|
Termyn8or -> RE: Born killers (5/27/2008 1:31:48 PM)
|
This is somewhat similar to an argument about time travel. If it were possible it should certainly be illegal.
Hitler did not create the conditions which enabled his rise to power. So it boils down that it may have been someone worse. And believe me it could have been worse. Of course someone else could have rebuilt the economy and military and just used it for defense, and Russia would have likely attacked sooner or later. But with the military might Germany had developed they would offer quite a formidable defense. Or Germany might have left Europe alone and just attacked Russia, kicking her in the balls really hard. There may not have been a cold war.
And one poster brought up an interesting point, what if a murderer kills someone even worse ? What if Stalin had been in one of the concentation camps ? Or Jeffrey Daumer's ancestors ?
There is just no effective way to glean enough information to carry this out.
What if one day Jeffrey Daumer was driving down the road and slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a kid on a bike, and got rearended by the car behind him, HARD. The driver behind him would likely have killed the kid, the kid goes on to be a medical researcher and develops a new vaccine that saves alot of lives. More than Daumer killed.
So do we go by body count or should we find out preemptively somehow, the future lives of any and all victims ?
Letting alone the secret of time travel, which I hope nature keeps well hidden from mankind forever, then we are talking using other factors to make the determination. DNA, something like that.
There are many genetic predispositions. But then I believe that environment, especially in the first few years of life have a huge impact. What if a few things happened differently for Daumer in early life, the predisposition may have simply made him highly enjoy a job at a slaughterhouse. However somehow he broke the barrier and had his fifteen minutes of fame. I doubt genetics caused that. (except in that he existed)
Genetic predisposition could be related to soil, and early life influences could be considered seeds. What you plant where determines how it grows.
So how to implement any such program is the problem. I'm sure it was meant hypothetically, but that is the trend. Like you don't have to get in an accident to get a seat belt ticket, but many people never get in an accident so why should they wear it ? It is a preemptive action by the government.
So just how to do this ........hmmmmmmm.
"Mrs.Jones, the computer has analysed your background and intelligence, and your unborn son's DNA and determined that he will have a 73% chance of becoming a criminal, therefore the government is offering you a $5,000 settlement to have an abortion right now".
To me, the problem is not in the execution(s) of such a plan, but how to determine who to execute. We have not the science and technology to implement the plan, nor the intelligence and humanity. Just who would make such decisions if we did ? Think of that.
Even on an adult level, who is willing to look someone in the face and read their record and say something like " We have determined you are a useless MF, never had a job, beat Women, stole, been in jail five times by the time you were 25, and in all your life the most useful thing you've ever done is deal drugs. " BOOM.
You got the guts to do something like that ? But wait, we need to take it to another level, you have to kill children.
No, I don't think the idea will fly. It's an interesting topic for a keyboardside chat, but I see it as theoretical in nature.
Now see, if they would have killed me before I became a sociopath, nobody would have invented the word "keyboardside".
T
|
|
|
|
