SUBJ1
"Even such a benign (in my view, at least) thing as planning family size may be a statistical outlier."
- Outlier: a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample
- No comprende, Senior.
Are statistically significant effects necessary to show that voluntary eugenics is a legitimate or useful term. Or are statistically significant effects necessary to show that voluntary eugenics could have a beneficial effect (worldwide)? If the latter, I think there are benefits for those who practice it, and that is enough. The usual way is just for people to consider genetics when they make a baby or adopt a child.
"Getting the state involved is a scarier prospect, largely because of the opportunities it offers for bureaucratic incompetence. '
- How about just deleting the bullshit statement from the RW article, which implies selective breeding does nothing? I don't recall saying anything about involving the state. I would think more people would support state involvement when there is significant risk of a genetic physical disease, at least.
Desculpe-me, senhor.
Looking at a global sample, I suspect that the number of carefully planned babies is far far far (...) far smaller than the number of kids that just happened. It is rightly more about populations than individuals.
Like it or not, "eugenics" carries historical baggage that "selective breeding" does not connote. Not many people complain about breeding different strains of non-human animals, which is why restaurants can get away with advertising anus burgers. Well, actually, the sign said "Angus" before the smartass dishwasher changed it.
The talk page of the article would be a better place to discuss propsed changes to it.
So? As you imply, selective breeding suggests animals, which isn't what we are talking about.
If you are trying to avoid an issue, it helps if you don't allow any word into you vocabulary, for the thing you don't wish to discuss. I feel I'm pulling teeth here.
The point about the RW article, is not what is in an article that isn't likely to influence anyone. The point is, that this is what I take issue with, and this is what you refuse to acknowledge.
A small percentage of the world invents, discovers, and creates the most significant contributions to science, technology, and culture. Even if only a few more intelligent people get the message, it could make a big difference, because their progeny have the greatest potential to change the world. This isn't only about improving the entire human genome, it is about improving the entire world's knowledge and culture.
When the brilliance of an Einstein is discovered, he should be encouraged to mate with many women who seem to have good genetics; all sorts of women of different ethnicities and characteristics. There were probably willing women, if Einstein were willing, and not burdened with counter-productive norms of monogamy, the purity of abstinence and virginity, the shame of open sexuality. "Open sexuality" includes polyamory or at least shamelessly donating seamen (to avoid risk of infection or to avoid having sex with someone he isn't attracted to). If he was mentally restrained, embarrassed, or otherwise discouraged from expressing or exploring his sexual urges, from a young age, this may have stunted his libido and willingness to spread his seed far and wide. Just a possibility and one we have yet to focus on, for all this nail chewing over mandatory eugenics.
We have a big problem when people like Einstien are too timid to get their freak on, while those who are dim and reckless are fucking like mad. We must find the lion in these sensitive intellectuals and glorify their natural (male) polyamory.
Similarly, those other myn [good natured gentlemen] who appreciate the privilege to raise the uber-children, should not be made to feel they are FAILING and INFERIOR, with terms like "cuckold", based on the presumption that they are supposed to be spreading their own genes. They are the ones the uber-children will bond with and learn from. They are their fathers/mothers in the emotional sense. They might have children with a "lower" tier of women, and they will be raised/educated partially by others... in villages... eco-villages with yeti tribesmen and facepaint dancing around the peace fire with all the Asians, Jews, blacks, Puerto Ricans, Caucasians, dwarfs, elves, leprechauns, etc. Instead of football, on the massive drive-in theater type movie screen it's Einstein live webcam, sweating hairy sexercise, terrifying the old gods, spewing holy profanities, grunting and shivering with his fertile concubine, furious lust fever, will he give her the seed or pull out and unload into the sperm injecting receptacles held by the meuwing masseuses, to impregnate themselves? Closeup on the taint area with microphone magnification, we hear each Earth shatteringly loud spasmolitic squirtful injection synchronized with the villagers pounding great rocks and logs on the ground, hooooowwwwling hoooooowwwling, screaming catharsis, over and over, the final climax and ... breathing... he raises his heavy face to the white sun and cries, "It is finished!"
Why should this lifestyle be presumed to be soooo weird and frightening? It is like the red scare or homophobia. Aaaauuugh those people are uneuropean/unamerican!!!! They threaten our way of life!!!! What if their ideas become popular and then we will all have to live as they do!!! WE MUST NEVAR APPROVE OF ANY NOTIONS OF BETTER GENES!!! Be proud of your eugenophobia!
Well, that certainly puts things in perspective. Going for the whole William S. Burroughs thing, I see. Keep pecking away at it; maybe your chops will one day equal his. Or not.
It is not really supposed to be choppy, as in a "put down". It is meant to be funny, novel, and break the polite chains of sexual phobias. The giant outdoor movie screen may be a bit inefficient use of resources unless we need a big building with no windows... nevermind. Sorry for the headaches, I'm not given much feedback on what is causing those. Could it be their brains are growing?