I've been thinking...

[Kahunaburger]

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

 

[Dectomax]

I can understand what you are saying but I would advise you sir to tread carefully, you are walking on a fine line between a discussing and a Flame war.


I have a younger brother with Downs syndrome who most definitely would have died as a baby were it not for technology. And I would damn well fight to the bitter end against people who would want him to just die rather than have him live as a "Drain on the Master Race's resources".

I in no way intend to offend anyone, this is merely a thought that I wished to discuss and see peoples opinions on. It is, as I have seen, a very hotly debated subject.

 

[Dectomax]

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

Then feel free, as long as you post a well constructed and voiced opinion I'm sure many members will be delighted to discuss with you. That is the nature of this thread and forum. Just keep it respectful and clean.

 

[Sevre]

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

I'd like you to read the forum rules [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]. You've already expressed your opinion about this thread, there's no reason for you to stay here and threadcrap. Unless you're going to argue against eugenics you have no reason to stay here, if you attack the thread you will be punished.

 

[CrystalShadow]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

I agree. To an extent. He went about it the wrong way. As a general rule though, if only the strongest are allowed to survive and pass on their genes only the best of our genes will be passed on.

The fatal flaw in this is that strongest in evolutionary terms isn't an absolute statement, and what's good in one set of circumstances is bad in another.

Further, a surprising amount of really bad things are side effects of positive adaptations to something else.
Sickle Cell Anemia is a consequence of a recessive gene that, if combined with another dominant gene confers resistance to malaria, but if it's the only thing you've got, causes serious health problems.

OK, so yes, there are a lot of 'disabled' people that would die if we didn't look after them.

But there's also a lot of people with harmful traits in the present circumstances that would do a lot better if the situation changed.

To put it differently, Diversity is in and of itself a good thing for a species, and unless the survival of the species as a whole is at stake, 'survival of the fittest' being applied on purpose isn't necessarily going to make the species as a whole stronger. (And may even have the reverse effect, because it could make the gene pool less diverse, thus making us more vulnerable to future environmental changes.)

 

[Dectomax]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

I agree. To an extent. He went about it the wrong way. As a general rule though, if only the strongest are allowed to survive and pass on their genes only the best of our genes will be passed on.

The fatal flaw in this is that strongest in evolutionary terms isn't an absolute statement, and what's good in one set of circumstances is bad in another.

Further, a surprising amount of really bad things are side effects of positive adaptations to something else.
Sickle Cell Anemia is a consequence of a recessive gene that, if combined with another dominant gene confers resistance to malaria, but if it's the only thing you've got, causes serious health problems.

OK, so yes, there are a lot of 'disabled' people that would die if we didn't look after them.

But there's also a lot of people with harmful traits in the present circumstances that would do a lot better if the situation changed.

To put it differently, Diversity is in and of itself a good thing for a species, and unless the survival of the species as a whole is at stake, 'survival of the fittest' being applied on purpose isn't necessarily going to make the species as a whole stronger. (And may even have the reverse effect, because it could make the gene pool less diverse, thus making us more vulnerable to future environmental changes.)

Indeed, you could say one of the reasons we've survived is because of our adaptability and how as a species we have gained characteristics that allow us to survive in different environments from diversity. If we came from the same gene pool, we may lack certain resistances that others have, putting us at a disadvantage. Yet, if we were to disallow disabled or weaker children to live, could you not also say that they would not pass on other, possibly more fatal flaws?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

No. Community is our greatest asset, and compassion is a pretty big part of that. I have trouble imagining that we would have made it this far by being ruthless.

 

[The_Darkness]

Put it this way: We have no real idea of what we, as a species, might face in the future. Sure, we have reasonably good guesses, but who's to say that some nasty plague won't crop up that kills off everyone that doesn't have AIDS? Or Down's Syndrome? If we limit the human gene pool, we limit our adaptability. If a gene is beneficial, then it spreads. Otherwise, it gets limited within the gene pool and will *not* get adapted by the species as a whole. But in a changing environment (and believe me, even if it is doing it slowly, every environment is changing), then we can't truly know which genes will be useful in the future.

(AIDS is a difficult example here because it isn't a genetic issue. That said, I'm all for trying to find a cure to AIDS and simply using contraceptives in the meantime rather than anything more... 'extreme'.)

 

[CrystalShadow]

[spoiler"Previously..."]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

I agree. To an extent. He went about it the wrong way. As a general rule though, if only the strongest are allowed to survive and pass on their genes only the best of our genes will be passed on.

The fatal flaw in this is that strongest in evolutionary terms isn't an absolute statement, and what's good in one set of circumstances is bad in another.

Further, a surprising amount of really bad things are side effects of positive adaptations to something else.
Sickle Cell Anemia is a consequence of a recessive gene that, if combined with another dominant gene confers resistance to malaria, but if it's the only thing you've got, causes serious health problems.

OK, so yes, there are a lot of 'disabled' people that would die if we didn't look after them.

But there's also a lot of people with harmful traits in the present circumstances that would do a lot better if the situation changed.

To put it differently, Diversity is in and of itself a good thing for a species, and unless the survival of the species as a whole is at stake, 'survival of the fittest' being applied on purpose isn't necessarily going to make the species as a whole stronger. (And may even have the reverse effect, because it could make the gene pool less diverse, thus making us more vulnerable to future environmental changes.)[/spoiler]

Indeed, you could say one of the reasons we've survived is because of our adaptability and how as a species we have gained characteristics that allow us to survive in different environments from diversity. If we came from the same gene pool, we may lack certain resistances that others have, putting us at a disadvantage. Yet, if we were to disallow disabled or weaker children to live, could you not also say that they would not pass on other, possibly more fatal flaws?

You could. But that goes both ways. They wouldn't pass on flaws, but they also wouldn't pass on any positive traits they may have.

Aside from which, again, positive and negative are relative in all but the most extreme cases.

Which means, you would have to decide what constitutes 'weakness'. After all, pretty much all children are too weak to look after themselves for quite a long time.
And they'll all die if you don't feed them.

So in absolute terms, no child is strong enough to survive by themselves. (Not human children, anyway), which means second-guessing what is harmful enough to stop looking after.

For that matter, some problems aren't evident in children, so you'd also end up having to look into people that have problems that show up later, and decide what to do with any children they had before finding out there was a problem...
And a whole host of other practical problems about deciding who lives and who dies...

And all for a hypothetical improvement that isn't even really something that can be verified either way.

 

[etherlance]

I can understand what you are saying but I would advise you sir to tread carefully, you are walking on a fine line between a discussing and a Flame war.


I have a younger brother with Downs syndrome who most definitely would have died as a baby were it not for technology. And I would damn well fight to the bitter end against people who would want him to just die rather than have him live as a "Drain on the Master Race's resources".

I in no way intend to offend anyone, this is merely a thought that I wished to discuss and see peoples opinions on. It is, as I have seen, a very hotly debated subject.

Could you look a crippled man in the eye and say to him:

"Excuse me sir but could you kindly just die now?......your lack of mobility has become a drain on resources and you are holding the master race back".

Could you say the same to a person who has another faith than that of the master race, that they have to die because the faith they have restricts them from recieving or performing certain medical procedures?

Do you even know exactly what constitutes as a "Strong person"?

Could you live your life with downs syndrome?

Could you live your life not able to understand what people are saying to you correctly?

Could tell that child to die or would you have some other "Strong people" do it for you?

I can tell you now, these people you may consider to be the weaker of our species have a lot more strength than any one in this thread, they live every day with their draw backs and do they let that stop them?....not a chance.

We are what we are, and what we are We are for one reason......Because we are flawed, we are messed up, obsolete, whacked out and Bonkers.......and that is why we are all perfect in our own way.

From my Downs syndrome brother to Einstein.
From Osama bin Laden to Mother Theresa.
From me to you and everyone else on the planet.

We are all totally screwed up, We are all totally perfect.....we already ARE the master race.

 

[Vault101]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

we are still evolving but the difference here is we ourselfs are forging the path along which we evolve, (I thik?) we are excempt from natural selection anyway

and really? no matter how well intentioned the Idea is enforcing it in anyway is a completle breach of human rights which we have "evolved" cultrally to put in place

 

[Kahunaburger]

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

I'd like you to read the forum rules [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]. You've already expressed your opinion about this thread, there's no reason for you to stay here and threadcrap. Unless you're going to argue against eugenics you have no reason to stay here, if you attack the thread you will be punished.

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

Then feel free, as long as you post a well constructed and voiced opinion I'm sure many members will be delighted to discuss with you. That is the nature of this thread and forum. Just keep it respectful and clean.

It's more an issue of essentially trying to mask a racist, able-ist, and pseudo-scientific ideology behind a pretense of civility. "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" is not a valid argument. And the forum rules are not designed to allow people to air their views on ideologies such as eugenics without being called out on it.

 

[Dectomax]

I can understand what you are saying but I would advise you sir to tread carefully, you are walking on a fine line between a discussing and a Flame war.


I have a younger brother with Downs syndrome who most definitely would have died as a baby were it not for technology. And I would damn well fight to the bitter end against people who would want him to just die rather than have him live as a "Drain on the Master Race's resources".

I in no way intend to offend anyone, this is merely a thought that I wished to discuss and see peoples opinions on. It is, as I have seen, a very hotly debated subject.

Could you look a crippled man in the eye and say to him:

"Excuse me sir but could you kindly just die now?......your lack of mobility has become a drain on resources and you are holding the master race back".

Could you say the same to a person who has another faith than that of the master race, that they have to die because the faith they have restricts them from recieving or performing certain medical procedures?

Do you even know exactly what constitutes as a "Strong person"?

Could you live your life with downs syndrome?

Could you live your life not able to understand what people are saying to you correctly?

Could tell that child to die or would you have some other "Strong people" do it for you?

I can tell you now, these people you may consider to be the weaker of our species have a lot more strength than any one in this thread, they live every day with their draw backs and do they let that stop them?....not a chance.

We are what we are, and what we are We are for one reason......Because we are flawed, we are messed up, obsolete, whacked out and Bonkers.......and that is why we are all perfect in our own way.

From my Downs syndrome brother to Einstein.
From Osama bin Laden to Mother Theresa.
From me to you and everyone else on the planet.

We are all totally screwed up, We are all totally perfect.....we already ARE the master race.

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm neither for or against it. I just think it's a very interesting topic.

 

[Dectomax]

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

I'd like you to read the forum rules [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]. You've already expressed your opinion about this thread, there's no reason for you to stay here and threadcrap. Unless you're going to argue against eugenics you have no reason to stay here, if you attack the thread you will be punished.

This discussion never had value. What, we're going to debate phrenology next?

It's about whether it would help our species or not? What are the ethical and moral issues that are involved with it? Would it be worth it? Please, unless you have something valid to say, leave the thread. You don't have to reply if you do not like or care about the subject being discussed.

Respectively,

No
Unethical
No

And we've known these answers for quite some time now.

Stay out of the eugenics thread if you don't want to discuss eugenics.

Personally I'm looking forward to the singularity, then we can really make life fun.

What if I want to discuss how stupid the eugenics thread is?

Then feel free, as long as you post a well constructed and voiced opinion I'm sure many members will be delighted to discuss with you. That is the nature of this thread and forum. Just keep it respectful and clean.

It's more an issue of essentially trying to mask a racist, able-ist, and pseudo-scientific ideology behind a pretense of civility. "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" is not a valid argument. And the forum rules are not designed to allow people to air their views on ideologies such as eugenics without being called out on it.

I am neither for or against it, read my posts. I am just intrigued and fascinated by this subject.

 

[Flaming Narwhal]

I'm not entirely sure. People suck, this is a basic truth about the world, but a person can go on to do amazing things. There will always be those who sponge off society and don't and have no intention to contribute anything useful to society... but euthanasia is really messed up when it's done to puppies and kittens, so doing it to people...
But with scientific advances we really could get rid of faulty genes so we wouldn't have to worry about certain terminal diseases, so that would rid the human race of a large drain on resources.
I'm really straddling the fence here.

 

[i7omahawki]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

You're talking about eugenics, pretty brave discussion topic really, but definately one worth raising.

You say that "in the wild, it's survival of the strongest" which isn't strictly true. It is survival of the 'fittest' which isn't necessarily (but sometimes includes) strength. Fittest just means able to survive and reproduce, the one's who are fittest will most likely outlive those that aren't, and so reproduce. 'Strongest' is misleading because, in a certain environment the physically strongest species would die out, (I'm thinking particularly of one where strength has a minor role and muscle mass is a disadvantage.)

So, what you're saying is that humanity should stop adapting the world to itself, and adapt itself to the world. The trouble is that that's what we're already doing, we change and augment ourselves (Stephen Hawkings is a good example) to prolong or preserve our lives. We just 'evolve' in many more ways that simple genetic mutation. Culture is perhaps the most striking example.

Basically, humans could become a lot stronger if we eradicated disease, BUT some of the greatest minds (again, Hawkings) appear to be defective. The fittest species arises due to variations, and so having a varied species makes the collective stronger than a single 'master race' (who would all be susceptible to certain diseases/hazardous environments.)

My advice, to think about this, would be simply: read some Nietzsche. All the mistakes Hitler made, Nietzsche seemed to anticipate, and his idea of an ubermensch was bastardized for the Nazi's 'master race'. Read any or all of him, helluva guy.

 

[CarlMin]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

You're talking about eugenics, pretty brave discussion topic really, but definately one worth raising.

You say that "in the wild, it's survival of the strongest" which isn't strictly true. It is survival of the 'fittest' which isn't necessarily (but sometimes includes) strength. Fittest just means able to survive and reproduce, the one's who are fittest will most likely outlive those that aren't, and so reproduce. 'Strongest' is misleading because, in a certain environment the physically strongest species would die out, (I'm thinking particularly of one where strength has a minor role and muscle mass is a disadvantage.)

So, what you're saying is that humanity should stop adapting the world to itself, and adapt itself to the world. The trouble is that that's what we're already doing, we change and augment ourselves (Stephen Hawkings is a good example) to prolong or preserve our lives. We just 'evolve' in many more ways that simple genetic mutation. Culture is perhaps the most striking example.

Basically, humans could become a lot stronger if we eradicated disease, BUT some of the greatest minds (again, Hawkings) appear to be defective. The fittest species arises due to variations, and so having a varied species makes the collective stronger than a single 'master race' (who would all be susceptible to certain diseases/hazardous environments.)

My advice, to think about this, would be simply: read some Nietzsche. All the mistakes Hitler made, Nietzsche seemed to anticipate, and his idea of an ubermensch was bastardized for the Nazi's 'master race'. Read any or all of him, helluva guy.

Really?

I wouldn't recommend anyone to read Nietzsche if not for a good laugh. No offence to you but the guy was a mentally ill, confused philosopher who's whole philosophy was based on the idea that one human (the Übermensch) can be superior to another.

 

[General Vagueness]

ITT: the philosophy behind Idiocracy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy]

 

[LuckyClover95]

I disagree. We are humans, and not animals. We are more advanced than animals and one of our main features that makes us more advanced is human compassion, empathy etc. This seems too inhumane. However I worry that we have come to rely too much on technology and others, if something goes horribly wrong we could all be wiped out. But I dunno.

 

[Silverfox99]

If I am reading the argument correctly, you are asking if we should limit the human gene pool to the preferred genes. What happens when all of the bad genes are purged and everyone has the same genes? It sounds a lot like inbreeding to me.