I've been thinking...

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Hitler's view of the human race was all wrong; there was no Aryan race and 'pure Germans' didn't exist. He would have been better off being a motivational speaker, not a politician.

However, as for the whole evolution thing, we've managed to evolve to a point where we can survive in pretty much any environment. Thanks to our minds we've managed to develop things that let us live where we want and kill anything we want while also being pretty shit on the physical front. Just because we aren't the fittest physically doesn't mean we aren't the fittest.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Humans have been evolving, biologically, humans show a trend towards growing taller, as long as certain humans are perceived as a more suitable sexual partner than others the human race will continue to evolve in that direction and there are always those random mutations that will occur. No species can really stop evolving (unless they die out).

But eugenics is a tricky subject, it's usually advocated by egomaniacs who often don't even fit into the master race they are trying to produce. Hitler wanted a race of 6ft intelligent, athletic, blonde haired, blue eyed people whilst he was a 5ft 6-8ish dark haired guy with brown eyes and asthma who failed to get into art college.

 

[Lilani]

I see what you're saying. It's not really what I was asking though. It wouldn't be things like that. I'm saying about disabled children and other unfortunate cases where a child will only survive because of technological help. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just asking what would happen if we didn't rely on that? If children who were born fine, lived and those with complications were left to die? ( As immoral as that is, would it benefit humankind? )

Again though, who are you to decide that? Who is anyone to decide that another human being isn't worth keeping alive? Who is anyone to decide what constitutes a burden on society? Are homeless people and hobos burdens too, because they don't work or meaningfully contribute to society as a whole?

The point of a government is to protect the welfare of the people. The people invest time, money, and effort to their governments to receive the benefits of their protection. And the main form of protection that people always have and always will seek is security--primarily security in life. They want to know that their government will do their best to make sure that they stay alive.

So if a government decides to systematically kill off a few people, for the reason of "it's better for everyone else," that completely undermines the entire point of a government, and shatters that sense of security the people have in it. The people begin to wonder, am I next? Will something ever happen to me that puts me on that "bad" list? What happens if they change their mind about who stays and who goes?

And if the government establishes itself as one that does not hesitate to roll a few heads for the sake of the future, how are people supposed to feel secure in voicing their opinions? They'll begin to think "If I protest, they might decide to kill me, too!" And who is to say their wrong? Again, the government has already gone into the business of axing off citizens. At that point, it is no longer out of the question.

So it more or less comes down to a matter of principle. Does the government want to establish itself as a protector of all, or a selector of few?

 

[Dectomax]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

Does that mean that Ants are immune to natural selection because they make their own colonies out of the ground rather than just adapting to live with no colony?
All you would need to keep the Human race strong is to not allow those with "inferior" genetics to mate.

Good point. I guess bees would have to be included to.

But anyways, my point is that to the OT, human beings should not be forced to conform to having to live a "natural" life like other animals by letting the weak die off. If anything, you could say that a strong point (or evolutionary tratit) of humanity is the ability to create things to help ensure our survival. If people haven't done so, then we probably wouldn't be around (at least not the same anyways). The reason why people are thriving is because we are willing to manipulate our environment rather than conform to the whims of natural selection. In short, screw natural selection, we select ourselves.

Indeed, as one of our abilities to survive, picked up and perfected by thousands of years of evolution, we have striven to build things to protect us and to help us survive. Our cognitive ability to do this has presented many new and helpful technologies to help our species survive. Though, if we followed the rules of natural selection, would we need them?

 

[Dectomax]

I see what you're saying. It's not really what I was asking though. It wouldn't be things like that. I'm saying about disabled children and other unfortunate cases where a child will only survive because of technological help. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just asking what would happen if we didn't rely on that? If children who were born fine, lived and those with complications were left to die? ( As immoral as that is, would it benefit humankind? )

Again though, who are you to decide that? Who is anyone to decide that another human being isn't worth keeping alive? Who is anyone to decide what constitutes a burden on society? Are homeless people and hobos burdens too, because they don't work or meaningfully contribute to society as a whole?

The point of a government is to protect the welfare of the people. The people invest time, money, and effort to their governments to receive the benefits of their protection. And the main form of protection that people always have and always will seek is security--primarily security in life. They want to know that their government will do their best to make sure that they stay alive.

So if a government decides to systematically kill off a few people, for the reason of "it's better for everyone else," that completely undermines the entire point of a government, and shatters that sense of security the people have in it. The people begin to wonder, am I next? Will something ever happen to me that puts me on that "bad" list? What happens if they change their mind about who stays and who goes?

And if the government establishes itself as one that does not hesitate to roll a few heads for the sake of the future, how are people supposed to feel secure in voicing their opinions? They'll begin to think "If I protest, they might decide to kill me, too!" And who is to say their wrong? Again, the government has already gone into the business of axing off citizens. At that point, it is no longer out of the question.

So it more or less comes down to a matter of principle. Does the government want to establish itself as a protector of all, or a selector of few?

That comes from our pack mentality I would assume, we created a leadership system and it evolved slowly. I agree, it would be wrong, yet would it also be right? It would devastate some peoples lives, yet would it make it better for the whole?

 

[Lilani]

That comes from our pack mentality I would assume, we created a leadership system and it evolved slowly. I agree, it would be wrong, yet would it also be right? It would devastate some peoples lives, yet would it make it better for the whole?

Whether or not it's "right" depends on your own personal morals, I guess. There is no straightforward answer--if there was there wouldn't be this wouldn't be a debate, lol.

But as it stands, the majority of people's morals point to it being wrong. And when the majority feel something in the realm of morality, that is a very difficult thing to overcome. About the only way to change it at that point is a complete re-alignment of societal values.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

By strongest, I mean in relation to genetics. surely those who live, with the best genes, stand the greatest chance of furthering our species. Those who, may have certain disabilities would not be here, meaning they couldn't pass on potentially faulty genes. Allowing only the best of each generation to live and survive to pass on their genes.

From that angle... in all honesty yeah. Without them we would be less overcrowded, and their would be less strain on us as a whole. But just because we would be 'better off' doesn't make the natural order of things right. Our compassion for each other is the whole reason why people bothered making medical advancements in the first place, so to turn our backs on people who need us, even if we would be better off without having to deal with them, would be going against our own humanity.

 

[Feralcentaur]

Eugenics doesn't work; we have an incomplete knowledge of genetics which would be plainly disastrous if we were to try to apply it to artificial selection of humans. Notice that we've bred many species of plant and animal to the point where they must co-exist with humans to survive.

That's because we want and wanted Bovines for their ability to produce Milk and Meat, if we wanted them for their intellect, strength and speed we would've bred them for that and Cows as we know them wouldn't exist but instead we would have some other Bovine that isn't good for food production and is better at surviving in the wild.
And we want and wanted (insert plant here) for it's food, not for it's ability of spreading it's own seeds, if we did we would have some domestic plants that aren't very good for food but are pretty good at spreading their own seeds.

 

[Dectomax]

Notice that we've bred many species of plant and animal to the point where they must co-exist with humans to survive.

That's because we want and wanted Bovines for their ability to produce Milk and Meat, if we wanted them for their intellect, strength and speed we would've bred them for that and Cows as we know them wouldn't exist but instead we would have some other Bovine that isn't good for food production and is better at surviving in the wild.

So with our ability to engineer another species to our desires, would that mean it would be ethical and moral to re-engineer human genes? To increase our potential and suitability for purpose?

 

[AugustFall]

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.

Adaptation is much slower than technology. We can invent ways to solve problems far quicker than we evolve to combat them.
Nature is heartless. Plus humans for the most part no longer need to be stronger or faster so what would be the benefit of eugenics? Nothing, you can't breed intelligence and that's what humans need.

 

[SilentCom]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

By strongest, I mean in relation to genetics. surely those who live, with the best genes, stand the greatest chance of furthering our species. Those who, may have certain disabilities would not be here, meaning they couldn't pass on potentially faulty genes. Allowing only the best of each generation to live and survive to pass on their genes.

The problem with relating strongest to genetics is that the preferences people have toward particular qualities are subjective. For example, Hitler thought blonde hair and blue eyes were superior to other hair and eye colors. What we may view as superior genetics now may differ 200 years from now. People valued size and brute strength back then and now we value intelligence. Superiority is a matter of subjectivity in many cases.

 

[Just Pman]

Humans: We evolved so much we are exempt from natural selection

 

[Dectomax]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

By strongest, I mean in relation to genetics. surely those who live, with the best genes, stand the greatest chance of furthering our species. Those who, may have certain disabilities would not be here, meaning they couldn't pass on potentially faulty genes. Allowing only the best of each generation to live and survive to pass on their genes.

The problem with relating strongest to genetics is that the preferences people have toward particular qualities are subjective. For example, Hitler thought blonde hair and blue eyes were superior to other hair and eye colors. What we may view as superior genetics now may differ 200 years from now. People valued size and brute strength back then and now we value intelligence. Superiority is a matter of subjectivity in many cases.

But surely there's a middle ground? If only those with standard, or "non-faulty" Genes were allowed to survive, then after a certain amount of time wouldn't the populace be filled with more healthy and better suited people? You wouldn't tweak for a set of genes in particular but for an overall standard.

 

[Feralcentaur]

So with our ability to engineer another species to our desires, would that mean it would be ethical and moral to re-engineer human genes? To increase our potential and suitability for purpose?

I can't really answer that question, because morality is subjective and everyone will have slightly different morals and ideals of what is "right" and "wrong".
Like how some will say allowing a Homosexual couple to marry is unethical or evil while others will say that's it's unethical to not allow them to. Humans always have and probably always will continue having different thoughts about morality.

So it depends, do you care more about the rights and happiness of the individual, or the success of the group? The one, or the whole? Do you disagree or agree with the Spock quote "The needs of the of the many, over the needs of the few, or the one"?
It's not an easy question, but it's an important one if were going to discuss this subject.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

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?

.

Your idea is called Eugenics and it's one of the most hotly debated scientific and philosophical issues today.

And Stephen Hawking is perhaps an even better example than you thought. He would be dead, instead he is alive and our scientific breakthroughs as a result of his work are most likely things that would have taken us decades without him.

Eugenics taken to its extreme means the elimination of everyone who might possibly biologically (important distinction) benefit to our society.

So first off, everyone with diabetes, left to die, everyone with Downs syndrome, everyone with cancer left to die, anyone with AIDS, dead.

And then it gets even more tricky, anyone who chooses celibacy, clearly they aren't a benefit to society, so why waste food and resources on them? Schizophrenics, who have a high probability of passing their condition on, manic depressives, unipolar depressives, autistics, aspergers, asexuals.

Eugenics in its most extreme form, to fit with the true idea of the master race, then includes the elimination of anyone below a certain intelligence bracket, anyone below certain levels of physical perfection.

And while some people might say that it's a bit over the top, and say 'well we just wouldn't take it to the highest level' but the counter argument would be, if you start, where do you draw the line? What, morally, is the 'limit' to the elimination of human beings not conducive to our shared gene pool? Also, do you eliminate by enforcing celibacy on those who aren't contributing, or do you argue that resources should be kept for those who need them most, and either kill people who don't contribute, or just leave them to starve?

I don't agree with Eugenics on any level except the absolute most basic premise that 'if the human race was perfect, good for us.' The fact is that we're not perfect, and the moment we start taking steps towards 'improving' the race, we lose our humanity.

Also remember, before you say 'yes, society would be better if we left all those people to die,' are you one hundred percent certain that you fit into the perfect human mould? Are you physically very fit, mentally brilliant, suffer from no potentially harmful conditions? etc, etc, etc

 

[Innegativeion]

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.

I think you misunderstand evolution. There is no "evolutionary singularity", as I would put it, like Hitler's idea of a master race. No one species is "more evolved" than another, just better or differently adapted to certain environments.

In other words, evolution doesn't make a species "better", just more likely to survive under given conditions.

As a sentient race, our conditions include handicaps, medicines, life support, etc. If people can consistently survive diseases, if only because of our use of certain tools, we're still evolved to survive those disease. We don't have to be immune to them.

In the same vein, otters have evolved to use a tool (rocks) to break open the hard shells of clams, and would otherwise have a lower survival rate for lack of food.

 

[Dectomax]

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?

.

Your idea is called Eugenics and it's one of the most hotly debated scientific and philosophical issues today.

And Stephen Hawking is perhaps an even better example than you thought. He would be dead, instead he is alive and our scientific breakthroughs as a result of his work are most likely things that would have taken us decades without him.

Eugenics taken to its extreme means the elimination of everyone who might possibly biologically (important distinction) benefit to our society.

So first off, everyone with diabetes, left to die, everyone with Downs syndrome, everyone with cancer left to die, anyone with AIDS, dead.

And then it gets even more tricky, anyone who chooses celibacy, clearly they aren't a benefit to society, so why waste food and resources on them? Schizophrenics, who have a high probability of passing their condition on, manic depressives, unipolar depressives, autistics, aspergers, asexuals.

Eugenics in its most extreme form, to fit with the true idea of the master race, then includes the elimination of anyone below a certain intelligence bracket, anyone below certain levels of physical perfection.

And while some people might say that it's a bit over the top, and say 'well we just wouldn't take it to the highest level' but the counter argument would be, if you start, where do you draw the line? What, morally, is the 'limit' to the elimination of human beings not conducive to our shared gene pool? Also, do you eliminate by enforcing celibacy on those who aren't contributing, or do you argue that resources should be kept for those who need them most, and either kill people who don't contribute, or just leave them to starve?

I don't agree with Eugenics on any level except the absolute most basic premise that 'if the human race was perfect, good for us.' The fact is that we're not perfect, and the moment we start taking steps towards 'improving' the race, we lose our humanity.

Also remember, before you say 'yes, society would be better if we left all those people to die,' are you one hundred percent certain that you fit into the perfect human mould? Are you physically very fit, mentally brilliant, suffer from no potentially harmful conditions? etc, etc, etc

a nice reply, thank you! I, myself have no idea on this subject. I was thinking about it and was wondering. So i decided to ask this community on their opinions.

I agree, it is a very complex and difficult question and most certainly one which goes against some of better natures, yet we have to ask ourselves, is it worth it? Would it make us better? Or is it our individual imperfections and traits that make us different and successful?

 

[Feralcentaur]

Adaptation is much slower than technology. We can invent ways to solve problems far quicker than we evolve to combat them.
Nature is heartless. Plus humans for the most part no longer need to be stronger or faster so what would be the benefit of eugenics? Nothing, you can't breed intelligence and that's what humans need.

Actually you kind of can... if the parents are both "intelligent" (what do you even measure that by?) then the off-spring is more likely to be intelligent. Brains aren't exempt from Biology.
And who says you can't advance with both biological evolution by eugenics and technological advancement?... I just started thinking about the Borg from Star Trek for some reason.

 

[shroomie]

Social Darwinism would only work if you restricted the number of people able to breed to those only deemed fittest to survive and pass good genes. The Human population is it stands is far too large to allow any major evolutionary advantages to evolve, and yes technology is growing more powerful but since the year 2000 there hasnt been much in the way of new technology, only progressing existing technology.

 

[SilentCom]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

By strongest, I mean in relation to genetics. surely those who live, with the best genes, stand the greatest chance of furthering our species. Those who, may have certain disabilities would not be here, meaning they couldn't pass on potentially faulty genes. Allowing only the best of each generation to live and survive to pass on their genes.

The problem with relating strongest to genetics is that the preferences people have toward particular qualities are subjective. For example, Hitler thought blonde hair and blue eyes were superior to other hair and eye colors. What we may view as superior genetics now may differ 200 years from now. People valued size and brute strength back then and now we value intelligence. Superiority is a matter of subjectivity in many cases.

But surely there's a middle ground? If only those with standard, or "non-faulty" Genes were allowed to survive, then after a certain amount of time wouldn't the populace be filled with more healthy and better suited people? You wouldn't tweak for a set of genes in particular but for an overall standard.

I suppose, but the problem here is that there are certain genes with passive traits that don't show up until passed down and also some traits or genes are developed along the way in individuals as they go through certain experiences in life. Truth be told, humanity has not mastered its understanding of genetics and to fool around with genetic selections in people is a bit of a gamble. So many people could be positively and negatively influenced. I don't think people should be selective in genetic qualities to set a social standard. Like I have said, this is partly because people have not mastered their understanding of genetics. This is something very controversial and has to do with subjectivity and morality. Is it right for people to impart their subjective views on others through forcing people to conform to their idea of genetic superiority or standard? I myself am leaning away from that option.

Also, people already have something that is similar to genetic quality selection. That is the attraction that people have toward certain qualities or types of people as potential mates.

Even if the offspring comes out disfunctional, they can and often receive help so that they can function. If this doesn't work, then you could say that they weren't able to adapt or their genes don't become very prevalent in future generations.