mankind is devolving due to the quality of medicinewhich is allowing those who would have died without such medicines to live, meaning there are fatal faults in almost all of the genepools worldwide, and it will stay that way until we can genetically modify those, or their children, with such flaws so that they become healthy, that is our only option besides kulling a large amount of the human race through cutting everyone off from all these things which we take for granted so that only the best of us may survive.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:33,
archived)
but until that merry day, im rather glad the people ion charge dont agree.
which merry day?the one where we genetically modify or the one where we cut everyone off from the things they take for granted?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:40,
archived)
either / both.We can all have a BBQ just before
"post apocalyptic situation in ...... 3...... 2.......1 ...... GO!!!"
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:41,
archived)
"post apocalyptic situation in ...... 3...... 2.......1 ...... GO!!!"
im having trouble working out if you are being sarcastic or notbecause i'm not sure where you are coming from
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:43,
archived)
I would never be sarcastic about such an important topic.I agree abouty the devolving thing, but its really nothing to worry about. So the weaker are surviving - all that means is you dont have to be so strong to survive! We will never devolve beyond a point which technology cannot cope, by the very nature of survival of the fittest.
And anything suggesting the deaths of millions of people is genocide.
So.... ready? LETS DO IT (for the good of humaity).
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:47,
archived)
And anything suggesting the deaths of millions of people is genocide.
So.... ready? LETS DO IT (for the good of humaity).
i was just stating the two directions this could go so that the human race may survivei may have exagerated both but that was just to get my point across
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:03,
archived)
sorry, not trying to insult you, i just love sarcasm*.And i agree with your points, kind of, its just that they involve death, which i can never be happy about
*not on the reciving end
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:11,
archived)
*not on the reciving end
genetically modifying those with diseases to make them healthy will not kill themas far as our current knowledge of genetics will allow us to see. this is the path i believe we must follow to ensure the survival of the human race. the one that involves all the deaths is the other possible path allowing some humans to survive, this is not the one i agree with, i just pointed it out to show how much better the first way is
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:17,
archived)
I suppose. long live genetic engineering!but i dont think it will come to that, at least not for fracking ages.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:37,
archived)
have you consideredThose flaws are what keep our immune systems healthy and most suitable for our environments?.
To remove this by genetically modifying ourselves would in effect weaken our immune systems, eventually leading to the simplest disease being able to wipe us out.?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:51,
archived)
To remove this by genetically modifying ourselves would in effect weaken our immune systems, eventually leading to the simplest disease being able to wipe us out.?
what so having cancer improves our immune systemand stops us from getting colds?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:24,
archived)
Only the good kind.Good cancer stops us getting the colds which nature didn't intend. The other colds are all part of nature's plan. Those are the good colds. But if we breathe in too much unnatural benzene or asbestos dust, we get bad cancer. That would stop us getting the colds which nature did intend. Unless we breathed in the asbestos dust as part of a natural process.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:30,
archived)