From Gears to Genes: A Sea Change in Transhumanism

That is so perfect for many posts this week. I hope you don't mind if I use it on my personal blogsite.

Another example of how Religion makes people afraid of Science.

This is no different from religionists being afraid of surgery or blood transfusions.

You hold your ignorance up as a virtue, and claim it's the will of God for you to be that way.

do you really think it's wrong to eliminate undesirable traits from the species? say perhaps, lupus? diabetes? what's wrong with that? we control our own evolution.

The cures to Lupus and Diabetes are diet and genetic manipulation is not necessary. As we are finding in other biological testing; the improvements on one end are always met with a surprise fault elsewhere. I recently posted several articles on how GMO crops are causing various illnesses. Just think about what would happen if we fix diabetes over here but create infertility in all future generations of that person's family once they reproduce. GMO crops are showing infertility in humans that consume them 2 generations down the road. Why are we to believe human genetic engineering won't just cause worse problems?

Additionally, Utopia mentions the aging process as a flaw. You both miss the other side of the argument. Population control. What do we do when we 'fix' the aging process or 'fix' all diseases? How do we not radically increase the population? You see, nature doesn't want us to meddle with 'Creation', no matter how you think it came about, nature already created balance. Disease and aging are a part of that balance.

Besides, who decides what's 'undesirable' and what's natural. My little brother has Downs Syndrome and in many ways it could be said these people are better than us 'normal' people.

My reference to 'God', in parenthesis for Christ's sake, was not a reference to religion as should be evident by reading it. If anything, my statement: " If we are to correctly evolve, the Earth will do it herself as She's done since the beginning of time." , should point more toward Paganism, not religion as you are referring (Christianity) of course, we know you can't wait to dig at them.

Then you say:

"You hold your ignorance up as a virtue, and claim it's the will of God for you to be that way."

Obviously another dig at Christianity with 'ignorance' added because you believe all Christians are ignorant even though many have achieved astounding things. But, completely unfounded on any of my posts including this one.

So, I offer you $100 if you can point me to any spot on Current where I have said anything I have done or said was the will of God.

Come on now, don't make a statement you can't prove, I'll even pay you to prove it. I never do this and always come back to prove everything I've ever stated on here so I will pay you to do the same.

Maybe if you had to pay the people you misquote, lie about and attack without any proof contrary to theirs you'd learn a lesson. Maybe not, but hey greed might get you to do a little work searching though, that's a start.

stop trying to twist this into some sci-fi eugenics program. this has nothing to do with utopia nor population control... stop trying to invent things to fear.

Yes, lupus and diabetes can be fixed with genetic manipulation, this is why adding stem cells to the pancreas of a diabetic will cure their illness… because the stem cells replace the disfunctioning cells in the pancreas, effectively replacing which genes (by replacing the cells) are turned on or off throughout the organs tissue. You say they can be fixed by diet, I say you have then no idea what lupus is. Yes diet does effect genetics… the idea is called epigenetics, that includes the idea that how you live (what you eat, and do, and are exposed to) alters which genes are expressed, that if your grandparents went through a long period of starvation you and your kids may have higher rate of diabetes, because the genes that regulate the efficiency of metabolism are directly effected by what is being metabolized.

Sorry to say but your brother IS undesirable, though he will not be adding this undesired trait to the gene pool, because downs is a chromosome abnormality from aberrations in meiosis called a meiotic nondisjunction and NOT a mutation, if done with nearly all other chromosomes the organism will fail before birth… so he’s not actually what this article nor anything I’ve previously said is about. I too have a sibling with an undesirable genetic trait (achondroplasia, a kind of dwarfism), more on point with this article than your example of downs syndrome. I fully believe that with genetic engineering, traits like this (not downs, not genetic) could be effectively eliminated from our species. Using substitution, supplementation, silencing (of genes), silencing silencers… or many of the other discovered/invented we can provide the missing or altered proteins and amino acids that lead to such conditions…

A perfect example is the BRCA1 gene, this is a tumor suppressor. Meaning, it’s product (breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein) assists vitally in suppression of tumor cells (in breast tissue) by helping to kill it. A mutation in a woman’s genes that results in a faulty or altered product (the protein) means she will not be as resistant to breast tumors. Sometimes there are other mutations that ‘suppress’ the suppressor, sometimes, mutations lead to a product that is MORE effective that before… the point is, this single gene has well known effects and that illness (breast cancer) IS a genetic problem. And genetic manipulation could substitute this genes effect, curing breast cancers of this type.

as spartan as it may be, I don’t think culling is a bad thing... even the Buddha said it's reasonable if the child is going to be living a gruesome squirming painful and wretched existence as a miserable burden on car givers, family, and society… denying others and the poor child a life with some measure of quality. This is more out of compassion than anything.

"disease and ageing are part of that balance"... ok sure, so next time you get strep throat, have a heart attack, suffer a stroke, get a yeast infection, get tetanus... DON’T use anti-biotics, and DON'T see a doctor, and DON'T heal yourself of these infections/ ilnesses… because you’re disturbing the balance.

do you get all your opinions from disney films? have you ever seen any of the ones they made for the military? like the ones on how to properly use mustard gas?... yeah... they sure qualify as moral tutors. (sarcasm)

you say nature has it all figured it out... ok, so I'll blame nature that retarded and deformed babies are abandoned flushed or 'aborted' before and after minutes of painful fearfull and miserable wrenching...

I don't get those problems, I only eat whole foods and nothing in a box or can. I haven't had those types of infections in 20 years. Should I get any of those, most can be healed with natural remedies. You also fail to answer; 'What do we do with all of the perfect, disease-less people if we're already having population problems? '

There's nothing wrong with people with genetic defects. Where they lack or differ phsyically, they seem to advance mentally or artistically creating an evolution on another level. Genetic Science has the potential to be extremely dangerous while acknowledging the benefits of some of it's work. The potential for the science to become dangerous rests with people like Transhumanists and it's ideology. Utopia, was mentioned as a reference to poster, UtopianSky and her Transhumanists views. As far as population control; you read poorly. I wasn't referring to the scientists but to the fact that perfecting the race and erasing disease would dramatically increase population on an already overpopulated planet. Disease and genetics deficiencies are designed into animal populations to keep population at bay.

Transhumanists belief that we should keep striving to be perfect is not at all a good thing. Instead, reaching for perfection and stepping on the toes of 'Creation', however you want to define it, is just the recipe for extinction.

Don't blame nature, blame transhumanism for creating disgusting humans that would destroy a life they felt was not perfect enough. Your logic runs sideways on these issues and is obviously tainted by transhumanism. You should study some sociology and it would clear up the issues I speak of.

what's this hang up you have with population? first off I'd say stop brainwashing all these religious people who think it's acceptable to have twenty kids, secondly there are no NATURAL (though antibiotics ARE natural) remedes for nectrotizing streptococcus... a good diet won't save you from that.

who said ANYTHING about population? besides you that is? we're NOT over populated. that's a myth. look at india, they have WAY more people in a slightly smaller area than america, or Japan, they're the ONLY country with a negative birth rate -3%, and they've got the population of th US crammed into a space the size of california. until every country has population densities like india, population is NOT a problem.

Wow, do you ramble and make assumptions where there are none. When did I bring up religion or the amount of children people have? Second, population is a viable topic in this discussion since eliminating disease would definitely increase the population.

Lastly, your idea of what overpopulation consists of is skewed. It's not about population density, that's not the problem. We can fit more people. We can't FEED that many people. That, and disease is how nature controls population. Sociology would teach you that you can't take charity to impoverished countries and provide food to 'Save the Children'. Eventually all of the lives that you save become a larger burden on a land that already had decided it's limits. The Earth can only provide resources for so many people. If we populate every square inch of the planet with people, where will we grow the food? We are just about at capacity in our consumerism of what the Earth will allow before forcing a re-start, if you will. Adding more people to the quotient will just speed up the process of extinction.

And please, this is Science, don't toss in religion and even tag it to the other person when it has not been brought up. That is no more than 'he's got a point so I'll resort to name calling and tin-foil hat accusations' type of psychology and doesn't really score you any points except in your own mind.

"secondly there are no NATURAL (though antibiotics ARE natural) remedes for nectrotizing streptococcus... "

Do you understand that you contradicted yourself and agreed with me while not agreeing in the same sentence? Antibiotics can be obtained through electrification of the blood, colloidal silver, straight garlic, honey and other sources. And, as you admit yourself, antibiotics ARE natural.

So, yes, one can cure streptococcus naturally, as well as everything else. Heck, most sicknesses don't have to be cured by diet, they can be prevented by diet, including diabetes which can be cured and prevented through diet.

"striving to be perfect is not at all a good thing" really? did you really just say that?
wow, there's no arguing against that kind of logic now is there?

stepping on the toes of creation? you yourself take human evolution into your own hands when you choose who or who NOT to mate with, you yourself are effecting human evolution everytime you choose to eat or drink one thing over another. you're not going to breed with a genetic defect, and until you choose to ignore the signs of health firtility and vigor in a mate and instead choose ugly, stupid, or deformed mates you yourself are guiding evolution toward a 'better' simply by picking 'beautiful' mates over ugly ones...

and NO defects are NOT "designed" to do anything. you betray your ignorance of both genetics and evolution. they just happen. the only real thing that keeps populations at bay is resources.

wow, so close yet still divergent.... where do you think we get antibiotics? we copied genes for them from one thing (fungi, bacteria...) and put them into something that we can culture in mass. this is called transgenetics. without this we could not produce enough antibiotics for anything...

I agree that diet plays a huge role in health (the biggest aside from genetic predispositions)... but all the same, we need transgenetics just to get things like antibiotics.

human insulin genes have been transferred to e.coli so we can mass produce human insulin for diabetics. before this we had to grind up an process animal tissue to get insulin. this is where all medical grade human insulin is produced, by transgenetic e.coli.... but according to you that "stepping on creations toes"... I say it's helping humanity. we'll see which ideology lasts longer...

I'm not on the topic of religion either, rather my comment was on the tendency for them to think breeding like rabbits is acceptable. again...NOT so much a comment on religion but rather their idea that they SHOULD have as many children as possible. if population is your bag, I'd say start with fixing that philosophy...

yes disease is related to population. but not wholly... proof is that human populations were on the rise long BEFORE antibiotics or even soap and YES we CAN FEED them... the fact is MOST food produced rots BEFORE it gets eaten. america alone CAN produce enough food for ever mouth on earth... the problem then is getting the food to these people before it goes bad (most people don't have refridgerators let alone ANY food preservation technologies). I agree that we should not provide food aid because that leads to dependance... I agree that the earth can only support so many people, what I disagree about is what that number is, I believe earth can support much more than it has now (not that it should).

No, the problem is your ability to take something out of context or to look at something from a completely different perspective than what was written or intended. You're not looking for the truth, you're looking to be right and that skewers your logic beyond repair. I feel like I'm debating a junior high class with you, maybe I am.

Additonally, you oversimplify everything and somehow equate natural selection, the chose of mates, to genetic manipulation in a lab. These are not at all in the same category. Besides, your statement:

"you're not going to breed with a genetic defect, and until you choose to ignore the signs of health firtility and vigor in a mate and instead choose ugly, stupid, or deformed mates you yourself are guiding evolution toward a 'better' simply by picking 'beautiful' mates over ugly ones..."

is indicative of your Tranhumanist views. Ugliness, by your definition, is now something we should also work on in the lab because that is a genetic defect, according to you. Nevermind that some women, highly desirable at that in a genetic way, will mate with ugly, stupid or deformed mates if that mate is a good provider ie RICH.

This statement:

"and NO defects are NOT "designed" to do anything. you betray your ignorance of both genetics and evolution. they just happen. the only real thing that keeps populations at bay is resources."

is just uninformed and ignorant. Just about every book that one can pick up, unless written by a Transhumanist, will disagree with that statement.

And your comment that 'the only real things that keeps populations at bay is resources' just confirms all of my previous statements that ridding the human race of disease will be dangerous due to lack of resources.

Keep going and you'll wind up confirming everything that I've stated. As if you haven't already.

So, you can't produce masses of fungi and bacteria. Why not? They seem to be one of the easiest living beings to reproduce.

The fault in your theories is that we should reproduce nature and mass produce it in labs so that everyone has access. Tell me, what happens if an EMP wipes out our ability to produce electricity or operate these labs and manufacturing plants? This is why the continued dependence on genetic engineering, one of the reasons, why it is fool's work.

How do you think we get most of our illnesses? I'll tell you. From the same scientific community that is working hard to find ways to cure the diseases their products have given you. It's a never ending cycle. They create items, food, products for us to 'enjoy' while all of this stuff causes illnesses of one sort or another. Then, they ask you to hail their work for creating drugs that can 'manage', not cure, most of the time, the illnesses that their other products gave you. All the while, they've made you lose your ability to self-medicate, self-nourish and to heal naturally. Thus making you completely reliant upon their 'grand' knowledge in the lab to find a way to fix what they broke.

We're not talking about 'saviors' here, we're talking about the greatest ponzi scheme ever played out on the citizens of this planet.

We were fine, actually better, before the pollution of scientific discoveries that have started to destroy everything. If they want to fix disease in a lab, quit producing the poisons that cause us to need cures.

"I'm not on the topic of religion either, rather my comment was on the tendency for them to think breeding like rabbits is acceptable. again...NOT so much a comment on religion but rather their idea that they SHOULD have as many children as possible. if population is your bag, I'd say start with fixing that philosophy..."

That's a generalization, typically used to describe people of Catholic faith, that actually isn't true. People of faith have no more children, on average, than those that consider themselves Atheist or a variety of other belief. Education is the biggest decider on what size of family a typical couple may have. I don't even know if I should say couple since almost nobody stays that way, even the poor, anymore.

wow... jr. high debate... yeah and I bet that's the last time you learned anything about biology huh?.. what like thirty years ago? you do know we've gone a long way in genetics since then right?
"and NO defects are NOT "designed" to do anything. you betray your ignorance of both genetics and evolution. they just happen as “is just uninformed and ignorant.”… wow yeah, you clearly have no clue what evolution actually is. Perhaps I can suggest an author to enlighten you, perhaps Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or maybe Matt Ridley… these are some of the mainstream authors that most informed people at least know of…
"just about every book that one can pick up"... given your arguments here, I doubt you’ve ever even read a single book, let alone ANYTHING about genetics, evolution or even laboratory work. You’re blinded by your anti-transhumanist bias so you just ignore plain and simple facts, some I’ve given already.

“So, you can't produce masses of fungi and bacteria. Why not? They seem to be one of the easiest living beings to reproduce.”
… actually, of the millions and millions of species of bacteria that exist, only very few have been successfully cultured by humans, but for most, we haven’t figured out how to propagate them. This goes for fungi also, very few known fungi have been (intentionally) propagated. You’d know this if you’d actually study the topic beyond your high school life science class. Again, you betray your own ignorance. But remember, ignorance is not a bad thing, I’m ignorant of many things, but biology and genetics is NOT one of them, though perhaps ethics as you’d suggest is …
“they've made you lose your ability to self-medicate, self-nourish and to heal naturally. Thus making you completely reliant upon their 'grand' knowledge in the lab to find a way to fix what they broke.”
You keep saying “they”, “they” this, and “they” that… nobody forced you to stop self-medicating, nobody stopped you from nourishing yourself… nobody said you cannot heal naturally. “making you completely reliant upon their ‘grand’ knowledge in the lab…” this shows that you don’t understand what science is… you or I can make the very same discoveries… you, yourself can disprove ‘their’ theories… that’s how science works. “They” don’t claim to know everything (that’s religions job)… but what they do claim to know they claim only an accuracy of knowledge… meaning that such and such statement has a certain probability of truth vs. falsehood.

“We were fine, actually better, before the pollution of scientific discoveries that have started to destroy everything. If they want to fix disease in a lab, quit producing the poisons that cause us to need cures.”
Here I think we agree (mostly)… but don’t let the corruption of SOME scientists (mostly profiteers and military men) taint the truth. Yes SOME people invent new germs just to sell us the cure… that doesn’t mean that ALL cures are bogus, or all disease is invented, and it doesn’t mean that ALL scientists are doing such things.

Everything we use is a product of science, from the discovery of and use of fire, to wedges, wheels, gears, bicycles, cloth, agriculture, electricity… the internet… you cannot tell me these things don’t help us, otherwise stop posting, stop using the net, stop driving, just stop using these things that pollute so much.

It’s not science that pollutes, it’s you… you’re the one that drives a car that burns fossil fuels, you’re the one that buys spray cans, you’re the one that buys styrofoam… don’t blame science blame yourself.

Reading and comprehension are two different things. I must have stepped on your toes with the age thing, since you came back with the 'you must be a grandpa' attack and haven't read Science books in 30 years. Jr. High science, High School and even college classes are nothing until you get to the real stuff. And then, you have to understand it and how the knowledge affects your world. I'm not seeing that from your interpretations.

If you followed my posts, I have already stated that my two mentors are both Doctorates at the University of Kentucky. One in Philosophy, Religion and Law and the other is Geneticist Alan M. Kaplan. BTW, he doesn't believe that we should attempt to 'perfect' the human race and is aware of the Transhumanists in his circles.

you say:

"and NO defects are NOT "designed" to do anything. you betray your ignorance of both genetics and evolution. they just happen as “is just uninformed and ignorant.”… wow yeah, you clearly have no clue what evolution actually is. Perhaps I can suggest an author to enlighten you, perhaps Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or maybe Matt Ridley…"

FAIL

Really? I do? So then, guess what. You can't just pull names out of your ass and tell me to read them and expect us to believe that you have a grand knowledge of them. So, explain in a paragraph using the writings of a scholar why I am wrong and why I don't know these subjects. Show me their teachings and take something of mine and show me how we differ in our knowledge. That is how I knew you were in Junior High; you've read tidbits of a few things and have re-arranged it to fit your Transhumanist agenda.

I won't even answer the rest of your drivel. If you have a scholarly debate to share with me, I'm game. If you're going to say, I'm right, you're wrong because I can google a few names connected to evolution, game over. I won.

yes it IS a generalization that the religious breed more... and it happens to be true. though there are some religions that differ... FACT most christian denominations encourage large families.

religion aside, my point is on the mentality that we should have as meny children as possible... and NOT on religion, so stop defending religions by avoiding my actual point.

"When did I bring up religion or the amount of children people have?"

well that's where population comes from! duh! you're so intent on keeping that topic yet seem to be ignorant of where population originates... so yeah, if you want to talk about population you HAVE you talk about people having kids.

you're what those of us in the science world call 'not even wrong'. You cannot claim anything in biology to be ‘designed’ then say you believe in evolution, evolution is NOT design.

Challenge met!
I explained everything I needed (with FACT) when I told you where medical grade insulin comes from, and when I mentioned the gene BRCA1, Apparently you weren't paying any attention.

You’re the naysayer here, it’s up to you to provide evidence for your opinion, YOU provide facts then, I’ve done so already…
also, IF I’m wrong, that doesn’t mean you’re right by default (as you’re so fond of logic). as it is all is in my favor.

mine is a training from one uc berkeley, my friend. A bit beyond highschool... and unlike you I’m sure, I know, BECAUSE I’m actually doing this stuff, right now as my career. Also no googling names necessary, I eat, breath, live, work, dream and live genetics and have been for the last 12 years, thank you.

...I also defended this when I mentioned how stem cells can be used on a diabetics pancreas... but again you probably weren't going to notice FACTS... which you've failed to provide even one against my many...

Again, identify a teaching, phrase or preacher in Christianity that encourages large families. You won't be able to do it. Again, this is a generalization rooted in jokes over Catholics, large families and the teachings against birth control, that BTW, ended in the 80s.

Now, your point that the mentality is to have many children further emphasizes my point that eliminating disease and aging would quickly overcome the available resources with populations increasing in technological countries.

Challenge met? You didn't use a scholar's writing to take a phrase or topic I've written about and show it to be wrong. More babble, produce a link, a quote and identify the source. I can do that all day long and have, now bring on some documented work that shows me to be wrong or continue to FAIL.

If the wrong is the opposite of the other's argument, then yes, the other argument is right.

"mine is a training from one uc berkeley, my friend. A bit beyond highschool... and unlike you I’m sure, I know, BECAUSE I’m actually doing this stuff, right now as my career. Also no googling names necessary, I eat, breath, live, work, dream and live genetics and have been for the last 12 years, thank you."

Many people have a Bachelor's degree in a subject they know nothing about. Passing grades in college and college degrees are had by Basketball stars that leave school without much knowledge other than defense and offense.

However, a scholarly person with good comprehension skills can become an expert on a subject without the decorum of a degree to display.

Case in point, the basis for any educated person is a mastery of one's language. Your grammar is atrocious and your spelling wreaks of Junior High. So, you want me to believe you eat, breathe, live, work and dream genetics when you don't know high school is two words; or that U.C. Berkeley is capitalized or even that you start a sentence with a capital letter. For a scientist I would think that breathing is a part of your studies, so you should know that breathe has an 'e' on the end, especially after '12' years of studying how the body works.

it's funny you say resources are not what limit populations then you add that FOOD and space do... do you not realize that both food and space ARE resources?

wow you're ALSO a theology expert as well as a genetisist and moral philosopher huh? guess we should all come to you for all the answers!

you want links but wont provide anything but YOUR OPINTION... great. that is something I'd be glad to do...here you go. now will you stop posting your ant-factual opintions?

yes religions DO promote large families, stop ignoring is...
look up "quiverfull movement" or fo to their site @ http://www.quiverfull.com/
even their

"happy is the man that hath his quiver full (of children)...": psalm:127:3,4,5... even the bible says so!
genisis 1:22,9:7 "be fruitful and multiply"

"the joy's of a large family" sites the torah and koran
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/NipponDawn/torah.html

"The Amish are among the fastest-growing populations in the world, with an average of 6.8 children per family." _
" in Fertility Patterns and Trends among the Old Order Amish" by Julia A. Ericksen; Eugene P. Ericksen, John A. Hostetler, Gertrude E. Huntington

just some authors (christian) who advocate large families...
Michael Farris, Doug Phillips, Charles D. Provan, R.C. Sproul, Jr.
and some christian books on this
Adams, Shelly and Morgan. "Arrows in His Hand"
Andrews, Robert. "The Family: God's Weapon For Victory."
Owen, Jr., Samuel A. "Letting God Plan Your Family."

"Many people have a Bachelor's degree in a subject they know nothing about."...
so you've proven...

I wasn't aware that forums require college level writing abilities.

"The Amish are among the fastest-growing populations in the world, with an average of 6.8 children per family." _
in "Fertility Patterns and Trends among the Old Order Amish" by Julia A. Ericksen; Eugene P. Ericksen, John A. Hostetler, Gertrude E. Huntington

"if it weren't for the crap designed by these same geneticists; we wouldn't suffer from Diabetes."... we had diabetics long BEFORE we even had the word for genetics... you're a moron.

stop restating that some people create some diseases just to sell cures, I agreed already.... or just keep beating that horse, which wasn't even part of the discussion.

"it's funny you say resources are not what limit populations then you add that FOOD and space do... do you not realize that both food and space ARE resources?"

Darius, Darius, Darius, wow, choke, how do you piece together what I've written to come up with that. Some help for you...research on how to retain information.

Everything that I have stated says that resources ARE what limit populations so I'm in agreement with myself. And, you, though confused on what I've written are now supporting it but trying hard to find fault with ME. Just enjoy the new knowledge that I give you and leave the competition behind. You'll learn more that way.

Big FAIL. You said Christians and then quoted the Old Testament. By definition Christian's do not follow the guidelines or teachings of the Old Testament. Jews follow the Old Testament but you haven't claimed that Jews overbreed.

Remember also that in those days due to natural selection, disease and accidental death, the only way to assure the continuation of your family was to have enough children to weather the losses.

Again, the Amish don't use modern science and don't use Wal-Mart. Therefore, they must have a family large enough to work the farm and to provide for themselves all the while they consume a fraction of a technologically advanced family with one child.

Robert Andrews book, while having family in the title has nothing to do with increasing a family but talks about close knit family relations and raising 'Godly' children.
Samuel Owen's book also does not talk about increasing a family's size but is about birth control and using the science and planning taught in the Bible rather than harmful medications that cause diseases.

I'd be willing to bet if I did some research on the other names you mentioned without pointing to their works, I would find the same thing. You googled 'Christian', 'Family Planning' and just posted the first links you found. You didn't bother to read clif notes or a biography on the authors to get in depth information on what they wrote about.

I did. You fail. Good try.

Your other link from angelfire is from one slightly odd Rabbi from Milwaukee and is far from the overall belief of most in that faith. Additionally, "be fruitful and multiply" taken literally does not specify the amount of children and would be accurate to say if just having one child. The phrase in no way promotes a large family when taken from the Hebrew.

Quiverfull is an organization, not a religion. And, you didn't read their site either. They do not promote a large family but promote letting 'God' guide you in building a family of any size, large or small. Hardly a promotion of a large family, a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

From their website:

We exalt Jesus Christ as Lord, and acknowledge His headship in all areas of our lives, including fertility. We exist to serve those believers who trust the Lord for family size, and to answer the questions of those seeking truth in this critical area of marriage.

Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome.

No, but for you to be studying genetics in College, as you say, you would be required to have college level writing skills.

Yes, theology, sociology, psychology and philosophy are inter-related and you could say I have studied enough of each to be considered an expert. Genetics, I only have the basic college courses but spend a lot of time talking with a top expert in that field and so I have well above average knowledge of this subject.

For someone to have expert knowledge of so many subjects is not that hard at all. I have removed all distractions like television, video games, fiction books, sports and celebrity idolatry and other useless issues. I spend a lot of time outdoors and bring college textbooks along to the river and read them like a book. I find life much more enriching having important knowledge than having just as much useless knowledge.

People are smarter than they behave. You see a lot of people have tremendous amounts of knowledge stored up in their heads but it's useless knowledge. Such as.. sports statistics, Survivor stats, American Idol stats, knowledge of stranger's lives obtained by Reality television and so on and so on....

I just choose for my knowledge to be about psychology and the sciences rather than the Kardashians and the Lakers.

"we had diabetics long BEFORE we even had the word for genetics... "

Again, your logic is twisted. I never blamed diabetes on genetics. No, I blamed it on science and the science communities chess game that they play. I blamed the chemicals put in our food, the fact that we are taught to depend on doctors rather than remembering our grandparents training at self medication and diet, the products sold as food that were designed in labs, MSG, aspertame, nutra-sweet. So, the people that think they can take 'nature' and make our food better have failed time and time again effectively creating most modern diseases. These are the same science community that want to put us in the lab and make us better.

Good luck with that. I guess the goal is to make us like a Twinkie with a shelf life of 1000 years.

You state:

"Many people have a Bachelor's degree in a subject they know nothing about."...
so you've proven..."

How humble of you to admit that you don't understand the subject and I've proven that.

...or just run everything through a word processor before posting. but again I wasn't aware that forums require such scrutiny.

unlike you, I'd admit what I'm ignorant of, and I never claim expertise in anything... but I gleefully claim a highly tuned and refined understanding of biology and genetics, still this doesn't mean I know it ALL, just more than others. and proudly I'd say more than YOU.

agreed, many otherwise clever and intelligent people fill their heads with useless and pointless knowledge... sports, which celeb is maried to whom... I'd include bronze age mythology (religion) as useless and pointless knowledge.

I too have abandoned TV, video games, radio... and as a bibliophile and erudite I find learning to be a goal and end in itself.

you asked for a link, a book, names, anything that supports the idea that the religious think breeding like mad is ok... I provide and still you refute. pick and coose all you want, I remain firm in the conviction. Resources have a much greater impact on populations than disease, as you'd have us believe otherwise (when it suits your argument)... you're a very washy washy debater.

" Amish don't use modern science and don't use Wal-Mart. Therefore, they must have a family large enough to work the farm and to provide for themselves..." I don't care WHY they have large families, my point was that they DO have large families. and you still try to refute it and disregard it with some contorted justification. your denial is beneath you.
"Christian's do not follow the guidelines or teachings of the Old Testament." ok, sure perhaps, but then why do they NOT stop trying to force old testament commandments on everybody else? and why would they be so avidly against evolution since origins is covered in genesis (old testament)... you can't just pick and choose which "infallible words of god" to follow or not... though they're very fond of picking and choosing which to follow and which to ignore at a whim to suit their own needs...
never googled "christain" anything. rather just look up the term 'natalism'... you'll get everything you want on this. but then again you'll just deny it... "be fruitful and multiply" taken literally does not specify the amount of children and would be accurate to say if just having one child. The phrase in no way promotes a large family when taken from the Hebrew.... how can YOU tell me what the meaning of this is? you can't, that's why there are so many denominations... nobody can agree on what any of that crap actually means. you interpret it one way and I interpret it another... we're both equally valid in our interpretations.
the very existence of an organization such as the guiverfull movement if justification enough. but again I'm not bashing religion (stop making it out as such) I'm bashing the mentality that we SHOULD have many children. stop twisting my point into one about religion (at large, I only say christian because that's the dominant example in america) it wasn't. also you can't claim anything i say as a 'but of a stretch' then spew the mad science BS you've been posting all over this page... EVRYTHING you've said is a 'bit of a stretch'.

as you confirm again and again, there is just no winning against voluntary ignorance.

I'd rather avoid religious criticism in general, though not out of contempt (as I surely have) but rather, to save it for another forum.

Your HATRED for anything religious is evident. You fail to see that you must treat it as another science. Relax, let people have their religion, study the religion to understand the people. You dismiss religion as mythology but in doing so you will never understand it enough to understand people. Like many in the science field, surgeons for example, transhumanism becomes common. A God complex, if you will. Funny thing is..while you hate religion, your life has actually become one in itself. You have just decided that 'Smart' people are like Gods and scientists, through time and evolution, will and should eventually wield God-like powers. So the very thing you detest, you have become.

Psychology, philosophy and many social services type of jobs can only be mastered by having an understanding of the various religions of the people and empathy for their beliefs. There are many people in these fields that don't have this, but the best in science and sociology respect and understand religion.

I don't hate religion, just as I don't hate botulinium toxin... but that doesn't mean I'm going to sample either. RELIGION IS MYTHOLOGY... why else is hinduism (currently practiced today) classified as mythology but christianity isn't? go to any book store, any library... hinduism is classified as mythology, it's your western bias in favor of abrahamic religions that deny that they're mythology but still arrogant enough call other and ancient beliefs equally valid such as belief in zaroastrianism, zeus, thor... mythology, but not you'r own? that's just hypocracy and denial. yes, religion IS mythology. not dismissing it, but rather simply 'calling a spade a spade.' just as the greeks took ares, zeus, and athena seriously as RELIGION, today we call it mythology.

"you must treat it (religion) as another science"... sure, and again I say only that 'rightly are the simple so called'

you cannot say I "decide smart people...blah blah blah" you have no clue what I believe when it comes to this topic. you have no idea what my experience, both actual and spiritual has been.

wrong on my ignorance as well, I do know enough about ALL religion to know that in all places and all times I'd always be an "infedel." as socrates said before his accusers "I cannot claim any knowledge of the heavens or god, but I'm a certain as I can be that you do know know either." this alone I thing disqualifies any man or man made book from being any sort of authority on the subject and therefore anything you'd use from it as well.

The way you write and talk about religion makes it obvious you do hate it. Besides, you concentrate so much on it being mythology that you fail to recognize what I am talking about. Mythology or not, religion has a great effect on how people react and behave. Without an understanding of religion, one cannot understand fully human behavior.

"Psychology, philosophy and many social services type of jobs can only be mastered by having an understanding of the various religions of the people and empathy for their beliefs. There are many people in these fields that don't have this, but the best in science and sociology respect and understand religion."

No hate for religion. stop projecting...

you're right that an understanding of what sort of teachings are to be had from religion DOES give great clues as to how people may think and act... like how many muslims think killing YOU (for not being a muslim) will grant them entry to heaven... as sam harris (the author, not singer) puts it, "without religion we'd have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion", or the endless prohibitions on sexuality wrote throughout the koran among descriptions of hedonistic carnal pleasures and debotchery in the afterlife shows how prudence is more often than not displayed by perverts rather than those who have a 'normal' level of sexuality... or that 'christians used to lick their lips when looking for signs of witchcraft'.

I agree with you, understanding religions does hepl understand some people. but I stil don't have to believe them.

"respect and understand religion".... WHY?

if you say you believe something blatantly wrong, stupid, and ignorant of FACT, we're all free to disagree with you, out you as a liar and con, but then if you say the same things are religious, we're not allowed? why?

seriously? If I say something like 'on the full moon of october every year I'm supposed to cut myself and bleed all over an altar, otherwise the following winter will never end' you're free to tell me otherwise and that if I don't do it winter will end regardless...

or If I say something like ‘GOD’ came and told me such and such… perhaps a particular area of land is now for me and my people, perhaps god tells me to murder my son… or whatever… I’m a nut bag, and nobody takes me seriously, but then if I’m already part of a dominating religion then guess what? I’m granted sainthood, or that track of land becomes “sacred” or that day becomes holy or that story gets added to some gospel or used to manufacture some justification to do whatever horrors to somebody else…

yes, I’m sure there are well intentioned religious people. But their beliefs don’t make them good or bad, it’s how they act and treat other people. The Koran says in not so many words treat non-Muslims as slaves and sinners and to “go out and seek them and put stones upon their heads” in modern words kill all people who aren’t muslim... but do you think all of them do this? NO. WHY? Because they can be good and moral people WITHOUT following these stupid beliefs! And if you look at the ones who DO follow these things, they honestly believe they’re doing good by killing infidels! And again If I say that's part of my religion, then you have to "respect" this. That’s simply empty-headed and pointless tolerance of stupidity.

Interesting, but this is about overcoming flaws of the body like the aging process, not spiritual evolution.

"that once a species has the ability to choose the right and moral over the wrong and immoral that species also develops a certain momentum to tendencies that favor one direction of evolution over another"

That is my point, we have the tendency to be overly narcissistic and forget to choose what is right and moral and believe we know everything, even better than the Earth itself now that Science has come to this point. Genetic manipulation is on the path of the wrong and immoral.

[Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity]
"Nikola Tesla"...

Overpopulation is not for the betterment of humanity and that is the ultimate goal, though they don't know it, of the 'if we can do it, we should' crowd in genetics.

the buddha means enlightened one, being someone who knows enough to choose what is right or wrong.

there was nothing in this article about population. stop trying to make genetics sound like mad science.

I made it about population. If you read me carefully, I explain the reason I brought up population very, no, extremely well. It makes itself about population control without needing to bring it up. A smart person understands that we can't cure all disease without increasing population. It's called logic...and a lightbulb goes off above dariusvons' head.

sorry, but that's NOT logic, that's called a fallacy.

it has been proven that in dence populations breeding rates go down, and that resources have a greater impact on firtility rates than longevity.

You state:
"sorry, but that's NOT logic, that's called a fallacy.

and:
it has been proven that in dence populations breeding rates go down, and that resources have a greater impact on firtility rates than longevity."

For one, you're saying that curing all disease would not increase the population, calling that statement....'NOT logic, that's called a fallacy.' That's so unfounded I won't even debate it, I'm sure you'll get some laughs over that without my help.

and the part...

"and that resources have a greater impact on firtility rates than longevity."

has already been answered with :

And your comment that 'the only real things that keeps populations at bay is resources' just confirms all of my previous statements that ridding the human race of disease will be dangerous due to lack of resources.

and was somehow state by you after I had already stated:

It's not about population density, that's not the problem. We can fit more people. We can't FEED that many people. That, and disease is how nature controls population. Sociology would teach you that you can't take charity to impoverished countries and provide food to 'Save the Children'. Eventually all of the lives that you save become a larger burden on a land that already had decided it's limits. The Earth can only provide resources for so many people. If we populate every square inch of the planet with people, where will we grow the food? We are just about at capacity in our consumerism of what the Earth will allow before forcing a re-start, if you will. Adding more people to the quotient will just speed up the process of extinction.

Self-explanatory for most of you out there...nuff said.

hmm, I can't help but notice you seem to have changed your mind on overpopulation, since our last conversation.. If you're so worried about men being too scared to reproduce with the "predator" women, why is overpopulation so worrying? Shouldn't you be happy that curing all disease will increase the population so the pressure to stick it in is easier to shrug off?

Ha, good catch. We're actually talking about two different cultures and that's why the difference. Either is a threat to a healthy mammal population. Try adding the two together. On one hand, people are not behaving 'naturally' and thus creating a race that is at odds with nature. Now, combine that with the same race trying to manipulate nature to fit the new 'lifestyle' they have created and then making it possible to eliminate the effects of living 'against' nature. Soon, what you will have is people disposing of children not 'perfect'. A two class system of those modified and those that aren't; the modified believing they are a new class of 'evolution' and therefore superior. Men and women no longer breed 'naturally' due to the inherent problems and mistakes possible if the baby is not made in the lab. The more money you have the more you can pick and choose to enhance your baby. And on and on....This is just an extension, really, of what I was talking about on the other site. We have to remember that we are animals, mammals to be specific and diversity is a part of the balance of nature. When you upset that balance you open the door to a Pandora's box.

incomplete thoughts abound with this one...

No, they're complete. You just have to pay attention. I don't think he's right, but it's definitely possible and not nearly as far fetched as I want it to be.

I think you have too much spare time.

I really didn't think you'd be able to make a convincing argument... Dammit.
*grumbles something about where you could put that box*
I might just kick you out of spite...

been trying to get em' to read a book sometime... any book! anyting! to no avail.... ah rightly are the simple so called.

I don't know why you're telling me this.

Hard to follow for you?

This is my job and I was exposed to psychology and sociology at an early age due to my father's background as Air Force and Army Intel. He was involved heavily in the Iran-Contra issue and worked for the CIA as an Ambassador to several countries. He wasn't good with children and so we talked about his work, all he knew. That started an interest in how people work and how we affect the world around us and so I educated myself on any subject related to the philosophies of human behavior. From my early writings and college work I made a lot of friends who are quite scholarly, we have bonfires, enjoy Kentucky 'special' cigarettes and pick each others brains. Then, I document and write about the ideas that my friends with their expertise share with me.

I was very proud of your try and how much you had paid attention. I'm always impressed by you, though.

I feel like I should be paying you for this...

Yeah, not bad on 30 mins of sleep.

He thinks because he can type...'You're wrong'...he's smart. He also can't follow logic and that's why he thought your comment was agreeing with him. But alas, not all can be as attentive as my favorite Floridian.

Ha, ha, your avatar viewed while reading this adds sarcasm, lol.

Um, duh, but that is as long as we have diseases that accompany the large populations. All bets are off when you fix diseases and aging. Somehow, some people must die or the resources run out.

Keep trying.