Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is grossly immoral not to utilize cloning technology to replicate the world's most intelligent people.

The amount of suffering, death, and irreversible environmental damage that will occur because we refuse to artificially inflate the world's supply of universal geniuses is...immeasurable. And allowing it is grossly immoral.

Am I wrong? AM I WRONG?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say, you're probably wrong. I work in the dairy industry where cloning is already a reality, and thousands of genetically superior have been selected, gene banked and cloned.

The results have been less than expected. In general the genetic merit of animal is assumed to be equal to clone siblings, however the deviation of the actual performance compared to the total population of daiy cattle has yet to conform to the superior genotype of the animal.

With dairy cattle, where the performance pedigree's are measured with a high degree of precision across close to 100 genetically industry relevant traits for the past 80 years spanning 40+ generations of animals, for cloning not to show any signifigant deviation from the total population with highly heritable traits does not bode well for the human population that would use cloning to benefit human traits that have a near unknown heritability.

Now, if we were to follow the path dairy cattle have taken for the past 40 years to improving the total populations performance, that would be another story. What is this marvelous technology you ask? Simple, breeding by selection of heritable relevant traits, a lower inbred coefficent, and a lower generation interval. We could start a national database that regularly tests relevant performance, database the results and only breed people based on the above three criteria through artificial insemination (AI) and multiple ovulation embryo technology (MOET). The AI database would catalog and index the performance of male progeny and siblings according to relevant traits, while the the breeders would match the traits to the female population. Then we could use a MOET procedure to help lower deviation and generation interval by using a younger age. Then use the female population that ended up at the wrong side of the bell curve as recipients for the superior donors. Obviously, a sterilization program must be implemented on average and below average males.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have anything to add here, but thx for sharing your experience/thoughts. Very interesting, I had no idea this much application of genetic engineering was already "in the trenches", so to speak. I like this too:

[ QUOTE ]
Can humanity survive without maximizing genetic merit from generation to generation? Can humanity even accept the pinciples to maximize their survival?


[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
How so? If I assume your argument against an improved and guided breeding program to progress the average performance of the human genotype is based purely on ethics and backlashes from many communities resulting from those ethics. Then cloning will raise strong equal negative emotions in the same majority of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Positive eugenics will always be more acceptable than negative eugenics. And everyone would have to agree to the latter, which isn't the case with cloning. Cloning is consensual and doesn't require any sort of systematic control of society by an elite group determining standards of human worth.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

With dairy cattle, where the performance pedigree's are measured with a high degree of precision across close to 100 genetically industry relevant traits for the past 80 years spanning 40+ generations of animals, for cloning not to show any signifigant deviation from the total population with highly heritable traits does not bode well for the human population that would use cloning to benefit human traits that have a near unknown heritability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call major BS here unless you can provide sources.

You may be referring to this: http://www.cababstractsplus.org/goog...No=20043088554 but it doesn't support what you're suggesting at all.

[madnak]

Hey, quote the right person.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, quote the right person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop using threaded mode.

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

now if we could just get rid of short people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, I'll kill myself in the morning. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

But yeah, seriously, I've often thought that I don't deserve to live only being 5'7". Other groups I consider unworthy of life: the ugly, the overweight, the depressed, the religious, the aesthetically unsophisticated, the elderly.

Also all Gentiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

without overweight people there would be no John Goodman, and without Goodman then TBL as we know it wouldn't exist. And if it didn't exist, just as it is, then the world would indeed be immeasurably worse off.