REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bilderberg plots genocide of 70% of planet Earth

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Friday, May 29, 2009 13:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3426
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:49 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Infomercialwarrior Kevin Trudeau's "Natural Cures" book is excellent medical advice, though it's almost impossible to comply with due to the poisoned food supply. It's merely a collection of other nutritional cure books written and edited by MDs, dumbed down for the sheeple, without footnotes.

Bilderberg Group orders genocide of 70% of planet Earth, says Bilderberger billionaire Kevin Trudeau
www.infowars.com/billionaire-elite-want-two-thirds-of-the-dumb-people-
wiped-off-the-planet
/

Kevin Trudeau hit by $37-million fine to censor his nutrition books and infomercials that say nice things about jews and Scientologists
youtube.com/watch?v=qyrJu81uwWY
www.infowars.com/kevin-trudeau-on-alex-jones/
www.fivemilliondots.com/archive/2009/01/15/judge-orders-kevin-trudeau-
to-pay-more-than-37-million.aspx


Convicted-felon Trudeau is the highest-selling book author on Earth (not counting the Bible), the only author to outsell overhyped Satanic Harry Potter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Bilderberg Secret Society 2009
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bilderberg+2009&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Quote:

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-Bilderberger Prince Philip Nazi King of England

"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
-Bilderberg billionaire CNN founder Ted Turner

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. We're too many people; that's why we have global warming. Everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children. Communist China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States, and Russia wants to be our friends, too. Never mind all those Commie nukes targeted at US. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."
-Ted Turner




Bilderbergers party at Bohemain Grove in bankrupt California

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:17 AM

BYTEMITE


Technically, genocide is just a specific group of people, not whole bunches.

I agree with you in principle, drastic measures and arbitrary population levels aren't a good place to go... Mostly because the means by which we REACH those numbers will be highly questionable. Either yeah, it's going to involve killing lots of people, or it's going to involve sterilization, breeding, and eugenics programs.

But on the other hand, the way we're going now, we are consuming way too much, and there are too many people to sustain human population and growth. It is a problem, and I really don't know what solution we could take that wouldn't be leading down a dark road.

What do you suggest?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


'...Obama has formed a financial team composed of the architects of financial deregulation, people appointed by Wall Street who act on behalf of Wall Street. This proposed 'solution' to the crisis is actually the cause of further economic collapse. I ask,”Is this the 'change' people voted for?”

This brings further concern in light of the financial agenda set forth by this Bilderberg meeting as Carl Bildt, Sweden's minister for foreign affairs made the pitch for a global Department of Treasury and Department of Health, with all nations surrendering sovereignty over these issues to the United Nations (UN). He proposed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to become the Treasury Department and the World Health Organization to become the World Health Department.

Bildt goes on to say, “This is an urgent economic crisis unlike anything we have dealt with in living memory.” He called for world (UN) solutions to virtually all problems. He cited the European Union as 'model of integration, saying it is emerging as a global factor. He advocates expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere to create an “American Union.” If Obama intends on being a two-term president he will have to waffle on his stance during the presidential campaign where he voiced the possibility of withdrawal from NAFTA. Of course, with the Security and Prosperity Partnership due to be implemented in 2010 he would be able to tell the people we are getting out of NAFTA while not telling us we are entering into the SPP, which many have indicated it is NAFTA on steroids.

The IMF sent a report to Bilderberg advocating its rise to the role of World Treasury Department. Timothy Geithner enthusiastically endorsed the plan for a World Treasury Department, most likely with hopes of becoming its leader, even though the United States of America would be relinquishing its sovereignty in this area. Geithner goes on to say, “Ordinary Americans, small business owners and community banks who did the right thing and played by the rules are suffering from the actions of those who took on too much risk.” Rather like sticking a thumb in the eye of those who played by the rules, as $Trillions were simply given to those who acted unwisely in their quest of profits created in part through fraudulent means.

Geithner further states, “These (problems) are all welcoming signs, but the process of financial recovery and repair is going to take time. The people of Europe and America will have suffered enough to embrace a World Treasury Department.” This last statement makes one look at the major crisis as one that has been contrived in order for the government to have a solution to a 'problem' that has the people crying out for. It may also be a reason there has been little resistance, even some advancement, of the idea to rid us of the “Fed.” In the past such talk was quickly extinguished...'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bilderberg-Plans-For-Econo-by-Dennis-
Kaiser-090526-445.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:09 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Western and Commie govts genocided 300-million sheeple in the 20th Century.

Genocide of foreign nations is merely a psyop diversion from the real genocide agenda.

Each govt is in charge of genociding their own citizens. SCOTUS legalized genicide with Roe v Wade, resulting in 50-million aborticides in USA in just 40 years, to make room for 50 million illegal alien Catholicss banned from birth control by Vatican Nation and gay pedophile King Pope.

The EU was founded by Nazis 50 years ago, to accomplish exactly what Adolf Hitler Shicklegruber Rothschild wanted...

Obama just annexed 60-million acres for United Nations UNESCO Biosphere Reserve genocide program, which bans all sheeple from National Parks.

Actually, there's plenty of land, food, water and gas for billions more people.

But they would compete with the inbred elite, and They can't allow that to happen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


This thread, as should most of those posted by PN, belongs in Troll Country.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:19 PM

BADKARMA00


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
Western and Commie govts genocided 300-million sheeple in the 20th Century.

Genocide of foreign nations is merely a psyop diversion from the real genocide agenda.

Each govt is in charge of genociding their own citizens. SCOTUS legalized genicide with Roe v Wade, resulting in 50-million aborticides in USA in just 40 years, to make room for 50 million illegal alien Catholicss banned from birth control by Vatican Nation and gay pedophile King Pope.

The EU was founded by Nazis 50 years ago, to accomplish exactly what Adolf Hitler Shicklegruber Rothschild wanted...

Obama just annexed 60-million acres for United Nations UNESCO Biosphere Reserve genocide program, which bans all sheeple from National Parks.

Actually, there's plenty of land, food, water and gas for billions more people.

But they would compete with the inbred elite, and They can't allow that to happen.




---------------


I don't know much about the UNESCO thing, but I did find this article from 2005 which I found particularly interesting. Thought I'd share it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:44 PM

BYTEMITE


Creating of world government at expense of suffering bad, I agree. Fortunately, I don't think the media has started pushing the idea of joining the SPP on the people yet, because I haven't heard much about it.

Although I think people should restrict travel in National Parks and Monuments. And I mean in the goddamn common sense way. As someone who likes to spend my vacations in National Forests, Wilderness Areas, on BLM lands, and in National Parks bushwhacking with a backback, I can safely say there has been no acre of the united states that doesn't have litter or ATV tracks on it. ._.

And even though I know we pay farmers for fallow fields and to let some of their crops rot to create more demand, out west I see barbed wire fences everywhere and it makes me sad. I don't want to see development over every square inch of earth just to sustain a gigantic unfathomable population.

The more people there are, the less we know our neighbors, and the more isolated we all become. So I still think overpopulation could be a problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:27 PM

BADKARMA00


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Creating of world government at expense of suffering bad, I agree. Fortunately, I don't think the media has started pushing the idea of joining the SPP on the people yet, because I haven't heard much about it.

Although I think people should restrict travel in National Parks and Monuments. And I mean in the goddamn common sense way. As someone who likes to spend my vacations in National Forests, Wilderness Areas, on BLM lands, and in National Parks bushwhacking with a backback, I can safely say there has been no acre of the united states that doesn't have litter or ATV tracks on it. ._.

And even though I know we pay farmers for fallow fields and to let some of their crops rot to create more demand, out west I see barbed wire fences everywhere and it makes me sad. I don't want to see development over every square inch of earth just to sustain a gigantic unfathomable population.

The more people there are, the less we know our neighbors, and the more isolated we all become. So I still think overpopulation could be a problem.




-----------------


So what's the answer to the problem? Do we limit the number of chidlren people are allowed to have? China has done that for some time, ( I don't know the exact year it started ) but even the Chinese admit it's not the best idea, resulting in many a female infant being tossed down a well, or hit on the head, so that the couple could try for a son.

If we're gonna start with population control, I say we start by going through the prisons. There's many a worthless skin in them that we can well do without.

Course, I'll probably get hammered for saying that, but, someone has to do it

Seriously, though, what are your thoughts on how to deal with that problem?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:31 PM

BYTEMITE


I honestly have no idea. The only solutions I can come up with (murdering droves of people or sterilization/breeding/eugenics programs) are morally unacceptable. I mean, it even seems like putting limits on the number of children a couple can have will eventually lead to sterilization, breeding, or eugenics programs.

So I was wondering if anyone had any others.

I would like to say space travel, but I know Pirate News thinks it's impossible and I don't want to start that up again... >_>

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:41 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

This thread, as should most of those posted by PN, belongs in Troll Country.



Spoken like a true Operative.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:48 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by badkarma00:

I don't know much about the UNESCO thing, but I did find this article from 2005 which I found particularly interesting. Thought I'd share it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330



Every National Park has a big sign at the entrance saying "International Biosphere Reserve", which censors "United Nations".



UNESCO Biosphere Reserves owned by United Nations Corporation of 55-nation British Commonwealth Empire
www.nature.nps.gov/globalconservation/biosphere.cfm
www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/webArticles/072803_biosphere.html
www.unesco.org/mabdb/mab-cont/country.asp?code=USA
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4793&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC
&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_Biosphere_Reserve

Director of US National Park Service is a British citizen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bomar

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:54 PM

BADKARMA00


Well, space travel isn't impossible, but where could we go? The only reachable planets with current tech are inside our own solar system, and none of them, it appears, are capable of sustaining life.

That doesn't mean that we can't establish colonies on some, like Mars, eventually, though it will be hideously expensive to be sure.

For that matter, we should be able to establish a survivable colony on our own moon. The problem, as I see it, would be sustaining it. There might be a way to make such a colony self sustaining, at least so far as feeding itself, etc. Truthfully, I don't know enough to say one way or another.

And I agree, there's no morally acceptable way to solve the problem that I can see. But, if this really is a problem, then someone, somewhere, will try and 'mandate' a solution.

Personally, I'm getting damned tired of people making 'mandates' and 'declarations' about shit. Everyone thinks they 'know' what's best, but no one really knows anything it seems to me except how to further their own ends.

I know there's another thread going on right now about UN resolutions, and how the US ignores them. course, so do a lot of other nations.

I for one do not want the UN making decisions for the US. And, in fairness, I'm tired of the US butting into other people's business as well.

But now I'm rambling. Enough outta me, lol.

I will agree it's a hell of a problem. And like you, I don't see a solution. At least not one that's acceptable.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:55 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I would like to say space travel, but I know Pirate News thinks it's impossible and I don't want to start that up again... >_>



I agree. Take billions of sheeple, er, scientifically challenged astronots, and launch them at the nearest star system. Good riddance. If they cook by sunburn at 500 miles altitude, who cares?

The rest of US will fight to the death on Spaceship Earth.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:55 PM

BADKARMA00


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:

Originally posted by badkarma00:

I don't know much about the UNESCO thing, but I did find this article from 2005 which I found particularly interesting. Thought I'd share it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330



Every National Park has a big sign at the entrance saying "International Biosphere Reserve", which censors "United Nations".



UNESCO Biosphere Reserves owned by United Nations Corporation of 55-nation British Commonwealth Empire
www.nature.nps.gov/globalconservation/biosphere.cfm
www.unesco.org/mabdb/mab-cont/country.asp?code=USA
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4793&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC
&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_Biosphere_Reserve

Director of US National Park Service is a British citizen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bomar



----------------

The entrance to SHiloh doesnt' have that, PN, but it's a military park, so maybe that's why.

At least it didn't have one last time I was there. It could now, I guess.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:07 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by badkarma00:



The entrance to SHiloh doesnt' have that, PN, but it's a military park, so maybe that's why.

At least it didn't have one last time I was there. It could now, I guess.



They sneak up on you. The National Parks and Forests were first annexed by UNESCO/UN, then the National Historical Monuments like giant battlefields.

US military bases are being closed in USA, after annexing millions of acres, then given to foreign armies from Commie China, Russia, and Germany.

Obama picks Nazi racist La Raza gencide judge for SCOTUS, who publicly wants to to violently overthrow USA for Mexico and kill all white males (and black males)
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=38463

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Well, space travel isn't impossible, but where could we go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d

Via Stellarum!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:01 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Well, space travel isn't impossible, but where could we go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d

Via Stellarum!

-F



Space travel is for robots. Humans are obsolete.

Terminator robots are massacring 1,000s of humans in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen. The extermination of the human race has begun.

Heck, we even have a Terminator governor running for president.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:27 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Fortunately, I don't think the media has started pushing the idea of joining the SPP on the people yet, because I haven't heard much about it.



Plainly , you're just not paying attention...

The criminal gangs that rule the earth depend upon the somnambulant public remaining asleep at the switch...

Here's a couple of tidbits that are recent ; there are MANY others like these :

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/05/26/acc
ord-beefs-up-great-lakes-border-security.aspx


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNj93obogOJaL-gl-2aI
Aq8JLGoQD98E4S1G0



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:38 AM

BYTEMITE


OR, the American media isn't covering it. Which is probably bad for Americans.

But I confess, my dose of news generally consists of the most prominent world news items being talked about on the internet or what I happen to overhear from the airways at home. It's also why I'm not heavy on the citations whenever I make an argument, what I've heard has been filtered down from the source. I prefer to make logical arguments instead of technical ones, unless it's something I know inside and out, or unless I have a particularly strong opinion or object to the argument being presented.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I mean, it even seems like putting limits on the number of children a couple can have will eventually lead to sterilization, breeding, or eugenics programs.


That's called a slippery slope, it's a logical fallacy. There's no reasoning to say that giving incentives to couples to have less children, or even making laws for the maximum number of children a couple can have, will lead inexorably to eugenics, or the over population "Final Solution".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:51 AM

BYTEMITE


Frem, I actually jumped up and down and sent links to everyone I know when we found Gliese 581 c.

That candidate sounds even better. Man, that solar system sounds great! Two planets that are probably in the inhabitable zone.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
That's called a slippery slope, it's a logical fallacy. There's no reasoning to say that giving incentives to couples to have less children, or even making laws for the maximum number of children a couple can have, will lead inexorably to eugenics, or the over population "Final Solution".



Actually, it's not, it's called "objective assessment."

How exactly are you going to determine who gets to have children? And, how are you going to enforce that?

Or, if you promote everyone only having one child, would you allow some parents to discard some of their attempts and try again until they get what they want? Or perhaps... What the government wants?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:19 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, it's not, it's called "objective assessment."


A logical fallacy by any other name is still a fallacious argument. I'm seeing very little objectivity and an awful lot of slippery slope assessment.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
How exactly are you going to determine who gets to have children? And, how are you going to enforce that?


Since I made no such claims or statements, why are you even asking me this question?
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or, if you promote everyone only having one child, would you allow some parents to discard some of their attempts and try again until they get what they want? Or perhaps... What the government wants?


Hmm, you see rather than backing up your assertion that restrictions on population growth are going to definitely lead to eugenics, you're asking me how I'd implement eugenics.

I wouldn't implement eugenics. There we go that's that one put to bed. I just see no logical reason to believe that population growth control means undeniably that eugenics will follow. We could quite easily implement policies on population control today, and say no to eugenics tomorrow. It's your claim, you've not even given an argument to support it yet. Calling it "objective assessment" and asking me how I'd implement eugenics, is a far cry from supporting that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:02 AM

BYTEMITE


My questions were mostly intended to ask you what your solutions would be, as I know I might have overlooked some, but I confess they might have been intended to be a bit leading. Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense or accuse, I was just trying to see if I could catch you.

So okay, if you want me to deconstruct my argument further, I will. I don't really have any problem with that.

The basis of my questions is that I can only see four ways in which you could approach population control. You can set a limit on the number of children a couple can have (in which case, two children would mean a stable population, and one child would be a decreasing population). You establish a quota, overall, that the number of the next generation has to stay within. You establish a quota on the number of couples who can reproduce. Or, you set out a specific portion of the population who will not be allowed to reproduce.

The first and last scenario are the specific questions I addressed to you. So why did I leave out the middle two?

Assuming that a majority of the population wants to have one or more offspring, there are going to be some couples who, were they to have children, their offspring will exceed the quota. If they exceed the quota, they should not be able to have their children, and therefore, in that manner, will be excluded from reproducing. Given that there are many children born in a population at any second, it stands to reason many pregnancies are discovered in a population every second. So, some of these children would exceed the quota. Who gets to let their pregnancy progress to term?

My opinion is that option two is merely another form of option four.

Now, the quota on the number of breeding couples. There is, of course, the nebulous problem of LIMITING the number of couples, and enforcing it, which ties into the first question I asked you, but side stepping that for now. Lots of people wanting a limited privilege. They could be assigned this at birth, but even I'm going to avoid that one, it's too obvious. Most likely case is either they will pay for it, or they will participate in a lottery, and play the odds.

If they pay for it, that's selective towards the wealthy, who are likely also the more powerful members of the population. If it's a lottery, well... Lotteries can be rigged, and people can get multiple tickets, both of which would again be selective towards the rich and powerful.

So my argument is, any way you chose to implement population control is going to carry with it some inherent selection process, either of the parents, or of the children. From that, this is where my claim that population control inevitably will lead to eugenics comes from. Perhaps it's an indirect style, perhaps it's unintended, but I think population control is the slippery slope, and NOT my argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:15 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Frem, I actually jumped up and down and sent links to everyone I know when we found Gliese 581 c.

That candidate sounds even better. Man, that solar system sounds great! Two planets that are probably in the inhabitable zone.


It gets even better, Byte.

A physicist in western sydney picked up what *appeared* to be a coherent light signal of artificial origin in that very vicinity.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25448647-30417,00.h
tml


Ergo, we might have neighbors.

For myself, I wouldn't mind going out to meet them.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:30 AM

BYTEMITE


I hope that we're putting in some sort of signaled message in the laser pulses that could be easily cracked by any recipients. If they'd be nice enough to do the same for us, we wouldn't have to question whether it was just a fluke or a quasar.

Or maybe they're pulsing in sets, a certain number of times? Prime numbers generally are considered by our mathematicians an impossible pattern for anyone to miss, but that would require the other civilization to have a concept of counting. Kind of an assumption, isn't it?

But still, much love for that, thanks Frem. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:03 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:


OR, the American media isn't covering it. Which is probably bad for Americans.

But I confess, my dose of news generally consists of the most prominent world news items being talked about on the internet or what I happen to overhear...



If it's bad for Americans , you can bet it's being made to happen...North American Union...

Here's one for you...

This author the article speaks of is plainly a CFR Operative...

What he suggests is lifted straight from the SPP PDF draft document published by the CFR...

"...The continent would see a free flow of goods, services and people; common rules for immigration and refugees; joint inspection of shipping containers from abroad; an integrated terrorist watch list; a system of security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Here+thought+about+erasing+Canada+bor
der/1602647/story.html



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:18 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
My questions were mostly intended to ask you what your solutions would be, as I know I might have overlooked some, but I confess they might have been intended to be a bit leading.


I'm perfectly happy to discuss my thoughts on the matter with you, but I think we really need to get around this assumption that "population growth control == eugenics" first. As my original objection was aimed, we need to deal with that first, otherwise any statements I make, run the risk of being passed off as eugenics. I think we'll be at that stage after your current post, and a bit of elaboration of my own here:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So my argument is, any way you chose to implement population control is going to carry with it some inherent selection process, either of the parents, or of the children. From that, this is where my claim that population control inevitably will lead to eugenics comes from. Perhaps it's an indirect style, perhaps it's unintended, but I think population control is the slippery slope, and NOT my argument.


Saying that population control is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope argument.

Wikipedia puts it thus:
Quote:

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction


Further I'd contend that you've presented only one form of non-eugenic population control, that is option one. The other three are all forms of eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, depending on the assumed criteria for deciding who may and who may not procreate. To me using examples of eugenics, calling it population growth control and then using that to prove population growth control always leads to eugenics is somewhat of a misnomer, a red herring.

If the option were the complete extinction of the human race, in a global form of Easter Island, or punitive population control measures, I would pick the survival of the species. And it can happen, beyond the example of Easter Island, there's evidence that the population of the Mayan Civilisation, that went into decline in the 8th-9th centuries, exceeded their environments carrying capacity. I would prefer a less punitive and dangerous scheme to be implemented prior to a time when more dire measures are necessary.

In other words, population growth control, of which option one that you present, legally requiring people to have no more than one child, is perhaps the most punitive. another option would include looking at it from the other angle, giving tax breaks or some other 'reward' for people who have less than two children. I'd also note that enforcing or encouraging two children per family would actually lead to decreasing population levels, albeit at a slower rate than one child policies (some people won't have children, some people might have one, people die before having children etc).

In fact my preferred method would be to encourage two child families. That way the future of the family line isn't focused on one individual (which causes various problems in China). Two child families would also help mitigate the problems of ageing populations, where the average age is skewed to those reaching the end of life. The obvious consequence (which would logically follow quickly from single child policies) is that there wouldn't be enough people of working age to pay the pensions of those who have retired (amongst other things). Really the only way I can see of reducing population and dealing with these issues without some sort of enforced internment of pensioners or the "Logan Solution".

I see no way that requiring couples to have no more than a certain number of children can possibly inexorably lead to an active eugenics policy. Not without a bunch of discrete steps in-between that don't necessarily follow, and can be stopped at any point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:21 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Really PN , the 70% figure that you mention is probably on the LOW side...

Once the plantation is set up , not many slaves will be required to run it for the elites...

'...The main feature of the monument, though, would be the 10 dictates carved into both faces of the outer stones, in eight languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, and Swahili. A mission statement of sorts (let these be guidestones to an age of reason) was also to be engraved on the sides of the capstone in Egyptian hieroglyphics, classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Babylonian cuneiform. The United Nations provided some of the translations (including those for the dead languages), which were stenciled onto the stones and etched with a sandblaster.

...But many who read what was written on the stones were unsettled. Guide number one was, of course, the real stopper: maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. There were already 4.5 billion people on the planet, meaning eight out of nine had to go (today it would be closer to 12 out of 13). This instruction was echoed and expanded by tenet number two: guide reproduction wisely—improving fitness and diversity. It didn't take a great deal of imagination to draw an analogy to the practices of, among others, the Nazis.'

American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_guidestones
?currentPage=all
#



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:27 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or maybe they're pulsing in sets, a certain number of times? Prime numbers generally are considered by our mathematicians an impossible pattern for anyone to miss, but that would require the other civilization to have a concept of counting. Kind of an assumption, isn't it?


Well if they can't count, they can't use mathematics. If they can't use mathematics, they can't build a big laser to send the signal. If they have civilisation, they have technology and some form of social organisation, abstracted away from purely natural forms. All fairly dependent on counting and mathematics.

The big question is: who said they have to be physically anything like us (why would they need a planet in a 'habitable zone'), and who's to say they think, count, see or communicate in any way we'd recognise as such, or vice versa.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:34 PM

BYTEMITE


I'll get to your population control post in a second, I just wanted to respond to this one real quick.

Through trial and error a child / person / being (?) can create a focused ray of light by playing with mirrors and lenses, or maybe even other materials.

REPLICATING the focused light, or refining it to the point of making a laser that can penetrate thousands of light-years into space might be tricky, but I'm not positive the accomplishment can't be made without mathematics.

After all, for about I'd say 1700 years of human history, people were inventing primarily without the use of mathematics OR science.

Although... Do I really HAVE to meet the aliens if they're religious fanatics? We have enough of those on earth. :(

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:53 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
After all, for about I'd say 1700 years of human history, people were inventing primarily without the use of mathematics OR science.


No civilisation in Human history is devoid of mathematics. In fact some form of mathematics seems to be required for the social organisation of civilisation, which in-turn is required for the organisation of labour required for technological advancement. The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids without mathematics, and a laser is several magnitudes more difficult.

A Laser isn't simply focused light. It's Light created to be highly coherent, the engineering requirements simply aren't possibly by cobbling it all together. Things have to be precise, how do you do that without mathematics? Without maths, you can't even measure the materials.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Although... Do I really HAVE to meet the aliens if they're religious fanatics? We have enough of those on earth. :(


Well, it's highly unlikely we'll meet any alien species within a factor of our own development. The term I've heard is angels or apes, that is we'll meet aliens so advanced they're beyond our ability to recognise them as a technological species, or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:00 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Bilderberg trillionaire VP Nelson Rockefeller killed by hooker

When Little Nicky Rockefeller invited Aaron Russo to join their elite genocide program, Russo said NO. Then Russo died of cancer, and hitmen testified in trial to being hired to kill Russo.
www.freedomtofascism.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

...or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.


Or the level of AuRaptorpithecus, which is about the same thing... AuRaptorpithecus is decidedly more troll-like in appearance and mannerism, though.



(I couldn't resist).

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:08 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

...or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.


Or the level of AuRaptorpithecus, which is about the same thing... AuRaptorpithecus is decidedly more troll-like in appearance and mannerism, though.



(I couldn't resist).


Actually, Australopithecus was quite an advanced and intelligent species.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:08 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Saying that population control is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope argument.


Perhaps. I'd like to think this is a case where the analogy isn't fallacious. I've tried to outline reasonable scenarios in which population control might be expected to lead to eugenics... Which generally a slippery slope argument doesn't do. A slippery slope argument tries to argue that one misstep will lead to increasingly unreasonable missteps, and that is why the initial step must be avoided. It could be that characterizing my argument as a slippery slope in the first place was just an indication of disseparate viewpoints on what is reasonable and what is not.

Quote:

Further I'd contend that you've presented only one form of non-eugenic population control, that is option one. The other three are all forms of eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, depending on the assumed criteria for deciding who may and who may not procreate. To me using examples of eugenics, calling it population growth control and then using that to prove population growth control always leads to eugenics is somewhat of a misnomer, a red herring.


Then we agree that the other three I presented are eugenics... Although I was trying to say the first one is a form of eugenics as well. Hmm. Oh well. But it seems like that's the main point on which we disagree, so I'll focus my efforts there.

A red herring would be if I inexplicably brought up crepes and started ranting about them and somehow tied them into my argument, but I understand you're saying that there's an issue in my argument that doesn't agree with you and you're trying to pinpoint it. Incomplete representation, maybe? I've never claimed that there aren't others, only that those are the four I can think of. Can you think of any others? My impression of the rest of your post (which I will address subsequently) is that you're looking most at the first option I presented.

Quote:

If the option were the complete extinction of the human race, in a global form of Easter Island, or punitive population control measures, I would pick the survival of the species. And it can happen, beyond the example of Easter Island, there's evidence that the population of the Mayan Civilisation, that went into decline in the 8th-9th centuries, exceeded their environments carrying capacity. I would prefer a less punitive and dangerous scheme to be implemented prior to a time when more dire measures are necessary.


Oh, I agree, an ETHICAL form of population control is NECESSARY. I just can't figure out how we can DO it.

Quote:

In other words, population growth control, of which option one that you present, legally requiring people to have no more than one child, is perhaps the most punitive. another option would include looking at it from the other angle, giving tax breaks or some other 'reward' for people who have less than two children. I'd also note that enforcing or encouraging two children per family would actually lead to decreasing population levels, albeit at a slower rate than one child policies (some people won't have children, some people might have one, people die before having children etc).


And here's the one we disagree on, whether limiting the number of children per family is eugenics or not. I think as technology improves, it will become increasingly tempting for a family to pick and choose their children. This may not even be a bad thing, because childhood birth defects and genetic disorders truly are tragic. But on the other hand, it's entering territory that's a bit shady for my tastes.

A good point though on how two children would still be a population decline. It would make the selection temptation LESS. Although like I said, I'm not sure any limit would really make that temptation disappear.

Economic incentives, or punishments, I can't help but doubt how effective they would be. Surely any reward or fine would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually raising a child. If a family truly wanted to more than the encouraged limit of children, this would be no real discouragement in my view.

And isn't this also sort of turning the concept of welfare on its head? What happens to the families who have lots of children they can't support? You can't tax them more, they can't pay. The foster care system is flooded, and I don't know about Britain, but over here in America, people get really touchy about the state taking away kids from their parents.

Quote:

In fact my preferred method would be to encourage two child families. That way the future of the family line isn't focused on one individual (which causes various problems in China). Two child families would also help mitigate the problems of ageing populations, where the average age is skewed to those reaching the end of life. The obvious consequence (which would logically follow quickly from single child policies) is that there wouldn't be enough people of working age to pay the pensions of those who have retired (amongst other things). Really the only way I can see of reducing population and dealing with these issues without some sort of enforced internment of pensioners or the "Logan Solution".


The way you phrase this makes me wary that this is a solution after all. I can't find anything on the Logan Solution on wikipedia, could you elaborate?

Quote:

I see no way that requiring couples to have no more than a certain number of children can possibly inexorably lead to an active eugenics policy. Not without a bunch of discrete steps in-between that don't necessarily follow, and can be stopped at any point.


Not active, perhaps. Although I'm not so sure the process WOULD be stopped, if things ever went that way, because of interests governments might have in their population.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

No civilisation in Human history is devoid of mathematics. In fact some form of mathematics seems to be required for the social organisation of civilisation, which in-turn is required for the organisation of labour required for technological advancement. The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids without mathematics, and a laser is several magnitudes more difficult.



And that's human history. Granted, we're making assumptions based on our only experience with civilization, but they're still assumptions, and androcentric ones.

Perhaps the aliens are so perfectly adapted to their environment, they never needed to create structures to house themselves by, or to build houses like pyramids for their dead? Maybe they don't know the meaning of organization (I've known people like that, come to think of it). Maybe they have a cultural inclination for assymetry, and the symmetry they discovered to create the series of focusing lenses for a laser is a relatively new thing, and they still kind of just "eyeball" everything? In fact, maybe they have far better vision than we or our instruments do, and can see minute measurement differences without having to have a concept for it.

Quote:

A Laser isn't simply focused light. It's Light created to be highly coherent, the engineering requirements simply aren't possibly by cobbling it all together. Things have to be precise, how do you do that without mathematics? Without maths, you can't even measure the materials.


You can't "create" light. It's energy. You can emit it...

See above for my responses to the other parts.

Quote:

Well, it's highly unlikely we'll meet any alien species within a factor of our own development. The term I've heard is angels or apes, that is we'll meet aliens so advanced they're beyond our ability to recognise them as a technological species, or we'll meet aliens that are about the same level of Australopithecus.


True enough. I just think there may be more developmental paths to our current stage than just the human one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:59 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Perhaps. I'd like to think this is a case where the analogy isn't fallacious.


Well, the point of logical fallacies is that they're arguments that are always fallacious (they may be right or wrong, but the argument itself proves or supports nothing). Anyway:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
A red herring would be if I inexplicably brought up crepes and started ranting about them and somehow tied them into my argument, but I understand you're saying that there's an issue in my argument that doesn't agree with you and you're trying to pinpoint it.


False dilemma perhaps. Either way I think it's incorrect to take examples of eugenics, cast them as "population control", and draw the conclusion that "population control" always leads to eugenics.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And here's the one we disagree on, whether limiting the number of children per family is eugenics or not. I think as technology improves, it will become increasingly tempting for a family to pick and choose their children. This may not even be a bad thing, because childhood birth defects and genetic disorders truly are tragic. But on the other hand, it's entering territory that's a bit shady for my tastes.


Eugenics is an attempt to control the Human gene pool by controlling who breeds. It was originally put forward as a scientific method, based off of the idea of survival of the fittest.

Restricting everyones total number of offspring wouldn't seem to fit anywhere into that definition.

However, you seem to be putting two unrelated, or at least scantly related issues together as the same thing. On the one hand we have restriction of the number of children a couple can have, and on the other we have designer babies. These are unrelated issues. True, if a couple can't keep having babies until they get the one they want, one could argue that they'll be more likely to want to go to designer baby boutique, but I doubt it. Most families in the western world already tend to 2 children (the average was 2.4 a few years back, I'm not sure what it is at the moment).

But that's largely irrelevant. Implementing a two child policy, doesn't mean we would have to allow baby engineering, one doesn't follow the other.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Although like I said, I'm not sure any limit would really make that temptation disappear.


But would a lack of limit quantifiable reduce that temptation? And would a limit mean that we had to allow the technology?
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Economic incentives, or punishments, I can't help but doubt how effective they would be. Surely any reward or fine would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually raising a child. If a family truly wanted to more than the encouraged limit of children, this would be no real discouragement in my view.


You should tell conservatives that, they way they go on you'd think if you raised taxes 1% no one would ever go to work, no businesses would be started, the economy collapse, shortly followed by the universe itself. Although that is mainly dependent on cats and dogs cohabiting, which could be a problem especially if they start having litters of more than two Pupittens.

Anyway, with the cost of bringing up a child, wouldn't even a small incentive make a big difference?
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The way you phrase this makes me wary that this is a solution after all. I can't find anything on the Logan Solution on wikipedia, could you elaborate?


I meant to say that would prevent the last couple of things from happening. Look up "Logan's Run".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:15 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This thread, as should most of those posted by PN, belongs in Troll Country.




Yes, let's bury ideas and different points of view, heir Rap!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:27 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Maybe they don't know the meaning of organization (I've known people like that, come to think of it).


Then they aren't a civilisation, by definition. And unless they're some sort of gestalt, they won't have the ability to leverage labour to the degree required for advanced technological innovation. Advanced technology requires highly involved social organisations. At the very least, Evolution produces creatures that can survive in their environment, in order for an intelligent species to devote time to non-survival tasks, such as technological innovation, from survival tasks, such as food gathering, other individuals have to perform those tasks for them, which requires: organisation.

A Laser is a high technology item, it seem's highly doubtful that any creature would evolve with the abilities to make such an item and all it's supporting structures (such as synthetic materials). And if it didn't evolve with the innate abilities to do so, it would need to create those abilities through abstraction, which would require: mathematics.
Quote:

Maybe they have a cultural inclination for assymetry, and the symmetry they discovered to create the series of focusing lenses for a laser is a relatively new thing, and they still kind of just "eyeball" everything? In fact, maybe they have far better vision than we or our instruments do, and can see minute measurement differences without having to have a concept for it.

I think you're grasping at straws. Even if we were to take it as writ that they arrived at a laser by chance, did they also arrive at the powerplant to run it by the same medium? If they have no concept of organisation, how did they build this power station, and how does the laser builder get the power stations builder's cooperation?

Lasers require advanced engineering principles in ways the Wheel or a spear don't. Advanced engineering principles that require the creator to be able to accurately model reality in away that would require mathematics.

This is a point that has been discussed and thought through before. Mathematics is thought of as the way to contact other life, simply because any contactable life would need to have mathematics at it's disposable, or it wouldn't be technologically capable enough to be contactable, QED.
Quote:

You can't "create" light. It's energy. You can emit it...

That's rather overly pedantic. Besides, it's not quite correct to say light is energy.

Besides, you can create energy, you just can't destroy it, only move it elsewhere. See the laws of thermodynamics. Or E=MC^2 for that matter.
Quote:

True enough. I just think there may be more developmental paths to our current stage than just the human one.

Probably, but it doesn't change the fact that they're unlikely to be at a comparable level. even a minor perturbation would mean they're evolution is millions of years ahead or behind ours.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:36 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
See the laws of thermodynamics. Or E=MC^2 for that matter.

Is that anything like pie are square?
(Oh wait, pie are round; coffeecake are square...)


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA


You know, all this presumes one can trust a government to administrate it.

*scoff*

In your wildest wishful dreams!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:02 PM

BYTEMITE


E= mc^2 is a conversion, not creating energy.

If you get into quantum mechanics you can get weird things like virtual particles and virtual energy appearing and disappearing, but classical physics and relativity don't allow you to create energy.

I know I'm grasping at straws, but I'm HUMAN. How can I predict every form that life might take or the developmental path of a species at a similar technological level? All I'm saying is that our perspective, and indeed, even possibly our abilities, are very limited, and that I don't think we should use our requirements as an absolute determinant for other intelligent life. I think it might be a mistake even to base our expectations on carbon or water-based.

(I'd also argue that humans aren't very well adapted to their environment, they just happened to evolve an ability that gave them a huge advantage over the species they cohabited with. But that's another argument)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Designer babies could be considered eugenics, couldn't they? They're designed to have "good genes" as well as their phenotype, they at least meet the etymological definition.

Basically I've been arguing here that restricting everyone's children would inadvertently result in selection. Given the necessary technology, I believe people WOULD be likely to design their children if they could only have a limited number. But then I consider things like genetic counseling a form of eugenics, so it could be my definition of eugenics is a lot looser than yours.

And I also think a limitation would introduce a stressor where people might be more likely to turn to a designer baby if they were having trouble with a more natural process.

As for a small incentive making a difference, I think it would depend on what family is getting the benefit. A poor family would have more to gain than a rich family. That might seem like a good thing, limiting the children of poor families, but it kind of brings up that issue I mentioned before of selecting towards the richer, more powerful families.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:27 PM

BYTEMITE


Frem: right on the money. That's what I'm getting at with my points about population control only benefiting the rich and powerful (as in, the people who are IN power). They will try to skew any such program to their favour, because it will help them keep their power over the rest of the population.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:05 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
E= mc^2 is a conversion, not creating energy.

If you get into quantum mechanics you can get weird things like virtual particles and virtual energy appearing and disappearing, but classical physics and relativity don't allow you to create energy.


Well since Quantum Theory is the current legitimate model for the behaviour of the sub-atomic, I see no problem in using it in my arguments. Neither do I see how my usage of the term is against either what actually happens, or the definition of the word. By that reasoning no one creates a work of art, they convert paint and canvas to masterpiece, they convert block of marble to statue. Yet we say create for these things. As the dictionary states:
Quote:

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.


Would seem to fit a Lasers operation perfectly adequately.
Quote:

I know I'm grasping at straws, but I'm HUMAN. How can I predict every form that life might take or the developmental path of a species at a similar technological level?

You don't need to. But by inference from what we do know, we can tell some things that are possible, and some that are not. Because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we don't know something. Evolution creates creatures that can survive, building Lasers isn't something evolution would select for, so it's beyond reasonable probability that it would do so. Producing a Laser means you need abstraction and civilisation, which means at some point you need to have developed the ability to count at some level. It doesn't have to be mathematics as we understand it, but it will have similarities. This is independent of the form the alien might take, I'm not putting restrictions on what they can be, just rather lax and generic rules on what they can't do. It's based on how certain natural laws work, that it is reasonable to suspect would be immutable, such as evolution.
Quote:

All I'm saying is that our perspective, and indeed, even possibly our abilities, are very limited, and that I don't think we should use our requirements as an absolute determinant for other intelligent life. I think it might be a mistake even to base our expectations on carbon or water-based.

I'm not using our abilities to determine theirs. I'm using the pertinent physical laws of the universe to determine stuff they won't be able to do. Nothing will evolve to be able to produce high technology right off the bat, there's no reason for it to do so. They might evolve all the innate physical abilities to engineer, without tools, the ability to produce Lasers, but if they don't have all the supporting technologies it counts for nothing. Presuming that some Alien race could cobble together peices of high technology by chance, is going beyond caustious scientific skeptiscm, and beyond lateral thinking about the shape of alien life, and into the realms of waving a magic wand.
Quote:

(I'd also argue that humans aren't very well adapted to their environment, they just happened to evolve an ability that gave them a huge advantage over the species they cohabited with. But that's another argument)


We're perfectly adapted to our environment, as evidenced by how quickly we need technology to support us when our environment changes even relatively little.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:22 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Designer babies could be considered eugenics, couldn't they? They're designed to have "good genes" as well as their phenotype, they at least meet the etymological definition.


Possibly, but as I said designer babies and population control are not the same thing, and one doesn't imply the other, so it's a moot point.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Basically I've been arguing here that restricting everyone's children would inadvertently result in selection.


I know, and I see that as a slippery slope fallacy. We can allow equitable controls today, and disallow selection tomorrow.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Given the necessary technology, I believe people WOULD be likely to design their children if they could only have a limited number.


There'd be people who want to do so even without limits, in fact there are people who would like to do so. We don't have limits now, and we do have this designer baby ethical debate now. I think using the one to disallow the other, is a misnomer. Could population limits increase the number of people wanting to use it? Possibly, but they're still separate issues.
Quote:

And I also think a limitation would introduce a stressor where people might be more likely to turn to a designer baby if they were having trouble with a more natural process.

It might do, but it's irrelevant. Over population could just as easily produce a stressor where people might turn to a designer baby so that their child will stand out.

But it's still a separate issue, implementing population control doesn't mean we have to allow Designer Babies in anyway shape or form.

Not implementing it, doesn't mean the issue goes away. Population control doesn't create the issue of Designer Babies, and lack of population control doesn't erase it either, so I find Designer babies are a bad reason for putting a black mark against population control.
Quote:

As for a small incentive making a difference, I think it would depend on what family is getting the benefit. A poor family would have more to gain than a rich family. That might seem like a good thing, limiting the children of poor families, but it kind of brings up that issue I mentioned before of selecting towards the richer, more powerful families.

Richer families tend to have less children anyway, so it's hardly a major issue. Besides, since a tax break will be indexed linked, if you like, the benefit would be relative.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:59 PM

BADKARMA00


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Saying that population control is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope argument.


Perhaps. I'd like to think this is a case where the analogy isn't fallacious. I've tried to outline reasonable scenarios in which population control might be expected to lead to eugenics... Which generally a slippery slope argument doesn't do. A slippery slope argument tries to argue that one misstep will lead to increasingly unreasonable missteps, and that is why the initial step must be avoided. It could be that characterizing my argument as a slippery slope in the first place was just an indication of disseparate viewpoints on what is reasonable and what is not.

Quote:

Further I'd contend that you've presented only one form of non-eugenic population control, that is option one. The other three are all forms of eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, depending on the assumed criteria for deciding who may and who may not procreate. To me using examples of eugenics, calling it population growth control and then using that to prove population growth control always leads to eugenics is somewhat of a misnomer, a red herring.


Then we agree that the other three I presented are eugenics... Although I was trying to say the first one is a form of eugenics as well. Hmm. Oh well. But it seems like that's the main point on which we disagree, so I'll focus my efforts there.

A red herring would be if I inexplicably brought up crepes and started ranting about them and somehow tied them into my argument, but I understand you're saying that there's an issue in my argument that doesn't agree with you and you're trying to pinpoint it. Incomplete representation, maybe? I've never claimed that there aren't others, only that those are the four I can think of. Can you think of any others? My impression of the rest of your post (which I will address subsequently) is that you're looking most at the first option I presented.

Quote:

If the option were the complete extinction of the human race, in a global form of Easter Island, or punitive population control measures, I would pick the survival of the species. And it can happen, beyond the example of Easter Island, there's evidence that the population of the Mayan Civilisation, that went into decline in the 8th-9th centuries, exceeded their environments carrying capacity. I would prefer a less punitive and dangerous scheme to be implemented prior to a time when more dire measures are necessary.


Oh, I agree, an ETHICAL form of population control is NECESSARY. I just can't figure out how we can DO it.

Quote:

In other words, population growth control, of which option one that you present, legally requiring people to have no more than one child, is perhaps the most punitive. another option would include looking at it from the other angle, giving tax breaks or some other 'reward' for people who have less than two children. I'd also note that enforcing or encouraging two children per family would actually lead to decreasing population levels, albeit at a slower rate than one child policies (some people won't have children, some people might have one, people die before having children etc).


And here's the one we disagree on, whether limiting the number of children per family is eugenics or not. I think as technology improves, it will become increasingly tempting for a family to pick and choose their children. This may not even be a bad thing, because childhood birth defects and genetic disorders truly are tragic. But on the other hand, it's entering territory that's a bit shady for my tastes.

A good point though on how two children would still be a population decline. It would make the selection temptation LESS. Although like I said, I'm not sure any limit would really make that temptation disappear.

Economic incentives, or punishments, I can't help but doubt how effective they would be. Surely any reward or fine would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually raising a child. If a family truly wanted to more than the encouraged limit of children, this would be no real discouragement in my view.

And isn't this also sort of turning the concept of welfare on its head? What happens to the families who have lots of children they can't support? You can't tax them more, they can't pay. The foster care system is flooded, and I don't know about Britain, but over here in America, people get really touchy about the state taking away kids from their parents.

Quote:

In fact my preferred method would be to encourage two child families. That way the future of the family line isn't focused on one individual (which causes various problems in China). Two child families would also help mitigate the problems of ageing populations, where the average age is skewed to those reaching the end of life. The obvious consequence (which would logically follow quickly from single child policies) is that there wouldn't be enough people of working age to pay the pensions of those who have retired (amongst other things). Really the only way I can see of reducing population and dealing with these issues without some sort of enforced internment of pensioners or the "Logan Solution".


The way you phrase this makes me wary that this is a solution after all. I can't find anything on the Logan Solution on wikipedia, could you elaborate?

Quote:

I see no way that requiring couples to have no more than a certain number of children can possibly inexorably lead to an active eugenics policy. Not without a bunch of discrete steps in-between that don't necessarily follow, and can be stopped at any point.


Not active, perhaps. Although I'm not so sure the process WOULD be stopped, if things ever went that way, because of interests governments might have in their population.




----------------

I'm guessing here, but I think the 'Logan Solution' referred to here is from the movie "Logan's Run", a sci-fi flick from back in the 70's where everyone lives underground, and when they hit 30, they're killed.



Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 29, 2009 4:46 AM

BYTEMITE


We have no real application of quantum mechanics in technology, because quantum mechanics is inherently random and impossible to fully predict and control. Furthermore, quantum mechanics occur on a sub-microscopic, sub atomic level. Lasers are not an application of quantum physics, were invented before quantum mechanics came into prominence, and deal with macro-scale phenomena, therefore they are reliant on classical physics and relativity until we find the unified field theory. And in classical physics and relativity, energy, just like matter, is impossible to create or destroy.

And light is very much a form of energy. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

Anyway, there's not much more I can argue about alien life and culture. Just my caution not to narrow our scope or assume too much. I think anything we might find will very likely defy every prediction we could make. They may conform to our laws of physics, I would hope they would, but I'm not sure even that is guaranteed, because we don't KNOW everything for certain about physics, and we also don't know if our laws are consistent everywhere else in the universe. In any case, I consider it likely their form and lifestyle will be something we haven't even thought of.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 29, 2009 4:59 AM

BYTEMITE


And I say they do imply the other, and every possible method of proposed of population control I've also shown how they would be a (sometimes indirect) form of selection, and my definition of eugenics is general enough that indirect selection is still a form of eugenics.

Your example of overpopulation only shows that designer babies aren't something we want under any situation, not that the problem wouldn't be made worse with population limits (which I think it would).

If population control leads to people wanting to use designer baby technology, then they are not separate issues. Cause and effect are not separate.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL