Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (237056)	7/18/2007 11:20:22 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

True, a diverse gene pool does make life resilient and the gene pool now ranges from borderline living viruses to frogs and other genetically complex beings like people. The more the merrier. But there is still vicious competition which drives the whole menagerie and charity doesn't have much place. While humans are fairly keen on charity, women are NOT very charitable at all where it counts. Sure, they are kindly and will help those with deficits, but not to the extent of volunteering their reproductive tracts to the unfortunates. Women instinctively know that their offspring need the genes from robust males. As do females of all species. It's carnage out there as males compete to be the Chosen People. There isn't room for charity. Also, while there is some room for diversity, a wider gene pool isn't necessarily a good thing. Too narrow is bad, too wide is bad. Just right is good. Nature decides how much diversity is just right. Judging by various factors, such as when the father of all those out of Africa and first mother of all those out of Africa left Africa [30,000 years ago and 90,000 years ago], the selection process is such that 1 in 3 males gets to do the reproducing and 2 of 3 get left behind as genetic failures. Moslems aim at 4 wives per bloke. 3 or 4 seems to be about the right proportions. A mini-harem. That's over a VERY long period of time, not just the last century in European cultures where monogamous marriage was the norm [but even there, male reproduction tended to favour 1 in 3 or 4, not all equally]. My discussions in the Bioethics Council will be to the effect that women should be the sole decider of what goes on in their uterus. Government departments and blokes in general should NOT be deciding, even if they do call themselves Experts in Ethics, complete with PhDs. Such a state-determined process is the equivalent of gang rape [like Genghis Khan]. I think ethical process means women choose. If blokes don't like their choice, they can get lost, join the French Foreign Legion or something. The Experts in Ethics give us people dying from kidney failure while perfectly good kidneys go to waste by the million. The Experts in Ethics don't want money changing hands, unless it's themselves, doctors, nurses, lawyers, legislators, hospitals, taxi-drivers, and so on doing the collecting of money for their own account. Therefore, I think their ethical standards are pretty thin on the ground. There are other reasons. There are about 8 million kidneys in New Zealand and a few hundred desperate for a transplanted kidney [the best solution at present]. Plenty die because of their kidney problems and suffer for years too, at great cost. If money changed hands properly, there would be perfect tissue-matched kidney transplants available as soon as a person needed one. That's provided they could fund the service or somebody who backed them could. Mqurice