Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[senordesol]

I say 'no' to eugenics. Historically, mankind has a habit of finding some reason why he's 'better' than the other man. We've seen it with racism, classism, nationalism, castes, and other such things.

The fact is; I don't know how humanity could go through a eugenics program without creating a class of 'lesser peoples' by default. There would be those who are considered 'superior' simply because of their genes; who would no-doubt be afforded more opportunities than the 'inferior' specimens.

Having 'bad genes' doesn't mean you don't have something to contribute to society.

 

[SinisterGehe]

It can be used for good, but it will most likely used for bad things. It is a great idea only if we got a model/template of a "desirable" or a "perfect" human that we are trying to achieve. Just an example would be that ancient Greece strong naturally muscular men were the ideal humans. In African tribes the idea human is Obese woman and tall agile men. My ideal human being is blond haired naturally strong bit under 180cm. personality: Logical, rational, calm, hard working, non-religious and sexually discreet (Basically sexual interest for breeding purposes not for pleasure). I am sure yours differences from that a lot. In order for us to use eugenics well and for good would mean we would all need to share the same opinions about what is a "human being" in it's essence and appearance.

 

[3quency]

Fanta was also invented in Nazi Germany.

Yes, by a corporation known for being indirectly responsible for the deaths of trade union workers in Colombia and Turkey, poisoning of large tracts of Indian farm land and large-scale local unemployment in El Salvador.
Not disagreeing that the Nazis had some progressive ideas (cheap automobiles, motorways)but maybe pick some better examples next time? Furthermore since eugenics is essentially the concept of creating a genetic master race I would disagree with it if Nelson Mandela had suggested the idea.

Of course, Godwin's Law renders my argument pointless but what the heck.

 

[GWarface]

I support eugenics 100% even tho if it was inforced I wouldnt of been born :\

Thats nice.. Care to explain why? Im quite interested..

I think the sentence itself explains the latter part of his statement.

You might be right, that was a little insensitive of me..

 

[Veritasiness]

It can be used for good, but it will most likely used for bad things. It is a great idea only if we got a model/template of a "desirable" or a "perfect" human that we are trying to achieve. Just an example would be that ancient Greece strong naturally muscular men were the ideal humans. In African tribes the idea human is Obese woman and tall agile men. My ideal human being is blond haired naturally strong bit under 180cm. personality: Logical, rational, calm, hard working, non-religious and sexually discreet (Basically sexual interest for breeding purposes not for pleasure). I am sure yours differences from that a lot. In order for us to use eugenics well and for good would mean we would all need to share the same opinions about what is a "human being" in it's essence and appearance.

But we are all human beings. Difference, and different view of "perfection," are inherent within is. There is NO perfect human being. No man is without sin, and I don't just mean from a religious standpoint - we all have vices, angers, loves, hates, and different things about us which are both ugly and beautiful. If you take that away, you're not aiding evolution, you're halting it.

 

[AWAR]

-snip

I like being told I'm wrong without any explanation whatsoever. It brings up good memories of when I was 6. But I think I'm old enough to finally accept the truth, enlighten me.

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

Eh. Eugenics is such a touchy subject for people. I prefer Genetic Engineering to Eugenics though, because it's manipulation of genes, not forced breeding. I like to consider myself a scientist. As such, I just want to be free to discover and create, what the general population chooses to do or decide about that is entirely upon them. If they want to take research and use it to kill everyone, I'll be dead so I can't very well complain. If a populace decides the research is too dangerous and can never be used, that's also fine. If I've finished, I'm probably bored and want to do something new anyway.

This is the way that I think about that kind of stuff.

 

[Jonluw]

I don't support forcing people to not procreate, but I support recommending people with hereditary conditions not to procreate. i.e. I'd want people to make the choice of not procreating themselves, and I figure the government adding some incentive to the notion could perhaps help.

 

[GWarface]

You never specifically say why you support eugenics, you only tell people why they're wrong. I'd very much like to hear why you support eugenics.

To be fair it was implied in the benefit of strengthening the gene pool. In any case, in a later post I recant my support given my misunderstanding of the term 'eugenics'.

I'm not going to get into a scientific argument on how eugenics can or cannot improve the human race, but as I see it supporting eugenics instantly makes you classify human beings based on certain traits and then choosing who gets to have certain privileges (like reproducing) and who doesn't. So as far as I'm concerned, that is by definition Fascism and in my book absolutely nothing justifies fascism. All people should be entitled to proper healthcare, education and opportunities regardless any differences they might have. Consequently there aren't different kinds of "good" or "bad" eugenics.

As above. I will, however, say that your definition of fascism is as incorrect as my previous definition of eugenics (I'm not remotely saying I support fascism, just that you're using it incorrectly).

I am now a eugenicist in the same way that I am an atheist; I'd really prefer for only good genes to be passed on/everyone to become an atheist, but my liberal values prevent any action on either front that would infringe upon anyone's liberties.

Transhumanism is just a modern form of eugenics..

Well no not really, especially if you read over my discussion with Hagi and EvilRoy. At the very least, any sort of biomodification that is not genetic cannot be considered a form of eugenics because it doesn't pass on to the next generation.

Manipulating with the bodys electrical field can have MASSIVE implications on your wellfare.. And it doesnt matter if its an bionic eye or a chip so you can play games with only your thoughts..

Its not the infomation that is send out by such devices that is the problem.. Its the infomation that is send INTO them that is the danger..

'Phones cause testicular cancer and brain tumours'
'Going over 20mph will cause permanent brain damage'
The wonder and risk of science is that you cannot know until you try. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you can hook yourself up to anything and there will be no bad consequences; my point is that blanket rejection of any technological advances without scrupulous testing and evidence is detrimental to human progress. Of course, if you reject inexorable human progress then this debate takes on an entirely different flavour. In any case, our entire sub-discussion is irrelevant to the OP's question on *eugenics*. As I said, although it might share common ground with transhumanism, they are certainly not one and the same

I think you misquoted me there..

Im not saying that you should reject technological advances, im just saying if you know its bad for you and COULD manipulate your body and mind, then why do it?

The problem is that people think that all technological advances are safe.. Its before my time, but i remember hearing about mothers refusing to give their kids RC cars because of the dangers of the radiation and EMF..
But now, people dont give a flying fuck and happily gives there 4 year old kid a cellphone even though its widely accepted that those things are basicly microwave ovens in our pockets..

Its for another dicussion, but that shit IS dangerous in the long run..

 

[BonGookKumBop]

For those that are interested in learning more about eugenics and its history of use in the United States and UK, I'd suggest reading the book "War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black. It's a little dry, since it's a history book, but its topic is very interesting.

As far as eugenics go, I'm against it. We attribute way more to DNA than it deserves credit for. Despite the problems people may have been born with, there are those that rise above their what others would predict for them to provide us with advancements that benefit the human race.

The problem with eugenics is that our predictions are often biased, wrong, or insignificant. The original eugenic programs introduced the IQ test. This test had questions about popular culture to prove that certain races and groups were genetically predetermined to be less intelligent because they didn't know the rules to the popular card game at the country club. Even if we just look at disease, would you want to deprive the world of the next Steven Hawking because of a genetic chance of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?

One of my favorite authors has severe dyslexia, but he publishes books anyway. In fact, he has attributed his dyslexia with influencing his writing style. Eugenics has a built in assumption that we are slaves to our circumstances and unable to excel beyond what life deals to us. The problem here is that this builds up a mentality where people quit trying to improve themselves and just settle for whatever life has dealt them. Complacency leads to mediocrity which in turn leads to downfall.

 

[BabySinclair]

No, however I do believe that some people really don't need to enter the gene pool.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

While it seems like a great idea in theory, in practice eugenics probably won't work. While weeding out all of the idiots is something that I would love, people are just going to call it evil and say that it's violating their rights. The people not chosen for their genes would feel insulted and cheated. In addition, what is desirable or not in a person is extremely subjective and varies from person to person. This, in short, is a recipe for disaster. I love the idea, but it won't work.

For people who think eugenics and genetic manipulation are evil, look at your beloved canine companion or kitty cat. Unless you own a wolf or a lynx or something, they've undergone something akin to eugenics. How did your tiny little teacup poodle get so small and cute? Simple. People chose the smallest ones and bred them, because smallness was a desirable trait. My point it that while it's not something the human race would like to have happen to them, eugenics isn't inherently evil.

 

[drisky]

Thats what the Nazis were trying to do. I'd say no.

 

[Zantos]

I don't agree with the strict idea of traditional eugenics where people aren't allowed to breed if they're judged inferior. However I do like the theories and experiments going on which I believe still class as eugenics, where it is possible to choose which genes do or don't carry forward by inseminating specifically checked eggs and sperm in a lab and then implanting them back into the mother to ensure any serious diseases aren't carried through to the child. As long as it's used to prevent children being born with horrible diseases, and not just to create a Gattaca style class system then I'm all for it. However I have reservations due to the capacity for it to be misused. So I said somewhat.

 

[Jandau]

From a strictly practical standpoint, I can see how eugenics could be a good thing. However, I don't see a way for it to be applied to the actual population without being useless (making it poorly enforced and optional), being an atrocity (strictly enforcing it, sterilizing the "unfit", etc.) or creating two separate races of humans (by focusing on breeding desirable traits and leaving the "rabble" to fend for itself) which would inevitably come into conflict.

 

[CarlMin]

You never specifically say why you support eugenics, you only tell people why they're wrong. I'd very much like to hear why you support eugenics.

To be fair it was implied in the benefit of strengthening the gene pool. In any case, in a later post I recant my support given my misunderstanding of the term 'eugenics'.

I'm not going to get into a scientific argument on how eugenics can or cannot improve the human race, but as I see it supporting eugenics instantly makes you classify human beings based on certain traits and then choosing who gets to have certain privileges (like reproducing) and who doesn't. So as far as I'm concerned, that is by definition Fascism and in my book absolutely nothing justifies fascism. All people should be entitled to proper healthcare, education and opportunities regardless any differences they might have. Consequently there aren't different kinds of "good" or "bad" eugenics.

As above. I will, however, say that your definition of fascism is as incorrect as my previous definition of eugenics (I'm not remotely saying I support fascism, just that you're using it incorrectly).

I am now a eugenicist in the same way that I am an atheist; I'd really prefer for only good genes to be passed on/everyone to become an atheist, but my liberal values prevent any action on either front that would infringe upon anyone's liberties.

Transhumanism is just a modern form of eugenics..

Well no not really, especially if you read over my discussion with Hagi and EvilRoy. At the very least, any sort of biomodification that is not genetic cannot be considered a form of eugenics because it doesn't pass on to the next generation.

Manipulating with the bodys electrical field can have MASSIVE implications on your wellfare.. And it doesnt matter if its an bionic eye or a chip so you can play games with only your thoughts..

Its not the infomation that is send out by such devices that is the problem.. Its the infomation that is send INTO them that is the danger..

'Phones cause testicular cancer and brain tumours'
'Going over 20mph will cause permanent brain damage'
The wonder and risk of science is that you cannot know until you try. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you can hook yourself up to anything and there will be no bad consequences; my point is that blanket rejection of any technological advances without scrupulous testing and evidence is detrimental to human progress. Of course, if you reject inexorable human progress then this debate takes on an entirely different flavour. In any case, our entire sub-discussion is irrelevant to the OP's question on *eugenics*. As I said, although it might share common ground with transhumanism, they are certainly not one and the same

I like how you quoted me on things I haven't actually written. ^^

 

[geier]

Even being german, i'm absolutly for it.

Let's face it, civilisation is the enemy of evolution. In a uncivilised world it is survival of the fitest, in the civilisation, everyone, even with inferior genes can multiply.

In my 450 resident village, there is a family with 3 children. The mother is stupid, and i don't mean internet stupid, she has a malfuncioning brain, is retarded, however you prefer to call it.

The father is relativly intelligent, but, as a farmer he couldn't be picky, so he took the first one that came along.

ALL three children are unemployed, stupid, unable to care for themselfes and i know for a fact, all three wetted their clothes (in public) up to the age of 13 (at least).

The two girls (25 and 28) have children themself.
They started breeding at 18 and 19.

My sister worked in a kindergarden where one of the children was.
The boy is forbidden to wear underpants, because they restrain his penis, preventing it from growing big, he doesn't go to the toilet, he just shits his pants and when he stands up, it falls down .

I could go on with the examples, but my poor english skills will just infuriate you.

Let's just say, prefenting some people from bearing children would really improve the gene pool.

 

[dementis]

I like the idea of improving the human race but I think transhumanism would be better, purely because in my eyes it's less controversial than eugenics.

 

[Double A]

Anything that violates someone's personal liberty is not a good thing. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[psychodynamica]

Although it's easy to bring up nazi-ism and the master race, aswell all the other selective breeding foleys throughout our history, i think it's imporotant to really state what makes eugenics wrong.

firstly i'd like to point out, as a idea it makes some sense and has logic to it,help evolution on it's way to perfection. But (and this is a big But), Eugenics would noot be used to make us 'A Master Race' it would be used by the corporate upperclass to make people best suited to three things, Menial Labour, Following orders and Consuming Goods. The problem lies in deciding what is desirable as a genetic trait. now some things seem obvious, Intelligence, Height, Looks. and crap like that.

But who gets to decide, the man with the money right? and what self respecting business man wouldn't try to use this to improve profit. And they then breed things thast make better workers, effectively reducing the working class to a sub human slave group.

Maybe I am wrong and eugenics would simply improve all of us equally, but i personally do not trust those of our world with power, and i never expect technology to be used for equality.