[ioscope]

btw
It has nothing to do with natural selection. It's about getting opressed and ****ed and constantly beaten down.

If you lived in the ghetto, and had no father, and your mom was a crackhead.

Would you be worrying about your career and your grades?

I know I wouldn't.

 

[Shmoe]

First off, Here wendys is more expensive then Mcdonalds..

Saying the 'the poor' should not have children is ignorant. You do not know what lies ahead in life. One day you could be in their shoes, you just never know. The good news is, in this part of the world pretty much everyone has an oppertunity to suceed, so if your born poor that can change if you work hard enough.

 

[Silver]

Well I'm very anti-Walmart I avoid it at all costs and I've actaully never bought anything at one.
Second, there was actaully something going on before Hitler, some selective breeding of humans. To improve our race, theoredically we evolve by only the fitest survive. That has change in modern culture where, the poorer and stupider have more children than the rich and intelligent. So they started to reverse that by not letting poor stupid ppl have kids. After ww2 and hitler everything changed because it's been forbidden to even think this way. Hitler took it to an extreme but the basic idea isn;t bad. I forget what this idea is called maybe someone on here will know.....also I know there are rich stupid ppl and vice versa but scientists for example almost never have 7 kids......

You should be glad that we aren't practising social Darwinists in North America...you might not have made it this far based on test scores if we were.

 

[Pau11y]

JMAC has a point in that due to technology, the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" is completely out the window. However, this is a 2 or 3 hundred year old concept. If applied in current day, specifically in this society, it's more like "the most comfortable survival" or "who can afford medical care."
Now, as for selective breeding, that's not dictated by social status. There are some pretty hardy poor people as are some pretty feeble wealthy ones. But, BREEDING is most definitely dictated by social status (income level). There are exceptions to the rule, but ppl tend to stick to their own income level. All you need to do is check out Yahoo personals for this verification; Pretty Woman thing rarely happens in real life.
Within this social status thing, everyone who's on the hunt is looking for traits that he/she thinks is "best." In this respect everyone is practicing selective breeding, so we don't exactly need Hitler in this equation.

By the way, these are just my observations. I'm not a professional, but I do pay attention to things.

Edit: dammit, wireless keyboard batteries are going!

 

[Pau11y]

JMAC, good job on the Apache thing. Hijacked and moved, and still going strong! Baaawaaaahahahaha!

 

[ito]

I'm not talking about population control but evolutionary selection in humans. There's a word for it and I;'ll look it up but don;t have time right now....

Eugenics?

It was big in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Non-consensual sterilization was first proposed by the eugenics as a way of imposed social control to promote the “best” of society. The hope was that we could weed out genetically spread diseases and the less-fit of society. In the United States non-voluntary sterilization has been held up in a number of cases. These cases have involved sterilization of the mentally handicapped and those who had children irresponsibly and could not look after them. It has also been used as punishment for prisoners. This however has done little for population control and is more an issue of social elitism.

That's from a paper I wrote on the subject of population control. If you want more on the topic look at this book. A Decade in the Progress of Eugenics: Third International Congress of Eugenics, Pretty interesting.

Another bit of my essay with quotes from the above book....

This policy claimed that steps were needed to ensure that the future holds “not more but better and finer representatives of every race.” (Osborn, p.32, 1932). This inevitably led scientists to proclaim that at home we need “’not more, but better Americans,’ which raises the questions, What is an American?” (Osborn, p.40, 1932). In a growing movement, led by white scientists in the early 1900’s, this meant a predominantly white culture that had to overcome the threat of other races. If racism was ever promoted in the name of science the eugenics are some of the best instances available.

Ya, the guys had interesting ideas and a lot of work in genetics was started because of them, but if you want a more racist and social elitist group of old, rich white men you'd be hard pressed to do it. These guys are f'ing scary and some of the stuff they did is sick!

The Ito

 

[blue]

JMAC, RM's own elitist whore (not to mention, Quebecois, right?)

 

[JMAC]

Eugenics?

It was big in the late 1800's and early 1900's.



That's from a paper I wrote on the subject of population control. If you want more on the topic look at this book. A Decade in the Progress of Eugenics: Third International Congress of Eugenics, Pretty interesting.

Another bit of my essay with quotes from the above book....


Ya, the guys had interesting ideas and a lot of work in genetics was started because of them, but if you want a more racist and social elitist group of old, rich white men you'd be hard pressed to do it. These guys are f'ing scary and some of the stuff they did is sick!

The Ito

Yes thank you thats it...

 

[JMAC]

JMAC, RM's own elitist whore (not to mention, Quebecois, right?)

BWAHAHAHAHA yup and a quebecois hopefully I'll be leaving soon....