Predictive speech on the future of mankind

I do not support the following statement, but I want to share it!

Fellow Humans!

Religion is a survivial mechanism of humankind, evolved to be a method of self-sustainment, and is not regarded as primitive. Due to our technological development, the possibilities it gives humankind and science, religion is unnecessary and often an unneeded burden to our modern society. We are immersing in a new area, a higher level of the human mind and our understanding of the Universe, where are our minds are taught gradually to rely on the rules of science - the true enlightenment and the only.
We rely on human reason and logic.

Religious individuals are therefore traitors or poor victims of insane dogmatic indotrination. They should therefore be executed, that statement being based on the idea that an elite of illuminated researchers and scientists exercise darwinism in social life. After the possible finding of the "God-gene" we must prepare to modify the genome of the human population and mercilessly eradicate genes that may create individuals with a leaning towards supernatural faith.

We are intellectually capable and therefore obliged to implement laws and regulations world-wide that prevent inheritance of the God-gene to reproduce and the present population to be genetically scrutinized. Religious people must be removed and we must not allow these these individuals to survive.

We will start in the West and walk in the front as an example for the rest of the world!

Now... What specifically distinguishes Man from other animals is empathy, the ability to emotionally relate to or feel for another person experiences. This is a precious gift and has contributed to the survival of the human race, but it has also inhibited us of helping evolution on its course towards perfection. We allow for the retarded and weaker persons to survive and live a "worthy" life. This quality has slackened our strength to look forward and save humankind from genetic weaknesses. Now we must cease this!

With our Intellectual Superiority we must rise above the Weak. We must abide by the Laws of Nature: the survival of the fittest! and live our lives the way we were called by Nature! I call upon every capable individual to lay down his empathy and let his evolutionary urges prevail! We shall overcome!

whose speech is that? sounds like your typical social darwinist stuff. it's a very hard argument to make...first the guy needs to prove that religion is false and counter-productve, then he has to prove that the weak are indeed inferior genetically, that religion is a genetic factor, and finally, that there is a point in doing any of this. any significant change in humans wouldn't be for another thousand years. is it worth killing every weak person as a way of making future humans a bit smarter? it's not natural selection if it's driven by human motivation.

I must say, sounds like the guy is trying to make a cult or something.

Thinking of this sort is best fit under "eugenics". It was pretty popular before WW2, and was similar to this article in that it was about how the human race was being degraded by weak-willed people, or some other such thing. According to the thingy I read, this sort of thinking helped bring about the rise of Nazism.

With this guy's line of thinking, people who are retarded should not be allowed to survive. The writer of that article is retarded. Therefore, by following his logic, it can be concluded that he should not be allowed to live.
People should really think about how people will twist this sort of thing against them before they start spreading it, ne? =P

That sounds like Satan or the antichrist.

Due to our technological development, the possibilities it gives humankind and science, religion is unnecessary and often an unneeded burden to our modern society.

So the person is saying that science can give humans eternal life. That's really what people seek when they turn to a faith or religion.

Religious individuals are therefore traitors or poor victims of insane dogmatic indotrination.

This statement has very little info to back it up.

With our Intellectual Superiority we must rise above the Weak. We must abide by the Laws of Nature: the survival of the fittest!

We are all weak.

You know, if you imagine Hitler's voice screaming these words to a crowded square of supporters, you shiver. Seriously, it sounds like it's advocating genocide to perfect the human race, to kill the physically or mentally handicapped, and make a better society, all of which were Hitler's arguments as he exterminated anyone he didn't approve of.
It can't be Hitler because it talks about the human genome, but it's disturbing someone with similar ideals has found a way to get their voice to the rest of the world.

Thank you.

Thank you for the reactions, guys! What I feel about this speech is that it represents science's role in our future. In my opinion, science is turning into a disguised executor of social-darwinism. And in my opinion, cloning, research on embryos etc show this. The opportunities are there so why not use them? Remobe embryos that will develop Downs syndrome and so on. We can do it, and science makes it possible. Where is the equal value of all individuals? Killing is exceptionalised as a being a crime. Because of science. And science mixes with our social life and politics more and more. It's sad.

When I read this speech I imagine that it is read aloud in front of a massive assemblage of intellectuals by a major scientist - a member of the elite. And it makes me shiver. Honestly, I think it is likely that we will see this happen in the future. There is no reason why it should not happen.

Well, I firmly beleive that religion and science can come to a peaceful compromise. Perhaps there are way too many reinforced barriers to meet this, but this guy is a prime epitome of a fantatical cynic of sorts. To debase the whole idea of the spiritual essence(and although I haven't do it extensively, I don't really find social science capable to explain our mind so to speak-- I feel it's something else) is really something I oppose and people only hinder forth the idealogy that life isn't a competition, which as a child, I have always supported. Maybe the idea of a spirtual entity or higher being is some ways off the borders of science, but to deride the moral binding that has shaped our society is something else. And it's sickening to see how the world would be like should we discard our ethical stances. His little drive towards an utpoian society just seems like ...well, I wouldn't be one to know how to explain it. But at that point, where does the outlet for the desire and ambition allocated towards that go? The end result seems counterproductive at any rate, I find it useless to perfect the flaws of human society. Overcoming them is one thing, but trying to rid of them all together is something else. The rewards of it function on the idea to strip the human mind of emotion, so where...? Guess I'm rambling on again. *shrug*

Sounded like any typical left-wing, perhaps one more courageous to speak thier mind. But that's the general thought. Who wrote this peice of work?

Religon and science are not some political issue, they're simply an exsisting thing. Religon and science are not seperate entities. Religon was just used to explain what science discovers day by day.. People in elder times couldn't say "well, there's several atoms corresponding simutanously to create a living vessel blahblahblah", they had to use simpler terms "there's four primary elements, we're based around those four elements, dadadadada.."

When you really begin to study aicent alchemy and other means of magick, you'll see it's not all that differant from technology. Albeit not as flashy, or as advanced, but then, you're relying on more humble and natural means of production..

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

Thank you for the reactions, guys! What I feel about this speech is that it represents science's role in our future. In my opinion, science is turning into a disguised executor of social-darwinism. And in my opinion, cloning, research on embryos etc show this. The opportunities are there so why not use them? Remobe embryos that will develop Downs syndrome and so on. We can do it, and science makes it possible. Where is the equal value of all individuals? Killing is exceptionalised as a being a crime. Because of science. And science mixes with our social life and politics more and more. It's sad.

When I read this speech I imagine that it is read aloud in front of a massive assemblage of intellectuals by a major scientist - a member of the elite. And it makes me shiver. Honestly, I think it is likely that we will see this happen in the future. There is no reason why it should not happen.

you have got to be kidding me. as a science student, I almost find this offensive. do you really think that speech is a good example of science? there were even scientific and logical errors in the speech itself. science and religion can coexist, just not when religions try to justify their beliefs through science. after all, faith is belief without reason. prove your religion's right and that takes away your faith by definition. religions are different ways of looking at the world.

I don't know where you get your ideas, but science is not some kind of master plan to eliminate everything that's not "biologically superior". science is simply the study of the world as we see it. your mind automatically uses the scientific method to some extent. without science, we would be more primitive than cave men. science encompasses more than you think. the majority of scientists would tell you that social darwinism is a dumb idea. the only real popularity it had was way back a hundred years ago. since then, it's been losing popularity. you make science seem like a conspiracy or a cult. by your logic, for people to be "equal", we would have to get rid of hospitals or any medical treatments.

science mixes with politics more for a good reason - science studies truth. is there something you'd rather base your politics on?

please look at science more objectively. lose your preconceived notion that science is a plot to demoralize and dehumanize the population. the whole reason I'm going into science is because I want to help agriculture in third world countries without interfering with their cultures. I hope to do this through genetic modification of crops in order to make them more resistent to pests (reduces the need for pesticides) and decreasing the amount of nutrients needed for growth. this is science. so tell me how this fits in with social darwinism.

Sounded like any typical left-wing, perhaps one more courageous to speak thier mind. But that's the general thought.

huh? the only person I know who would agree with it is a very right-wing conservative, and us leftists convinced him that it's a bad idea. social darwinism is incongruent with leftist belief - leftists believe in giving to the less fortunate, and half of our politics are based on that.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

you have got to be kidding me. as a science student, I almost find this offensive. do you really think that speech is a good example of science? there were even scientific and logical errors in the speech itself. science and religion can coexist, just not when religions try to justify their beliefs through science. after all, faith is belief without reason. prove your religion's right and that takes away your faith by definition. religions are different ways of looking at the world.

I don't know where you get your ideas, but science is not some kind of master plan to eliminate everything that's not "biologically superior". science is simply the study of the world as we see it. your mind automatically uses the scientific method to some extent. without science, we would be more primitive than cave men. science encompasses more than you think. the majority of scientists would tell you that social darwinism is a dumb idea. the only real popularity it had was way back a hundred years ago. since then, it's been losing popularity. you make science seem like a conspiracy or a cult. by your logic, for people to be "equal", we would have to get rid of hospitals or any medical treatments.

science mixes with politics more for a good reason - science studies truth. is there something you'd rather base your politics on?

please look at science more objectively. lose your preconceived notion that science is a plot to demoralize and dehumanize the population. the whole reason I'm going into science is because I want to help agriculture in third world countries without interfering with their cultures. I hope to do this through genetic modification of crops in order to make them more resistent to pests (reduces the need for pesticides) and decreasing the amount of nutrients needed for growth. this is science. so tell me how this fits in with social darwinism.

I do not mean to offend. I am myself offended by that speech. It speech exemplifies a biased opinion of a right-wing extremist scientist. What scientific errors are there?

Is science always right? No, it is not. Especially when it comes to evolution. Evolutionists say that humans behave this way and that because so and so happened 100, 000 years ago. How can they tell? They didn't live back then.. That offends ME. And they write books about it and make it sound like it is the only truth. They forget to say that "this is what we THINK happened". It's abuse of authority in my opinion.

Back on topic. I want to ask you one thing, as a science student. Because there are humans with "weak" genes(Downs syndrome etc) and if these people are allowed to reproduce, does not that mean that we allow for these "weak" genes to remain in the human population? Do you believe that it is our responsibility to instead eradicate "weak" genes? I know you don't. But why not, since it is the course of evolution? Why not help evolution? (I'm getting sick at my own questions, but I just need to know)

"lose your preconceived notion that science is a plot to demoralize and dehumanize the population."

I don't believe it is.

Genetic modification of crops does not give a lasting solution, as far as I know. I do not intend to crush your dream. Still, can you predict the future and say that there will not be bacterias etc that will become resistent towards the crops' resistence and then destroy the crops?

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

Is science always right? No, it is not. Especially when it comes to evolution. Evolutionists say that humans behave this way and that because so and so happened 100, 000 years ago. How can they tell? They didn't live back then.. That offends ME. And they write books about it and make it sound like it is the only truth. They forget to say that "this is what we THINK happened". It's abuse of authority in my opinion.

Um, there's these little things called fossils. Maybe you've heard of them. We didn't live 65 million years ago, so do you not believe that dinosaurs existed? It's more than what they think happened. There is evidence for certain things.

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

Back on topic. I want to ask you one thing, as a science student. Because there are humans with "weak" genes(Downs syndrome etc) and if these people are allowed to reproduce, does not that mean that we allow for these "weak" genes to remain in the human population? Do you believe that it is our responsibility to instead eradicate "weak" genes? I know you don't. But why not, since it is the course of evolution? Why not help evolution? (I'm getting sick at my own questions, but I just need to know)

We don't have the right to prevent people from reproducing. I don't believe that is a right you can take away people, no matter what their disability is. Just because one parent has, or even two parents have, down syndrome doesn't mean the child will have it. Down syndrome is a rare disability, and it happens when the 23rd (?) chromosome doubles itself, making you have two of the same chromosome. I'm not sure if that's something that can be inherited. It seems that more often than not, it would be a random occurence. And why would you just select this area to help evolution along? And everything is evolution. Things aren't only eliminated through evolution and natural selection, things are acquired as well. Down syndrome may not have been as common as it is now, or it may have been. Who knows? I don't. And if you want to help evolution along, how about you stop wearing clothes, don't cut your hair, and run around in the wild in the winter time and try to hunt food. Let's see if you survive. The evolutionary process GOT us to where we are today. Why would you want to go back and negate everything our ancestors, our species, had worked for?

Originally Posted by Mrs Ganondorf

I do not mean to offend. I am myself offended by that speech. It speech exemplifies a biased opinion of a right-wing extremist scientist. What scientific errors are there?

well, whoever wrote it basically talks about how religion is important for survival and then goes on to say we should get rid of it. the author also seems to have some sort of platonic ideology, which we reject for the most part today.

yes, it exemplifies a very extremist view - meaning it's the view of a very small minority.

Is science always right? No, it is not. Especially when it comes to evolution. Evolutionists say that humans behave this way and that because so and so happened 100, 000 years ago. How can they tell? They didn't live back then.. That offends ME. And they write books about it and make it sound like it is the only truth. They forget to say that "this is what we THINK happened". It's abuse of authority in my opinion.

many hypotheses in science are wrong of course; that is part of science. the scientific method is a process of formulating hypotheses and rejecting them if they're wrong. if scientists have a goal of proving something, it's not real science. pure science is entirely objective.

there are many branches of anthropology devoted entirely to figuring out what ancient humans were like. archaeologists often look at ancient garbage dumps to figure out what cultures were like back then. you'd be surprised how much can be figured out. we have clues as to what their diets were by looking at their teeth and their tools. also paintings on cave walls and other art give us pretty accurate clues. tools give us important clues too. in fact, many of the stages in human history are determined by the tool industries used at the time. so we have this and a bunch of other clues and methods which all give us fairly accurate descriptions (when we use these methods with recorded history, they prove to be congruent with records). but I'd like your side too. what do you think is the best way of finding out what humans were like 100 000 years ago?

it seems like you're getting your ideas from a small minority of scientists. I admit that there are people who call themselves scientists who don't truly follow the scientific method. these people make theories and then set out to prove them. this is not how science works. theories are made and then we set out to figure out if it's right or not, with no goal in mind. either way, these fake scientists are not the only ones publishing guesses as facts.

Back on topic. I want to ask you one thing, as a science student. Because there are humans with "weak" genes(Downs syndrome etc) and if these people are allowed to reproduce, does not that mean that we allow for these "weak" genes to remain in the human population? Do you believe that it is our responsibility to instead eradicate "weak" genes? I know you don't. But why not, since it is the course of evolution? Why not help evolution? (I'm getting sick at my own questions, but I just need to know)

in genetics, "weak" is a very subjective term, so it depends on many things. we can't stop people from reproducing, no matter wwhat. but your example is not the best, as trisomy 21 is usually due to a failure during meiosis, and is not a trait that's passed on from generation to generation. the inherited traits that are truly detrimental tend to be taken care of automatically by nature if they aren't taken care of medically. for example, africans are evolving an immunity to aids. now this can be seen as a good thing, since they don't have many medical treatments, especially in the poorer areas. however, if medical treatments are available to suppress it, there isn't much use of evolving immunities. because of scientific advancements, there is no real need for evolution, since we stop the forces of natural selection.

Genetic modification of crops does not give a lasting solution, as far as I know. I do not intend to crush your dream. Still, can you predict the future and say that there will not be bacterias etc that will become resistent towards the crops' resistence and then destroy the crops?

genetic modification lasts as long as the modified population (across generations, of course) last. in general this is one of the most permanent changes that can be applied to crops. bacteria are not much of a threat to crops; the main threat is insects. and while it is possible that insects could evolve a way around it, most genetic modification for pest reduction is still far from turning obsolete. also, that was just one example of the long list of possibilities. either way, the point of that was not to tell you my interests, it was to show that science is not necessarily the way you see it, and many scientists are in it to help.

Ok if i ever met the person who wrote that i would drag him/her out into the sreet and shoot them. That whole piece was crap. If people who believe in a religion no matter what religion it was are inferior and need to be "executed." Then why not just let us die from "natural selection" as you would say. Not to mention that you whould have a realy hard time taking out the majority of the population on Earth! This is not a proven thing but i think at least 3/4th the worlds population is religious. I mean come on you dont see any religous people out there saying that people who dont believe in a religion are inferior and need to be "executed."

And what is up with the whole "God-gene" thing? That is not real. That would be like saying that the people who dont believe in a religion have a NonGod-gene. Ok i have to stop here because im starting to get mad. So i will leave my oppinion at that.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

well, whoever wrote it basically talks about how religion is important for survival and then goes on to say we should get rid of it. the author also seems to have some sort of platonic ideology, which we reject for the most part today.

What should have been written is that religion is an ancient man-made way of self-sustainment, managing oneself and living in peace. That religion is a only psychological self-deceit that made Mankind inferior. But not any longer. Now, because we have the ability to prove with science that God isn't necessary and that we can debunk all religious "myths" by doing experiments(I have no examples though). Science is the new "god", the "modern way of worship".

there are many branches of anthropology devoted entirely to figuring out what ancient humans were like. archaeologists often look at ancient garbage dumps to figure out what cultures were like back then. you'd be surprised how much can be figured out. we have clues as to what their diets were by looking at their teeth and their tools. also paintings on cave walls and other art give us pretty accurate clues. tools give us important clues too. in fact, many of the stages in human history are determined by the tool industries used at the time. so we have this and a bunch of other clues and methods which all give us fairly accurate descriptions (when we use these methods with recorded history, they prove to be congruent with records). but I'd like your side too. what do you think is the best way of finding out what humans were like 100 000 years ago?

I think this is a bit off-topic, but I started it so.. I do agree that e.g the C-14 dating method is credible, but it shows that it cannot be used on materials older than some hundred thousand years. Then archaeologists and other scientists must use other methods that do not give accurate dates. When these methods are applied to e.g the carcass of a 1 year dead organism, this organism is suddenly 100,000 years old. So the more advanced dating methods aren't applicable on all materials. I have no specific exampels that I can remember, but I have heard that there is constant debate of how much we can actually trust technology in this case. Oh, I do remember one. A burnt piece of animal bone that was discovered near an abandoned house. Archaeologists examined it with various methods and they got two VERY different answers. The one said something around 1 year while the other said many thousands of years. Apparently someone had seen a the remains of a dead animal there earlier and it had lain in open space, which means that should it have been thousands of years old, it had had to be attacked by bacterias and decayed loooong ago.

it seems like you're getting your ideas from a small minority of scientists. I admit that there are people who call themselves scientists who don't truly follow the scientific method. these people make theories and then set out to prove them. this is not how science works. theories are made and then we set out to figure out if it's right or not, with no goal in mind. either way, these fake scientists are not the only ones publishing guesses as facts.

I hope so. It makes me angry though, that so many scientists can claim that something is correct - just like that. And that their "theories" get so much attention. I need to start reading some real science magazines! Do you have any suggestions?

in genetics, "weak" is a very subjective term, so it depends on many things. we can't stop people from reproducing, no matter wwhat. but your example is not the best, as trisomy 21 is usually due to a failure during meiosis, and is not a trait that's passed on from generation to generation. the inherited traits that are truly detrimental tend to be taken care of automatically by nature if they aren't taken care of medically. for example, africans are evolving an immunity to aids. now this can be seen as a good thing, since they don't have many medical treatments, especially in the poorer areas. however, if medical treatments are available to suppress it, there isn't much use of evolving immunities. because of scientific advancements, there is no real need for evolution, since we stop the forces of natural selection.

I didn't know this.. Again: I need to read some real science magazines!

genetic modification lasts as long as the modified population (across generations, of course) last. in general this is one of the most permanent changes that can be applied to crops. bacteria are not much of a threat to crops; the main threat is insects. and while it is possible that insects could evolve a way around it,