Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[fusion_cell]

Eugenics is a great way to fight sickness in the world...just don't go targeting once group of people with it...then build camps...and showers.

I somewhat agree with it, but it also caused the worst section of human history and that should never be forgotten and Eugenics should not be taken lightly as after all something have to come out of circulation and that something might only stem from one area of the population.

 

[Thumper17]

I dont support it, but I understand and respect what Eugenics could do for humanity. It is immoral however to prohibit people from 'breeding' with whoever they choose.

 

[boyvirgo666]

I agree in principle but the obviously negative ways this can go makes it a half and half thing. But i guess i can agree that we really do need to try to limit human population and negative traits. Just dont make it a race thing and stop bringing up nazis.

 

[DanielDeFig]

No.

And it has more to do with people's basic freedom's & rights, and the dangers of mixing law with people's right to be born based on something so relative, rather than the fact that someone with my kind of handicap would be aborted/killed/not allowed to breed.

 

[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*

One of the most common misconceptions ever perpetrated about WW2 was that Hitler was operating based off of what science told him.

He drew his own beliefs which were batshit insane and basically threw what science suggested out the window. He believed in creationism, and compared belief in evolution to treason. Of course, most people pointing fingers wouldn't have bothered to actually read what Hitler wrote, not that I blame them.

Eugenics is a crock, and I'm obligated as someone studying anthropology to say so. It's another product of bigotive scientists looking for hard science to demonstrate the superiority of species and traits and in this case, apply it.

In any case in this age it'd probably be a smaller effort to engineer gene therapy routines that simply remove genetic defects from the human body, rather than trying to enforce breeding restrictions. Historically prohibitions just don't work.

He didn't do it out of science, he used the scientific ""evidence"" at the time and had it as an excuse to have National-Socialism in Germany - One Nationality, superior to all and all of the folk in that nationality would be equal. It was the ultimate ANTI-Communism, trying to gather the lower classes under the banner of a race instead of a banner of a class.
One of the key things he implemented was biolgical racism. He based that off what "science" had discovered as it extended the theories of Darwin. Hitler was religious, but claiming that the aryan race was superior didn't conflict with his faith.
Didn't read Mein Campf, I'm not going to. I know what he believed and what he tried to do.
I should highlight "At the Time" becuase there were these theories about racial supremacy before Hitler and his party became dominent, he just brought it into the center and educated an entire generation with it.

 

[Farther than stars]

No, this is the worst impediment of freedom, meaning it's also undemocratic. For one, we should be able to take full control over our own body and not let the state claim domain over any living one, lest we descend into slavery.
For another reason, you simply cannot know what genes are the best ones for the survival of the human race. Darwin said: ?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.? So you might want to pick certain genes, which may seem to be advantageous at the time, but really end up dooming humanity instead. For now, I feel we should let mother nature do her work and up until now at least, I feel she's made humanity strongest by our great amount of variety and I feel that thus one "übermensch" would just weaken humanity as a whole per definition.
And then finally there's the fact that this would just cause discrimination, since some people's genes would be considered (not proved to be) more important than someone else's. After all it's not for nothing that term I just mentioned, "übermensch", found its roots in Nazi Germany.

P.S. You mentioned:

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.

I'm just wondering what that motive is.

 

[kiwi_poo]

it's one of those things that's great in theory, but just don't work. like communism... and spraycan cheese.

in theory it's awesome but you never know when a gene for some desease might be in the genetic structure of some dude who ends up saving the world or something.

genetic diversity is what made this species what is is today: capable of rapid adaptation to different situations

 

[Pandaman1911]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.

Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..

No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.

Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..

Whatever, whatever, we've reached the point where debating it isn't going to get anywhere. I call an "agree to disagree" and I say that I respect your opinion and whatnot.

 

[Zeekar]

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.

Less failures? Last time I checked, nature has never "failed". Mankind on the other hand? We've certainly had our ups and downs. Having government step into our bedrooms of all places when they can't even be trusted with our economy would certainly be a significant "down" in our history.

Besides, subjectively, the thought of being seen as livestock to be bred for certain traits by an outside body feels wrong. That has got to be worth something in this argument.

 

[Catalyst6]

Eugenics sounds like a great idea in theory. However, one must consider the problems that can arise from it.

Instead of thinking about people, let's talk about GMOs. Specifically, corn. Let's say that there's a certain gene that makes corn grow a lot better than normal and has no side effects. We modify the corn so that all corn now has this gene and the corn prospers. Then a virus comes along and kills everything with that gene. Now only the corn without that gene survives.

That's a drastic oversimplification, but you get the point. Diversity is good, even if it's not perfect.

 

[GWarface]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.

Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..

No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.

Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..

Whatever, whatever, we've reached the point where debating it isn't going to get anywhere. I call an "agree to disagree" and I say that I respect your opinion and whatnot.

Dealio.. I dont want to push my opinion on people, i just want them to think about stuff..

Agree to disagree it is..

 

[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.

Less failures? Last time I checked, nature has never "failed". Mankind on the other hand? We've certainly had our ups and downs. Having government step into our bedrooms of all places when they can't even be trusted with our economy would certainly be a significant "down" in our history.

Besides, subjectively, the thought of being seen as livestock to be bred for certain traits by an outside body feels wrong. That has got to be worth something in this argument.

Evolution is a series of random mutation that allow a creature to survive sometimes, however evolution does not always improve something, as one are born with usless mutations or ones that kill them.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Up with Eugenics. People who are born disabled have a terribly hard life. It would mean a lot to take away their disability and make them better than average.

But on the downside, it would create a genetic underclass. There is a movie with this theme, but I can't remember what it's called. But basically the people who aren't enhanced become the back ass of society, because they are just useless pure humans. While the enhanced ones reek all the benefits.

And over population is a genuine concern of mine. I think that we should improve upon the child born, not increase the chances of it being born. Mortality is not always a bad thing in the long run. We are loosing space, and resources on this planet, we need to slow down.

 

[xitel]

I absolutely support it, without a doubt. Have for many many years, as the IRC folks can attest to. Modern Medicine and science has destroyed natural selection for humanity. We let the sick and damaged people breed, because it's "humane" to do so. As soon as anyone suggests an alternative, they get beaten over the head by the hammer of society and pushed off to the side. I say, if we have the ability to improve the human genome, then we should do it. If something is beneficial, encourage the spread of it through the gene pool. If something is detrimental, weed it out of the gene pool. We do it to our crops, our food, our pets, so why not do it to ourselves? I'm not recommending extermination, mind, but selective breeding, absolutely.

Then please go ahead and sterilize yourself, because the "Perfect Human Genome" you inhumane fucks are striving for doesn't include neckbeards who sit on the internet and angst. Better question, who the fuck get's to decide what goes in and what goes out?

By all means, feel free to insult me right off the bat. It definitely makes me respect your opinion far more than if you were polite.

As for who gets to decide what gets to live or die (as I assume you were trying to say with the last bit), if you end up in a situation where you cannot survive on your own without external aid, then you don't breed. Simple as that. I'm not saying that no black people are allowed to breed, or no people with a low IQ. Just that if you cannot survive on your own, then you do not get to breed.

 

[floppylobster]

We don't know what characteristics are favourable to our survival in the future, only which are favourable to us now. For that reason attempting to alter our evolutionary course seems misguided. Natural selection will sort us out. There's no need to try ourselves. We already have sexual selection and various forms of societal selections. Environmental selection is best left to the ever changing environment.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I picked "Somewhat" as I feel that there's a basic element of eugenics in natural partner selection. I figure it's completely natural - as long as we agree to redefine eugenics as the act of simply not mating with a partner with clearly disadvantageous traits, or at least not for the purposes of reproduction.

In other words, sleeping with someone who comes from a family with a strong predisposition towards cancer and who also happens to have cancer of a rather advanced stage is something that feels fairly useless, from a purely biological point of view.

Does that take anything like love and mutual attraction into account? No, it doesn't. In real life, people are ideally expected to mate out of love or mutual respect. We all know it doesn't always happen. The question being asked seem to have a rather pragmatic purpose to begin with, so I gave it my best pragmatic answer. My best emotional answer would be a negation of eugenics since, hey, I wanna hook up with someone who means something to me, even if that someone ends up horse-faced or club-footed or whatever.

Besides, I'd be really hypocritical of me to start looking for extremely precise criteria, when I'm disabled with a mild case of cerebral palsy and a bum leg, and I also happen to have a lazy eye. From purely biological reasons related to reproduction, I'm not exactly a Grade A catch.

 

[xitel]

I absolutely support it, without a doubt. Have for many many years, as the IRC folks can attest to. Modern Medicine and science has destroyed natural selection for humanity. We let the sick and damaged people breed, because it's "humane" to do so. As soon as anyone suggests an alternative, they get beaten over the head by the hammer of society and pushed off to the side. I say, if we have the ability to improve the human genome, then we should do it. If something is beneficial, encourage the spread of it through the gene pool. If something is detrimental, weed it out of the gene pool. We do it to our crops, our food, our pets, so why not do it to ourselves? I'm not recommending extermination, mind, but selective breeding, absolutely.

Then please go ahead and sterilize yourself, because the "Perfect Human Genome" you inhumane fucks are striving for doesn't include neckbeards who sit on the internet and angst. Better question, who the fuck get's to decide what goes in and what goes out?

By all means, feel free to insult me right off the bat. It definitely makes me respect your opinion far more than if you were polite.

As for who gets to decide what gets to live or die (as I assume you were trying to say with the last bit), if you end up in a situation where you cannot survive on your own without external aid, then you don't breed. Simple as that. I'm not saying that no black people are allowed to breed, or no people with a low IQ. Just that if you cannot survive on your own, then you do not get to breed.

Sorry about that, a thousand apologies.

I know in practice this wouldn't mean putting people down like animals at a shelter, but more abortions and chemical/physical castrations. The answer you gave is very.... vague. By survive on your own you mean disorders hemophilia and Tay-Sachs correct? To be honest preventing them from breeding wouldn't do much, because they tend not to live long enough to have children, or opt out of it them-selves. We don't have the money to screen everyone who is a potential carrier, and by screening out everyone who carries Genes for things like Huntington's you would really limit the gene pool.

Just saying, that could have some unforeseen consequences.

By survive I mean that very simply. Survive. If you would have died without medical intervention, be it from cancer or a bad cold, then you are not allowed to breed. As for the second point, about limiting the gene pool, to be honest the world is already facing an overpopulation problem, with too many people providing too few resources. Limiting the population growth would actually be beneficial, as it would make the human population as a whole. And I appreciate you understanding that I don't recommend killing people who require medical intervention, that would defeat the entire purpose. They'd still be allowed to grow, to work, to play, to live their life to the end. They'd still be able to go to the hospital and get equal treatment. They'd still be allowed to marry and love whomever they wanted. No sort of signifying arm band or something like that. Just a simple sterilization to remove the chance of them breeding. Not actual physical castration, mind, because that would be debilitating and affect their ability to live their lives.