Is the Internet making us indifferent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's all well and good, but who decides what "perfect" is? You? Your wife?

---

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Or shall we just let the State (whichever government is in power) determine that for you? Maybe force all citizens to have only children with Conservative tendencies? (Substitute a political party from your own country.)

And do we REQUIRE people to submit to a Eugenics bureau whenever they wish to have children? And destroy any children which are born without the boards stamp of approval? No, that road leads to madness. Let's keep it to the old-fashioned way.

That being said, though, I do agree that there are far too many people who are kept alive artificially, who would not be able to survive on their own, yet are quite capable of having children. This does, indeed, pollute the gene pool, and also places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers. I don't know what the solution could be, though. Forced sterilization is one possible treatment, but one I'm not willing to allow. We again run into the problem of who decides. Do we really want a government bureaucracy to determine whether a person needs to be sterilized? I don't think so!

---

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

---

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

Quote:

---

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

---

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

Quote:

---

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

---

And that is how it WILL happen...again! Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish. But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Interesting facts for sure, Tom.

Ok, so 99% of rapes are committed by 15 -19 year-olds but do 99% of all 15 -19 year-olds commit rape? Age does not, and can not, mitigate this most heinous of crimes. We're civilised human beings not animals acting on our basic instincts, not matter what age we are.

Let me ask you this: Do you think those snotty noised little bastards would think a little longer and harder about committing rape if they knew getting caught would mean they'd, quite literally, have to pay with their balls?

---

Ok, you asked Tom this, but I hope it's okay if I post a few words in response to your question.

While I am in enthusiastic agreement that the crime committed is indeed an atrocity to be dealt with severely, Tom has nailed the heart of the matter to the wall yet again-- the fact that the frontal lobe in these youths has not yet developed fully does explain why they did what they did. This physiological truth doesn't justify the rape in any way. It only tells us why teens can be so uncivilized at times. After all, the basic instinct portion of the brain does develop first.

On the other hand (or hemisphere, in this case), the frontal lobe is the very last region of the brain to develop, and doesn't do so, as Tom said, until the age of 25, give or take. Like any growth pattern, for some it's a bit sooner, for others, later. (Others, maybe never? That's yet to be determined and is a-whole-nother discussion.) Anyway, since the prefrontal circuit of the frontal lobe is the brain's CEO, as it were, its responsibilities are many. This area manages emotional impulses in socially appropriate ways, including empathetic and altruistic behaviors. It organizes responses to complex problems and searches memory for relevant experience. Hence, its incompleteness in teens allows for an alarming lack of ability to behave properly in most any given social situation.

So to answer your question, no, these snotty nosed little bastards probably wouldn't think a little longer before raping, even if they knew the dire consequences (and especially not with the mob-mentality mindset these three were sporting). They wouldn't because they simply have not developed the ability to do so yet. Oh sure, they'd cry and beg for mercy if handed down a sentence of castration, because the part of the brain that processes that fearful information,the amygdala, develops in early childhood. But telling these yet-to-be-refined-frontal-lobed teens beforehand that castration would be the end result of their behavior wouldn't be much of a deterrent. In fact, most times out of 10, they'd still go ahead with the improper act. It shouldn't make sense, but given the brain information we have, it actually does.

It shouldn't absolve them of the ramifications of said acts, however, despite what a few radicals are trying to propose. It merely points out the great need to keep a close watch on what teens are doing. Even at eighteen, they just aren't ready to be cut loose and left to fend and decide for themselves. At that age, however, they are quite ready to be guided and instructed by competent and caring adults that wants to assist in training that developing brain. Sadly, that's not happening too much. I have my opinions on why that is, but no real answers.

Maybe this indifference to our youth explains why the rape video was viewed 600 times before one lone soul came along to report it. One too many generations of people erroneously believing that because a teen can drive, said youth is ready to face the world and everything in it may just be the answer to this query of yours, Alex. Maybe we aren't so apathetic to the sexual violence we come across. Maybe it's that we're a bit too indifferent (or too busy or too distracted or too unconcerned...too uninformed, perhaps?) to the developing needs of the youth in our lives, and we're allowing them to go out into the big, bad world before they're ready, despite what teens believe and what adults want to conveniently think?

Maybe. It's just a thought.

:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

---

Why would the state step in? Parenthood is such a strong instinct, that I think regulation would be irrelevant. Even if they'd tried, nothing would change. Like it is with prostitution. The regulation doesn't change the behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

---

Since the brightest minds today are debating this, I doubt we'll sort it out in this thread. It'll be interesting. But it doesn't really enter into the equation. If instincts can be modified with genetic engineering, we will. If not, we won't. The important thing to keep in mind is all the time, that the government would be powerless to regulate it. All it needs is one liberal country in the world, and then everybody would go there to have their babies designed. And we can be pretty sure that South Korea will never relinquish it's ultra liberal stance on this for any foreseeable future. Compare it to the abortion debate. In countries where abortion where regulated, the rich went abroad. Only the absolute poorest are ever impacted by the regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

And that is how it WILL happen...again!

---

I'll believe it when I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish.

---

I agree, and that is why I like democracy. All extreme governmental systems are kept best in check in the open where they can be easily compared and evaluated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

---

Probably. But then again. Aren't they guilty of the most vile human rights abuses already? How can it get any worse? Wouldn't this just be another in a long list? The Chinese might engineer their perfect communist citizen who isn't actually a greedy bastard, like the rest of us :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tessa

Maybe it's that we're a bit too indifferent (or too busy or too distracted or too unconcerned...too uninformed, perhaps?) to the developing needs of the youth in our lives, and we're allowing them to go out into the big, bad world before they're ready, despite what teens believe and what adults want to conveniently think?

Maybe. It's just a thought.
:wave:

---

Thanks for this informed back up. Who's ever ready for life? Every time I think I'm on top of things, it hits me in the face :) I pay my bills. It's a humble goal in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Thanks for this informed back up.

---

You don't need any back up ever, but thanks for saying it was informed.

:wave: