[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Moon Eclipse

First off it's not about gene's only. If it were Gil's plan would be to wipe the existent people off the face of the planet and just make a whole bunch of "kira and lacus" peferect genetic clones.

That'd be unhealthy.

It's about the ability to control the environment in which we live in thus to satisfy the nuture part of the equation as well as the genetic part of the equation.

And yet what was shown was that genes were to be trusted more than achievements. Haven't you watched Gil's cartoon? Even if you work hard to get your job, and prove you're good at it - his goons may come to take you away "because your genes dictate it".

It's easy for everything to break down instead of being created. It's far easier for a relatively uncontrolled and less maintained system to break down even more than one that is completely controlled and maintained. Our gene are suffering mutation, degredation and destruction all the time. Why does this not affect our very survival? You can get cancer form bruising and impact of your skin and cells. Why don't you? Because even you body has a microcellar system in which to maintain, correct and control this. Of course to an extent, but it is enough to allow us to live.

Your point? I know we have some tolerance for damage. But the truth remains we are far more likely to mutate into a handicapped person than into a genius.

Yes a mathmetician can become a philospher, but which was he better at? No one is equally good at everything they do. They will always be inately better at some things than others. There in lies the idea. Why put him in something he's only second best at given his abilities can be better utulized for the benifit of all in the area which he is the best at.

Because that's where he wants to be? Besides, how are you going to say where he's "best"? What does it mean to be a better philosopher than mathematician? There is no accurate way to measure your greatness at either, and even if there was, you'd be comparing the proverbial apples with oranges.

Equal environment. You have two people competeing for the same job in the same place. equal environment. One will be better than the other given their natural born talents IF everything else being equal. You seem to have a problem with the idea of the if part of the statment.

That's a pretty big IF. In fact, let's face it, it's a pretty impossible situation to have.

It can be accomplished. In the end it doesn't mean their environment will be different either. That would all have to depend on the evironment which is created and regulated for them.

You're still arguing around my original arugument when you're talking about car crashes and such. Because they're not in a completely controlled evironment are they if different things happen to them.

What, Destiny Plan is going to eliminate car accidents? Pull the other one, it's got a bell on. You seem to have a problem with the fact that "completely controlled evironments" are impossible.

It is, however, possible to control the environment very tightly. But the more control you want, the more ressources you need. It can't be done on the scale necessited by the Destiny Plan.

And yes they may have the same chances of joining the NBA and going pro if the person in the car crash recieve the proper therapy, surgery and rehabilitation to bring him back to the physical condition that he was in before the crash.

Read the part with "he limps for the rest of his life". Heck, let's just say the car takes his legs off. What then?

teratogenic. Do you know why it's bad that you drink alcohol or smoke during pregnancy? Cause it affect and disrupt natural genetic processes of the baby during the developmental period of differentiated cells, genetic cellular expression. The formulation of the baby based upon the genetic code.

I know that. But it doesn't adress my point at all that relying solely on genes is unreliable compared to direct observation of a subject.

Oh I'm sorry I thought the "best and brightest" meant that they also had to had to have higher genetic potential than everyone else in order to achieve that "showing" that makes them stand out above everyone else...

Their genetic potential means nothing if they don't use it. Which do you think is the true genius? The one with the best genes who never even learn how to read, or the one with slightly lesser genes who creates a new physics theory? Would you give a Nobel Prize to the former?

Prove that it's historically untrue

Nowadays, we have more freedoms, yet fewer wars than in centuries past.

In the end you're arguing that it's going to be hard to maintain, but that's nothing new with any system of control and order. Yet somehow we still manage to maintain ours well enough to get by

That's because we have more leeway. We don't need to have so much control. We take masses of kids and try to make citizens out of them. We don't try to decide what their jobs are going to be before they're even born.