Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
So basically using selective breeding methods to make a "master race" as some would say.
yeah that's one shifty as hell sounding science if you ask me.
this is also a problem when you consider side effects of "perfect" off-springs, since when they do this to dogs pure breeds tend to not live as long and sometimes develop handicaps, while a mutt has a good mix of genes that are not from the same pool therefore lives longer and healthier (most of the time i guess i'm not a biologist)
So basically using selective breeding methods to make a "master race" as some would say.
yeah that's one shifty as hell sounding science if you ask me.
this is also a problem when you consider side effects of "perfect" off-springs, since when they do this to dogs pure breeds tend to not live as long and sometimes develop handicaps, while a mutt has a good mix of genes that are not from the same pool therefore lives longer and healthier (most of the time i guess i'm not a biologist)
I believe in passive eugenics. Lets not coddle the weak and stupid. Let there be no laws demanding adults to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles. Let all drugs be legalized so people can OD to their hearts content.
Weed out the ninnies.
EDIT: I am also in favor of having reproductive rights taken away as punishment for certain crimes. We do not want your particular brand of crazy to live on, thankyouverymuch.
Weed out the ninnies.
EDIT: I am also in favor of having reproductive rights taken away as punishment for certain crimes. We do not want your particular brand of crazy to live on, thankyouverymuch.
You realise that we have those laws to protect those connected to the person who dies because he breaks them, not to protect the person who dies.JaredXE said:
For example, we make people wear seatbelts so that, for example, his children don't lose a father because he was in a bit of a rush.
If I thought that it could be done in a way that actually improved the human race, I MIGHT consider it.
However, I believe that genetics are far more complex than economics, and look how well any attempt to make a centrally-planned economy tends to work out...
The people who would be in charge would never be able to even KNOW all the factors that might be involved, let alone be able to take them all into account in order to determine who should breed with whom, or who shouldn't breed at all.
If done to people with hereditary diseases, we run the risk of losing out on the next Stephen Hawking, for example.
I am more willing to consider the sterilization of people who have ALREADY proven themselves incapable of being responsible parents, and whose parental ineptitude has clearly harmed society, but probably only as an alternative to prison. Even that approach is ripe for abuse, and I doubt that it could be implemented in a just and competent manner.
However, I believe that genetics are far more complex than economics, and look how well any attempt to make a centrally-planned economy tends to work out...
The people who would be in charge would never be able to even KNOW all the factors that might be involved, let alone be able to take them all into account in order to determine who should breed with whom, or who shouldn't breed at all.
If done to people with hereditary diseases, we run the risk of losing out on the next Stephen Hawking, for example.
I am more willing to consider the sterilization of people who have ALREADY proven themselves incapable of being responsible parents, and whose parental ineptitude has clearly harmed society, but probably only as an alternative to prison. Even that approach is ripe for abuse, and I doubt that it could be implemented in a just and competent manner.
As far as I can see, all opponents' posts each commit about two logical fallacies in their arguments.
I support eugenics 100%
Now first of all, let me clear any judgements that statement has instantly led you to form about me. I am one of those cheese-eating woolly liberal types. I firmly believe in Mill's Harm Principle, ie anyone is allowed to do anything as long as it does not harm others. This is liberty in as true a formulation as possible without sacrificing justice.
Secondly, if you want this study to be of any use quantitatively or qualitatively, you seriously need to rephrase your definition of eugenics. "Controlled breeding" has far too negative a connotation of what eugenics can be; it instantly conjures up images of Nazi eugenics. It is worth pointing out that eugenics was a popular school of thought before Hitler authorized forced sterilization and 'euthanasia'.
@Th3Ch33s3Cak3 and @Jabberwock King - bad company fallacy & association fallacy; just because the Nazis performed a bad kind of eugenics does not mean that all eugenics is bad. As Hardcore_gamer points out, Hitler himself was a staunch opponent of smoking (and cruelty to animals for that matter)
@Gunner 51 and @Rawne1980 - slippery slope argument; just because it may lead to a bad consequence doesn't mean either that it will or that the benefits of the original are automatically nullified (and this doesn't mean that I support eugenics no matter the cost, either)
@JoJoDeathunter, @SckizoBoy and @capper42 - just generally flawed logic. As a biologist, do you not think that man has been doing "something better than nature" for about 2,000 years now? As the only creature on Earth to be fortunate enough with sentient intelligence (and thanks evolution for that!) we've been making our lives better with each technological and medical breakthrough that is made. If you're right and we should not tamper in 'nature's business', why do you think it's alright to use vaccinations and anti-bacterial medication? For example, if you could choose between selective gene therapy and medication to eradicate Alzheimer's Disease, why *not* prevent all future occurrences rather than use a firefighter approach of removing it whenever you see it?
Notice my proposal there - selective gene therapy; THAT is eugenics. Not the forced sterilization of all those deemed to have a flaw. Not the intentional killing of those people either. Simply the insurance that such flaws will not reoccur again.
@Hagi - again slippery slope, as above. Let people who do not/can not take advantage of what modern science has to offer, the point is that as long as people *can*, the gene pool becomes stronger. On a personal side, these parents have been blessed with the assurance that their children will not suffer from whatever maladies science can prevent at the time. What's wrong with that?
@TheIronRuler, as for your Gattaca argument (great film btw
), that does not make eugenics bad, merely unequal. Even if gene therapy was incredibly expensive so that one in ten thousand people could afford it, why not let them do it? Are you so jealous of their opportunities that all should be prevented from doing it? And let's not malign me again; I'm a working-class and hardly in the position to take up such an offer (although I would point out that here in the UK couples are allowed up to three cycles of IV fertilization free on the NHS - a similar system is surely within reach once cost-effectiveness has been obtained)
Sorry for the essay, I just happened to click on this post and felt that eugenics was being horribly misrepresented in what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a witch-hunt
I support eugenics 100%
Now first of all, let me clear any judgements that statement has instantly led you to form about me. I am one of those cheese-eating woolly liberal types. I firmly believe in Mill's Harm Principle, ie anyone is allowed to do anything as long as it does not harm others. This is liberty in as true a formulation as possible without sacrificing justice.
Secondly, if you want this study to be of any use quantitatively or qualitatively, you seriously need to rephrase your definition of eugenics. "Controlled breeding" has far too negative a connotation of what eugenics can be; it instantly conjures up images of Nazi eugenics. It is worth pointing out that eugenics was a popular school of thought before Hitler authorized forced sterilization and 'euthanasia'.
@Th3Ch33s3Cak3 and @Jabberwock King - bad company fallacy & association fallacy; just because the Nazis performed a bad kind of eugenics does not mean that all eugenics is bad. As Hardcore_gamer points out, Hitler himself was a staunch opponent of smoking (and cruelty to animals for that matter)
@Gunner 51 and @Rawne1980 - slippery slope argument; just because it may lead to a bad consequence doesn't mean either that it will or that the benefits of the original are automatically nullified (and this doesn't mean that I support eugenics no matter the cost, either)
@JoJoDeathunter, @SckizoBoy and @capper42 - just generally flawed logic. As a biologist, do you not think that man has been doing "something better than nature" for about 2,000 years now? As the only creature on Earth to be fortunate enough with sentient intelligence (and thanks evolution for that!) we've been making our lives better with each technological and medical breakthrough that is made. If you're right and we should not tamper in 'nature's business', why do you think it's alright to use vaccinations and anti-bacterial medication? For example, if you could choose between selective gene therapy and medication to eradicate Alzheimer's Disease, why *not* prevent all future occurrences rather than use a firefighter approach of removing it whenever you see it?
Notice my proposal there - selective gene therapy; THAT is eugenics. Not the forced sterilization of all those deemed to have a flaw. Not the intentional killing of those people either. Simply the insurance that such flaws will not reoccur again.
@Hagi - again slippery slope, as above. Let people who do not/can not take advantage of what modern science has to offer, the point is that as long as people *can*, the gene pool becomes stronger. On a personal side, these parents have been blessed with the assurance that their children will not suffer from whatever maladies science can prevent at the time. What's wrong with that?
@TheIronRuler, as for your Gattaca argument (great film btw
), that does not make eugenics bad, merely unequal. Even if gene therapy was incredibly expensive so that one in ten thousand people could afford it, why not let them do it? Are you so jealous of their opportunities that all should be prevented from doing it? And let's not malign me again; I'm a working-class and hardly in the position to take up such an offer (although I would point out that here in the UK couples are allowed up to three cycles of IV fertilization free on the NHS - a similar system is surely within reach once cost-effectiveness has been obtained)Sorry for the essay, I just happened to click on this post and felt that eugenics was being horribly misrepresented in what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a witch-hunt
I don't. I believe that your privileges as a parent can be taken away but selecting who is best suited for breeding is inhumane and has no part in our society.
A pure eugenics (only those with X trait(s) are allowed to breed) is horrible. However, allowing parents to select traits for their children is fine. Also implementing a system similar to the one child policy for poor traits could be a good thing if done correctly. That is if you don't fit the criteria of the eugenic model you have to pay a fine based on how far you deviate from said model. The fine would be reasonable of course.
This is assuming the eugenics model is non-arbitrary. Selecting the model on cosmetic features like skin color, hair color, eye color, facial symmetry, and so forth is completely arbitrary. Selecting it on things like longevity, eyesight, bone density, intelligence, height, genetic illness, risk of cancer/cardiovascular disease and so forth is not.
This is assuming the eugenics model is non-arbitrary. Selecting the model on cosmetic features like skin color, hair color, eye color, facial symmetry, and so forth is completely arbitrary. Selecting it on things like longevity, eyesight, bone density, intelligence, height, genetic illness, risk of cancer/cardiovascular disease and so forth is not.
That's not Eugenics.crankytoad said:
Eugenics is controlled breeding. What you're suggesting is gene therapy, which is not the same as eugenics.
Eugenics is by definition forced, that's what controlled breeding means. It means someone forces/controls who can and who can not breed.
Gene therapy is fine, eugenics is not.
I'm dubious on the matter. On the one hand it seems like a needlessly cruel thing to do when we could just let nature take it's course, on the other hand there are plenty of evolutionary dead ends we're needlessly keeping going, although the damage it causes is financial, and money is worth considerably less than a human life. I went with "I somewhat support Eugenics" because I'm really unsure what to think of it.
Can't say I support it. As soon as you start letting a small group of people decide what's best for the entirety of the human race, things start getting iffy.
Besides there are too many traits spread out among different groups of people that weeding them down, could lead to the loss of something valuable or special.
Beyond that, there's the whole implication of the "perfect race" thing, and that's just a bit too Aryan for most people's liking, myself included.
Besides there are too many traits spread out among different groups of people that weeding them down, could lead to the loss of something valuable or special.
Beyond that, there's the whole implication of the "perfect race" thing, and that's just a bit too Aryan for most people's liking, myself included.
Sorry for the double post, but that's bullsh*t. Darwin had nothing to do with Eugenics, or even the phrase "survival of the fittest" which was actually a term coined to damage his theories.GWarface said:
Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?
That's not a very good argument. What happens if some traits are almost completely lost? We can't necessarily bring 'em back now can we? This is our entire race were talking about, best play it safe.JaredXE said:
And fixing the negatives is essentially the same as improving things.
I see your bullshit and raise with a quote from Galton, the Father of Eugenics, Darwin's first cousin:The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
"Darwin's work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new "scientific" justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as "inferior". Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members"."
And even IF he didnt like the idea of killing and sterilising "inferior people", it still made alot of important people jizz in their pants because they now could legally remove all us unwanted peasants from their lives..
Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..