Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting. If you know better what I did, then I cannot help it.

I am aware what you wrote, the thing is that you bring in morale in terms of judgement dressed as biologic facts. When one makes a decision what genetic defects are ok and what not, one makes a judgement call = morale.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Second, I wanted to draw attention to a medical conseqeunce of modern medical treatement, and that is that by doing so we reduce the evolutionary mechnaism of survival of the fittest. We indeed weaken our gene pool that way, whether we like to realise that or not is not the issue here: we nevertheless do. That is a problem that compares to the growing life expectancy due to modern mdeical treatement: it increases costs of the medical system, and sees eiother health system collapsing, or trewatement that is efféctive more and more only affordable for the rich, while the poor do not get it. Talking of 2- or 3-class medicine here. Also, with the share of old population becoming bigger and the share of payiong young population becoming smaller, there are financial problems to which so far nobody has an answer.
All these trhings are factual problems that nobody adresses and noboy can solve so far. Many diseases that are genetically transferred from generation to generation, withion families, thus are spreading, that is a fact. As a race, the homo sapiens in general that is, we become weaker and sicker. That has nothing to do with eugenics or rtace theory. It must be allowed to point out an implication that has a controversial reputation without getting accused of being a racist or in defense of eugenics. Again, I made that clear from all beginning on that I ignored the moral perspective on it all.

The mechanism you refer to is survival of the best adapted. Otherwise the human species wouldn't have survived this long: we have no biological features that are outstanding, the only thing we are good at is adaption.
Here you also bring in the aspect of weakening the gene pool, weakening = judgement. What makes the human genom weaker, especially when regarding the fact that most of us are not fighting anymore in a hostile environment all day long?

The overpopulation issue has many aspects:
With so many people on Earth like never before, genetic deficites are better absorved than in a tribe with 20 people.
The young population becomes smaller only in 1st world countries, in a global scale we never had this many young ones before. So what do do? infinite growth can't be the sollution, somewhere there must be a point when we have many old ones.
You refer later to Diamond, I would like to draw your attention to "Guns, Germs and Steel" ("Arm und Reich" in german), especially the things about pack immunity, he writes about it regarding domestic animals as well as regarding humans. The fact that we live so crowded together today, makes the human species in fact more immune to diseases. Even without modern medicine, an outbreak of the plague would certainly be outstanding in terms of losses, but nowhere as devestating in terms of percentages of the population which are affected as it was in medieval tuimes.
I'm not promoting overpopulation by this, btw, just bringing in some aspects.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And on the old being treated in earlier times. [...]

I am also aware of that, that's what I meant by that they were fed if possible

Originally Posted by Skybird

And then I recommend the chapter on the genocide in Ruanda, in the book "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond. There he shows a demographic analysis of the population age structure, and shows that there was a huge rivalry betweern the poseessing old generations qwho could live off their possessions,w hile the young oines had no place and ressources left for themselves to found families, and that this inner tension formed an inner dynamic of highly destructive energy that decisively contributed to the outbreak of the killing.

This sounds quite interesting, I have Collapse on my night table, didn't made it yet to read more than the chapter about the settlers in Greenland - but I hope that I'll have more time in the next weeks to read it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

So, wars also were a way by which demographic pressure was solved.

the war which set the European people most back, in terms of population (growth) was the 30 Years' War - even then there was a slight pop growth. The reason for it rooted certainly not in demographic pressure...

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your implication of the "edle Wilde" who does not do brutal things to the old and cared for them so much better than we do, is a bit one-sided, I would say. From all eras and continets you can find many examples illustrating the opposite.

lol, where did I imply that I have these hippie thoughts about the morally higher natives?

Originally Posted by Skybird

And when I look at the conditions in some of our contemporary "Pflegeheime", then I remember many examples from the media (and my own experience when I did my practicals at hospitals) that have taught me that my life may become of a kind that I may want to conclude that the price for living any longer may become too high and that it is better to make a certain decision by myself instead of leaving it to fate and random chance alone.

Regarding your previous facts, about the how old ones in history, cynically speaking, we could say that they can take one for the team
No, I get what you mean, but the treatment of old ones in our society has nothing to do with the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thinbking about my intial posting with a little bit more of sober mind and a little bit less of sentimentality, is of the essence. The implications I point at, are real, they are problematic, and so far they are unsolved.

Thanks, I am sober now! I'm sure you mean a rational mind, so no offence taken. I have no sentimentality for old times, I was pointing towards the fact that we have evolved and live in a society and not in the jungle anymore. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, now that I read it)


btw: I won't be able to answer you untill Sunday, so don't think that I back off from the discussion when I don't answer eventually...

[Armistead]

Just who is the guy having sex with? If he is so incapable that he's going after children or the mentally ill, then surely these women must have clue about his mental state. If women choose to sleep with him without worry of STD's, using protection, etc, they are at fault. Millions do this, why STD's are epidemic.
Don't blame him, he's just trying to get laid, blame the women that sleep with him.
Many civil suits have been won against people giving STD's...Not sure about the crime of it.

[tater]

This case is a pretty horrible assault on personal liberty. If the women were unable to give consent, then that would be rape, and illegal.

If they can say that he's too dumb to have sex, shall they test bimbos before they are allowed to put out? The inner city pregnancy rate out of wedlock is very high, so are they too dumb to understand as well? How about ugly people, don;t they realize that 2 ugly people are more likely to breed unattractive kids?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I am aware what you wrote, the thing is that you bring in morale in terms of judgement dressed as biologic facts. When one makes a decision what genetic defects are ok and what not, one makes a judgement call = morale.

I did not judge anything. But certain diseases are genetically caused, and can be given on to the offspring of an according ill parent. To say that does not judge that defect as okay or unacceptable - it just says that certain genetic defects are not object of relativisation, but are defects, and just this: defects. There is no known benefit in hemophilia - different to sichel cell anaemia that seems to aid the body in the curing of Malaria and thus can be argued to be of benefit for the body - at the price of other disadvantages, of course.

If I would have said that African negroes are black-skinned, would you also accuse me of a moral judgement, and racism, becasue I say they are black-skinned...? Hardly.

The mechanism you refer to is survival of the best adapted. Otherwise the human species wouldn't have survived this long: we have no biological features that are outstanding, the only thing we are good at is adaption.

That is wrong. Our hands, our brain sturcture, our erected walking, the construction of our voice apparatu, the weight relation between "Unterhautfettgewebe" and muscle mass, our preferred mating psoiton and the accoprding psoition of our internal sexual organs, our sweat glands in the body skin, and the tear glands in our eyes as well as our way of reacting to pain and emtoion with tears - all these are outstanding biological charcteristics that separate us from any other species, may it be chimps or gorillas, may it be whales or dolphins.

Here you also bring in the aspect of weakening the gene pool, weakening = judgement.

No. Reporting on the physical disadvanatge (vulnerability by genetic defects limiting sensory or body functions and making the organism prone to diseases or environmental factors that another subject of said species with normal operational parameters ) is no judging. It is accepting reality. A bleeder has a handicap that is dangerous for him, giving him just a vulnerability,k but no advanatge to comensate it with. A person with a neurlogical deisease making it unable for this person to move the right leg, is just this: a person with the inability to move the right leg. Moral criterions and judgments have nothign to do with it.

What makes the human genom weaker, especially when regarding the fact that most of us are not fighting anymore in a hostile environment all day long?

Everything that produces more individuals designed by the human genome that cannot survive without medical treatement, for the need of medical treatement is not part of the evolutionary deswign study of the sampe called homo sapiens. That a person with diabetes needs to inject insuline in order to live, securtes his life, yes. But it is not the biological norm nor has it any advantage to be like that nor does it represent any kind od adaption to the envrionment. Diabetes it is a malfunction, caused both by nutritional and egnetical variables.

The overpopulation issue has many aspects:
With so many people on Earth like never before, genetic deficites are better absorved than in a tribe with 20 people.

Hardly. We have more people in Europe than ever before, but we also have a bigger share of the population needing glasses. There also is a bigger share of the population that are bleeders. That is becasue more of them survive olong enough to reproduce. In earlier times they cut themselves by accident and died long before they became fertile. I even once read a theory that before the 17th century the overall percentage of bleeder amongst the population was falling, becasue most of them did not survive their first quarter of statistical life expectancy.

The young population becomes smaller only in 1st world countries, in a global scale we never had this many young ones before. So what do do? infinite growth can't be the sollution, somewhere there must be a point when we have many old ones.
You refer later to Diamond, I would like to draw your attention to "Guns, Germs and Steel" ("Arm und Reich" in german), especially the things about pack immunity, he writes about it regarding domestic animals as well as regarding humans. The fact that we live so crowded together today, makes the human species in fact more immune to diseases. Even without modern medicine, an outbreak of the plague would certainly be outstanding in terms of losses, but nowhere as devestating in terms of percentages of the population which are affected as it was in medieval tuimes.
I'm not promoting overpopulation by this, btw, just bringing in some aspects.[/quote]
I know Jarred Diamonds books, I have extensively recommended both books in earlier threats. I even summarised the basic structure of "Collapse" in a separate threat some time ago. There I also recommended some more books on these issues.

This sounds quite interesting, I have Collapse on my night table, didn't made it yet to read more than the chapter about the settlers in Greenland - but I hope that I'll have more time in the next weeks to read it.

A brilliant lecture. It should become mandatory reading in higher school classes, and for all political and economical leaders. I found it much more interesting and relevant than Guns, Germs and Steel, but both beloing together, in a way.

the war which set the European people most back, in terms of population (growth) was the 30 Years' War - even then there was a slight pop growth. The reason for it rooted certainly not in demographic pressure...

That was just one war - how amyn others have there been? I just remind of the "Völkerweanderung" of the Vandales which brought them into conflict with Rome, and the Mayans and Aztecs waging war in order to rpdeuce the numbers of victims they needed to appease their deities during sacrificing rituals when their supply basis became thing due to the population having become to big and the cities too huge.

lol, where did I imply that I have these hippie thoughts about the morally higher natives?

When you generalised, at least gave a general statement, that all cultures before us, implying also the primitive ones, always take care for their elder.

Thanks, I am sober now! I'm sure you mean a rational mind, so no offence taken. I have no sentimentality for old times, I was pointing towards the fact that we have evolved and live in a society and not in the jungle anymore. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, now that I read it)

That does not matter. We still dpeend on physical bodies, and we still suffer from these hulls becoming dysfunctional. And when we increase the number of causes for erratic indiovidual designs ands allow these samples to reproduce, then we also increase the number of dysfuctional genes in the gene pool. The numbers have their own logic to follow, self-reproducing growth rates of variables in any given populations often are not linear, but logarithmical (?word?). That'S what I pointed out. If for example we have bleeders reproducing just for long enoiugh, at one far away time in the future bleeder-genes then will be present in the majority of the population, like in case of global skin colour every scientist anbd every mathematican show you that if all people reproduce with all people despite national and cultural borders and over different continents, a mixture of colour genes will take place that ultimately must lead to to a light brownish skin colpur becoming the dominant ferature in all mankind. Like today the lack of dense body furs also has become a dominant feature.

btw: I won't be able to answer you untill Sunday, so don't think that I back off from the discussion when I don't answer eventually...

No worry, I am at the point where I just can start to repeat what I said. All I wanted was to reject claims that my posting propagated eugenics or supremacist race ntheories or naything like that. I just referred to an implict problem to which medicine or ethics or philosphy or politics or society so far have not found an answer to.