Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Breeding

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    US. Missouri.
    Posts
    189

    Breeding

    Note: Continued from HERE
    _______________________

    As humans with access to genetic information we do not even advocate a breeding program. Enforcing one would be inhuman sure yes. However we breed and spread genetic abnormality. Diverse and specific breeding is logical to create future people with zero genetic issues. Enforcement is inhuman yes. However Ignorance of the fact is negligent. Medical intervention had already supersedes survival of the fittest. We are aware of inbreeding. Inbreeding bad. However at this point genetically we are simply playing Russian roulette. Hoping That random breeding will yield the best, brightest, and healthyist. Ask any single crop farmer how stupid of a concept that is. Humans obviously are more complicated than crops. However take dog breeding. Too close causes abnormality and issues. Diversity introduces new traits. Genetic disease can be phased out. Reality is we would breed for much more. Phasing out genetic disease is only one advantage. You can breed genius only if that genius is an abnormality. Otherwise genius is taught. See?

    I can tell you how to breed age old monsters if you wish...However breeding monsters is inhuman. Something which hasn't been done for very long time. It is very inhuman. I suppose, most would find it horrible and it has little use now days. It also take a long time to do.
    Just as you can breed giants you can breed monsters.
    Last edited by Andro; 06-15-2019 at 06:32 AM. Reason: Thread topic management.
    Formerly known as Avaar186.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    430
    Blog Entries
    7
    Diverse and specific breeding is logical to create future people with zero genetic issues. Enforcement is inhuman yes. However Ignorance of the fact is negligent. Medical intervention had already supersedes survival of the fittest. We are aware of inbreeding. Inbreeding bad. However at this point genetically we are simply playing Russian roulette. Hoping That random breeding will yield the best, brightest, and healthyist
    Ok. There's no real survival of the fittest when it comes to biological evolution. Its apparent in the behaviour of the natural world but not genetics..
    Its luck ? that your species had enough random adaptation and mutation in a series to end up as you. Your 0.1% that made it this far.

    There's is no genetic perfection. What works in one atmosphere doesn't in another.
    Breeding programs eugenics is a crok of shit, you wanna swap a load of traits for some others
    and call it evolution. Try and force the mutations you want and control the outcome.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    There's is no genetic perfection. What works in one atmosphere doesn't in another.
    Breeding programs eugenics is a crok of shit, you wanna swap a load of traits for some others
    and call it evolution. Try and force the mutations you want and control the outcome.

    Breeders aren't trying to reach genetic perfection...just genetic improvement. Anyone that has experience breeding plants/animals knows that you will end up with a healthier population if you prevent the small/weak/sick individuals from contributing to the genome. This is why the vast majority of farmers choose which male/female animals will create new progeny. Allowing a small, weak, sickly animal to contribute to your population genome just because "it's natural"....is not very smart in the long run. It's definitely compassionate on an individual level, but cruel on a large scale. This is one of the reasons humans have been practicing animal husbandry for 15000 years.

    Here's a quote from eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger...
    It has often been said, and never with more truth than at the present time, that man breeds his cattle with more intelligence and care than he breeds his own kind.
    I used to think of human life as special and divine and worth protecting at all costs. But in the end we are just animals that aren't even advanced enough to maintain the integrity of our own planet. When natural selection is suppressed by unnatural industrial conditions...uncontrolled breeding becomes unacceptable in the long term, and the elites know this.






    EDIT....Sorry Andro, didn't see your earlier post asking to stay on topic. I'm bad with that. I'll leave it but if you want to move or delete this post that's fine.
    Last edited by Dendritic Xylem; 06-14-2019 at 08:41 PM. Reason: off topic

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,014
    Tough stuff guys..

    Just a few (rhetorical) questions to your views:

    Who do you think shall be in charge to decide which criteria one has to fullfill to be allowed to reproduce?

    What shall happen with "accidents", or children that are born after a rape?

    Do you know that the Nazis already tried a similar program like the one you are proposing? You might have heard about it, or at least seen the movies:



    What do you think about Social Darwinism?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    2
    Nature loves biodiversity. We should apply the same to human babies.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    122
    Blog Entries
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Dendritic Xylem View Post
    Breeders aren't trying to reach genetic perfection...just genetic improvement.
    Improved to serve OUR purposes. Regarding animal husbandry and the domestication of animals, many of them would no longer survive in a natural state. They've been selected for the most meat or other product with minimal care and feed.

    This is especially true with dog breeds (not equipped to survive in the wild)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Do you know that the Nazis already tried a similar program like the one you are proposing?

    What do you think about Social Darwinism?
    Where did I propose that we start a program on humans? All I said was that natural/selective breeding can bring out good traits and eliminate bad (like disease susceptibility). Then I posted a quote from a eugenicist pointing out how we don't care about the health of our own collective genome like we do that of cattle. I don't necessarily like her btw, just think it's a thoughtful quote. Social Darwinism is real to a certain extent, but it is very necessary that it be suppressed because it obviously breeds racism/hate/nationalism. If you think that darwinism applies to all living plants/animals in nature, but not humans...then at what point during our evolution from primates did we cease to be influenced by darwinism? Was it a gradual loss of influence, or did someone just flip off the darwinism switch for our species?


    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Nature loves biodiversity. We should apply the same to human babies.

    Biodiversity is essential for healthy populations. Without genetic diversity you end up with genetic bottlenecking and the problems that can come from inbreeding. I never said that we need to eliminate certain types of babies. Just that selective breeding and natural selection can eliminate undesired traits in plants/animals. Unfortunately, natural selection is heavily suppressed in our own species, and selective breeding is blasphemous (with humans). So I don't have an answer to the problem. But I know nature actually isn't perfect. Wild animals/plants which are pure landraces and haven't been modified by humans are still susceptible to certain diseases and pests. These susceptibilities can be selectively bred out of the plant after many generations of careful breeding without using any kind of unnatural genetic modification techniques. Just good old fashioned selective gardening can create plants that are more likely to survive in their natural environment. Hybridization can be used for both good and bad...

    In the mid-1990's, wildlife biologists saved the endangered Florida panther from extinction by crossbreeding it with the closely related Texas cougar. That program opened the way for the use of hybridization in saving endangered species.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/sc...-new-ones.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Marcus View Post
    Improved to serve OUR purposes. Regarding animal husbandry and the domestication of animals, many of them would no longer survive in a natural state. They've been selected for the most meat or other product with minimal care and feed.

    This is especially true with dog breeds (not equipped to survive in the wild)
    Yes, most large breeding operations serve us more than nature. I'm against GMO and Monsanto. Big ag creates mutant plants to boost yields without any concern for the nutritional quality of the produce. It is a shame. But this poor use of genetic manipulation is relatively recent in human history. Thousands of years ago farmers would select the healthiest animals to reproduce. This lead to more robust and hardy populations. As for your comment about dog breeds not being able to survive in the wild. Domestication has a far bigger influence on that than genetics. 99% of domesticated indoor cats/dogs have been psychologically damaged by their owners through coddling and not teaching the animal how to hunt/fend for itself in the wild. A pet lost in the wild will probably starve from lack of experience in finding food, not from poor breeding.


    Humans are also becoming increasingly domesticated. I think this will hurt us physically, psychologically, and spiritually.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Dendritic Xylem View Post
    Where did I propose that we start a program on humans? All I said was that natural/selective breeding can bring out good traits and eliminate bad (like disease susceptibility). Then I posted a quote from a eugenicist pointing out how we don't care about the health of our own collective genome like we do that of cattle.
    One of the obvious problems is that nobody can truly foresee the future... So it is impossible to know which genes can be potentially good.
    i.e, more or less a decade ago a friend decided to have a partner who is HIV positive. He said that he didn't care about becoming infected by the virus eventually because he was sure that he wanted to be with that person. Anyway, he began to take HIV tests periodically. They were always giving negative results. Finally the doctors found out that he was immune to the virus... Our cells have a code that allows the virus to get in and replicate itself... His cells have a slightly different code and the virus can't get in. Now they are investigating him as to find better medicines against HIV.

    So he has a good trait because of circunstancial reasons (i.e, the HIV virus could have never existed, or it could have been different)... but such thing is impossible to foresee.
    I.e, maybe 5% of the persons are currently immune to a virus that will show up in 2030.. but nobody can know in advance how that 2030 virus will be, nor it would be possible to identify who are the ones that have a "good trait" when it comes to something that does not even exist yet.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    5,918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Just as some viruses transmit disease, some viruses can also transmit immunity to various diseases or other genetic traits. It's a multi-edged sword... A "virus" can infect your computer but it could also deliver significant upgrades to your OS... Most people probably have only a limited understanding of those tiny code-carriers

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    2
    In theory it would be good to get rid of weak people. Weak in mind that is, those that fold under pressure... those that give up in a disaster. Usually the more privelege people have the weaker they get.

    We should eliminate 95 % of the population. Indigenous are 4% of humans so I am fine with keeping 1 % of the ”non-indigenous” people.

    Stone Age life worked fine for 100 000+ years. Anything since the pyramids has not been impressive. I am not impressed.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.


+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts