Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[Sneaky-Pie]

I'm doing a study and in order for me to reach as wide an audience as possible, I'm presenting this poll here in the off-topic forum.

Yes, I'm sure several of you first thought a thread of this nature would be better suited for the Politics and Religion forum, but I have a motive for making this topic here in General Discussion.

It's quite simple really, all I would like for you all to do is select the option you agree with most in the poll and if you feel so inclined, respond to this thread with more details to your decision. Please do your best to not flame or call each other out about how "you're right and they're wrong." Keep it respectful please.

Yes, I used the search bar. Yes, I know this has been done before. No, using those old threads will not help me.

[HEADING=3]What is Eugenics?[/HEADING]
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.

 

[Gunner 51]

I can agree with screening out illnesses and things, however, the temptation to mis-use it is too great. If you can breed out illness, you'd end up going the route of Dr J.S Steinman a'la Bioshock.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.

EDIT: See post#21 for less derpy reply...

 

[JoJo]

Down with eugenics!

This. (Though you may want to add a little to avoid low-content post rule, just a friendly tip ;-) Anyone should have the right to have their own children, there's no need to "improve" the human population as we can easily already out-compete every other species on the planet so more intelligence or being physically stronger is only an advantage for competition between humans.

 

[capper42]

I don't believe selective breeding should be applied to the human race, it's morally wrong. Having children is one of the most basic human rights.

 

[Hagi]

I don't agree with it at all.

How are you planning on controlling breeding?

Send police squads to every home to forcefully take people to the hospital for DNA-tests and possible castrations?

Castrate every new child born in a hospital if he/she doesn't have optimal genes? Criminalize birthing in any other place?

Just criminalize births outside of government approved births? What do you do with the children born illegally? Forced abortions if women are caught pregnant without permission?

Is there any way at all in which such a thing can go well?

 

[Rawne1980]

Load of bollocks if you ask me.

Where does it end?

First they screen out genetic disorders then they will move onto other things. People will be told who can and can't have a child.

It's fucking with the natural order of life.

Hitler also wanted to create the perfect "race". This is the same concept minus the genocide but it's "alright" because this is science?

It can fuck right off.

 

[Jabberwock King]

To my knowledge, attempts at its implementation have proven utterly ineffectual. Its past is well known and often compared with genocide, whether through forced sterilization or "termination" depending on where you look. Modern advocates focus on encouraging the breeding of healthy gene populations, but I would see it as more effective to use the sci-fi approach of direct genetic engineering through retro-viral manipulation.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Load of bollocks if you ask me.
Where does it end?
First they screen out genetic disorders then they will move onto other things. People will be told who can and can't have a child.
It's fucking with the natural order of life.
Hitler also wanted to create the perfect "race". This is the same concept minus the genocide but it's "alright" because this is science?
It can fuck right off.

At the time Hitler WAS backed up by science... *cough*

I don't agree with it at all.

How are you planning on controlling breeding?

Send police squads to every home to forcefully take people to the hospital for DNA-tests and possible castrations?

Castrate every new child born in a hospital if he/she doesn't have optimal genes? Criminalize birthing in any other place?

Just criminalize births outside of government approved births? What do you do with the children born illegally? Forced abortions if women are caught pregnant without permission?

Is there any way at all in which such a thing can go well?

Look at GATTACA(film, '97), it went perfectly well... oh, wait

 

[Colour Scientist]

I'm not a supporter of eugenics and, frankly, I think the concept of it is disgusting. Besides, the way in which the human race should be "improved" is relative.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

I beleive deciding who can breed and who can not in an infringment on civil liberties that the government should not be able to do. Whether or not it's benifical is immaterial.

 

[antidonkey]

Eugenics is good for the species but bad for the individual. I would only support it in some sort of dire situation I can't think of right now. As it is, humans aren't going anywhere anytime soon so it's best to let nature do what it does without our tinkering. Chances are we'd screw it up anyway.

 

[thiosk]

Eugenics is a loaded word. We tend to think of it on an individual basis as "genetic counseling" or some such, checking genes before getting pregnant to minimize the chance of deformity and heritable illness. Eugenics slaps things like skin and eye color and calls those "desirable."

 

[weker]

Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.

Mankind can easily do it better then nature, because nature takes thousands of years, with much trial and error. Mankind can do it much faster and with less failures using selective breeding and genetics.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...on the one hand, the government takes away people's right to raise children if they are seen to be doing it seriously wrong, and aborting when something is found to be wrong with the potential child isn't new either. As such, I can't flat out say "no".

On the other hand, of course, this is made for abuse, for labelling people as inherently less than others based on statistics and bloodlines. Punishing people for things they haven't themselves had anything to do with...no. I remember people arguing that lesbians shouldn't have access to IVF, because they'd more likely have less money or something, and the children would be disadvantaged.

 

[darth gditch]

I'm doing a study and in order for me to reach as wide an audience as possible, I'm presenting this poll here in the off-topic forum.

Yes, I'm sure several of you first thought a thread of this nature would be better suited for the Politics and Religion forum, but I have a motive for making this topic here in General Discussion.

It's quite simple really, all I would like for you all to do is select the option you agree with most in the poll and if you feel so inclined, respond to this thread with more details to your decision. Please do your best to not flame or call each other out about how "you're right and they're wrong." Keep it respectful please.

Yes, I used the search bar. Yes, I know this has been done before. No, using those old threads will not help me.

[HEADING=3]What is Eugenics?[/HEADING]
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.

No. Because it doesn't work.

See, Intelligence, or the lack there of, cannot be bread. There are too many factors. I've taken more than one genetics course at college with some fine geneticists and they all say the same thing: there are too many different factors that go into intelligence, evolutionary fitness, improving the population ect. to solve any problems or promote certain characteristics using breading.

Too many people look at traits that are, say, 80% the result of genetics and announce "80% of someones' cancer risk is DETERMINED by genetics." This is not true. What that means is that 80% of the trait is INFLUENCED by genetics. Your genes have more of an effect, but just because you have the BRCA gene or whatever does not mean you'll have cancer.

Put another way, two smart people have a baby. That kid is not going to be smart automatically. Now, the kid's genes might code for efficient synapses. They might not. Even with genetic testing, we wouldn't be able to tell. Hell, we don't know what more than half our genetic code even does. Moreover, even with efficient synapses, the kid still might not be intelligent. There are other factors besides genes influencing that.

 

[rokkolpo]

I am disgusted by the idea.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Mankind can easily do it better then nature, because nature takes thousands of years, with much trial and error. Mankind can do it much faster and with less failures using selective breeding and genetics.

*hrk* That's true, actually, not that I properly considered it when I posted first time (eugenics flips a subtle rage switch). Fair enough... *ethics* *ethics* *ethics* *morals* *morals* *morals*

FOR SCIENCE!!

Ultimately though, it's all about where the line is drawn, and various individuals' scruples about blurring said line for financial (and other) reasons.