Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News7 mins ago
It's All In The Genes....
15 Answers
Should female relatives of Nazi figureheads not procreate for fear of creating a future 'monster'?
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@agchristie
Well, there is the ultimate in irony for you. Belief in 'bad' genes is the flipside of belief in 'good' genes and is, serpently, a re-statement of part if the culture they are so ashamed of.
I will, however, concede that sparing their potential antecedents the agony of living a life irreversibly linked to a bad ancestor is another way of looking at the situation. Practicality and pragmatism overwhelming the genetic programming which urges one to reproduce.
In the meantime, I'm mystified why the article insists on using emotive words, like 'monster' rather than clinical specifics, like "psychopathy". It is still unproven but may turn out to have a genetic basis. Their behaviour has no brakes, enabling them to do anything, with no sense of guilt, as with the concentration camp commandant example, in the article.
Actually, the ones which really bothered me were the millions of Germans who let the 1930s roll by and were too easily cowed into not speaking out against what was happening. (and cue the Ben Johnson quote…)
Well, there is the ultimate in irony for you. Belief in 'bad' genes is the flipside of belief in 'good' genes and is, serpently, a re-statement of part if the culture they are so ashamed of.
I will, however, concede that sparing their potential antecedents the agony of living a life irreversibly linked to a bad ancestor is another way of looking at the situation. Practicality and pragmatism overwhelming the genetic programming which urges one to reproduce.
In the meantime, I'm mystified why the article insists on using emotive words, like 'monster' rather than clinical specifics, like "psychopathy". It is still unproven but may turn out to have a genetic basis. Their behaviour has no brakes, enabling them to do anything, with no sense of guilt, as with the concentration camp commandant example, in the article.
Actually, the ones which really bothered me were the millions of Germans who let the 1930s roll by and were too easily cowed into not speaking out against what was happening. (and cue the Ben Johnson quote…)
Hypo > I will, however, concede that sparing their potential antecedents the agony of living a life irreversibly linked to a bad ancestor is another way of looking at the situation. Practicality and pragmatism overwhelming the genetic programming which urges one to reproduce.
What a dilemma! The stigma of being related to a bad ancestor which has proven too overwhelming for some!
It has made me wonder, is there anyone in such a position who has tried in some way to make reparation of their ancestor's actions and rogue beliefs?
What a dilemma! The stigma of being related to a bad ancestor which has proven too overwhelming for some!
It has made me wonder, is there anyone in such a position who has tried in some way to make reparation of their ancestor's actions and rogue beliefs?
Does it not apply to male relatives ?
I know an individual is a product of both nature and nurture, but it sounds excessive to worry that you have a genetic combination that ensures offspring have a propensity to form abusive personality traits. I'd suspect life experiences to be more influential on how someone turns out. In any case offspring is a mix of the genetic load of two parents. One is never sure what will emerge from the mix. It's a personal decision of course, but I'd suggest a better reason not to reproduce is to compensate for other human beings who can't control their urges and are trying to make the Earth's overpopulation worse and worse.
I know an individual is a product of both nature and nurture, but it sounds excessive to worry that you have a genetic combination that ensures offspring have a propensity to form abusive personality traits. I'd suspect life experiences to be more influential on how someone turns out. In any case offspring is a mix of the genetic load of two parents. One is never sure what will emerge from the mix. It's a personal decision of course, but I'd suggest a better reason not to reproduce is to compensate for other human beings who can't control their urges and are trying to make the Earth's overpopulation worse and worse.
agree OG
why not the men as well ?
//What a dilemma! The stigma of being related to a bad ancestor which has proven too overwhelming for some!//
if that were true then there would be no criminal fraternities only lots of good people with good ancestors.
we do not see that - therefore it is untrue
The most famous example is the Jukes family
which you will find here
https:/
los of problems with people re writing history to fit their own ideas
and also the Moynihan family - colin was a Lord and a minister and his half brother ran a Thai brothel
why not the men as well ?
//What a dilemma! The stigma of being related to a bad ancestor which has proven too overwhelming for some!//
if that were true then there would be no criminal fraternities only lots of good people with good ancestors.
we do not see that - therefore it is untrue
The most famous example is the Jukes family
which you will find here
https:/
los of problems with people re writing history to fit their own ideas
and also the Moynihan family - colin was a Lord and a minister and his half brother ran a Thai brothel
Interesting question Sandy. Nurture can only mould that which nature has provided. How tightly are our personalities constrained at birth, how much leeway to create different people ? (We do hear of twins separated at birth and brought up differently turning out to be similar folk as adults.) I'm unconvinced anyone really knows which, if either, has the upper hand. Ideally they are pushing/pulling in a single direction that happens to be best for all.
@O_G
//It's a personal decision of course, but I'd suggest a better reason not to reproduce is to compensate for other human beings who can't control their urges and are trying to make the Earth's overpopulation worse and worse. //
Fine in theory but deeply flawed if one couple decides to have zero children, instead of two (two parents can produce two kids and, by the time the parents die, there is a net population growth of zero) while some other couple has seven.
More significant still is that the "family tradition" of having few children dies out while the tradition of having big families thrives. If the seven kids also have seven each, there is a net growth of (49-14)=35, by the time all seven gen2 couples are deceased.
Except, in our healthy society, we have can have 4 generations alive sumultaneously so 2 + 7 + 49 + 343 = 401.
Remind me of where 'village' stops and 'small town' starts?
//It's a personal decision of course, but I'd suggest a better reason not to reproduce is to compensate for other human beings who can't control their urges and are trying to make the Earth's overpopulation worse and worse. //
Fine in theory but deeply flawed if one couple decides to have zero children, instead of two (two parents can produce two kids and, by the time the parents die, there is a net population growth of zero) while some other couple has seven.
More significant still is that the "family tradition" of having few children dies out while the tradition of having big families thrives. If the seven kids also have seven each, there is a net growth of (49-14)=35, by the time all seven gen2 couples are deceased.
Except, in our healthy society, we have can have 4 generations alive sumultaneously so 2 + 7 + 49 + 343 = 401.
Remind me of where 'village' stops and 'small town' starts?
@agchristie
//It has made me wonder, is there anyone in such a position who has tried in some way to make reparation of their ancestor's actions and rogue beliefs? //
Maybe we're all trying to make reparations for the slave trade? Or just some of us. But this BBC article...
http://
concludes with :-
-------------
While the idea of inherited guilt is wrong-headed - we are not responsible for our forebears' crimes and misdeeds - the idea of inherited privilege is perfectly valid.
-------------
//It has made me wonder, is there anyone in such a position who has tried in some way to make reparation of their ancestor's actions and rogue beliefs? //
Maybe we're all trying to make reparations for the slave trade? Or just some of us. But this BBC article...
http://
concludes with :-
-------------
While the idea of inherited guilt is wrong-headed - we are not responsible for our forebears' crimes and misdeeds - the idea of inherited privilege is perfectly valid.
-------------
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Jobs & Education17 mins ago
