Cobrevolution
Smash Master
god if we reach a trillion rip earth
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!
- Thread starter craiigg
- Start date
mixa
Banned via Warnings
I could twice
Herbert Von Karajan
Smash Lord
does anyone play animal crossing new leaf?
AtotheZ
Smash Lord
Shears, all the standardized testing in your model sucks
I got 8192 (and another 2048 on the same board) so you can do it!
------------------
Also the whole preventing-somebody-from-reproducing-because-I'm-so-awesome seems bogus to me. People have value and if you don't think that they should reproduce you probably should check your pride.
I'm confident you're not really talking about the general population being good enough to reproduce, you're primarily basing the argument on the good you think you see in yourself. I guess this based on personal experience. Also, nobody would suggest such a thing if they didn't think they were above "scumbag prisoners."
Glad you're mildly joking Shears
Shears
Smash Master
Do you know what happens to non conformists? Infertile.
Sedda
Smash Champion
Yeah keeping people from reproducing would introduce so many social/economic/ethical problems.
It would be waay more productive to reform education and fund that. The more educated people are, the less they procreate for a few obvious reasons.
Even if you were to control birth cycles or w/e, crime would still happen and some people would still grow up to be bums, especially now that we're in the internet age. Your geographical location isn't the only influence that people have anymore because information from the whole world is readily available.
It would be waay more productive to reform education and fund that. The more educated people are, the less they procreate for a few obvious reasons.
Even if you were to control birth cycles or w/e, crime would still happen and some people would still grow up to be bums, especially now that we're in the internet age. Your geographical location isn't the only influence that people have anymore because information from the whole world is readily available.
Shears
Smash Master
Assuming population control was in order, and some bad eggs still came out, you're going to throw the whole idea out the window?
My utopia:
-99% of the population is far above the current population in all easily measured fields (i.e. strength, speed, intelligence, behavior, health)
-The 1% are made infertile each generation therefore reducing the percentage of bad eggs
-Limit as time approaches infinity of the quality of people equals perfection
Your utopia (status quo)
-Quality of people doesn't improve and the weaker only get weaker while the strong dilute their genes with weaker people since there is no abundance of perfect people
-No one is made infertile so the number of bad eggs is much larger than 1% and continues to grow since there is no population control
-Limit as time approaches infinity of the quality of people equals degenerate useless rodents
Do you see the fallacy in thinking, "well we have one bad egg, might as well have them all"? One reduces problems, one permits and therefore encourages them to continue. If I approached you and said, "I have a plan to reduce unemployment from the current 6% to 0.1%". Your logic would say, "Throw it out, I don't want to hear it if its not a perfect 0%. I'd rather live with 6% than change anything for a despicable 0.1%"
You also suffer from the fallacy that current obstacles will continue to be obstacles in the future. You reference how your parents were successful but you are not (I don't mean this as a personal attack just reciting something you admitted for sake of example and argument, as far as I'm concerned you like smash and thats the only thing that really matters here), and how people will still grow up to be bums and there would still be crime. Your reasoning for this is speculative. I would argue that parents having an unsuccessful child is due to their lack of perfect genes. Their active genes appear to be perfect, but there exists imperfect genes that could be inherited by a child (these are colloquially known as recessive genes). If a parent raises their child poorly and that is a cause, then there is no need to keep that family tree growing and producing more genetically imperfect children or families with bad parenting, so the kids are then made infertile. Eventually, the "natural" selection of only the people with best genes are reproducing until there exists no flawed genetic material or nurturing environments that could result in someone being a criminal, a bum, or unsuccessful. Eventually, as the process plays out, your obstacle presented no longer exists and until then, we are still in a world where progress is towards perfection and the world converges towards peace and perfection instead of diverging to wherever humans are freely allowed to go like the current state of the world, i.e. prisons, broken homes, greed, selfishness, etc.
Also, I don't take any of it personally and since none of it is serious, I have to be mildly joking. But only mildly...
My utopia:
-99% of the population is far above the current population in all easily measured fields (i.e. strength, speed, intelligence, behavior, health)
-The 1% are made infertile each generation therefore reducing the percentage of bad eggs
-Limit as time approaches infinity of the quality of people equals perfection
Your utopia (status quo)
-Quality of people doesn't improve and the weaker only get weaker while the strong dilute their genes with weaker people since there is no abundance of perfect people
-No one is made infertile so the number of bad eggs is much larger than 1% and continues to grow since there is no population control
-Limit as time approaches infinity of the quality of people equals degenerate useless rodents
Do you see the fallacy in thinking, "well we have one bad egg, might as well have them all"? One reduces problems, one permits and therefore encourages them to continue. If I approached you and said, "I have a plan to reduce unemployment from the current 6% to 0.1%". Your logic would say, "Throw it out, I don't want to hear it if its not a perfect 0%. I'd rather live with 6% than change anything for a despicable 0.1%"
You also suffer from the fallacy that current obstacles will continue to be obstacles in the future. You reference how your parents were successful but you are not (I don't mean this as a personal attack just reciting something you admitted for sake of example and argument, as far as I'm concerned you like smash and thats the only thing that really matters here), and how people will still grow up to be bums and there would still be crime. Your reasoning for this is speculative. I would argue that parents having an unsuccessful child is due to their lack of perfect genes. Their active genes appear to be perfect, but there exists imperfect genes that could be inherited by a child (these are colloquially known as recessive genes). If a parent raises their child poorly and that is a cause, then there is no need to keep that family tree growing and producing more genetically imperfect children or families with bad parenting, so the kids are then made infertile. Eventually, the "natural" selection of only the people with best genes are reproducing until there exists no flawed genetic material or nurturing environments that could result in someone being a criminal, a bum, or unsuccessful. Eventually, as the process plays out, your obstacle presented no longer exists and until then, we are still in a world where progress is towards perfection and the world converges towards peace and perfection instead of diverging to wherever humans are freely allowed to go like the current state of the world, i.e. prisons, broken homes, greed, selfishness, etc.
Some of it is playing devils advocate. I like to debate and go against the grain and I find it fun to put on a facade and get into character. Like assuming everyone is a communist, or everyone is inferior, or any argument where I can defend an extreme and make ridiculous claims that aren't always feasible. But I say mildly, because deep down inside, if I was omnipotent, these opinions are ones I would actualize and take action on. Like timers, if I could I would force the community to have the flawless timer rule that I proposed and argued but people refused because they're all weak insubordinate peasants who can't see anything outside of their well established bubble of delusion.Glad you're mildly joking Shears
Also, I don't take any of it personally and since none of it is serious, I have to be mildly joking. But only mildly...
Last edited:
Annex
Smash Ace
I think creating life of any kind (but especially humans) is the worst thing anyone can do.
...so I agree I guess, but I don't think there's a good way of stopping it. And I'm saying 'good' because I think everyone should have complete control over their bodies.
...so I agree I guess, but I don't think there's a good way of stopping it. And I'm saying 'good' because I think everyone should have complete control over their bodies.
Sedda
Smash Champion
I'm saying that the ethical and social implications would be way too disadvantageous, would cause revolutions/wars and wouldn't get anywhere... but yes, I also have to say that, because your model is based solely around striving for a perfect society (un-achievable), the plan is flawed. That's aside from the fact that you're leaving out a bunch of much more important genetic characteristics than those you mentioned.
Reducing the population the way you're describing would be absolutely terrible for any organism. You're focusing too much on relatively unimportant things like speed and intelligence (plenty of people with lower IQ's who are functional in society and carry out important jobs). Your idea of the best human is some fast super-being, but a huge gene pool is necessary to survive under different conditions that would not require you to be "fast, strong, intelligent." While you're sitting here deciding who to sterilize, some strange viral pandemic is spread all throughout humanity, and it turns out that only a decent population in east Asia is able to endure it due to their particular genetic makeup. Trying to build a "perfect" society solely by deciding who gets to spawn is very counter productive and it seems like a brute-force approach compared to GMO's.
Besides, I'll say this again: Although I'm not qualified to say how much genetics affect/don't affect behavior, I can say that there are too many examples in sociological research that show that nurture has over and over been proven to be the premier factor in behavior. Plus your idea of letting people with high IQ procreate is flawed because having high IQ doesn't guarantee that the offspring will have high IQ or vice versa with low IQ. There's plenty of controversy behind how IQ is tested anyway. Actually, people used to believe that the amount of children people have is inversely proportional to their IQ, but it's not. It's inversely proportional to how much knowledge/education they have given that IQ varies greatly even from one sibling to the next.
Like Karajan said, genetic modification is the future. You couple that with a strong reform in education with easy availability world-wide, and the population would decrease steadily and it would plateau in a healthy number where we could manage our resources more efficiently. People would still be free to mate with anyone in the already-growing world society that we have = the genetic pool remains varied without us having to decide who gets to procreate or not. Good education would solve a ****ton of problems that are all intertwined, too.
It would take longer than what you're thinking, but the job would be better done and you would be avoiding a whole bunch of problems and set-backs.
Reducing the population the way you're describing would be absolutely terrible for any organism. You're focusing too much on relatively unimportant things like speed and intelligence (plenty of people with lower IQ's who are functional in society and carry out important jobs). Your idea of the best human is some fast super-being, but a huge gene pool is necessary to survive under different conditions that would not require you to be "fast, strong, intelligent." While you're sitting here deciding who to sterilize, some strange viral pandemic is spread all throughout humanity, and it turns out that only a decent population in east Asia is able to endure it due to their particular genetic makeup. Trying to build a "perfect" society solely by deciding who gets to spawn is very counter productive and it seems like a brute-force approach compared to GMO's.
Besides, I'll say this again: Although I'm not qualified to say how much genetics affect/don't affect behavior, I can say that there are too many examples in sociological research that show that nurture has over and over been proven to be the premier factor in behavior. Plus your idea of letting people with high IQ procreate is flawed because having high IQ doesn't guarantee that the offspring will have high IQ or vice versa with low IQ. There's plenty of controversy behind how IQ is tested anyway. Actually, people used to believe that the amount of children people have is inversely proportional to their IQ, but it's not. It's inversely proportional to how much knowledge/education they have given that IQ varies greatly even from one sibling to the next.
Like Karajan said, genetic modification is the future. You couple that with a strong reform in education with easy availability world-wide, and the population would decrease steadily and it would plateau in a healthy number where we could manage our resources more efficiently. People would still be free to mate with anyone in the already-growing world society that we have = the genetic pool remains varied without us having to decide who gets to procreate or not. Good education would solve a ****ton of problems that are all intertwined, too.
It would take longer than what you're thinking, but the job would be better done and you would be avoiding a whole bunch of problems and set-backs.
Herbert Von Karajan
Smash Lord
Last edited:
Sedda
Smash Champion
really? how many studies of separated twins are there? a whole bunch less than everything that shows that people brought up in areas with high crime rates are more likely to commit crimes, I assume.
Unless you can show that a comparable amount of studies about separated twins (with similar conclusive observations) has been done as opposed to all the other studies showing the overwhelming amount of influence that society has, then nope.
Unless you can show that a comparable amount of studies about separated twins (with similar conclusive observations) has been done as opposed to all the other studies showing the overwhelming amount of influence that society has, then nope.
Herbert Von Karajan
Smash Lord
mixa
Banned via Warnings
"studies say" is elevator level talk
also, in their website they use this photograph
that is the premier 'we are full of ****' stamp
also, in their website they use this photograph
that is the premier 'we are full of ****' stamp
Sedda
Smash Champion
I'll read his research and see how many twins he studied and what the results were. That quote from wiki is overly simplified and doesn't tell me anything about this things he was looking at.
It's like you like to disagree with me just because, Karajan. As if his research somehow disproves all of the other much more numerous research that has been done about what I mentioned.
Do you agree with Shears?
Herbert Von Karajan
Smash Lord
oh you want more than 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...urther_analysis_of_reared-apart_twin_research
yeah so blame the university of minnesota?
Massachusetts institute of technology, the number 1 ranked university in the world, has this picture on their website
**** you
go read what i told him
Last edited:
Shears
Smash Master
I'm a twin, me and my brother are identical genetically and (you can say its coincidence) behaviorally. Genetics controls behavior more than you think. Is a person brought up in a high crime area more likely to commit crime because the environment is conducive to do so or are they in a high crime environment because their parents posses the genetic makeup that makes them prone to committing crime and it is their genes that drew them into that environment, and those inherited genes that make him more likely to commit crime? Are high crime areas caused by the environment? If this is true than if you took all the criminals out and filled it with former upper middle class suburban families, then the crime rate should continue. But if the high crime areas are caused because people with genetic affinities to be criminals all congregated in the same area, then moving these people shouldn't change their criminal behavior, and the environment is the product of the people instead of the people being the product of their environment. I bet that criminals will be criminals even if you move them to a gated community and upstanding citizens will be upstanding even if you move them to the ghetto.
In addition, I'm talking about more than IQ, again, IQ isn't everything, you need to be superior in every measurable field. I support genetic modification but it doesn't differ from my point. Population control by infertility and global encouragement for genetic modification both preach the same point, to pursue a future where all humans have superior genetics. One uses means of people actively choosing to enhance genetics and is the freedom version that can take longer since many people will either not do it due to ethics or money, and the other uses force by preventing people who have unfavorable genes to not reproduce and money and ethics are thrown out the window since its state controlled. You don't have to wait for blind people to see the benefits, it happens whether everyone agrees or not because most people don't know whats best for themselves or the world anyway.
I have already admitted my way is not that feasible, and its more of my ideal opinion and not one I think is actually practical due to the conflicts that both you and I have mentioned will arise if it was implemented. But I will argue my point because there are some people that I don't think we should wait until everyone is GMOing their babies as these people need to be stopped from reproduction immediately.
You can also say I'm underestimating nurture, I think you're underestimating nature. IQ is genetic, measurements of IQ is what is debated. Exact linking of IQ to specific genes hasn't been proven yet (keyword yet), but it will be and its widely agreed upon that IQ is linked mostly to the inheritance of the X chromosome. Genetics are much more complicated than one simple gene sequence to determine someones complete intelligence, but just because it hasn't been discovered in DNA doesn't mean its not hiding in DNA. Saying "We haven't found a gene sequence that proves IQ is genetic" is like saying "We haven't found another planet that harbors life so that proves life isn't on any other planet".
On another note, I like Karajans idea of harvesting human brains and networking them for work and processing. Get a bunch of them hooked together in parallel and have these brain farms replace the worlds largest server farms. I think maintenance cost will be lower and MTTF will be like 70 years or so. Why does ethics get in the way of everything?
Herbert Von Karajan
Smash Lord
nature = genetics
real science uses control groups
you need identical twins separated at birth to actually do real science here, bud
usually behavior outcomes for violence and **** is correlated to household income. But sociologists don't consider whether or not income is a function of genetics, because they are sociologists, not biologists.
Another example of nature > nurture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome#Behavioral_characteristics
The most obvious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Last edited:
Sedda
Smash Champion
wut? not only are you ignoring the history of how a lot of these poverty zones came to be, but moving criminals OUT of those places would probably cause crime to decrease over the course of a generations, because crime wouldn't be propagated constantly anymore (note: IN THAT AREA, obviously), but you're looking at it the wrong way lol.
Moving criminals to a suburban town wouldn't change them. When I say environment I mean this: someone being brought up in an environment where crime is very usual would cause those practices to be passed down to younger generations due to continued exposure aka monkey see monkey do. I'm not talking about nice houses and big trees. I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Do you know what I mean when I say environment now?
huh? what are you responding to, bud? I typed Nurture there btw, not nature.
Last edited:
Cobrevolution
Smash Master
this is the best statement ever
Shears
Smash Master
What makes a neighborhood bad? The people that live there. What makes the people that live their bad? The bad neighborhood.
Your argument is circular, you are avoiding initial conditions that caused these environments to appear and these people to live there. I assert that people live in bad neighborhoods because they are inherently bad, so since good neighborhoods don't allow for them to be there they gravitate towards people accepting of their bad behavior (other bad people). These people continue to bathe in their bad behavior and create bad neighborhoods having children that use the excuse of their neighborhood being bad instead of admitting they are inherently flawed (because their parents are the same way. Blamed rejection or hardship instead of themselves). To not admit flaws is a defense mechanism in humans, unfortunately these flaws exist and these people are inherently bad. Why are they inherently bad? Genetics. Its the only thing you inherit.
When I use the word bad, I don't mean it to by synonymous to cruel and wicked, just unfavorable. Weak is bad. Evil is bad. Lazy is bad. Selfish is bad. Addictive personalities are bad.
Nothing is anyone's fault, its always everyone else's.
Me and my brother had a saying growing up, "Nature vs nurture, no matter what its still your parents fault." Thats the way people live their lives, blaming something else. Granted its true, either way, you are not changing who you are. Either you are genetically predisposed to your identity or you were raised that way and can't break the habit. If nurture is that impressionable on you and you can't resist its forces, then you are made infertile as that is a sign of mental weakness. Don't feel bad and don't blame me, the supreme world emperor, because either way, its your parents fault.
Your argument is circular, you are avoiding initial conditions that caused these environments to appear and these people to live there. I assert that people live in bad neighborhoods because they are inherently bad, so since good neighborhoods don't allow for them to be there they gravitate towards people accepting of their bad behavior (other bad people). These people continue to bathe in their bad behavior and create bad neighborhoods having children that use the excuse of their neighborhood being bad instead of admitting they are inherently flawed (because their parents are the same way. Blamed rejection or hardship instead of themselves). To not admit flaws is a defense mechanism in humans, unfortunately these flaws exist and these people are inherently bad. Why are they inherently bad? Genetics. Its the only thing you inherit.
When I use the word bad, I don't mean it to by synonymous to cruel and wicked, just unfavorable. Weak is bad. Evil is bad. Lazy is bad. Selfish is bad. Addictive personalities are bad.
Nothing is anyone's fault, its always everyone else's.
Me and my brother had a saying growing up, "Nature vs nurture, no matter what its still your parents fault." Thats the way people live their lives, blaming something else. Granted its true, either way, you are not changing who you are. Either you are genetically predisposed to your identity or you were raised that way and can't break the habit. If nurture is that impressionable on you and you can't resist its forces, then you are made infertile as that is a sign of mental weakness. Don't feel bad and don't blame me, the supreme world emperor, because either way, its your parents fault.
Sedda
Smash Champion
My argument is not circular shears. The social construct in bad neighborhoods is circular. One thing causes the other, which then strengthens the first one and so on. Don't mistake the two.
You're avoiding initial conditions that caused these environments to appear by hinting at the possibility that their genetic material caused them to end up in one place. You're completely ignoring the historical background of these communities by saying "genetics bro."
you're really bad at this. These are genetic disorders, where there are different/altered number of chromosomes that humans are supposed to have. It's completely different from what Shears and I are talking about. If you want to join the argument, consider changing topics.
You're avoiding initial conditions that caused these environments to appear by hinting at the possibility that their genetic material caused them to end up in one place. You're completely ignoring the historical background of these communities by saying "genetics bro."
thanks for editing your post lol.....
you're really bad at this. These are genetic disorders, where there are different/altered number of chromosomes that humans are supposed to have. It's completely different from what Shears and I are talking about. If you want to join the argument, consider changing topics.
Last edited:
Shears
Smash Master
You will admit that genetics controls your appearance right?
You will admit that your eyes, hair, skin, lips, nose, mouth, heart, lungs, stomach, bones, and all organs are controlled by genetics? Weak liver, genetics. Brown hair, genetics. Prone to heart disease, genetics.
Will you admit that identity, intelligence, and behavior is governed by the brain? Decisions are made within the brain. Memory is stored within the brain. Problem solving is done within the brain. Can we agree that all conscious and sub conscious is controlled by the brain?
Is the brain an organ? Yes
Is the brain created during conception and the growth of an organism to its birth? Yes
Is conception environmental? Effectively no. Can we agree that the way you are when you are born is genetic? Can we round out the edges to allow this or will you argue outliers and individual cases where parents smoked and such and say environment is just as important to birth as genetics in the state of an infant?
Now why can't you admit that the brain is genetic? Everything else is genetic, except the brain? Or more so, the part of the brain that controls identity? Why? How? What makes that so special that it is exempt from genetics despite its creation being made during the genetic production of a baby? Pro-life people trying to prove that fertilization of an egg is enough to warrant it as living, went out of their way and proved that they could scientifically and mathematically prove that immediately after fertilization, the egg-sperm combination will always return a living baby and its appearance can be calculated based on the DNA in the first cell that undergoes mitosis. Showing the brain, and everything that qualifies it as alive is set in perpetual motion at fertilization. Its life is cause and effect, nothing special.
Do you really believe that people have 100% free will and can never be predisposed to make a decision or influenced to make a decision? That everything that you and everyone else has done has always been 100% independently conscious? You've never made a decision. You are a ball rolling down a hill. You are cause and effect. Your identity is genetic. Raise your arm in the air. What did you consciously do? You fired off a couple neurons and then your body goes into autopilot and takes it from there, it sends signals that you can't stop to the muscles which cause contraction and relaxation that allow your body to move. Most of your body's systems are autonomous, there are a few non autonomous systems that you are "believed" to have "control" over. Even those systems are semi-autonomous. You just fire a neuron, then your body reacts. When you want your arm to stop rising, you stop firing neurons/fire neurons that counter the movement. If I opened up your brain and forced those neurons to fire, I could move you like a puppet. Whats to say that the firing of those neurons isn't predetermined by genetics. If everything about a decision is an illusion of consciousness and everything about the body is genetic, is it so hard to believe that those 2 exceptions aren't exceptions and are governed by genetics? Or is it ethically unsettling to believe it?
Peoples intelligence and problem solving is even proven to be controlled by the way their brains are configured and are not these special exempt organs that anyone can be anything. Look up TDCS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation
They show that a person can be "smarter" and more "perceptive" if they apply artificial stimulation. They prove that the people that are naturally as good as someone with assistance are that way not because of environment, but because genetically their brain and body applies more power to certain sections that control certain functions.
The circular nature of people in bad neighborhoods being bad people can be viewed as the environment is perpetually making them bad or their genetic predisposition of being bad is perpetuating the environment to appear bad. What came first, the chicken or the egg? I say their genetics created the environment and these people are inherently bad. You say the environment created these people and it was/is the nurture that is inherently bad. Extrapolating it to the initial conditions, I believe the environment is neutral, and nurture was neutral, and the only badness came from the peoples inherent affinity for doing bad things (being selfish, being lazy, being greedy) because all these bad things are fundamental desires of people and animals. Hedonism is instinctual, instincts are genetic, genetics causes bad people not the environment.
You will admit that your eyes, hair, skin, lips, nose, mouth, heart, lungs, stomach, bones, and all organs are controlled by genetics? Weak liver, genetics. Brown hair, genetics. Prone to heart disease, genetics.
Will you admit that identity, intelligence, and behavior is governed by the brain? Decisions are made within the brain. Memory is stored within the brain. Problem solving is done within the brain. Can we agree that all conscious and sub conscious is controlled by the brain?
Is the brain an organ? Yes
Is the brain created during conception and the growth of an organism to its birth? Yes
Is conception environmental? Effectively no. Can we agree that the way you are when you are born is genetic? Can we round out the edges to allow this or will you argue outliers and individual cases where parents smoked and such and say environment is just as important to birth as genetics in the state of an infant?
Now why can't you admit that the brain is genetic? Everything else is genetic, except the brain? Or more so, the part of the brain that controls identity? Why? How? What makes that so special that it is exempt from genetics despite its creation being made during the genetic production of a baby? Pro-life people trying to prove that fertilization of an egg is enough to warrant it as living, went out of their way and proved that they could scientifically and mathematically prove that immediately after fertilization, the egg-sperm combination will always return a living baby and its appearance can be calculated based on the DNA in the first cell that undergoes mitosis. Showing the brain, and everything that qualifies it as alive is set in perpetual motion at fertilization. Its life is cause and effect, nothing special.
Do you really believe that people have 100% free will and can never be predisposed to make a decision or influenced to make a decision? That everything that you and everyone else has done has always been 100% independently conscious? You've never made a decision. You are a ball rolling down a hill. You are cause and effect. Your identity is genetic. Raise your arm in the air. What did you consciously do? You fired off a couple neurons and then your body goes into autopilot and takes it from there, it sends signals that you can't stop to the muscles which cause contraction and relaxation that allow your body to move. Most of your body's systems are autonomous, there are a few non autonomous systems that you are "believed" to have "control" over. Even those systems are semi-autonomous. You just fire a neuron, then your body reacts. When you want your arm to stop rising, you stop firing neurons/fire neurons that counter the movement. If I opened up your brain and forced those neurons to fire, I could move you like a puppet. Whats to say that the firing of those neurons isn't predetermined by genetics. If everything about a decision is an illusion of consciousness and everything about the body is genetic, is it so hard to believe that those 2 exceptions aren't exceptions and are governed by genetics? Or is it ethically unsettling to believe it?
Peoples intelligence and problem solving is even proven to be controlled by the way their brains are configured and are not these special exempt organs that anyone can be anything. Look up TDCS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation
They show that a person can be "smarter" and more "perceptive" if they apply artificial stimulation. They prove that the people that are naturally as good as someone with assistance are that way not because of environment, but because genetically their brain and body applies more power to certain sections that control certain functions.
The circular nature of people in bad neighborhoods being bad people can be viewed as the environment is perpetually making them bad or their genetic predisposition of being bad is perpetuating the environment to appear bad. What came first, the chicken or the egg? I say their genetics created the environment and these people are inherently bad. You say the environment created these people and it was/is the nurture that is inherently bad. Extrapolating it to the initial conditions, I believe the environment is neutral, and nurture was neutral, and the only badness came from the peoples inherent affinity for doing bad things (being selfish, being lazy, being greedy) because all these bad things are fundamental desires of people and animals. Hedonism is instinctual, instincts are genetic, genetics causes bad people not the environment.
And yes, I always knew what you meant by environment but I was being facetious and using it in its literal interpretation. However a cultural surrounding, as I argued and used literal environment as a metaphor for, does not effect character as much as genetics in my unquestionable and factual opinion.
Last edited:
Mr Bushido
Smash Ace
Me and UnReal are going to start streaming ssb64 sessions with voice chat every Thursday
Shears
Smash Master
Also, Sedda, your opinion won't matter. I've already made you infertile so you will have no offspring to influence your crazy, radical, free will, and american dream beliefs onto. Your insubordination ends with you. But as I am a graceful oppressing ruler, I will allow you to live out your life and play smash. Anyone else want to get sterilized?
I'll let Steve keep his fertility, he will genetically modify his kids anyway which just helps expedite the natural selection process. But if your kids are a bunch of screw ups they're getting clipped and then I'm clipping you for screwing up a fool proof genetic modification process.
I'll let Steve keep his fertility, he will genetically modify his kids anyway which just helps expedite the natural selection process. But if your kids are a bunch of screw ups they're getting clipped and then I'm clipping you for screwing up a fool proof genetic modification process.
Sedda
Smash Champion
I never said that the brain isn't genetic. I absolutely agree with being a ball rolling down a hill and that cause and effect is everything. I wouldn't say that that's all because of genetics. I also don't think being selfish, lazy, and greedy are exclusive to only some individuals because of their genetic makeup. Obviously it's all there. We're all selfish, lazy, and greedy at times because it's part of what helps you become a successful organism, but I don't think it's all written out for me right during conception. Whatever happens to you once you're out alters who you are as a person.
Also, sorry if I made it seem like genetics couldn't be a factor for intelligence (problem solving). That's not what I meant before. I was just trying to show that IQ is not the optimal measurement.
Cobrevolution
Smash Master
i hope i'm sterile
Shears
Smash Master
Oh yeah, you're a samus main. You're hopeless.
I agree that everyone is selfish and greedy and lazy and everything else. However some people exhibit those characteristics more than others. And filtering out genetics that lead to people that overly exhibit them, we can create a population that has less of these unfavorable traits and more of the favorable ones. As time approaches infinity, we have a super race. And instead of letting people voluntarily trim the fat, we can cut most of it off now and allow for GMO babies to expedite the process. Use the strengths of both to get maximize returns.
I will say it again, "I, DAVID SHEARS, DO NOT THINK IQ IS THE OPTIMAL MEASUREMENT" but it is one of the many measurements that will be used. Someone can't just have IQ, they need IQ, strength, speed, good health, dominant genes, mental and physical toughness, attractiveness, etiquette, good intentions, psychological stability, etc. (key word being etcetera since there are many more measures that will be agreed upon by me and my panel of world authorities).
I might as well say this again so all you people throwing your hands up in disgust thinking I'm the next Hitler understand, THERE WILL BE NO GENOCIDE. INFERTILITY DOES NOT MEAN DEATH. DECISIONS WILL NOT BE MADE BECAUSE SOMEONE IS SIMPLY JEWISH OR A MINORITY OR WHATEVER. DECISIONS WILL BE MADE ON OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES THE INDIVIDUAL POSSESSES.
Last edited:
Sedda
Smash Champion
get a vasectomy. I also don't want to have children. **** that. you have a child and all of the sudden you turn 50 and you've done nothing with your life yet
@
Shears
here's the problem with your plan tho (idk why we even had that discussion about genetics wtf)
It's way easier to get people to consent to gm their babies. Smarter, no genetic disorders, blah blah.
You don't have to "trim down the fat" now. If they're so stupid, you can just convince them to modify their offspring. You WILL not ever be able to convince anyone of sterilizing the probably billions who are not worth it or w/e. You'd just spark controversy and rage.
@
Shears
here's the problem with your plan tho (idk why we even had that discussion about genetics wtf)
It's way easier to get people to consent to gm their babies. Smarter, no genetic disorders, blah blah.
You don't have to "trim down the fat" now. If they're so stupid, you can just convince them to modify their offspring. You WILL not ever be able to convince anyone of sterilizing the probably billions who are not worth it or w/e. You'd just spark controversy and rage.
Last edited:
Shears
Smash Master
Most people have ethical problems with genetic modifications. The people that need to be sterilized, or have modifications done, most likely won't do it. Most people won't admit their flaws and won't think they're necessary to fix. These people also won't volunteer to sterilization like you would hope. A crazy crack ***** isn't going to have the money for genetic modifications, nor will she agree to getting her tubes tied (why would she turn down a tax cut, especially if its no cost of her own since she will just neglect the child anyways). Its not like DCYF does daily crack den inspections and the other illegal residents certainly aren't reporting problems either.
So how do you fix a problem that refuses to fix itself? You beak it.
So how do you fix a problem that refuses to fix itself? You beak it.
Last edited:
Sangoku
Smash Master
Don't want to sound cocky, but how many of you even know what genetics/genome/epigenetics/mutations or whatever is?
You're all maths or computer science major, stop kidding me with this talk
You're all maths or computer science major, stop kidding me with this talk
Sedda
Smash Champion
sangoku is here guys, lets talk about smash now /sigh
edit: sorry had to do it, but I do. im really interested in biology (and sociology .. thats why ive been arguing about it). one of the many reasons i quit school because im completely undecided about what i wanna do
edit: sorry had to do it, but I do. im really interested in biology (and sociology .. thats why ive been arguing about it). one of the many reasons i quit school because im completely undecided about what i wanna do
Last edited:
Shears
Smash Master
The five simple steps to the shears utopia:
1. Make me supreme, unquestionable, and unchallenged ruler of Earth
2. Acquire DNA samples of every human
3. Sterilize all humans
4. License reproduction to qualified humans by synthesizing stored DNA into test tube babies and give families the option for GM perks and incentives
5. Harvest brain farms for slave computing as a replacement to current server farm designs
1. Make me supreme, unquestionable, and unchallenged ruler of Earth
2. Acquire DNA samples of every human
3. Sterilize all humans
4. License reproduction to qualified humans by synthesizing stored DNA into test tube babies and give families the option for GM perks and incentives
5. Harvest brain farms for slave computing as a replacement to current server farm designs
Sangoku
Smash Master
I'm fine with your nonsense, as long as it stays in this thread
Sedda
Smash Champion
man of steel, here we come
mixa
Banned via Warnings
the genetics you learn in high school is more than enuf for internet debates