Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[weker]

You...Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? Evolution is not random - it's gradual genetic adaptation in response to external phenomena. Nothing is mutating and the changes over generations are certainly not random since they can be linked to a distinct external cause. Granted, that cause (being natural changes in the environment) may as well be random as far as we're concerned.

Individuals of the species with traits that favor their surroundings survive to mate, thus passing on their genes. Those who do not have favorable traits usually (but not always) die off due to intensely variable outside conditions.

Eugenics is assuming a lot about what is best for our species, and as I said before, we can't even come to a consensus as to what is best for us in the short term. It could turn out that even genetically passed diseases are somehow good for us in the long run. Stranger things have happened.

Wait, you were just messing with me, weren't you? Oh, you.

Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
This does not always mean adapting to their environment.

Individuals of the species with traits that favor their surroundings survive to mate.
And the ones that don't die just like what I was suggest in what I wrote.

 

[Philip Petrunak]

I support voluntary eugenics. If people want to improve our species via selective breeding or genetic modification, more power to them I say.

 

[Bran1470]

I do support this because we have lost the whole survival of the fittest with modern medicine. That said the population is getting dumber and dumber and lazier due to unwanted genes; The truth is that dumb people are breading more and more (kinda like in the movie idiocracy)Than smart people.

You can't "lose" survival of the fittest. If anything, you "win" survival of the fittest (though it's even better to say you "win" at natural selection.)

We have evolved to the point where we are perfectly adapted to our enviroment, we don't need to evolve any more, not unless something distatorous happens. The alligator has also "won" natural selection, it hasn't evolved (much, slight changes have occured but thats normal) for millions of years, we know that alligators were around with the dinosaurs.

And why are dumb people breeding more than smart people? The only thing that I can see influencing large groups of society about how many children they have, is the quality of sex education and availability of contraception (or laws like China's 1 baby policy) and those things aren't genetic (note: large groups of society, a single person can obviously be influenced by friends, partners and family, but were talking averages here.)

Are you kidding me? we haven't adapted medicine has made us this way. OK I want you to have a child and when you get that child never take him to get a vaccine or take him to the hospital or give him medicine and i want you to see how long that child last.

I want you to cut yourself off from all society. No shelter you didn't make yourself, no clothes you can't make yourself, no food you didn't grow or hunt yourself, no benefits at all of a modern society. They're just making you weak, and reducing your ability to progress the species.
While you do that, I'll sit here and bask in the comfort of being a member of a species that can influence the environment around it to fit it. That doesn't die from simple diseases because it's learned to treat them. A species that is capable of looking after it's weaker members, because it doesn't have to spend every day fighting for it's survival. And I'm going to enjoy it.

OK please read the whole conversation please because you obviously do not know why i wrote that.

 

[Zeekar]

You...Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? Evolution is not random - it's gradual genetic adaptation in response to external phenomena. Nothing is mutating and the changes over generations are certainly not random since they can be linked to a distinct external cause. Granted, that cause (being natural changes in the environment) may as well be random as far as we're concerned.

Individuals of the species with traits that favor their surroundings survive to mate, thus passing on their genes. Those who do not have favorable traits usually (but not always) die off due to intensely variable outside conditions.

Eugenics is assuming a lot about what is best for our species, and as I said before, we can't even come to a consensus as to what is best for us in the short term. It could turn out that even genetically passed diseases are somehow good for us in the long run. Stranger things have happened.

Wait, you were just messing with me, weren't you? Oh, you.

Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
This does not always mean adapting to their environment.

Individuals of the species with traits that favor their surroundings survive to mate.
And the ones that don't die just like what I was suggest in what I wrote.

Ok, the first thing you did was make a vague definition which doesn't support your argument in the least. Then, through the magic of poor grammar you started a new sentence without ending the previous one, making it extremely difficult to determine if your second statement was connected to the first. Were you quoting a definition and then adding your own bit of misinformation to the end or were you just quoting an incorrect definition?

Strikingly, you then repeated what I said in a condensed form and claimed it was your argument to begin with.

Does this seem like a reasonable debate strategy to you?

 

[Zeekar]

The escapist forums are acting strange. Disregard this post

 

[oktalist]

Because you can have a horrid blood disease, or some other debilitating disease which is only out of having kids, and what do you do? Pass it on to ANOTHER GENERATION. Why the hell are you doing that in the first place? Sounds like you are all too happy to pass on something that is terrible for your kids, but you figure that having kids is a "fun" thing to do, and "natural", even though you are likely surviving by unnatural medical means.

Pretty sure there's very few people who would choose to have kids if they knew there was a high probability of them having a debilitating disease.

Humanity doesn't have anything really keeping itself in check, meaning that we are almost completely in charge of what kind of population we have. No other thing on this planet has that choice. Meaning that we need to put a leash on ourselves, or we will end up doing something very stupid.

Are you talking about population growth? Eugenics would barely have any effect on that.

And finally, I support Eugenics because it means that we will actually be trying to better our species as a whole. As it stands right now, we combine every failure, every success, and every disease ridden individual who can make babies the same.

Where are the parents with Downs syndrome and cerebral palsy, then? Successful people reproduce more, by definition. Note that success may not mean what you think it means. If you want to change the definition of success you are getting into very murky, subjective, ideological territory.

well realistically we've already done about as much as we can to stop natural selection, so there needs to be SOMETHING to replace it.

I honestly don't know what to think of Eugenics other than the fact that it used to exist naturally for the human race but we've effectively wiped it out due to all the advancements in medicine. Anyone following me here? Natural selection? Yeah... That kinda doesn't exist for us anymore...

It does exist. Maybe it doesn't act quite as strongly, but it does still exist.

And natural selection is just as amoral as eugenics. Just because something is natural doesn't make it right.

Humans in developed nations aren't subject to any real selective pressures any more. With that in mind, it's reasonable to advocate genetic engineering as a method of genetic improvement.

Do you really mean improvement, or just removing genes coding for obviously debilitating conditions? Because the latter is not eugenics, and the former is impossible in the foreseeable future. Genes that have survived in the gene pool for this long must be of some benefit that outweighs their negative effects in some individuals. Genes interact with each other in highly complex ways and we are centuries away from knowing enough about them to have the confidence to do what you seem to be proposing.

 

[Hedonist]

I think eugenics should be limited to stopping hereditary diseases. And incest.

 

[SnowyGamester]

If you've seen idiocracy you know my answer.

 

[the spud]

Yes, I do support it, as long as we approach the situation cautiously.

Natural selection has been pretty much obsolete these last few hundred years,as in, now almost everyone can survive and have children. The human race has come to a plateau. We need something to weed out those with undesirable traits again.

 

[weker]

You...Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? Evolution is not random - it's gradual genetic adaptation in response to external phenomena. Nothing is mutating and the changes over generations are certainly not random since they can be linked to a distinct external cause. Granted, that cause (being natural changes in the environment) may as well be random as far as we're concerned.


Ok, the first thing you did was make a vague definition which doesn't support your argument in the least. Then, through the magic of poor grammar you started a new sentence without ending the previous one, making it extremely difficult to determine if your second statement was connected to the first. Were you quoting a definition and then adding your own bit of misinformation to the end or were you just quoting an incorrect definition?

Strikingly, you then repeated what I said in a condensed form and claimed it was your argument to begin with.

Does this seem like a reasonable debate strategy to you?

I would recommend not over reacting on a forum
I won't continue this argument as you seem to have it in for me for some reason, and attempt to create a conflict where non is intended.

I said there mistakes in evolution and random mutations and such, and you have taken it to heart and attempted to patronise me.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

No, governments would use it to breed out minorities. By the end you would just have a society of genetically superior yet completely subservient beings who never question anything.

 

[oktalist]

how about every family is allowed 1 child regardless of anything, and only seleceted families with the right... "stuff", could have more than that?

Yeah, because that worked so well in China.

Idiocracy

idiocracy

Note that in that video, natural selection is still working. It's just selecting for different traits than it has in the past. If you want it to select for intelligence again, you have to make intelligence a more socially desirable characteristic. Social engineering, not genetic.

And who says intelligence is a genetically heritable trait anyway?

Yes education is important but in reference to the above video do you think that high school jock didn't have to sit through the same sex ed classes as the rest of us? More to the point he either is too stupid to think about it or too stupid to care. Restricting the breeding of such a man would cause a significant drop in the number of unwanted, unloved and uncared for children who will quickly be seen as a nuisance by their (far too immature) deadbeat dads and cheerleader moms. In our 1st world at least education isn't the issue as much as idiocy is.

But that has got nothing to do with genetics.

 

[Zeekar]

You...Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? Evolution is not random - it's gradual genetic adaptation in response to external phenomena. Nothing is mutating and the changes over generations are certainly not random since they can be linked to a distinct external cause. Granted, that cause (being natural changes in the environment) may as well be random as far as we're concerned.


Ok, the first thing you did was make a vague definition which doesn't support your argument in the least. Then, through the magic of poor grammar you started a new sentence without ending the previous one, making it extremely difficult to determine if your second statement was connected to the first. Were you quoting a definition and then adding your own bit of misinformation to the end or were you just quoting an incorrect definition?

Strikingly, you then repeated what I said in a condensed form and claimed it was your argument to begin with.

Does this seem like a reasonable debate strategy to you?

I would recommend not over reacting on a forum
I won't continue this argument as you seem to have it in for me for some reason, and attempt to create a conflict where non is intended.

I said there mistakes in evolution and random mutations and such, and you have taken it to heart and attempted to patronise me.

I know that it's difficult to discern emotion over the internet, so I can't blame you for thinking that I'm over-reacting, but I assure you that I have no emotional connection to this debate whatsoever.

The only reason I'm even bothering with you is because I wouldn't want anyone to read what you say and believe it to be true without thinking.

My point is that every word you chose to form that statement with was wrong. "Mistakes", "Random Mutations" -- all of it is outright wrong at worst and inadequate at best. My explanation of evolution a few posts back was terrible and inadequate enough, but at least it was more accurate than "random mutations that may or may not help a species survive".

That kind of thing as a support for something like forced eugenics is not sound and unfortunately, some people will go for it without doing their own research.

So far you haven't given a concrete argument to support your original statement and instead have retreated in favor of defensiveness. By all means stop responding, but I think it would be better to continue civilly. In doing so, we pose our arguments, and in the end one of us is wrong and learns something we didn't know before and can form a more enlightened opinion on the subject.

I'm guessing I should lower my expectations for an internet forum for videogames, though.

 

[Fishdog52]

I find myself somewhat in support of eugenics. On the one hand, we have been practicing it in some form or another for thousands of years. (Corn) On the other, we have recently had the history of Hitler seared into our collective memories for the next hundred years or so. In theory, if you stayed true to the premise of eugenics, then it would be good. However, with the current state of corruption in societies, it seems an impossible affair to create a balanced system around eugenics that does not favor one culture's will.

If you look at other historical practitioners of eugenics, then you must include ancient Sparta in that list. Infants born with physical deformities or too weak to survive bathing in wine were discarded, the remaining were raised in strict Spartan fashion. The result was a breed of terrifying human beings and some of the greatest fighters the world has seen. Men of reason in their age would disagree with their methods, calling them savagery. However, even to the nations overpowered by the Spartans, the eugenics were only practiced on Spartans or "honorary" Spartans. They did not seek to impose their culture on others, in the same way that Hitler did, but instead, were noted for opposing such tyrants. (Molon labe)

While it is important to question the morality of a practice, remember that the practice is separate from those who utilize it. Used properly, there is plenty of good which can be attained through eugenics; whether we are mature enough to handle it is another topic entirely.

On the other hand, there exists the argument for keeping gene pools deep. To put it succinctly, inbreeding only aids to amplify the traits already present, not create sickly individuals-- They were sickly to begin with. If you would cite dogs, I would imagine their ancestors shared the same maladies they do, however a geneticist would wish to correct their peculiarities while leaving them still wholly their breed. A human example would be breast cancer, which is strongly hereditary. What is wrong with correcting the weak genes which are present in some individuals and not in others? Diversity is caused by mutation, which more often than not is more harmful than good. (More stop codons are possible to produce at random than start codons, making certain genes able to be crippled rather than just impaired or benefited slightly.) Without getting my micro textbook out, there are some 3 billion base pairs in our genome. Some of which decide whether a person lives to old age or develops a monstrous disease. Getting rid of say 300 of these would not even be a significant change within our pool of diversity. (In fact, that is a change of .0000001%)

In this case, where being different means you are susceptible to things like heart disease, cancer, or AIDS (yes, some individuals are resistant to AIDS.) then this is not the kind of difference which you want. There are people of every race who are more or less susceptible to specific diseases, therefore this is not what would be changed. Their aesthetic genes are irrelevant here, but those that improve quality of life are what should be looked into.

 

[Vault101]

Eugenics as an idea, in a sense I support, I don't support eugenics as a way to tell people who they can and can't breed with though. I think that if we find a way to alter an embryo before it starts significantly developing, we should use the technology to prevent things like mental retardation and asthma, and if we get it to a point where parents can pick what they want a child to look like, or make sure they don't get a gay child, then that's fine too, it IS their child after all, and the child won't care if he/she finds out. Basically, as long as it's controlled either by individuals on their own terms and not forced on people, or by some kind of technology that lets you alter genes for the child's sake or the parents' sake, it's fine.

...I dont know about the gay part...makes it sound like some kind of disease..and why do epople opoase gayness? religious veiws? makes them feel uncomfortable?

is gayness somhow inferior because they cant breed? why is that an issue when everyone rants about over-population?

just saying If I were gay that would be kind of offensive

Fuck you. I don't hate gay people, I know some pretty cool ones personally. The only reason I used that as an example is because some parents might not want their children to have to grow up with the ridiculous prejudices that come with being gay. Being gay isn't a bad thing, but it sure does make your life harder. If the future parents of a child wanted their kid to grow up without having to suffer through all that bullshit, I'd suspect that the most likely candidates for opting to do this would be gay couples. It wouldn't be harming the child in any way, why should he/she care if he had a small chance to be gay if his parents didn't take precautions?

A lot of what can make someone gay can't be prevented even with the ability to reconstruct genes, because it has to do with the stuff they see in their formative years and there's not a whole lot to control that. You may think such a claim is ridiculous, but those first few years of life are very influential over your psyche, and while part of what causes homosexuality is genetic, a lot of it is still based on life experiences.

Personally, I don't want children, but given the opportunity, I'd probably rather raise a gay child, so I'd make sure he was gay. I think it would be more interesting that way, plus gay men get laid wayyyy more frequently, so there is a trade off to be had there.

I think that was a little unessicary.....

anyway sure the intentions behined such an idea are good

BUT in a way it doesnt help to get rid of such predjucis...it sort of indirectly suports them, because it allows people to get away with the attidude "gayness is not normal and never will be accepted"

If I were gay, and growing up gay I think id probably be upset over the Idea that "mum and dad could have made me normal" but chose not too..or couldnt, and It would be harder to accept

it does bring up a bigger moral issue..if you can change thease things..is it right to?

like if you could get rid of Geekyness (not intelligence..but the other negative traits) would you? id it better in the end? or is it robbing somone of their identity?

I honestly dont know

 

[Sgt. Dante]

how about every family is allowed 1 child regardless of anything, and only seleceted families with the right... "stuff", could have more than that?

Yeah, because that worked so well in China.

Any good system in bad hands will make a system look bad. On paper communism is a pretty neat idea, in practice it's never been used quite right and the people in charge end up abusing their positions.

Would you say your right to protest is a bad idea because China has a nasty habit of putting (usually peaceful) protesters in jail for ever if they don?t have the decency to shoot them first?

Idiocracy

idiocracy

Note that in that video, natural selection is still working. It's just selecting for different traits than it has in the past. If you want it to select for intelligence again, you have to make intelligence a more socially desirable characteristic. Social engineering, not genetic.

And who says intelligence is a genetically heritable trait anyway?

Even if it isn't genetically inheritable it's been proven that single children are generally smarter than kids with siblings, and in the case of kids with siblings the eldest is usually the smartest. It's a time thing, an only child will get the most of his parents? attention, will learn more (accordingly with time spent with parents), will be generally happier, live longer and have a better relationship with their parents. 2 kids will mean time and resources are split 2 ways. Add more kids and each gets a smaller %.

Anyway it's not natural selection if we're doing everything we can to help keep the old, weak, disabled and stupid alive when 'nature' would have seen them taken out a long time ago, as a species we're generally working almost in direct opposition of natural selection. Anyway is intelligence not a desirable trait in this world? Do intelligent people not go on to make more money and thusly have a better standard of living? Providing a better life for their family and offspring? I?m sure plenty of ?dumb? folk make a plenty good life out of what they have, but flipping burgers or working in wallmart will only take you so far in life.

Yes education is important but in reference to the above video do you think that high school jock didn't have to sit through the same sex ed classes as the rest of us? More to the point he either is too stupid to think about it or too stupid to care. Restricting the breeding of such a man would cause a significant drop in the number of unwanted, unloved and uncared for children who will quickly be seen as a nuisance by their (far too immature) deadbeat dads and cheerleader moms. In our 1st world at least education isn't the issue as much as idiocy is.

But that has got nothing to do with genetics.

See the above quote for details.

Anyway this is only talking about the issue of intelligence, which is slightly missing the point. I?ll pose you a separate question just in case.
Q: If through eugenics you could eliminate such genetic diseases like, Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, Haemophilia or Turner's syndrome would you not say that would improve the quality of life for people that would have otherwise suffered though these diseases or the stress to the family of someone who has these diseases?
Would eliminating such things as these from our gene pool not be beneficial for our species?


[/wall of text]

 

[the_hessian]

If there was a benevolent G.A.T.T.A.C.A. style system, which rendered all inheritable defects like autism, down-syndrome, Parkinson's, M.S., alzheimer's, arthritis, etc. a thing of the past, but could not be used to alter the appearance, intellect, or abilities of the child - so that they still have the opportunity to carve their own path, rather than be forced genetically to adhere to their parents outdated ideals and the strict codes of society alargere - eugenics could be put to use to make things that little bit better.

A step further would be to make it possible for your body to accept genetic treatment post development, ala Bioshock gene-tonics and such, as currently the human body simply rejects these treatments, but this would end up making it so that the rich could just buy the skills they want to cause a genetic hierarchy, just like in G.A.T.T.A.C.A. which is what we're trying to avoid here.

Though the ability to alter ones own genetic code at a later state would be beneficial in that people who develop psychological conditions or gender issues could choose to take a whole new form of treatment that would be far more practical and effective than current medical procedures and pharmaceuticals.

A lovely and beautiful, yet horridly flawed and naive dream.

 

[oktalist]

If you would have died without medical intervention, be it from cancer or a bad cold, then you are not allowed to breed.

How do you determine whether someone would have died without medical intervention? Simple thought experiment: Person contracts disease. Person receives treatment. Person survives. How do you know that their body wouldn't have been able to fight off the disease itself?

As for the second point, about limiting the gene pool, to be honest the world is already facing an overpopulation problem... Limiting the population growth would actually be beneficial, as it would make the human population as a whole.

Very few people young enough to have children have had a disease that would've killed them without modern medicine, so it would barely affect the population growth. The main cause of population growth is poverty, so if you really care about it, start there.

And besides that, the overpopulation thing is not a good argument. You can't run through a crowded building firing an automatic weapon all around you while screaming "I'm solving the overpopulation problem!" and think people will be OK with that.

how about every family is allowed 1 child... and only seleceted families... could have more than that?

Yeah, because that worked so well in China.

Any good system in bad hands will make a system look bad. On paper communism is a pretty neat idea, in practice it's never been used quite right and the people in charge end up abusing their positions.

I'm a communist, so thanks for that argument in support of communism. We just need the right kind of people to run it and it'll be fine...

Even if [intelligence] isn't genetically inheritable it's been proven that single children are generally smarter than kids with siblings

Firstly, source please. Secondly, that is only an argument for your specific one child policy, not an argument for eugenics. Please stay on topic.

Anyway it's not natural selection if we're doing everything we can to help keep the old, weak, disabled and stupid alive when 'nature' would have seen them taken out a long time ago

Yes we are keeping them alive, but old, weak and disabled people still tend to reproduce a lot less than young, healthy, attractive people.

And how do you decide which traits are more preferable? Very subjectively and ideologically, I would say.

as a species we're generally working almost in direct opposition of natural selection.

I admit we may be reducing selection pressure somewhat, but we are not working in opposition to it. We are not causing weaknesses to be selected for, only for them to be selected against to a slightly lesser degree. More research would be required to determine to what extent this might be a problem. If science has taught us one thing it is that our intuition is often wrong.

Also natural selection is just as amoral as eugenics. Just because it's natural doesn't make it good.

...more stuff about intelligence...

Again, please stick to traits which are known to be heritable. Anything else is not relevant to this debate!

Q: If through eugenics you could eliminate such genetic diseases like, Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, Haemophilia or Turner's syndrome would you not say that would improve the quality of life for people that would have otherwise suffered though these diseases or the stress to the family of someone who has these diseases?

If.

As someone pointed out, people with sickle-cell have greater resistance to malaria. It's quite likely that other genes coding for disease also have beneficial effects, otherwise why do they still persist in the gene pool after billions of years of evolution? Genes interact with each other in highly complex ways and we are centuries away from knowing enough to have the confidence to do what you propose without shooting ourselves in our collective feet.

If we had the science necessary to do what you suggest, then we would also have the science to cure people of those diseases you mentioned, so eugenics would be pointless!

 

[yukshee]

Eugenics all the way; you're either good enough or you're not. Get the gene-splicer out and let's weed out the dead wood.

"good enough" is probably the worst thing you could've said.

Explain.

Good Enough = Understands sarcasm
Not Good Enough = Takes spurious debates on the Internets seriously


Here's a ladder, you can use it to get over yourself.

 

[yukshee]

I think eugenics should be limited to stopping hereditary diseases. And incest.

Let's make more redheads, bring their numbers up to brunettes & we can go gang up on those dumb blondes stealing all the fun.