Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[daydreamerdeluxe]

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.

 

[JambalayaBob]

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.

 

[D-Pad]

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.

 

[LordFisheh]

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.

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.

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?

 

[sean360h]

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)

 

[GWarface]

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.

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..

People tend to forget that history for the most parts repeat itself.. And that makes me a saad panda..

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

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...

 

[xitel]

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.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

 

[orangeban]

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.

Dude, you can't destroy natural selection. If anything, you win at natural selection. We are perfectly suited to our enviroment, natural selection cannot improve it for us. This is why alligators have barely evolved, they are already perfectly suited.

And can we get a definition of "sick and damaged people"? I'm only curious because as I've said before (either on this thread or the other eugenics thread that was kicking around) my mother had a mental illness and I'm curious if I should of been born.

 

[AmosMoses]

selective gene therapy; THAT is eugenics.

The OP defined eugenics for the purpose of this thread. You can personally choose to define Eugenics how you want, but that's not what this poll is about. I could define Eugenics as a global party where everyone gets cake and party hats and vote "yes I support Eugenics".

Also, you can choose to say that negative association shouldn't rule it out. But the fact is that it DOES have those associations, the same as Hitler's moustache is associated with Hitler and not Chaplain and the swastika is associated with National Socialism and not Hinduism.

If all the things Hitler took from us, I think Eugenics is something he can keep.

 

[oktalist]

Not only is it morally wrong, it wouldn't even achieve what it sets out to do, as diversity is key to the genetic health of a population.

It is worth pointing out that eugenics was a popular school of thought before Hitler authorized forced sterilization and 'euthanasia'.

The same could be said of fascism and anti-semitism. The popularity of an idea tells us nothing about its morality or its utility.

If you think eugenics is something different from what other people think it is, then you're going to have to tell us what you think it is. Gene therapy is gene therapy, not eugenics.

When eugenics was being developed as a "science", it wasn't even known for sure how inherited traits were encoded. It fell out of fashion in the 1930s and it was of course 1953 by the time the structure of DNA started to become understood.

Genes that cause undesirable effects in some circumstances probably have desirable effects in others, otherwise natural selection would have got rid of them already. Evolution is far from perfect, but we need to be pretty fucking sure we haven't overlooked some horrible side-effect of whatever your proposal is before we go fiddling with the genes of a whole population.

Is it not eugenics for a government to simply encourage better genetic specimens to have children, especially with aforementioned free gene therapies? If you think that that is not eugenics, then fair enough, but I consider it to be.

In that case we practise eugenics every day, simply by choosing who to have sex with.

 

[Phlakes]

I support the idea, but once you get into controlling breeding that's too far. Gene therapy on unborn children would probably be the best, something Mass Effect brought up a bit, so there would always be a choice and no one would have to be controlled. Although that might bring up an argument for the children and how their lives would change knowing they were manipulated like that. I can see a lot of bullying in that, from both sides, lots of "you're a lab test" and "I'm genetically better than you".

I don't support it, because it is immoral, illogical, and any human who thinks he can make humanity better through breeding, is an idiot.

Yeah, controlled breeding is immoral, definitely, but it's highly logical because it would make humanity better. That's the entire principle. If it hypothetically did happen (which it shouldn't, I really don't support it), diseases and disabilities would be kept out of the gene pool, making sure the next generation doesn't inherit those flaws, obviously giving them less flaws which makes them better. It should never happen, but it's as logical as vaccinations or really any kind of health care.

 

[Torrasque]

I don't support it, because it is immoral, illogical, and any human who thinks he can make humanity better through breeding, is an idiot.

 

[orangeban]

I support the idea, but once you get into controlling breeding that's too far. Gene therapy on unborn children would probably be the best, something Mass Effect brought up a bit, so there would always be a choice and no one would have to be controlled. Although that might bring up an argument for the children and how their lives would change knowing they were manipulated like that. I can see a lot of bullying in that, from both sides, lots of "you're a lab test" and "I'm genetically better than you".

Look bigger than bullying, imagine the rift in society caused by those with gene therapy and those without. Obviously the non-gene therapied would be the under dogs, seeing as how the ones with gene therapy would be perfect and all, but is it right to divide society that way? To make it that some poeple will just be born inferior? Also, Gattaca, Gattaca, Gattaca.

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.

Nature has done well but its a repeat of the same that has happened with agriculture over the past couple of thousand years, desirable characteristics have been repeatedly selected whilst winnowing out lesser traits.

It could be used to try and forward mankind but not as an entire species, in a way its happening already with the way social class systems still operate

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

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..

People tend to forget that history for the most parts repeat itself.. And that makes me a saad panda..

People are rebelling against corrupt leaders. Libya, Egypt, that other one and the other one after that (I forget their names). The sad thing is I think the US and the UK don't have very trustworthy leaders. I don't believe that the governments care for the people, rather the people who are going to vote for them: their respective parties. Labour will target the working class and fuck it up, the Conservatives will look at privatisation and taking as much money away from social polices so that there are more business ventures to be had and the Lib Dems will sit and agree with whoever is willing to have a referendum on the voting system. The US is the same but with different political parties and more right wing ideology, each party caters to the whim of the people who will vote for them. Like you said, history repeats itself and soon this democracy will collapse because it's ineffective and we're heading into crisis[footnote]Yes, I know this crisis isn't as bad as previous crises but, for many people, things aren't getting better and the most important thing is in shortage still: jobs.[/footnote]

But, I've gone way off topic there. I don't think we'll be seeing eugenics any time soon, however if the right person comes across at the right time then I will easily be proven wrong.

 

[acosn]

Load of bollocks if you ask me.
Where does it end?
First they screen out genetic disorders then they will move onto other things. People will be told who can and can't have a child.
It's fucking with the natural order of life.
Hitler also wanted to create the perfect "race". This is the same concept minus the genocide but it's "alright" because this is science?
It can fuck right off.

At the time Hitler WAS backed up by science... *cough*

One of the most common misconceptions ever perpetrated about WW2 was that Hitler was operating based off of what science told him.

He drew his own beliefs which were batshit insane and basically threw what science suggested out the window. He believed in creationism, and compared belief in evolution to treason. Of course, most people pointing fingers wouldn't have bothered to actually read what Hitler wrote, not that I blame them.

Eugenics is a crock, and I'm obligated as someone studying anthropology to say so. It's another product of bigotive scientists looking for hard science to demonstrate the superiority of species and traits and in this case, apply it.

In any case in this age it'd probably be a smaller effort to engineer gene therapy routines that simply remove genetic defects from the human body, rather than trying to enforce breeding restrictions. Historically prohibitions just don't work.

 

[orangeban]

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..

People tend to forget that history for the most parts repeat itself.. And that makes me a saad panda..

People are rebelling against corrupt leaders. Libya, Egypt, that other one and the other one after that (I forget their names). The sad thing is I think the US and the UK don't have very trustworthy leaders. I don't believe that the governments care for the people, rather the people who are going to vote for them: their respective parties. Labour will target the working class and fuck it up, the Conservatives will look at privatisation and taking as much money away from social polices so that there are more business ventures to be had and the Lib Dems will sit and agree with whoever is willing to have a referendum on the voting system. The US is the same but with different political parties and more right wing ideology, each party caters to the whim of the people who will vote for them. Like you said, history repeats itself and soon this democracy will collapse because it's ineffective and we're heading into crisis[footnote]Yes, I know this crisis isn't as bad as previous crises but, for many people, things aren't getting better and the most important thing is in shortage still: jobs.[/footnote]

But, I've gone way off topic there. I don't think we'll be seeing eugenics any time soon, however if the right person comes across at the right time then I will easily be proven wrong.

But here in Scotland we have the SNP (Scottish National Party)! Who's big want I don't like... but luckily neither does anyone else and everything else they want is pretty sensible (and please don't be confused folks, the SNP are no at all like the BNP, they are in fact very liberal and very socialist.)

 

[similar.squirrel]

Insofar that I think that people carrying the genes [expressed or latent] of certain serious hereditary disorders ought to be encouraged not to pass them on, yes. But only in the case of genes that have been irrefutably proven to cause serious physical complications if expressed.

But I wouldn't support any legislation enforcing this, because the whole thing is an extremely slippery slope that we should not go near. The best method [in general, for fixing the world..] is to be more conscientious about having children. You shouldn't bring another person into this world if doing so will mean that they're at considerably risk of leading an unpleasant life and possibly causing their children to do so as well.