A Perfect People, A Perfect World, or; The Eugenics Movement

[Ambi]

So basically;

- Scientifically literate people say it won't eliminate genetic conditions because they can be hidden in recessive genes and there can be mutations.

If disease incidence was decreased, wouldn't that just slow scientific progress towards finding a genuine cure? There are already chronic diseases that have pitifully low research funding because they're relatively rare. Now, if disease as a whole was rare because people would rather violate human rights for the "greater good", under the current system, research progress would be very slow and that small number of "inferior" people would continue to pop up here and there would likely keep existing and have to suffer for a long, long time.

- People can have meaningful lives despite having sub-optimal health.

If you have some kind of unmanageable condition and you'd rather not have been born, then I believe voluntary euthanisation or voluntary sterilisation should be an option, but if someone has a condition yet they still believe life is worth living, they have the right to give a child the opportunity to live a life worth living too. If someone has a condition in the family that there's a likely chance of being passed on, I don't think they *should* have biological children, but it's entirely their decision, and there is a possibility they'll give birth to the next Steven Hawking or whoever's on that list of influential people with health conditions.

- It's their body, fuck off.

I don't want to be dragged kicking and screaming on to the operating table to be cut open. That is just violating.

- It would be ridiculously expensive to administer, and something as incredibly diverse, sensitive, and currently unpredictable as genetics should not be and cannot be controlled by something as clumsy as a bureaucracy that will be forced to lump people into general categories without knowing or appreciating the finer details of life that are best judged by individuals instead of a cold bureaucracy.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The whole point of stuff like this is that people take it way to far and if you give red tape for being a parent it just makes it possible to abuse such a system and say get rid of poor people which is something some English had in mind for this when their Government went on their international twatage campaign which went all your land belongs to us(No problem with English in general just this was at that time).

Another problem with Eugenics is that it will create a less diverse DNA pool which could lead to inbreeding. A better way would probably be to wait until we can manipulate our DNA to just remove the negative hereditary diseases rather than just kill people off or stop them from breeding.

 

[Marmooset]

Forum eugenics should have caused threads like this to die out a long time ago.

 

[Brandon237]

I agree with the idea in the OP, as I have said many times before here. I support Eugenics where the child is highly likely to suffer severely or pass on serious genetic defects. As for some people not reading the OP and assuming this is about old eugenics, silly silly people. Or those who read but do not understand... they are far worse.

Go and DIE! You are polluting science with stupidity! Shut up, learn, or kill yourself, do one of these things please....

I totally had to rage because every post I make on this topic is ignored in every thread I post it.

Someone is angry...
I think you should read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.112832-The-Banhammer-and-You-A-Users-Guide-to-the-Forums
Oh, and this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.309173-Moderation-FAQ

And your posts aren't all ignored, I guarantee some people get annoyed enough to report them.
The reason why many of your posts may not be replied to is because you come across as trolling and dangerous to argue with and avoid getting mod-wrathed. I think I am taking a bit of a risk myself in doing so...
Maybe you mean your arguments aren't swaying anyone? In which case that is your on fault, for not being able to give a good, conclusive, logical, cool-headed argument.

I only support it to stop people with severe[footnote]Note that word, severe... I don't mean minor ADD, hell, even bipolar, I mean life-threatening or completely detrimental to one's ability to function as a human being. If they are capable of normal thought, a decent degree of communication and mobility, and will be able to function somewhat as people, then let them breed.[/footnote] hereditary problems from having children. You don't even need to sterilise so much as make these people pay huge fines or do community service should they choose to keep the child. When it will be better for the child to not be born and suffer, then I think that having the child should not be allowed. You seem to completely misunderstand my motives, yet you tell me to go and... how did you say? "DIE!"
Rather ironic when you think about it.

I had an aunt with a serious heart disorder, when she was born she almost died. She had a child knowing that

-snip-

Yeah. Because hyperbole, ranting, dismissing a concept because you just dont like it, making huge leaps of logic and insulting others for not coming to the same erroneous conclusions as you not to mention the absolute and completely useless use of FUCKING CAPS LOCK throughout your rant is such a valid counterpoint.

-.-;

Oh and I absolutely fucking love your "eugenics = murder" mindset...
Yup, because if thats the case then every time you don't have unprotected sex then you are murdering a potential child. Are you having unprotected sex right now? No? MURDERER! Have you ever masturbated before? Yes? MURDERER!

Wow. This game is fun. I like living in your weird little world. Gives me a nice self righteous glow.

Edit: Oh and just for everyone saying how all these less than optimal people are important for genetic diversity in case of situation X. Look, if these folks are all that is left of the human race then we are fucked. Plain and simple. These people who can not take care of themselves in this amazingly sheltered civilisation we have now would be fucked without it.
A few have mentioned that such mutations are how we evolve. But see, no. These mutations would have died off, they are not beneficial so they would have been wiped out in nature. It is only because we coddle them that they thrive.

As a parent it is up to you to ensure your child has the best life it can. So if you know that you breeding with a specific someone would result in a child with a reduced quality of life then you are an asshole just as if you denied your kid vital vaccinations or medical care. Your duty is to ensure any child you have has the best quality life possible so bringing one into the world you know will be messed up is a horrible thing to do.

You are now my hero.

That entire post was amazing, and I fully agree.

What is it with "potential life". If every potential child at this moment was born, the world would be screwed. It is a possibility, nothing has been killed. To take a potential statistic and treat it like a human life is a mindset so outdated that I get shocked every time I see it.

Most people's lives are already difficult as is, why would someone want to bring a child into the world knowing that its life will have a massive added trouble, one that the child probably won't even have the facilities to ever cope with. This kind of insane logic frightens me...

 

[DoctorFrankenStein]

I don't agree with mandatory Eugenics.
HOWEVER, I do think that if someone has decided that they do not want children for whatever reason- that they should be able to get a sterilization procedure done for cheap or free as a perk from the government.
[I think it's bullocks that the USA doesn't have national healthcare.]

The only time I'd support forced sterilization would be in the case of multiple offense rapists, especially pedophiles. If you've been caught red-handed doing either of these things more then once, you can't be trusted with a child anyway.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Two things. Genetic diversity and human rights. They kind of invalidate eugenics.

 

[Tselis]

As a person with Bipolar, I wholeheartedly agree with any treatment that would remove this scourge from humanity. I am honestly terrified that I have passed this on to my children

Hi Tselis.
Sorry if you've been asked this already (I skimmed through the thread and didn't see it), I realise also that this is a very sensitive subject so if you don't wish to respond that's perfectly understandable.
But...

Why did you have children?

I was diagnosed after I had 2 kids and wasn't properly treated until I'd had the third. Sanity was not in copious supply back then.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

As to the idea of promoting "good genes" through positive reinforcement
that is what the movie Gattica is ABOUT!
no one stopped the parents in Gattica from having the main character
no one killed said character for being a "genetic inferior"
they just labeled him "worthless" and denied him access to anything positive, like school, a good job, a wife, children, hope and a future.

That's not positive reinforcement. He was completely denied access to things that "desirable" people had. In my scenario, he could still attend the school, get the job, the girl etc. The only detriment he would suffer is possibly less financial aid. Not a deal breaker, not complete denial. If an "undesirable" wants to achieve their goals, they still can. They would just have to work harder (thus proving themselves desirable)


Another take would be to let the achievements of parents influence the "desirability" of their children. For instance, if you and your spouse maintained high GPAs (say, 3.85 or better) all throughout college, than your kids would be eligible for the Smarty-Pants scholarship, as long as they (the kid) maintained the same GPA. And I'm not talking about a full ride scholarship, but something to help pay the collegiate bills. In this scenario, genetics play little to no role in determining your benefits. Ability does, and it pays forward. If your parents do well, they help their kids to well in the future, which can help the grand kids do well, etc.


And again, these are all half-baked concepts that I'm just kinda rattling off the cuff. Would also just like to point out that I've never once advocated the whole-sale killing of people with any specific conditions. There are much more more humane ways of encouraging an improvement in the gene pool.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I think that the human race should simply find solutions to the disabilities rather than trying to breed or kill them out of existence. We get stronger by solving problems by superior technology, not from destroying irregularities.

 

[SadakoMoose]

What I agree with:
Giving parents the option of allowing their future children to be treated so that they have zero chance of developing hereditary disorders or disfigurements.

Making sure that there are anti discrimination laws for the children of people who said no.

Making sure that the majority of people are brought up to believe that all people are equal, without question, to prevent such discrimination in the first place

What I disagree with: Any attempts at improving or enhancing humans beyond the above mentioned plus whatever they choose to do themselves when they get older enough to decide on their own.
If your in your twenties and you decide to get cybernetic implants, that' your business. It shouldn't be something you're born with.

Also, negative eugenics and intelligence based eugenic theories need to be banned.
If I could have my way, scientists that supported negative eugenics, as well as everyone that believes "the idiots are taking over" (hardcore idiocracy fans) would be deported.
Or discredited/disbarred/credentials revoked.

 

[DarkRyter]

I feel any societal measure to control reproduction is authoritarian in nature.

We'll cure all those diseases someday. But it will be through

SCIENCE!

 

[geK0]

It starts with breeding out genetic disorders (which wouldn't work anyway); before you know it, only people with an IQ above 140, superb bodies and free of disease are allowed to breed. Common bred people are suddenly second class citizens.

Alright, it's a bit cliche. The point is, where exactly do we draw the line?

 

[Fbuh]

By doing this, you would accomplish a purer genetic pool, but also a terribly deficient one. We would essentially lose any build up towards immunity to any of those diseases. IT is my belief that nature will work things out, and that those things are in place for a reason.

 

[JWAN]

Plenty of bipolar people or people with other issues function just fine. I think that the person should choose for themselves.

 

[skim172]

Eugenics was practiced in the USA until the 1970s, I believe.

The famous Supreme Court case was "Buck vs Bell", in 1927. The case revolved around an 18 year-old named Carrie Buck, a patient at a Virginia state mental hospital. According to the superintendent of the facility, Carrie Buck had a mental age of 9, and her mother had a mental age of 8. Carrie had given birth to an illegitimate child who was also declared "feeble-minded." The facility recommended that she be sterilized. Her guardian filed an appeal - the case eventually went to the Supreme Court.

In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled against Buck and supported her sterilization. It was ruled that Buck was "feeble-minded" and "promiscuous." It was in the public interest to eliminate the weak from the gene pool for future generations. The famous line from the majority statement was "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

That decision legitimized existing sterilization laws and encouraged many states to add such laws as well. It was popularly supported and, contrary to what the OP suggests, many of the surgeries were carried out in the open, under government oversight. It was all perfectly legal and it wasn't until the 1960s case Skinner v Oklahoma that the practice began to diminish.


But here's the problem. Going back to the case of Carrie Buck: there exists the question whether or not Carrie Buck was truly "feeble-minded." Recent examinations have thrown significant doubt on the question.

When Buck was a child, her mother had been committed to a mental hospital on grounds of immorality, prostitution, and having syphilis. She was placed with a foster family, who, for whatever reason, discontinued her education after sixth grade. She was placed in a mental hospital by her foster family on the grounds of feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior, and promiscuity. This was justified by the evidence that she'd become pregnant with an illegitimate child.

However, the likely real reason is that their nephew had raped Buck several months earlier and left her pregnant.

Carrie Buck was released after her sterilization and subsequent interviews with her revealed a woman of normal intelligence. Her child died early in life, but was a decent student. Her sister, who had also been sterilized without her knowledge, also proved to be fairly normal.



Would this stand up to modern reasoning? Would you institutionalize a woman because she was immoral, a prostitute, or had syphilis? Would you institutionalize her daughter because she was incorrigible or promiscuous? Did either deserve institutionalization when one had been raped and the other likely just an impoverished woman? And knowing that, does this create a family history justifying forced sterilization?

I understand that the OP doesn't mean this. I understand that the OP is expressly avoiding the "feeble-minded" argument that justified the sterilization of so many who were poor, sick, or foreign. I get that the OP is stressing race and ethnicity is not a factor to avoid echoing the Nazis who so strongly supported eugenics (and in fact, cited Buck vs Bell, in their speeches, their research, and later, in their defense at the Nuremberg trials).

But I bring up Buck vs Bell to prove a point - that at one point in very recent history, modern democratic states with constitutional, codified legal systems, led by intelligent, learned leaders and majorities, decided that promiscuity, incorrigibility, and pregnancy were grounds enough to institutionalize and sterilize a destitute mother and a raped teenager.

And then I ask you why we aren't capable of making similar grievous errors in judgment.

Certainly, mistakes were made. Certainly, they didn't know some things about genetics that we know now. But are we incapable of making similar mistakes? Are we truly so knowledgeable about genetics? So many diseases, we don't even know what their cause may be. We think it might be inherited, but what if it can also be environmental? What if it's recessive and it might not be passed along? What if it's a mutation that occurs without inheritance? What if it's only activated by certain environmental factors?


And where do we draw the line? What if it's a genetic defect that's easily corrected? What if it's a disease than can be treated? What if they decide all people who are cancer-risks should be sterilized? What about congenital heart disease? Diabetes? Anemia? Hemophilia? Astigmatism? Color-blindness? Male-pattern baldness?

Will you be that quick to subject yourself to the knife?

What if you're merely a carrier? You have a recessive gene which has a 50% chance of being carried on in your chromosomes and 25% chance of manifesting in your child, if you meet someone else who is also a carrier. Should you be sterilized?


And this is all very simplified genetics. The fact is, your genes are not individual switches. You activate one gene, you'll activate and deactivate others. And disease are often multiple genes in a certain alignment. Will they pass on in that format? Or will they not?

We know so very little about genetics and even less about genetic inheritance. We don't know why, for example, a genetic disease sometimes manifests in one identical twin and not the other. We don't know why some genetic diseases seem to manifest spontaneously. We don't even know what the majority of our DNA even does and what activates or deactivates them.



And the final question: is it even morally right to force sterilization? Isn't forced sterilization a violation of a basic human right - the right to procreate? Is this a violation of due process? Is this akin to killing a child because of a genetic defect? Are we administering a punishment before a crime has occurred? And is this essentially criminalizing the act of bearing a child with genetic defects?

 

[Soluncreed]

So if I understand this correctly, those who are not able to contribute good, solid genes to the next generation are not deemed fit to reproduce. You know what, let's say that you have someone with a family history of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This is a nasty neurodegenerative disease that can cause muscle control loss to the point of not being able to breathe without assistance, decreased cognitive function, and is fatal with no solid treatment to boot. It makes sense that they shouldn't have kids, right?
Oh wait, doesn't Steven Hawking have that?
Or what about those with mental retardation and bipolar disorder like you said? Take a person with both serious mental impairments and blindness to boot? Why don't you take a look at him play the piano? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_GUPcg25QI
Or what about someone with bipolar disorder? Ask Georg Cantor, who got the Sylvester medal from the Royal Society, which is the highest mathematics honor they can bestow.

It is impossible to determine one's future based on what they are born with and what they can pass down. Each of these people that I have mentioned have made invaluable contributions to their respective fields, which never would have come about if their parents were unable to breed due to a couple of poor genes.

Personally, I don't deem this a very fair argument. Yes, there are exceptions.
I look at this from the perspective of race as a whole. An attempt to make the human race better, both physically and mentally is not a bad thing. It is noble.
You must remember that there will still be people who will make excellent achievements.

 

[geK0]

First off I want to say I'm sorry for all the people I;m about to insult. Please know I don't know you as a person nor do I mean this to be hurtful only my view

Ok we know we are over populated so yeah it's time to start trimming the fat. We have to make cut somewhere are we are going to wipe ourselves out. Genetics is a good of place to start as any.

What are we going to do when the "trimmed" generation is unable to support the current generation when we are in our senior years?
I suppose they might just decide to 'trim' us off the population, seeing as they were brought up in an extreme utilitarian culture.

 

[Tselis]

I was going to respond to ...*deleted* person who was quoting me, as he totally misunderstood what I was trying to say. However, it seems that the moderators have suspended him for 14 days in response to his response. So I guess I'll just leave what I've already said, which I think clearly expresses my opinion, and hush my mouth.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

This is already done in clear cases of extreme diseases with identifiable genetic causes. People are routinely informed that they should not have children and as far as I'm aware the compliance rate for those suggestions is quite high. And it's not like these people can't adopt.

So no, there's nothing really wrong with this. Forced sterilization is a very different issue since you're talking about a forced surgical procedure, which carries its own discomforts, time commitments, and risks, often much greater risks for the very people we're talking about.

The problem with typical eugenics is that you need a metric for determining what is and is not a desirable trait. Since that metric will necessarily depend on the biases of the group deciding such things, you end up in awful situations. The only limiting factor there is that the trait needs to be inheritable, but historically people promoting eugenics have played pretty fast and loose with proof of inheritability. And that's where this sort of thing ends up being quite different - we're talking about diseases that virtually no society doesn't think the world would be better without (eliminating the issue of a dominant group forcing its values on other social groups, since all social groups agree) that have very well-attested genetic causes (eliminating the question of sketchy assumptions of inheritability).

 

[drthmik]

As to the idea of promoting "good genes" through positive reinforcement
that is what the movie Gattica is ABOUT!
no one stopped the parents in Gattica from having the main character
no one killed said character for being a "genetic inferior"
they just labeled him "worthless" and denied him access to anything positive, like school, a good job, a wife, children, hope and a future.

That's not positive reinforcement. He was completely denied access to things that "desirable" people had. In my scenario, he could still attend the school, get the job, the girl etc. The only detriment he would suffer is possibly less financial aid. Not a deal breaker, not complete denial. If an "undesirable" wants to achieve their goals, they still can. They would just have to work harder (thus proving themselves desirable)


Another take would be to let the achievements of parents influence the "desirability" of their children. For instance, if you and your spouse maintained high GPAs (say, 3.85 or better) all throughout college, than your kids would be eligible for the Smarty-Pants scholarship, as long as they (the kid) maintained the same GPA. And I'm not talking about a full ride scholarship, but something to help pay the collegiate bills. In this scenario, genetics play little to no role in determining your benefits. Ability does, and it pays forward. If your parents do well, they help their kids to well in the future, which can help the grand kids do well, etc.


And again, these are all half-baked concepts that I'm just kinda rattling off the cuff. Would also just like to point out that I've never once advocated the whole-sale killing of people with any specific conditions. There are much more more humane ways of encouraging an improvement in the gene pool.

Go watch the movie again

He did go to school, he just wasn't given any of the opportunities that the genetically "superior" kids had like being aloud to play sports or go to college
Why bother, he had a genetically defective heart, sports would kill him and he wasn't expected to live past 30.

he had access to a "job" being a janitor or a garbageman is a job and that's what he had access to. after all he couldn't go to college.

and one can assume that he could date any other genetic losers like himself.

when a society starts discriminating either for or against people based on some factor of their birth and/or their parents, that society becomes evil.
period
no ands, ifs or buts