Should Chavs Be Sterilized?

[Rog]

The argument that it goes against evolution to help those who wouldn't survive without help doesn't stand. We've evolved into people who have the means and desire to help others, and to deny that would equally go against evolution.

 

We HAVE evolved to help others ---- but in our own populations.

 

It all fails when we let the same altruism that is a key aspect of OUR evolved and civilised populations impinge on less evolved and less civilised populations who do NOT have that characteristic. A characteristic that probably emerged as survival success trait as the populations that we are a part of evolved in the less naturally benign environment that they did.

 

It’s the change that has been brought about by the transport revolution that causes our desire to help each other in which communal survival was (and is) a success criteria to crash against populations in which individual selfish survival is a success criteria.

 

It is this mismatch that is resulting in populations that should be either evolving or failing instead being suspended in an artificially supported existence.

 

I know it must jar against the sensitivities of people to even contemplate letting another population fail but look at what the decades of support that has gone into Africa has achieved. The same people still whinging on about wanting help in spite of help being poured in for decades ---- and wasted.

 

Or diverted by innate (and arguably genetic) selfishness by individuals to be spent on luxury items or salted away in foreign banks. And the countries that were given independence having inherited functional and profitable industry, functional and well equipped infrastructures, and civilised social structures in place, simply let them decay into ruin.

 

A case of less aid being of far more help in the longer term.

 

Is evolution always genetic? Perhaps not. Maybe there is such a thing as social evolution based not on genes but oin memes. It’s a thought.

 

Will evolution always run its course? As long as it is not interrupted by the protection of populations who no longer fit the environment it will.

 

Do I think in terms of a ‘master race’? No. Not at all, simply that races match environments, some are better in some environments than others. None are ‘better’ as an absolute.

[Lonan3]

It all fails when we let the same altruism that is a key aspect of OUR evolved and civilised populations impinge on less evolved and less civilised populations who do NOT have that characteristic.

 

1. Your posts clearly reveal that you belong to the 'less civilised populations who do NOT have that characteristic.'

2. Read Jared Diamond: Collapse - How civilizations choose to succeed or fail.

3. Report back.

4. Don't hurry.

[bankholiday]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

[Lonan3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

 

"...There are a large number of synonyms and regional variations of "chav", including "scally", "townie", "ned", "kev", "sket", "yarco", "dobber", "Mallie"[6], "Meader"[7].

 

Really?

[bozz]

Chavs shouldn't be sterilised, they should just be shot on sight. Same with art critics.

[Chinahand]

We HAVE evolved to help others ---- but in our own populations.

Typical misdirection - in evolutionary terms the human population is basically genetically identical - from bushman, to Oz aboriginals to caucasians, to ashkenazi. You would like their to be an evolutionary difference to justify your sociological biases - sorry it doesn't exist.

 

It all fails when we let the same altruism that is a key aspect of OUR evolved and civilised populations impinge on less evolved and less civilised populations who do NOT have that characteristic. A characteristic that probably emerged as survival success trait as the populations that we are a part of evolved in the less naturally benign environment that they did.

 

But this type of evolution isn't darwinian - its lamarkian - ie you are not condemed by your genes, you inherit learned characteristic - your so called "less evolved" characteristics are learnt and not determined. Take a baby from an intellectual ashkenazi family and have a load of neo nazi's raise him - you more than likely [apart from typical meme drift that occurs in any close community] get a neo nazi not a jewish intellectual.

I know it must jar against the sensitivities of people to even contemplate letting another population fail but look at what the decades of support that has gone into Africa has achieved. The same people still whinging on about wanting help in spite of help being poured in for decades ---- and wasted.

And really Rog doesn't it jar your sensitivities - you are talking about the destruction of a people, if you want to talk about the development (or you'll say destruction) of their society into something more self sustaining fine - but that doesn't involve sterilizations or cattletrucks - you continually attack the person and not the society that person is inculcated in.

 

Your social determinism has very little basis in science and I believe is very much down to your political views.

Will evolution always run its course? As long as it is not interrupted by the protection of populations who no longer fit the environment it will.

 

Do I think in terms of a ‘master race’? No. Not at all, simply that races match environments, some are better in some environments than others. None are ‘better’ as an absolute.

 

But what do you mean by evolution - a certain group of people used to live in a desert, had massively high mortality and hence birthrates, only slowly developed technology and were regarded as uneducated, superstitious and technically and organizationally backward - by the Romans.

 

These people learn from the people around them - in a complex and recursive manner - their society evolves over a long period of time - they now have one of the most successful societies on earth.

 

To say a particular african tribe is incapable of doing this and so should be left to starve is the attitude of a bigot and someone who seems not to have an ounce of humanity.

 

Rog, you seem very proud of having this attitude - makes you seem to be a very little individual.

[Rog]

Quote Chinahand ---

Typical misdirection - in evolutionary terms the human population is basically genetically identical - from bushman, to Oz aboriginals to caucasians, to ashkenazi. You would like their to be an evolutionary difference to justify your sociological biases - sorry it doesn't exist.

 

Sorry, there ARE genetic differences involved.

 

Quote Chinahand ---

But this type of evolution isn't darwinian - its lamarkian - ie you are not condemed by your genes, you inherit learned characteristic - your so called "less evolved" characteristics are learnt and not determined. Take a baby from an intellectual ashkenazi family and have a load of neo nazi's raise him - you more than likely [apart from typical meme drift that occurs in any close community] get a neo nazi not a jewish intellectual.

 

I disagree. The evolution is Darwinian. The propositions of Lamark were shown to be faulty years ago. The factors that Lamark identified were probably key factors in determining the direction that evolution takes but his principles based on change BY environment were shown to be simply wrong.

 

Quote Chinahand ---

And really Rog doesn't it jar your sensitivities - you are talking about the destruction of a people, if you want to talk about the development (or you'll say destruction) of their society into something more self sustaining fine - but that doesn't involve sterilizations or cattletrucks - you continually attack the person and not the society that person is inculcated in.

 

It does not jar my sensitivities one iota. What I am talking about is letting nature take its course unhindered. If a population have the gene or meme that will let them evolve genetically or memetically, fine.

 

The emerging surviving portion of the population have demonstrated that they have experienced evolution. Those that can not and so fail have cleansed the hives to the benefit of those best fitted to occupy them.

 

In any case it has nothing to do with your quite offensive introduction of the acts on the Nazis and your attempt to compare my opinions with those who wrought so much harm on my people.

 

Quote Chinahand ---

Your social determinism has very little basis in science and I believe is very much down to your political views.

 

That is your opinion. You are wrong.

 

Quote Chinahand ---

But what do you mean by evolution - a certain group of people used to live in a desert, had massively high mortality and hence birthrates, only slowly developed technology and were regarded as uneducated, superstitious and technically and organizationally backward - by the Romans.

 

These people learn from the people around them - in a complex and recursive manner - their society evolves over a long period of time - they now have one of the most successful societies on earth.

 

To say a particular african tribe is incapable of doing this and so should be left to starve is the attitude of a bigot and someone who seems not to have an ounce of humanity.

 

And that is precisely the point. IF, and it is a very big if, that Roman view was correct and they WERE left to their own devices then evolution DID take place.

 

But as to when? There is a school of thought that has it that the forty years schlepping from Egypt to Canaan was a deliberate policy to weed out the weak and misfits.

 

If an African tribe can do the same then they should be left to do that and not hindered from advancing by the provision of hand outs. Hand outs prevent the sieve of evolution from working.

 

If members of a primitive tribe can learn from what is taking place around them then fine and good. If they can not, then they have reached the point that if they can no longer survive then they should be let fail. Such is nature.

 

 

Quote Chinahand ---

Rog, you seem very proud of having this attitude - makes you seem to be a very little individual.

 

I am not proud, I simply believe that what is being done today by giving hand outs to people who should be left to change or fail is of no help to them and their kind in the long term. I am by no means alone in that view.

 

Whenever I see some pot bellied snot faced whinging black kid on an advert by some self serving group who are trying to make themselves feel ‘valued’ by doing something ‘good’ to help the worlds poor I think of the self same pot bellied snot faced whinging black kids in villages that I have visited or past through during the course of my work over the years on the occasions when I have had no alternative other than work in Africa.

 

And of the men lounging around drinking beer and interminably smoking cigarettes, of the number of AK47’s, RPG launchers proudly carried as a mark of ‘manhood’ or stacked nearby.

 

Of the broken down trucks, run into the ground because the ‘owner’ couldn’t be bothered to check the oil. Owners who had more than often ‘bought’ the truck by the ‘popping of a cap’ on a previous owner.

 

And the women, doing the very basic work they needed to in order to prevent their knuckle dragging ‘husbands; from beating them. Or other women lying drunk in any shelter that they could be bothered to find.

 

Of wells with pumps that had been broken and never repaired, nor from lack of cash but from laziness.

 

And so much more.

 

Then the cities where some much of the ‘aid’ gets filtered out and re-exported if there is a market for it somewhere else. Or where aid cash is ‘taxed’ as closely to 100% as the ‘taxation’ person can get away with.

 

If people really wanted to reallyhelp then the answer is stark, simple, and sad to say can never be done. Recolonise and provide an environment in which the people can thrive ---- or step away and let nature sort out the mess.

[Chinahand]

Rog, you do not understand the inheritance of aquired characteristics - Darwinism says these can only be inherited if they are in the gene line. Lamarkism says they can be.

 

Lamarkism does not occur in population genetics (his hopeful monsters have been rejected by genetic science and Lamarkism is not a major area of study in the evolution of DNA based life - unless you want to start discussing the role of junk dna and mitochondria at levels too advanced for me!) But that doesn't mean that Lamarkism cannot occur at another level - the evolution of an idea or a society. IE You are getting your hardware and software mixed up!

 

When you are talking about the evolution of a meme that meme can be subject to alteration directly by the person involved - they can whislte a tune differently - and other people can like it and start humming that tune too - in population genetics the animal cannot pass on a useful adaption unless that adaption is within its gene line.

 

This is precisely where Lamarkism fails in the evolution of populations and works in social evolution - both are evolutionary theories - they just have different mechanisms that allow them to pass on their adaptions - mutations that can only be inherited in a gene line vrs mutations that are directly inherited.

 

Can I just check - you insist that these people are congenitally incapable of learning and altering their social dynamics? And hence will die out, or bugger up the worlds gene pool. You do realize this makes you sound like a real fascist - and when coupled with your totally unsympathetic descriptions of children mired in poverty that impression is further increased - suffer the little children - oh of course you reject that philosophy.

 

It is "genetic" that makes these people responsible for their poverty and plight. No matter what you do educating, providing better systems of governance, and aleviating poverty they are a lost cause and so should be abandoned - helping them is in fact hindering them. They cannot inherit a better meme - via Lamarkian evolution and education.

 

Then why do people from such populations when removed from this environment due to asylum etc suddenly change - Somali jews, Sudanese exiles. Is it really all nature and no nurture?

 

Rog, you are such a determinist - while the triumph of humanity is being able to use our brains to alter our environment and hence our future.

[Rog]

Chinahand --- Rog, you do not understand the inheritance of aquired characteristics - Darwinism says these can only be inherited if they are in the gene line. Lamarkism says they can be.

 

Not so.

 

Apart from the fact that, the Lamark theory us based on observing effect and confusing it with ‘cause’ - the Darwin model of evolution is based on survival of the best fit.

 

The evolution of a best fit generally comes about as a result of a slight mutation resulting in a trait that is at times superior to the normal. It is in precisely that way that populations change to best fit the environment resulting in – evolution of species. The Galapagos Finch is the example most cited in this respect.

 

Chinahand --- Lamarkism does not occur in population genetics (his hopeful monsters have been rejected by genetic science and Lamarkism is not a major area of study in the evolution of DNA based life - unless you want to start discussing the role of junk dna and mitochondria at levels too advanced for me!) But that doesn't mean that Lamarkism cannot occur at another level - the evolution of an idea or a society. IE You are getting your hardware and software mixed up!

 

When you are talking about the evolution of a meme that meme can be subject to alteration directly by the person involved - they can whislte a tune differently - and other people can like it and start humming that tune too - in population genetics the animal cannot pass on a useful adaption unless that adaption is within its gene line.

 

I don’t think you understand the principle of the successfully mutated gene. However I totally agree in respect of whistling a different tune, but on the other hand - a hard meme can and does affect the manner in which an population responds to its environment.

 

Early colonists of the US are a classic example where they refused to ‘eat like the locals’ and as in Jamestown the population perished in part as a result.

Even in desperate need I would not eat an insect or human flesh. As a result if that was all that was too hand my hard meme would result in my death.

 

Chinahand --- Can I just check - you insist that these people are congenitally incapable of learning and altering their social dynamics? And hence will die out, or bugger up the worlds gene pool. You do realize this makes you sound like a real fascist - and when coupled with your totally unsympathetic descriptions of children mired in poverty that impression is further increased - suffer the little children - oh of course you reject that philosophy.

 

What I claim is that there are populations who have genetic strengths that are incompatible with a changing environment. As such the population must change by the sieve of evolution one way or another.

 

To interfere with that process may feel nice but is morally wrong as it inhibits the change in the population that will allow it to evolve into one with the characteristics that are compatible with the changing environment.

 

Chinahand --- It is "genetic" that makes these people responsible for their poverty and plight. No matter what you do educating, providing better systems of governance, and aleviating poverty they are a lost cause and so should be abandoned - helping them is in fact hindering them. They cannot inherit a better meme - via Lamarkian evolution and education.

 

Be it nature or nurture such populations have a choice – change or fail. To interfere with that process is wrong.

 

To assist the change – that is another matter altogether, but where that assistance has been given especially in the form of handing on viable economies and infrastructures only for tribalism to replace civilisation such as is so evident in countries such as Rhodesia Nigeria and in South Africa where since independence the places have gone to the dogs, things, especially including ongoing external aid, need to be reviewed.

 

Then why do people from such populations when removed from this environment due to asylum etc suddenly change - Somali jews, Sudanese exiles. Is it really all nature and no nurture?

 

Have you seen what so many of the Sudanese and worse yet the Somalis, (not the Jews, they are a separate race but the non-Jewish Somalis) get up to in London and other places that they inhabit after having burglarised their way like the common criminals that they by definition are through border controls?

 

Or ever considered that the unrepresentative numbers of these and other foreigners from some parts of the world in the prisons and lunatic asylums may actually be due to the need for them to be there not out of racism but because the can not fit easy into our way of life?

 

Or even that we have no responsibility whatsoever for them let alone doing a damm thing about the nation that they originate from being a crap hole, and that they should be sent back there to change it or live with what they have created. Charity starts – and should remain – at home.

 

Chinahand --- Rog, you are such a determinist - while the triumph of humanity is being able to use our brains to alter our environment and hence our future.

 

And the point is that our brains are NOT all equal irrespective of our races. Apart from size there is also the matter of genetically impressed instinctive behaviour to consider. There is a limit to what extent nurture can overcome nature after all.

 

Our future depends to a massive extent on retaining what we have created and not giving it away to those who simply hold out their hands yet will not do a thing about helping themselves. Preaching about ‘all one people’ and ‘all being equal’ is balderdash. It’s a socialist scared cow that is long past its appointment date for slaughter.

 

This could go on and on as heart are is a divergent interpretation of what can be observed. It’s almost like McGregor and his ‘Theory X / Theory Y model’ regarding motivation. (I’m an absolute ‘Theory X supporter myself!)

 

A –

 

* All of humanity is equal.

* All ways-of-life aka ‘cultures’ are equal

* A carved bit of wood has the same value as an item of advanced

technology

* Race does not include genetically impressed behavioural traits

* The well of have a duty in all cases to share with the poor

* People whose lives are at risk because of their life choices should

Always be provided with aid.

* If a population is failing due to a changed environment it should be

sent aid in order for it to survive.

* The poor are entitled to state assistance to live as well as the well

off.

 

B –

 

* All of humanity is NOT equal.

* All ways-of-life aka ‘cultures’ are NOT equal

* A carved bit of wood does NOT have the same value as an item of

advanced technology

* Race DOES include genetically impressed behavioural traits

* The well of have NO duty in all cases to share with the poor

* People whose lives are at risk because of their life choices should

NOT always be provided with aid.

* If a population is failing due to a changed environment it should

NOT be sent aid in order for it to survive.

* The poor within a population are entitled to state assistance in the

form only of a basic safety net – nothing more.

 

I, and many others who are prepared to ‘think outside of the box’ and put aside mushy sentiment fall into category B. Maybe both viewpoints are needed, I believe that at present set A has far too many supporters who adopt the views that they do out of fear, or ignorance of the harsh facts of real life.

[Cambon]

No, don't sterilize them!

 

Let's take this idea further that these lovely women have and re-introduce gladitorial games for chavs.

 

 

It already happens, it is called the TK Maxx sale!

[grant]

Cambon, stop being so flippant, this is a very serious debate.