Are you in favor of Eugenics?

[Oma]

Ah, but in the Western world, in particular, most people have a choice about whether or not to have children, and whether to allow children to be born with serious defects.

This is not the same as evolving a trait – this is getting rid of a fitness reducing defect (by fitness I mean survivability + reproductive capability – and yes, this is less important in a society that takes care of your needs).

 

At any rate, it would not be evolution but eugenics.

 

What I’m getting at is that I can’t see any trait being favored in the western world.

Let me rephrase: For evolution to take place a beneficial trait would have to spread enough through a population in order not to be lost by coincidence. In the western world a beneficial trait would not give the one carrying it an advantage – they do not get more offspring than others. And without more offspring than the average the frequency of the trait will not increase.

 

Unfortunately, new research has shown that environmental stressors you experience in your life time can cause genetic damage, and that this damage can be passed on to your offspring at the genetic level. So, even if we mess around with the genetic code, we will never completely get rid of genetic defects unless we clean up our act in terms of how we treat people in society.

Yes, mutations will occur – even when our cells divide (that goes for gametes too). However, mutations do not evolution make unless there is a selection.

 

So unless we in the western world do as you suggest and abstain from passing on defects/ giving birth to children with defects, then we will slowly, but surely, weaken the genepool.

 

How long it would take I don't know - and I'm not digging up my schoolbooks to find out!

:p

[StitchInTime]

This is not the same as evolving a trait – this is getting rid of a fitness reducing defect (by fitness I mean survivability + reproductive capability – and yes, this is less important in a society that takes care of your needs).

 

At any rate, it would not be evolution but eugenics.

How do you know that deciding not to have children because you don't want to pass on a defect isn't a genetic trait? It makes sense really, because such a trait, increases the chances of the survival of the species. Animals practice this instinctively all the time, by abandoning offspring that are sickly or even simply different from the others. It seems reasonable that this instinct could have been passed on to us, and indeed, historial and anthropolocigal evidence shows that human beings have exhibited this exact same behaviour for thousands of years.

 

At one time, the only way it could be done was by infanticide or abandonment. Nowadays, there are other ways. We have birth control and genetic counselling, and, although its use is very controversial, abortion.

 

This is not eugenics, though. Eugenics is an organized, systematic attempt by a society to screen out underirable traits and perpetuate what are perceived to be good ones. It probably has it's roots, though, in this trait of animals and humans to eliminate or screen out offspring perceived to have harmful defects.

 

What I’m getting at is that I can’t see any trait being favored in the western world.

Intelligence is one, above average height is another, and social skills, and attractiveness. These things are all valued in our society. In fact people rated as highly attractive and who are taller than average, earn 30% more than those of below average height or who are rated as unattractive. More income translates directly into increased survival. For example, people on the lowest rung financially live, on average, ten years less than people at the top. Other studies show that you need at least average intelligence and good social skills to make it in society.

 

Also, it has been shown that the taller you are, the more attractive you are, and the more socially skilled you are, the better your chances of finding a mate, and hence, of reproducing.

 

You keep forgetting that individual survival (longevity) alone, does not guarantee having kids. You also have to be able to find someone who is willing to mate with you. Having that person stick around to help you raise those kids, also increases the likelihood of their survival and development into tall, attractive, socially skilled, intelligent, and therefore eligible adults.

 

In the western world a beneficial trait would not give the one carrying it an advantage – they do not get more offspring than others. And without more offspring than the average the frequency of the trait will not increase.

As I just explained, oh, yes it does. If I don't get to reproduce at all, because I don't have the traits that people find attractive, me and my genetic traits are history, kaput, gone, exterminated.

 

Also, fertility and the ability to physically handle childbirth are genetic traits. Some people are more fertile than others and physically better equipped to cope with child bearing and child rearing. These people will, under the . . . ahem, right circumstances, tend to be more likely to produce offspring, and more of them.

 

Yes, mutations will occur – even when our cells divide (that goes for gametes too). However, mutations do not evolution make unless there is a selection.

These are not mutations, but the results of epigenetics.

 

If you've ever dated, I can't imagne how you could have failed to noice that there's plenty of selection going on all the time. In addition, researchers are gradually unravelling how these selections make sense. For example, attractiveness is mostly based on symmetry, and it turns out that both animals and people with an asymmetrical appearance are more likely to be unhealthy, or to possess unhealthy genetic traits.

 

So unless we in the western world do as you suggest and abstain from passing on defects/ giving birth to children with defects, then we will slowly, but surely, weaken the genepool.

And, as I have shown, this is exactly what we tend to do instinctively--avoid passing on traits we deem undesirable.

 

As far as defects that are allowed, the techniques we have to develop to deal with them and repair them actually increase the odds of survival for our species, because, for example, it leads to the development of techniques that can be applied in acute medicine or other areas, as well.

 

Remember that STNG ep. where the technology used to enable Georgi to see saves an entire civilization? I know that's not a real life example, but it makes the same point.

[Oma]

SNIP This is not eugenics' date=' though.SNIP [/quote']I believe you may be right – I yield on that one.

 

What I’m getting at is that I can’t see any trait being favored in the western world.

Intelligence is one, above average height is another, and social skills, and attractiveness. These things are all valued in our society. In fact people rated as highly attractive and who are taller than average, earn 30% more than those of below average height or who are rated as unattractive. More income translates directly into increased survival. For example, people on the lowest rung financially live, on average, ten years less than people at the top. Other studies show that you need at least average intelligence and good social skills to make it in society.

I don’t think that a high enough percentage don’t have children for it to matter – by far most people find a mate. And I don’t think that the amount of children you have depends on your social status, height, intelligence, or your income. Most people (at least in Denmark) stick to having two kids for other reasons than economy. Also it does not matter if you die at 70 or 60 – as long as you reproduce before you croak. Even the ugly ones get some.

 

Also' date=' fertility and the ability to physically handle childbirth are genetic traits. Some people are more fertile than others and physically better equipped to cope with child bearing and child rearing. These people will, under the . . . ahem, right circumstances, tend to be more likely to produce offspring, and more of them. [/quote']

Yes, you mention some necessary qualities for the ability to have a lot of offspring. Yet, the two children per household is still the most common solution – by choice, not capability. And modern medicine does bypass a lot of would’ve been fatal births.

 

Yes' date=' mutations will occur – even when our cells divide (that goes for gametes too). However, mutations do not evolution make unless there is a selection.[/quote']

These are not mutations, but the results of epigenetics.

I was trying to keep it simple and not go into cross-overs and what not of epigenetics since it’s not relevant for this discussion – yet. I did mean the mutations that occur every time you copy the DNA and in order to make gametes you have to copy a cells DNA.

If you've ever dated' date=' I can't imagne how you could have failed to noice that there's plenty of selection going on all the time. In addition, researchers are gradually unravelling how these selections make sense. For example, attractiveness is mostly based on symmetry, and it turns out that both animals and people with an asymmetrical appearance are more likely to be unhealthy, or to possess unhealthy genetic traits. [/quote']

Thanks for the ‘If you’ve ever dated’-part, dude! ;)

Erh… Yes, we choose mates based on attractiveness and you mentioned symmetry. Symmetry can be a sign that the person gets enough food – i.e. the person is good at getting food. But being able to get enough food in the western world does not seem to be a big problem.

There are other factors coming into play – behaviour for instance. Ever noticed the one guy who got a chick – and then all the other chicks wanted him just because someone had chosen him already? It’s called mate-choice-copying and is not related to his genes – just the assumption that he’s worth it (ladies – he’s not! :P).

Also personality – which is determined by way more than biology – influences your choice in mate(s).

So unless we in the western world do as you suggest and abstain from passing on defects/ giving birth to children with defects' date=' then we will slowly, but surely, weaken the genepool.[/quote']

And, as I have shown, this is exactly what we tend to do instinctively--avoid passing on traits we deem undesirable.

Wait, do you mean the ones with the trait chooses to abstain from procreating? Since that does not make sense due to the biological urge to mate I’ll assume you mean that they can’t find a partner. Well, since a lot of unfortunate traits aren’t expressed until you have two recessive alleles you would only make the homozygotes stop procreating – the heterozygotes would still procreate and the total drop in the frequency of the trait(latent - as alleles) wouldn’t really drop that much.

 

Remember that STNG ep. where the technology used to enable Georgi to see saves an entire civilization? I know that's not a real life example' date=' but it makes the same point.[/quote']

Uhm..no. But I just downloaded ‘the magnificent ferengi’ – so I’m off!

 

I like this discussion. Though it is a bit verbose.

 

 

[StitchInTime]

And I don’t think that the amount of children you have depends on your social status' date=' height, intelligence, or your income.[/quote']

But, these factors have been shown to influence your likelihood of finding a mate, and hence the likelihood that you will have children.

 

Yes, you mention some necessary qualities for the ability to have a lot of offspring.

No, I mean they affect whether or not you are able to produce offspring at all.

 

Yet, the two children per household is still the most common solution

I think you may be confusing common with average. By definition, just because something is the average number, doesn't mean it's the most common number. There are plenty of households where couples are deciding not to have children at all, and these numbers are growing.

 

I was trying to keep it simple and not go into cross-overs and what not of epigenetics since it’s not relevant for this discussion – yet. I did mean the mutations that occur every time you copy the DNA and in order to make gametes you have to copy a cells DNA.

That is what you meant, but not what I meant. :D

 

Erh… Yes, we choose mates based on attractiveness and you mentioned symmetry. Symmetry can be a sign that the person gets enough food – i.e. the person is good at getting food. But being able to get enough food in the western world does not seem to be a big problem.

I don't know about that, but there are genetic defects that produce asymmetry.

 

There are other factors coming into play – behaviour for instance. Ever noticed the one guy who got a chick – and then all the other chicks wanted him just because someone had chosen him already?

But, why was he choosen? I would suspect it was based on characteristics that the first woman found attractive, some of which are bound to be genetically based.

 

Also personality – which is determined by way more than biology – influences your choice in mate(s).

Personality has less of an impact than some of the other characteristics, but that's where good social skills come in, and that is a trait that is encouraged.

 

Personality is quite a controversial topic, however. Some psychologists do not believe there is such a thing. Studies have suggested that personality is quite fluid and varies tremendously depending on the context. At the same time, twin studies have shown greater similarities between the personalities of identical twins as compared to their non-identical counterparts.

 

Wait, do you mean the ones with the trait chooses to abstain from procreating? Since that does not make sense due to the biological urge to mate . . . .

It does make sense, but I explained this, in detail, earlier in this thread; so, I won't repeat it.

[Oma]

Yes, you mention some necessary qualities for the ability to have a lot of offspring.

No, I mean they affect whether or not you are able to produce offspring at all.

But a lot of women are giving birth today even though they wouldn’t be able to under natural circumstances.

Therefore, whether or not you have great fecundity is not so relevant in the western world. I know, you are also thinking of those who cannot conceive a child together – it doesn’t necessarily mean they have bad genes (or worse genes than the average). Sometimes two people have too similar gentic makeups (e.g. they both have THE SAME recessive defect(s) that cause the embryo to die – if they have too many defects, the chance of getting an embryo with at least one terminal trait expressed is too likely to happen for them to have kids together. That's why humping a relative is a bad idea. :p

 

That is one of the reasons why we humans (the women, actually) tend to choose partners from smell. People with different smells have different MHC (major histocompatability complex). The MHC is determined from your DNA (not a single gene/group of genes).

So in essence pick a partner that does not smell like yourself….Mmm Hugo Boss!

And why is it the women who selects the mate this way? – walking around for nine months eating for two is bloody expensive if the child croakes at the first sight of sunlight. We men have it somewhat easier.

 

Im not discounting that some people have genes that do not allow them to procreate even in the western world. I just don’t believe that all childless couples are either completely uncapable of conceiving children or are abstaining due to the greater good of mankind.

There are plenty of households where couples are deciding not to have children at all' date=' and these numbers are growing. [/quote']

Possible, but going from that to genetic altruism is stretching it a bit thin.

 

Altruism only makes sense if you live in a group of individuals where you have relatives – if you improve the fitness of the group (compared to the rest of the population) you are indirectly improving the fitness of your own genes. (if you have 1x your own DNA, then a sibling has 0.5x, nephew/niece has 0.25 and so on).

 

There are other factors coming into play – behaviour for instance. Ever noticed the one guy who got a chick – and then all the other chicks wanted him just because someone had chosen him already?

But, why was he choosen? I would suspect it was based on characteristics that the first woman found attractive, some of which are bound to be genetically based.

Perhaps he had good manners and the girl had been mistreated by a former boyfriend.

 

Learning good manners is not the same thing as having been born with them. It’s important not to look at genes as the explanation to everything we do – culture (as in the sense of learning/passing on knowledge, how to cook, ride a bike, etc.), environment and just sheer coincidence have a say in the matter, too.

 

Also personality – which is determined by way more than biology – influences your choice in mate(s).

Personality has less of an impact than some of the other characteristics, but that's where good social skills come in, and that is a trait that is encouraged.

You don’t get good social skills unless you spend time socialising – if you’re parents did a lot of socialising, too, then I’d say it’s mostly a matter of cultural transmission.

 

 

 

 

[StitchInTime]

But a lot of women are giving birth today even though they wouldn’t be able to under natural circumstances.

Many still can't, however, as technology is only partially effective.

 

I know, you are also thinking of those who cannot conceive a child together – it doesn’t necessarily mean they have bad genes (or worse genes than the average). Sometimes two people have too similar gentic makeups (e.g. they both have THE SAME recessive defect(s) that cause the embryo to die – if they have too many defects, the chance of getting an embryo with at least one terminal trait expressed is too likely to happen for them to have kids together.

That is a case of bad genes. As you said, 'they both have THE SAME recessive defect(s),' which is/are transmitted genetically. It's natural selection, too, because these genetic defects prevent them from being able to produce viable offspring together.

 

. . . are abstaining due to the greater good of mankind.

You don't have to abstain. You use birth control. It has nothing to do with concern for 'the greater good of [human]kind', but, again, I explained this, in detail, earlier.

 

Altruism only makes sense if you live in a group of individuals where you have relatives – if you improve the fitness of the group (compared to the rest of the population) you are indirectly improving the fitness of your own genes.

This argument contradicts your previous assertion that people make their decisions about procreation based on an irresistable biological urge to reproduce, rather than on what 'makes sense.' It's not necessarily conscious 'Altruism,' in the way you are thinking, and again, I refer you to my earlier explanation.

 

Learning good manners is not the same thing as having been born with them.

But, the ability to learn them is genetic, and they do tend to run in families. There is also a genetic defect (sorry, I forget the name of it) that causes extreme developmental delay (retardation), but gives the affected individuals extremely warm, empathic, outgoing and personable personalities, and the ability to acquire culturally appropriate social skills much more readily than most people do.

 

You don’t get good social skills unless you spend time socialising – if you’re parents did a lot of socialising, too, then I’d say it’s mostly a matter of cultural transmission.

The degree to which you socialize may improve your skills, but the degree to which you can acquire and improve these skills is influenced by your genetic makeup. If your parents socialize a lot, it's also likely they have a genetic predisposition to be that way. But, if you have a predisposition against it, you probably won't be as good at learning and applying these skills as they are.

[Oma]

But a lot of women are giving birth today even though they wouldn’t be able to under natural circumstances.

Many still can't, however, as technology is only partially effective.

I know – otherwise I would have written ‘all’ women.

 

That is a case of bad genes. As you said' date=' 'they both have THE SAME recessive defect(s),' which is/are transmitted genetically. It's natural selection, too, because these genetic defects prevent them from being able to produce viable offspring together. [/quote']

I was trying to explain that just because two people cannot have children together that does not mean they have bad genes (on an overall) - again we all have recessive defects. Yes, it is natural selection – I do not dispute that. But still, no trait is being favoured (my original post).

 

. . . are abstaining due to the greater good of mankind.

You don't have to abstain. You use birth control. It has nothing to do with concern for 'the greater good of [human]kind', but, again, I explained this, in detail, earlier.

This was an attempt at humour – I apparently failed.

 

Altruism only makes sense if you live in a group of individuals where you have relatives – if you improve the fitness of the group (compared to the rest of the population) you are indirectly improving the fitness of your own genes.

This argument contradicts your previous assertion that people make their decisions about procreation based on an irresistable biological urge to reproduce, rather than on what 'makes sense.' It's not necessarily conscious 'Altruism,' in the way you are thinking, and again, I refer you to my earlier explanation.

 

The reason I bring altruism up is due to your remark on people choose via instinct not to have children in order not to pass on their bad genes for the greater good of the species:

How do you know that deciding not to have children because you don't want to pass on a defect isn't a genetic trait? It makes sense really, because such a trait, increases the chances of the survival of the species. ...

I do not believe in this broad sense of altruism you are suggesting since a given trait for such a behaviour would have a hard time spreading to an entire population (i.e. the species) and not be out-competed.

 

Let’s assume we have a species with the trait you suggest. We alsohave a mutant with a defect in the ..hmmm..’altruistic gene’ so that it will choose to procreate in spite of having a bad trait. If the decendants of this mutant have other defects that, though reducing their fitness, allows them to live and reproduce then they will reproduce. Defects will occur every now and then in the population. Since those who lack the ’altruistic gene’ will have more offspring they will have an advantage even though some of them may have reduced fitness.

 

Also in smaller populations single individuals are more valuable genetically. If one does not reproduce due to the’altruistic gene’ the group would suffer a loss in genetic variation. By reducing genetic variation a species would lose ability to adapt to new environment – which is bad. Since humans used to live in groups before we became civilized this trait you suggest would have been counter-productive.

 

So the reason I brought up altruism in the first place was to display it’s role as a genetically inherited trait as being limited to a smaller scale where your genes (the healthy genes in family members in your group) are favoured by your own demise – though the examples I know of usually has to do with trying to alarm the group of a predators precence.

 

 

We appear to be in agreement that skills and the abililty to learn depends on a mix of genes, environment, and random events (I hope ;)).

 

[StitchInTime]

This was an attempt at humour – I apparently failed.

Serves me right for being an 'abstainer,' I suppose. ;)

 

In the immortal words of Count Dracula, "I never drink . . . wine." :p

 

I do not believe in this broad sense of altruism you are suggesting since a given trait for such a behaviour would have a hard time spreading to an entire population (i.e. the species) and not be out-competed.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I am talking about 'altruism,' but I'm not.

 

Let’s assume we have a species with the trait you suggest. We alsohave a mutant with a defect in the ..hmmm..’altruistic gene’ so that it will choose to procreate in spite of having a bad trait. If the decendants of this mutant have other defects that, though reducing their fitness, allows them to live and reproduce then they will reproduce. Defects will occur every now and then in the population. Since those who lack the ’altruistic gene’ will have more offspring they will have an advantage even though some of them may have reduced fitness.

I am afraid you are still missing my point. In the animal kindom and for most of the history of human beings, the practice has been not to abstain from procreating, because that was not a viable option, but to actively kill any offspring that were born defective, or let them die.

 

In the Western world today, people rarely do this kind of thing to eliminate defective offspring, and, of course, it is illegal. They can and do use birth control and abortion, however, to eliminate offspring with serious defects. In other countries, abandonment is still practiced, since these other means are less available.

 

We appear to be in agreement that skills and the abililty to learn depends on a mix of genes, environment, and random events (I hope ;)).

:o (gasp)

 

Yes. Astonishing, isn't it. ;)

 

Now, the question is, is that a result of a common genetic heritage, or environmental

influences? :cyclops:

 

No, wait, don't answer that. :rolleyes:

[Antipodean]

Given some of the last few replies on continuing human evolution and cultural selection, I thought some of you might find this interesting,

 

Civilisation has left its mark on our genes - From 'New Scientist' magazine, December 05

 

 

For those that can't be bothered following the link, this quote pretty much sums up what the article is about.

 

“One of the major things that has happened in the last 50,000 years is the development of culture,†he says. “By so radically and rapidly changing our environment through our culture, we’ve put new kinds of selection [pressures] on ourselves.â€ÂÂ

 

Genes that aid protein metabolism – perhaps related to a change in diet with the dawn of agriculture – turn up unusually often in Moyzis’s list of recently selected genes. So do genes involved in resisting infections, which would be important in a species settling into more densely populated villages where diseases would spread more easily. Other selected genes include those involved in brain function, which could be important in the development of culture.

 

[Mav]

Well, if it didn't involve needless experimentation nor hurting of any living human, yea I'd be for it. Some would think it might be "unnatural" to fiddle with DNA at a fetal level or even a young childhood level but hey, if it helps people out go for it. The saying goes "the world needs ditch diggers" which is true, but who's to say we can't make those people as smart as the rest of us.

[GorunNova]

It won't be long until the world only needs ditch diggers for job-making. There are too many people for too few jobs as it is, and that's only going to get worse. The world's economy needs a serious working over, assuming it's even capable of dealing with the coming changes at all! Short of exempting chunks of the population from employment, or large scale death, there are probably going to be SERIOUS problems which are likely to cause suffering to a LOT of people. We're already seeing the first edge of that.

 

Our current economic system relies on mass amounts of unskilled labour working for minimal wages. Make the 'ditch diggers' smart, and we need either a new economic system or more police to take care of the VERY pissed off masses who are sick and tired of wage slavery and full of disgust at being forced to work at dead-end jobs because there ARE no others for them.

[Mav]

It won't be long until the world only needs ditch diggers for job-making. There are too many people for too few jobs as it is, and that's only going to get worse. The world's economy needs a serious working over, assuming it's even capable of dealing with the coming changes at all! Short of exempting chunks of the population from employment, or large scale death, there are probably going to be SERIOUS problems which are likely to cause suffering to a LOT of people. We're already seeing the first edge of that.

 

Our current economic system relies on mass amounts of unskilled labour working for minimal wages. Make the 'ditch diggers' smart, and we need either a new economic system or more police to take care of the VERY pissed off masses who are sick and tired of wage slavery and full of disgust at being forced to work at dead-end jobs because there ARE no others for them.

 

All good points. There's some serious flaws to the general economic system that I've yet to figure out;

 

While the point of too few jobs for too many people is somewhat true, you'd think with 7 billion people world wide, there'd be more jobs not less. I think this is in part to a good chunk of companies hiring less for mass jobs than they want. Like garbage men. In America, or at least in my city in America, garbage men come once a week, at a time period, for my specific neighborhood. Thats about normal right. But at the same time it takes them quite a while to do the entire city. If they hired an additional 1/3 of their work force or even 1/4 they could shave off like half the time required, half the man power to be spread out and half the cost of gas and labour-per-hour to get it done. But the companies cut corners by hiring less, cause in the end it's cheaper for them.

 

Which leads me to alot of jobs, going over seas. When I chose my career, pc technician, I could have went IT (networking and stuff). There's alot of money in that business. But as time has gone on, more big companies like Dell are out sourcing tech support to call centers in India. So while you have purchased an American computer from an American company located locally in your home country, when you call tech support you are literally being patched through to a call center in the Middle East. Nothing aganist Middle Eastern people but those jobs are being given there cause people work for alot less. Minimum wage here is like $5.25 an hour, over there people work for much, much less per hour....

 

I think it'd be a good thing to have "less" ditch diggers. As time has gone on more jobs are being done easily by automated systems or even our primative version of robots. Sure we'd still need garbage men and stuff but at some point it's not going to be too far of a stretch to program a garbage truck to follow an X path and pick up trash (ok maybe a while down the road, cause of A.I and stuff but you get the point). While we'd have to sacrifice some people to still be ditch diggers we'd increase our pool of scientific minds ten fold. Maybe we'd get a cure for major diseases quicker. Maybe we'd make strides into space exploration alot faster. Sky would be the limit and we'd have more people building toward it.

 

Nothing sucks worse than looking an 18 year old kid in the eye, knowing he or she has tried their best studied the hardest they can and given 170% effort only to be told by teachers and guidance counsolers "not everyone, goes to college".

[mateya]

just few days ago I have uploaded a torrent with some similar issues addressed (future of food)

http://www.niteshdw.com:8080/torrents-details.php?id=3539

[theaveng]

It won't be long until the world only needs ditch diggers for job-making. There are too many people for too few jobs as it is' date=' and that's only going to get worse. The world's economy needs a serious working over, [/quote']

 

 

I'm not worried about it. When oil hits $200 a barrel (which is not far off, probably 2020), it will no longer be cheap to import goods from distant countries like India or China. Instead, it will be cheaper to make the goods at home, close to the markets, and Americans/Europeans will find employment again.

 

 

troy

[bbbb]

Eugenics should be opposed, just like the Dominion occupation of DS9 or the US occupation of Iraq (oops, sorry for the comparison).

 

There is one advantage, "...prodigeous breeding, 10 females to each male. Of course they will have to be considered for their physical qualities which will have to be of a... highly stimulating nature."

 

"There would be much time, and little to do."

 

I remember 'Brave New World' with the prodigeous breeding.

[kyran]

Hitler tried eugenics with his plan to breed a superior ayran race

 

but thats no reason not to try again

 

lets start with making people live longer

especially me i dun wanna die

what happened to the muscle treatment that stopped muscle getting older

the hearts a muscle if that never got older we'd live longer

[jhug666]

i'm all in favor of eugenics as it would allow people like myself who suffer from incurable genetic deasises to know that our children would not be at risk