Genetic Elitism
At one point I had a horribly infected lump on the back of my neck, and I eventually went to the Aid Station to get it sliced open and drained. I got one of the medics to use my camera and record the disgusting event, on the off chance a spider had laid eggs under my skin and when they punctured the growth a million little baby spiders were going to come flooding out. Well, that didn't happen, but there was a gallon or so of pus that shot out at high velocity, and I posted the resulting recording on my Facebook page. I won't bother with the actual video here, but the comments it resulted in led to a conversation I thought was worth holding on to.
Ophan: MRSA?
ArchAngel: What the fuck is MRSA?
Ophan: Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. A bacterial infection that is highly resistant to some antibiotics. That's what it looks like to me. Once you get it, you'll always have it, even though it might not effect you more than once in your lifetime. Most people in the medical field either have it or are carriers from being around it so much. It's pretty rampant these days, thanks to people not finishing all their antibiotics prescribed and shit... Gressil got it when he was intubated years ago, and he's had two pretty bad infections lanced and treated since then.
ArchAngel: Well, I refuse to take antibiotics, but my body's already eaten the infection. It does that a lot, with various stupid things I inflict on myself.
Ophan: Antibiotics make Gressil very sick, and he hates taking them too, but when it comes down to maybe being hospitalized on IV antibiotics or possible losing a limb, you just have to. I think his problem is he lets 'em go to long, waiting to see if they'll go away on their own, and they get bad.
ArchAngel: Antibiotics weaken our species. I'm a firm believer in natural selection. If your genes can't keep you alive and healthy, you shouldn't be crapping up the pool.
Ophan: Yeeeah... but that's a hard philosophy to swallow when you have an asthmatic child...
ArchAngel: I don't have an asthmatic child.
Ophan: I do! And so does your sister! And if you want to go that route... what about your pups? Hasn't Vega been sick a lot lately?
ArchAngel: Yup. And nature hasn't killed her yet. Nor is she going to be bred. Faulty genes should not be spread.
As for Nelchael, His problems aren't genetic, they're developmental. That's fine. My sis has the same basic genes I do, and Raphael's are all good as far as I can tell.
I didn't say that genetically inferior people should be euthanized, but I don't believe they should pass their faulty genes onto another, weaker generation. And I don't believe doctors should pass out antibiotics for every scratch and scrape. Your body has the resources (or should, at any rate,) to deal with all but the worst infections, the ones that occur in deep tissue, and on a systemic level. Antibiotics kill all but a tiny percent of bacteria. The ones that survive are resistant to antibiotics. The more frivolously we use antibiotics, the more bacteria become resistant, till it gets to the point where antibiotics are totally useless, whether it's for a scraped knee or a kidney transplant.
At the same time, while we allow the antibiotics that still do what they're supposed to (for now,) for every tiny wound, you're teaching your body that it doesn't need to defend itself. It doesn't build up the resistances to fight off future infections without the aid of antibiotics. Then, what happens when you encounter a strain that's immune to antibiotics? The infection kills you, because your body never learned to do what it was meant to.
You can come at me all you want with examples of genetic impurity and weakness of every shape and size, try and pose those scenarios where I'm the one that's genes weren't strong enough to save me from a condition or defect, or any variation or combination thereof. Doesn't matter. Natural selection is necessary for the prolonged survival of the species. As I said, I don't advocate euthanization based on some subjective genetic standard, just limitations on breeding stock for the human race. I'm not a genocidal Nazi, just a genetic elitist. It's like fascism, only justified by nature.
Ophan: Yes, I really do agree completely. "Just because you can reproduce, doesn't mean you should!"
Amriel has asthma, and I believe it is because he was deep scoped when he was born; it was necessary to save his life, but I think it caused some lung damage.
ArchAngel: I feel so massively disappointed right now. I don't even know how to respond.
The Logical Continuation of the Topic, Only Now in a New Thread.
ArchAngel: There should be new breeding laws based on an arbitrary genetic standards to promote the immediate cessation of the weak and stupid crapping up our gene pool! Thoughts?
I welcome all viewpoints, feel free everyone to weigh in. Keep in mind, I believe this, it's not just a "death to stupid people" thing. Euthanasia is unacceptable according to my philosophy. However, bringing this trend of weaving weak and defective genetic traits into our species biological tapestry to an end is a task worth considering, for the overall good of our race.
(Our race being the human race. Let's not make this about racism. If that trait's genetic, it's the first to be culled if I have my way.)
Murmur: What do you mean exactly by defective genetic traits? So many diseases are associated with family history, so you need to be more specific. For example, someone could have a family history of heart disease, are you saying that person shouldn't procreate because they could be passing on a weak gene?
Verrine: Think I'll leave this one up to you and God ;P
ArchAngel: Murmur - Heart Disease is one good example of faulty genes, yes, assuming it is a family history, and not an environmental or developmental problem. Not everyone with these defective genes need be barred from reproduction completely. Assuming their partner is of acceptable stock, and nature is allowed to take it's course with their offspring, then that can be allowed. Detrimental recessive and co-dominant genes can be effectively bred out of existence with the right pairings. That's actually the goal, long term.
As for breeding on the grounds of intelligence and whatnot, I tend to believe that while a part of that is biologically ingrained, much more of it is environmental, and that means reforms in the way people raise their children. There can't be any effective standard for this, and legislation is a bit extreme, even from my semi-fascist point of view. I do think, however, it could be helped if people stopped giving their children Pepsi in baby bottles at a year and a half old and dosing them up with Ritalin because the TV has raised them to have the attention span of a goldfish. Be a parent for once, discipline your child. A little manual labor is good for kids, and making them read a book on occasion doesn't hurt either. Point of fact - the brain doesn't stop physiologically developing until the ages of 18 - 21, male and female alike. Before it's finished forming, it's a generally good idea to stop inflicting substances on it that alter the natural state of chemicals in the brain. I don't know, shot in the dark, but that seems like it could have permanent long-term repercussions.
Ophan: I'm totally with you on the environmental aspect of child-raising.
Science is perfectly capable of canceling out said faulty genes, but there's too many ethical questions coming from the masses...
ArchAngel: "Science" is one of the biggest problems. Biology works, regardless of how convinced we are of our own intellectual superiority. Rats don't have any kind of science as far as I know, and their species is still thriving, even in the face of all the ridiculous damage and changes we inflict on their environment.
"Science" gives us a new pill a week, meant to prolong the life of people nature has selected as unfit for prolonging the life of the species, keeps their weakened bodies alive that much longer to spread their faulty genes among future generations and incubate viruses in quantities and concentrations that the general populace isn't naturally exposed too. It gives us chemical crutches for minor problems and inconveniences that allow our own bodies' defenses to atrophy while at the same time causing short- and long-term side-effects that are often worse than the problems they treat.
And as for "ethical problems from the masses," I'm not really sure what your referring to, but in my experience these "masses" you speak of don't know enough about any given issue to have any more of an opinion than the one their media outlet of choice has handed to them. Please be more specific.
Ophan: Mainly that genetic testing is immoral, things like that. All the protest groups over cloning, experimentation, things like that.
Science is not the problem, it's the politics and the $$$ involved. There could be a cure for cancer right now, but there's too much money in the cancer industry. That's the truth. People keep surviving too, and it's important to have advanced directives so you don't end up brain dead and alive. Many drugs are over prescribed, abused, etc... Maybe if people would stop being so lazy and single-minded and did a little fucking research instead of blindly listening to someone else's advice all the time...
ArchAngel: Well, for one, I don't advocate mandatory genetic testing, nor do I think testing is even necessarily essential. Again, no other species has the capability of genetic testing, they rely on instinct to choose a mate, and it's working very well. Instincts are something we've grown dangerously far from, mostly due to our obsessive reliance on the god of science.
And curing cancer? There are schools of thought that believe that most cancer that occurs in the modern world is because of chemicals and other unnatural effects that have been introduced into our natural environment, mostly by the same science everyone expects to solve the problem. Sounds a lot like the "solution, side effect, find another solution" dynamic I spoke of earlier. As for there being so much money to be made on the "cancer industry" as a reason to keep research at a crawl, did you also know that the lunar landing was staged, and the pictures were actually taken in New Mexico? The weather patterns of the dates in question match up perfectly with the motion of the flag.
Ophan: ArchAngel, don't be impossible.
ArchAngel: I wasn't being impossible, I was sarcastically mocking what I saw as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Ophan: Yeah, well, it kinda made me mad. No reason to even tell you my thoughts if you aren't going to take them even a little bit seriously. I don't buy into conspiracy theories either.
ArchAngel: Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that. You got pissed cause I made fun of you for something you said?
What's up? My name's ArchAngel, I don't think we've met.
Ophan: MRSA?
ArchAngel: What the fuck is MRSA?
Ophan: Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. A bacterial infection that is highly resistant to some antibiotics. That's what it looks like to me. Once you get it, you'll always have it, even though it might not effect you more than once in your lifetime. Most people in the medical field either have it or are carriers from being around it so much. It's pretty rampant these days, thanks to people not finishing all their antibiotics prescribed and shit... Gressil got it when he was intubated years ago, and he's had two pretty bad infections lanced and treated since then.
ArchAngel: Well, I refuse to take antibiotics, but my body's already eaten the infection. It does that a lot, with various stupid things I inflict on myself.
Ophan: Antibiotics make Gressil very sick, and he hates taking them too, but when it comes down to maybe being hospitalized on IV antibiotics or possible losing a limb, you just have to. I think his problem is he lets 'em go to long, waiting to see if they'll go away on their own, and they get bad.
ArchAngel: Antibiotics weaken our species. I'm a firm believer in natural selection. If your genes can't keep you alive and healthy, you shouldn't be crapping up the pool.
Ophan: Yeeeah... but that's a hard philosophy to swallow when you have an asthmatic child...
ArchAngel: I don't have an asthmatic child.
Ophan: I do! And so does your sister! And if you want to go that route... what about your pups? Hasn't Vega been sick a lot lately?
ArchAngel: Yup. And nature hasn't killed her yet. Nor is she going to be bred. Faulty genes should not be spread.
As for Nelchael, His problems aren't genetic, they're developmental. That's fine. My sis has the same basic genes I do, and Raphael's are all good as far as I can tell.
I didn't say that genetically inferior people should be euthanized, but I don't believe they should pass their faulty genes onto another, weaker generation. And I don't believe doctors should pass out antibiotics for every scratch and scrape. Your body has the resources (or should, at any rate,) to deal with all but the worst infections, the ones that occur in deep tissue, and on a systemic level. Antibiotics kill all but a tiny percent of bacteria. The ones that survive are resistant to antibiotics. The more frivolously we use antibiotics, the more bacteria become resistant, till it gets to the point where antibiotics are totally useless, whether it's for a scraped knee or a kidney transplant.
At the same time, while we allow the antibiotics that still do what they're supposed to (for now,) for every tiny wound, you're teaching your body that it doesn't need to defend itself. It doesn't build up the resistances to fight off future infections without the aid of antibiotics. Then, what happens when you encounter a strain that's immune to antibiotics? The infection kills you, because your body never learned to do what it was meant to.
You can come at me all you want with examples of genetic impurity and weakness of every shape and size, try and pose those scenarios where I'm the one that's genes weren't strong enough to save me from a condition or defect, or any variation or combination thereof. Doesn't matter. Natural selection is necessary for the prolonged survival of the species. As I said, I don't advocate euthanization based on some subjective genetic standard, just limitations on breeding stock for the human race. I'm not a genocidal Nazi, just a genetic elitist. It's like fascism, only justified by nature.
Ophan: Yes, I really do agree completely. "Just because you can reproduce, doesn't mean you should!"
Amriel has asthma, and I believe it is because he was deep scoped when he was born; it was necessary to save his life, but I think it caused some lung damage.
ArchAngel: I feel so massively disappointed right now. I don't even know how to respond.
The Logical Continuation of the Topic, Only Now in a New Thread.
ArchAngel: There should be new breeding laws based on an arbitrary genetic standards to promote the immediate cessation of the weak and stupid crapping up our gene pool! Thoughts?
I welcome all viewpoints, feel free everyone to weigh in. Keep in mind, I believe this, it's not just a "death to stupid people" thing. Euthanasia is unacceptable according to my philosophy. However, bringing this trend of weaving weak and defective genetic traits into our species biological tapestry to an end is a task worth considering, for the overall good of our race.
(Our race being the human race. Let's not make this about racism. If that trait's genetic, it's the first to be culled if I have my way.)
Murmur: What do you mean exactly by defective genetic traits? So many diseases are associated with family history, so you need to be more specific. For example, someone could have a family history of heart disease, are you saying that person shouldn't procreate because they could be passing on a weak gene?
Verrine: Think I'll leave this one up to you and God ;P
ArchAngel: Murmur - Heart Disease is one good example of faulty genes, yes, assuming it is a family history, and not an environmental or developmental problem. Not everyone with these defective genes need be barred from reproduction completely. Assuming their partner is of acceptable stock, and nature is allowed to take it's course with their offspring, then that can be allowed. Detrimental recessive and co-dominant genes can be effectively bred out of existence with the right pairings. That's actually the goal, long term.
As for breeding on the grounds of intelligence and whatnot, I tend to believe that while a part of that is biologically ingrained, much more of it is environmental, and that means reforms in the way people raise their children. There can't be any effective standard for this, and legislation is a bit extreme, even from my semi-fascist point of view. I do think, however, it could be helped if people stopped giving their children Pepsi in baby bottles at a year and a half old and dosing them up with Ritalin because the TV has raised them to have the attention span of a goldfish. Be a parent for once, discipline your child. A little manual labor is good for kids, and making them read a book on occasion doesn't hurt either. Point of fact - the brain doesn't stop physiologically developing until the ages of 18 - 21, male and female alike. Before it's finished forming, it's a generally good idea to stop inflicting substances on it that alter the natural state of chemicals in the brain. I don't know, shot in the dark, but that seems like it could have permanent long-term repercussions.
Ophan: I'm totally with you on the environmental aspect of child-raising.
Science is perfectly capable of canceling out said faulty genes, but there's too many ethical questions coming from the masses...
ArchAngel: "Science" is one of the biggest problems. Biology works, regardless of how convinced we are of our own intellectual superiority. Rats don't have any kind of science as far as I know, and their species is still thriving, even in the face of all the ridiculous damage and changes we inflict on their environment.
"Science" gives us a new pill a week, meant to prolong the life of people nature has selected as unfit for prolonging the life of the species, keeps their weakened bodies alive that much longer to spread their faulty genes among future generations and incubate viruses in quantities and concentrations that the general populace isn't naturally exposed too. It gives us chemical crutches for minor problems and inconveniences that allow our own bodies' defenses to atrophy while at the same time causing short- and long-term side-effects that are often worse than the problems they treat.
And as for "ethical problems from the masses," I'm not really sure what your referring to, but in my experience these "masses" you speak of don't know enough about any given issue to have any more of an opinion than the one their media outlet of choice has handed to them. Please be more specific.
Ophan: Mainly that genetic testing is immoral, things like that. All the protest groups over cloning, experimentation, things like that.
Science is not the problem, it's the politics and the $$$ involved. There could be a cure for cancer right now, but there's too much money in the cancer industry. That's the truth. People keep surviving too, and it's important to have advanced directives so you don't end up brain dead and alive. Many drugs are over prescribed, abused, etc... Maybe if people would stop being so lazy and single-minded and did a little fucking research instead of blindly listening to someone else's advice all the time...
ArchAngel: Well, for one, I don't advocate mandatory genetic testing, nor do I think testing is even necessarily essential. Again, no other species has the capability of genetic testing, they rely on instinct to choose a mate, and it's working very well. Instincts are something we've grown dangerously far from, mostly due to our obsessive reliance on the god of science.
And curing cancer? There are schools of thought that believe that most cancer that occurs in the modern world is because of chemicals and other unnatural effects that have been introduced into our natural environment, mostly by the same science everyone expects to solve the problem. Sounds a lot like the "solution, side effect, find another solution" dynamic I spoke of earlier. As for there being so much money to be made on the "cancer industry" as a reason to keep research at a crawl, did you also know that the lunar landing was staged, and the pictures were actually taken in New Mexico? The weather patterns of the dates in question match up perfectly with the motion of the flag.
Ophan: ArchAngel, don't be impossible.
ArchAngel: I wasn't being impossible, I was sarcastically mocking what I saw as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Ophan: Yeah, well, it kinda made me mad. No reason to even tell you my thoughts if you aren't going to take them even a little bit seriously. I don't buy into conspiracy theories either.
ArchAngel: Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that. You got pissed cause I made fun of you for something you said?
What's up? My name's ArchAngel, I don't think we've met.