Aleksandr   10 #25 Posted April 25, 2012 If you get old and need care, the council will seize your assets and make you sign everything, including your house, over to them so that the state doesn't have to pay for you to be looked after until every penny that you have worked for and saved up is gone. Therefore, on that basis, how could it be unreasonable to expect people who have genetically abnormal children to have to pay for their care instead of expecting the state to pay for it, especially when that sort of thing is so avoidable these days?  One good thing that might come out of such a policy would be an end to the genetically disastrous practise of marrying first cousins! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
shirleyF Â Â 10 #26 Posted April 25, 2012 I'd stop infertile people breeding. Â Surely you don't need to stop them breeding as they are infertile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Ms Macbeth   76 #27 Posted April 25, 2012 Surely you don't need to stop them breeding as they are infertile.  Er, I think that wasn't a serious response. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ronthenekred   10 #28 Posted April 25, 2012 Surely you don't need to stop them breeding as they are infertile.   Ring fence Dronfield too.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
davi   10 #29 Posted April 25, 2012 I'd eliminate the part of the brain that craves fat, salt and sugar and enhance the one that produces those "runner's high" exercise endorphins. And replace it with the DNA of Audie Murphy,(Americas most decorated 2nd World War hero) It turned a 5 foot 5 inch, 50kg, so called weakling (the army didn`t want him at first) into a giant of bravery,(killed 240 Germans) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bloomdido   10 #30 Posted April 25, 2012 Only allow people living in certain postcodes to breed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest sibon   #31 Posted April 25, 2012 Excellent. It is ask an interesting question night, courtesy of Tony.  Most of the suggestions on the thread, so far, seem to be centred upon diminishing the gene pool. So, as attractive as Jim Graham's suggestion is, I think it should be rejected.  Jack's Rake is on the right lines by adding to the pool. He should maybe retrain as a Science teacher.  I'd like to add X-Ray vision, lie detection and controllable invisibility as characteristics that would enhance my life incalculably.  I'm not saying why though:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ronthenekred   10 #32 Posted April 25, 2012 And replace it with the DNA of Audie Murphy,(Americas most decorated 2nd World War hero) It turned a 5 foot 5 inch, 50kg, so called weakling (the army didn`t want him at first) into a giant of bravery,(killed 240 Germans)  You mean you want us to become midget killers?   Weirdo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bloomdido   10 #33 Posted April 25, 2012 And replace it with the DNA of Audie Murphy,(Americas most decorated 2nd World War hero) It turned a 5 foot 5 inch, 50kg, so called weakling (the army didn`t want him at first) into a giant of bravery,(killed 240 Germans)  I saw the film of him 'acting' in a film depicting his time as a soldier killing all those Germans. It struck me as sordid at the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
XXTickerXX Â Â 10 #34 Posted April 25, 2012 Find and remove "the god gene".Rid the world of this genetic defect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
davi   10 #35 Posted April 25, 2012 I saw the film of him 'acting' in a film depicting his time as a soldier killing all those Germans. It struck me as sordid at the time.  He was asked why he did it. He replied because the Germans were killing my friends. Nothing sordid about that. Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour was sordid though. Whether people agree with wars or not, being thrown into such circumstances will bring out the best and worst. Maybe getting rid of the power hungry DNA of politicians and dictators, would be of some benefit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ronthenekred   10 #36 Posted April 25, 2012 He was asked why he did it. He replied because the Germans were killing my friends. Nothing sordid about that. Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour was sordid though. Whether people agree with wars or not, being thrown into such circumstances will bring out the best and worst. Maybe getting rid of the power hungry DNA of politicians and dictators, would be of some benefit.  Not refraining from telling the enemy when you are about to strike is a bit of a give away. We learned that in WW1 when we sent troops walking slowly to their death. Let's not get too sentimental about war eh..it's all sordid. Japan's mistake was not sending in a second wave to destroy the carriers..they paid dearly for that mistake when the US refrained from telling them about an imminent A bomb attack. War is nasty, on both sides. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...