>>nb - "clearly you already have" - I hate to repeat myself, but - WTF?
c'mone chaps..

clearly, I'm the ****. If you want your own thread discussing your own **** tendencies, go ahead :P

 

Well, not much for the next few hundred thousand years, and certainly not much before the next man-made/natural disaster knocks us back to a technological state where traditional Darwinism starts to matter again.

Some would argue that we have changed evolutionary imperatives by developing intelligence - a very recent advantage in evolutionary terms.

This intelligence has prolonged our individual lives by allowing the transfer and retention of information way beyond the previous norm of an individual's lifetime. The "fittest" - most suitable for the environment, not necessarily a stronger/faster qualification - are now the ones most suited to today's world.

Yeesh. I need food.

 

>>The "fittest" - most suitable for the environment, not necessarily a stronger/faster qualification - are now the ones most suited to today's world.


Don't you think this will introduce a whole new set of genetic defects into the gene pool that would have otherwise been removed though natural selection?

 

Jesus. A playground dust-off. You can admit you were wrong, you know - no-one will think the worse of you.

 

That's a valid point. I don't think anyone knows. I feel that the traditional genetic defects you speak of will have less relevance as advances in medicine and technology make up the deficit - or negate them completely.

Steven Hawking rubs along OK, doesn't he? Our moral code prevents us from letting him starve or suffocate, and he is able to make his own way in the world (and then some!) with his mind.

 

>>Steven Hawking rubs along OK, doesn't he

but would you advocate him having kids if they suffered the same disease as him?

I know that I'd be ****-scared if I had a kid and there was something wrong with him / her.... but knowingly having children with defects?

I know some people will have kids with (for example) downs syndrome(SP), with the full hindsight that the pregnancy will turn out this way. I couldn't do this... and I don't think I can understand people that do. In years to come, hopefully genetic engineering (if it doesn't screw up the human race too much...) might eventually couter-act the need for any natural selection, as the process would be screen so genetic defects were removed at the conception stage. But to be realistic, this is many years off.

 

dude, i know you are just trying to provoke a reaction as you cannot have a sensible debate involving emotions and the unquantifiable...

brilliant, comparing cars and children. reminds me of when people say "ohh i hate kids", "i'll never have kids" - well i just think, what if your parents had the same attitude!!

 

>>dude, i know you are just trying to provoke a reaction as you cannot have a sensible debate involving emotions and the unquantifiable...


Yeah.... so I'm the one getting emotional? please. Next time I'll ask a question about flowers and nice things for you, ok? :P

TBH, I wouln't care if my parents did not have kids. I wouldn't be here to think about it.

 

The whole gentics thing is interesting. We will see parents being able to define what their child will be like, it'll start with eye color, hair color, but you will be able to no doubt, specify their build, and god knows what else.

Playing God? quite possibly. But, it's a form of evolution, not natural, but man made, but, evolution nonetheless.

What will happen? Well, some sci-fi might come true, for instance, the whole Kahn Noonien Singh thing on Star Trek, the Eugenics wars, wasn't it? "super" humans with greater intelects and gentics vs the normal man. I can see this happening, probably no in my lifetime, but maybe.

Do I worry about it? not really, I'm not going to go through my life worrying about stuff like this, I'm going to be happy and have fun. Who knows I could be the one who comes up with some way to create perfect clones, you never know!

 

Just out of interest, how old are you Krankyd?

 

27.

 

This idea that you could be "thinking of the kid" rather then yourselves when having a baby - wtf is that about? How could you be thinking of the kid - it don't exist yet, it's just a hypothetical idea. Of course you are thinking of yourselves. It's a choice you make based on the way you feel and the life that you want. I agree that adopting is probably a very noble thing to do but I want my kid to be the genetic product of me and my missus. It may be irrational but I feel like I have the right to want that. If we couldn't conceive naturally (it ended up taking nearly a year, fwiw) I would have considered any treatment available. If it cost big dollar, so what? If I can afford it bully for me. This idea that if you have IVF you are somehow slighting all the motherless children out there - what a load of boll*cks. If you have a spare room in your house do you go out and offer it to a homeless person? Do you f*ck. It's your house, you paid for it, tough sh*t for the homeless guy.

Next time somebody lamps you one, just remember, it's survival of the fittest