>>
!!cJ4MGVqvOKw 10/22/11(Sat)15:03 No. 30791824 >>30791592 mutually assured destruction, as i recall. the underlying staple of all cold war governments.>>30791596 ah, i see. well, i've got no problem with some things. if you can convince the genetically different populace not to have kids because of the ramifications of such, without installing totalitarian or legal mechanisms to enforce it, and not violate the human rights of these people, then go ahead, i've got no problem with it. it's their decision. it's just that i oppose the idea of the state involving itself in such a thing.heh, very house of lords >>30791682 we allow the bad parts of it to continue because we believe, mostly, that everyone has the right to a fair chance. you're very "brave new world" about it, my friend. when we believe we can fix these things ourselves, and are constantly moving towards these cures, why set standards that exclude such a large proportion of people? for instance, the way you suggest it, hereditary cancer sufferers don't deserve to reproduce. but we're looking for a cure nonetheless. the way i see it, as long as we hold ourselves to higher than animalistic standards, then we must continue to behave in a manner that isn't defined by physiology and moves forward from the traditions of the past. it's why i'm not an ardent follower of religion and it's why i can watch a cartoon for young girls, at least from a sociological standpoint. as a humanitarian who has worked as part of charities (and currently does) dealing with the situations you discuss, i feel i am qualified to comment.