NationStates Jolt Archive

Medicine for STDs like AIDS, or for simple viruses like the flu, are not helping humanity in any way. They are making human immune systems weak and unexercised. Correcting genetic disabilities is also hurting us, as those genes will continue to spread. It's nice to think of a utopia where everyone is always healthy, even if they're not born that way, but the reason we're constantly spending more on medicine is because we keep breeding weaker humans and making the existing ones more succeptible to common illness.

Recently in the US the largest amount of people recorded since it was first introduced died from influenza.

It is apparent that antibacterial soaps, sterile food, and large amounts of chemicaly synthesized substances have made peoples immune systems weak. Since healthy immune systems therefore are being passed on along with weak ones, they're genetically weaker.

This is made worse by the fact that we've sterelized everything to the point where the only exercise the human immune system is getting is the injections one gets at a hospital.

Also, we've eliminated any kind of natural selection. How many people do you see in this day wearing glasses or using contacts? How many is that compared to fifty years ago? The numbers are increasing. Glasses are also getting thicker, because we're not just allowing these into evolution but instead telling evolution that it's a positive trait.

However, this is harder to control in practice. It would be wrong to stifle who someone loves and procreates with. We also can't rightfully abort a fetus with birth defects. So instead I support research that will help us find and eliminate genes that make people weak (bad sight, flat feet, republicanism, love of plaid) by starting out with fruitflies, then mantises, then fish, then rodents, then small monkeys, then apes, and only then with people.

As for this effecting a country's military or econemy, I don't see how a blind soldier or a worker with a low tolerance for virus or bacteria is helpful

~~Dictator John Arlock

You favor brutal eugenics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

You favor brutal eugenics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I think he was instead referencing the as of yet unfeasable and somewhat unpalpitable idea of the genetic alteration of individuals, rather then their removal.

Still Nah lets not.

never vote for this!! Vote against!!!

The Allied States of Saeder Krupp are completely in favor of this, and potentially harsher and less ethical means of cleansing the genetic pool.

Even if we find a cure for todays diseases, don't forget that they mutate and we'll need more research for more cures in the future.

You mean like science?

Genetic alteration? Surely that can't help!

It has been demonstrated, in enough detail and with enough evidence to convince me personally, that many apparent defects are balanced by evolutionary advantages.

As an example - people with red/green colour blindness have better night vision than the normally colour-sighted population. In many cases, dyslexia seems to be counterbalanced by a greater spacial awareness.

It is my contention that with each flaw we "write out" of the human genetic code we may also be editing out a coresponding advantage that we may come to need in the future.

Rather than pursue this dangerous course, wouldn't it make more sense to support alternative research? We do not need to rely on antibiotics when most bacteria have natural predators that are harmless to humans. The UN should sponsor research into Phage technology, providing an alternative solution to the growing problem of hospitals that breed drug resistant bugs.

I'm finding it very difficult to understand this resolution.

It seems to me that it doesn't really say anything at all. I'm used to legalese gobbledigook but this is ridiculous.

Please people, vote against this resolution so that sanity will prevail

Targeting and allowing people to suffer and die because of certain genetic "defects" or "weaknesses"?

I suppose you, John Arlock, support Hitler's idea of Nazi supermen ruling the world too?

Society and civilization allow us to move beyond primitive laws of nature such as natural selection. It allows people to succeed, prosper, and be happy despite the bad luck that nature gave them. Society and civilization is all about making the weaker stronger: safety and prosperity in numbers right? People would be less safe and less prosperous without being together.

Mr. Arlock, if you genuinely believe in natural selection, I propose that you disband your nation and leave NationStates. Please allow you and your people to fend for themselves out in the wilderness and allow natural selection to take its course.

What Mr. Arlock proposes is not the strengthening of societies, but steps toward the destruction of it. What he proposes destroys one of the fundamental bases and benefits of having a civilization.

The numbers he mentions are flawed, yes there are more people wearing glasses etc. But that is simply because there is more people in the world, period. Looking at the percentages though, there are more people born healthy and stronger against diseases than ever before, as there are less people in terms of percentages that wear glasses and contact lenses. Civilization and the benefits it has created, such as medicine and , must be doing something right.

I love plaid. I wear contact lenses. I love my contact lenses. I love DIVERSITY, period. I am glad to have these strengths and will not let anyone take them away from me or future generations to come.

People like you John must be stopped.

If that proposal of yours ever becomes a resolution to be voted upon, I vow that I will lobby ruthlessly to have that resolution defeated, as I lobbied ruthlessly to have my proposal reach the vote. If it is a proposal now or if it ever will become one, I will lobby to have it removed from the floor. It would not be the first proposal I have done so with.

Others may join me if they wish, regardless of how they feel with all or any of my stances.

NATURALLY SELECT THIS!

Best Regards

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

Adriano-Trace will support this rediculous Resolution, mainly because we know that under the current governing mechanics of the "Manipulative Minority" in the UN it will pass, However o ur contribution will be the encouragement of our government workers to contribute to the high admininstrative cost ( I think 90%) burdened "International Medicine Fund" that will be set up once this resolution passes. :)

Targeting and allowing people to suffer and die because of certain genetic "defects" or "weaknesses"?

I suppose you, John Arlock, support Hitler's idea of Nazi supermen ruling the world too?


Quite frankly, Hitler didn't have too big of a bad idea when he was eliminating weak specimens of humanity. His problem was that he had a poor definition of weak and strong specimens, and hence deleted some specimens which should have been left alone.

Once more, the Allied States of Saeder Krupp affirm this proposal.

We of Dysphoricnation are suprised that this resolution is recieving any support at all. While the increased access to medicine resolution touches on many of our concerns, it is leaving many of our sick out in the cold.
Our hospital beds are filling up with Cancer and Heart patients, what of them? This resolution, as written, only helps those with Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Rule well,
Dysphoria.

never vote for this!! Vote against!!!

care to explain why you feel that way? not really a moving argument...

Immunities derived by natural selections have drawbacks as well. Immunities to malaria may encourage sickle cell anemia. Allergies and asthma are encouraged by the gene which resists bubonic plague.

Science is not god, as we used to suppose, but it is still a useful tool.

well i am not gonig to read the whole topic so this may have already been stated.... the strength of your imune system is not genetic.....the proabblem we have to day with wee imune systems are true....but genetic alteration will do shit........btu on the issue presented in the UN... medical funding shoudl increase to lower prices of medicines so tehy are more available....taking america as an example...america has the highest medical bills in the world......so decreasing the prices will be beneficiary to the whole comunity...even though it may hurt the economy

well i am not gonig to read the whole topic so this may have already been stated.... the strength of your imune system is not genetic.....the proabblem we have to day with wee imune systems are true....but genetic alteration will do shit........btu on the issue presented in the UN... medical funding shoudl increase to lower prices of medicines so tehy are more available....taking america as an example...america has the highest medical bills in the world......so decreasing the prices will be beneficiary to the whole comunity...even though it may hurt the economy

I too am having a large problem figuring out just what this resolution is even proposing. Yes, disease is bad, so, apparently, the idea is to spend more money on something vaguely medicine-related? How would the UN decide if some country was doing this or not? Is there some magic amount of money you're supposed to spend on 'medicine-type stuff'?

This resolution is a vague joke. Methinks the UN has no real use whatsoever when it keeps passing such vague and worthless resolutions.

Hey!....Whats wrong with plaid?


Lady Jane
Some Where Else

Why is it that just about any time someone mentions darwinism, or survival of the strong, or something about eliminating the weak, people compare it to Hitler? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hitler was all about a master race, not the 'strongest'. John Arlock would not be discriminating, he would be eliminating the weakness wherever it exists. These are two different things, since one is not motivated by racial hatred and/or a shattered economy.

Also, you say that Society and civilization are all about making the weaker stronger, however, strength in numbers does not mean each member gets stronger, it merely states that a group of five people is "stronger" than a single person. Also, do not underestimate large groups of stupid people (the UN). People being less safe or less prosperous has nothing at all to do with Arlock's arguments.

You then go on to say that because Arlock believes in natural selection that he should revert to a primitive and wasteful system. Now, it seems to me that he is saying we should implement a more darwinistic approach to the world (or at least his own nation); Rather than slowing everyone down to match the speed of the slowest members of the herd, he believes that the wolves should claim them, thus making the herd not burdened by the weakest among them.

While Arlock's proposal may not be the most humane, I fail to see how it "steps toward the destruction" of society. You also say that his arguments are not completely correct due to there being more people in the world nowadays, however you say now that civilization, and the benefits it has created, "must be doing something right." Wouldn't your numbers also be not completely correct, due to the same argument you use against Arlock? Also, do you have numbers to support your claims, or are they just "feel-good" statements?


Personally, I have no problem with allowing medicine to be accessible in my own nation, however, I refuse to help the weakling nations. If they cannot take care of themselves, then they have failed, and should be held accountable for their actions.

The freedom to succeed is the freedom to fail.

Btw- that's a big joke. Evolution doesn't work that fast...

>Also, we've eliminated any kind of natural selection. How many people >do you see in this day wearing glasses or using contacts? How many is >that compared to fifty years ago? The numbers are increasing. Glasses >are also getting thicker, because we're not just allowing these into >evolution but instead telling evolution that it's a positive trait.

[quote="Akuma no Ie"]"Why is it that just about any time someone mentions darwinism, or survival of the strong, or something about eliminating the weak, people compare it to Hitler? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hitler was all about a master race, not the 'strongest'..."

"Now, it seems to me that he is saying we should implement a more darwinistic approach to the world (or at least his own nation); Rather than slowing everyone down to match the speed of the slowest members of the herd, he believes that the wolves should claim them, thus making the herd not burdened by the weakest among them."


:shock: What do you think the concept of a Master Race implies? Is the master race is not the strongest then it is not the master race. A 'Master Race' implies that it is the strongest of all the races. It seems to me that this is what you think the leader of that nation wants. I mean by saying that he believes that the wolves should claim the weak of their herd so that the herd 'stays strong' your are basically saying that he is thinking like Hitler. Remember Hitler was taking a darwanistic approach too!.

So what I got from your post is that if I do not want to be like Hitler and all he stood for I should vote yes on the Resolution. Thank you Anthonycha you have made everything clear for me. :D

Hey!....Whats wrong with plaid?


Lady Jane
Some Where Else

I have never seen the two colors do better than a solid.

MuadDib, Hitler (from my perspective) thought that all germans were strong, thus they were the master race. Arlock isn't biased towards his own people, he believes that the weak, wherever they exist, should be eliminated or genetically made stronger. The "master race" to me implies that an already-existing race is the "strongest" not that you should eliminate any weak people, regardless of race. If you think that you have to vote yes on this resolution in order to not be Hitler, than you are truly ignorant, and a weak leader, in my opinion.

-Kusanagi Noakusei

[quote="Akuma no Ie"]Hitler (from my perspective) thought that all germans were strong, thus they were the master race.

Hitler did not just favor Germans, indeed, he targeted German Jews, German homosexuals, German socialists, communists, and labor unions, as well as German political opponents (no matter how strong they were). He favored genotypes, just as John Arlock does. Hitler favored tall white, blond, blue eyed and a number of other genotypes.

What Arlock favors is not very different from Hitler.

To Akuma no Ie: If you do not like the UN so much, why don't you just leave us all alone? All of us in the UN are obviously so beneath you. You should not be discussing or mettling in the affairs with those so weak and stupid. You are not a UN Member, why do you care?

I like to hear from all sides though, so continue if you wish. :D

I just find it funny that you continue to put down the UN and many of the other member nations and are not a member, yet continue to debate on a UN Forum, about UN Proposals and Resolutions, as well as supporting and not supporting(if only vocally). We, the UN, may not have authority over your country, but we are certainly taking up a lot of your time. 36 posts as of typing, wow! Thats more than a lot of other UN members, including yours truly.

It is very nice of you to give your time and contributing your thoughts and ideas, especially when you consider the fact that you think of us as so weak. By sharing your knowledge with us you have (perhaps unintentionally) made us stronger. Thus helping out a weak institution! :twisted:

You know deep down inside you love us... you spend so much time with us and communicating to us. You are a closet UN member and you know it. :wink:

If this resolution affects other nations you are allied with, friends with, concerned about, whatever, tell them to get out if they do not like the resolution and do not want it to affect them.

Because you know, my resolution is going to pass. Right now it has a over a 4:1 support ratio and it has been this way since its introduction. It is rare to have an 80%+ consensus ranging from countries that are communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, democracies, dictatorships and everything else in between and outside.

Kusanagi Noakusei, I love you man. The more you discuss my resolution, the more attention you bring to it. Thank You for all your thoughts and insights. Though I do not agree with just about everything you have said, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Thank You for all your great contributions to the UN.

I would also like to extend a genuine Thank You to John Arlock for starting this forum.

Happy Holidays to all!

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

"MuadDib, Hitler (from my perspective) thought that all germans were strong, thus they were the master race. Arlock isn't biased towards his own people, he believes that the weak, wherever they exist, should be eliminated or genetically made stronger. The "master race" to me implies that an already-existing race is the "strongest" not that you should eliminate any weak people, regardless of race. If you think that you have to vote yes on this resolution in order to not be Hitler, than you are truly ignorant, and a weak leader, in my opinion.

-Kusanagi Noakusei"

Very harsh words Kusanagi...very harsh words. To me your statement conflicts with itself. Hitler believed that the German people were the master race. From what you say it seems that Arlock believes that whatever races is the "strongest" in his nation is the master race. At least the master race of that nation. I am one of those crazy people that does not believe that one race could ever be truly stronger than another. Strong is one of those adjectives that can differ in each persons opinion. I might find that cooking a good meal is a "stronger" quality in a person than running a mile in less than a minute. Kusanagi I do not know how much history you read but Hitler also wanted to get rid of the weak people. :wink: Also im not saying that if you vote no on this bill you are Hitler. I am saying that in your last argument you and Arlock are sort of giving me that impression. I am also not saying that there are no good arguments for voting no on it. There might be. It is just that anything that smells to me to be Hitler in thinking (and this is what Arlock's argument to me is) is deemed an idiotic idea. So basically what im trying to say if that is the only argument why I should vote no on this resolution then there is no reason why everyone should vote yes on it. Unless you want to be a diabolical leader...and if that is what the leader of the nation wants to be then that is what he wants to be.

Hey look I see that I must of offended you for your use of harsh language towards me. Ignorant and weak are to adjectives that really do not describe me. I am sorry if my opinions have shaken you so hard that you were put on defense mode. Listen my only reasons for writting my last post is to show that it is my opinion through longs years of studying history that Arlock's argument stinks of lunacy and dehumunazation. :)

My goverment thanks you for taking your time to respond to me.


-Minister of Health Care
Sir Carl To'Dubleu :o

Anthonycha, the only reason I'm bringing more attention to your resolution is because i'm pointing out the weak points in it, that only a person who believes this is an ideal world would vote for. As for loving me, i'll pass, I'm flambouyantly heterosexual. Also, of course it will pass. Anything that furthers the idea of an ideal world will pass with a 7 to 1 margin, whereas anything evil will fail with a 1-7 margin, and I think you can see a pattern. Since the majority of people in the UN vote this way, there is no reason for me to be in this, since I'm attempting to roleplay a lawful evil nation.
MuadDib, arlock is saying that any person who is weak will be removed. Not a race, not caring about the strongest race, merely saynig that any single person who is weak will be removed.

As for me not being in the UN, I recently resigned.

It would seem rational that any nation, whether aligned with evil or with good, would wish to see that disease was eliminated. It is in the interest of every nation to ensure the safety of its people. To invest in the irradication of disease is to invest in the health of those people and the strength of the nation itself.

MuadDib, Hitler (from my perspective) thought that all germans were strong, thus they were the master race.
-Kusanagi Noakusei

hitler, and the machine behind him for which he was a useful puppet, certainly did not think the germans were 'stronger'. This was an issue used to stir the people of Germany into backing a power-hungry entity.

Can someone explain succintly just how the research and mnaufacturing of medicines would be funded?

Can someone explain succintly just how the research and mnaufacturing of medicines would be funded?


:? what does succintly mean :?:

Anthonycha, the only reason I'm bringing more attention to your resolution is because i'm pointing out the weak points in it, that only a person who believes this is an ideal world would vote for. As for loving me, i'll pass, I'm flambouyantly heterosexual. Also, of course it will pass.

As for me not being in the UN, I recently resigned.

Why do you care to about the weak points in it? Again, it will NOT affect you. I could have made that resolution far longer and far more detailed that would have answered many of the arguments and questions about my resolution. But I wanted to save the eyesore for everyone. I wanted to be quick and straight to the point. Not everyone has the time to read through long resolutions. This is a game afterall.

As for you defending that you are a heterosexual; you know there are different kinds of love. Fatherly, brotherly, family wise... looks like someone is insecure about their sexuality and is homophobic.

As I called you a closet UN Member before, I wonder what else you may be in the closet about... :twisted: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Much love

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

You misunderstand me

I do not propose the elimination of people with defects, but the gradual elimination of the defective genes. For example, if someone is born with a diabetes, insulin should not be given to them. Not because they have nothing to contribute to society, and not because they are bad or evil people, but because if they procreate then they will give thier offspring the same condition, making 2 or 3 more people who are dependant on a chemical.

If someone is born with bad eyes, they should not be given glasses. If they can survive long enough to procreate, then they have many other strengths that can be passed on to children. If he has 4 children, then maybe 2 will have bad eyes. And maybe 1 will survive. But that one will have even more strengths and as they continue to procreate, the bad eyesight gene will be diluted.

Also, people who have STDs should get no treatment. There is only one way to get them: irresponsibility. And if it is a physically obvious STD then that stops the disease in it's tracks.

And I am in full support of vaccinations for everyone, as it strengthens the immune system. But we should not isolate someone from a disease. If a vaccination is not available, full contact with the disease is the next best thing.

If a child falls and breaks her leg, however, it is not because of a physical defect and it will not 'slow down the herd' so she will recieve pain killers, a cast, and full medical treatment.

If a man recives an shock to his system and is very old, he might have a heart attack. This too would be treated, as it was no ones fault and not a genetic disorder.

To see results we may have to wait decades, but we'd have healthier and happier people.

In repsonse to the comment that evolution doesnt work that fast: How long did it take them to breed a Poodle from a wild dog? Less than fifty years. While not a different species, they are certainly not exactly alike.

~~Dictator John Arlock

Medicine for STDs like AIDS, or for simple viruses like the flu, are not helping humanity in any wayHow many times has your parents/guardian, dropped you as a child?
Correcting genetic disabilities is also hurting us, as those genes will continue to spread. It's nice to think of a utopia where everyone is always healthy, even if they're not born that way, but the reason we're constantly spending more on medicine is because we keep breeding weaker humans and making the existing ones more succeptible to common illness.No, its helping people stay alive and have a better chance in life.
It is apparent that antibacterial soaps, sterile food, and large amounts of chemicaly synthesized substances have made peoples immune systems weak.No it dosent.
This is made worse by the fact that we've sterelized everything to the point where the only exercise the human immune system is getting is the injections one gets at a hospital. Also, we've eliminated any kind of natural selection. How many people do you see in this day wearing glasses or using contacts? How many is that compared to fifty years ago? The numbers are increasing. Glasses are also getting thicker, because we're not just allowing these into evolution but instead telling evolution that it's a positive trait. However, this is harder to control in practice. It would be wrong to stifle who someone loves and procreates with. We also can't rightfully abort a fetus with birth defects. So instead I support research that will help us find and eliminate genes that make people weak (bad sight, flat feet, republicanism, love of plaid) by starting out with fruitflies, then mantises, then fish, then rodents, then small monkeys, then apes, and only then with people. As for this effecting a country's military or econemy, I don't see how a blind soldier or a worker with a low tolerance for virus or bacteria is helpful.Your whole proposal is utter crap.

The Rogue Nation of Kodic, WILL NOT support this proposal.

Kodic, you have given no support to your claims. at least others have opinions with basis where your opinions seem to be the programming of a dictatorial society, dictated by a supreme source of 'wisdom' with no free thinking. Are you perhaps native to America?

And as for 'giving people a better chance to live', that may be true, but what about in the long run? It will make the lives of thier children harder, and thier children, and thiers. You fail to see past your own life and take into account the lives of the unborn, wether they will be feeble and sickly by the fault of thier ancestors.

Kodic, you are mean but somewhat funny. I got a chuckle out of reading your reply.