Genetic Freedom

Great Debates
361

Let me explain where you are wrong asserting there is some sort of faith involved here.

The human world and its economies have adjusted and adapted to all kinds of different conditions throughout history. We want to optimize economies, absolutely. Historically we can observe economies that were less successful and more successful and we can decide what made them so.

We can optimize economies for genetic freedom. There is (not i “believe” there is), but there is an optimized economic balanced state that could be reached with Genetic Freedom. This requires no faith on my part, it’s simply a fact. Would that economic reality be different from today’s? In some minor ways, yes. Would it be better or worse… well, keep reading…

If you’re looking for that magic mechanism, I’ll provide it to you. With the proxy method I mentioned, even the fluidity would be unaffected and the more I think about it the proxy method would probably work nicely. A local community could easily set up rules to prevent “foreign land owners” from abusing that proxy priviledge.

Would it work without the proxy method? Well, selling of land would not be as fluid, that’s it. However, Proxies could come from the community itself… the community could have a central fund for land buying and selling to maintain fluidity - another mechanism a bit different from the “foreign investor” proxy method.

We are flexible, intelligent human beings. I really do apologize for not being adept at economic jargon, but you really need to think more creatively and less rigidly.

Now here is why I “believe” economies will be better under this system. I already showed how proxies keep the economy the same as today. So how would it be better? Because people would have genetic freedom… their spirits would rise thusly. Economies are the sum of all the individuals in it. If the invidiauls are happier, the economy will be better.

362

That’s the problem: Because wealth has value, anybody could live there for the right price. There are not enough resources to create the economic condition where not anybody could live there.

363

Again, I’m not be highly versed on economic jargon… but really.

What does that mean? There are not enough resources? Do you mean there are not enough consumers?

I agree that the “foreign proxy” method would not provide those consumers with value upon their purchase, however, the local community method would work fine because they definately understand the value.

I will penetrate and defeat your economic absolutism given enough time… make no mistake and if you are trying to outendurance me, that’s impossible.

The number of consumers are reduced for this land, and the value of the land is set by the world aggregate of communities.

The number of land resources that you or I could go buy have been reduced to allow genetic freedom.

That’s it. I still don’t comprehend what you mean by “there are not enough resources to create the economic condition where not anybody could live there”

I mean if this has any real meaning, I would be surprised. I think your just throwing words together in an irrational way to confuse people. I’m sure you can think up of a real world example, today, that explains those words you just strung together, in a crystal clear way.

  1. “Not enough resources” we can still use land as the resource, and lets talk numbers.

  2. “to create economic conditions”

  3. “not anybody could live there.”

364

Is it just me or does Castaway sound more and more like Gene Ray every time I open this thread?

365

**Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway
ANYBODY could buy the land, but not anybody could live there.

Zwald: That’s the problem: Because wealth has value, anybody could live there for the right price. There are not enough resources to create the economic condition where not anybody could live there.**

The resource and consumer pool would change. Nothing more. Life isn’t “black and white” as you are painting it. It’s very gray with many different shades of economic reality. The 50% of global land that would not be Genetic Freedom districts would still be under the same economic conditions as today. Add to that this new condition of less resources and less consumers for specific land zones.

That’s it. It requires no faith to see that this is merely a new economic scenario that can achieve success if people are educated about it.

You’re getting hung up on the quantities. Your best case scenario would have 6 billion consumers having access to purchase any piece of land on the planet - we don’t have that case today.

The more people you add to any economic scenario, the more fluid it will be, obviously.

All we are doing is reducing the land choices and consumers upon that land, but the microeconomy, will still exist there. Within the Genetic Freedom districts, they would have a microeconomy for land buying and selling.

I really do believe you are wasting our time with those statements you are making. Your statement “there are not enough resources” is inaccurate because there are enough resources in any of these microeconomies - there is a pool of 1000 groups throughout the world; people moving and wanting to buy land. There are LESS resources than today’s model. Who is the czar over what the magic cutoff number is for resources? If we have 50,000 resources and we reduce that to 25,000 resources is there now, magically, “not enough resources.” I’m certain the people buying and selling those resources would take issue with you on that. They are still conducting their lives and are not going to stop just because you try to tell scare them by saying that “There are not enough resources.”

366

I briefly tried to figure out what the “time cube” is, but I’m sorry, I could not.

Genetics, I’m relativly sure, are a bit more real than the time cube. But that’s just me - perhaps you don’t think so.

367

Neither of those things would change. You would simply create a very powerful black market…so powerful, in fact, that it would likely return to just being the plain ol’ market.

368

**

**

Now you are lying to the five or six people who are actually reading this far.

Today, I have X options for land purchase. In these genetic freedom districts, we have W options for land purchase and W is much less than X. That’s what I mean when I say the resources have reduced. They have become their own microeconomy.

The consumers are also reduced within these genetic freedom districts as compared to how many prospective consumers there are for any given piece of land today.

Capish?

369

**

**

Show me, somewhere in history, where there was a black market for land?

Assuming you can produce that. Remember, these genetic freedom districts are populated by people who respect one another, I cannot conceive of a way that black market sales of land could occur.

Also, if we establish a mechanism by which the world or local group aggregate has a fund to purchase lands and hold them until someone else comes to buy, that would work perfectly.

You seem to have flip flopped, you said “there are not enough resources” then when I talked about how the resources “had been reduced” you said, “the resources have not been changed (reduced).”

Which is it? What is it? I’m really not sure if studying economics 101 would help me to have a conversation with you at this point - but I am planning to brush up on it over the summer to prevent these little diversions in the future.

370

Well, at least I got the flake part right.

Well, reports of the deaths of the 4+ billion or so people who are not Christians are greatly exagerrated. And it’s communism that has largely died off, not those who refused to adapt to it. Human populations frequently kill each other off in large numbers, but they rarely “purge” in the sense that a group or idea is entirely wiped out. Personally, I think your notion of “Genetic Freedom” is sufficiently wacky that it will die out when you die out, since I anticipate you’ll convert absolutely no followers at all to carry the torch.

I have no mob to rally, nor have i ever killed anyone, but people with views similar to yours frequently gather up mobs, and they frequently kill.

Regarding the so-called “proximity rule”, I have to ask a related question: how much independence from you do your children have? When they reach adulthood, are they free or not free to choose mates and lifestyles as they wish? Do they owe you anything? Doesn’t the idea of trying to segregate your children from undesirables, however you define the term, contain an inherent message that you feel compelled to control your children’s lives even into adulthood? If your children decide they will put aside your indoctrination and marry as they choose, have you been victimized in some way? And regardless of who your children mate with, your grandchildren will have a one-quarter genetic legacy from you, and this is true whether your kids marry lily-white Nordics or coal-black Nubians.

So what, exactly, is the problem? If preserving your own genes is critical to you, then I suggest you don’t have children at all (after all, mating with another person dilutes your contribution by a whopping 50%). Rather, wait a few years for cloning technology to become commonplace and take that route.

371

That because you are in the words of Gene Ray “probably brainwashed, indoctrinated, educated stupid and cannot comprehend Nature’s Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Perpetual Time Cube Creation.” Its as simple as that. You can’t understand time cube because “The media scams the public because the public is stupid via academic brainwashing. All media is evil as they will not inform the public of the 'Cubic principle of creation.” Someday you’ll understand it. :smiley:

372

Well there’s never been a situation (that I know of) where land owners could not legally sell to the highest bidder, except maybe under communism and we know how that turned out. However, look at every situation where commodities have been regulated, and you’ll find a black market to fill in the legal supply gaps. The more valuable the commodity, the more powerful the black market. There is hardly a more valuable commodity then property.

There are not enough resources, i.e., things people want or need, to devalue wealth to the point where people will turn over their selling decisions on big ticket items like property to the community. Genetic Freedom doesn’t raise or reduce the available resources. It just moves some transactions underground.

373

Quote:
Adaptation: True, those who do not adapt to genetic freedom will die off eventually - but I’m kidding of course. Unfortunately, I don’t think you are… Those who did not adapt to Christianity, died off… those who did not adapt to communism, died off - during those times. Human population purges.
Bryan Ekers said: Well, reports of the deaths of the 4+ billion or so people who are not Christians are greatly exagerrated.

I said: “during those times” Do you recall as Christianity spread from Rome into Europe a lot of killing took place.
**Bryan says: And it’s communism that has largely died off, not those who refused to adapt to it. **

Again I said “during those times” - you missed that little detail.
**Human populations frequently kill each other off in large numbers, but they rarely “purge” in the sense that a group or idea is entirely wiped out. **

Not required during a population purge… many survive such purges.
Personally, I think your notion of “Genetic Freedom” is sufficiently wacky that it will die out when you die out, since I anticipate you’ll convert absolutely no followers at all to carry the torch.

No, the human race will freely branch and unique human phenotypes will be cultivated etc… doesn’t require me.
**Quote: Castaway
No, there will be no dying off this time. Not unless you rally the mob to kill, once again. You probably will…

Bryan: I have no mob to rally, nor have i ever killed anyone, but people with views similar to yours frequently gather up mobs, and they frequently kill.**

Well, good. We’ll just have to see how it plays out. I have no intentions of rallying a mob so if you don’t either, we’re just cozy.
Regarding the so-called “proximity rule”, I have to ask a related question: how much independence from you do your children have? When they reach adulthood, are they free or not free to choose mates and lifestyles as they wish? Do they owe you anything? Doesn’t the idea of trying to segregate your children from undesirables, however you define the term, contain an inherent message that you feel compelled to control your children’s lives even into adulthood?

Read the essay for these answers. There is no control over children any more than there is today to some reasonable age of adulthood.
If your children decide they will put aside your indoctrination and marry as they choose, have you been victimized in some way?

You obviously didn’t read the essay…
And regardless of who your children mate with, your grandchildren will have a one-quarter genetic legacy from you, and this is true whether your kids marry lily-white Nordics or coal-black Nubians.

But the unique aggregate phenotypes of the original groups will be gone… Thats’ what genetic freedom is all about. Letting people cultivate those aggregate phenotypes as they will, not as you or I will.

374

Not going to fly. The media promotes the one-human-genetic-mass religion. That’s a given. They do not promote or even discuss Genetic Freedom - give it time.

People currently ignore aggregate phenotypes. Eventually they will not, especially as genetic science continues to advance. Regardless of how many people extinguish there natural unique aggregate phenotypes by combining with an ethnic group of great genetic distance from their own, there will still be plenty of people who did not do that when this idea finally makes it’s way into the mainstream. Thus there will still be many, many unique human groups to begin expressing their fundamental human right to genetic freedom.

375

**

[QUOTE=zwaldd]
Well there’s never been a situation (that I know of) where land owners could not legally sell to the highest bidder, except maybe under communism and we know how that turned out. However, look at every situation where commodities have been regulated, and you’ll find a black market to fill in the legal supply gaps. The more valuable the commodity, the more powerful the black market. There is hardly a more valuable commodity then property. **

There will not be a black market on land. It’s too difficult.
There are not enough resources, i.e., things people want or need, to devalue wealth…

The wealth is not being devalued. The members of the world aggregate of any given ethnic group, would determine the value each time they buy and sell land from each other - same as today.
**…to the point where people will turn over their selling decisions on big ticket items like property to the community. **

Again, you forget that the people in these districts chose to be there, so they do have an understanding of why they are there. They understand that the most important aspect is who they sell the land to. Allow me to put your fears to rest: These people will happily spend the extra time it will take to sell to the right person and the community would not be making the actual choice, the community simply has guidlines on the “general aggregate phenotypes” required to live there. If you don’t think so, we disagree, done for now.
Genetic Freedom doesn’t raise or reduce the available resources. It just moves some transactions underground.

We already covered the black markets on land are unlikely to occur. If you disagree and think black markets sales of land will occur, we disagree, done for now.

Genetic Freedom does reduce the number of land options and consumers that are available to purchase the lands within the genetic freedom districts - if you don’t see that, we disagree, done for now.

376

Not for a commodity as valuable as land. In fact, you could say that current society IS the Genetic Freedom black market. And like all black markets, you eliminate one faction, another takes its place.

377

I’m not going to agree or disagree with you… I’m going to abstain. Later

378

:frowning:

Well, let’s explore this, shall we? When you say “phenotype”, I’ll assume you mean it in the dictionary sense of an organism’s visible physical traits (possibly a bad assumption, given your displayed flexibility with English). So in an attempt to get this from the vague to the specific, I’ll ask:
[ul][li]Can you give examples of visible physical traits that a “Genetically Free” community might seek to perpetuate?[/li][li]Can you explain why these visible physical traits aren’t simply a matter of personal aesthetics and preferences? I’ll assume such advantages as better disease immunity or a stronger cardiovascular system don’t count as “visible”, useful though they may be.[/li][li]If you were a member of such a “Genetically Free” community, and a newcomer wanted to buy land and settle in, how different could their visible physical traits be before you personally voted against them, and can you offer examples of traits that would a “deal-breaker” for you, requiring to cast a no vote?[/li][li]If the majority of voters in your Genetically Free community allowed enough of the “wrong” (in your opinion) visible physical traits in, what steps would you take? Would you consider leaving, with a sense of betrayal?[/li][/ul]

In addition to these relatively simple mechanical questions, I have to ask if it’s really that important that your grandchildren look like you. Further, don’t people already have “genetic freedom” (note the lower-case latters) in the sense that they can mate as they choose?

Hmmm, haven’t I already asked that? Anyway, I have to admit I don’t know what “essay” you’re referreing to which is supposed to explain everything, since your style of writing in this thread (including repeatedly answering challenges with “you’ll understand it when you’re older”) doesn’t encourage analysis. Can you summarize?

379

And as I said: you are lying.
I asked for a citation to the lie that “On the other hand, the one-human-genetic-mass religion is based on, well, it’s based on a book that a Jewish Male wrote that says "the differences between the races are greater than the differences within.” and all you can do is repeat the lie that some (apparently) solitary male is responsible for the concept that there are more differences within races than between races? You are utterly dishonest. Pretending something was said earlier in this thread when you are just making it up is rather silly, since we can go back and see where your claim is unfounded.
Since the science part was clearly a lie, my question about the “solitary Jewish male” and religion was in response to your odd comment, quoted above, in which you equated science and religion. (You are, by the way, continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of science when you continue to harp on the notion that “What you call a fact is not based on 30,000 genes so it is not yet fact.” but you have demonstrated an impervious shield to scientific evidence and methodology, so I won’t waste our time explaining your error.)

However, it now appears that you are simply making it up (along with the rest of your delusion).

They do it now, with my wholehearted support, (as they have for 400,000 years) without requiring your intrusive totalitarian state to ensure that the “wrong” people don’t breed together.

380

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers
In addition to these relatively simple mechanical questions, I have to ask if it’s really that important that your grandchildren look like you. Further, don’t people already have “genetic freedom” (note the lower-case latters) in the sense that they can mate as they choose?[/QUOTE]

Thank you! You’v put my objections to this whole thing very eloquently. It just seems as though the ‘freedom’ being put forward by the OP is just the opposite of this.
It seems as though this ‘genetic freedom’ is not a freedom to do anything- rather it’s a freedom from…what, exactly? temptation? We don’t extend that to fundamentalists of any other stripe, so why would we do that now?

I’ll also second the point that holmes made- this ‘genetic freeom’ rests upon the sanctity of these genetic districs…but would not be enforced in business transactions, or in the workplace (i assumes) how, then, will you account for those relationships that begin in the workplace (which, I recall account for a fair number of romantic relationships)? Or does your model by necessity rely on a patchwork of districts ‘separate but equal’ in all things, including commercial and industrial opportunities?