Sage Eugenics

[Ryan Rudolph]

Taken from mate selection thread -

Elizabeth wrote:

The final product is a combination of nature and nurture, so perhaps it would be wise for wise individuals interested in propagating wisdom to pass on their genetics as well. That does not eliminate the likelihood that there will be many individuals who deludedly think themselves wise and want to spread their genetics - and women deluded enough to believe them - but at least this is a more functional idea than alienating as many females as possible and trying to convince men that if they are wise, will keep their wise sperm to themselves. Meanwhile Barbie and Ken are having tons of children and psychologically damaging them all in addition to whatever genetic shortcomings the children may have.

Ryan wrote:

I agree that some sort of eugenics movement that values wisdom would be highly beneficial to the gene pool, but a problem is that most sages have a difficult time earning money in the current civilization, they have no tolerance for it, so a major obstacle is that you would need intellectual women that value wisdom to such a high degree that they would be willing to have children, without the financial security that a blind unthinking workhorse man provides.

However, this is an impossible hurtle for intellectual women to get over because most of their intellectual expansion was unconsciously done for ambitious purposes, and not for the purpose of wisdom at all, so when they select a mate, financial security still reins a much higher priority for them than wisdom.

The major problem seems to me that a sage’s environmental sensitivity is centuries ahead of its time, whereas even the most intellectual women base their mate selection choices on the ideal male that will be able to blindly adapt himself to the present industrial civilization.

Elizabeth wrote:

I don't particularly see that as a problem. There are many welfare Moms who have a whole horde of children of various fathers who they never even see. A broke but mature father is vastly better than no father at all in any female's book - and there is enough of a female drive to reproduce that the availability of a father is only on the wish list, not the mandatory list. A wise female could be inclined to reproduce with a wise man for the good of the next generation even if he could only provide wisdom and guidance to the child. At least in neither America nor Canada, society won't let a child go without food, shelter, and now even medical care. If the parents are psychologically enriching to a child, society will do whatever it can to keep those children with those parents.

Considering the above discussion between Elizabeth and I, here are some questions that I have been considering as of late –

1. I would not consider my father or mother exceptional, yet the children they brought into this world seem to be much more gifted than they are. I turned out to be a reflective philosopher who values wisdom above all else, and my brother turned out as a jack-of-all trades who is able to make money in any way conceivable. I partly owe this to the conservative environment my mother raised us in, yet both of us have a certain emotional intelligence that seems to be more present in my mother than my hedonistic father, so I’m wondering if the mother’s genetic information determines much more of the child’s overall configuration than the fathers. Or it is some sort of equal balance? It seems to me that the female egg is like the foundation of the child as far as genetic information is concerned, yes? No? Any theories? How is the feminine/masculine genetic information distributed to the child from the parents?

Perhaps anyone who considers themselves enlightened to a certain degree could give descriptions of their parent’s emotional intelligence to further illustrate how these feminine/masculine relationships operate from parent to child.

2. Cory brought this theory up a while ago, and I thought I throw it back into the mix, I’m wondering that if the more feminine the egg is, the higher the probability that the baby will be a girl, whereas if the woman is very masculine, perhaps her eggs will be more masculine as well. And if the man is very feminine, perhaps higher amounts of his sperm will be XY. So it seems to me that if a masculine woman and masculine man have a child, the chances of it being a boy should be higher, whereas if a feminine woman and a feminine man have a child, the chances of it being a girl should be higher. Those are the extremes, but if one parent is slightly masculine, and the other is slightly feminine, then it could be some sort of probability as to which gender the child will be.

3. Moreover, I wonder if sages produce more ‘male sperm’ than female sperm. More XY than XX, I think that would be an interesting test, to get a sperm sample into a bio lab, and test to see what the ratios are – if they have that sort of technology.

[Dan Rowden]

Ryan,

Shut up and become wise.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan,

You could learn something by watching children play. Don’t be so bitter with other inquisitive minds that have not yet reached your finish line…

You’re like a bully on the playground kicking me off your monkey bars.

[Dan Rowden]

Ryan,

Grow up.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan,

Grow up.

Ryan,

Yes, there is a lot of evidence supportive of what you said, and that was the basis of my previous position that genetics had little or nothing to do with it other than whether or not something too defective to become wise was born. I have updated my opinion as new genetic research is showing that thinking capacity is genetically inherited. I still believe that nurture more frequently has quantitatively more to do with the result, and just because both parents are wise does not necessarily mean that the wisdom gene gets passed on, but it is more likely to be passed on by wise parents than retarded ones.

I don't think that dyc would mind me mentioning this - she is a genetic research doctor, so she does have access to the most up-to-date and accurate information on genetics. If she types it and it is about the scientific side of genetics, IMO it is just as good as a link to a research article.

[dyctiostelium]

(...) I’m wondering if the mother’s genetic information determines much more of the child’s overall configuration than the fathers. Or it is some sort of equal balance? It seems to me that the female egg is like the foundation of the child as far as genetic information is concerned, yes? No? Any theories? How is the feminine/masculine genetic information distributed to the child from the parents?

In humans each parent contribute half of the genetic information of the child. (In pathenogenetic species all the genetic information is given by the mother, but we are not there yet...).
I´m not sure exactly what are you referring to as "feminine/masculine genetic information". If you´re talking about sex determination, i.e. if the embryo is going to have male or female reproductive organs, the information is given by which sex chromosome the father provides: either an X or a Y. It is actually not the whole Y chromosome but only a single gene (SRY) located on the Y chromosome that acts as a signal to set the developmental pathway towards (anatomical) maleness.

But if you are talking about behavioral "masculine traits" and "feminine traits", those are determined by the combination of genes that are not in the sex chromosomes, so each parent contributes with half the information for those.

(...) I’m wondering that if the more feminine the egg is, the higher the probability that the baby will be a girl, whereas if the woman is very masculine, perhaps her eggs will be more masculine as well. And if the man is very feminine, perhaps higher amounts of his sperm will be XY. So it seems to me that if a masculine woman and masculine man have a child, the chances of it being a boy should be higher, whereas if a feminine woman and a feminine man have a child, the chances of it being a girl should be higher. Those are the extremes, but if one parent is slightly masculine, and the other is slightly feminine, then it could be some sort of probability as to which gender the child will be.

The egg can´t be either "more femenine" or "more masculine". It is neutral till it gets fertilized.

The sperm has only half of the chromosomes of a normal cell, which is the whole point of sex, so a sperm is never XY or XX, only X or Y. Variations on the proportion of sperm carrying an X vs a Y chromosome do exist, and some men seem to have a bias towards one or the other. Whether that correlates in any way with the man being more "masculine" or "femenine" or "wise" remains to be seen.
I guess you could collect some samples here, if really interested? The technology is certainly available at any infertility clinic ...

[dyctiostelium]

I don't think that dyc would mind me mentioning this - she is a genetic research doctor, so she does have access to the most up-to-date and accurate information on genetics. If she types it and it is about the scientific side of genetics, IMO it is just as good as a link to a research article.

Yes, and I also have access to the least up-to-date high school biology texts, which nevertheless contain the information I typed above...

[Ryan Rudolph]

dyctiostelium wrote:

But if you are talking about behavioral "masculine traits" and "feminine traits", those are determined by the combination of genes that are not in the sex chromosomes, so each parent contributes with half the information for those.

I’m wondering whether or not the female egg has more weight to the overall stability and potential for genius in the individual. Moreover, if you look at the mothers of genius, you will discover that they are quite masculine looking in the face.

Here is Einstein’s mother.

I would also think that Sue’s boy has a good chance of achieving spiritual genius given that David is the father, and Sue is the mother.

Sue is quite masculine.

Generally speaking, Masculine looking women tend to be more emotionally robust and intuitive, so I suspect they give their offspring a really strong foundation in the egg, which could be more detrimental than the information in the male sperm.

Whereas beautiful women that look like these - HER, or
HER, or HER, are quite emotionally feeble, pathetic mentally, and not even all that intuitive, so I suspect that they give their offspring a really poor foundation from the outset, therefore regardless of the sperm received, the child will be fairly average or inferior mentally.

Sexual beauty in females seems like a fairly good indicator that the child will have emotional problems, or at least be rather mediocre at best.

And Ironically, male sages have a history of being very beautiful, and rather feminine looking, and are too weak to work in the world like your typical blonde woman, hahahhaha.. The universe has a sense of humor.

So within the mind of a sage, a stable feminine foundation is the only way a man can be truly masculine, meaning from a young age, future exceptional male thinkers tend to possess some of the characteristics of women such as a meekness, politeness, eagerness to learn, yet are also emotionally robust – probably inherited from the mother’s side, which gives it more weight than the male sperm.

So if this theory is accurate, the only way a truly masculine man can be born is if his mother provides the balanced masculine/feminine foundation genetically, which means that she needs to be more masculine than feminine.

Many cultures still have the tradition where they know that beautiful women produce inferior offspring compared to masculine looking women, but in western culture, we have lost our wisdom, and feminine beauty in females is idolized, which leads to an inferior genepool because men pursue beautiful women thinking they are getting superiority, when ironically, they are getting inferiority.

[dyctiostelium]

I’m wondering whether or not the female egg has more weight to the overall stability and potential for genius in the individual.

"Overall stability and potential for genius" doesn´t mean anything.

Moreover, if you look at the mothers of genius, you will discover that they are quite masculine looking in the face.

We´d need to look at all the mothers of all the genius. I try to google them but couldn´t find them all.

There are, however, notably bright females with very feminine appearance and behavior. Hey, Polly Matzinger was once a Playboy bunny and now she´s in her way to the Nobel Prize...

Generally speaking, Masculine looking women tend to be more emotionally robust and intuitive, so I suspect they give their offspring a really strong foundation in the egg, which could be more detrimental than the information in the male sperm.

A really strong foundation of what that could be more detrimental than the information in the male sperm for what purpose? You saying that the information in the male sperm is detrimental to the egg? To the embryo? To the man?

Whereas [women that look like Britney, Christina y Pamela] are quite emotionally feeble, pathetic mentally, and not even all that intuitive, so I suspect that they give their offspring a really poor foundation from the outset, therefore regardless of the sperm received, the child will be fairly average or inferior mentally.

You suspect that the poor foundation is genetic? Why?

Sexual beauty in females seems like a fairly good indicator that the child will have emotional problems, or at least be rather mediocre at best.

Evidences of how good is it as an indicator, by any chance?
No? No.

Many cultures still have the tradition where they know that beautiful women produce inferior offspring compared to masculine looking women, but in western culture, we have lost our wisdom, and feminine beauty in females is idolized, which leads to an inferior genepool because men pursue beautiful women thinking they are getting superiority, when ironically, they are getting inferiority.

A tradition where they know...
So, in those other cultures they have superior gene pools? Ah.

[Ryan Rudolph]

dyctiostelium,

"Overall stability and potential for genius" doesn´t mean anything.

It doesn’t mean anything to you because you don’t understand my values, or the context in which I say this. Genius only emerges in individuals that have a balance of feminine/masculine psychological characteristics, so if the mother lacks this balance, if she is too feminine, then I’m throwing out the possible theory that the egg will inherit the genetic weaknesses of the mother, and the chances of the offspring being a genius will be reduced.

For instance: I’m suggesting that If Britney spears and the Buddha had a child, the child would probably not become a spiritual genius, so therefore if this theory is right, then there is more weight in the egg for genius than in the sperm. The egg seems like the foundation for emotional intelligence to me.

There are, however, notably bright females with very feminine appearance and behavior. Hey, Polly Matzinger was once a Playboy bunny and now she´s in her way to the Nobel Prize...

Polly Matzinger isn’t a genius in my opinion. She has an unbalance of feminine characteristics, and not enough masculine characteristics, which can be determined by her lack of philosophical work, and the fact that many of her life endeavors were quite superficial.

Unfortunately most women aren't masculine enough to be consistent moral philosophers, which is the main component of spiritual genius, and this is a function of having too much femininity in their psychology.

The fact that her endeavors include a waitress, a jazz musician, a playboy bunny, and a scientologist indicates that she is controlled primarily by feminine impulses, and lacks the masculinity to be a consistent moral philosopher, which is a requirement to be considered genius. Genius is a holistic thing, so making one scientific discovery doesn’t qualify.

You suspect that the poor foundation is genetic? Why?

Behavior is largely determined by genetic/hormonal forces, this is now becoming common knowledge in the scientific community. And of course, environment is also a factor, but soon science will realize that genetics plays a larger role than the environment.

[Cory Duchesne]

Whereas beautiful women that look like these - HER, or
HER, or HER, are quite emotionally feeble, pathetic mentally, and not even all that intuitive,

Funny, only last month you were asserting that these were the sorts of girls we should be breeding for.

And Ironically, male sages have a history of being very beautiful, and rather feminine looking, and are too weak to work in the world like your typical blonde woman, hahahhaha.. The universe has a sense of humor.

Socrates was actually reknown for being uniquely ugly. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Weineigger - non of these guys were beautiful and feminine looking, let alone 'very' beautiful. Quinn, Rowden and Solway don't look feminine and very beautiful. And if you see Kierkegaard as he actually looked, rather than the highly feminized portrait drawn of him, you'll see he was quite odd looking, and was lampooned and parodied for his appearance. Secondly, typical blond women, compared to average women, are actually most apt to avoid working in society like everyone else, getting jobs as models, porn stars or just staying at home and functioning as generic wives.

As for your theory that your mum is the masculine factor that is responsible for your genius. 1) I don't think your mother appears very masculine or behaves in a particularly masculine way. I think your father probably has relatively high testosterone levels. However, I don't think high hormone levels are the only thing responsible for masculinity in an absolute sense, in fact, I'm suspecting that a body dominated by high hormones really is of a lower order. We may start to find that the ideal temperament is one where there is a high count of neurons and brain size in proportion to a relatively lower count of hormones/endocrinological dominance.

2) I don't think you have very good reasons for considering yourself a genius or a wise man. Being someone who has associated with you over the years, I can recall spending more time criticizing your cartoon-like, highly self-aggrandizing ideas more than being enlightened by you. It was only a few months ago that you were encouraging me to let you replace Adam in the shattered eagles - a trite spoof that he and I made up when we were bored. And what do you think causes the tendency to take credit for other peoples ideas? What about forgetfulness?

I turned out to be a reflective philosopher who values wisdom above all else, and my brother turned out as a jack-of-all trades who is able to make money in any way conceivable. I partly owe this to the conservative environment my mother raised us in

I wonder how much you owe your title as philosopher to the not so conservative environment you had when you began associated yourself with me? Who knows, if you hadn't met me, you might have continued along with your gambling addiction, not to mention, Stephen Hawking might still be pretty high up there on your list of inspiring thinkers.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Funny, only last month you were asserting that these were the sorts of girls we should be breeding for.

Not the same type of woman. I was suggesting that women who are not attached to one man, and do not fall in love with one man, or base all their hopes and dreams on keeping one man happy have less conditioning. And they are less opinionated and emotional in a certain way.

The downfall of conservative women is that their minds are rather petty, and they are judgmental in a very instinctive way. They turn their noses up at women who do not dedicate themselves to one man, whereas polygamous women are not all that judgmental in the same sort of way.

It seems like there is less genetic conditioning, and less knee-jerk emotional responses to those who contradict their animal values. It is a crude type of animal conditioning that conservative women have, it maybe better for the species as a whole, but not for the individual woman. it depends on how you examine it.

I don't think your mother appears very masculine or behaves in a particularly masculine way.

Its very relative, she has a certain emotional robustness that many women lack. She is much tougher than even her sisters, who all have emotional problems, weight problems, and so on. My mother has a bit of intuitive grit. Maybe it is of genetic significance, maybe not. It is just a theory that I'm proposing....

Being someone who has associated with you over the years, I can recall spending more time criticizing your cartoon-like, highly self-aggrandizing ideas more than being enlightened by you.

And I have criticized your many flaws as well, this does not mean that you are not genius material, the key is that when I criticized you, and you criticized me, we didn’t kill each other, and we kept coming back for more, there was a hunger there. A rare sort of emotional robustness that gave us the endurance to stay with the criticism.

It was only a few months ago that you were encouraging me to let you replace Adam in the shattered eagles

It was just a funny thing to do, not an actual career pursuit. I thought some of the songs were funny, some were quite absurd you must admit…

I wonder yow much do you owe your title as philosopher to the not so conservative environment you had when you began associated yourself with me? Who knows, if you hadn't met me, you might have continued along with your gambling addiction, not to mention, Stephen Hawking might still be pretty high up there on your list of inspiring thinkers.

Yes, you are correct. I definitely wouldn’t be at the level I am now. I would be at much more inferior state. However, before I met you I was reading Nietzsche, and I knew my father was a stupid man, and I knew that there was something horribly wrong with women. And I knew I had to stay away from drugs and read more. These things I understood, but my brain was still highly conditioned with networks of contradicting and emotionally motivated thoughts, and being in contact with you did help to break a lot of it down, and I’m grateful that are paths crossed, as you are one of the more honest philosophers I know of.

We were definitely casually dependent on each other’s present maturity, so I do not deny the importance of environment, but my genetic configuration determined whether or not I would even be able to tolerate and be interested in what we were both into.

GF was also a significant causal environmental factor in my own development. Being exposed to Kevin and David's advanced reasoning and linguistic abilities, and being harshly criticized helped me as well.

However I still believe that the genetic foundation is primary because without it, the environmental influences are ineffective. Moreover, there seems to be a emotional robustness that I inherited from one of my family members, or perhaps a combination of both, it's very difficult to determine.

[Cory Duchesne]

So are you going to elaborate at all on your theory about sages appearing 'very beautiful and feminine' and the importance of 'emotional intelligence'? What is that all about?

Personally, from where I'm standing now, I think these conceptions you're peddling testify to your unsatisfactory 'emotional robustness' and integrity as a philosopher. But who knows, maybe you'll make some good points.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

So are you going to elaborate at all on your theory about sages appearing 'very beautiful and feminine' and the importance of 'emotional intelligence'? What is that all about?

Feminine maybe too strong of a word, but a sage looks very healthy in the face; there is vigor and light in their features. If one has a connection to reality, it changes the features in the face itself in a positive way. An absence of negative emotion, stress, and abuse to the body and mind results in a more radiant appearance.

Personally, I can spot a sinner a mile away because years of emotional facial expressions leaves a imprint on the face that is all too telling.

So negative psychological karma has a negative affect on the development of the facial features.

Perhaps some sages exhibit this sort of phenomenon more than others, but it is something to consider….

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Funny, only last month you were asserting that these were the sorts of girls we should be breeding for.

Not the same type of woman. I was suggesting that women who are not attached to one man, and do not fall in love with one man, or base all their hopes and dreams on keeping one man happy have less conditioning. And they are less opinionated and emotional in a certain way.

Seems like a fairly tale to me. Porn stars may have sex with many people for a living, but I believe they are all known for wanting and having boyfriends.

And again, that you would like to employ genetic engineering to give continuity to recreational sex doesn't speak well of your character.

The downfall of conservative women is that their minds are rather petty, and they are judgmental in a very instinctive way.

It's amusing how you're still taking this idea seriously.

They turn their noses up at women who do not dedicate themselves to one man, whereas polygamous women are not all that judgmental in the same sort of way.

So have you identified any of these holy grail polygamous women? Who are you talking about? I can only imagine the lonliest, most low grade, trashiest porn star who no man in his right mind wants anything to do with other than sex. Sorry, what value is she supposed to have? Doesn't their beauty enfeeble the minds of men?

It seems like there is less genetic conditioning, and less knee-jerk emotional responses to those who contradict their animal values.

I think a lot of them are mothers with an instinct telling them that excessive sexuality is bad on their sons character.

It is a crude type of animal conditioning that conservative women have, it maybe better for the species as a whole, but not for the individual woman. it depends on how you examine it.

And so we should genetically breed for women who care more about gratifying their individual bodies as opposed to people who are concerned about the species as a whole?

I don't think your mother appears very masculine or behaves in a particularly masculine way.

Its very relative, she has a certain emotional robustness that many women lack.

Didn't you say she breaks down in tears whenever you talk about moving out? Doesn't sound very robust to me.

She is much tougher than even her sisters, who all have emotional problems, weight problems, and so on. My mother has a bit of intuitive grit. Maybe it is of genetic significance, maybe not. It is just a theory that I'm proposing....

I think it's another one of your cartoonish attempts at bolstering your ego, rather than attacking it. It's my impression over the years that because you hardly have the initiative to criticize yourself, you rely on others to do prod you along.

Being someone who has associated with you over the years, I can recall spending more time criticizing your cartoon-like, highly self-aggrandizing ideas more than being enlightened by you.

And I have criticized your many flaws as well

Not nearly as often. The reason why is that I'm really hard on myself. Whereas, you are incredibly easy on yourself, sometimes bordering on congratulatory. I'm aware of corrupt tendencies in myself and attack them, in the meantime, I often find you obliviously promoting these very tendencies, which makes it easy for me to call you out for needless self aggrandizing personal talk, your personal stories of sexcapades, loony far fetched ideas, etc.

It was only a few months ago that you were encouraging me to let you replace Adam in the shattered eagles

It was just a funny thing to do, not an actual career pursuit.

I thought some of the songs were funny, some were quite absurd you must admit…

I actually doubt that you didn't have profit on your mind, but even if you didn't, that doesn't mean you shouldn't value being original, rather than imitating others.

These things I understood, but my brain was still highly conditioned with networks of contradicting and emotionally motivated thoughts, and being in contact with you did help to break a lot of it down, and I’m grateful that are paths crossed, as you are one of the more honest philosophers I know of.

I don't know any philosophers outside of the internet. I know you, but I can't say I really see you as someone with a very consistent, clear and respectable outlook.

However I still believe that the genetic foundation is primary because without it, the environmental influences are ineffective.

This is poor logic. Without environment, genetics would be impossible and vice versa.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

So are you going to elaborate at all on your theory about sages appearing 'very beautiful and feminine' and the importance of 'emotional intelligence'? What is that all about?

Feminine maybe too strong of a word, but a sage looks very healthy in the face there is vigor and light in their features.

If one has a connection to reality, it changes the features in the face itself in a positive way. An absence of negative emotion, stress, and abuse to the body and mind results in a more radiant appearance. Personally, I can spot a sinner a mile away because years of emotional facial expressions leaves an imprint on the face that is all too telling. So negative psychological karma has a negative affect on the development of the facial features. Perhaps some sages exhibit this sort of phenomenon more than others, but it is something to consider….

This really has nothing to do with being a sage. Any person who exercises and eats healthy is going to have a healthy appearance.

So are you going to elaborate on what emotional intelligence is?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

And again, that you would like to employ genetic engineering to give continuity to recreational sex doesn't speak well of your character.

Females with less ‘conservative’ conditioning will be less likely to want to dedicate themselves to one man, and therefore comfortable being on their own. This genetic configuration maybe more suitable for producing independent women that don’t feel they need one man to make them happy. And having sex with these types of women wouldn’t cause any attachment, sorrow or anything because it would be forgotten afterwards. That is if we will still maintain our sex drive, it might be necessary for the sex hormones. You are so uptight about this issue, I think you need to whip out your penis and give it a little yank there bud.

And so we should genetically breed for women who care more about gratifying their individual bodies as opposed to people who are concerned about the species as a whole?

I just think male/female reproduction is going out the window, and we should be looking at certain unique genes in women that will allow them to be more independent.

Didn't you say she breaks down in tears whenever you talk about moving out?

Relatively she still is robust, she is more reasonable in argument than my father.

It's my impression over the years that because you hardly have the initiative to criticize yourself.

GF has been an adequate mirror as of late.

Not nearly as often. The reason why is that I'm really hard on myself.

Your subjective way of measuring is not accurate, you are not aware of what I’m aware of, you forget that you’re a talker, and I’m a listener. And I usually don’t criticize, I let things go.

You’re attempts to get one up on me are vain.

I don't know any philosophers outside of the internet. I know you, but I can't say I really see you as someone with a very consistent, clear and respectable outlook.

You are mistaken, you think you are in a position to judge based on a few of my opinions, opinions are just that, but that has no bearing to the quality of subjectivity I exhibit, you have no way of knowing at this stage.

This is poor logic. Without environment, genetics would be impossible and vice versa.

Why isn’t Kasha a sage? Because genetics are primary, you cannot deny that.

So are you going to elaborate on what emotional intelligence is?

Emotional intelligence is the ability to take criticism without feeling anything.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

And again, that you would like to employ genetic engineering to give continuity to recreational sex doesn't speak well of your character.

Females with less ‘conservative’ conditioning will be less likely to want to dedicate themselves to one man, and therefore comfortable being on their own. This genetic configuration maybe more suitable for producing independent women that don’t feel they need one man to make them happy.

If you're going to employ genetic engineering, it's just a matter of masculinizing the female to be more manly, less sexual, yet retain her reproductive faculties. It's not that I'm uptight, I just think the solution is pretty obvious, and find it a bit silly how you can't see it.

And so we should genetically breed for women who care more about gratifying their individual bodies as opposed to people who are concerned about the species as a whole?

I just think male/female reproduction is going out the window, and we should be looking at certain unique genes in women that will allow them to be more independent.

That's quite a different argument than engineering them to be like porn stars.

Didn't you say she breaks down in tears whenever you talk about moving out?

Relatively she still is robust, she is more reasonable in argument than my father.

You're father likely apprehends what you're saying, that's why he gets upset. You're mother, like most women, just absorbs the information without really fathoming its meaning, nodding her head sympathetically. They don't have any sense of responsibility or justice, so nothing bothers them. My mother's the same way. She can tolerate just about anything, but that's only because nothing really means anything. As long as her boy is fed, healthy, alive and hers, that's all that matters. Father's are actually somewhat conscious.

You’re attempts to get one up on me are vain.

I believe your thread is vain and silly, and I'm attacking your vanity. I agree with Rowden, you need to grow up and drop the nonesense.

This is poor logic. Without environment, genetics would be impossible and vice versa.

Why isn’t Kasha a sage? Because genetics are primary, you cannot deny that.

Ok, I see what you mean now. Yes, it's true that most women likely have an innate lack of ability to think, that's pretty well established though. My problem however is with your original post - you seem to be providing ridiculous reasons for why you have the genes of a sage.

How about you be a man and actually start concerning yourself with your flaws? No, not flaws like 'racism' as you've said before. It's obvious that you actually see that as a virtue.

So are you going to elaborate on what emotional intelligence is?

Emotional intelligence is the ability to take criticism without feeling anything.

Given that emotional intelligence is already a common term, I'm not sure why you think such a term is suited for your definition.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

it's just a matter of masculinizing the female to be more manly.

And this may entail manipulating hundreds of genes in order to be her more masculine.

I believe your thread is vain and silly, and I'm attacking your vanity. I agree with Rowden, you need to grow up and drop the nonesense.

Its not nonsense. Anyone that possesses any degree of consciousness should be studied at the genetic level, that is probably going to prove much more productive for the species than philosophical booklets, that only a minority will ever be able to understand.

You're mother, like all women, just absorbs the information without really fathoming its meaning, nodding her head sympathetically.

She’s able to be more reasonable than him in certain arguments, when he negates an entire industry, and she corrects him pointing out the more positive aspects.

How about you be a man and actually start concerning yourself with your flaws? No, not flaws like 'racism' as you've said before. It's obvious that you actually see that as a virtue.

To see the inferiority of women as related to enlightenment is not misogyny, so how is seeing the inferiority of the black race related to enlightenment a form of racism? It is only taking the value judgment one step further.

Given that emotional intelligence is already a common term, I'm not sure why you think such a term is suited for your definition.

A term can be whatever you want it to be as long as it is reasonable. A person’s definitions shouldn’t be constrained by societies common terms. Many times, common terms are very ambiguous, and they fail to define things through the context of enlightenment.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

To see the inferiority of women as related to enlightenment is not misogyny, so how is seeing the inferiority of the black race related to enlightenment a form of racism? It is only taking the value judgment one step further.

It is the same line of "reasoning." How about this one - Would you consider it nationalism to note that there have been no great Canadian philosophers, and conclude that Canadians are inferior as related to enlightenment?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

It is the same line of "reasoning." How about this one - Would you consider it nationalism to note that there have been no great Canadian philosophers, and conclude that Canadians are inferior as related to enlightenment?

‘Canadian’ is just a geographical pointer, it doesn’t point to any significant genetic differences. For instance: Canadians are of all different races, and each of those races have unique differences. Some of those differences increase the chances of an enlightened individual, while some decrease.

For instance: Historically, there have been sages who have been White, Indian and Asian, but there no recorded accounts for blacks, Arabs or Women. Statistics is a fairly safe indication that these groups should have certain genetic barriers that make it more difficult for them to be enlightened.

However, It could be as easy as switching a few hundred genes on or off to fix the problem, or at least give them the same probability of becoming enlightened, that is if the environmental pressure cannot do it, but I'm sure we will develop the technology must faster than the environment can alter these imperfections.

It is the destiny of humanity to be the conscious manipulators of our own blueprints. But, before that can happen, there needs to be at least a collective agreement that there are racial and gender differences that make it more difficult to achieve enlightenment.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

it's just a matter of masculinizing the female to be more manly.

And this may entail manipulating hundreds of genes in order to be her more masculine.

I think it would be a bit simpler than engineering a sexual attractive women who didn't want any attachment relationships. Do you have any examples of such a woman? But again, like I said, the desire to preserve excessive sexual excitement makes no sense.

I believe your thread is vain and silly, and I'm attacking your vanity. I agree with Rowden, you need to grow up and drop the nonesense.

Its not nonsense. Anyone that possesses any degree of consciousness should be studied at the genetic level

So what were you doing in your first post, offering yourself via genius forum to the scientists so you can be studied at the genetic level?

that is probably going to prove much more productive for the species than philosophical booklets, that only a minority will ever be able to understand.

So when do you think we'll have the technology to breed sages? During your lifetime?

You're mother, like all women, just absorbs the information without really fathoming its meaning, nodding her head sympathetically.

She’s able to be more reasonable than him in certain arguments, when he negates an entire industry, and she corrects him pointing out the more positive aspects.

You are talking about debates of good and evil. My mother takes my side on such debates all the time - usually because the side I'm arguing, without the women philosophy, renders notions of good and evil ambiguous, and leaves things uncertain and hard to grasp. Once she sees what me and my father are arguing about, she usually takes my side. This is because men need a clear sense of good and evil, where women are less inclined to care. You father has this sense of good and evil to help him make it through the day, and because you're not giving him a new sense of good and evil, but are only attacking his current values, you are leaving him in a hopeless, meaningless situation. Your mother on the other hand, like most women, has no problem with ambiguity and meaninglessness. Their well being comes from having a family, and when it comes to matter of knowledge and justice, they don't care much.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ryan,

But it would be nationalism to say that - just as it is racism to say that some races are inferior in their ability to become enlightened, and it is misogyny to say that women are inferior to men in ability to become enlightened.

Canadians are of all different races, and each of those races have unique differences. Some of those differences increase the chances of an enlightened individual, while some decrease.

Without genetic evidence, that is just conjecture.

For instance: Historically, there have been sages who have been White, Indian and Asian, but there no recorded accounts for blacks, Arabs or Women. Statistics is a fairly safe indication that these groups should have certain genetic barriers that make it more difficult for them to be enlightened.

Do you believe that Jesus was white, Indian, or Asian?

[Cory Duchesne]

Your subjective way of measuring is not accurate, you are not aware of what I’m aware of, you forget that you’re a talker, and I’m a listener.

Oh yeah, I forgot - I'm a 'talker.'

Honestly, do you really think such labels are sensible?

I talk when I believe it's edifying to do so, and listen when I believe it's important to listen.

For instance, how many times have I listened to you tell me your 'left-handness' is what causes your philosophical ability? Many, many times. And how many times have I dismissed the insinuation as nonesense? Just as many.

You say you value wisdom above all else, but my impression has been that you primarily value insinuating to yourself and certain others that you are most superior. That's why the opening of your post wasn't just an impersonal inquiry into the factors needed to create an advanced being - - it was a personal exhibition of what you believe is your specialness.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Do you have any examples of such a woman? But again, like I said, the desire to preserve excessive sexual excitement makes no sense.

You’re not thinking of the context. If she has a masculine brain due to genetic engineering, she won’t value sexual gratification to the same degree as when she was a pornstar because she’ll be capable of a deeper intellectual life. However, to deny the sexual drive altogether could cause trouble, we don’t know enough yet…

offering yourself via genius forum to the scientists so you can be studied at the genetic level?

I wanted to explore the relationship between genetic inheritance and potential for enlightenment, using myself and others as examples because I do consider myself conscious to a certain degree.

So when do you think we'll have the technology to breed sages? During your lifetime?

Perhaps. It is difficult to know, technology has come so far in the last century alone, and now many more countries have elaborate research faculties at their universities. The human genome has already been mapped, and they have started to give rich people their genetic printout at the right price. Within a few years, the price will come down, and it will become more accessible to get access to your own genetic printout. Meanwhile, hundreds or perhaps even thousands of geneticists and medical researchers are working tediously around the clock to figure out what each gene’s function is.

Meanwhile robotics and nanotechnology companies in Japan and the US are progressing at lightning speeds in conjunction with the speed in which bioengineering is progressing. Basically, I believe it will be sooner than later.

This is because men need a clear sense of good and evil, where women are less inclined to care

She does care about certain issues though, she has a more intuitive drive for morality, as it applies to her role as a family member. She is mostly concerned with issues that apply directly to her like the right nutrition, the right medicine, and so on. These are all moral issues that women can be very concerned with for family reasons. Many women have the intuitive understanding that to prevent suffering for everyone is a good thing.

You say you value wisdom above all else, but my impression has been that you primarily value insinuating to yourself and certain others that you are most superior. That's why the opening of your post wasn't just an impersonal inquiry into the factors needed to create an advanced being - - it was a personal exhibition of what you believe is your specialness.

But a conscious being is superior to a non-conscious being, so I don’t see a problem with asserting so, one needs to have a bit of confidence at sometime, and speak as if they are an authority, and not a wishy washy sinner, who is hurting because of how imperfect he is.

Here is the reasoning - looking around at the world, most humans do not possess the degree of intelligence that I do, it is not a special thing, it is just a fact. Now, there must be genetic factors, and reasons as to why this is the case.

Speculating on the possible causes at a deeper physiological level seems to be just as important as writing philosophical work...

Bringing up the left-handedness claim is just a theory, there have been studies that have shown that left-handed people are more artistic, contemplative, introverted and all the rest. It has something to do with the hemisphere’s switching functions. There are a myriad of factors that explain the phenomenon of each person, an infinite number of causes. Why not propose them?

Elizabeth wrote:

Do you believe that Jesus was white, Indian, or Asian?

He was probably of one of the whiter races based on the historical records.