How will it all end?

So, we're probably fucked, but just how will we get fucked?

Just as long as it wears a condom. I really couldn't care less how we get fucked. It is bound to happen regardless.

What a poll to take part in on this miserable Tuesday morning.

I don't think any of the options will be true. I think everyone will worry about the future as the TV turns them into Menchild or worse Womenchild while successive governments play smash and grab on pensions and the family silver, as they go "Look over there!" as they do it.

It should be an all out nuclear war. The Earth should die screaming. But it won't. Things will just get worse. More self absorbed. More divided. At least in the UK! All bets are off for America and elsewhere.

Why is there no 'the moon is an egg' option on this poll, FFS!

Tommy Robinson is gonna strap a nuke to his head and nut ISIS. Game over.

If any moderators are watching, please include the following options in the poll:

Malevolent Moon Dragon

Four Lions Vs Beer, Darts, Tits, Red Tops and Incoherency (Holy War)

I have gone for the Transhumanism one cos cyborg feminists want to split from the male patriarchy by becoming cyborgs and, frankly, I say let them. We don't need their sort.

Mr. Happy wrote:I have gone for the Transhumanism one cos cyborg feminists want to split from the male patriarchy by becoming cyborgs and, frankly, I say let them. We don't need their sort.

Oh shiiiit! Feminists for Transhumanism.

Artificial wombs and sperm engineered from female stem cells. Brain implants that exacerbate the indignation and outrage centre of the brain. Smart fog weapon that castrates all men who use the wrong gender pronouns or the prefix/suffix 'man'. Genetic engineering so every woman is born with blue, green or purple hair and weighs at least 300lbs.

Be afraid.

I prefer Postmodern Feminsts for Transhumanism cos the acronym is Pfft!

Mr. Happy wrote:I prefer Postmodern Feminsts for Transhumanism cos the acronym is Pfft!

Very good. One of the few Acronyms I can get fully behind.

Couldn't help commenting on this topic. I voted for dysgenics. Without a doubt the population in the UK has deteriorated to such an extent that we now have dysgenic selection. The very worst examples of humanity are outnumbering those of moral character and tailoring a society which suits their needs. This has been going on for a long time and moral standards and values have become warped. The only way to counter the dysgenic trend is through a policy of eugenics which aims to improve the health, intelligence and moral character of the population (or subpopulation) but this will entail rethinking the ethics of procreation. You wouldn't just be allowed to drive a car without a license, the same should apply to reproduction. I don't agree eugenics should be racialist (which was the path National socialism took it down) although if there is a strong underlying genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior some groups may be disproportionately affected.

Kaled hygiene wrote:Couldn't help commenting on this topic. I voted for dysgenics. Without a doubt the population in the UK has deteriorated to such an extent that we now have dysgenic selection.

Can you point to the scientific evidence for this? Isn't the UK now less inbred and more heterozygous than it used to be - especially when you consider migration from Europe and the commonwealth? In terms of 'racial' ( the human race's health), heterozygousity decreases the chances of genetic disease and mental disorder i.e. the general 'fitness' of humanity.

The very worst examples of humanity are outnumbering those of moral character and tailoring a society which suits their needs.

Who are these 'worst examples', and what is the evidence that they currently outnumber those of 'moral character'?

Indeed, how do you define 'moral character', given that morality is culturally derived from ideology, and not genetics?

This has been going on for a long time and moral standards and values have become warped.

In what way? The evidence from 'a long time' ago strongly infers that moral standards are plastic and not rigid constructs - even among similar cultures.

Are morals degenerating, or are they being replaced by new, more complex liberal standards which reflect the individualism, co-existence and self-expression evinced in late capitalism?

The only way to counter the dysgenic trend is through a policy of eugenics which aims to improve the health, intelligence and moral character of the population

So you would violate the rights of the law-abiding individual in order to produce a super-race of healthy, smart and moral people?

Ignoring the moral issue, which has nothing to do with genetics, selecting for health would not only erase the disabled from the map of humanity, but also some of the finest minds to have ever existed i.e. Hawking, Einstein (Learning disability), Washington, Edison, Beethoven ( to name a hew).

The finest talents and savants are often a product of genetic illness, like Stephen Wiltshire, Kin Peak, or Gilles Tréhin.

Humanity isn't an entity to be shaped to the will of an insane ideology like eugenics. No doubt people can be ideologically possessed, but they cannot be allowed to interfere in selection, as there are far many more facets to a good, productive life than just health and intelligence.

If there's something to learn from genetic diversity, it's that it's part of the human experience and condition. I'm not saying it's not difficult, but it's far better to have a society replete with individuals of differing natures and abilities, not only because of the division of labour, but that these differences allow us to demonstrate our understanding, compassion and capacity to care.

You wouldn't just be allowed to drive a car without a license, the same should apply to reproduction.

Did you really just make a false equivalence between a car and a living, thinking human being?  

I don't agree eugenics should be racialist (which was the path National socialism took it down) although if there is a strong underlying genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior some groups may be disproportionately affected.

So you're not a racist, but don't particularly mind if certain racial groups are bred out of the population if it fits your ethnocentric ideological perspectives on racial hygiene?

Sorry man, but this is possibly the laziest argument I've encountered in some time. I'm not going to sit here and cry Nazi at you, but the whole idea of eugenics is inextricably linked to notions of racial hygiene. There are also ethical concerns about the role of the state having such a deterministic influence on the type of persons produced by such a method, and whether this would lead to new genetic 'classes' of people such as those in Huxley's Brave New World, or Niccol's Gattaca.

To conclude, much of the evidence pertaining to the efficacy of Eugenics is very poor - to the point where it's utterly outdated and eschewed as a method of improving genetic health. Given the possibilities of CRISPR, nano-implantation/repair and other transhumanist technological possibilities, the type of genetic cards dealt at birth is likely to mean very little within the next few decades (as long as these technologies are universally available). We'll have to deal with the legal and moral implications of that as progress as a species, but my guess is that human variance and individualism will be at the heart of those decisions.

I may be jumping on the topical bandwagon but I voted for chemical attack, particularly if we continue to piss off the Russians...

Kaled hygiene wrote:Couldn't help commenting on this topic. I voted for dysgenics. Without a doubt the population in the UK has deteriorated to such an extent that we now have dysgenic selection.

Don't worry, I have a mate who is working on that.

Boofer wrote:Can you point to the scientific evidence for this? Isn't the UK now less inbred and more heterozygous than it used to be - especially when you consider migration from Europe and the commonwealth? In terms of 'racial' ( the human race's health), heterozygousity decreases the chances of genetic disease and mental disorder i.e. the general 'fitness' of humanity.

Dysgenics is occurring on a psychological level. There is evidence that psychological as well as physical attributes are under genetic influence. Eugenics takes a hard hereditarian line on the nature versus nurture debate and recognises that certain psychological qualities are valuable, what you might call the human genetic capital and eugenic measures should be enacted to increase these qualities in a population and this is achieved through selective breeding, eutelegenesis and gene therapy. Likewise genes have been implicated in violent behaviour and case studies of generational problem families with a high rate of criminal offenders have lent support to a genetic component to criminality which egalitarianism fails to address and is actually in denial of. Eugenics should go hand in hand with Euthenics which seeks to increase well being by improvements in the environemnt. Here's some articles about the links between genes and criminality:

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/aviolenceinthebl293

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29760212

Boofer wrote:Who are these 'worst examples', and what is the evidence that they currently outnumber those of 'moral character'?

I haven't collated crime statistics to back up that assertion and it's possible it is an exaggeration but you only have to read about overcrowded prisons and increases in knife crime to realise there has been a general degradation of the population.

Also I could use examples of child neglect which we've all read about. Now I don't want to get bogged down in this aspect of the argument although it does provide a convincing and emotive argument for curtailing the reproductive liberty of certain individuals.

Francis Galton who coined the word eugenics divided the population into three broad classes for the sake of eugenics purposes, the desirables, the passables and the undesirables. Provided the reproductive rights of the morally sound majority are not infringed upon then increasing and decreasing the reproductive productivity of the highest and lowest genetic bands of the population wouldn't be objected strongly too (except by do gooders of course who usually don't have to live in close proximity to the degenerates they defend).

Boofer wrote:Indees, how do you define 'moral character', given that morality is culturally derived from ideology, and not genetics?

Moral character can be roughly equated with conscientiousness one of the big five personality traits. Now psychologists and biometricians will have to devise new and precise ways of exacting this quality and its genetic components and then eugenicists can go about maximising it. Francis Galton (interesting fellow by the way, I suggest reading his biography called 'Extreme Measures' and unlike Karl Marx Galton never bore any offspring!) conceptualized moral character in general terms as a "strong moral sense, energy, zeal for sustained work, integrity, trustworthiness and a sense of social obligation".

Boofer wrote:In what way? The evidence from 'a long time' ago strongly infers that moral standards are plastic and not rigid constructs - even among similar cultures.

Are morals degenerating, or are they being replaced by new, more complex liberal standards which reflect the individualism, co-existence and self-expression evinced in late capitalism?

Moral standards are being reversed in my opinion and the perimeters of the social liberal adage "you can do what you like so long as you're not hurting anyone else" is becoming increasingly widened. Soon the police won't even be allowed to discriminate against any criminals. They'll start trumping up charges against innocent people or inventing bizarre new laws while the real criminals go unpunished or are given a sympathetic ear because wealth inequalities not genes are responsible for their actions.

Boofer wrote:So you would violate the rights of the law-abiding individual in order to produce a super-race of healthy, smart and moral people?

Ignoring the moral issue, which has nothing to do with genetics, selecting for health would not only erase the disabled from the map of humanity, but also some of the finest minds to have ever existed i.e. Hawking, Einstein (Learning disability), Washington, Edison, Beethoven ( to name a hew).

The finest talents and savants are often a product of genetic illness, like Stephen Wiltshire, Kin Peak, or Gilles Tréhin.

The main eugenic concerns should be psychological traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness closely followed by intelligence. Eugenics should concentrate on these psychological dimensions of humanity rather than the physiological aspects. In fact someone like those people you mention should be prioritized for positive eugenic selection rather than the able bodied Jeremy Kyle thug who has sired many offspring.

Boofer wrote:Humanity isn't an entity to be shaped to the will of an insane ideology like eugenics. No doubt people can be ideologically possessed, but they cannot be allowed to interfere in selection, as there are far many more facets to a good, productive life than just health and intelligence.

If there's something to learn from genetic diversity, it's that it's part of the human experience and condition. I'm not saying it's not difficult, but it's far better to have a society replete with individuals of differing natures and abilities, not only because of the division of labour, but that these differences allow us to demonstrate our understanding, compassion and capacity to care.

We're not all the same underneath and if universalist eugenics can't be applied to all humanity than the only hope I can see is segregating humanity by personality traits to live in their own self contained communities

Boofer wrote: Did you really just make a false equivalence between a car and a living, thinking human being?  

Yes, humans are just animals at the end of the day and no animal has an automatic right to breed (well apart from the ones who can asexually clone themselves). Reproduction should be a privilege not a right.

Boofer wrote:So you're not a racist, but don't particularly mind if certain racial groups are bred out of the population if it fits your ethnocentric ideological perspectives on racial hygiene?

I'm not a ethno-nationalist (I'm not proud to be human) but humanity is a chance species and it could be that it isn't in societies best interest to allow those with the strongest reproductive instinct to supplant the declining birth rates of other sections of the population.

Boofer wrote:Sorry man, but this is possibly the laziest argument I've encountered in some time. I'm not going to sit here and cry Nazi at you, but the whole idea of eugenics is inextricably linked to notions of racial hygiene. There are also ethical concerns about the role of the state having such a deterministic influence on the type of persons produced by such a method, and whether this would lead to new genetic 'classes' of people such as those in Huxley's Brave New World, or Niccol's Gattaca.

The ethical problem is that individual rights outweigh the collective rights. The habitual criminal has the right to sire as many offspring as he likes with the offspring inheriting dominant/recessive criminal genes. It's everybody's business when it comes to who should be allowed to pass their genes on.

Boofer wrote:To conclude, much of the evidence pertaining to the efficacy of Eugenics is very poor - to the point where it's utterly outdated and eschewed as a method of improving genetic health. Given the possibilities of CRISPR, nano-implantation/repair and other transhumanist technological possibilities, the type of genetic cards dealt at birth is likely to mean very little within the next few decades (as long as these technologies are universally available). We'll have to deal with the legal and moral implications of that as progress as a species, but my guess is that human variance and individualism will be at the heart of those decisions.

Gene therapy is the new eugenics and even though it will be able to increase the quality of the population if it adheres to set eugenic goals and not the selfish whims of the genetic donors it won't address the quantity of humanity. Classical eugenics (positive eugenics and negative eugenics) can still have a role in planning the size of a population through the sterilization of those with low genetic worth such as psychopaths and those who lack self control. I'm sceptical of transhumanism myself, ultimately genetic determinism is our lot.

Kaled hygiene wrote:I haven't collated crime statistics to back up that assertion and it's possible it is an exaggeration but you only have to read about overcrowded prisons and increases in knife crime to realise there has been a general degradation of the population.

over 70% of the prison population has a mental illness. That could be anything from depression to schizophrenia and is most likely because of the care in the community policy of the Tories in the late-80s and early-90s.

Kaled hygiene wrote:Moral character can be roughly equated with conscientiousness one of the big five personality traits. Now psychologists and biometricians will have to devise new and precise ways of exacting this quality and its genetic components and then eugenicists can go about maximising it. Francis Galton (interesting fellow by the way, I suggest reading his biography called 'Extreme Measures' and unlike Karl Marx Galton never bore any offspring!) conceptualized moral character in general terms as a "strong moral sense, energy, zeal for sustained work, integrity, trustworthiness and a sense of social obligation".

If by roughly equated with conscientiousness you mean not at all then I agree.

From P.2

Results demonstrated support for
a proposed model of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence, personality and
Moral Reasoning. Specifically, Emotional Intelligence was found to be a significant
predictor of four of the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Openness,
Neuroticism, Agreeableness), which in turn were significant predictors of Moral
Reasoning.

https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=sci_chapters

So conscientiousness is the only one they don't connect with morality

But what does your idol Peter Hitchens have to say on the matter or do you only listen to what he has to say about cannabis?

Kaled hygiene wrote:Moral standards are being reversed in my opinion and the perimeters of the social liberal adage "you can do what you like so long as you're not hurting anyone else" is becoming increasingly widened. Soon the police won't even be allowed to discriminate against any criminals. They'll start trumping up charges against innocent people or inventing bizarre new laws while the real criminals go unpunished or are given a sympathetic ear because wealth inequalities not genes are responsible for their actions.

That really is some weapons-grade drivel you are peddling there. Your comment is total supposition that makes no sense what so ever. The Police won't be able to prosecute and will become ineffective so they will invent charges to prosecute the innocent. They can't prosecute the innocent and have no effect. Maybe you just worded yourself badly but I suspect not.

Mr. Happy wrote:"]
over 70% of the prison population has a mental illness. That could be anything from depression to schizophrenia and is most likely because of the care in the community policy of the Tories in the late-80s and early-90s.

If the prison population could be sterilized (paying them to have a vasectomy or hysterectomy) eventually there would be a reduction in crime. Unfortunately the fertility of the prison population is probably higher on average than the rest of the population so I expect that the dysgenic trends will continue in the UK and be further aggravated by third world immigration. I recommend you reading Richard Lynn's book Dysgenics.

Mr. Happy wrote:If by roughly equated with conscientiousness you mean not at all then I agree.

From P.2

Results demonstrated support for
a proposed model of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence, personality and
Moral Reasoning. Specifically, Emotional Intelligence was found to be a significant
predictor of four of the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Openness,
Neuroticism, Agreeableness), which in turn were significant predictors of Moral
Reasoning.

https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=sci_chapters

So conscientiousness is the only one they don't connect with morality  

'Moral character' is an antiquated term Galton used. Even if conscientiousness is unrelated to moral reasoning it's still important in impulse control.

As for Peter Hitchens I've no idea what his views on eugenics are but speaking of cannabis I'm glad awareness is finally beginning to increase of the danger to mental health the psychoactive content can pose. Even if the psychotic disorders it can induce are not genetic the underlying propensity to become addicted is. I'm long of the opinion that drug addicts should be sterilized.

Mr. Happy wrote:  That really is some weapons-grade drivel you are peddling there. Your comment is total supposition that makes no sense what so ever. The Police won't be able to prosecute and will become ineffective so they will invent charges to prosecute the innocent. They can't prosecute the innocent and have no effect. Maybe you just worded yourself badly but I suspect not.

I was exgerrating the point somewhat but I often feel low level crime isn't dealt with enough severity. Here I agree with you on Tory cutbacks to the police.