Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.Zetion said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Zetion said:
Okay...but that's not a very good reason. It's honest, sure, but so is the cannabis legalization that "I just want to get high and not be arrested." You're posting it in the wrong section because you want more people to see it. But, I'll give you credit for being honest about it. Most people would have either not said anything, or just made up some bullshit reason.Sneaky-Pie said:
Well, since we're working under that definition, no, I don't support eugenics. I do support regulating who can have children, but not by screening out people with "[un]desirable heritable characteristics."Sneaky-Pie said:
With that in mind, consider the requirement of licenses before being allowed to have a child. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of legitimate test that doesn't discriminate and whatnot, but we're discussing ends, not means. The ends would be a state/country/world/whatever where a person needs more qualification than the right parts before they can birth and raise a child. Prove that you at least have the traits that would allow you to be a good parent, and the license is yours. Works for one birth, and you come back if you want more.
Screening would likely include a few factors, some weighing more heavily than others: financial stability, a standard background check, and your existing family size would all play into it, as would plenty of other standards I can't be arsed to think of.
And yes, plenty of people get pregnant "by accident," but there's a grace period that lets you apply and qualify even if you're already expecting. If you fail, and you don't have a family willing to accept the newly-birthed child (a family that passed the test), you're issued a fine, and the state finds a family for the child at its own expense. If you repeat that process a second time, the child will again have a home found for him/her, while the parent is incarcerated.
Phew. Got that out of my system. It's harsh, yeah, and even if it were implemented perfectly, I know full well that bad people can come from otherwise good parents.
Huh. "Imperfection born from a perfect system." Got a kind of Zen to it, I suppose. Describes humans pretty well, too. People talk about "the wrench in the works," but most of the time, the wrench is blameless. It's the guy who left it in the works that's to blame.
Honest, non-flaming question: Isn't the population with the most diverse gene pool more likely to be able to adapt to changes? (If I'm remembering my old biology classes right) If that's the case, then doesn't eugenics seem a bit counterproductive in the long run? If you only allow people with all favourable traits to breed, you're gene pool is going to be as shallow as all hell, because who is 'perfect'?.
Biology aside, I think people ought to be able to choose who they have kids with. If that means they want to just have kids with whomever they love, then go ahead. If they want to pick and choose based on different criteria, then that's their prerogative. Lots of people already do it, in a way, when they choose a donor at a sperm bank.
My own personal opinion on what makes a person 'better', though, is that it goes way past biology (or at least way past our current understanding of it).
Biology aside, I think people ought to be able to choose who they have kids with. If that means they want to just have kids with whomever they love, then go ahead. If they want to pick and choose based on different criteria, then that's their prerogative. Lots of people already do it, in a way, when they choose a donor at a sperm bank.
My own personal opinion on what makes a person 'better', though, is that it goes way past biology (or at least way past our current understanding of it).
Ehhh, I somewhat support it i guess.
The second reason I don't want children is because I hate my genes.
The second reason I don't want children is because I hate my genes.
I find everyone's arguments interesting here, but the most obvious problem is we don't know nearly enough about genetics in general; we don't understand the core principals enough, we don't know how much genes control, and we don't know what methods of gene therapy work the best (if at all). Until we get a grasp on what genetics do, we shouldn't start experimenting with how to use genetics to improve ourselves.
It's a bit like asking "will you support the next war effort" before knowing who that war will be against, or for what. Sure, some will say "Absolutely!" or "No way!" on principal, but I don't think most of us want people making those policy decisions.
It's a bit like asking "will you support the next war effort" before knowing who that war will be against, or for what. Sure, some will say "Absolutely!" or "No way!" on principal, but I don't think most of us want people making those policy decisions.
what did the scientist krogan on tuchanka in ME2 say?
...somethin' like "...those things take care of themselves. if Wrex is wrong, then he'll get torn to shreds, then the person with the next best idea comes along."
same principle: the problems in people will screw them over in the appropriate way; dont worry about it i say.
...somethin' like "...those things take care of themselves. if Wrex is wrong, then he'll get torn to shreds, then the person with the next best idea comes along."
same principle: the problems in people will screw them over in the appropriate way; dont worry about it i say.
It's not only an inhumane concept, but it's a bullshit concept that has been washed out of modern science since the early 20th century. It's not just because of Hitler that this isn't talked about anymore.
If you're a scientist or medical practitioner in the 21st century and you support eugenics as a method of curing diseases and "unwanted" traits, you will be a laughing stock.
If you're a scientist or medical practitioner in the 21st century and you support eugenics as a method of curing diseases and "unwanted" traits, you will be a laughing stock.
...I'd say this... but I don't want people to think I support this sort of thing. (Even if I do think stupid people should not reproduce)JaredXE said:
/edit
Crap, got this confused with genetic engineering in terms of preselecting sperm cells and all that. At least I think that's what I'm talking about, been ages since I've done anything on this topic.
ANYWAY, definitely not in favour of eugenics, no.
Crap, got this confused with genetic engineering in terms of preselecting sperm cells and all that. At least I think that's what I'm talking about, been ages since I've done anything on this topic.
ANYWAY, definitely not in favour of eugenics, no.
No. It doesn't do anything but limit human freedom. With physical attributes, there's no reason for it. As far as I can tell, intelligence is determined by upbringing more than genetics, and our intelligence as a species has been improving over time. As for mental disabilities, we are more than capable of taking care of each other.