Another question is for the Life Carriers. Why is up to us to clean up the genetic mess of life plasm experimentation? And I mean no disrespect to our brothers on High, but why is it now up to a gene pool was failed, not only once, but was failed in remedial uplifting by Adam and Eves default? Are we better at experimenting with DNA than the designers of DNA??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why look a gift horse in the mouth?
Life Carriers obviously trust us to take on this enormous responsibility. I consider it an honor to start working on needed improvements to the gene pool.

Any guinea pigs out there willing to participate in a most interesting human experiment? Dr Josef Mengele III is heading up the study. It is purely voluntary, for now.

The text states there are superiors and inferiors, genetically, intellectually and so forth. It is explained in the context of race. But emphasizes, that being said, that it is only manifest in the individual. In other words, even in a single family you will have superior and inferior offspring. This is were the issue should be addressed, at the individual level and not at the level of the group. The text also makes it clear that in light of what was going on in 1934, what the Nazis were doing was NOT the thing to do. In fact, it was definitely undesirable.

And how is it ethical to doom subsequent generations to inferior genetics when we possess the capability to curtail such potentialities? It ends up meaning more people inherit disease and we perpetuate the problems associated with the socially unfit. To me this false sentiment is a symptom of the Lucifer rebellion-- valuing the individual's rights over those of the entire species, which is actually illogical because with such a preference, ultimately even more individuals are adversely impacted.

What would be helpful is a precise definition of superior and inferior characteristics in the human species. If this is a problem we are to resolve for ourselves then we must define the goal in exacting terms.

Please list the desirable human traits in one column and the undesirable in another column. I understand that you feel that something must be done and this is where we must start. Be careful not to include anything in the undesirable column that could describe you or me.

I agree that it must be discussed, but can we do it honestly and without the PC police? This is what you mean about a nasty topic, right?

So you would object to removing repeat violent sex offenders from the gene pool? I.e. not allowing them to breed?

I wonder about the differences implied and implicit between "inferior" and "degenerate" as it applies to the topic. Are all such elements genetic? In what ways are critical thinking and spirit responsiveness connected to genetics vs. social priorities and prerogative? How might humanity "regenerate" and reinvigorate itself with science, education and within free will. The outcome of free will forever requires experience, maturity, and wisdom for ANY good results. While the deprivation of free will only hinders and obstructs experience, maturity, and wisdom as a function of free will itself. How much of degeneration is a function of personal and social prioritization within free will - do not behavioral choices (diet and exercise and prayer and worship for examples) have the potential to either degenerate or rejuvenate/regenerate?

Impatience seems to be a universal potential and problem. The process of regeneration will likely take as long as the process of degeneration....a long time frame indeed. In this chicken and egg dilemma I wonder if spiritual and behavioral priorities require the most immediate attention while eugenics is slowly, voluntarily, and free will chosen by more and more people over many generations for our regeneration....all while science delivers ever more tools and knowledge to prevent, treat, and cure some maladies of genetics while more enlightened choices intersect with that evolving potential?

A "nasty" paradox indeed!

Starting from the bottom first,

Yes, can we please have a respectful and honest conversation about this nasty topic. Thank you.

It's clear to me that the only thing that ought to be discussed publicly is that this endeavor MUST be carried out within the confines of our individual families. What we discuss here must be discreet and self-censored. Where the work should be done is with our children, nowhere else. Teach them, suggest to them that as parents it is our/their responsibility to direct and supervise them in whom our descendants ought to procreate with. Teach them that they should be respondent to the guidance that comes from within, however they see fit. But instruct them that they need to be careful, that it matters a lot who they marry. This way the less desirable, through many generations, will fall away if this seed implanted in the family culture becomes tradition. Make it a part of the conversation with our/their soon to be paired up kids, and so on.

Other than that, I don't think anything else is appropriate. All we can do is emphasize the positive to our kids. Tell them what they should be looking out for in a desirable mate. That way, the nasty topic will take care of itself.

I don't see how else it will progress. The quality of motherhood and fatherhood is the key.