This isn't about eugenics, this is about bad parenting.
Instead of single-moms being praised for their bravery, they should be scolded for making such poor choices that destroy their children's minds and their future.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sounds like something Molyneux would say. ;)
Can single mothers be blamed for the decisions which led up to that one night stand? Can the fathers who abandon them? Were those outcomes deterministic based in their own programming and neuron responses?
It's not so simple as villifiying one group or another, IMO. Yes, bad parenting plays a huge role, but even then, who gets a good parenting manual? Do parents with low brain health have a chance?
I think some single moms should be praised based on what they overcome and accomplish. If they, against all odds, raise virtuous children, how much harder is it for them then others? Yes, they made bad decisions, but if we were born into their bodies with their DNA and their parents, would we have done any better?
This is tough stuff to think through. As society starts genetically designing the babies of the future, eugenics will certainly enter the discussion.
I am sorry, it is too late at night for me to put the focus into writing this information, this will come across rough...
With a dozen contraceptive choices, and the morning after pill, and abortion, it is by choice that today's first world women become mothers. Too many women try to tie down a bad-boy by having a child. And too many women marry the beta-male who will stay and provide, but is much too boring. 70% of divorce is filed by females. I know very few of the, what movie's make out as "stereotypical" men who decide their secretary is better, and kicks there wife to the curb. The story that I hear over and over and over, are dutiful husbands that got kicked to the curb for being too boring, and then denied access to their children.
One of the most important things, that ancient esoterics know, and brain dead psychologists of today completely miss is the stages of child growth.
*13- yr the child connects to the world. The child is now in the process of understanding the world, and how they will be a part of it.
Abandonment is one of the biggest traumas of a child's life. Not having a mother, or not having a father at the critical juncture destroys their lives. It is hard to deal with life, when your base emotion is "I am not good enough" (my mother/father didn't love me, so what chance have I to find love? I am not loveable.)
Since you brought up Molyneux I assume you have heard the list of things that are much more prevalent if you are the child of a single mother.
70% of people in jail are from a single mother household...
What needs to be added to this, is that this abandonment causes brain damage. The chemicals released in the brain to anaesthetize the pain from abandonment are 10x stronger than cocaine. They have a great impact on your brain and body development. It is not from genetics, for the most part. It is from abuse.
The stuff that comes from genetics is a double edged sword. The one that is most likely to grow up to be a serial killer, is also the one most likely to grown up to be the most compassionate of people. They are destined for one extreme or the other. So, there is no DNA indicators of criminality.
Science doesn't even know what DNA is yet. Talking about designer children is a long way off. Not that we won't try. (and what we will get will be bad, very bad.) And by the time we are able to create designer children, we will probably not ever do it. Because of the very important things we will find about DNA and life.
Can you expand on what you mean by that? When I watch videos like this, it sure seems they know what it is and are pretty far along towards manipulating it as needed.
Also check out CRISPR and CRISPR CAS9. Designer children is not far off. From what I've read, the limitations seem to be more ethical/political than they are technical.
Interesting perspective on women, divorce, and single mothers. Do you have sources for this? I'd like to look into it more.
Does this video mention anything about the electro or the magentic properties of DNA? Probably not. They, scientists/doctors haven't even begun working with designer magnetics yet. (to heal cells and the body)
Quantumly speaking, how many DNA is in the human body?
There is only 1 DNA in several billion positions.
I can't really give you sources that are at the bottom of the rabbit hole. I can sorta guide you to the rabbit hole, but the journey is yours to take.
Have you read any of the "Cancer cure" books of late? Like, Everything Is Energy?
And? What is wrong with the image above? Scientists already know that DNA is a loop, so why do they show it cut off?
Why do they show it like building blocks? I guess you could see it as building blocks, if you think of words as building blocks of a book, however, the order and meaning are very important.
Have you read this book yet?
https://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Theory-Reality/dp/0062014102/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482338304&sr=1-1&keywords=holographic+universe
There are many aspects of what we call reality which we don't yet understand including magnetic and gravitational forces, light waves/photons, and such, but I think it's also important to keep ourselves from making categorical errors. If we're talking about oceans or lakes, we're in a different category than individual water molecules or the atoms which make them up or even the quarks and leptons which make up those atoms.
What do you mean by "Quantumly speaking"? When you say "There is only 1 DNA in several billion positions" that seems like an over simplification.
No, most "cancer cure" stuff I've seen seems to relate more to pseudoscientific woo than evidence (with a little placebo effect thrown in for flavor). I get that on a certain category everything is energy, but science likes reproducible results. Often people throw around scientific sounding words and "quantum theory" type stuff without providing anything reproducible. It's fun for those who like unprovable conspiracy theories and gnostic beliefs, but from what I've seen, much of it leads no where.
That said, I want to keep an open mind. I have seen some interesting things about using light to mess with individual cells and such. I'm interested in learning more. When you say "Everything is Energy" do you mean the book by Mike MacDonald? Would you recommend that as a starting point for the concepts you're describing?
Yes, most of my knowledge now comes from the area of woo woo.
But I wouldn't call it pseudo-scientific.
Long ago, I worked for the cancer industry. I had access to all of the information. If I told you what I did, you could probably figure out who I am.
At that time, I thought that all those cancer cures were "pseudo-scientific woo".
What I learned was that the cancer industry is about causing and treating cancer, and that a cancer cure is never to be spoken of. The manipulation of data that goes on in their depths, places them firmly outside the area of being honest, and one could say VERY unscientific.
Later I learned about cancer curing places. These places have a high success rate. And their numbers aren't massaged, so it could be said that these places are more scientific.
But, cancer cures has more to do with getting over the emotional blockage. Once that is done, almost anything will cure the cancer.
If you would like to understand this more, a woo book to read is
https://www.amazon.com/Hands-Light-Healing-Through-Energy/dp/0553345397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482346299&sr=1-1&keywords=hands+of+light
Yes, all the DNA being a single DNA in multiple locations (quantumly speaking) is an oversimplification.
You could very much say that each time a cell divides, it asks the parent DNA structure, same cell or new cell? And thus, the body can change and heal over time.
DNA has 12 layers, and we only discuss one, maybe two.
When DNA researchers start actively talking about the tree of life, then we might actually be looking at real designer children. Until then, we are looking at stabbing at something in the dark and seeing what we get.
The term junk DNA is still thrown around, even though it was shown (by a group of people that study language) to be information. From my views, nature doesn't produce junk, everything had an important purpose, or it just wasn't done. Nothing wasted. Since the term junk DNA is still bandied about, we really do not know much about DNA
It will take me a while to find authors/books name. Sorry, very bad with names.