Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Originally posted by soficrow

We have changed our external and internal/cellular environments radically. So much so, that we need to adapt and evolve or we we won't survive in our "new" world.

...How can you tell who carries the appropriate adaptations and mutations needed for species survival?

BTW - "Survival of the Fittest" doesn't wash. The rules have changed.

We have changed (mainly in the areas of consciousness) but to assume we have somehow transcended natural biology is absurd. The same laws that govern lions and gazelles govern us, regardless of how much we try to rationalize that they don't. The minute we accept we are simply a highly evolved animal the better.

I have a group of 5 people. 1 of them is born without legs. It will cost the group more time and resources to support the legless individual than to not support him. It is in the inherent interest of the group to simply not deal with him. There is no predicting what traits are best, it's simply common sense. If someone's physical or mental abilities drain the resources and time of the group, they are undesirable, and the group would simply be better off without them.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by OrderOfTheDragon]

Originally posted by OrderOfTheDragon

Do you want a species of genetic dead ends, idiots, and physically incapable individuals or one with genetically fit, intelligent, healthy individuals? We should be looking out for, and advancing the collective, by removing the "chinks in the armor", instead of supporting them and unnaturally elevating their status.

Again - what measure will you use to determine who is "genetically fit" and "healthy" - that is, how will you know which adaptations and mutations will lead to the species' physical survival? ...because that's what's on the table. And remember, numerous apparently dis-ease-causing mutations in fact confer immunity to far worse problems - and are adaptive to environmental change.

What measure will you use to determine the most desirable kinds of "intelligence" - do you really think the culture-bound Sanford-Bidet is valid? That it covers all the necessary bases? How will you avoid personal (and cultural) bias in your testing? Do you even intend to make the effort?

...You seem to think that the meaning and value of terms like "genetically fit, intelligent, healthy" are clear, given and self-evident. May I suggest that they are anything but?

- sofi

Originally posted by OrderOfTheDragon

Originally posted by soficrow

We have changed our external and internal/cellular environments radically. So much so, that we need to adapt and evolve or we we won't survive in our "new" world.

...How can you tell who carries the appropriate adaptations and mutations needed for species survival?

BTW - "Survival of the Fittest" doesn't wash. The rules have changed.

We have changed (mainly in the areas of consciousness) but to assume we have somehow transcended natural biology is absurd.

Not what I meant at all. I'm referring to the fact that human interventions have altered the biological basis of life on the planet. Hence the 6th Mass Extinction.

The earth's species are undergoing an identifiable period of accelerated mutation and evolution - mankind included.

This acceleration is essential given the extent of environmental change. Many species will not survive; some will.

Moreover, I do not believe we have the knowledge, understanding, technology or wisdom to determine exactly what mutation might lead to the traits that guarantees species survival.

So it would be monumentally stupid to start knocking off any "useless eaters" just yet. Maybe hold off a bit until we figure out what's goin' down.

reply to post by soficrow


As a result of the rise of humanism beginning in the Enlightenment, each human life has become viewed as something sacred that must ultimately be preserved at all costs. Billions of people flood the planet and consume all they can, yet contribute little to society. Abstractions that hold absolutely no basis in the world outside our minds such as 'freedom' and 'progress' provide the ultimate foundation of society, serving as a justification for nearly unrestricted breeding and rampant devastation. Thousands of species have been wiped out, the concrete desert expands across the earth, and yet people imagine that switching to 'green' products will fix all our environmental problems. Linkola presents a harsh yet very real existence that will not continue to accommodate for our refusal to acknowledge it.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by soficrow

 

As a result of the rise of humanism beginning in the Enlightenment, each human life has become viewed as something sacred that must ultimately be preserved at all costs.

Not what I'm saying, not where I'm coming from.

Billions of people flood the planet and consume all they can, yet contribute little to society.

But factory farms are okay? ...crammed full of billions of animals, wallowing in their own feces, unable to turn around - because they're edible?

Abstractions that hold absolutely no basis in the world outside our minds such as 'freedom' and 'progress' provide the ultimate foundation of society, serving as a justification for nearly unrestricted breeding and rampant devastation.

Frankly, I think "progress" is a crock. But I sure as hell know what freedom is - and I know I like it.

Thousands of species have been wiped out, the concrete desert expands across the earth,

Blame corporate colonization, and wanton ill-conceived industrialization.

and yet people imagine that switching to 'green' products will fix all our environmental problems.

Mindless consumers, bred by corporate colonizers, manipulated to serve wanton ill-conceived industrialization.

Linkola presents a harsh yet very real existence that will not continue to accommodate for our refusal to acknowledge it.

You mean Pentti Linkola?

Kaarlo Pentti Linkola (born December 7, 1932 in Helsinki) is a radical Finnish deep ecologist[1], dissident, and fisherman[2]. He has written widely about his ideas and is a prominent thinker in Finland.[3][4] He lives a simple and austere life. He currently receives an old-age government pension, but he still fishes on Lake Vanajavesi.
Linkola blames humans for the continuous degradation of the environment. He promotes rapid population decline[5] in order to combat the problems commonly attributed to overpopulation. He is also strongly in favour of deindustrialization and opposes democracy for being an agent of wasteful capitalism and consumerism. He considers the proponents of economic growth to be ignorant of the subtle destructive effects which free market policies have had over the past two centuries.

en.wikipedia.org...

...I like a lot of what Linkola says. BUT.

I'm of the opinion that humans are hardwired to reproduce under stress, and in the face of danger/threat/death.

So - remove the ridiculous stressors, and people will stop breeding like rabbits, and the world will be in never-before-seen harmony.

The Eugenics for Depopulation agenda is moving forward - quietly and subtly gaining traction big time. Various apparently unrelated promotional campaigns have generated huge support from people who would not get behind the ideas if they knew where they're really being led.

I am reviving this thread since many of us saw that when this article came out we realized the "Extreme left" would make up any claim, including "fighting climate change/population control etc," to condone the murder of not only the unborn up to the date they are to be born, but also newborns. New York, Virginia and some other democrat states are advocating for infanticide.