Jump to content


Photo

Outisde Reading: Eugenics


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#61 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 July 2011 - 07:44 AM

Be you perfect as I am perfect. God is not physical in nature therefore if humans came to extinction, "humans" would continue on a spiritual level as "Jesus" did after his resurrection. I would rather be with Father on this level and wish everyone the same experience since it is an amazing one instead of the suffering life to all.


Well, that's an interesting fantasy, but that's not how TUB says it works. We have to earn that spiritual level. If the whole world implodes on Thursday, none of us will be on the same spiritual level as Jesus. We will pick up on the mansion worlds exactly where we left off on earth. There is no instantaneous miracle that occurs upon death that suddenly transforms people into righteous beings. People have to labor for it.

Why wish away such a fantastic opportunity as the one we have on this planet where righteous characters are being forged out between the anvil of necessity and the hammers of anguish and suffering? To me your fantasy does look like wish fulfillment and a desire to skip the necessity, anguish and suffering in order to advance to a position of unearned bliss. It's the cheaters way, in my opinion, and God in his great wisdom and justice simply does not allow it. He demands that we do the necessary work, anguish and suffering included. God cannot transform us into perfect beings overnight and that's what the 'end of the world folks' want God to do, end the wicked world and give them a place of unearned bliss. The world is not wicked, people are. You change the world by changing people, yourself included.

47:3.1 On the mansion worlds the resurrected mortal survivors resume their lives just where they left off when overtaken by death.

48:0.2 The morontia life, extending as it does over the various stages of the local universe career, is the only possible approach whereby material mortals could attain the threshold of the spirit world. What magic could death, the natural dissolution of the material body, hold that such a simple step should instantly transform the mortal and material mind into an immortal and perfected spirit? Such beliefs are but ignorant superstitions and pleasing fables.

194:3.2 The religions of pessimistic despair seek to obtain release from the burdens of life; they crave extinction in endless slumber and rest. These are the religions of primitive fear and dread. The religion of Jesus is a new gospel of faith to be proclaimed to struggling humanity. This new religion is founded on faith, hope, and love.



And here is another thing to consider. When TUB uses the word 'extinction', it means the END of EXISTENCE. In other words, if I became extinct next Thursday, I would go nowhere. I would no longer be. Period. I would not be floating on a cloud with Jesus playing a harp. I would simply not be. End of story. Kaput. Done. So, it's probably not useful to use that word on a TUB forum because everyone here connects it with iniquity and the end of existence forever, a state of non-reality.

#62 rock

rock

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 August 2011 - 02:35 PM

I refer to Wikipedia this time.

Maybe mankind does not need accelerated genetic evolution. Instead backwards evolution should be prevented.

Research has suggested that in the modern world, the relationship between fertility and intelligence is such that those with higher intelligence have fewer children. One possible reason being more unintended pregnancies for those with lower intelligence. Several researchers have argued that the average genotypic intelligence of the United States and the world are declining which is a dysgenic effect. This has been masked by the Flynn effect for phenotypic intelligence. The Flynn effect may have ended in some developed nations, causing some to argue that phenotypic intelligence will or has started to decline.

Similarly, Richard Lynn has in the book Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations argued that genetic health (due to modern health care) and genetic conscientiousness (criminals have more children than non-criminals) are declining in the modern world. This has caused some, like Lynn, to argue for voluntary eugenics. Alternatively, Lynn and Harvey (2008) write that authoritarian states may decide to impose measures to avoid such effects, such as a licensing requirement for having a child, which would only be given to persons of a minimum intelligence. The Chinese one-child policy is an example of how fertility can be regulated by authoritarian means.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....enics#Dysgenics

However, according to The Urantia Book, backwards evolution of intelligence may not be the main worry.

For many thousands of years, so the records of Jerusem show, in each generation there have lived fewer and fewer beings who could function safely with self-acting Adjusters. This is an alarming picture, and the supervising personalities of Satania look with favor upon the proposals of some of your more immediate planetary supervisors who advocate the inauguration of measures designed to foster and conserve the higher spiritual types of the Urantia races.

Source: The Urantia Book 110:4.6

#63 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 August 2011 - 05:42 PM

... such as a licensing requirement for having a child...

Source: http://en.wikipedia....enics#Dysgenics

Way back, I remember discovering that raising a child was more difficult than wiring a building, flying a plane, or even just driving a car. But our societies allow, even encourage, anyone to have a go?! If child-rearing is more difficult and important than driving a car, what's wrong with setting up some simple test so prospective parents can demonstrate some minimum capacity? Like being able to clean and feed themselves?

Those who fail such a "self-cleaning" and "self-feeding" test would probably agree they are not quite ready to raise a child :) Is this one way to gently regulate ourselves?

Nigel

#64 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 August 2011 - 09:03 PM

In our country you have to have a marriage license to get married. I think they should also issue a parenting license if you want to parent. As it is now, we're so over regulated that you have to have a license for almost everything so why not that too? The damn car needs three documents alone, four if you count the inspection sticker. Parenting licenses should have to be renewed every few years with evidence of continuing education and home inspections, complete with a sticker on the house certifying that it is a HOME. Honestly, we care more about trees and species going extinct, air quality and water pollution than we do about parenting. People in my neighborhood get more bent out of shape about an abandoned cat than they do about an abandoned kid. Just ranting . . . .

#65 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 August 2011 - 10:17 PM

People in my neighborhood get more bent out of shape about an abandoned cat than they do about an abandoned kid.

Now that's a bumper sticker for our time. Maybe Fox Sports could package that fact for subliminal half-time delivery?
Nigel

#66 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2011 - 06:18 AM

There's an interesting literature on the subject of licensing parents. See this anthology, for example. The question is not strictly about eugenics but certainly has implications in that direction, since the capacity to be a competent parent has some genetic determinants, one would think.

#67 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 06 August 2011 - 11:14 AM

Yeaa China does it. But I think its more of a baby limit than who can have baby's hahah, etleast last time I checked. The problem is, what kind of test and who are the judge's "urantia lacks competant judges".

But we could probably all agree on basic levels of sanity, and basic things being provided like food, shelter clothing hahahah. That is a start I suppose. As long as the majority of society agree's to implement a plan than it's not like there will be a revolt against the government. Violence gives way to Ballot's. As long as there is a choice being made by society than it will help make it a evolutionary process, sad thing is we don't take world-wide votes on these issue's. Here in Canada though we are obligated by law to give our opinion on a few matter's and a couple poll's, that are not political.

Every Canadian adult is required to give their opinion of which school they prefer, "catholic or public". Also we are all required on this poll to say if we go to church and whether we want a church in our neighbourhood and what demonination of church. If there was a question asking wether there should be some sort of basic requirement's for childbearing and what the requirements are I am sure Canadian's would answer that question and give their opinion, thus making the law the law of the people hahaha.

Edited by boomshuka, 06 August 2011 - 11:23 AM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#68 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 August 2011 - 11:50 AM

Here in Canada though we are obligated by law to give our opinion on a few matter's and a couple poll's, that are not political.


Now that's interesting that the government can mandate that you participate in a poll. What's the punishment if you don't? I guess it's like the census here. That's a poll and we're mandated by law to participate. But I think it unwise to weight all opinions alike. At least in this country, we're becoming entirely poll driven, and when you live by polls, you're tying the future of the nation to mediocrity because everyone's opinion is given equal status, regardless of their ability to understand what they've been asked their opinion about. It's nuts and it works the same way with voting.

71:2.6 5. Slavery to public opinion; the majority is not always right.



TUB has a lot to say about universal suffrage. Ideally, one's vote would have differential weight dependent upon one's ability to prove a certain level of wisdom. This is how it works on Jerusem, but we will unlikely see anything approaching that here.

45:7.6 Suffrage is universal on Jerusem among these three groups of citizenship, but the vote is differentially cast in accordance with the recognized and duly registered personal possession of mota — morontia wisdom. The vote cast at a Jerusem election by any one personality has a value ranging from one up to one thousand. Jerusem citizens are thus classified in accordance with their mota achievement.



Suffrage is meant to be differentiated.

71:2.17 8. Universal suffrage. Representative government presupposes an intelligent, efficient, and universal electorate. The character of such a government will ever be determined by the character and caliber of those who compose it. As civilization progresses, suffrage, while remaining universal for both sexes, will be effectively modified, regrouped, and otherwise differentiated.



But here? Here we might get to universal suffrage, but everyone's opinion will have the same weight regardless of the amount of wisdom or the type of character they have. TUB warns us about putting universal suffrage "in the hands of uneducated and indolent majorities." (71:2.5) So here we go onto one of my other bugaboos, one that sends me right into ranting mode: education!

71:2.9 2. Freedom of the mind. Unless a free people are educated—taught to think intelligently and plan wisely—freedom usually does more harm than good.

71:2.7 Public opinion, common opinion, has always delayed society; nevertheless, it is valuable, for, while retarding social evolution, it does preserve civilization. Education of public opinion is the only safe and true method of accelerating civilization; force is only a temporary expedient, and cultural growth will increasingly accelerate as bullets give way to ballots. Public opinion, the mores, is the basic and elemental energy in social evolution and state development, but to be of state value it must be nonviolent in expression.



Wisdom has to be the biggest challenge of our age. Whatever happened to respect for wisdom? Are we even capable of recognizing wisdom anymore?

#69 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:01 PM

Wisdom has to be the biggest challenge of our age. Whatever happened to respect for wisdom? Are we even capable of recognizing wisdom anymore?


A brilliant point! As long as we have to ask whether drug addicts who can't even begin to look after themselves are fit for parenthood, we're missing something important. The beginning of wisdom is simply seeing things as they are. Why do we give adopted children more protection, and therefore more rights, than natural children? Wisdom says all children are precious.

Edited by Todd, 07 August 2011 - 06:47 AM.


#70 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 August 2011 - 09:03 AM

I agree that wisdom has been lost in the rush for fairness and justice. But the truly wise are fair and just, right? So how do you measure wisdom? I don't think you can, but we usually recognize it when we encounter it . . . I think. Then again, maybe not. We are all prejudiced by our own opinions in some way or another. I guess that's why Jesus said that justice and fairness has to be determined by the wisdom of the brotherhood. Which puts it all back onto public opinion, and that puts the emphasis back onto education . . . . Arrrrrrgh.

159:1.6 Thus did Jesus teach the dangers and illustrate the unfairness of sitting in personal judgment upon one’s fellows. Discipline must be maintained, justice must be administered, but in all these matters the wisdom of the brotherhood should prevail. Jesus invested legislative and judicial authority in the group, not in the individual. Even this investment of authority in the group must not be exercised as personal authority. There is always danger that the verdict of an individual may be warped by prejudice or distorted by passion. Group judgment is more likely to remove the dangers and eliminate the unfairness of personal bias. Jesus sought always to minimize the elements of unfairness, retaliation, and vengeance.



#71 Midsoniter woman

Midsoniter woman

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Arizona
  • Interests:politics

Posted 07 August 2011 - 07:37 PM

I'm all for disenfranchising unfit parents. And so is the government on a neighboring planet. But to my consternation it turns out that Abraham Lincoln's father was unfit to be a parent. I just saw a documentary today that said Abe refused to visit his father because of all the beatings and abuse that happened throughout his childhood. Abe even refused to go to his Dad's funeral. The guy was a monster. But had the government disenfranchised Abe's father, our country would have never been blessed with the life of a great leader. In fact, it was the terrible childhood that made Abe Lincoln so intent on freeing the slaves. So I'm not sure what to think of that.
"If woman aspires literally to enjoy all of man's rights, then sooner or later, pitiless and emotionless competition will certainly replace that chivalry and special consideration which many women now enjoy, and which they have so recently won from men (Urantia Book, 938)."

#72 rock

rock

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2011 - 04:39 AM

But had the government disenfranchised Abe's father, our country would have never been blessed with the life of a great leader.


Basically the same argument has been used against eugenics many times, only names have changed: this time Abraham Lincoln, some other time Stephen Hawking, and so on. But if we continue with the same logic and method, picking more and more such examples, we would end up with a statement that only unfit parents produce children who may eventually become geniuses, great leaders, etc. – a statement which clearly is not true.

I think that here we have an example of a fallacy, but which one?

#73 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 August 2011 - 08:22 AM

Unfit parents can produce both geniuses and sociopaths. We have a few examples of geniuses, but how many sociopaths are out there? And how many confused individuals are there who function somewhere in the middle, and as a result, are unfit parents themselves?

It's ridiculous to spread your feces in the garden because it occasionally produces a beautiful plant. For the most part, it's gonna make you sick.

#74 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:52 AM

Maybe John Rawls's conception of Justice as Fairness can be more helpful than the mere subjectivity of the brotherhood.

Consider his "original position" thought experiment. Imagine that you are in "heaven", soon to be "reborn" as a mortal on this planet. Your rebirth will be random, i.e., you don't know what gender you'll be, whether you'll be born into a rich or poor family, whether you'll be hardy or sickly, and so on. If you were given the opportunity to set out the rules of society before being reborn into it, what would you choose? Rawls argued that the choices you'd make provide an operational definition of fairness.

From this position, you might well decide that unfit parents somehow be restricted from reproduction, since this would reduce the chance that you would be the child of such parents.

Yes, it's a philosophical thought experiments, and like all such thought experiments, it's subject to much dispute, but I still think it provides another way to think about matters such as reproductive freedom and eugenics. As things currently stand, we value reproductive freedom much more highly than we value the well-being of children. The Rawlsian thought experiment is a good way to reconsider that. From the "original position" you'd value reproductive freedom, no doubt about it, but it's doubtful that you'd allow that value to trump the well-being of children. You'd seek a balance between the two values.

#75 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:25 PM

.


Doesn't every child deserve a set of adequate parents who want him/her? Parents who can adequately provide for a child/children? Shouldn't that be a bottom line human right too?


.

#76 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:02 PM

One other thing to consider is that, although EXTREMELY UNLIKELY....If both parents are iniquitous.."fail to even get a 2nd chance on the mansion worlds". and the child die's young, that child will cease to exist. I doubt this happens practically ever, but It definitely show's how important being a parent is. A child is heavily dependant on the mind's of their parents. Around 16 I believe is the age where we become unattached to our parents mindal system's and are ready to choose potential sonship "born of spirit".


Henceforth, it is not a duty but rather your exalted privilege to cleanse yourselves from all evils of mind and body while you seek for perfection in the love of God. P.1610

In all praying, remember that sonship is a gift. No child has aught to do with earning the status of son or daughter. The earth child comes into being by the will of its parents. Even so, the child of God comes into grace and the new life of the spirit by the will of the Father in heaven. Therefore must the kingdom of heaven—divine sonship—be received as by a little child. You earn righteousness—progressive character development—but you receive sonship by grace and through faith. P.1621

When men and women ask what shall we do to be saved, you shall answer, Believe this gospel of the kingdom; accept divine forgiveness. By faith recognize the indwelling spirit of God, whose acceptance makes you a son of God. Have you not read in the Scriptures where it says, ‘In the Lord have I righteousness and strength.’ Also where the Father says, ‘My soul shall be joyful in the love of my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation and has covered me with the robe of his righteousness.’ Have you not also read of the Father that his name ‘shall be called the Lord our righteousness.’ ‘Take away the filthy rags of self-righteousness and clothe my son with the robe of divine righteousness and eternal salvation.’ It is forever true, ‘the just shall live by faith.’ Entrance into the Father’s kingdom is wholly free, but progress—growth in grace—is essential to continuance therein. P.1682


Etleast I am 99 percent sure that is what u.b say's about kids hahaha.

Edited by boomshuka, 08 August 2011 - 11:17 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#77 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 07:02 AM

Doesn't every child deserve a set of adequate parents who want him/her? Parents who can adequately provide for a child/children? Shouldn't that be a bottom line human right too?


I'm not sure there are any bottom line human rights.

70:9.1 Nature confers no rights on man, only life and a world in which to live it. Nature does not even confer the right to live, as might be deduced by considering what would likely happen if an unarmed man met a hungry tiger face to face in the primitive forest. Society’s prime gift to man is security.



We can all agree on establishing some basic social rights, but the problem is that we have to agree.

70:9.13-14 When rights are old beyond knowledge of origin, they are often called natural rights. But human rights are not really natural; they are entirely social. They are relative and ever changing, being no more than the rules of the game—recognized adjustments of relations governing the ever-changing phenomena of human competition.

What may be regarded as right in one age may not be so regarded in another. The survival of large numbers of defectives and degenerates is not because they have any natural right thus to encumber twentieth-century civilization, but simply because the society of the age, the mores, thus decrees.



#78 Kaybe

Kaybe

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:VT, USA
  • Interests:More or less [i]anything[/i] creative. People, the most fascinating, rewarding, enriching creatures (pink, furry, scaly, feathery or otherwise). The quest for the divine.

Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:49 PM

I hope I'm not derailing the thread by jumping in at this point. I haven't had time to read the entire thread but I thought the following advice directed primarily at the female of the species, quoted with permission, might be of interest to anyone concerned with the humane application of eugenics:

Young men are very confused about what constitutes manhood for the very good reason that the mass media and their own family and friends have hundreds of bizarre images, many quite contradictory. Throughout history, but even more so now that rape is a serious crime in most countries, the opinions and behavior of young women shape what young men do more than anything else.

A girl may be so horny she loses her good judgment*, just as a boy is likely to be. But somewhere in the back of her head must be the fact that there are serious consequences to allowing sex to become trivial. Not just the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or a disgusting disease, but of warping your own mind and the mind of the guy involved. The recent tendency to treat sexual activity as "just having fun" can be literally fatal. The high suicide rate is only one indicator.

Boys pay attention to what desirable girls say about them. Certainly if you are cruel about it, he will simply call you a dirty name and avoid you. He may also say dreadful things to his friends about you. But if you explain your values politely and quietly -- not in front of others -- at least some guys will pay attention. You can also set the standard by what you say and do publicly, and how you behave, how you dress, and so on. Do you know how to have fun in a playful manner without being so suggestive that you create sexual tension? Can you dress with style and class without looking like a hooker? Can you promote high academic standards without sounding like an intellectual snob?

Remember that you are not just dealing with boys near your own age as who they are now, but as what potential they show and how determined they are to use that potential wisely. Rich boys may well be spoiled brats, while poor ones who are working hard to get a good education and pull themselves out of poverty are way more admirable. The rich ones may spend money on you, on entertaining you and buying you gifts, while the poor or working-class guy can't compete on that score. But you expose yourself to charges of being shallow if you waste your time on the spoiled brats.

I may be running off topic here, but I think it's clear about my point: girls have an important responsibility to set high standards for boys without crushing their hopes of gaining your approval. To do that, you must set high standards for yourself, of course. It means you have to study what you believe is and is not important, learn to make wise ethical judgments, and basically to grow up yourself. That takes time, which is one reason why dating when you are very young is a bad idea. Some few girls may get lucky, but a great many more have really awful results from immature judgment. Take your time.

*Not to be too rude, but you can deal with that yourself, you know.

Original by AuntB93also at Multiply
On a frosty winters night, stand looking into the spangled sky, and listen carefully. Can you hear the spheres, singing in their courses?

If my questions seem naieve, please understand that I am a newcomer to the papers eager to learn more

#79 rock

rock

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2012 - 12:42 PM

I hope I'm not derailing the thread

Do not.

Instead of that, if you have something else to say, start a new thread.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users