3 ms·

Well things seem more comfortable now :) A. 1. Yes, you caught me there. I did say information, and then moved on to genetic information. Your point is valid a

Well things seem more comfortable now :) A. 1. Yes, you caught me there. I did say information, and then moved on to genetic information. Your point is valid against "information" in general. So I shall admit to that and move onto the important parts. 2. Evolution is the process of continual genetic diversity - natural selection is the process of eliminating the unfit. So you can't flip this. B. Sperms, no. Zygote potential, yes. Therefore I would find it ideal to generate every combination, and play it out. This is not absurd at all - it is Evolution. No? "Death" see (2) I'd also like to point out that smart people come from fat people, skinny people come from stupid people, and skinny from fat and smart from stupid. --> And zow! I believe we've hit the crux of our disagreement. Maximal evolution. Well, I find the perspective of not protecting the young / killing of babies as an avoidable option, since we are the dominant species, we can manipulate our environment to restrain natural selection in favor of our own. It appears, that you favor natural selection's brutality against us, and encouraging upon zygotes in unfavorable circumstances, thus diminishing their life. I would argue against your assertion that "they'd grow up violent and suffering anyways" -- but that appears now to be pointless, since we've found our fundamental (and unfortunate) disagreement. Thank you for sharing, I'm going to sleep now, it was interesting learning your perspective! (Feel free to reply, just don't bait me to respond back! lol.)

aneth4 14y ago
> 2. Evolution is the process of continual genetic diversity - natural selection is the process of eliminating the unfit. So you can't flip this. > B. Sperms, no. Zygote potential, yes. Therefore I would find it ideal to generate every combination, and play it out. This is not absurd at all - it is Evolution. No? This is all wrong. Evolution and naturals selection refer to exactly the same process. If you want to separate them, evolution is the result of natural selection over time. Your concept of "maximal evolution" doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, the numbers in that scenario exceed the resources of the known universe. I think we are far better off overall growing our species at a rate we can support with all the benefits of society rather than maximizing our gene pool. In fact, I think your proposition sounds far more brutal than mine. Streets filled with unwanted crack babies and accidental teen mothers sounds nightmarish. I'll take offing some zygotes any day.

aneth4 14y ago

> 2. Evolution is the process of continual genetic diversity - natural selection is the process of eliminating the unfit. So you can't flip this. > B. Sperms, no. Zygote potential, yes. Therefore I would find it ideal to generate every combination, and play it out. This is not absurd at all - it is Evolution. No? This is all wrong. Evolution and naturals selection refer to exactly the same process. If you want to separate them, evolution is the result of natural selection over time. Your concept of "maximal evolution" doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, the numbers in that scenario exceed the resources of the known universe. I think we are far better off overall growing our species at a rate we can support with all the benefits of society rather than maximizing our gene pool. In fact, I think your proposition sounds far more brutal than mine. Streets filled with unwanted crack babies and accidental teen mothers sounds nightmarish. I'll take offing some zygotes any day.