Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
ok this is somthing I want to ask

when we say eugenics...do we ONLY mean stoping and allowing certain people to breed?

THEN if thats the case I say arnt there more efficient and ethical ways to do things? like genetic screening and such? even using technology like Deus Ex?
 

Hipster Chick

New member
Sep 3, 2011
41
0
0
To the supporters of eugenics, or really just any manipulation of the human genome;

Please explain step-by-step to me how we evolved from small populations of homo erectus living in Africa to homo sapiens sapiens. Cite scientific research accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
 

Hipster Chick

New member
Sep 3, 2011
41
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Incest for instance may be taboo, but there's nothing about it that inherently prevents offspring between closely related individuals.

And while being gay makes it less likely you'll have children, it doesn't make you incapable of it.

Nor does being mentally or physically handicapped cause you to be incabable of having children. (unless the injury is specifically to your reproductive organs.)
Mind explaining what the FUCK that means? Sandwiching being gay between incest and mental retardation?
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Hipster Chick said:
CrystalShadow said:
Incest for instance may be taboo, but there's nothing about it that inherently prevents offspring between closely related individuals.

And while being gay makes it less likely you'll have children, it doesn't make you incapable of it.

Nor does being mentally or physically handicapped cause you to be incabable of having children. (unless the injury is specifically to your reproductive organs.)
Mind explaining what the FUCK that means? Sandwiching being gay between incest and mental retardation?
What, aside from it being a known issue with someone that was making reference to nazi Germany?

Do you know which groups were being killed for reasons related to 'eugenics' back then?

And just what the fuck do you think I mean anyway?

I'm a bisexual transsexual, and I've had more than enough abuse from various groups to know being hyper-sensitive to things doesn't get you very far.

But hey. By all means, let's have this discussion... >_<

It's not like I haven't had to deal with people trying to claim being gay is a mental illness, morally reprehensible, or a 'choice' before...
Hell, I've had to deal with a bunch of 'feminists', who claim being a lesbian is a choice, and that women should make it to teach all those horrible men a lesson...

Seriously. I know why you're upset, but really, do yourself a favour and stop trying to think the worst of everything.

It's hard enough dealing with the real insane bigots in the world without having to invent them when they don't exist.
 

Hipster Chick

New member
Sep 3, 2011
41
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Hipster Chick said:
CrystalShadow said:
Incest for instance may be taboo, but there's nothing about it that inherently prevents offspring between closely related individuals.

And while being gay makes it less likely you'll have children, it doesn't make you incapable of it.

Nor does being mentally or physically handicapped cause you to be incabable of having children. (unless the injury is specifically to your reproductive organs.)
Mind explaining what the FUCK that means? Sandwiching being gay between incest and mental retardation?
What, aside from it being a known issue with someone that was making reference to nazi Germany?

Do you know which groups were being killed for reasons related to 'eugenics' back then?

And just what the fuck do you think I mean anyway?

I'm a bisexual transsexual, and I've had more than enough abuse from various groups to know being hyper-sensitive to things doesn't get you very far.

But hey. By all means, let's have this discussion... >_<

It's not like I haven't had to deal with people trying to claim being gay is a mental illness, morally reprehensible, or a 'choice' before...
Hell, I've had to deal with a bunch of 'feminists', who claim being a lesbian is a choice, and that women should make it to teach all those horrible men a lesson...

Seriously. I know why you're upset, but really, do yourself a favour and stop trying to think the worst of everything.

It's hard enough dealing with the real insane bigots in the world without having to invent them when they don't exist.
And I'm a lesbian genderqueer. Maybe you shouldn't phrase things in the way that make you seem most like a bigot instead of playing the "I'm a victim" card and calling me overly-sensitive.
 

PatrickXD

New member
Aug 13, 2009
977
0
0
Who are we to decide exactly what the world wil throw at us? Forcing evolution down a path that we choose could work, but what if the adaptations we require are the opposite to those that we ultimately choose?
Eugenics could be a solution, but seem more likely a risk that is not necessary.
EDIT: I don't now if it counts, but preventing the conception/birth of disabled babies I agree with.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Hipster Chick said:
CrystalShadow said:
Hipster Chick said:
CrystalShadow said:
Incest for instance may be taboo, but there's nothing about it that inherently prevents offspring between closely related individuals.

And while being gay makes it less likely you'll have children, it doesn't make you incapable of it.

Nor does being mentally or physically handicapped cause you to be incabable of having children. (unless the injury is specifically to your reproductive organs.)
Mind explaining what the FUCK that means? Sandwiching being gay between incest and mental retardation?
What, aside from it being a known issue with someone that was making reference to nazi Germany?

Do you know which groups were being killed for reasons related to 'eugenics' back then?

And just what the fuck do you think I mean anyway?

I'm a bisexual transsexual, and I've had more than enough abuse from various groups to know being hyper-sensitive to things doesn't get you very far.

But hey. By all means, let's have this discussion... >_<

It's not like I haven't had to deal with people trying to claim being gay is a mental illness, morally reprehensible, or a 'choice' before...
Hell, I've had to deal with a bunch of 'feminists', who claim being a lesbian is a choice, and that women should make it to teach all those horrible men a lesson...

Seriously. I know why you're upset, but really, do yourself a favour and stop trying to think the worst of everything.

It's hard enough dealing with the real insane bigots in the world without having to invent them when they don't exist.
And I'm a lesbian genderqueer. Maybe you shouldn't phrase things in the way that make you seem most like a bigot instead of playing the "I'm a victim" card and calling me overly-sensitive.
You know, I've been trying to think of what to say here, but it comes down me either being pissed off at you for no reason, or feeling like I have to be paranoid about every little thing I say might offend someone.

I mean, did you even stop to think about the offensive implications of referring to incest and mental and physical handicaps?

You see incest, gay, mental handicaps and shout OMG HOMOPHOBIA.
But meanwhile, the very implications of what you're offended about are degrading to people with mental and physical handicaps...

So... You have basically offended people by implication just by being offended... (And isn't that kind of logic incredibly tiresome?)

Really, I'm tired of this kind of thing. It inevitably leads to either never saying anything about anyone, or running the risk of offending someone.

And that's even when the point of what I was saying is essentially the part that you deleted.
(Ie. In discussing eugenics, the big issue is who ends up making the decisions. Just as nazi germany decided that it meant killing jews, gypsies, the mentally ill, physically deformed, homosexuals, and several other groups)

But I'm sure you could have phrased that better so it only insulted 'allowable' groups right? >_<
 

Chase Yojimbo

The Samurai Sage
Sep 1, 2009
782
0
0
I believe the last time Eugenics was used was with the African-American Population when they were still considered slaves in the US. This was done so that the stronger slaves could breed into making children that could in essence become stronger with the stronger women. However when it came to any males or females that proved to be more intelligent they tried to keep them from 'breeding'.

This is your Eugenics at work 100%, just the negative side of it (and oddly enough the very first side of it, as Malthusian's ideas were than taken by Darwin for his theories, and than taken by his cousin who perfected it), and how it can be abused... and I do not support it. However, this was also known as "Malthusian Eugenics", who considered the African-American's to be racially inferior, and thus thought of himself and all Caucasians as Gods.

Eugenics may be seen as a way out for Humanity to weed out the weakness of the world, but it is also seen as one of its greatest enemies. I simply just do not agree in Eugenics simply because it is a horrible process that destroys exactly what Humans are; they are chaotic. Chaos is a simple term that is often misunderstood for people usually think evil, cruel, etc. Chaos is change, it is random, it is Human. Without this chaos you destroy individuality, and if you destroy individuality you destroy innovation; and if you destroy innovation you destroy evolution... It is a constant loop of the destruction of progression if you bring in Eugenics, which ironically is the supposed Pinnacle of Progression of the Human Race. I don't think the African-American's would be to happy either to see Malthusian's actions on course once again either...

If you find flaws in my information please point them out.
 

LadyTiamat

New member
Aug 13, 2011
210
0
0
Eugenics = bad

But parents should have the ability to create 'designer' babies to eliminate illness, genetic defects, and general fitness. However I do not condone selecting astetic choices like hair/eye/skin colour, they have no direct affect to a persons well being besides what society dictates or aspects of personality (if they are in any shape determined by genetics, which i doubt) like sexualty or being a extro/intravert, or being shy.
 

Haratu

New member
Sep 6, 2010
47
0
0
The problem with eugenics is not just a problem with 'superior' and inferior', it is actually a problem with inbreeding and the resultant genetic hazards.

If you breed for particular traits it is common for those traits to be linked to a disability or negative characteristic. it is also common for people with certain traits to carry specific genetic disadvantages. because eugenics enhances one trait over others then it often also enhances the negative traits attached to it or present in that particular population. This means that eugenics can lead to an increase in genetic problems or malformation resulting in lower survivability rates.

This is best shown in many pedigree dogs which suffer numerous problems related to their breeding, from small issues like arthiritis, to larger issues such as spine and brain problems. The argument is that you can breed out these problems, but by directing breeding as such will always result in other problems too. The best result is a large genome with a large variety of genes so offspring have a better chance at adapting and surviving.

Note: my dog is a dingo/ridgeback/blue heeler/staffy, I did not want a pure bred and got a very well behaved dog without any medical conditions. Likewise my cat is a street-cat (rescued as a kitten) and also has had no medical conditions and is very docile.
 

InfiniteSingularity

New member
Apr 9, 2010
704
0
0
I figure that we'll all be dead by the time we start to notice any benefits of eugenics, so why bother fucking with nature when we don't need too?

If we allow people to have this kind of power, divisions between human races and factions will multiply. We'll have a fucking genetic holocaust. Racism and discrimination will now have a decent justification. We're going to start labeling different traits as "good" or "bad", when society is just starting to pull through and realise that everyone is merely "different". Human relations will die while technology advances and the human race becomes "perfect". Fuck perfection.

I don't care enough about the fate of the human race when I'm going to die in 60 years anyway. And it's definitely not worth the consequences. We don't need to be perfect. We don't need to fuck with our genetic makeup so the human race will become "better". It's just fucking stupid
 

InfiniteSingularity

New member
Apr 9, 2010
704
0
0
LadyTiamat said:
Eugenics = bad

But parents should have the ability to create 'designer' babies to eliminate illness, genetic defects, and general fitness. However I do not condone selecting astetic choices like hair/eye/skin colour, they have no direct affect to a persons well being besides what society dictates or aspects of personality (if they are in any shape determined by genetics, which i doubt) like sexualty or being a extro/intravert, or being shy.
No. If you don't want a birth defect, you should remain in reasonably good health when you're expecting a child. But if there's a serious inheritable disease then you can look into it. But again, as soon as we have this power it will be abused. If you have the power to determine health in babies using genetics, it won't be long before we start to fuck with the human population in every aspect. It's the same technology and it will be abused.

Ban it. It should never be allowed to advance.
 

Illithidae

New member
Oct 19, 2010
97
0
0
Sneaky-Pie said:
[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.
The question here is; What are desirable heritable characteristics? Do these characteristics include phsyical appearance, or just general well-being? Does this also extend to personalities?

Would you free a criminal so they can have sex with multiple women simply because they have "desirable heritable characteristics?"

What's more, think of the societal complex this would create - "Oh, I'm allowed to breed, therefore, I'M BETTER THAN YOU. CLEAN MY SHOES!"

No, I'm not in favour of Eugenics. While it's good on paper, paper is the thing that goes see-through when you rub grease on it. And when you can see through it, you can see all the problems that could come about by this.
 

GrinningManiac

New member
Jun 11, 2009
4,090
0
0
Blitzwing said:
GrinningManiac said:
Rule of Thumb

Anything supported, started, encouraged or included in/by the Nazi Government of the Third Reich will not, EVER, be considered fair game for discussion OR respectable opinions for the next HUNDRED YEARS at least.
What about anti-smoking and animal cruelty laws?
Yup. Everything.

You're going for hell just for mentioning those things you mentioned. I'm not saying them - I was fooled like that once in a former life and my back still hurts when I stretch.