Are all races equal?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Caligastia


No I didn't, I said that racial differences are a part of God's plan.
Your posts drip with sarcasm and arrogance. You have a nice vocabulary though.

Science has the power to explain much in the physical realm, but there are things that exist beyond mere science. Although racial differences can be explained in purely material terms, understanding their purpose requires an understanding of spiritual realities. That is not something I can pursuade you of, you have to discover it for yourself.

'Mere science' that's very funny- and you talk about my posts being arrogant.

Gosh, how I wish I had your understanding of spiritual realities- where can these 'realities' be located, I wonder? Are they next door to Never Never Land, perhaps?

I prefer Dr. Johnson's approach to mystic yongy bongy bo nonsense- give it a kick, and say, 'I refute it thus.'

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." "

Boswell: Life of Dr. Johnson

[Zero]

Originally posted by Caligastia

I would say so. Can you think of any situation in which having down syndrome would be an advantage?

Of course, under normal circumstances we would assume that down syndrome would be a harmful "mutation", but natural selection is not so kind always. "Normal" people could be wiped out if there is a disease that kills normal people but somehow down syndromed humans are immune to it. That is the reason why nature attempts to try all sorts of different ways in the first place isnt it?

Example easier to see is sickled celled anemics, because we dont have a real life example for when down syndrome could be advantageous. But just because it is not advantageous NOW does not mean it wont be later.

But the reason I mentioned down syndrom instead of sickle cell anemia is to judge your way of thinking. If I were to throw you sickle cell anemia as an example, the situation where sickle cell anemia would be advantageous is clear. What I can tell from is that you are the type of people who tend to think in terms of absoluteness. Such as down syndrome would be disadvantageous no matter what. That's too bad. You seem to limit yourself of possibilities and come up with conclusion right away, which isnt too good....

You really measure superiority by intelligence? Who says you have to be smart to be superior? Is this just your personal belief or was I not informed into a meeting when they decided to discuss what meaning of superior is? Damn must have missed that one, really I would have voted. Honestly

If there is no absolute sense of superiority, there is no need to argue about wether one race is superior over another. Now you can present a case that at this given time in this given moment, etc etc, but if you do so, I doubt that you're really gonna succeed and proving that is like proving "I am on top of the ferrris wheel" as it is spinning around.

When you consider the great genetic variety among humans in general, and the great variety in intelligence that goes along with that, doesn't it seem unlikely to you that the average intelligence of any two groups of people would be the same? It does to me. This is one of the main reasons I believe in differences in intelligence between races.

You really didnt understand the question I was raising then. Even if we can mark a clear distinction between two races, it doesnt matter if a smartest person can outsmart the dumbest in the other race. That in itself proves that you cant make distinction based on race, because then you are making a generalization. Using pure math you cant arrive to conclusion that group B > group A when group A = {1,2,3,4} group B = {2,3,4,5} or something like that. I forget how it goes but you know what i mean. Using the average = making a generalization. In addition to that you add genetic VS environment factor, then you lose the clarity in how you can make a measurement of superiority (Aka in your term intelligence) based on race alone.

I can make all kinds of generalizations, and often it MAY lead me to the truth. Things like "all Irish get drunk like a skunk almost everyday", "all chinese kids are good at math", "Hindu guys are funny as hell", does hold true in most of cases, and my experience tells me as well, thet this is true. All of my irish buddies drink heavily, I get major extra help from most of my chinese geeky friends, and I enjoy the company of hindu friends cause they are the funniest. But that doesnt make it necessarily true, and as long as it isnt the absolute truth, it doesnt make it a fact, and since that is the case with the race superiority, If you can prove to me that Race is what determines intellgience, best you can say is Saying "X race is superior over Y race is somewhat true, and may be the case." Or something like that, But I am getting tired so now its off to bed for me. I hope this was organized enough.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
According to your arguments:

Superiorty is measured by intelligence

Intelligence is measured by tests which lead to the conclusion that people from certain races are more "successful" than others

Success is measured in terms of material wealth.

So therefore, superiority is based on material wealth

You may not have "said" it, but this is what your arguments lead to, so I find it hard to believe that you don't actually equate success with "betterness". Isn't that what being superior is all about?

It's not that someone is a superior being if they are more intelligent, it's that the cognitive abilities of their material body are superior. Spiritual realities trump physical realities every time, and there is nobody on earth capable of judging an individual's spiritual worth.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


'Mere science' that's very funny- and you talk about my posts being arrogant.

Gosh, how I wish I had your understanding of spiritual realities- where can these 'realities' be located, I wonder? Are they next door to Never Never Land, perhaps?

I prefer Dr. Johnson's approach to mystic yongy bongy bo nonsense- give it a kick, and say, 'I refute it thus.'

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." "

Boswell: Life of Dr. Johnson

Sorry to challenge your belief in the power of science to explain all. If you have no interest in the discussion of spiritual matters, then that's just fine.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Calc II


Of course, under normal circumstances we would assume that down syndrome would be a harmful "mutation", but natural selection is not so kind always. "Normal" people could be wiped out if there is a disease that kills normal people but somehow down syndromed humans are immune to it. That is the reason why nature attempts to try all sorts of different ways in the first place isnt it?

Example easier to see is sickled celled anemics, because we dont have a real life example for when down syndrome could be advantageous. But just because it is not advantageous NOW does not mean it wont be later.

So you think we should preserve every malady known to man in case one of them ends up being advantageous? Sickle cell anemics cannot contract malaria, but surely it's better to find a cure for malaria than to propagate sickle cell anemia.

But the reason I mentioned down syndrom instead of sickle cell anemia is to judge your way of thinking. If I were to throw you sickle cell anemia as an example, the situation where sickle cell anemia would be advantageous is clear. What I can tell from is that you are the type of people who tend to think in terms of absoluteness. Such as down syndrome would be disadvantageous no matter what. That's too bad. You seem to limit yourself of possibilities and come up with conclusion right away, which isnt too good....

Don't get me wrong, I know that genetic diversity has great advantages, but that doesn't mean we should preserve every genetic mutation that arises just in case it becomes advantageous.

You really measure superiority by intelligence? Who says you have to be smart to be superior? Is this just your personal belief or was I not informed into a meeting when they decided to discuss what meaning of superior is? Damn must have missed that one, really I would have voted. Honestly

As I have pointed out to Master Zen, it's not that someone is a superior being if they are more intelligent, it's that the cognitive abilities of their material body are superior. Spiritual realities trump physical realities every time, and there is nobody on earth capable of judging an individual's spiritual worth.

If there is no absolute sense of superiority, there is no need to argue about wether one race is superior over another. Now you can present a case that at this given time in this given moment, etc etc, but if you do so, I doubt that you're really gonna succeed and proving that is like proving "I am on top of the ferrris wheel" as it is spinning around.

Absolute superiority cannot be judged at this stage, only physical superiority.

You really didnt understand the question I was raising then. Even if we can mark a clear distinction between two races, it doesnt matter if a smartest person can outsmart the dumbest in the other race. That in itself proves that you cant make distinction based on race, because then you are making a generalization. Using pure math you cant arrive to conclusion that group B > group A when group A = {1,2,3,4} group B = {2,3,4,5} or something like that. I forget how it goes but you know what i mean. Using the average = making a generalization. In addition to that you add genetic VS environment factor, then you lose the clarity in how you can make a measurement of superiority (Aka in your term intelligence) based on race alone.

I can make all kinds of generalizations, and often it MAY lead me to the truth. Things like "all Irish get drunk like a skunk almost everyday", "all chinese kids are good at math", "Hindu guys are funny as hell", does hold true in most of cases, and my experience tells me as well, thet this is true. All of my irish buddies drink heavily, I get major extra help from most of my chinese geeky friends, and I enjoy the company of hindu friends cause they are the funniest. But that doesnt make it necessarily true, and as long as it isnt the absolute truth, it doesnt make it a fact, and since that is the case with the race superiority, If you can prove to me that Race is what determines intellgience, best you can say is Saying "X race is superior over Y race is somewhat true, and may be the case." Or something like that, But I am getting tired so now its off to bed for me. I hope this was organized enough.

I think you confuse making a judgement on an individual on the basis of their race with making a generalization regarding a group. Of course the former is ludicrous, but group generalizations can still be accurate. For example, you could make a general statement that "on average the survival skills of those in the military are superior to the survival skills of civilians". That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, of course there are, but the generalization is still accurate.

[Ben Kenobi]

No I didn't, I said that racial differences are a part of God's plan.

Cali, I'm not afraid of these kinds of discussions. Do you care to go into some more detail? Where is this in God's plan?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Cali, I'm not afraid of these kinds of discussions. Do you care to go into some more detail? Where is this in God's plan?

Maybe God faxed it to him or sent him an e-mail.

[Master Zen]

Caligastia:

just wanted to remind you of this response:

quote:
Originally posted by Calc II


Is your definition of "superiority" by intelligence?

quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia

Yes.

So now you're saying it is the "cognotive abilities of the material body" that matter. Make up your mind!

And then absolute superiority cannot be measured. Well of course it can't! And since absolute superiority takes into account "testable" and "non-testable" intelligence, then absolute intelligence also cannot be measured.

Nuff said.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Cali, I'm not afraid of these kinds of discussions. Do you care to go into some more detail? Where is this in God's plan?

Well, as a few people here already know, I am an avid reader of the Urantia Book. Here's a quote so you can see where I am coming from.

There are many good and sufficient reasons for the plan of evolving either three or six colored races on the worlds of space. Though Urantia mortals may not be in a position fully to appreciate all of these reasons, we would call attention to the following:

1. Variety is indispensable to opportunity for the wide functioning of natural selection, differential survival of superior strains.

2. Stronger and better races are to be had from the interbreeding of diverse peoples when these different races are carriers of superior inheritance factors. And the Urantia races would have benefited by such an early amalgamation provided such a conjoint people could have been subsequently effectively upstepped by a thoroughgoing admixture with the superior Adamic stock. The attempt to execute such an experiment on Urantia under present racial conditions would be highly disastrous.

3. Competition is healthfully stimulated by diversification of races.

4. Differences in status of the races and of groups within each race are essential to the development of human tolerance and altruism.

5. Homogeneity of the human race is not desirable until the peoples of an evolving world attain comparatively high levels of spiritual development.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper64.html

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So now you're saying it is the "cognotive abilities of the material body" that matter. Make up your mind!

Considering that we were talking about race, which is a completely material thing, I didn't think I needed to specify that I was not referring to absolute superiority.

And then absolute superiority cannot be measured. Well of course it can't! And since absolute superiority takes into account "testable" and "non-testable" intelligence, then absolute intelligence also cannot be measured.

Nuff said.

All righty then.

[Ben Kenobi]

Caligastia, I've never heard of the Urantia book before, so thanks for taking the time to repeat what you have doubtlessly said earlier.

5. Homogeneity of the human race is not desirable until the peoples of an evolving world attain comparatively high levels of spiritual development.

Agree. Many Christians say that the world will not be one until the Second Coming.

2. Stronger and better races are to be had from the interbreeding of diverse peoples when these different races are carriers of superior inheritance factors.

Agree in part. However, you must remember that there is far more genetic difference within a race than between the averages of the races.

Where I disagree is with the superior inheritance factors. What do they consist of? Are these limited to one race?

1. Variety is indispensable to opportunity for the wide functioning of natural selection, differential survival of superior strains.

A couple problems here. Variety emerges within a species through natural selection, not the other way around. Small differences, at least according to Darwin are accentuated over time and changes in the environment.

3. Competition is healthfully stimulated by diversification of races.

4. Differences in status of the races and of groups within each race are essential to the development of human tolerance and altruism.

No, both are not necessarily true. Competition between diversified races can be unhealthy and destructive, as seen in numerous wars or even the Holocaust.

Racial differences are not necessary for altruism. Altruism consists of helping someone who is unable to help you, so in what sense is race implied?

Finally, the big question is how is this God's plan? How do you reconcile God's plan with natural selection that allows chance as the primary operator in evolution?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Well, as a few people here already know, I am an avid reader of the Urantia Book. Here's a quote so you can see where I am coming from.



http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper64.html

Good grief- and this is the person who mocked 'mere' science.

Well, next time you want to see a television programme, or use the refrigerator, or a lift, or drive a car, or travel in an aeroplane, or go to a hospital- don't bother with 'mere' science, or its products- try channeling Elijah or King Arthur and see where it gets you.

Your posts have lost all semblance of a link with reality- perhaps you should take up running a New Age shop selling dragon figurines and patent nostrums and listening out for the harmony of the spheres.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Caligastia, I've never heard of the Urantia book before, so thanks for taking the time to repeat what you have doubtlessly said earlier.

Actually I haven't gone as in depth as you now seems willing to go, so no worries.

Agree in part. However, you must remember that there is far more genetic difference within a race than between the averages of the races.

I agree.

Where I disagree is with the superior inheritance factors. What do they consist of? Are these limited to one race?

They certainly are not limited to one race, all races have individuals with superior inheritance factors, and... well perhaps it's better if I give you another quote:

"
RACIAL MIXTURES

There are no pure races in the world today. The early and original evolutionary peoples of color have only two representative races persisting in the world, the yellow man and the black man; and even these two races are much admixed with the extinct colored peoples. While the so-called white race is predominantly descended from the ancient blue man, it is admixed more or less with all other races much as is the red man of the Americas.

Of the six colored Sangik races, three were primary and three were secondary. Though the primary races--blue, red, and yellow--were in many respects superior to the three secondary peoples, it should be remembered that these secondary races had many desirable traits which would have considerably enhanced the primary peoples if their better strains could have been absorbed.

Present-day prejudice against "half-castes," "hybrids," and "mongrels" arises because modern racial crossbreeding is, for the greater part, between the grossly inferior strains of the races concerned. You also get unsatisfactory offspring when the degenerate strains of the same race intermarry.

If the present-day races of Urantia could be freed from the curse of their lowest strata of deteriorated, antisocial, feeble-minded, and outcast specimens, there would be little objection to a limited race amalgamation. And if such racial mixtures could take place between the highest types of the several races, still less objection could be offered.

Hybridization of superior and dissimilar stocks is the secret of the creation of new and more vigorous strains. And this is true of plants, animals, and the human species. Hybridization augments vigor and increases fertility. Race mixtures of the average or superior strata of various peoples greatly increase creative potential, as is shown in the present population of the United States of North America. When such matings take place between the lower or inferior strata, creativity is diminished, as is shown by the present-day peoples of southern India.

Race blending greatly contributes to the sudden appearance of new characteristics, and if such hybridization is the union of superior strains, then these new characteristics will also be superior traits.

As long as present-day races are so overloaded with inferior and degenerate strains, race intermingling on a large scale would be most detrimental, but most of the objections to such experiments rest on social and cultural prejudices rather than on biological considerations. Even among inferior stocks, hybrids often are an improvement on their ancestors. Hybridization makes for species improvement because of the role of the dominant genes. Racial intermixture increases the likelihood of a larger number of the desirable dominants being present in the hybrid.

For the past hundred years more racial hybridization has been taking place on Urantia than has occurred in thousands of years. The danger of gross disharmonies as a result of crossbreeding of human stocks has been greatly exaggerated. The chief troubles of "half-breeds" are due to social prejudices.

The Pitcairn experiment of blending the white and Polynesian races turned out fairly well because the white men and the Polynesian women were of fairly good racial strains. Interbreeding between the highest types of the white, red, and yellow races would immediately bring into existence many new and biologically effective characteristics. These three peoples belong to the primary Sangik races. Mixtures of the white and black races are not so desirable in their immediate results, neither are such mulatto offspring so objectionable as social and racial prejudice would seek to make them appear. Physically, such white-black hybrids are excellent specimens of humanity, notwithstanding their slight inferiority in some other respects.

When a primary Sangik race amalgamates with a secondary Sangik race, the latter is considerably improved at the expense of the former. And on a small scale--extending over long periods of time--there can be little serious objection to such a sacrificial contribution by the primary races to the betterment of the secondary groups. Biologically considered, the secondary Sangiks were in some respects superior to the primary races.

After all, the real jeopardy of the human species is to be found in the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples rather than in any supposed danger of their racial interbreeding."

A couple problems here. Variety emerges within a species through natural selection, not the other way around. Small differences, at least according to Darwin are accentuated over time and changes in the environment.

Right, but if you have racial variety, that allows for the "wide functioning of natural selection". Remember, that quote I gave you was pointing out the benefits of existing variety, not explaining how variety emerges.

No, both are not necessarily true. Competition between diversified races can be unhealthy and destructive, as seen in numerous wars or even the Holocaust.

Well, I guess it depends on whether you see competition as being a good thing overall or not, which I do. But competition is only a stepping stone. Competition is good, but co-operation is better.

Racial differences are not necessary for altruism. Altruism consists of helping someone who is unable to help you, so in what sense is race implied?

It's not just a matter of different races being essential to altruism, it's that different races are just another way in which the status of humans can vary. And how can altruism exist without differences in status? If we were all the same altruism would not be possible.

Finally, the big question is how is this God's plan? How do you reconcile God's plan with natural selection that allows chance as the primary operator in evolution?

While chance and natural selection are a part of evolution, there are also beings known as Life Carriers who help evolution in the right direction.(am I getting too crazy for you yet?)

Here's a link to a paper that describes the functions of Life Carriers:

http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Good grief- and this is the person who mocked 'mere' science.

Well, next time you want to see a television programme, or use the refrigerator, or a lift, or drive a car, or travel in an aeroplane, or go to a hospital- don't bother with 'mere' science, or its products- try channeling Elijah or King Arthur and see where it gets you.

Your posts have lost all semblance of a link with reality- perhaps you should take up running a New Age shop selling dragon figurines and patent nostrums and listening out for the harmony of the spheres.

I only use the word 'mere' when I describe science because spirit realities are of far greater importance than material realities. Of course science is extremely valuable to us mortals, but that is merely on the material plane.

You have a great sense of humor.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I don't think I agree, but thanks for sharing.

And how can altruism exist without differences in status?

Status differences have nothing to do with racial differences. There are plenty of differences in status within any particular race. Altruism has more to do with helping those who cannot help you regardless of status.

For example, a poor man can be altruistic to a rich man if he is unaware of the difference in status. The poor man might offer an incognito rich man a cup of coffee, and be regarded as altruistic. Granted this is not common, but it is possible.

I guess the biggest philosophical problem I have with your position is the concept that all persons are equal in worth and value, though differing in physical capacity.

Sections like this cause me to doubt Urantia's understanding of equality of worth.

If the present-day races of Urantia could be freed from the curse of their lowest strata of deteriorated, antisocial, feeble-minded, and outcast specimens,

Also,

...between the grossly inferior strains of the races concerned. You also get unsatisfactory offspring when the degenerate strains of the same race intermarry.

When such matings take place between the lower or inferior strata, creativity is diminished, as is shown by the present-day peoples of southern India.

As long as present-day races are so overloaded with inferior and degenerate strains, race intermingling on a large scale would be most detrimental,

Finally, something I think Che will take offense to:

Mixtures of the white and black races are not so desirable in their immediate results, neither are such mulatto offspring so objectionable as social and racial prejudice would seek to make them appear. Physically, such white-black hybrids are excellent specimens of humanity, notwithstanding their slight inferiority in some other respects.

Instead of purifying bloodlines through keeping races seperate, you wish to purify bloodlines by combining the best of each race. It's the same concept rooted in the same corrosive ethic that some people are less valuable than others. How does one decide who the valuable people are?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Caligastia



You have a great sense of humor.

Yes, I agree- but unlike yours and the You rantier author's, it's intentional. Ancient blue men- why not paisley, or striped? Anyone for purple polka dot pithecanthropus?

Really, it is to larf.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Status differences have nothing to do with racial differences. There are plenty of differences in status within any particular race. Altruism has more to do with helping those who cannot help you regardless of status.

Altruism is when you help someone purely out of the goodness of your heart, and not for your own material gain. For this to be possible, humans must be of different status so that those of higher status can exercise altruism towards those of lower status. Without situations of social inequality, there can be no altruism.

I guess the biggest philosophical problem I have with your position is the concept that all persons are equal in worth and value, though differing in physical capacity.

Spiritually, we are all brothers and sisters. If we recognise that simple fact, and stop thinking in purely material terms, it's easy to understand why God loves us all equally.

Sections like this cause me to doubt Urantia's understanding of equality of worth.

That's because you have to realise that a person's race is completely seperate from their spiritual worth.

Finally, something I think Che will take offense to:

The Urantia Book is very blunt in it's discussion of biological matters. Where is the need for sensitivity and tact when you are basically talking about different types of organic matter? Once again, you must separate the idea of a person's body being in any way related to their worth.

Instead of purifying bloodlines through keeping races seperate, you wish to purify bloodlines by combining the best of each race. It's the same concept rooted in the same corrosive ethic that some people are less valuable than others. How does one decide who the valuable people are?

The real personality, the real person, has nothing to do with flesh and blood. Some genetic compositions are less valuable than others, but this has nothing to do with the worth of the person that resides within that body.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Yes, I agree- but unlike yours and the You rantier author's, it's intentional. Ancient blue men- why not paisley, or striped? Anyone for purple polka dot pithecanthropus?

Really, it is to larf.

If you think it's all so worthless, why are you continuing this conversation? It must be for the sake of your own ego, as you have no interest in discussion, only ridicule.

[ottok]

Egual or at similar?

[Ben Kenobi]

Altruism is when you help someone purely out of the goodness of your heart, and not for your own material gain.

Surely a poor person could offer help to a rich person out of the goodness of their own heart, and not expect recompense? I agree this is not the usual case, but by your definition this should be possible. The key is not the difference in status, but the intention, to help without expecting reward.

Spiritually, we are all brothers and sisters. If we recognise that simple fact, and stop thinking in purely material terms, it's easy to understand why God loves us all equally.

That's because you have to realise that a person's race is completely seperate from their spiritual worth.

Agreed.

Some genetic compositions are less valuable than others, but this has nothing to do with the worth of the person that resides within that body.

Where is the need for sensitivity and tact when you are basically talking about different types of organic matter?

Ahh. Now I see the divide.

Is the spiritual realm completely seperate from the physical realm, or is there some connection and interaction between the two?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Caligastia


If you think it's all so worthless, why are you continuing this conversation? It must be for the sake of your own ego, as you have no interest in discussion, only ridicule.

I like the Theatre of the Absurd.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Surely a poor person could offer help to a rich person out of the goodness of their own heart, and not expect recompense? I agree this is not the usual case, but by your definition this should be possible. The key is not the difference in status, but the intention, to help without expecting reward.

Yes, but differences in status are necessary, because even in your scenario, the poor person would have helped because they recognised a need of some kind. The action is unselfish of course, but there has to be a need of some kind in order to initiate action. The difference between one who needs and one who doesn't is a difference in status, even if it is only momentary.

Ahh. Now I see the divide.

Is the spiritual realm completely seperate from the physical realm, or is there some connection and interaction between the two?

There are connections, but not in any way that would affect the true value of any individual.

[ottok]

and?

[Master Zen]

This thread is starting to get waaay to religious...

So it's bye bye time for me!

BTW, ottok, you RULE! (even if I don't understand half the things you say)

[Ben Kenobi]

Caligastia-

If the body is just a sack of meat, then why does it matter that some are 'degenerate' or worse off?

Why should we try to improve the human race by cross-breeding the strong people from each race?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Caligastia-

If the body is just a sack of meat, then why does it matter that some are 'degenerate' or worse off?

Why should we try to improve the human race by cross-breeding the strong people from each race?

Well, a lot of suffering is caused by degenerate stocks. Imagine how much less suffering there would be on this planet if our immune systems were twice as strong as they are now, and if we could improve the average intelligence of all humans, I'm sure I don't have to point out the benefits of that to you.

Also bear in mind that nobody on this planet is really qualified to decide who is fit or unfit. Here's another quote that explains this:

These six evolutionary races are destined to be blended and exalted by amalgamation with the progeny of the Adamic uplifters. But before these peoples are blended, the inferior and unfit are largely eliminated. The Planetary Prince and the Material Son, with other suitable planetary authorities, pass upon the fitness of the reproducing strains. The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.

So although we are not competent to judge the fitness of "reproducing strains", we ought to be able to recognise those who are obviously unfit. For example, those with severe mental handicaps perpetuated by defective genes.

I don't think the gene pool will be improved by traditional eugenic means, I reckon it's more likely that we will improve our knowledge of genetic engineering to such a degree that we will be able to eliminate defective genes without many restrictions on procreation.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I thought this thread was toast...

Caligastia:

So although we are not competent to judge the fitness of "reproducing strains", we ought to be able to recognise those who are obviously unfit. For example, those with severe mental handicaps perpetuated by defective genes.

This is the problem. How can beings who are unqualified to judge the hard cases, are now qualified to judge the so-called 'easy' cases?

Why do the mentally-handicapped suffer from their body?

I don't think the gene pool will be improved by traditional eugenic means, I reckon it's more likely that we will improve our knowledge of genetic engineering to such a degree that we will be able to eliminate defective genes without many restrictions on procreation.

One point. How do we as human beings determine what is best for the human race? The problem with genetic improvement is the division between improvement and enhancement, part of the old proverb, "in the halls of the blind the one-eyed man is king."

IF most can see 20/20, does this mean that those who see 40/20 are defective and should be corrected? If most men are 6', and women 5'6'', are those who are shorter defective?

Times change. Evolution selects those who are most suited for their particular environment. What if the environment changes? By introducing wide-scale genetic engineering, will we not lose some of the genetic variation deemed 'defective' by those of the norm?

Where would you draw the line and why?

[Ribannah]

So-called 'defective genes' are often compensated by other things.

The bigger picture is that eliminating defective genes will be the end of humanity. Adaptations to a changing environment tend to come in the shape of genes that initially are 'defective' until, at some point, from the defect springs a better fit. It's called optimal subset selection.

[tinyp3nis]

So-called 'defective genes' are often compensated by other things.

Where did you get this idea? Care to explain?
If I born blind I may _end up_ hearing better, but I don't get anything extra when I am born/developing. It's just something I learn to do, when I am unable to see, It's not a trait special to me, everyone gets it. Visually impaired person would like to see better still. When you get bad genes it doesn't mean you get some extrasuper special genes just for you. Nature is cruel, it doesn't care for fairness.
You can still do good in life with crappy genes, but the genes are still crappy.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I born blind I may _end up_ hearing better, but I don't get anything extra when I am born/developing. It's just something I learn to do, when I am unable to see, It's not a trait special to me, everyone gets it.

tinyp3nis:

Blind people adapt to their environment in ways different from the rest of people, similar to deaf people as well. Some of the skills learned in compensating for a handicap may be transferred to other areas.

One example would be a deaf person focussing on reading and visual learning simply because they are on an equal footing in this medium.