Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unnatural selection

24

Comments

  • #32
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Donnielighto


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Natural selection is not the A honours student, it's the D pass just good enough one who doesn't hope to be any better than that.

    Thats a pretty poor analogy, if you are going down that line, it is everyone who doesn't fail (to reproduce).


  • #33
    Green Mile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 499 ✭✭Green Mile


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society. Do we have to stop these people reproducing if we want to ever achieve our goal of an equal society ? Because as long as those traits remain we will forever be fighting them. If you dont remove them they will forever be there passed own from generation to generation, possibly becoming more prominent as a lot of densely populated areas suit these types of people very well and the planet will become a lot more densely populated.

    2. Will this be our downfall as a species ? Millions of years becoming the most adaptive thing on the planet, then thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousand even millions) slowly undoing that by living in an environment where humans essentially live in controlled conditions. Not allowed to fail or fall behind and basically living on life support as a species. With natural disasters that life support might be switched off. Returning us to conditions we would not only no longer be built for but the complete opposite of what we are built for.

    TL;DR: Should we try to control our own evolution to suit our new environment or continue to go with the flow and hope it all works out ? Or are we fcuked either way given that we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for ?


    Good points but I so disagree.
    Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

    Who are we to decide who is weak, ugly or unfit to reproduce?

    If we lived in such a society as you outline, Stephen Hawking would have been deemed undesirable and we'd be way behind with scientific knowledge.

    Also one who is a D student in maths could be a very successful artist/film-maker.

    Although I disagree with you, you make good points and I have no alternatives to suggest.


  • #34
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Donnielighto


    Green Mile wrote: »
    Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

    Godwin'd thread over, tea and coffee available in the foyer ppl.


    Also re: the Steven Hawking thing he developed als when already a respected scholar, a bit off point i know but still, the man is brilliant, we should all know his life story inside out.


  • #35
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    seamus wrote: »
    But that's not guiding or interfering with evolution. If society deems that violence is unfavourable and weeds them out, then that's evolution in action. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Likewise if violent people thrive and reduce society to cinders, then that's evolution too.

    Evolution is the generational behavioural/biological changes in a species.

    By controlling our own evolution I mean actively seek the change we want by controlling or attempting to control generational changes by limiting the reproduction of people with traits we deem to be detrimental.
    Ignoring evolution for a second, you have a rather large ethical issue to overcome first - how do you know that people are genetically predisposed to violence? Sure it runs in families and lines, but that then raises the possibility that this is equally likely down to upbringing factors. In that case then, it would be impossible to genetically eradicate violence and we should be looking for other ways to improve these people.

    People are pre disposed to certain behaviours. Growing up in a certain environment or exposed to certain individuals displaying that behaviour will also have an effect. Either way it can be dramatically reduced by not allowing those who display violent behaviour to reproduce. Whether its done by passing on the characteristics through inheritance or upbringing both cannot happen if that person does not have children.

    I know you can never completely eradicate violence but you can make changes which will reduce the likelihood of people acting in violent manner.


  • #36
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    By controlling our own evolution I mean actively seek the change we want by controlling or attempting to control generational changes by limiting the reproduction of people with traits we deem to be detrimental.
    Who makes the decisions on who or what is acceptable???
    As was mentioned that has been done already in recent history and it didn't go down too well.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Green Mile wrote: »
    Good points but I so disagree.
    Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

    Hitler was a jerk.
    Who are we to decide who is weak, ugly or unfit to reproduce?

    Its not about weakness or attractiveness. But who are we to decide who is fit or unfit to reproduce ? The same people who can decide who has a place in society to begin with. Society itself can decide this based on whats best for society. If you have convictions for violent crimes and can be locked up for the rest of your life they why is it such an immoral thing to say you cannot have a child which you will likely abuse and who will likely exhibit the same behaviour you do ?
    If we lived in such a society as you outline, Stephen Hawking would have been deemed undesirable and we'd be way behind with scientific knowledge.

    Not at all. Stephen Hawking is a great benefit to society. And I am not saying anyone who doesnt contribute is the problem I'm saying those who have a negative impact are. Scumbag D Maguilegan for instance who has spent his life beating and threatening people isnt a great benefit. Thats who we dont need.
    Also one who is a D student in maths could be a very successful artist/film-maker.

    Although I disagree with you, you make good points and I have no alternatives to suggest.

    If you fail everything you ever did and everything you paid your hand to turned to shít it doesnt matter. If you want to be a member of society and contribute and not spend your life taking away from it and abusing other people then that is what society needs.


  • #38
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Who makes the decisions on who or what is acceptable???
    As was mentioned that has been done already in recent history and it didn't go down too well.

    Who made the decision that people go to jail ? Have their kids taken away ? People have always been held accountable for their actions, this is just another consequence.


  • #39
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    Who made the decision that people go to jail ? Have their kids taken away ? People have always been held accountable for their actions, this is just another consequence.
    People don't go to jail for being mentally or physically disabled.


  • #40
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    People don't go to jail for being mentally or physically disabled.

    No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.


  • #41
    Green Mile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 499 ✭✭Green Mile


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.

    People go to jail for crimes they committed. (past tense)

    You are talking about manipulating their genes so that they have no criminal flaws or to take away their ability to have children who they in turn wont cause crimes down the line.

    Can you not see problems with this?

    You are talking about punishment before crimes are committed. Yes the crime wont happen if genes are altered but it's not right to make assumptions about crimes that haven't happened yet.

    What was that Tom Cruse film called again? Time cop was it?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Green Mile wrote: »
    People go to jail for crimes they committed.
    You are talking about manipulating their genes so that they have no flaws or to take away their ability to have children who in turn wont cause crimes down the line.

    I'm talking about removing their ability to reproduce as a consequence for displaying behaviour detrimental to society through committing violent crimes. They have no business raising kids.
    Can you not see problems with this?

    You are talking about punishment before crimes are committed. Yes the crime wont happen if genes are altered but they it's not right to make assumptions about crimes that haven't happened yet.

    What was that Tom Cruse film called again? Time cop was it?

    I'm not talking all futuristic time cop stuff at all. Just a snip for violent criminals so they wont have kids they can raise to be violent criminals. Should the likes of Larry Murphy really be allowed to father and raise a child ? I say no. Once you show you cant exist in society without causing others harm your goose is cooked and a child is the last thing you should be let near.


  • #43
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    But thats where we differ from slugs, we can have an end goal, our evolution is not solely dependent on chance. We can control what we are as a species based on what we want to be as a species. By progress I mean changing as a species to best suit our environment. In terms of living in a modern equal society the best individuals suited to that are non violent people who respect others, who do not harm or exploit others. Getting closer to achieving that is the progress we should be after.

    Natural selection is not based on chance. Having an end goal is called artificial selection. It sounds like what you're describing is eugenics?

    Also, we still are changing to suit our environment naturally without an end, that doesn't stop.

    Who would be deciding who is best for modern society? It's really a dodgy road to go down.
    LordSmeg wrote: »
    I disagree I think there is a struggle for a comfortable life not survival or selection. There are monetary pressures yes but they dont affect selection, yes people die every day but many many more thrive and live longer and reproduce more because of medical advancement.

    So you think no people struggle for survival in the world? Honestly?
    LordSmeg wrote: »
    I'm not saying it stops I'm saying we are evolving to suit our environment. An environment which doesnt have the struggles and pressures present in the natural world. The struggle by and large in the modern word is a struggle to live comfortably not to survive and reproduce.

    Well really the struggle is to pass on genes and that struggle is still present.
    LordSmeg wrote: »
    I know thats all thats needed but the point was they struggle to survive while those in conditions closer to the modern world dont. They only struggle to live comfortably. And we are not far into the modern age. The structures of modern society creates an environment that doesnt involves a struggle for survival.

    But people still die and still evolve, I'm not sure where we are going here?


  • #44
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.
    Your words ...... "lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured" or according to their "physical or social standing" and of course the wonderfully ambiguous "traits we deem to be detrimental", or should I say "traits you deem to be detrimental".


  • #45
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Think he meant it in terms of change btw. Also going by your statement we are as evolved as the original single celled species, no more. I find that incongruous with evolution which is progression from simpler to more complex forms through development and diversifying.

    We are as evolved as any other modern species, number the cells isn't that relevant.
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    The waiting list for operations is a bit questionable, people can still have kids especially since they are supported by the rest of society to do so (financially). A wide spread of people having a low number of children and relatively very little to separate people between life and death up to child bearing age as was in the past.

    That sounds like mainly the west to be honest. There is still plenty of people who aren't passing on genes or avoiding it. The number of children born in western countries is far less that in African countries where there are less resources. Defence mechanism? Strange how our grandparents had 10 kids and we only have 2.
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Thats nuts :D If that were evolution wouldn't it mean that those women would for want of a better word have come from sex worker "stock" otherwise it would be an inherent chance among humans and these are the ones who havent died otherwise the population proportions would be the same ie not evolution, yet anyway?

    I'm not sure what you're saying here? My point is that there is people in Africa with a gene resistant to HIV. Scientists forecast that there will be a genetic shift in the population favouring those born with this gene.


  • #46
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    Its probably all interlinked. Take the domestication of dogs. Started as wolves who were aggressive, only the tamest ones were bred and eventually you get an animal pre disposed to be non aggressive. Although still capable of it its less likely to be that way.

    But if you take that analogy to it's conclusion - which is the breeding of purebreds for certain "attractive" characteristics, you end up with the situation which exists today with purebreds, in that many of them suffer from genetic problems.

    I'm also not convinced that you can breed violence or "ugliness" out of the human gene pool.

    And even if you could, I don't see any reason why you would.


  • #47
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Thats a pretty poor analogy, if you are going down that line, it is everyone who doesn't fail (to reproduce).

    How is it a poor analogy, it's exactly the case? Evolution isn't looking for some anthro-centric greek god.


  • #48
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Natural selection is not based on chance. Having an end goal is called artificial selection. It sounds like what you're describing is eugenics?

    Seems to be eugenics yes, although I havent looked into it detail. By chance I mean the slug has no control, no awareness everything it is and will be is just a result of wherever it finds itself. Humans can divert from that, chane the environment to suit us, change us to suit the environment.
    Also, we still are changing to suit our environment naturally without an end, that doesn't stop.

    But we can also make changes based on future environments not just the environment we are in now. We have the ability to shape our environment and ourselves to achieve what we want in the future not just react to current circumstances.
    Who would be deciding who is best for modern society? It's really a dodgy road to go down.

    Not really, we already dictate who can be in any particular society and the roles which they can have based on the behaviour they display. We constantly live within limits set by society. This wouldnt break away from that.
    So you think no people struggle for survival in the world? Honestly?

    Of course they do but not in such a way as will have an impact on the species.
    Well really the struggle is to pass on genes and that struggle is still present.

    Not really. Populations have exploded in recent years. The struggle now is to live comfortably as materialism has taken over from instinct.
    But people still die and still evolve, I'm not sure where we are going here?

    And we are back to the main point. Evolve in what way ? What constraints on the selection process creates change in the species ? None. Its a lucky dip as far as small changes and there will be no big changes as our environment isnt changing as people dont have to change to live in it.


  • #49
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Your words ...... "lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured" or according to their "physical or social standing" and of course the wonderfully ambiguous "traits we deem to be detrimental", or should I say "traits you deem to be detrimental".

    You misunderstand. That was in relation to the stagnating of evolutionary progress in relation to our current environment. Not detrimental, your mis representing my post here and I dont appreciate it.
    1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society.

    That was in relation to controlling it. Notice the words violent, those who exploit others, detrimental to society.

    I never mentioned stopping disabled people from reproducing.


  • #50
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    But if you take that analogy to it's conclusion - which is the breeding of purebreds for certain "attractive" characteristics, you end up with the situation which exists today with purebreds, in that many of them suffer from genetic problems.

    I'm also not convinced that you can breed violence or "ugliness" out of the human gene pool.

    And even if you could, I don't see any reason why you would.

    That was just to show that aggressiveness can be limited through the control of generational changes.

    But I'm not talking about selective breeding in relation to humans I'm talking about limiting reproduction in an active attempt to reduce the number of violent individuals. I never mentioned doing anything to make people more attractive, I just used that as a point in relation to the diversity of the gene pool.

    And why wouldnt you see any reason to try and limit violence if it was possible ???


  • #51
    mongdesade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 330 ✭✭mongdesade


    An evolutionary utopian society is unattainable as we as a species are the most detrimental factor in the equation.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    mongdesade wrote: »
    An evolutionary utopian society is unattainable as we as a species are the most detrimental factor in the equation.

    But surely we could get closer to it by trying than not ?


  • #53
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    You misunderstand. That was in relation to the stagnating of evolutionary progress in relation to our current environment. Not detrimental, your mis representing my post here and I dont appreciate it.



    That was in relation to controlling it. Notice the words violent, those who exploit others, detrimental to society.

    I never mentioned stopping disabled people from reproducing.
    Read you own OP.
    Now though we live in a rigged environment where we dont have to adapt or even do much to survive. So there are no people who are ill suited that are failing and allowing the better ones to enhance the gene pool and push the species forward. No matter how lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured you are you can reproduce. Which means we are stagnating as a species and adapting to live in a rigged environment where nothing but social skills are needed.

    I have two points in relation to that.

    Point 1. <<you mention violence>> Grand.

    Now in point 2. you state in relation to your opening statement that
    Will this be our downfall as a species ? Millions of years becoming the most adaptive thing on the planet, then thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousand even millions) slowly undoing that by living in an environment where humans essentially live in controlled conditions. Not allowed to fail or fall behind and basically living on life support as a species. With natural disasters that life support might be switched off. Returning us to conditions we would not only no longer be built for but the complete opposite of what we are built for.
    The above point #2 is not about violent people.

    And just to be clear you also state.
    TL;DR: Should we try to control our own evolution to suit our new environment or continue to go with the flow and hope it all works out ? Or are we fcuked either way given that we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for ?
    How does "we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for" relate to people of violence, when often these people are the toughest and often very physically fit.

    Stop trying to weedle your way out of it.


  • #54
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Read you own OP.


    Point 1. <<you mention violence>> Grand.

    Now in point 2. you state in relation to your opening statement that
    The above point #2 is not about violent people.

    And just to be clear you also state.

    How does "we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for" relate to people of violence, when often these people are the toughest and often very physically fit.

    Stop trying to weedle your way out of it.

    I'm not weedling my way out of nothing. Listen to me please. I have not said anything at all about removing disabled people. I merely stated a fact.

    I stated that there is no hindering of reproduction in modern society in regards to what would previously have been characteristics which facilitated mating.

    Point 1 was in relation to how society should act in regards to the generational changes to benefit society and guide it to some extent. I mention trying to limit violence as an example.

    Point 2 was in relation to whether or not our dependence on modern society would leave us ill suited for survival if it collapsed.

    The only changes I advocated were those detrimental to society which I have explain several times since that are behaviours exhibited by people which negatively impact on society and those in it.

    So please stop misrepresenting my argument.


  • #55
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    Why does the OP think evolution is a forward process, it isn't. Evolution does not have a goal it is just a cold process. We are not and never will evolve into "Xmen". Lets take the human intellect, it's a very handy survival tool, but it is expensive. It consumes from 25 to 35% of our bodily resources.

    So suppose an environmental catastrophe happened that reduced atmospheric oxygen by 50%, then perhaps a mutation "may" occur that a person with a smaller less intelligent brain would have the survival and therefore a reproductive advantage. Then a human branch would evolve with less intelligence but more equipped to survive in the new environment.


  • #56
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    I'm not weedling my way out of nothing. Listen to me please. I have not said anything at all about removing disabled people. I merely stated a fact.

    I stated that there is no hindering of reproduction in modern society in regards to what would previously have been characteristics which facilitated mating.

    Point 1 was in relation to how society should act in regards to the generational changes to benefit society and guide it to some extent. I mention trying to limit violence as an example.

    Point 2 was in relation to whether or not our dependence on modern society would leave us ill suited for survival if it collapsed.

    The only changes I advocated were those detrimental to society which I have explain several times since that are behaviours exhibited by people which negatively impact on society and those in it.

    So please stop misrepresenting my argument.
    Well if I picked you up wrong on that front I apologise, though I don't think I was the only one because your OP does give the impression you are on about controlling evolution with respect to more than just violence.


  • #57
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Colmustard wrote: »
    Why does the OP think evolution is a forward process, it isn't. Evolution does not have a goal it is just a cold process. We are not and never will evolve into "Xmen". Lets take the human intellect, it's a very handy survival tool, but it is expensive. It consumes from 25 to 35% of our bodily resources.

    So suppose an environmental catastrophe happened that reduced atmospheric oxygen by 50%, then perhaps a mutation "may" occur that a person with a smaller less intelligent brain would have the survival and therefore a reproductive advantage. Then a human branch would evolve with less intelligence but more equipped to survive in the new environment.


    The first line in regards evolution was about how we got where we are which has been a steady increase in intelligence and standards of life and what have ya. Then I described our current environment and asked if we should actively seek to make changes to better society considering natural selection will no longer result in the changes we as a people would seek to achieve.

    I never said evolution had a goal I said humans do, and we are capable of changing our environment and capable of improving on that and society to the benefit of humankind.


  • #58
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    Seems to be eugenics yes, although I havent looked into it detail. By chance I mean the slug has no control, no awareness everything it is and will be is just a result of wherever it finds itself. Humans can divert from that, chane the environment to suit us, change us to suit the environment.

    You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    But we can also make changes based on future environments not just the environment we are in now. We have the ability to shape our environment and ourselves to achieve what we want in the future not just react to current circumstances.

    Yes, we fight nature all the time. I think you need to get a bit more specific with your theory?
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Not really, we already dictate who can be in any particular society and the roles which they can have based on the behaviour they display. We constantly live within limits set by society. This wouldnt break away from that.

    Right, not that I agree with that paragraph but what is your proposal exactly?
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Of course they do but not in such a way as will have an impact on the species.

    Immunity to HIV doesn't have an impact on the species? What do you want, for them to grow gills overnight?
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    Not really. Populations have exploded in recent years. The struggle now is to live comfortably as materialism has taken over from instinct.

    Yes yes, and all it might take is a super virus to take us all down, just like the black death did in 1350. You and me are most likely descendents of people who had an immunity to the black death.
    Donnielighto wrote: »
    And we are back to the main point. Evolve in what way ? What constraints on the selection process creates change in the species ? None. Its a lucky dip as far as small changes and there will be no big changes as our environment isnt changing as people dont have to change to live in it.

    And I say again, there is changes in the environment and in our evolution constantly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution


  • #59
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Well if I picked you up wrong on that front I apologise, though I don't think I was the only one because your OP does give the impression you are on about controlling evolution with respect to more than just violence.

    Apology accepted I certainly dont hold that view and I've expressed that several times now.

    I'm blaming the fact that its a long OP and people tend to pick at stuff in isolation in long posts rather than taking it all in.


  • #60
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Ush1 wrote: »
    You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.

    Not at all but you dont have to control every facet to make positive changes. I dont see how its a dodgy road to be honest. In the case to neutering violent criminals I see no moral problem whatsoever. Its a consequence of negative social behaviour, thats how society enforces its standards.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    That was just to show that aggressiveness can be limited through the control of generational changes.

    But I'm not talking about selective breeding in relation to humans I'm talking about limiting reproduction in an active attempt to reduce the number of violent individuals. I never mentioned doing anything to make people more attractive, I just used that as a point in relation to the diversity of the gene pool.

    And why wouldnt you see any reason to try and limit violence if it was possible ???

    It may be possible to limit agressiveness through the control of generational changes, but there's no concrete evidence to suggest that it can be done purely through genetic controls and no evidence at all to suggest that it can be done by controlling who or who does not reproduce.

    You could try to limit violence in this manner, but at what cost would it come and more importantly - would it even achieve to set out what it tried to achieve?


Advertisement