the point of habit, society will find itself in the curious position of spending
money with one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentive for increased production by the ignorant, feebleminded, or lazy.

"Corrective action will require careful study, for even if research should uncover no effective measures other than legal [forced] sterilization, a final resort to this method unquestionably would shock great segments of our citizenry.

“I submit that we have a situation here that unless corrected could become far more serious than it is today. Along with former President Truman, I am co-chairman of the Honorary Sponsors Committee, Planned Parenthood. I accepted this position in order to demonstrate my recognition of the urgency of the entire problem and the alarming consequences that are certain to follow its neglect.”[/i]

Dwight David Eisenhower

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? [/quote]

A society of athlete scholars, ruled by philosopher kings.

Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, actually.

I mean, how arrogant could a generation be? 200k years and suddenly people think so highly of themselves as to believe they could determine what the “best” traits for us into the future and beyond are. Or, what makes a “quality” human. Natural selection, determining what’s best suited for the environment, has been doing it far longer than our Johnny-come-lately species.

In fact, it may very well be that the aiming for “quality” over quantity be will the exact opposite of what the future will demand of humanity. Narrowing down diversity (which is basically what the quality argument is) may not be such a good idea.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? [/quote]

A society of athlete scholars, ruled by philosopher kings.

Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, actually.

[/quote]

You know what’s funny? I couldn’t be happier here, surrounded by down-to-earth good 'ole boys. Most wouldn’t be considered scholars nor athletes. Yet, all together, some good folks.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, how arrogant could a generation be? [/quote]

Humans have always pretty much been this way. Well at least those in power, which define an entire generation.

And, of course, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that those with visions of “quality” humanity…well, their idea of quality conveniently resembles themselves almost to a fault. The assumption being that they are, of course, a member of the quality sub-division.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? [/quote]

A society of athlete scholars, ruled by philosopher kings.

Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, actually.

[/quote]

You know what’s funny? I couldn’t be happier here, surrounded by down-to-earth good 'ole boys. Most wouldn’t be considered scholars nor athletes. Yet, all together, some good folks.
[/quote]
I live in a white collar world now, and grew up in a very blue collar world.

The “regular folks” were much more appealing. They were real, down to earth, and didn’t judge you by what your car looked like or what cloths you had on. If you had wheels, we were going to party. If you had cloths on, sweet lets go out. They didn’t care what your house looked like or how big it was, all they cared about is being welcome to come hang out with friends.

The white collar world, while affords me a much more comfortable lifestyle and has its perks too, really lacks in the human connection arena.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obviously this’ll pretty much be a big ticket item for the wealthier amongst us. At least for a good long while. Now, that could change sooner rather than later with entitlement program changes so as to subsidize the ability of the lower income individual to put their child-product together as they see fit. Otherwise, you’re going to have two completely separate worlds. Think an increasing income gap is an issue (which would just be exacerbated with high-priced designer babies), wait until looks, intelligence, health, and athleticism (all at once) is selected for by those with means.

[/quote]

So essentially what you are saying, Sloth, is that you would prefer natural selection over intelligent design.[/quote]

Btw, I actually view natural selection as part of the design.
[/quote]

But not cladogenesis, correct? [/quote]

Not correct.
[/quote]

My mistake. I was under the impression you supported micro but not macro evolution. [/quote]

Yeah. You’ve got me confused with someone else.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? [/quote]

A society of athlete scholars, ruled by philosopher kings.

Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, actually.

[/quote]

You know what’s funny? I couldn’t be happier here, surrounded by down-to-earth good 'ole boys. Most wouldn’t be considered scholars nor athletes. Yet, all together, some good folks.
[/quote]
I live in a white collar world now, and grew up in a very blue collar world.

The “regular folks” were much more appealing. They were real, down to earth, and didn’t judge you by what your car looked like or what cloths you had on. If you had wheels, we were going to party. If you had cloths on, sweet lets go out. They didn’t care what your house looked like or how big it was, all they cared about is being welcome to come hang out with friends.

The white collar world, while affords me a much more comfortable lifestyle and has its perks too, really lacks in the human connection arena. [/quote]

Same observations in my own life.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, is anyone here really that put off by their fellow man, the dregs I guess, that they’re excited at the prospect of “engineering” them out of the human race for a society of athlete scholars? [/quote]

A society of athlete scholars, ruled by philosopher kings.

Hmmm. Doesn’t sound so bad, actually.

[/quote]

You know what’s funny? I couldn’t be happier here, surrounded by down-to-earth good 'ole boys. Most wouldn’t be considered scholars nor athletes. Yet, all together, some good folks.
[/quote]
I live in a white collar world now, and grew up in a very blue collar world.

The “regular folks” were much more appealing. They were real, down to earth, and didn’t judge you by what your car looked like or what cloths you had on. If you had wheels, we were going to party. If you had cloths on, sweet lets go out. They didn’t care what your house looked like or how big it was, all they cared about is being welcome to come hang out with friends.

The white collar world, while affords me a much more comfortable lifestyle and has its perks too, really lacks in the human connection arena. [/quote]

I cannot possibly agree with this enough.

It’s troubling. But I think in some ways the blue collar, shift-work boys and girls understand a greater truth that many exhaustively educated “leaders” fail to understand or even to see: namely, that people are not the sum total of their possessions and/or consumption.

This very much counterbalances the tendency of the blue collar crowd to horribly and hopelessly misunderstand political nuance, science, and philosophy haha. Call it wisdom over intelligence, at least in a limited scope.

I absolutely agree with you, although I have to admit that I really can’t stretch my conversational or philosophical legs while around this crowd, and that is something my brain craves.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And let’s hear what the honorary co-chairman of Planned Parenthood (founded by noted Eugenicist Margaret Sanger) had to say on the matter in 1965, before the United States Senate:

[i]"I must refer to reported instances, by no means exceptional, of the repetitive production of children by unwed mothers, apparently lured by the resulting increase in income from welfare funds. To err is human and certainly none of us would want to deny needed support for anyone who because of some emotional pressure gave birth to an illegitimate child.

"But, when this is repeated to the point of habit, society will find itself in the curious position of spending
money with one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentive for increased production by the ignorant, feebleminded, or lazy.

"Corrective action will require careful study, for even if research should uncover no effective measures other than legal [forced] sterilization, a final resort to this method unquestionably would shock great segments of our citizenry.

“I submit that we have a situation here that unless corrected could become far more serious than it is today. Along with former President Truman, I am co-chairman of the Honorary Sponsors Committee, Planned Parenthood. I accepted this position in order to demonstrate my recognition of the urgency of the entire problem and the alarming consequences that are certain to follow its neglect.”[/i]

Dwight David Eisenhower[/quote]

I am not quite well enough informed of Eisenhower’s views to know how deep that rabbit hole goes, but I would submit that there is a vast difference in both quality and timbre between what he is quoted as saying here and what Teddy Roosevelt said.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And let’s hear what the honorary co-chairman of Planned Parenthood (founded by noted Eugenicist Margaret Sanger) had to say on the matter in 1965, before the United States Senate:

[i]"I must refer to reported instances, by no means exceptional, of the repetitive production of children by unwed mothers, apparently lured by the resulting increase in income from welfare funds. To err is human and certainly none of us would want to deny needed support for anyone who because of some emotional pressure gave birth to an illegitimate child.

"But, when this is repeated to the point of habit, society will find itself in the curious position of spending
money with one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentive for increased production by the ignorant, feebleminded, or lazy.

"Corrective action will require careful study, for even if research should uncover no effective measures other than legal [forced] sterilization, a final resort to this method unquestionably would shock great segments of our citizenry.

“I submit that we have a situation here that unless corrected could become far more serious than it is today. Along with former President Truman, I am co-chairman of the Honorary Sponsors Committee, Planned Parenthood. I accepted this position in order to demonstrate my recognition of the urgency of the entire problem and the alarming consequences that are certain to follow its neglect.”[/i]

Dwight David Eisenhower[/quote]

I am not quite well enough informed of Eisenhower’s views to know how deep that rabbit hole goes, but I would submit that there is a vast difference in both quality and timbre between what he is quoted as saying here and what Teddy Roosevelt said. [/quote]

Well, sure, but consider also that Eisenhower was speaking publicly before a Senate subcommittee, so would have necessarily had to temper his sentiments appropriately, whereas Roosevelt was writing in private correspondence to a fellow eugenecist. Quite different circumstances.

Rather like the difference between Thomas Jefferson’s more diplomatic public statements and actions concerning religion, and his private correspondences to fellow infidels, which reflected his true feelings on the matter. If one didn’t know better, I suppose one might actually think Tom was contradicting himself.

:slight_smile: