Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[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.

 

[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.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Aah yes.. IF the media want the people to turn against it.. But what if the media is owned by those people that wants this to be introduced?

Try looking up how many companies controls the mainstream media (im talking mostly US now) and you will be suprised..

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.

Although should it come into their interest then yes it is possible.

 

[Pinkamena]

I support it when it comes to removing genetic diseases from our gene pool, but not when it comes to removing undesirable traits of appearence.

 

[Xan Krieger]

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.

 

[the_honey_badger]

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.

 

[DarkRyter]

To actually enforce it would require fascism.

Unless everyone would suddenly be perfectly okay with others telling them when and how they should have children.

 

[Johnny Impact]

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.

 

[ScrewInMoo]

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.

 

[LordFisheh]

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.

 

[Zaverexus]

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.)

 

[P1a5m4_5t4t3]

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.