Of course this is one of the lessons learned from WW2. And clearly, this steps over all kinds of human rights. And I'm not trying to say that such a thing should be reimplemented or that any government should step in and start curtailing our reproductive habits. I didn't think I infered that we should sterilize the populations, I merely made an observation to instigate thoughtful discussion;)
But I totally disagree with you on your second statement, that their unattractiveness will weed them out. Infact, I'd say the opposite is true, that their unattractiveness will keep them in the gene pool. There's groups of our population who have...strange tastes in mates. I think unless a gene specifically inhibits reproduction in individuals, while that gene might not become dominant in the gene pool, I seriously doubt it will ever be removed.
I think it will be really interesting to see what happens to humanity (genetically) over the next several thousand years. The article makes it sound like bioinformatics could really take off in an effort to better ourselves by artificial selection.
A number of things have changed that will greatly impact our evolution that hasn't been experienced by our species before:
1. Ease of migration allowing for extreme mixing of previously separated social groups (this has been in decline over the last few thousand years, but now that you can travel between continents relatively quickly and cheaply, the impact will be much much greater.)
2. Knowingly allowing, accepting, and encouraging reproduction of individuals, who...shouldn't (No, I don't mean Bush). There's some bad genes out there. Some that shouldn't be passed on. While we're at a point where we can curtail some of this through prescreening parents for likely inherited traits, we continue to become more accepting of people with, well, bad genes. Aren't we effectively letting people piss into the pool?
3. Will this spawn a new race (as in car) by parents to "maximize" the brain genes described in TFA? Do I have to listen to soccer mom's brag about their kids DNA now?
4. How will this impact governments? And more importantly, dating websites?
Is it me, or did you just *assume* that ICANN told China to go fsck itself, and because ICANN is completely 100% dominated by red blooded 100% republican chip-implanted Bush supporters, it must be evil and America's fault.
Seriously, why do people who don't even think before they post get modded as Insightful? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
The same way a closed source one can (bugs or no bugs).
Most linux sysadmins don't care what about the source code of the software they use. They just care that it does the job and does it damn well. The only difference between closed source and open source is that you can/choose/ to view OSS source code. But just because you can doesn't mean that you do.
That being said, software is more commonly known for what it does and not for how it (at the code level) works. And in that regard, OSS and proprietary software are exactly alike.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course this is one of the lessons learned from WW2. And clearly, this steps over all kinds of human rights. And I'm not trying to say that such a thing should be reimplemented or that any government should step in and start curtailing our reproductive habits. I didn't think I infered that we should sterilize the populations, I merely made an observation to instigate thoughtful discussion ;)
But I totally disagree with you on your second statement, that their unattractiveness will weed them out. Infact, I'd say the opposite is true, that their unattractiveness will keep them in the gene pool. There's groups of our population who have...strange tastes in mates. I think unless a gene specifically inhibits reproduction in individuals, while that gene might not become dominant in the gene pool, I seriously doubt it will ever be removed.
I think it will be really interesting to see what happens to humanity (genetically) over the next several thousand years. The article makes it sound like bioinformatics could really take off in an effort to better ourselves by artificial selection.
A number of things have changed that will greatly impact our evolution that hasn't been experienced by our species before:
1. Ease of migration allowing for extreme mixing of previously separated social groups (this has been in decline over the last few thousand years, but now that you can travel between continents relatively quickly and cheaply, the impact will be much much greater.)
2. Knowingly allowing, accepting, and encouraging reproduction of individuals, who...shouldn't (No, I don't mean Bush). There's some bad genes out there. Some that shouldn't be passed on. While we're at a point where we can curtail some of this through prescreening parents for likely inherited traits, we continue to become more accepting of people with, well, bad genes. Aren't we effectively letting people piss into the pool?
3. Will this spawn a new race (as in car) by parents to "maximize" the brain genes described in TFA? Do I have to listen to soccer mom's brag about their kids DNA now?
4. How will this impact governments? And more importantly, dating websites?
I guess only time will tell.
Naturally it's the United States fault.
Is it me, or did you just *assume* that ICANN told China to go fsck itself, and because ICANN is completely 100% dominated by red blooded 100% republican chip-implanted Bush supporters, it must be evil and America's fault.
Seriously, why do people who don't even think before they post get modded as Insightful? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
The same way a closed source one can (bugs or no bugs).
/choose/ to view OSS source code. But just because you can doesn't mean that you do.
Most linux sysadmins don't care what about the source code of the software they use. They just care that it does the job and does it damn well. The only difference between closed source and open source is that you can
That being said, software is more commonly known for what it does and not for how it (at the code level) works. And in that regard, OSS and proprietary software are exactly alike.
Mac fanatics don't get much more elitist than you, do they? Shouldn't you be burning out burning a cross on Microsoft's front lawn?