New Genetics Card Game - Beta Testers Wanted

[graukatze 225]

Hi!

 

The Genetics Society of America made a card game to promote genetics and raise public awareness about the techniques and models been used. They are looking for beta testers to check out the game.

 

It is found here:

 

http://phylogame.org

 

http://phylogame.org/cards/gsa-model-organisms-deck/

 

 

Enjoy!

[A_Chodeful 2,335]

fucking lel

 

was hoping this would be about eugenics

[1n_Soviet_Russia 1,299]

as someone who would be a product of 4th gen eugenics FUCK YOU to all the people who cancelled the program.

[arceusdrago 48]

fucking lel

 

was hoping this would be about eugenics

 

His avatar even checks out

 

Fortunately, no.

[furrystrawberry 51]

.

[1n_Soviet_Russia 1,299]

CHINA B O I S ( unless youre already there)

will just have to wait for the cybernetics revolution

[WhichOneIsWill 37]

as someone who would be a product of 4th gen eugenics FUCK YOU to all the people who cancelled the program.

 

The same eugenics program where people like me would be (forcibly) prevented from procreating because some person judged us to not be "pure" enough?

 

I sincerely hope you understand why it was cancelled...

 

OT: I'll see if I can get a few buds to give the game a try.

[1n_Soviet_Russia 1,299]

The same eugenics program where people like me would be (forcibly) prevented from procreating because some person judged us to not be "pure" enough?

 

I sincerely hope you understand why it was cancelled...

 

OT: I'll see if I can get a few buds to give the game a try.

The point that I am trying to make is that the smarter and more successful a population gets that same population's birth rate declines due to fewer deaths. Meanwhile people who should not be having children due to poor living conditions and general stupidity of the parents multiply like rabbits. In nature the poor parents would be equalized due to natural selection, but with the increase of social welfare and overall failure to discourage rampant breeding the balance is shifting towards entropy. The point I am trying to make is that eugenics, had its flaws but was trying to progress the human race forward instead of devolving towards entropy. You and I most likely dont have the best of senerios but a eugenics program adopted in the 1920s would have greatly enhanced our capabilities and most likely would have increased our chances of becoming the kind of people we want to be, smart, strong, and attractive. This also would make a big difference in places like Europe and America where more educated populations in the nations are being replaced by less educated foreigners i.e Middle Easterners and Mexican fence jumpers. Not saying we need to wipe them out, just saying in order for western nations to continue to evolve birth rates must be adjusted. Although the first generations would be hard to cope with the changes future generations would greatly exponentially benefit from the policies.     

[WhichOneIsWill 37]

Which in real terms mean that I, a not handsome fellow that's not athletic, would be castrated, and if somehow I was to find a way around it I would probably be shot.  All for our own good, of course.  I'm not poor, I'm not disadvantaged, but because I'm not part of the perfect model for the perfect human being, at best I would be forcibly stripped of my capacity to produce children and left to go on with my life.  Which is a lot different now, because with it probably being recorded, anyone who cares to know (say, for future job interviews), knows that I wasn't good enough to have kids, therefore I must be inferior.  If I don't lose my job, I better not quit, because I'm sure as hell not getting another engineering position.

 

The ends do not justify the means; rather, the means make the ends.  Perfect human beings are one thing.  A select group (by the way, who gets to decide what a superior human being is and what characteristics he/she has?) segregating populations, decreeing who gets to procreate and who can't, and enforcing it at gunpoint if need be, isn't an ideal.  It's a nightmare.  Well, for most of us anyway.  For the chosen ones, I suppose it kind of is an ideal: there's a hell of a lot less of us other people around clamoring for land, food, and medication.

[MetGreDKo 455]

You can stop being obtuse. Forced sterilization, death or other penalties aren't the only way to practice eugenics. Those are merely a "at its worst."

On topic though, I thought the same as Kewei.

[WhichOneIsWill 37]

You can stop being obtuse. Forced sterilization, death or other penalties aren't the only way to practice eugenics. Those are merely a "at its worst."

 

There are other ways?  They wouldn't be very successful then.

 

What would the other ways be?  Benefits to procreating/not procreating?  That's all well and good, until someone who shouldn't be having kids by our leaders' standards (i.e. me) decides that they want a kid because they're living organisms and there are massive instincts to pass along their genetic material to offspring to ensure survival of the bloodline and potentially species.  Also for all the good things and joy a kid can bring to a life.  Except we're not privileged.  We're not supposed to have kids, because we don't fit the mold.  We don't have the characteristics that our leaders say must be in a person in order to produce offspring.  For our own good, mind you.

 

The problem with systems other than what I describe is that they require cooperation to be effective.  And believe me when I say that this is something that I 100% will not cooperate with.  Which leaves the only option left on the table: force.  If you don't force me to not have kids, then your eugenics program isn't effective because I'm having imperfect kids, and my imperfect kids will procreate with the perfect kids and muddle the bloodline.  Which we can't have.  Because our leaders want us to be beautiful and good looking and smart and happy and don't pay attention to how we get to those goals and ooh, look - a bunny!

[MetGreDKo 455]

Oh, you have to print the cards out. I don't think I'd know anyone who would wish to play.

 

 

There are other ways?  They wouldn't be very successful then.

 

Welcome to life where the ends do not usually justify the means and so people go with the less effective. All is fine to disagree with a policy but it's downright stupid to look at an extreme and use that to dismiss something in its entirety. Every time someone determines it better they personally not have a child lest the child suffer whether due to medical conditions or financial eugenics is at work. Gene therapy & genetic engineering is eugenics at work. There are flaws, risks and benefits with and without it.

[UbaldoBastardo 65]

as someone who would be a product of 4th gen eugenics FUCK YOU to all the people who cancelled the program.

 

You wish you were never born?  That's kind of sad buddy.  Please seek help.

 

Edit: Please be sure to express these opinions just as vociferously in your everyday affairs.  Let me know how it works out!

 

On topic: My wife has worked on genetic research, and we're both pretty avid board gamers.  We may give this a try.  Will they send the game to beta testers, or is it only print-and-play?

[PlanetaryGenocide 676]

I was always in favor of free abortions for people who can't afford/are too dumb to raise kids properly

[FlorbFnarb 537]

Choosing not to have kids because you are aware you carry the genes for a genetic disorder is fine, but it's also not what is normally meant by the term "eugenics".

Any sort of state-directed program of breeding will inherently be a totalitarian system.

[PlanetaryGenocide 676]

That's pretty much the only problem I have with it

[FlorbFnarb 537]

I'm including in that even ostensibly voluntary programs where people could be paid to voluntarily refrain from breeding. Giving the state the controls over that sort of thing is just...it's just like, when people propose these things, I want to ask (1) have you ever read any science fiction at all, or (2) did you read Brave New World and think it was a how-to manual?

[FlorbFnarb 537]

The point that I am trying to make is that the smarter and more successful a population gets that same population's birth rate declines due to fewer deaths. Meanwhile people who should not be having children due to poor living conditions and general stupidity of the parents multiply like rabbits. In nature the poor parents would be equalized due to natural selection, but with the increase of social welfare and overall failure to discourage rampant breeding the balance is shifting towards entropy. The point I am trying to make is that eugenics, had its flaws but was trying to progress the human race forward instead of devolving towards entropy. You and I most likely dont have the best of senerios but a eugenics program adopted in the 1920s would have greatly enhanced our capabilities and most likely would have increased our chances of becoming the kind of people we want to be, smart, strong, and attractive. This also would make a big difference in places like Europe and America where more educated populations in the nations are being replaced by less educated foreigners i.e Middle Easterners and Mexican fence jumpers. Not saying we need to wipe them out, just saying in order for western nations to continue to evolve birth rates must be adjusted. Although the first generations would be hard to cope with the changes future generations would greatly exponentially benefit from the policies.

I'm sorry, but this is the most naive statement imaginable. I have no problem with more educated people breeding earlier and more often. That's up to them. What I object to is the idea that it's the government's role to encourage the "right" people to breed and the "wrong" people to not breed.

Also, claiming poor people should not be breeding is itself absurd. Poor people depend upon their children to help them out later in life because they don't accumulate a huge reserve of wealth throughout their life to sustain them after they can no longer work. This is how society has worked until the modern idea took over that people must be financially independent of their families as soon as they move out or else they're failures. Of course the poor will have children; children are their retirement plan, as has been the case for old people since prehistory.

I cannot imagine anybody regretting the end of the eugenics programs of the 20's. Since when is the end of a program of involuntary sterilization something to regret?