The Separation of Church and State

[Rhizomorph13]

I don't see why you are so against eugenics Rhizo...

Sae,

Ideally we should develop a eugenics program, but I see no way to assure that wise action would be taken in the designing.

There are two ideas I think would be good to implement but realize that there is no way to assure there would be no abuses so I can't imagine how they would work. Those two subjects are eugenics and government by the "smartest/best" people. Politically I am against both because I do not see how they can be properly regulated to assure the most beneficial results for the most people. The prevailing agenda of the largest percentage of the people will taint both of these systems.

In the case of eugenics we would have to design metrics for which genetic traits are most beneficial to humanity. This is probably a herculean task but I imagine it would be possible. The next step would be assuring that subsequent generations follow the same metrics and it would be a constant battle to prevent people from altering which traits are favored. For example, I have spoken to many people who would probably select only genes that would result in "white" children. I base this on their unilateral hatred for all races other than white. Another danger with eugenics is that overspecialization of a genome can result in the termination of that line so whichever traits are targeted needs to include a large enough genepool to assure the continuation of our species.

Fun fact: In mushrooms termination of the genome can be caused by "cloning" which will eventually lead to genetic colapse and no fruitbodies. A state known as senesence. The mycelium will continue to grow for a while but eventually the colony colapses. Yes I know people aren't mushrooms!

As far as political systems go, well, the best one would be a benevolent dictatorship but we all know that the benevolent part rarely manifests within a dictatorship! Democracy, while it is tyranny of the majority, still grants benefit to the largest number of the people so it is at least better than half right. I would support rule by one commitee of a handful of people that were appointed due to their skill in disciplines that would benefit rule. For example, a philosopher, economist, psychologist, whatever else makes sense are chosen because they scored high on tests in their discipline and then they are given a set time to be part of the ruling commitee. The problem with this is that tests have to be designed to validate the expertise of these people, and while a fair test could be designed, a more likely scenario is that the test makers would target certain people they want in office. It seems that this system would become rule by the test designers so that is why I have to rule it out. A more reasonable system that would be in accordance with evolution would be to simply stop regulating saftey.

Rhizo