Quote (Sgull @ Tue - Dec 22 2009 - 13:47:19)
Quote (Vogan @ Tue - Dec 22 2009 - 04:47:56)
at this point trying to lead scientific development at certain direction is almost impossible or to expect that science will find it own golden way by itself, with out any external help
i mean that moral and ethic standards should be set by society and by executed and monitored by governments
problem is that our society misses the big picture here, which is over population
our planet do not have enough resources for every one and there is no place for "fairness", if you look on history course there was always an animal law: strongest have first and biggest bite out of killed zebra
seriously what sane person believes that rapidly increased human population is natural
best way to describe human evolution during last 1-1.5k years is to take a quote out of matrix, when agent compared humans with virus
and it is a true: we do multiply on a certain area rich with resources to the point that we will consume them all and then move to new territories
giving a birth to a human being should be a privilege and not a right and (which happens frequently sadly enough) not an accident
how can it be "natural" to allow to two midgets/downs/autistic/etc parents to have a child with each other?
what is more important? their right to have a child or the wellbeing of human race?
only natural in human gene pole purification is a natural selection aka death with out possibility to breed
and yes, hiv virus can be eliminated by very simple and effective measure: quarantine
ideally quarantine would work, but practically there is no way to accomplish this. most people who have it dont even know they have it
and they dont find out until they have infected tons of other people, who also dont know that they have it.
its good population control though, thats for sure. same with birth control
I always get shit for this. But the best treatment for someone who has aids in the sense of how to prevent the disease from spreading is to let the disease kill the people who are infected and let the disease die out.
I mean take africa. We help feed their overpopulated population that is infested with disease and by feeding them we allow the disease to spread and thus implicating doom.
If we were to leave the situation be, the population would die out and those who survived uninfected would pave the way to regain population back at a rate of which is disease free.
But no big organization or human species would ever think in these kind of terms, because they would simply tell you that would be committing murder. But it can't be murder because you are just avoiding a disease and allowing the disease to die.
The truth is, science/nature/evolution will takes it course. Those who have the best genes will produce offspring able to survive and those who don't will die out. And if overpopulation causes a problem and widespread disease happens, the human race might go extinct.
Genetic conditions are never going to be cured simply because they are genetic, they can never be prevented, you can possibly create humans through using good genes, but even then something could get fucked up.
I once read an article regarding parthenogenesis, Bees use this non stop. Basically they produce asexually and they take their best genes and they keep reproducing them to produce offspring that fits perfect for the current environment.
When their environment changes, they start sexual production. Which basically means they start mixing the genes in order to create a set of genes that can fit well in the new environment.
Mammals and many other sexually reproductive organisms just keep mixing their gene pool. The humans have been effective as good pairs of genes are there but they always have messed up gene pairs such as genetic conditions and health problems.
Bees use their genetics to the utmost potential. Only mixing the gene pool when needed.
However, when people think in these terms and think population control could save the future for sure, they are right but most people believe it is immoral to leave others behind because of genetic diseases or genetic mutations.
I really don't have an opinion, I mean, naturally I feel we shouldn't help these people because we only prolong their suffering. But then the idea that people dying is just bad. It's a tough question but most likely it is fair to say we would be better off if we just let evolution takes it course and not interfere.
