Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/28/06 05:08 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: He's still right though. You do have a stupid fucking perspective.

It's funny how saying "every second you live is one second closer to death" is seen as overly pessimistic, and to some, stupid, when "seize the day," a phrase which came directly from this sort of thinking [We only have a certain amount of time to live; every second that passes is one less; therefore, we must make the most of each second] is seen as being highly optimistic.

Good point.

At 2/28/06 06:09 PM, mofomojo wrote:

At 2/27/06 07:14 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:

At 2/27/06 07:08 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

Care to explain how selective breeding, controlled by us, is natural?

I'd ask for the same with genetically modified crops, but there ain't no way in hell you're going to tell me that altering genes is natural. But if you wanna try, go right ahead, I'm all ears.

I didnt say it was natural, i said by doing it we were controlling nature. we alter the natural course of evolution, interfere with it and bend nature to our will.

You have an intense case of arrogance sir.

Nature is all things that occur without the assistance of humans or intelligence, which encompasses physics, the universe (given there is no other intelligent lifeforms existant), and biological nature.

Once you change things that occur naturally, they are not natural. For example, if I were to mine iron ore, and smelt it, a cast it into iron girders, this is not natural. Why? Because iron does not smelt itself and casted into molds without the assistance of humans.

It's all pretty basic stuff. Unless you consider man to be natural, which would mean that all the decisions we make are natural occuring, this elevates nature from what would be a simple concept, to a very intricate one.

I would say we have no choice but to include man in nature. If a rabbit were to dig a hole displace a rock would this be an unnatural occurance? After all a rock cannot move itself and while a rabbit does not possess the same level of intelligence as man it is still a free thinking being. The rabbit digs the hole for shelter with as much purpose and design as we build houses, is there truly a difference?

First of all, i would like to say, cant we all get along? It is a perspective, A free opion on ones belief. You dont have to be mean and say qoute "What a fucking stuped prespective."

Second, The earth is getting over populated, and sex is abundant, poor genes seem to be spreading around rapidly, homo sapiens had a strong gene pool, but as what was said before, even if you have many people with a dominent genes, say a lot of people with brown eyes, blue eyes as a recessive, you still might get a recessive gene.

My freinds family has all brown eyes, and then out of nowhere came a mutation and my freinds-sister had blue eyes. Genes are mostly random.

Genes are mostly random.

My fault again, no edit button on newgrounds, but to clear it up i meant " Mostly Genes are what the parents are carrying, but they can be totally random."

At 2/28/06 07:47 PM, 3lemant wrote: Genes are mostly random.

They are never random, the genome is a precisly sequenced peice of organic engineering. The random occurance of blue eyes you talk about will be due to both parents being carriers of the recessive gene, if they both didnt carry it there would be a zero % chance of blue eyes being an outcome.
not having a go at you there, just letting you know.

At 2/28/06 05:08 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: He's still right though. You do have a stupid fucking perspective.

And I'm still right. Every second you live, you get closer to death. Get it? Or are you going to continualy argue a moot point?

At 3/1/06 12:10 AM, peedee wrote:

At 2/28/06 05:08 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: He's still right though. You do have a stupid fucking perspective.

And I'm still right. Every second you live, you get closer to death. Get it? Or are you going to continualy argue a moot point?

Let's review, shall we?

At 2/27/06 09:38 PM, peedee wrote: We get older. Getting old entitles getting weaker. You eventually die.

When does one achieve "old"? Immediately after birth? 15? 65?

At 2/27/06 10:14 PM, peedee wrote: From age 1 to 80, do you get weaker? It's in the long term. You don't die at age 10 from natural causes unless something interferes as far as disease or sickness.

From age 1-80, you do not get weaker. You get stronger. Any 80 year old man I know could easily overpower every 1 year old I know.

Dying "young" is in your head. Everything dies, not everything dies at the same freakin time. Shit.

At 2/28/06 11:55 AM, peedee wrote: You are born dying. We get old and die.

You are born growing, developing. You adapt to survive. Hopefully you live long enough to breed and pass that survival down. Then you die.

At 2/28/06 02:56 PM, peedee wrote: every second you live, you get closer to death.

The same as B follows A. It's nothing profound or intellectual. It's common fucking sense.

What you've said each time strayed a little further from the previous. How you went from [i]"Getting old entitles getting weaker"[/i] to [i]"every second you live, you get closer to death"[/i] is kinda odd also. Don't blame me for attempting to understand how logic works in that little world of yours.

At 2/28/06 03:28 PM, peedee wrote:

Well, every second you live, you get closer to death. Make sense now?

are you emo or something, what a fucking stupid perspective.

Good job on reading one post and responding to it like an idiot!

allow me to expand on why you have a fucking stupid perspective....
birth-----------------------death
simple rule of life, you are born and after a certain amount of time you die (so obvious it doesnt need stating)
"Every second that passes you get closer to death" well duh you wont be winning any nobel prizes for stating that.

Your first phrase in relation to all this however was
"you are born dying"
this not true at all true. Time is not a disease and time does not cause death, seeing time as a disease is a fucking stupid perspective.

*bows*

First and foremost, everyone in this thread seems to be doing alot more bitching at eachother than actually discussing the topics at hand. Let's all see what we can do to work on that.

There seem to be about three topics going on here. It started with the part about natural selection being, in effect, dead. It is important to note on this topic that the world is becoming more and more overpopulated by the second. Wether or not the gene pool is becoming contaminated, we need to stop having a child born every few nanoseconds, especcially into bad conditions. According to some, the sollution is to prevent people with "inferior" genes from producing offspring. However, unless I missed something, no one arguing that side of the point has said anything seriously suggesting killing anyone. Death would be completely unnecessary. My suggestion would be to require anyone wishing to produce to submit for a permit to do so. There would still the problem of what was and was not an acceptable reason to be rejected, but there are some things I think we might all be able to agree on. First, the parents must be capable of providing for the child financially. Someone is propably going to pop up saying that this is against basic human rights, but is it? Really? Why should people have the right to bring a child into this world that they were unable to provide for? Also, people who blatantly do not show the responsibility to raise children. Convicted felons. Drug addicts. There is no reason for these people to be raising children. There are propably others, but those are the ones I'm officially backing at the moment.

Topic number two: Are we dying? This argument is purely semantical and would make more sense if we were all on pot. When we are born, we are given a certain amount of time on this earth. While that time is not set, it could be a matter of days, or decades, or even a century or two, we are all guaranteed a finite existence on this earth. As of the moment there is no cure for death. Everyone who reads this, myself included, will eventually die. That's not pessimism, it is a certain fact. A problem there is no point in arguing. The issue is what we do with the time we have.

Crap, I forgot what the other topic was. Maybe there were only two.

Oh, natural vs. unnatural. Another matter of semantics, depending entirely on definitions of the words, making it an issue entirely of oppinions. If you define natural as anything that can happen in the "natural" world, everything is natural. If you define natural as anything untouched by man, there's really no such thing on this planet.

At 3/5/06 12:25 PM, StickFigureSamurai wrote: A big summary.

The entire issue (the first one anyway) comes down to whether personal sacrifice for the good of humanity is that important. Personally, I don't think any sort of genetic cleansing will ever be implimented as humans will inevitably view their desire to breed over their desire to perfect our race.

As far as the second topic . . . it's all just semantics, so let's just let it die . . .

Genetic cleansing or not, I'd really like to see anything that would help slow or stop the continuous and unnecessary increase of the human population. It should be possible to convince people of the benefits of making procreation an easily gained privelege than an inalienable right. Bringing a child into this world shouldn't be easier than being able to drive a car. And we've got to many people doing that to.

At 3/5/06 12:25 PM, StickFigureSamurai wrote: , unless I missed something, no one arguing that side of the point has said anything seriously suggesting killing anyone.

The point about someone wih aids trying to infect a police officer. What sollution would you have for that?

I can see your point about how certain people are clearly not going to care for their children. To adopt you need to meet fairly rigorous criteria, to actually have a child you dont. However it is a persons perogative to have kids, its not a privelage as much as it is a right that no government should be allowed to take away. Overpopulation is a growing issue in China they have imposed restrictions on the number of children a family can have. A broad restrction seems fairer because it would apply to everyone, banning some and not others would cause resentment and im sure it would also be seen as a class thing. Poor people being told they cant have kids and rich people being baby factories.

I know what your getting at.

Like the people Infected with Aids or with severe Peanut Allergy's or Bee Sting Allergy's.

In the Old world, they would have died off, but in the new World with Modern Medicine, there being kept alive and able to pass thier Genes down into the Gene Pool.

Then in a couple thousand years, Humans will be weak, Infected beings who wil die at the next plague.

At 3/5/06 02:49 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: I know what your getting at.

Like the people Infected with Aids or with severe Peanut Allergy's or Bee Sting Allergy's.

In the Old world, they would have died off, but in the new World with Modern Medicine, there being kept alive and able to pass thier Genes down into the Gene Pool.

Then in a couple thousand years, Humans will be weak, Infected beings who wil die at the next plague.

No we wouldn't. If we have a diverse gene pool then it is more likely that there will be those with a resistance. If we have a homogenous gene pool as some here seem to be advocating then it is very likely that something will come along that can take everyone out with a single blow. It is an absolute fact of biology that a species with a diverse gene pool has a better chance at survival than a species with a small one.

Actually, this is a fairly intelligent question, because what we are really doing with medicine is not strenghthening our bodies, but rather simply wearing body "armor", in the form of medicines and operations.

Is Western medicine somehow corrupting the gene pool?

No, I don't believe it is. I believe what has happened is that the medical world has advanced so rapidly over the last 1000 years that the advances in the gene pool nowadays look like a standstill. Sort of like comparing a car going 300mph to one going 1, the slow one doesn't even look like it's moving, but it is.

I feel that medicine will actually strengthen the gene pool, example being vaccines. Diseases like Polio and Smallpox killed thousands, then we got vaccines, and our bodies (thanks to the Medicine) have become immune to them. In this way, the medicine actually does increase "good side" of the gene pool, as our bodies have now become immune to the dieases. Perhaps in 5000 years time, we won't even need a vaccine.......

Things like Influenza and colds medicines may have a detriment on the gene pool, as we have become accustomed to the medicines and such. But advances in life, food, diets, and medicine have strengthened our pool.

I think people today, given training, swords, and shields, would kick the crap out of a Roman legion any day of the week, and twice on sundays. They didn't get the proper nutrition, the proper clothing, or the proper medicines to stay in peak fighting condition, whereas people today do. Therefore, the gene pool is strengthened by these things, evident in the fact that 2000 years ago, my height (5'3), would be considered GIANT, whereas today I'm a shrimp.

Interesting question though, well done.

At 3/5/06 11:38 PM, Imperator wrote:
I think people today, given training, swords, and shields, would kick the crap out of a Roman legion any day of the week, and twice on sundays. They didn't get the proper nutrition, the proper clothing, or the proper medicines to stay in peak fighting condition, whereas people today do.

Actually, i think it's pretty much the opposite. Living in an unhealthy environment will make you stronge. Humans today use guns rather than shields and swords, because it's easier. because of this, or body, mainly the muscles, don't get used as much. Therefore, we gradually lose strength. Roman warriors has much more unhealthy environments, therefore their optimum fighting capability would be so much better than ours today.

Being healthy, although seems "stronger", it's just being more healthy. Being tall doesn't equal strength. Cavemen could kick the crap out of us, being that they had a harsher environment to live by. We adapt to make our lives easier, which in turn makes us weaker, because extra strength is unneccesary.

The main thing that concerns me is reproduction itself. Little by little, male sperm cells grow unfertile year by year. Although at first this will regulate population control, humans will not be able to procreate anymore eventually. All the factors show that humans have an extremely hard time reproducing.

-we have intercourse throughout the year, where as animals do not
-more and more westernized people take up a "procreate in 30s and 40s" ideology, when the prime of fertilization steadily declines
-radiation effects sperm cells (hole in ozone)
-erectile dysfunction is increasing
-as the gene pool gets more and more "polluted", a probelm known as the Klinefelter's syndrome occurs more commonly, affecting male sperm production

Impotence will eventually lead to the end of the world as we know it.

It is an absolute fact of biology that a species with a diverse gene pool has a better chance at survival than a species with a small one.

No, it depends on the genes. Let's say that there was a gene that makes you more vulnerable to certain diseases. Does having more of that gene in the gene pool heighten the survival chances of a species? No.

At 3/6/06 04:35 PM, Begoner wrote:

It is an absolute fact of biology that a species with a diverse gene pool has a better chance at survival than a species with a small one.

No, it depends on the genes. Let's say that there was a gene that makes you more vulnerable to certain diseases. Does having more of that gene in the gene pool heighten the survival chances of a species? No.

What makes you think the genes you would isolate humanity to wouldn't be vulnerable to some future disease?

Think of it as a stock portfolio, if you sale off all of your treasury bonds because you want to put all your money into Toyota because their stock is yeilding a hell of a lot more than the treasury rate, what happens when GM invents a solar powered flying car and sends Toyota into the red?

At 3/5/06 11:38 PM, Imperator wrote:

::

I think people today, given training, swords, and shields, would kick the crap out of a Roman legion any day of the week, and twice on sundays. They didn't get the proper nutrition, the proper clothing, or the proper medicines to stay in peak fighting condition, whereas people today do.

Yea, That explains why the Romans were so pussy and were crushed right away......
Oh wait...

At 3/6/06 05:06 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Yea, That explains why the Romans were so pussy and were crushed right away......
Oh wait...

A third grader can beat up a first grader with ease but what about a sixth grader?

That is a good thought.
I do believe so, Western Medicine as advanced as it is, is keeping the weak alive....but for what point?

Our genes are definatly weaker than they were 2000 years ago, life back then was a lot harder than it is now. Nowadays you don't hardly have to worry about anything and you can go through life being weak, skinny, or a obese person. Back then if you didn't have your shit together, you died.

At 3/6/06 05:08 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/6/06 05:06 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Yea, That explains why the Romans were so pussy and were crushed right away......
Oh wait...

A third grader can beat up a first grader with ease but what about a sixth grader?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
And in case you didn't get it...that wasn't serious....
I was making fun of that idiot for saying how weak the Roman Legionnaires were.

At 3/6/06 05:09 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: That is a good thought.
I do believe so, Western Medicine as advanced as it is, is keeping the weak alive....but for what point?

Our genes are definatly weaker than they were 2000 years ago, life back then was a lot harder than it is now. Nowadays you don't hardly have to worry about anything and you can go through life being weak, skinny, or a obese person. Back then if you didn't have your shit together, you died.

It is animal propensity to give in to nature by manipulating their physical body to live in their environment, in any stage of time. It's not neccesary, just a maxim that makes life longer.

At 3/6/06 04:32 PM, pt9_9 wrote:

At 3/5/06 11:38 PM, Imperator wrote:

Impotence will eventually lead to the end of the world as we know it.

Actually, it will merely reinstitute the concept of evolution for humans. Infertile humans will not procreate, meaning that infertile genes will not move on to the next generation. The fertile humans will be left competing with fewer other humans, and will increase. It will fix itself before it becomes a problem.

Or, alternate scenario, we start procreating with the aid of technology or medicine, and all genes move to the next generation. If it ever becomes a problem, scenario one will take place. Go evolution.

At 3/6/06 05:11 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote:

At 3/6/06 05:08 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/6/06 05:06 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Yea, That explains why the Romans were so pussy and were crushed right away......
Oh wait...

A third grader can beat up a first grader with ease but what about a sixth grader?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
And in case you didn't get it...that wasn't serious....
I was making fun of that idiot for saying how weak the Roman Legionnaires were.

I was just pointing out that the people who the Romans crushed were more or less the third world countries of their time. It would be like the marines going down and starting shit with South Americans.

At 3/6/06 05:22 PM, BeFell wrote:
I was just pointing out that the people who the Romans crushed were more or less the third world countries of their time. It would be like the marines going down and starting shit with South Americans.

That's not really relevant to the discussion though. But whatever.

At 3/6/06 05:28 PM, pt9_9 wrote:

At 3/6/06 05:22 PM, BeFell wrote:
I was just pointing out that the people who the Romans crushed were more or less the third world countries of their time. It would be like the marines going down and starting shit with South Americans.

That's not really relevant to the discussion though. But whatever.

Shut the fuck up you idiot, I was responding to someone else.

Besides, I think the discussion ended when people started claiming a homogenous gene pool is more resistant to disease than a diverse one.

At 2/27/06 09:55 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote: As medical advancements are made and lives are prolonged does the gene pool of the human race become poluted with poor quality genes. Those who would have died previously from their diseases or disabilities can now go on to reproduce and infect a new generation with their tarnished genes.

Uh........ Hiel Hitler?