Exactly.

All Raiderfan is doing is attempting to apply a pseudo-socialism in an evironment that is still viewed as competitive. People wouldn't be competing for grades in a socialistic society to begin with. And his suggestion that everyone would just recieve a C on the exam reflects the fact that he's still viewing grades as though they would represent a 'reward' of sorts.

The grade would reflect how well a person did. It wouldln't be viewed as a 'reward' because it would no longer be viewed as a competition. It would simply be viewed as an indiction for how well the person understood the material.

And like Redy suggests, the studends who are clearly getting the material could then help the students who are having problems, and the whole society gains. The students who are doing well are then also gaining experience in helping others.

The problem most people have with socialism is that they can never get out of the competitive mindset so they just see socialism to mean that all their 'competitive efforts' won't be recognized or pay off. But that's still competitive thinking.

You seem to be covertly bitter about this. Can I ask you a personal question? No offence meant at all, just curious. Are you the better half in this couple you described?

Wo-wo-wo-wo-wo, guys. You're on the right track, but the track goes farther than you all seem to think.

A couple goes to get their genes tested. They are told their union of zygotes would produce an unhealthy baby. For sure, or with any degree of probability. Then they don't have only the one option, or one choice: to propagate or not to propagate. With an even more developed DNA science in our possession, they would have more options. We could let the couple propagate and still prevent the bad genes to be passed on. Simply the firtilized egg's DNA needs a little butchering about, you know, splicing protein-segments out of it, or putting in new ones, that would prevent schizophrenia, MS, dwarvism, OCD, Down's syndrome, kleptomania, Lou Gherig's Disease, etc. etc. from getting passed down.

I admit, it will take some time before we get there, but once there, we need not worry about projecting an image of being Nazis or Commies when we let everyone eat and partake in the medical system equally, or else when we say left or right as the stream of hapless fertilized eggs approach us just having got off the trains of sealed wagons. (Sorry. Mom was there.)

I thought I mentioned that earlier in the thread - I've not looked into this in over ten years, so I rather expected we could do this by now. (sigh)



I see you are talking about the issue of equal access, but since you mention Nazis - well, there is still a problem of control and liberty. What if me and my partner think our genes are good enough as they are, and the State Gene Board disagrees?

Some of the coolest people I've known said they were schizophrenic. There seem to be some good qualities of mind that go along with schizophrenia - maybe we can isolate that, but if we can't, I'm not sure that eliminating all instances of schizophrenia would be 'good'.

I’d like to offer an alternative interpretation. I think it is because socialism is contrary to the idea of “personal property”. It is anathema to the idea of striving to achieve personal desires. It makes it seem pointless to strive for anything because any “payoff” would simply be confiscated for use by the collective. It basically says that the individual has no right to the fruits of his own labor.

And I confess that I haven't truly presented the ideas that I truly have in mind. I responded to this political issue in response to a comment that Redy made about genetic techniques must be available to everyone.

I guess I'm not truly suggesting a "pure socialism" that is forced by fascism. In fact, I'm definitely not suggesting that.

I guess what I'm really suggesting is a society that is "based" on socialism, but also allows for free enterprise within "reasonable limits".

I think the problem we have in our society right now is that it's based entirely on capitalism. Companies become monopolies, and a few people become extremely wealthy and powerful (in many cases beyond anything that is even remotely reasonable) and other people become extremely poverty-stricken and oppressed.

How could a program for genetics (or any other healthcare system) expect to work fairly in such a society?

So what I'm suggesting it a "Democratic Socialism". That would be the basis for our economy in general. It wouldn't mean that there couldn't also be free enterprise alongside it in the form of small businesses.

It's the mammoth companies that should be socialized. And especially the banks. But yes, small businesses could still work. There would just be restrictions on how big they could get. And that could even be flexible depending on supply, demand, and how many individuals are interested in running a business.

I mean if you stop and think about it, the way things are right now, it's just fascism in reverse in favor of competition and monolpolies. Really.

I'm actually proposing a balance. Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism, but something where they meet midway. That could work very well I think.

In fact, I'm convinced that we'll never get anywhere until we start heading in a direction of balance. Unrestricted capitalism clearly isn't working.

Do they make any genes to keep people well-balanced?

If there are 154 people in the collective (or N number of people) then the striver earns 1/154 (or 1/N) of the profit.

If close to all 154 in the collective (or all N in the collective) make strivings, then in the overall effect everyone benefits as much as if the personal strivation by each was directly rewarded.

Regarding Capitalism and it's hold on our system of freedom and liberty.

The unfortunate reality is that not everyone begins in the same place, and therefore do not necessarily have the same struggle, if any at all.

Where is the 'reward' in that scenario? What is being rewarded other than birthright?

It's late.

Birthright? Is it in the constitution? "Every American has a right to be born and to be born yet again. This is an inalienable right of every human being like dignity and ooing and awing at Schwartzenegger's upper arms."

I meant the birthright to a massive financial inheritence. How does that fit into the reward system claimed in capitalism?

Yeah, if.

But when was the last time you saw 154 people all producing at exactly – or even close to – the same level? In my 40+ years in the workforce, I don’t believe I’ve ever see three people producing at the same level, much less 154.

Here’s the basic problem:
Let’s say there are 100 workers. Each worker is producing 100 widgets. The widgets sell for 1 dollar. The personal income is 100 dollars per person, or 1 dollar per widget. Now if one of those workers produces 101 widgets, does he get rewarded in ratio to his production? Nope he sure doesn’t. He is actually receiving less per widget than everyone else. Everyone else is profiting more than he is!

And that is the fundamental reason why a purely socialist system will not and cannot ever work. There is no incentive for individuals to increase their own production on a personal level. And without increased production on a personal level, there can be no increased production at the aggregate level. So the entire society stagnates. And because of the nature of entropy, eventually deteriorates and dies.

It doesn't. Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to do with "Birthright".

What does fit in is "ownership rights" - the right of a person to the ownership and control of his personal property. And that ownership and control includes the right to give it to whomever he pleases.

here's the problem: who sets the limits? who decides what's reasonable?

some one, some body, some entity has to decide what that limits is and then to enforce it. This will always tend to fascism.

You point out in earlier posts that people have a misconception or misunderstanding (or however you put it) about socialism because all the examples we have in history involve fascist regimes at the base.

Wonder why that is? I don't. I know, for all that's good and right, that when you limit the extent to which people may achieve success, most limit themselves and are good little subjects while those that don't and aren't get rounded up for re-eduation.

If every example in history shows you the trend, it's foolhardy to ignore it. Or arrogant to think *you* are smart enough to make it work.

and as the previous discussion relates to the OP, (and as it;s been alluded to in other posts in this thread) the collective doesn't benefit from someone having, say, a Down's baby. So the Collective will decide that for it's own benefit all baby's will be screend for down's syndrome (and you know there will be a list of malities that will be considered undesirable) and when one pops positive for the Down's gene (gene sequence), the egg tester will sound the siren and the child bearing momma will be escorted off to some operating room and the child ________. (I'm thinking of the scene from the original Willie Wonka when the rich girl [verruca salt?] turned out to be a bad egg and dropped through the trap door and down to the incenerator)

This scenario is part and parcel to the type of system you're talking about. There's no way around it. Once you decide there are undesireable genes and that ALL need to have access to genetic screening, it's only a tiny step from there to designed reproduction, managed by the State, where some will be permitted to reproduce and others sterilized.

Is that the world you want to live in? Would YOUhave been allowed to be carried to term in that world?

I'll take Liberty, thanks.

i believe if its a bad enough gene and theres a way to prevent it, you should, but its selfish to bring some one into this world any ways, (even though i wantkids)but all thats going to happen is theyre going to grow up and go through good and bad times and die...either way...cant prevent that, and this world brings mostly only pain anyways... but if you can prevent it, if its known to run in your family like skitzoprhenia in mine, then you should, cause i know i want to make sure my child isnt born with such "issues" idk what else to say i havnt readeverything in here so i dont know enough to really speak i just know it would be wrong to reject a baby cause itll have ms or anything else when its 50 years old..

This makes me curious what kind of issues schizophrenic people have. I've only met such people in social settings - so they were the subset of such people who were capable of (and inclined towards) socializing. (And they didn't seem to have any big issues in life, except the prejudice of people who were disconcerted by them.)




It may be wrong to reject such a baby - what what about rejecting the sperm, before it gets to the egg?

This could be it's own topic. Political philosophy.

Every hear of Democracy?

You must have missed that part. I said, "Democratic Socialism".

Your fear of fascism is totally off the mark.

Although maybe not unwarranted. We already live in a society that forces captialism onto everyone.

So it looks like fascism already has a grip on what we thought was democracy.

Besides I'm tending to agree with you after all. It doesn't matter whether we are socialistic or capitalistic we clearly aren't highly evolved enough yet to make either system work very well.

So it's a moot point either way.

But when was the last time you saw 154 people all producing at exactly – or even close to – the same level? In my 40+ years in the workforce, I don’t believe I’ve ever see three people producing at the same level, much less 154.

True, absolutely.

Here’s the basic problem:
Let’s say there are 100 workers. Each worker is producing 100 widgets. The widgets sell for 1 dollar. The personal income is 100 dollars per person, or 1 dollar per widget. Now if one of those workers produces 101 widgets, does he get rewarded in ratio to his production? Nope he sure doesn’t. He is actually receiving less per widget than everyone else. Everyone else is profiting more than he is!

That is true, too.

And that is the fundamental reason why a purely socialist system will not and cannot ever work.

If a "working system" is a "growing system". Socialist economies worked, in their own rights. Socialist economies of Eastern Europe were doomed because of the apparent better (ie. richer) lives in the neighbourhoods in the continent. Socialist systems worked, too, but only as measured with different parameters.

There is no incentive for individuals to increase their own production on a personal level. And without increased production on a personal level, there can be no increased production at the aggregate level. So the entire society stagnates. And because of the nature of entropy, eventually deteriorates and dies.

Aha. Stricktly speaking, not. A stagnating society does not die out. It just keeps on existing, unchanged. A society that shrinks is the one that dies out. And that's what happened to socialist economies in Eastern Europe: They "ate" more than they "produced". The countries existed on loaned monies, and fed the people with an artificially machinated constant increase in life style and real income. Whereas the economies shrank, and these countries produced more per worker in the fifties than in the seventies and eighties. Even with the help of automation in the latter years.

To understand that, you must know that in the fifties a worker could be disciplined harshly for not working hard. He could even be sent to the Gulag for not producing enough or taking too many days off. But the ground was pulled out from under the managers, because in the sixties the economically fatal practice of "worker-cuddly management" style was first popularized, then expected, then made mandatory. Towards the end the unions had such grip on management, that the only recourse a manager could take on a bad worker was to scream at him. And if the worker still picked his azz instead of working the machines, there was no more the manager could do to motivate him.

Hence the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, a bancruptical death.

A society that grows, and its economy grows anongside it, will, incidentally, accelerate entropy. More growth, faster growth, will want to employ more energy, more raw materials, which depletes the supplies more quickly.

The growth of economies in the industrial societies is an illusionary need (as has been shown by countless economist and social scientists). Growth is needed because people produce more and more, and therefore they must consume more and more, each feeding the need of the other and fattening it. This system is in place, and can't be changed without risking an economical crisis due to overproduction. That's one thing. The other is that wanting things is a need in humans; it was a very valid survival tool way back then, and it is actually insatiable, because collecting nuts and berries for the long winter in the ice ages would never be overdone; an ice-age man never could predict how much in food supplies is enough or even too much. So we collect, and when we have sixty billion dollars per person, in case of Bill Gates, the person will still want more. It's not a sickness, a sin or a crime. It is human nature, unshakeable and sticky.

Without joking, it would be nice if we could teach or train eggs to recognize bad sperm; reject bad sperm; and only let in good sperm.

There seems to be a consisten problem by female selectional abilities both in macrobiology and microbiology. Consider what Farrah Facett-Majors said:

"A woman will always be the first one to admit that her husband is the better judge of character of the two of them. That's the first reason they got married."

That woman was a genius, not just a looker.

What if the sperm is fine and the egg is not?