I've been thinking...

[KiraTaureLor]

what would be the point of a master race?

It would certainly not benefit the "Hitler" because he/she would be long gone before the master race is completed, and technology for long lives, and immortality would not be available by then.

But to humor you, We can realistically create a master race passively. in fact we already have them they are just scattered all over the world, overwhelmed by the rest of humans. It would be better to create a sovereign country who's citizens are scientists, philosophers, writers, and programmers, etc...We would then have these people mate, and create super schools for their offspring.

 

[Caligulove]

Survival of the Fittest really doesn't apply to our species anymore. Since we have the capability to keep the people that would have died off, alive, its not really something that we can use to judge. While I understand that your point of a lack of productivity from those incapable of the same standard as so-called Normal humans, things like Eugenics are not the answer. Culture and continued survival as a species demands diversity, otherwise no recombination of genetics, no progress, no evolution. Just stagnation until infertility or full on extinction.

Not to mention there is no such thing as a Master Race or genetic superiority- there is only genetic diversity. There is no perfection, only something that is more evolved than it was before.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

A lot of people don't really seem to understand natural selection. In fact, the term "survival of the fittest [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest]" is actually very misleading.

It's not about becoming "stronger" or "fitter". The theory of evolution is actually entirely retrospective. You can never ever accurately predict what will survive or what something will evolve into. And you can't "tamper" with natural selection. For example, you might say that "letting the mentally disabled breed is holding back our evolution as a species", but that would be very difficult to prove. You don't know the path of our evolution as a species. Maybe a virus mutates suddenly and kills anyone with an IQ over 70. Those who survive -- the highly mentally retarded people -- are thusly the fittest. They reproduce, solely, and thus humans would be far stupider as a species: that would be the next step of our evolution. See? It's not necessarily "progress". It's about whatever can survive.

If you want to sum up natural selection, a much better way to put it is "those who survive were fit".

 

[KiraTaureLor]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

I do not mean to sound barbarian, though Stephen hawing is beyond brilliant, what has he achieved that is practical to human survival? Because when you strip humanity down to its basic needs are; food, water, shelter, money, communication, and entertainment. we really only need the first three, but we have grown to to the the last three necessities instead of luxury wants.

(This is just a thought that crossed my mind, so please don't hurt me escapist community.)

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Um, I think "Wall-e" might have been a better example of your opinion. Hell, pretty much anything would have been better then Hitler. Wasn't that movie all about technology making people fat and stupid?

Anyway, natural selection is still doing just fine. Put simply and crudely, fit people still get laid more often then fat people. Hell, that's what motivating ME to go to the damn gym. I'm not sure how brains factor into that, but...Hell, if smart people weren't reproducing, we wouldn't have the technology to make this an issue in the first place.

So there ya go.

 

[Dectomax]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

I do not mean to sound barbarian, though Stephen hawing is beyond brilliant, what has he achieved that is practical to human survival? Because when you strip humanity down to its basic needs are; food, water, shelter, money, communication, and entertainment. we really only need the first three, but we have grown to to the the last three necessities instead of luxury wants.

(This is just a thought that crossed my mind, so please don't hurt me escapist community.)

He has furthered our understanding of certain sciences, which is in the eye's of some, very important. However, I was using him in the context that whilst disabled he is also extremely smart, thus would counter the argument that disabled births produce less than capable people.

 

[Dectomax]

Um, I think "Wall-e" might have been a better example of your opinion. Hell, pretty much anything would have been better then Hitler. Wasn't that movie all about technology making people fat and stupid?

Anyway, natural selection is still doing just fine. Put simply and crudely, fit people still get laid more often then fat people. Hell, that's what motivating ME to go to the damn gym. I'm not sure how brains factor into that, but...Hell, if smart people weren't reproducing, we wouldn't have the technology to make this an issue in the first place.

So there ya go.

Hitler was just the first thing that came to mind - Listen to the Fallout 1 intro. That's what sparked off this idea in the first place.

 

[Zipa]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Yes but no other animal adapts it environment to live in they adapt to it.

A animal for example might evolve claws to help it hunt/defend itself. A human makes a weapon of some sort be it a sword a spear ect.

 

[sheah1]

Our refusal to do this is what makes us human.

 

[Dectomax]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Yes but no other animal adapts it environment to live in they adapt to it.

A animal for example might evolve claws to help it hunt/defend itself. A human makes a weapon of some sort be it a sword a spear ect.

As stated before, Ant's build colonies that allow them to survive in places they shouldn't be able to - Search worlds largest ant colony.

Termites, arrange their towers specifically so they can survive in certain areas.

Is that not adapting the environment to survive also?

EDIT: 1000th post

 

[Xanadu84]

A lot of people discuss natural selection as this desirable thing. It's not. Evolution is quite possibly the least efficient system for anything ever. It doesn't exactly weed out the weak and let the strongest flourish. Often times, the strong, which are powerful and chalk full of desirable traits, get weeded out by the weaker, slimy, stupid, nasty bastards who will bring down the overall prosperity and happiness of there entire species, but stop JUST short of consigning there species to oblivion.

Evolution favors the wolf who is willing to get a little bit fatter by wiping out a herd of animals, leading to most of their pack inevitably starving in the coming months, but who at the same isn't a good enough hunter to completely kill themselves off. If there were a prosperous bird nirvana somewhere, where birds were about to invent farming and language because they managed to be composed entirely of birds pre-disposed to avoid aggression, then it won't take long before an aggressive bird is born that sends the entire civilization back to shit by exploiting all its flock in exchange for the tiniest bit of food. In a complex system, there is no way to sort through ALL the genes and traits and figure out which ones could be discarded, and which ones are actually part of a stable system. And certainly, race, or any other method of distinguishing a, "Master race" would be useless for determining where those genes are.

If you want the human race to be stronger, you have to make people make conscious decisions to contribute to the Gene pool in a desirable way. If you are predisposed towards illness or other weakness, then adopt, and let your legacy be teaching your adopted children how to succeed in spite of handicaps. You should take it as a compliment. It has to be a change in culture, because any other approach will just turn into a mess.

 

[Popido]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Yes but no other animal adapts it environment to live in they adapt to it.

A animal for example might evolve claws to help it hunt/defend itself. A human makes a weapon of some sort be it a sword a spear ect.

Humans havent stopped evolving thought.

 

[Galdrack]

Logically for society, in terms of advancing and developing, yes a Master Race does make sense.
However our society isn't about developing and advancing, it's more based on interaction. Development is more of a by-product to our interaction. So no the master race idea makes no sense to me in that regard.

 

[Zipa]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Yes but no other animal adapts it environment to live in they adapt to it.

A animal for example might evolve claws to help it hunt/defend itself. A human makes a weapon of some sort be it a sword a spear ect.

Humans havent stopped evolving thought.

No we haven't. As a race we are getting taller also we have evolved a tolerence to gluten, about 1% of the population still can't process it which isnt strange since we have only been farming/eating cereals for about 9000 years or so.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Did Hitler have the right idea...But in his views of the Human race?

Srsly, people, we knew eugenics was stupid half a century ago.

 

[Dectomax]

Did Hitler have the right idea...But in his views of the Human race?

Srsly, people, we knew eugenics was stupid half a century ago.

Fixed the link for you.

And please, try to add something of value to the discussion.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Did Hitler have the right idea...But in his views of the Human race?

snip
Srsly, people, we knew eugenics was stupid half a century ago.

Fixed the link for you.

And please, try to add something of value to the discussion.

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

 

[Dectomax]

Did Hitler have the right idea...But in his views of the Human race?

snip
Srsly, people, we knew eugenics was stupid half a century ago.

Fixed the link for you.

And please, try to add something of value to the discussion.

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

 

[Sevre]

Did Hitler have the right idea...But in his views of the Human race?

snip
Srsly, people, we knew eugenics was stupid half a century ago.

Fixed the link for you.

And please, try to add something of value to the discussion.

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

 

[etherlance]

I have a younger brother with Downs syndrome who most definitely would have died as a baby were it not for technology. And I would damn well fight to the bitter end against people who would want him to just die rather than have him live as a "Drain on the Master Race's resources".