Cummings' Jobs Advert

[s2art]

JagLover said:

El stovey said:

Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”

Extremely unlikely as autism is also described as being an "extremely male brain". Scientists and mathematicians usually test higher on the autistic spectrum and to try and eliminate those traits is also likely to significantly reduce scientific advancement.

When it comes to intelligence any realistic eugenics programme is likely to be to try and shift the mean a bit to the right so the average is slightly higher and those with exceptional intelligence far more prevalent.

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

[Eric Mc]

JagLover said:

What I am suggesting is that scientific advance has tended to come from brilliant minds who are of limited numbers and the modern world we live in is predominantly due to their work.

Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 10:15

Simple answer is - both matter. And emotional awareness and understanding of the human condition is every bit as important for humanity's progress as messing with test tubes and oscilloscopes.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

JagLover said:

El stovey said:

Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”

Extremely unlikely as autism is also described as being an "extremely male brain". Scientists and mathematicians usually test higher on the autistic spectrum and to try and eliminate those traits is also likely to significantly reduce scientific advancement.

When it comes to intelligence any realistic eugenics programme is likely to be to try and shift the mean a bit to the right so the average is slightly higher and those with exceptional intelligence far more prevalent.

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

Would you eradicate autism? Would you pick autism for your child if you were able to decide ( it might lead to them being a top scienctist?) or not.

Or do you think eugenics scientists wouldn’t think autism was undesirable as they were likely to be on the spectrum so it might reduce scientific advancement?

[s2art]

El stovey said:

s2art said:

JagLover said:

El stovey said:

Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”

Extremely unlikely as autism is also described as being an "extremely male brain". Scientists and mathematicians usually test higher on the autistic spectrum and to try and eliminate those traits is also likely to significantly reduce scientific advancement.

When it comes to intelligence any realistic eugenics programme is likely to be to try and shift the mean a bit to the right so the average is slightly higher and those with exceptional intelligence far more prevalent.

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

Would you eradicate autism? Would you pick autism for your child if you were able to decide ( it might lead to them being a top scienctist?) or not.

Or do you think eugenics scientists wouldn’t think autism was undesirable as they were likely to be on the spectrum so it might reduce scientific advancement?

It wouldnt be on my list of priorities. There are far more important areas to address.

[JagLover]

Eric Mc said:

Simple answer is - both matter. And emotional awareness and understanding of the human condition is every bit as important for humanity's progress as messing with test tubes and oscilloscopes.

I think you are confusing societal stability and progress. Emotional intelligence is important for the former not the latter. If all we had was emotional intelligence we would still all be living in caves.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 11:51

[Sway]

El stovey said:

JagLover said:

What I am suggesting is that scientific advance has tended to come from brilliant minds who are of limited numbers and the modern world we live in is predominantly due to their work.

Emotional intelligence has a vital place in a well functioning society but the advancement of the human condition is driven by the best of us (intellectually speaking) who may well be detached from the normal human condition or even on the "spectrum".

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 10:15

Right but wouldn’t eugenics actually be about getting rid of those traits? That’s the irony of some of these people really into eugenics, if you’re proposing eugenics you’ve likely got traits that would be seen as undesirable in society, depending on who gets to decide obviously.

The people proposing eugenics usually think they’re in the group with desirable characteristics but maybe that alone shows something that might be considered undesirable by others.

What about genetic predispositions for cancers, alzheimers, mobility issues such as those faced by my better half and daughter?

Why can't we seek to revise the human genome so they cannot be passed on to future generations?

We're now in a position where we're doing pre-emptive mastectomies on women...

[TTwiggy]

JagLover said:

I think you are confusing societal stability and progress. Emotional intelligence is important for the former not the latter. If all we had was emotionally intelligence we would still all be living in caves.

Maybe, but we may have also NOT spent the intervening millennia trying to wipe each other out.

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

So you are happy to allow the government to decide who can breed and who cannot?

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

So you are happy to allow the government to decide who can breed and who cannot?

Nope, but I would be happy to allow the NHS to offer a service to improve childrens life chances and improve the nations health.

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

So you are happy to allow the government to decide who can breed and who cannot?

Nope, but I would be happy to allow the NHS to offer a service to improve childrens life chances and improve the nations health.

So you want doctors to decide who can have or not have children?

I think you will find they will not accept the responsibility.

[TTwiggy]

s2art said:

Nope, but I would be happy to allow the NHS to offer a service to improve childrens life chances and improve the nations health.

So did Sabisky - his idea was sterilising the 'underclass'. What a brave new world that has such people in it.

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Quite. An initial attempt at eugenics would be to reduce various genetic diseases and improve general health and hopefully intelligence.

So you are happy to allow the government to decide who can breed and who cannot?

Nope, but I would be happy to allow the NHS to offer a service to improve childrens life chances and improve the nations health.

So you want doctors to decide who can have or not have children?

I think you will find they will not accept the responsibility.

Get a grip. This has nothing to do with deciding who has children . Its about offering a gene editing service on the NHS not just for the rich.

[hifihigh]

s2art said:

Seriously? You dont think its a good thing to eliminate genetic deficiencies/disadvantages? I am not prone to alzheimers /heart disease etc etc (at least yet!)
but I dont wish those conditions on anyone. So why not edit out the bad genes?

I have some bad news for you You must die, for the good of the colony, heart desease or some st.

Yea thats right, just step into tho this booth and and it will all be over.

[s2art]

hifihigh said:

s2art said:

Seriously? You dont think its a good thing to eliminate genetic deficiencies/disadvantages? I am not prone to alzheimers /heart disease etc etc (at least yet!)
but I dont wish those conditions on anyone. So why not edit out the bad genes?

I have some bad news for you You must die, for the good of the colony, heart desease or some st.

Yea thats right, just step into tho this booth and and it will all be over.

? Whats that got to do with editing genes?

[Graveworm]

TTwiggy said:

So did Sabisky - his idea was sterilising the 'underclass'. What a brave new world that has such people in it.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH SABISKY I DO NOT KNOW WHAT AN UNDERCLASS IS
However theoretically if there was an option where, at the point of reaching puberty, there was a zero downside OPTION to make female and or male infertile, until such a time as they wanted to be fertile, is that something that is abhorrent. I am not advocating it, suggesting it become compulsory or that it be used for genetic engineering.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH SABISKY I DO NOT KNOW WHAT AN UNDERCLASS IS

[JagLover]

s2art said:

Get a grip. This has nothing to do with deciding who has children . Its about offering a gene editing service on the NHS not just for the rich.

You can be sure that once such treatments are available the rich will be taking advantage of them. Perhaps at the same time as the media outlets they control denounce such treatments.

[Zirconia]

I wonder if this will be labour party moment where the cabinet start to say they were all going to say something but he went before they could. Already heard one interview like that.

That this it happened, raises the questions as to who else on the weirdo list and employed by Cummings that would not stand scrutiny.

[s2art]

JagLover said:

s2art said:

Get a grip. This has nothing to do with deciding who has children . Its about offering a gene editing service on the NHS not just for the rich.

You can be sure that once such treatments are available the rich will be taking advantage of them. Perhaps at the same time as the media outlets they control denounce such treatments.

I suspect they already are. Not long ago a Chinese scientist edited the genes of a couple of babies to create HIV resistance, (dunno if he succeeded)

[bitchstewie]

El stovey said:

Eugenics would likely be about getting rid of the “spectrum” and people “detached from the normal human condition”

I'm sure those in favour of eugenics would be absolutely fine with it right up until the point that their own deficiencies were the ones deemed unacceptable to society.

I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.

Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.

I don't get it.

[Eric Mc]

It's to do with what side you are on.

If you support A and A says something outlandish, you will back A up.

If you DON'T support A and he says the same thing, you attack A.

Humans playing God is a dangerous thing. Unless one is the epitome of perfection, deciding what attributes a human should possess and what attributes are undesirable is a very, very dangerous path to travel along.