Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
I support it but only if we go by the Nazi eugenics because I'm tall, handsome, smart and have blond hair and blue eyes, all jokes aside I support eugenics because smart parents have smart kids I'm a walking example both of my parents are very intelligent and so are all of their children including me. Intelligence is however one of the best traits a human can have and is something we want humanity to have more rather than less for example if the average IQ of a person was 120 instead of 100 there would be a lot more scientific progress much faster and we could be playing tennis on the moon by mid afternoon.
I don't support eugenics
Moralistically you are deciding that only certain people with certain genes are human otherwise they are regarded as less than human.
Scientifically it is unknown what genes might potentially be useful to the human race in the long term, therefore I'd rather leave it up to natural selection (or god if so inclined) to decide which genes are useful
Historically eugenics thought is based on a arrogant worldview, which inevitably leads to conflict
And personally if eugenic's was enforced I either wouldn't be allowed to have been born, or would be banned from breeding, due to having a genetic disease.
Moralistically you are deciding that only certain people with certain genes are human otherwise they are regarded as less than human.
Scientifically it is unknown what genes might potentially be useful to the human race in the long term, therefore I'd rather leave it up to natural selection (or god if so inclined) to decide which genes are useful
Historically eugenics thought is based on a arrogant worldview, which inevitably leads to conflict
And personally if eugenic's was enforced I either wouldn't be allowed to have been born, or would be banned from breeding, due to having a genetic disease.
Transhumanism is just a modern form of eugenics.. With cool robotics arms and cams instead of eyes..crankytoad said:Although the question is now rather moot on my part, yes I fully support transhumanismCarlMinez said:
Cool if you want that kinda stuff stucked into you, but just remember..:
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..
To be honest...Its not an effective way of population control. If you want to breed out a certain "race" why not...Just exterminate them instead? Its much easier, and much more efficient.
It's not the same thing. Don't generalize and demonize the concept.GWarface said:
Simple.Male lions fighting over females. Strongest one wins and passes on favorable genes.GWarface said:
I dont support it. The reason is simple. There would still be mutations, we would still evolve/change. And new diseases would emerge. There is no perfect gene.
I'd rather we focused on curing what illnesses there is, and creating more universal medicines treatments. Nano-bots, stem-cell research...etc.
I'd rather we focused on curing what illnesses there is, and creating more universal medicines treatments. Nano-bots, stem-cell research...etc.
That is different to eugenics. That's like saying that when you go into a bar and choose the prettiest person to say hello to, you are practising eugenics by selecting the most beautiful.Samurai Silhouette said:
No, eugenics is controlled breeding, where you don't allow some people to breed, which is different to breeding with whoever you want to breed with.
The problem with eugenics is that it is one immoral and two would actually hinder the human race because the aim is to limit the gene pool but doing so may increase the susceptibility of the human race to viruses and other threats. For example, lets say that the swine flu mutated into a disease that had a 99% mortality rate and spread incredibly easily. This would result in a large percentage of the population acquiring the disease and so likely killing them but the percentage of the population whose genes allowed them to survive would carry on the human race. Eugenics may have somehow removed that gene set and so the human race may well be ended by such a disease due to eugenics. Also, did I mention it's immoral and has no benefits other than mirroring the actions of a madman that existed about 70 years ago, and did I also mention that the madman in question believed his "master race" was going to improve humanity.
Humans already do it a degree unofficially through consensual marriage. By the way, providing it hasn't been mentioned yet, the Nazis weren't the only group to practice government sponsored eugenics projects. Here in the States there were people castrated based on how many criminals they were related to, whether they were 'crazy' or 'feeble-minded' and one of the attacks anti-abortion activists have is that the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics for non-whites.
While I would discourage people with deformities or debilitating diseases from mating, I'm not going to straight up tell them they can't. Personal liberties and happiness matter a lot more than the perfection of our species. Basically Eugenics is like Communism: A great idea on paper, but doesn't work in practice. Our species is doing fine without it anyway.
My preliminary post in this discussion, and thus the starting point for my opinion, would be that I do not agree with Eugenics. The reason here being that I don't want anyone or anything deciding how the human race "should be". I don't want anyone or anything telling me who I can and cannot have sex with and/or impregnate. And I definitely don't want anyone to remove myself, my ancestors or my descendents from the gene pool as part of the process of "perfecting the genome". I realize that this is pretty much the generic "don't mess with X's plan for the world" argument, but for me it's more of a freedom thing.
Riddle me this:
If we're not perfect now, are we close enough that we could figure out how to make ourselves perfect (or really close)? How could we know that for sure?
If we are perfect, or close enough as to make changes that aren't pointless or detrimental, then what is the point? If we're that good already, how much better could we be?
And who does all this manipulating? What are we changing? Why are we changing it?
Riddle me this:
If we're not perfect now, are we close enough that we could figure out how to make ourselves perfect (or really close)? How could we know that for sure?
If we are perfect, or close enough as to make changes that aren't pointless or detrimental, then what is the point? If we're that good already, how much better could we be?
And who does all this manipulating? What are we changing? Why are we changing it?
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.crankytoad said:
OT: I don't support eugenics, but I don't dismiss it as an evil. I'm in favour of making humans genetically better, however to cut out people from the gene pool because they have an undesirable gene isn't right. Sadly, because of the Nazis, the meaning of eugenics to the general public has changed from controlled breeding with the aim of making a superior human race to euthanasia and controlled breeding to eliminate all hindering genes and people.
This means a few things:
1 - No-one will support eugenics under it's name, it would take a bit of spinning to make it popular and as soon as it's branded eugenics again you hit square one. Any political party toting eugenics in it's polices is doomed to fail.
2 - Because of it's new, more common meaning, there will be someone who will come in with the idea of controlling who can and cannot reproduce and wants to euthanise people. How far they get in their aim is uncertain.
3 - Eugenics will spread dissent throughout people. Those who aren't used in the eugenics program will hate those who are and their children and eventually they'll become a minority. Those who were born through the eugenics program will slowly become better and will become far more desirable in every job, making for a rather tricky economic crisis foundation. This is the worst of the worst, the rampant discrimination and an economic crisis would make way for that guy mentioned in point 2 to make his claim and eliminate the 'asocials'.
Yes, I do realise that these are all possibilities, however they are strong possibilities. For sake of social, political and economic stability I don't support eugenics, in this sense I deem the practice wrong. However, eugenics are morally indeterminable given the rather broad range of practices a program can cover. Without a proper laid out plan of how the program would be conducted and restricted it would be impossible to determine whether it was right or wrong.
I don't understand how I made eugenics appear better.orangeban said:Oooh, suddenly I'm much more favourable to eugenics now I know it could work for me!xFreekill said: