[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Blondes To Go Extinct In 200 Years Blondes To Go Extinct In 200 Years "raw dogma" by Nkrumah Steward, creator of http://8BM.com I got to thinking. Yeah, you know you are in trouble when that starts happening. German researchers predict that by 2202 natural blondes will be extinct from the planet. The last natural blonde they predict will be born somewhere in Finland in 2202. Apparently there are so few natural blonde haired, blue eyed people walking around that there aren’t enough people with the gene to keep passing on the recessive gene. I didn’t know this but in order for a child to have natural blonde hair, it must have the gene on both sides of the family in the grandparents' generation. Well this got me thinking. I am sure that by 2202, at the rate that we are making scientific breakthroughs, designing children will be common place. We will be flipping on and off genes in our unborn children like light switches. With people literally designing their own children before they are born will blondes really go the way of the dodo bird? If we can design our children, as in actually determine whether or not they will have brown eyes or blue eyes, be tall or short, have straight teeth or big hands, then won’t we also be able to turn off certain genes that make us prone to certain hereditary diseases? And if that is a real life practical benefit that comes with designing our children, wouldn’t it be unethical to have children naturally at that point? I know this sounds weird but wouldn’t it be kind cruel to have a child without tinkering about with the genes and whatnot? I mean if you could spare your children a real health problem that runs in your family like hyper tension or heart disease wouldn’t it be the moral choice to do so? I am not saying make it illegal to have a kid naturally, but if you can spare them preventable hereditary diseases, why not? What do you have against sparing your kid from losing a big toe to diabetes by the time he is 12? If you are the type of person that doesn’t like to make decisions without thinking about how it will impact your pocket book consider this. I am sure insurance premiums would be less for children that had certain hereditary diseases “turned off” than insuring children that did not. They would be less of an insurance risk wouldn’t they? And I am sure the Jesus freak would pop his head out of the ground long enough to tell us that it is wrong to design your children, not that the Bible would have anything to say about this issue seeing that biogenetic engineering wasn’t quite around when the Bible was written and all of its principle characters were dictating the word of God. Who incidentally didn’t offer an opinion on anything that didn't concern them at the time. And considering that they still thought that sacrifcing goats was the way to God's heart I seriously doubt they were interested in God's take on biogentic engeering. But I am sure they wouldn’t let that stop them from saying that only God should determine what a kid should look like and what diseases he or she should be prone to get. But God isn’t doing that now. That isn’t his job. The only person that thinks that God is the one who determines if your kid is born with your eyes or your wife’s eyes probably would say that water didn’t refract light either until God decided to leave us a rainbow as a nice reminder that he promises not to try to drown us all to death again like he did during the Great deluge. In fact, saying that God is the one making those determinations for us is speaking from ignorance. Genetics are making those determinations for us, not God. If God was making those determinations then tweaking a gene here or there wouldn’t be doing anyone any bit of good. In fact, we wouldn’t know anything from studying genetics because God would be making things up as he went along. Sometimes black people would have Asian looking kids sometimes they wouldn’t. Whether or not your kid came out looking like the mailman would be “purely coincidental” like it says in movie disclaimers. But that isn’t the case is it? Polygamy and incest happy Utahans are knee deep in rare and bizarre deformations and horrific hereditary diseases because genetics determines more about a child’s physical being than God does. You can only screw your brothers and sisters for so long before it shows, if you know what I mean? That’s why I contend that real blondes aren’t going anywhere…even if in the future real blondes are going to be designed whether than decided whom your grand parents are.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
1. Genetic engineering will save the day. 2. There's always hair dye. 3. Unless we increase lifespans by some potent genetics, like the discovery of the aging gene recently, and apply that, why should I give a shit. Will you be here?
#8. To: swarthyguy (#3)
Tell me about it. I've known women who have frosted their roots so many times that the peroxide has soaked into their gray matter. Blonde....straight through the fucking skull.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||