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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (156532)	4/15/2020 7:17:04 AM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By sense Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217750

I do not believe a non-state actor would be as selective in target, given that the objective would be chaos logistics not that complicated - as drugs can be smuggled and same w/ dead bodies? and live ones. more effective than suicide vests

To: sense who wrote (156532)	4/15/2020 7:34:37 AM
From: Lee Lichterman III	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thomas M. Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217750

You say eugenics is bad but what about the other extreme? I could make the argument that eventually we will need some sort of eugenics program due to the advances in medicine and the irresponsibility of the masses. We are reaching the point where medicine can replace organs, repair DNA, and extend life for once fatal hereditary defects. When a couple is unable to have children, we say it is a human right to breed and give them artificial fertilization often times resulting in more children than normal methods The long term effects of this are blatently obvious and totally counter to Darwinism. We are basically breeding a weaker and weaker species that left unchecked would eventually be wiped out by some minor bug. Do we push it to the point that a smudge that was an early term miscarriage of a defective embryo in a Petri dish is declared by law to be feasible and grown in a lab? I have seen cases where children with 7 or more defective organs had transplants done trying to extend their lives. These were not disease or accidents but hereditary flaws. How many people could have been saved that were otherwise healthy but needed those organs due to a disease or accident but didn't receive them because a person nature was trying to delete from the genome was being saved? I don't know where to draw the line but eventually there is going to have to be a controversial panel of experts that will have to draw that line. Do you not save someone with over 5 defects, 6, 7, 10? Do you save everyone but sterilize them so they can't continue to pass the issues to future generations? I've seen too many parents that knew full well they were going to have "special" kids yet had 5-6 of them. I know this isn't PC but it is reality. We have to draw the line somewhere.