Creating the perfect humans

[Solid Snake]

So was watching 300 last night ( awesome film!!!) and was thinking in a fantacy world we could incorporate the ways of Sparta BC into the world of today?

I know I'm gonna sound like a cold hearted asshole but heres my thoughts:

My first point I'll quote 300 " When the boy was born, like all Spartans he was inspected. If he'd Been small or puny or sickly or misshapen he would have been discarded"

Could we not incorporate this in modern day? I know it sounds horrible but I personally believe having a disabled child is the worst thing that could happen to a parent - the parent and the child have no real life.

If the child is premature and small - simply discard the child. Remember this actually happened in Sparta 600BC so it was common and understood. People didn't know any different.

With this type of breeding through many generations and thousands and thousands of years of strong breeding would this not lead to a stronger human?

"From the time he could stand, he Was baptised in fire of combat"

My next point is about growing up. Spartan boys at age 7 were set through the Greek training of "Agoge"

Children would become stronger, healthier. Only the strongest would survive.

Spartans were the greatest warriors at the time because of this training. Through thousands of years would we not become stronger, healthier and bigger?

Remember that this Is just a fantasy theory and is never going to happen. Although a lot Of this makes sense to me.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I think your heads in the clouds tbh

Could we not incorporate this in modern day? I know it sounds horrible but I personally believe having a disabled child is the worst thing that could happen to a parent - the parent and the child have no real life.

No we couldn't, it's murder and a child killer at that! worst of the worst in this world. Back in the sparta days they didn't have the mindset we now have, with our enhanced knowledge on all things they were archaic and brutal in thought which is why they may have done the shit they did. Doesn't mean we should still emulate it today.

I disagree about disabled kids and the parent having no life. You clearly speak from not having any experience on the issue so dont comment.

Dont think this would make humans stronger 1000's of years in the future if we adopted the ways, we would LIMIT ourselves in many areas. The Spartans were only a fraction of the mighty warriors to grace the globe.

 

[Solid Snake]

I actually have experience, my aunt has a disabled child and it's pretty much finished her life. She puts on a brave face but the reality is truly hell. Doctors all the time, operations, constant worry, full dependancy. How can you possible say either one is enjoying life, obviously the child knows know different but still.

I think you live in the UK like me. Do you know how much money goes on the disabled Penis EnlargementR WEEK!? You don't wanna know.

I honestly feel so sorry for all one people like my aunt and all disabled people.

Not sure what you mean about fraction of the mighty warriors. They were the greatest force of their time. No doubt.

 

[lazyhanger]

Doesn't make sense to me... Perfect humans WTF ?! That's what Hitler tried and he almost destroyed the whole fucking planet...
Oh, and if someone is disabled it doesn't mean he's dump and therefor wothless. It can actually happen to all of us from one second to another, so better be careful with what you describe as "waste".

 

[Solid Snake]

Doesn't make sense to me... Perfect humans WTF ?! That's what Hitler tried and he almost destroyed the whole fucking planet...
Oh, and if someone is disabled it doesn't mean he's dump and therefor wothless. It can actually happen to all of us from one second to another, so better be careful with what you describe as "waste".

1. Never said disabled people were a waste.
2. As I said I feel so sorry for disabled people and wouldn't want it on anyone
3. You make out like I'm starting a cult to kill off all the disabled people when It was actually more of an evolution question
That if there were no disabled or weak children would humans become stronger as a whole.
4. I can see that this is was a mistake to post this question as people are taking it to heart even though I said it a FANTACY circumstance.
5. can anyone close this thread, as I can see I've offended people.
6. Sorry for any offence - none intended - more of a theory question on evolution that i'be worded poorly.

 

[lazyhanger]

Ok right, I got offended because I was driven by my emotions. Nonetheless your topic is worth to be discussed because this is a liberal forum, etc.
But even from a scientific point of view, with no emotions and no personal opinion, the idea of creating a better race is simply impossible. Truth is Lamarck's theory is false and that you can't change the genetics of human by training them (meaning executing the "weak"). It's all coincidence (Darwin's theory). So even if 100% of the human were strong and healthy (according to the Spartan ideal), there would be absolutely no certainty that the successors of these people were also healthy: they could be sick and/or disabled.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I actually have experience, my aunt has a disabled child and it's pretty much finished her life. She puts on a brave face but the reality is truly hell. Doctors all the time, operations, constant worry, full dependancy. How can you possible say either one is enjoying life, obviously the child knows know different but still.

I think you live in the UK like me. Do you know how much money goes on the disabled Penis EnlargementR WEEK!? You don't wanna know.

I honestly feel so sorry for all one people like my aunt and all disabled people.

Not sure what you mean about fraction of the mighty warriors. They were the greatest force of their time. No doubt.

I've worked in that area I know and yes they can have a life. I knew a guy who had severe brain damage from birth, he was 26 last time I saw him and albeit he was the age mentally of a small child he did have PLEASURE and HAPPY days, so no life because one is disabled is not wasted. Your opinion though and that's fine, sharing mine.

A fraction of the mighty warriors is just that. They were in Greece, never conquered mass land areas like say the Romans then you have the Normans, Vikings, Ottoman empire etc. Sure they were tough but they are not the most lethal force to have been on this earth, not by a long stretch plus much of them is hyped nowadays since the 300 film and the Persians were no pushover they were fighting.

 

[REDZULU2003]

A better stronger breed of human. Doing so would limit us all, it would be for strength and war only if your going off the Spartans. I think its something perhaps the government of very rich nations like the USA probably do look into from places like Area 51 to create something that is like a Terminator ... now I would like that and be for it, if it could be controlled and it would have to be expendable to send to areas of war so when they die it doesn't matter cos they are cyborg and not really human. Perhaps that is the way forward in creating armies in the future? wouldn't matter if they lost a limb, another could be welded on.

 

[Solid Snake]

The Spartans were the elite warriors of that period. It was simply numbers that let them down (typically 10,000 active soldiers in the Army) not to mention an earthquake in 464BC which killed most of the population and buildings - leading the helots to revolt basically finishing Sparta.

Spartans had training from birth. Their full time job was to be a soldier - they were taught that dying on the battlefield was their goal in life.

Yes the Persians were good, but considering 300 spartans and 5000-7000 Greeks managed to hold the Persian army of 200,000 at the pass of Thermopylae for three days, killing more than 20,000 Persians. Without Greece all of Europe probably would have been conquered - Persia would have conquered Greece - moving on to destroy the fledgling Rome.

The Battle of Thermopylae is known as "The Battle of the West" for a reason.

Yes there have been great campaigns but soldier for soldier the Spartans were the best.

 

[rakas]

SS, perhaps the reasons for their limited army numbers were based around the fact that there population was limited in growth because of the very eugenics. The point about children today is also null, if you make any child do physical exercise every day then they will be fitter and stronger.

Out of principal i do actually agree with eugenics, we have the ability to shape our future and we should. I do however disagree with some of what SS says.

Firstly i think that we have to remember the world we live in today is not one of mass war. For this reason your intelligence is more important than your physical strength and i for one would always choose to be the genius i am than a 'meathead', after-all i could simply outsmart the opponent using strategy. For this reason if we engage in eugenics then our aim should not be to create a stronger race.

Secondly, while i agree with the abortion of a disabled child i do not condone murder once the child is born regardless of disability.

What i do actually agree with is 'designer babies' whereby a womens eggs are mapped for their genome and those containing hereditary diesesas can be extracted, any move towards eugenics should be based around health rather than creating a physically strong race with perhaps a secondary basis around intelligence.

 

[synergio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4HGQHgeFE&feature=related

I don't think even as the most "intelligent" species on the planet we deserve absolute control over nature, or have the right to impose on natural selection. Under Spartan laws, people like the beautiful man in the video wouldn't even have had a chance.
I see your point and I guess its influence somewhat by seeing the issues your Aunt has with her child but I doubt she would give her child away or wish it death. Every child as far as I can imagine brings joy to its parents, even hardened Spartans Im sure mourned any children they had to give up in some way.

I think it would be very difficult to actually breed out disability from the human race, be it physical/mental, many healthy parents have disabled children and vice versa, its luck of the draw I feel and people carry genes even if they don't themselves exhibit there effects.

I agree with rakas, we need to focus on becoming a more intelligent race, not necessarily through genetics but the way we see the world and teach the next generation. I mean in my mind disabled people are hardly an issue, as a species capable of compassion and moral thought we have a duty to care for them not play judge on life.

As far as Im concerned a racist mind is just as "disabled" as say a person with severe autism, if not more so. Maybe killing off racists would do more for humanity than killing off the disabled?

 

[Solid Snake]

I hear what you're saying rakas. Like you, I agree with principles of eugenics, - making us stronger, more resilient and smarter as a species.

Like you say the world we live in is not war oriented or looking to expand their collonies - due to the amount of allies every country has. However there are still conflicts all across the world and always will be for many reasons -Relgion/Society/Racism.

I hate society in General - The state is so weak - punisHydromaxent (if you can call it that) in the UK is a joke. Most of the youth has no respect simply due to lack of punisHydromaxent and discipline.

In my opinion we are going backwards as a society and socially.

 

[rakas]

The expanding colonies bit is debatable, you only have to look at the USA, UK and EU to see that the imperialistic attitude remains (EU has stated its desire to become 1 massive nation, UK still squabbling with Argentina and USA staking a claim to Antartica), what has changed though is that nobody is willing to fight to take colonies as the world is so much more globalized now.

What i meant though is that any future war will fought from a computer firing missiles (nuclear or not) and so there is little reason for a physically stronger species and infact when you consider the greater calorific content required to maintain muscle mass we may actually require more food than now if we went down that route.

True, religious nutjobs really annoy me whether they are American fundamentalists spouting 19th century attitudes or Islamic terrorists, at least the UK is somewhat more secular even if we have allowed a little much religious freedom.

A very interesting attitude and one i used to share however i have since decided that i wish to become a politician in later life (Tory) and have somewhat more liberalized in my views. I now believe so much more in self responsibility and consequences however i summise that your attitude stems from the police not actually convicting criminals due to red tape which has led to a lack of respect of the police from many people.

The state itself is not weak but mismanaged.

I would not say that society has regressed as a whole but culture certainly has in the UK and we now have a bunch of people who's ambition is to live on the dole.

 

[WildTiger]

I think your heads in the clouds tbh



No we couldn't, it's murder and a child killer at that! worst of the worst in this world. Back in the sparta days they didn't have the mindset we now have, with our enhanced knowledge on all things they were archaic and brutal in thought which is why they may have done the shit they did. Doesn't mean we should still emulate it today.

I disagree about disabled kids and the parent having no life. You clearly speak from not having any experience on the issue so dont comment.

Dont think this would make humans stronger 1000's of years in the future if we adopted the ways, we would LIMIT ourselves in many areas. The Spartans were only a fraction of the mighty warriors to grace the globe.

I disagree about disabled kids and the parent having no life. You clearly speak from not having any experience on the issue so dont comment.

I know you mean well RedZulu, but thats actually not correct. My friend is a disability care worker, and has been in the industry for 10 years. Her patients are at the extreme end of the disability scale. They can't talk, go to the toilet by themselves, or feed themselves. They are in constant pain, and need multiple medications. Its not a living, but simply existing. From her experience with the parents of these poor people, they have divorce rates that are 10 times that of people without disabled children, and to top it off, they are often resented by their other normal kids because for most of the family money and focus has been on the disabled kid, which meant the normal kids missed out on education and interests for their entire childhood and teen years until they left home and started working.

I don't think disabled kids should be killed at birth, but I think if a person has a pre-natal test and it turns out that the child is disabled, then they can pay to take care of it. I'm not sure what the American system is like, but in Australia, the care house she works in costs over $5,000,000 a year of tax payer money to take care of 5 people who are basically catatonic vegatables. Now I wouldn't have a problem with that, except nowhere near that amount of money is put into public schools for special accelerated learning programs for really bright kids who will one day be the geniuses and leaders of our country. It doesn't make sense.

I have visited her work a few times (its a friendly open house kind of environment) and met a few of the families, and the overwhelming sense I got from them, was that all this time, attention, and money wasn't really there for the patients, it was to alleviate the guilt of the parents. Every parent with a severely disabled child at some point wishes they had never been born, but then they get the self-imposed guilt from PC brain washing telling them they are bad people for thinking such things, and so they morally whip themselves and sacrifice even more of their lives to wash away that guilt. Unless you believe in God, then you believe you have only one life, and I'm sorry I'm far too smart and talented (I'm a graphic designer) to throw away all my years of study, and the business I have built up over 10 years for a kid who will be dead at 30, and won't ever even be able to think beyond the most basic primal urges.

That might sound cold to you, but did you know that hereditary diseases and syndromes have been on the increase since the 50s? Why? Because we are saving people who carry serious genetic problems who would have otherwise died without that modern medical knowledge, and they are passing those genes on into the wider community. It is ironic that medical science, which was supposed to help cure more diseases, and solve the world's health issues, has become the greatest source of hereditary disease propagation because of limp-wristed PC politics. I have no problem with providing all the support in the world for people who are disabled but can contribute to the own lives and to the lives of others. An extreme example would be Stephen Hawking. A crippled body but a brilliant mind. He contributes to the world and his own life, but when all somebody does is take from others, and act as a burdon, and prevents them achieving esstial goals in their life, even if it is not their fault, people soon get sick of having to be responsible for them.

Native Americans used to have a ritual for babies born with serious problems. They would drown them in a river, but they believed that they were sending the soul back for a better body. In a tribal situation, they couldn't afford to care for someone who could not help in any form and couldn't travel reasonably easily. We also have the same needs now, but we just expect everyone else's taxes to allow us the luxury of bowing to PC soft touch ideology. A species is either bettering itself by adapting to environmental pressures, or it is dying out. Humans have no natural predators, and we are re-pooling weak and defective genes that would have been eradicated in a natural environment. Unless we simulate evolution, we will just become more genetically defective until our entire genetic structure is simply ravaged with disease, deformity, and our reproductive ability has been destroyed by numerous gene errors, which means extinction.

 

[WildTiger]

Doesn't make sense to me... Perfect humans WTF ?! That's what Hitler tried and he almost destroyed the whole fucking planet...
Oh, and if someone is disabled it doesn't mean he's dump and therefor wothless. It can actually happen to all of us from one second to another, so better be careful with what you describe as "waste".

No, Hitler tried to breed a European-sub group with a specified set of phenotypes. He was far more concerned with a certain physical appearance than he was with an error free genetic code.

Also, the Third Reich bringing about WWII has nothing to do with trying to avoid passing on genetic disorders. Your comparison does not make logical sense. What you are doing is what advertising people call "brand association" meaning that you take an idea, and even if that idea on its own is essentially okay, you associate it with something most people hate, and then get them to believe it is a bad idea simply because a bad person also believed in it.

There is a saying - "In every madness, there is some truth". I'm not supporting Nazis or Hitler by the way, so before you start up with the "R" word, which I think you might, know that. Hitler was also one of the first environmentalist politicians.

Is taking care of the environment now a bad thing too?

 

[lazyhanger]

Why do you think I would need to insult you? Don't know about the R word you're talking about, and even if I knew I don't need to insult you in order to underline my opinion. Don't talk like you would know me and know what my answer will be. Unlike other people on these forums I know what I'm talking about, I probably had to go a bit more into detail when I typed my statement, but I was kinda lazy and hoped that people would understand. But anyway.
Hitler did exactly that. He wanted to create a race, which would fulfill his personal ideal of humans. Of course he was not concerned with only disabled people, but they were regarded as "lower class" and he let them be executed with no hesitation.

Also, the Third Reich bringing about WWII has nothing to do with trying to avoid passing on genetic disorders. Your comparison does not make logical sense. What you are doing is what advertising people call "brand association" meaning that you take an idea, and even if that idea on its own is essentially okay, you associate it with something most people hate, and then get them to believe it is a bad idea simply because a bad person also believed in it.

Ok let me put this straight, I meant the killing of already born people merely because they're disabled. If there's something we can do to prevent people from being born disabled, then of course we should do it. But this is not something that could be done 70 years ago, so the only option for the people back then was to kill the disabled babies and that's what I'm disagreeing with and associate it to the destruction of our planet.

Is taking care of the environment now a bad thing too?

We all know it's not, but who's playing with words now?

 

[REDZULU2003]

At the end of the day it all boils down to personal interpretation of all this and everyone has an opinion. I draw the line here.

 

[WildTiger]

Why do you think I would need to insult you? Don't know about the R word you're talking about, and even if I knew I don't need to insult you in order to underline my opinion. Don't talk like you would know me and know what my answer will be. Unlike other people on these forums I know what I'm talking about, I probably had to go a bit more into detail when I typed my statement, but I was kinda lazy and hoped that people would understand. But anyway.
Hitler did exactly that. He wanted to create a race, which would fulfill his personal ideal of humans. Of course he was not concerned with only disabled people, but they were regarded as "lower class" and he let them be executed with no hesitation.


Ok let me put this straight, I meant the killing of already born people merely because they're disabled. If there's something we can do to prevent people from being born disabled, then of course we should do it. But this is not something that could be done 70 years ago, so the only option for the people back then was to kill the disabled babies and that's what I'm disagreeing with and associate it to the destruction of our planet.


We all know it's not, but who's playing with words now?

You can attempt to re-engineer your statement anyway you wish, but the fact is you attempted by silence someone else by comparing his ideas to Hitler's ideas, then stated that the Nazis almost destroyed the world, by implication you are suggesting that any such ideas like that of the OP are inherently evil and will destroy the world.

You are using the old extreme left wing tactic of "The Nazi whipping boy" - meaning that if anyone expresses an idea that even remotely resembling anything the Nazis believed in, they are by default, just as bad. Perhaps you didn't mean to use it in that manner, but it had the same effect on the OP. He wanted the thread closed as soon as you posted that. I think you also need to read up on what constitutes a race. Hitler wanted particular phenotypes, not genes from a set region of the world. Blonde hair and blue eyes were the aim. If they came from Swedes or Germans, it didn't really matter. Phenotypes - the physical expression of a gene. He cared about those a lot more than than stictly German purity.

And the "R" word is "racist" - an accusation frequently used by those who have run of intellect and facts with which to argue their case when the subject of race is raised. Credit to you for not throwing it around.

 

[kitfisto]

This is absolutely idiotic. We should not incorporate this into modern society. If we judged infants only on there physical perfection then we would have a lot of strong meat-heads walking around and probably a lack of smart people.

A lot of scientists and extremely intelligent people that make the earth a better place are not physically perfect.

If we did what the spartans did then say good bye to future space exploration, cure for cancer and AIDS etc... Or at least it would decrease the probability and success of those by a considerable amount, just because we killed babies that didn't looks strong.

In terms of disabled children. Many parents abort embryos with something wrong with them. Many don't.
As technology gets better, the chance of preventing disabled children being born will decrease. Just give it time.

 

[WildTiger]

This is absolutely idiotic. We should not incorporate this into modern society. If we judged infants only on there physical perfection then we would have a lot of strong meat-heads walking around and probably a lack of smart people.

A lot of scientists and extremely intelligent people that make the earth a better place are not physically perfect.

If we did what the spartans did then say good bye to future space exploration, cure for cancer and AIDS etc... Or at least it would decrease the probability and success of those by a considerable amount, just because we killed babies that didn't looks strong.

In terms of disabled children. Many parents abort embryos with something wrong with them. Many don't.
As technology gets better, the chance of preventing disabled children being born will decrease. Just give it time.

I agree. Aspergers Syndrome, which is a form of autism, is almost 10 times more prevalent in the scientific community. If there was a pre-test for the syndrome, and babies were aborted because of it, we would have considerably fewer scientists.

 

[rakas]

I was thinking about this subject over recent days and to a degree we already do it, those least inteligent and weedy do tend to be the people that do not end up finding a mate.

I also think anybody interested in this stuff may like to read the works of Neitche who believed that the ultimate goal of procreation was to create people who would advance society the most and even that women should be judged on that..
“the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay".

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23327

His work of course was jumped on by the Nazis although eugenics in the form of forced sterelisation was practiced in the USA and Scandinavia around the same time.

Certainly an interesting concept, perhaps instead of asking for a girls number we should ask for a copy of her genome.

 

[XtremeGrowth]

Why even ponder the sparta route, when we can build an advanced superior human via genetic and biochemical manipulation along with computer interface/enhancements? Supposedly, their have been programs running in the background for years that have been investigating and possibly creating such super soldiers.

The article below is written in 2008 and is probably just the tip of the iceberg:


http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/3-billion-super-soldier-program-10.html


A side note is that technology (supposedly) that has been created by secret government programs / labs is probably 20-30 years more advanced than the technology you currently have access to, or own. Do I have proof of this? No, but I suspect there is some truth to this. As is often said, "Truth is stranger then fiction", this is just my two cents.

Now if they would release to [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words], their secret 20-30 year advanced penis building techniques I would be really happy !!

 

[neckercube]

I think unconditional love for others and diversity are healthy things for our civilization. In picking and choosing what kind people live in our society existed, we would just not value those anymore. This is why manipulating the genetics of a child not yet born to suit the desires the parents have is ethically troublesome.

Of course there is something to be said about people that no longer have meaningful lives and whether they should be euthanized. That delves into questions of what life is and why we value others being alive in the first. I'd suggest reading some bioethics by James Rachels, or any other bioethicist that would debate with him, maybe Don Marquis?

 

[MAXAMEYES]

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

 

[rebel2011]

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

I don't agree with this at all. I am not saying we should kill anyone for any reason. I don't believe in abortion is right. An unborn child is still alive.

BUT.....

It is stupid to keep someone on life support. Someone that is a vegetable at thousands of dollars a day with this no chance of recovery. There is no reason to give 87 year old granny a heart transplant or bypass on the governments ticket. There is a point to retardation when the quality of life will be so low and the cost will be astonishing high.

There is a point when we should throw in the towel. Not for the good of the parents or the person but for the good as society as a whole. It is a very tricky subject because where is the line?

The fact is with advances in medical treatment people can live longer but for a cost. Now many times the cost is past to the general population. This is not fair. But if you do for one you must do for all. It is not the governments responsibility to support someone because their mom smoked crack and drank a 30 pack everyday she was pregnant and they were born half brain dead.

It needs to be done. A line needs to be drawn but it will never happen.

 

[rebel2011]

Oh and about breeding better humans...it will not happen. We will evolve to be bigger and stronger for a short period of time. Like 2-500 more years. Then because of technology over population and lack of adequate food sources we will start to shrink in size. There will just be no reason to be 6'7" 275 and built like a brick house. That is if we even make it that long before going extinct.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

You just better keep praying that whoever draws this line makes a mistake...so you somehow end up above the cutoff.

I don't agree with this at all. I am not saying we should kill anyone for any reason. I don't believe in abortion is right. An unborn child is still alive.

BUT.....

It is stupid to keep someone on life support. Someone that is a vegetable at thousands of dollars a day with this no chance of recovery. There is no reason to give 87 year old granny a heart transplant or bypass on the governments ticket. There is a point to retardation when the quality of life will be so low and the cost will be astonishing high.

There is a point when we should throw in the towel. Not for the good of the parents or the person but for the good as society as a whole. It is a very tricky subject because where is the line?

The fact is with advances in medical treatment people can live longer but for a cost. Now many times the cost is past to the general population. This is not fair. But if you do for one you must do for all. It is not the governments responsibility to support someone because their mom smoked crack and drank a 30 pack everyday she was pregnant and they were born half brain dead.

It needs to be done. A line needs to be drawn but it will never happen.