Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't get me started on how businesses are far too involved in politics in the US. The US would be able to have eugenics put forward if the right people wanted it to begin, but I doubt eugenics would ever be able to break even so it probably wouldn't be in the interest of such people.GWarface said:
Although should it come into their interest then yes it is possible.
I say so long as we promote aspergers syndrome instead of trying to eliminate it that I support eugenics. Some things like that can be seen as both bad and good and there's a big chance that people will say it's bad.
If we were to disregard the personal and local effects of implementing Eugenics, I would still tend to disagree with it. As humans, we have spent millenia trying to create a wide and varied gene pool, in the case that if a natural event occurred, such as disease or famine, we would have a wide enough gene pool to hopefully ensure that some proportion of our species would be able to survive. By purposefully reducing our gene pool by preventing certain alleles from being passed on, we are decreasing our chances of survival as a species. Variation within a species is important, and Eugenics would significantly reduce it.
Everyone who has ever had children supported eugenics.
We all think we are worthy of extending ourselves to the next generation through children. (Please no emo crap about how you aren't worthy) When we choose a mate, we're choosing someone else we think is worthy. Our intention is to make children who are as good or better than we are. Thus, improving the human race through breeding. Thus, eugenics.
It can be extended to many other examples: raising hardier grains which resist drought, for instance. We pick the best seeds from the best plants.
Like any science, eugenics is susceptible to perversion by unethical people.
We all think we are worthy of extending ourselves to the next generation through children. (Please no emo crap about how you aren't worthy) When we choose a mate, we're choosing someone else we think is worthy. Our intention is to make children who are as good or better than we are. Thus, improving the human race through breeding. Thus, eugenics.
It can be extended to many other examples: raising hardier grains which resist drought, for instance. We pick the best seeds from the best plants.
Like any science, eugenics is susceptible to perversion by unethical people.
I see no reason for it. Breeding is a basic human right and the criteria for a genetically adequate human have the potential of becoming muddied by the dogmatic opinions of people in power. It should be a personal choice whom one breeds with, incidentally, I think there is some evidence that we are less likely to willingly breed with unfit people anyway (Or at least, those who were unfit in our recent evolutionary history and those who are viewed as such in our cultural present).
Let evolution continue as it has done in the past. If our environment does become more hostile, and there are less available resources, those who posses the traits which allow them to succeed in the environment will survive. If us humans intervene in our evolution, it could reduce our genetic diversity and perhaps make us less likely to survive in a dramatically changed environment.
I'm more in favour of euthenics: The modification of an organism's environment to allow them a better standard of life. So, medicine, education and technological development in general, but not eugenics.
Let evolution continue as it has done in the past. If our environment does become more hostile, and there are less available resources, those who posses the traits which allow them to succeed in the environment will survive. If us humans intervene in our evolution, it could reduce our genetic diversity and perhaps make us less likely to survive in a dramatically changed environment.
I'm more in favour of euthenics: The modification of an organism's environment to allow them a better standard of life. So, medicine, education and technological development in general, but not eugenics.
Down with bog standard eugenics.
However the use of technologies like IVF to prevent genetic disorders presents a far better alternative, and it's not even mustache-twirlingly evil. As for people who consider that to still be discriminatory, saying that it says that genetic disorders are 'wrong', well, it's their decision, but I can't find a way to justify potentially (only potentially) wrecking a child's life to make a point.
However the use of technologies like IVF to prevent genetic disorders presents a far better alternative, and it's not even mustache-twirlingly evil. As for people who consider that to still be discriminatory, saying that it says that genetic disorders are 'wrong', well, it's their decision, but I can't find a way to justify potentially (only potentially) wrecking a child's life to make a point.
Even ignoring any moral quandaries (as I'm sure these have been covered above), I don't see that point really: if we all need a certain trait to survive, it will evolve naturally. And even then the human race has shown remarkable skill for ignoring evolution entirely (see: hereditary diseases, many diseases in general, obesity, sloth, AIDS, HIV, etc.)
I think that if something like this were to exist, it would have to be viewed as an incredibly dangerous scientific experiment, but an experiment nonetheless, This would include such things as a control group, sample size, multiple trials, and backing by agreed upon science (discussed later). Let's say that all those who are opposed to the program are allowed to breed as normal and those that do agree to the program are subject to a universally agreed upon breeding program to enhance so called "Desirable Traits" as defined and agreed upon by a diverse, world-wide scientific organization. There would be a strict standardized testing regimen between the two groups in order to determine if the selective breeding group was having any effect towards the agreed upon goals of the scientific organization.
There would be no mixing allowed between the two groups so as to keep the results as accurate as possible. The hardest part of such a study would be what to do if the children of one generation of the study do not want to take part in the study, after all, it is a voluntary participation program. Those children could not be let into the control group as per risk of contaminating the data.
The study would have to have a third group, basically normal people like you an me who go about their every day lives, i.e. those not actually participating in the study at all, control group or otherwise. Again, all groups would have to be separate and those in the study would be there purely because they agreed to take part, and they would all be kept (genetically) separated in terms of breeding opportunities.
If a voluntary, universally defined and agreed upon, eugenics program were to be developed with as many concessions toward keeping the basic human rights of those involved (remember they agreed ON THEIR OWN to take part in the study along with all the tests and whatnot that that would entail) Then I would wholeheartedly agree to such a program, and dependent upon the restrictions placed, as designed and agreed upon by that scientific organization, upon my lifestyle, I would probably participate in the pro selective breeding group.
EDIT: If anyone has suggestions on their own ideas for a program or how to improve the ideas above (I want opinions from both sides, both supporters and detractors of eugenics) I would love to hear them.
There would be no mixing allowed between the two groups so as to keep the results as accurate as possible. The hardest part of such a study would be what to do if the children of one generation of the study do not want to take part in the study, after all, it is a voluntary participation program. Those children could not be let into the control group as per risk of contaminating the data.
The study would have to have a third group, basically normal people like you an me who go about their every day lives, i.e. those not actually participating in the study at all, control group or otherwise. Again, all groups would have to be separate and those in the study would be there purely because they agreed to take part, and they would all be kept (genetically) separated in terms of breeding opportunities.
If a voluntary, universally defined and agreed upon, eugenics program were to be developed with as many concessions toward keeping the basic human rights of those involved (remember they agreed ON THEIR OWN to take part in the study along with all the tests and whatnot that that would entail) Then I would wholeheartedly agree to such a program, and dependent upon the restrictions placed, as designed and agreed upon by that scientific organization, upon my lifestyle, I would probably participate in the pro selective breeding group.
EDIT: If anyone has suggestions on their own ideas for a program or how to improve the ideas above (I want opinions from both sides, both supporters and detractors of eugenics) I would love to hear them.
My personal opinion regarding eugenics is similar to my opinion regarding germ-line gen-enging: I personally feel it is wrong to choose modifications about your or someone else's child. I do not care what someone wishes to do to modify themselves, but to perform such an act without the person's permission is, in my opinion, wrong.
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.
No Genetic Diseases = Overpopulation.
It sounds harsh, but that's what would happen in the long run. Scientific advancement has already tripled our intended average lifespan, and eliminated various population inhibitors. Back when nature was in control genetic diseases were one of the many "population caps" that nature regulated. Since humans have already screwed over the balance, Eugenics would just make the situation worse in the long run.
It sounds harsh, but that's what would happen in the long run. Scientific advancement has already tripled our intended average lifespan, and eliminated various population inhibitors. Back when nature was in control genetic diseases were one of the many "population caps" that nature regulated. Since humans have already screwed over the balance, Eugenics would just make the situation worse in the long run.
I kind of agree, but surely it would be better to decide who isn't capable of taking care of a child through how they behave, not genetics. There are thousands of irresponsible, uncaring people out there with perfectly normal genes, and thousands of people with genetic disorders who would make good parents.geier said:
Besides, who could we really trust to make such decisions, based on genes or actions, before they decided that a list of subjective attributes were best and proceeded to prove why the entire thing is a bad idea?
Eugenics is something that sounds great on paper but it has too many negative implications to work in practice
The human body has designed its self to find people of the opposite gender that are best to have a child with its a screening process most people do for most of their lives
hell its worked for thousands of years previous to this. (If its not broke don't fix it)
The human body has designed its self to find people of the opposite gender that are best to have a child with its a screening process most people do for most of their lives
hell its worked for thousands of years previous to this. (If its not broke don't fix it)
Im quite certain this is already on the way, the conditioning is already obviously here.. Not tomorrow, not the day after that.. But if people all around the world dont start rebelling against corrupt leaders, it will be introduced again someday, propably modified to our world as it is then, but the idea is still in there..The Unworthy Gentleman said:
People tend to forget that history for the most parts repeat itself.. And that makes me a saad panda..
i don't support eugenics but i do feel that some people should be made to sit a test before they become parents. not just the practical, I mean...
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.
pleasantly surprised by the results of this poll... most people here seem very eager to roll out the idea of eugenics every time there's a thread about a mother not taking well enough care of her child.