RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 10:18 pm
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 11:14 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(July 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:(July 11, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
I don't.
We might all catch a virus that makes us incredibly stupid and violent[oh, wait, that already happened over and over with the religious outbreaks]. What then? I would want for my government to watch my back. After all, that's what it's there for in the first place.
(July 11, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
That I agree with. But only because I'm not a geneticist. And neither are you, I might add[unless you actually are].
Except, of course, I wouldn't wish for such a thing[disaster] to happen. We would have to be pretty much 100% certain we understand everything there is to know about genetics before venturing in doing this sort of thing universally. Except we wouldn't do it universally at first, not by any stretch of the imagination. It would only be at the level of trials at the starting point. Then, given enough generations, maybe it would be deemed safe enough to try on the volunteering population. There is a lot to discuss here, but you can't deny that you can't deny people who would want to do this to themselves in an isolated environment, say, on the moon, or in a black hole[how should I know where?].
Well, one need not be a practicing geneticist to make such points. My point about genetic diversity is knowledge available to anyone with some college-level biology education. And it seems obvious to me that eugenics is going to cull genetic diversity, given its stated purpose.
We'll have to disagree about the proper role of government. I don't find your mention of the religious threat very compelling as an argument-by-analogy. Simply because an entity may serve one purpose well is no reason to grant it overweening power in another, unrelated issue.
