Angry mom sends letter to family of autistic child telling them to have him euthanized.

[MrGalactus]

I'm amazed this has 10 pages of comments. I wouldn't think this would go any further than "what a shitty thing to do".

 

[Lilani]

I'm amazed this has 10 pages of comments. I wouldn't think this would go any further than "what a shitty thing to do".

It's amazing what can happen when you toss a few sociopaths into a conversation about ethics.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

ehhh... still no. As MorphingDragon put it above, humans are still being affected by evolution - we might scream and shout and rage against it, but in the end what is and what isn't a strong or 'beneficial' genetic trait is determined entirely by the environment around us, not by humanity itself. If we went out and say, eliminated all the 'weak' genes, it's entirely possible that our environment could change so that those 'weak' genes were actually the best option for us to survive.

The best thing for a species, funnily enough, isn't strength - it's adaptability and variability. Eugenics spits in the face of this; a bastardized version of natural selection that's determined by what a small group of people believe is the 'best' traits but don't actually know what these best traits are. If anything, Eugenics is harmful to humanity because it limits the genepool; that and it's decided by a small group, who could just pick traits that they don't like rather than those that are best (like, kill all the redheads because they burn easily), working to further their own goals rather than those of humanity (and, as we all know, with Great Power comes Great Responsibility, but Power also Corrupts Easily).

So, for the third and final time - Eugenics, not even once. It might *sound* like a good idea on paper, but in reality it's a flawed concept that would only function on small scale, is prone to abuse of power by people and does nothing but harm humanity in the long run. Instead of deciding whether or not to kill people who are 'defective' by Eugenics standards, how about this - leave them the fuck alone. Let them live their lives the way they want to while you try to come up with a way to help humanity that doesn't involve mass homicide.

Well shit, I don't see how autism or the variety of physical/mental conditions is 'adaption'. That's the thing I was pointing out about society, it stunts natural selection. Eugenics isn't a good substitute but it's that or nothing.

Now there is the 'theory' (I use that term lightly, it's probably just crazy Joe Rogan stoner talk) that autism and these social disorders are side effects of humanities' changes in interaction, I mean face to face conversations is really being phased out and I'm willing to wager the majority of interaction and exchange of ideas is taking place on the internet not in the 'real world'. But I'm digressing, I don't see how Eugenics would ever limit the genepool to the point where we were say, inbreeding, I mean there is 7 billion. Even if it does go hogwild blonde hair blue eyes only white etc. Although I'm not advocating Eugenics, I'm just merely pointing out the possible benefits of Eugenics.

But fuck, we didn't get the atom bomb without 'bending' a few morals right?

The human race has been reduced to a couple thousand people globally on a couple occasions after extreme distasters left most of the Earth uninhabitable (there's a reason everyones related a little bit - we have the genes of a 'Genetic Adam' and 'Genetic Eve' somewhere in the mix); 7% of all Asians are related to Ghengis Khan after his various wars and campaigns thanks to all the rape he committed; the Black Death killed 75-200 million people throughout Europe, a deathtoll so high for the time that it caused the global population to dip by a sizable portion. There might be 7 billion of us, but we are VERY easy to kill en masse. Killing our own people in large numbers based on genetics isn't that smart a move - especially if it reduces all of us to having similar genes, as that just makes us more vulnerable to environmental shifts.

If you're really looking for 'best for Society' bullshittery that most Eugenics Advocates spout on, there's other less-morally fucked up ones out there - mandatory work, set pay for everyone, rationing food... seriously, healthy people are super useful and far more numerous than people with genetic diseases, why not focus on them instead? Get a hell of a lot more benefits from making them do shit than just killing people who don't even make up a percent of the population. Hell, forcing everyone into mandatory labor would make more than enough to support all of us bastards who need medical care, eh? Two birds with one stone right there - solve the unemployment problem AND the apparently titanic cost giving people medical or psychological aid(in reality it's actually not much of a social or economic burden to take care of Autistic people if they need care).

And seriously, just because the Nuclear Bomb was powerful and arguably made World War II end faster doesn't mean it was a smart move in the long run - the fact that most nations are currently eyeing one another with the finger on the trigger just in case they fire theirs first! is pretty damning evident of the whole 'Good short term, bad long term' thing I said about Eugenics. There are better, less morally fucked up and more efficient plans than killing everyone who can't socialize properly.

Oh I wasn't saying the A-bomb was good, I'm just saying that a cut throat attitude and morals being thrown out the fucking window can lead to innovation and 'progress', depending on your point of view.

You're also making the argument that humanity is worth saving, that humanity is somehow a special snowflake.
Apart from the fact that the universe is infinitely huge and possibly expanding there are 7 billion humans and humans are intrinsically flawed. We are blood thirsty sex craved slaves to our own instincts and compulsions, civilization will never work because somewhere down he road there will be someone who fucks it up, some dictator, someone looking to profit off of the misery of others. So maybe that is why I give some credence to the idea of genetics,not because mass slaughter of your fellow man would make any positive change but because I don't regard humans highly in the first place.

So because you're a cynic other people have to suffer?

 

[MrGalactus]

I'm amazed this has 10 pages of comments. I wouldn't think this would go any further than "what a shitty thing to do".

It's amazing what can happen when you toss a few sociopaths into a conversation about ethics.

Weeeeel, now you've interested me. I'm gonna get reading.
Let me guess, eugenics?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Society doesn't stunt Natural Selection, Society itself contributes to the environment around us. Society itself is a result of natural selection by favouring traits that allows us to be a social species.

Well...it certainly doesn't stop evolution, but evolution doesn't always work at the same pace. Society may well reduce selection pressures and slow evolution.

However, the society isn't likely to last long enough to make a real difference on an evolutionary timescale.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Society doesn't stunt Natural Selection, Society itself contributes to the environment around us. Society itself is a result of natural selection by favouring traits that allows us to be a social species.

Well...it certainly doesn't stop evolution, but evolution doesn't always work at the same pace. Society may well reduce selection pressures and slow evolution.

However, the society isn't likely to last long enough to make a real difference on an evolutionary timescale.

You can't slow evolution. Evolution doesn't have a concept of "pace". That's your corruption on the topic.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You can't slow evolution. Evolution doesn't have a concept of "pace". That's your corruption on the topic.

Well, yes, but I didn't know how else to put it. Sometimes some species change faster than others under different circumstances, which society may affect, I mean.

 

[DerangedHobo]

So because you're a cynic other people have to suffer?

No, I'm a cynic because people suffer. I like to equate humanity is like a train-wreck that just keeps going and going and going and after a point it stops being horrible and it starts being kinda satirical. I mean human beings have beings have been around for 100,000+ years and after all of that time we still murder, rape, genocide and piss all over everything. I mean ignoring the mass pollution, blood shed caused by wars and overall greed, every person consuming some product is indirectly causing suffering to someone, somewhere.

That computer you're using? 10 year olds in Africa digging up precious metals, the car you drive? The oil is directly linked to wars and pollution on a grand scale, those clothes you wear were probably made by some 8 year old in a sweatshop in some 3rd world hell hole. Not trying to insult you personally I'm just saying I can't have much sympathy for myself or others when we cause so much pain and suffering even indirectly.

So when you bring up things like Eugenics, 'ethnic and social cleansing' and things people may generally consider to be evil and despicable you also have to take into account how much people are really worth, which in my opinion at least isn't very much.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm amazed this has 10 pages of comments. I wouldn't think this would go any further than "what a shitty thing to do".

It's amazing what can happen when you toss a few sociopaths into a conversation about ethics.

Weeeeel, now you've interested me. I'm gonna get reading.
Let me guess, eugenics?

It's like you're psychic or something.

This thread went some pretty sad directions, I gotta say.

 

[Audey_hevey]

This situation is bad enough, but what makes it even who worse is the fact that SHE'S A MOTHER HERSELF.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I don't understand. Where's the discussion value here?

Yeah it's bad disgusting etc etc


and?

 

[Andrew Giarrusso]

I'm glad to see we've stopped this discussion.

 

[SuperUberBob]

This person clearly underestimates the hardship that lies upon the parents when dealing with a child with ASD.

Lot of balls to complain when you only have to deal with the screaming part of the disorder.