Gay gene

[The Alma Mater]

"Normal"? Normal has nothing to do with this. Effects on society do. Give a good reason for banning "teh gaiz".

Unnecessary division. Why pointlessly create conflict over something that doesn't help you?

Why not ? Humans do loads of pointless or even detrimental things. Differing tastes in music and clothing. A fondness for extreme sports. Liking hamburgers. Smoking. Reading books about sparkly vampires.

Should we force people to stop being silly ?

[Person012345]

"Normal"? Normal has nothing to do with this. Effects on society do. Give a good reason for banning "teh gaiz".

Unnecessary division. Why pointlessly create conflict over something that doesn't help you?

So we should ban bigots then? That would clear up a whole load more conflicts than banning gays.

Because banning things always works perfectly.

[Foguk]

People don't respond well to diversity. I'd be 65% in favour for it.

[Euronion]

If they did, then homosexuality would be classified as a mutation

everything is a mutation, the very fact that we can see is a mutation.

[Person012345]

People don't respond well to diversity. I'd be 65% in favour for it.

You 65% in favour of white-izing blacks?

[Foguk]

People don't respond well to diversity. I'd be 65% in favour for it.

You 65% in favour of white-izing blacks?

Maybe not that far. I'm not entire sure of my own opinion right now. But If this had to happen, they should only be white-ized in predominantly white countries, and whites black-ized in predominantly black countries.

[The Alma Mater]

You 65% in favour of white-izing blacks?

Maybe not that far. I'm not entire sure of my own opinion right now. But If this had to happen, they should only be white-ized in predominantly white countries, and whites black-ized in predominantly black countries.

Why ? Whiteskin itself is an aberration from our ancestors. A mutation, and mostly detrimental.

Surely, if a cure could be found, all whites should be forced to take it ?

[Foguk]

Maybe not that far. I'm not entire sure of my own opinion right now. But If this had to happen, they should only be white-ized in predominantly white countries, and whites black-ized in predominantly black countries.

Why ? Whiteskin itself is an aberration from our ancestors. A mutation, and mostly detrimental.

Surely, if a cure could be found, all whites should be forced to take it ?

Well, Your example isn't entirely correct. Early nordic people needed to be white skinned to soak up as much UV light as possible from the limited sunlight. Black people need more to block out the excess sun as it can cause cancer. Being dark skinned in a nordic country would be kind of a massive handicap as you wouldnt be able to synthesize vitamin D. But now most of us have a good diet and supplements so it really doesn't matter. White skin is an aberration from our ancestors, but if our ancestors had come from northern russia, you would be saying black skin is an aberration.

But I know what your saying with your example (I think). If you mean to say that "If we could fix Humanity to become near perfect with little to no flaws, should we force it on people?" I don't really have an answer to that. I'd want for humanity to become perfect, but what about personal freedom and identity? I just can't see how those two balance out for me.

[Four-sided Triangles]

But I know what your saying with your example (I think). If you mean to say that "If we could fix Humanity to become near perfect with little to no flaws, should we force it on people?" I don't really have an answer to that. I'd want for humanity to become perfect, but what about personal freedom and identity? I just can't see how those two balance out for me.

The problem comes in how you define perfection. Being more perfect at one thing almost always leads to detriments in other areas. Being perfect at everything is thus essentially a physical impossibility, and probably a logical one too.

[Foguk]

But I know what your saying with your example (I think). If you mean to say that "If we could fix Humanity to become near perfect with little to no flaws, should we force it on people?" I don't really have an answer to that. I'd want for humanity to become perfect, but what about personal freedom and identity? I just can't see how those two balance out for me.

The problem comes in how you define perfection. Being more perfect at one thing almost always leads to detriments in other areas. Being perfect at everything is thus essentially a physical impossibility, and probably a logical one too.

Unless... We made everyone super-adaptable. Adapt to anything, resist anything, take advantage of anything. That sounds like perfection.

Too little sun? wham, 10 seconds later your as white as a ghost and can take full advantage of what little sun there is. Too little caloric intake? wham, 10 seconds later your metabolism is cut to 10% of its original level. You were shot? bam, 10 seconds later you fat molecules mimic Kevlar. I'd call that near perfection.

Edit: I take it youre not religious then?

[Rick Rollin]

You were shot? bam, 10 seconds later you fat molecules mimic Kevlar. I'd call that near perfection.

The bullet would already be inside you.*

*Okay, not exactly. The bullet would've gone thru your body.

[Foguk]

You were shot? bam, 10 seconds later you fat molecules mimic Kevlar. I'd call that near perfection.

The bullet would already be inside you.*

*Okay, not exactly. The bullet would've gone thru your body.

Odds are, the bullet won't kill you in ten seconds. Also, alot of people survive single gunshots. Its only a problem if you hit something important.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Unless... We made everyone super-adaptable. Adapt to anything, resist anything, take advantage of anything. That sounds like perfection.

Too little sun? wham, 10 seconds later your as white as a ghost and can take full advantage of what little sun there is. Too little caloric intake? wham, 10 seconds later your metabolism is cut to 10% of its original level. You were shot? bam, 10 seconds later you fat molecules mimic Kevlar. I'd call that near perfection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(comics)

Edit: I take it youre not religious then?

I'm a strong atheist. I suppose I'm "religious" in the Einsteinian sense.

[Ridicularia]

Unless... We made everyone super-adaptable. Adapt to anything, resist anything, take advantage of anything. That sounds like perfection.

Unfortunately, there's a physical cost to organisms being super-adaptable. They usually die - it takes too many cellular resources.

[Foguk]

Unless... We made everyone super-adaptable. Adapt to anything, resist anything, take advantage of anything. That sounds like perfection.

Too little sun? wham, 10 seconds later your as white as a ghost and can take full advantage of what little sun there is. Too little caloric intake? wham, 10 seconds later your metabolism is cut to 10% of its original level. You were shot? bam, 10 seconds later you fat molecules mimic Kevlar. I'd call that near perfection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(comics)

Edit: I take it youre not religious then?

I'm a strong atheist. I suppose I'm "religious" in the Einsteinian sense.

Thought so, and yeah. Like that Darwin character.

[Rick Rollin]

Unless... We made everyone super-adaptable. Adapt to anything, resist anything, take advantage of anything. That sounds like perfection.

Unfortunately, there's a physical cost to organisms being super-adaptable. They usually die - it takes too many cellular resources.

Industrial farming begs to differ.

[Ridicularia]

Industrial farming begs to differ.

Hm? I would think industrial crops are, like, mega failures in the natural world. They're not very phenotypically plastic at all - it takes a lot of selective breeding to get them to do what they do, and then they can't do anything else.

[Sociobiology]

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

'Most' is an inaccurate term for it. Some do, but not all, and not really a majority. In the case of the heritability of genetic disorders, it rather depends on which disorder it is; some disorders are recessive, some are dominant, some are single-gene disorders (ie they are caused by a single gene being mutated), some are multiple-gene disorders (like asthma or diabetes), and can be a result of a lot of genes going wrong. To look at a famous example, here's the family tree of Victoria, a carrier of haemophilia;

Haemophilia is a recessive, X chromosome-linked condition. Now, most women have two copies of the X chromosome, meaning that in most cases the non-damaged copy of the gene in the other chromosome takes precedence over the chromosome with the haemophilia gene, and thus they have no symptoms of the disease, and are thus called 'carriers'. However, males don't have two copies of the X chromosome; they have a Y chromosome and an X chromosome. This means that if the mother happens to pass on the X chromosome with the recessive haemophilia gene, they won't have another copy of the gene to 'overrule' it, and thus they'll suffer from haemophilia.

A woman can thus, live her whole life without knowing that she carries the trait for haemophilia until one of her children ends up getting the disease, which you can see in that family tree. Things like cystic fibrosis (another recessive trait, though not on an X or Y chromosome) and sickle-cell anemia (Which is a case of getting two copies of the sickle-cell trait rather than just one, from parents who both have the trait, also not on an X or Y chromosome) operate in the same way.

sickle cell is even weirder because if you have only one gene (heterozygous) , it makes you resistant to malaria, but both is very detrimental, cystic fibrosis has a similar effect on cholera.

[Sociobiology]

"Normal"? Normal has nothing to do with this. Effects on society do. Give a good reason for banning "teh gaiz".

Unnecessary division. Why pointlessly create conflict over something that doesn't help you?

Homosexuality is actually an evolutionary advantage. provided less than 15% of the population is Homosexual.

[Sociobiology]

Unfortunately, there's a physical cost to organisms being super-adaptable. They usually die - it takes too many cellular resources.

Industrial farming begs to differ.

humans are doing a great deal of the work for the plant, most industrial crops cannot reproduce without human intervention.

[Sociobiology]

Maybe not that far. I'm not entire sure of my own opinion right now. But If this had to happen, they should only be white-ized in predominantly white countries, and whites black-ized in predominantly black countries.

Why ? Whiteskin itself is an aberration from our ancestors. A mutation, and mostly detrimental.

Surely, if a cure could be found, all whites should be forced to take it ?

which ancestor?


but honestly the only thing I want is to be able to tan easier, worrying about skin color because of how people react is retarded.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Unnecessary division. Why pointlessly create conflict over something that doesn't help you?

So we should ban bigots then? That would clear up a whole load more conflicts than banning gays.

Actually banning and enforcing aid ban on gays would probably be more convenient than banning and enforcing the ban on bigotry.

[Desperate Measures]

So we should ban bigots then? That would clear up a whole load more conflicts than banning gays.

Actually banning and enforcing aid ban on gays would probably be more convenient than banning and enforcing the ban on bigotry.

Rarely do we hear the call to make things easier for bigots.

[Person012345]

So we should ban bigots then? That would clear up a whole load more conflicts than banning gays.

Actually banning and enforcing aid ban on gays would probably be more convenient than banning and enforcing the ban on bigotry.

You underestimate the difficulty involved in taking a shit on the constitution and making everyone just shut up about it, methinks.

[Camicon]

Why is it unethical?

Because that would force a decision on people, as well as show favoritism to one genetic stance.

So it would be unethical to remove the "homicidal gene"? The (fictional) gene that codes for homicidal behaviour in humans, causing everything from domestic abuse to world war?

Just because an act shows favouritism doesn't make it unethical.

Not that I'm saying it's acceptable to force people into a single sexual identity. It clearly isn't.