you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Since I am not satisfied with current identities, my ideal identity would be something new which I will call "Mikraite". The membership criteria is:

Either born of two Mikraite parents or pass a test on Old Testament knowledge and a test of Go skill. Then say "The Mikraites will be my people, and the god of the Old Testament will be my god. I will teach the Old Testament and the game of Go to my children." to formally join.

In theory this would select for religious commitment and intelligence to produce a new eugenic ethnicity.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

eugenic ethnicity.

I support eugenics, but you realize your genes probably wouldn't be included in the eugenic paradise because you seem like you're on the autism spectrum, right?

I wouldn't be included either unless an exception was made for my brilliant mind and good looks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

because you seem like you're on the autism spectrum, right?

hahahaa

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not mean that as an insult.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You miss the idea. I am against conventional eugenics where some bureaucrat selects genes. My idea here is to have simple group membership criteria that will statistically select for better genes. And I would easily be included based on this criteria.

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As if a bureaucrat like you even could have a glimpse on what we are doing.

We understood war, before you read in on it.

We understood books before you burned them.

You are just a person that tries to force her opinion on others.

[–]wendolynne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since you don't want bureaucracy involved, you answer is in who you choose to mate with, and who you convince to mate with you. The line between group membership and bureaucracy is fuzzy.