Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.GWarface said:
Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.
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.crankytoad said:
Despite the destruction and dehumanisation eugenics brought us since their introduction, people tend to forget. Do you know that during early 20th century America you could get neutered for having bad grades as a student? It's also true that eugenics played a huge role in Hitler's rise to power and manipulation of the public, dragging Europe to a devastating war.
Well, yes actually.
We already apply eugenics* to every aspect of our life from the crops we grow to babies in the womb. It's thoroughly woven into our lives, the important thing is that it's applied with a degree of perspective and moderation.
Like most things, it becomes very destructive when taken to extremes.
Eugenics refers to influencing the reproduction of any population of any species, not just humans
We already apply eugenics* to every aspect of our life from the crops we grow to babies in the womb. It's thoroughly woven into our lives, the important thing is that it's applied with a degree of perspective and moderation.
Like most things, it becomes very destructive when taken to extremes.
Eugenics refers to influencing the reproduction of any population of any species, not just humans
That certain government didn't practice eugenics, it practiced butchery and terror.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
Yes in theory, no in practice.
Too many factors that need to be considered, hard to control it / make sure government won't go rogue with it, and of course morals and ethnics.
Also, Americans used eugenics before Hitler did. In fact, that's where Hitler got the idea.
Too many factors that need to be considered, hard to control it / make sure government won't go rogue with it, and of course morals and ethnics.
Also, Americans used eugenics before Hitler did. In fact, that's where Hitler got the idea.
Besides getting rid of illnesses and such, I don't see any reason that is good enough not to let people have children if they want to.
Even on the off chance that we actually succeed, what use would it be? We humans are already the most intelligent and together with the weapons, the strongest beings on this planet.
Even on the off chance that we actually succeed, what use would it be? We humans are already the most intelligent and together with the weapons, the strongest beings on this planet.
Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..Pandaman1911 said:
I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..
And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..
Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..
Eugenics is flawed because a species' longevity is determined by its variety. There was an observational study done in the British Isle a long while back. Essentially a group of scientists kept track of the population levels of a certain type of moth that came in two distinct colors: brown and white. They found that the each color's prevalence fluctuated with the seasons. During the summer the brown moths were higher in number while during winter the white moths were higher. Predators went after the moths that they could see. The difference was which camouflage was adaptive or mal-adaptive. This demonstrates that while certain genes may be mal-adaptive now, they may become the adaptive gene later and vice versa. Also, the presence of certain genes does not mean 100% that something will manifest, it just leaves people at a higher or lower propensity for whatever that gene triggers.
Because we know (relatively) little about genetics, we should not manipulate them (trust me, finding the answer is like combating HYDRA, the more answers you find, the more questions that crop up). Our reach is beyond our grasp in this case.
On a more social level, one's decision needs to consider whether they care more about what they consider the "greater good" versus how much they care about self-determination.
Because we know (relatively) little about genetics, we should not manipulate them (trust me, finding the answer is like combating HYDRA, the more answers you find, the more questions that crop up). Our reach is beyond our grasp in this case.
On a more social level, one's decision needs to consider whether they care more about what they consider the "greater good" versus how much they care about self-determination.
That really covers the whole debate. Everything can be argued for positive until selfish, irrational humans get into the formula. Then it turns bad in, what is no doubt, 100% of cases. Not to mention the above argument that our variety is what ensures we don't all have the same vulnerabilities.Comieman said:
Also, I'm against forced preservation laws, like the seatbelt. The one guy argued on page 1 that it's for the kid so their dad doesn't die. Good, now he won't reproduce, and the kids are smarter and will probably buckle up.
Edit: I just remembered this quote on the wall at work that works well:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
Charles Darwin
As soon as the media gets wind of a political policy though it'll be called eugenics. No matter how many different names you give it, it'll always revert back to eugenics if the media want to turn people against it.GWarface said:
I've always pictured people who supported it a little something like this "I am superior to everyone else because i am good at math and science yet nothing else, i feel because i am "smart" i am superior and we should have eugenics because i am social awkward and no one likes my superior tendencies!" Goodness i used superior and because a lot in that
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?The Unworthy Gentleman said:
Try looking up how many companies controls the mainstream media (im talking mostly US now) and you will be suprised..
I do not support taking rights away from the people and giving them to the government no matter the benefit. Plus, our understanding of the human DNA, whilst not in its infancy, is not enough to properly predict the genetic makeup of an individual. Anyone who supports eugenics has a gross misunderstanding of genetics.
I suppose I'm in favour in general terms. Mainly because I believe that to have the right to procreate then you should have to do more than just pass the physical exam.
Where I live in the UK, I've known girls who's sole plan in life is to leave school at 16, get pregnant by the first guy who comes along so they can then get on benefits and get a free council house as a single parent. And I found that offensive. No only because I pay my taxes which pay for their benefits while they sit around on their backsides doing nothing, but because it just seems a waste of a life to have such low goals.
You need a licence to drive a car, you need a licence to go fishing, you need a licence to own a dog. Hell in the UK you need a licence to watch TV. So why does something important like being responsible for a human life not require any sort of specialist training or evaluation for suitability?
Where I live in the UK, I've known girls who's sole plan in life is to leave school at 16, get pregnant by the first guy who comes along so they can then get on benefits and get a free council house as a single parent. And I found that offensive. No only because I pay my taxes which pay for their benefits while they sit around on their backsides doing nothing, but because it just seems a waste of a life to have such low goals.
You need a licence to drive a car, you need a licence to go fishing, you need a licence to own a dog. Hell in the UK you need a licence to watch TV. So why does something important like being responsible for a human life not require any sort of specialist training or evaluation for suitability?
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'.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
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).AWAR said:
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.
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.CarlMinez said:
'Phones cause testicular cancer and brain tumours'CarlMinez said:
'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
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, but it's really about as unethical as it could possibly be. Maybe an experiment with a group of volunteers would be in order--the scientific community would doubtless have many things to learn from something like that. However, it should never be enforced on a nation- or worldwide scale.
YAY! And I'm amazed that someone shares my opinion almost exactly to the letter on this subject O.OHardcore_gamer said:
While I am very much against people using it for selfish reasons or a warped sense of perfectionism, I do support using it to prevent the continuation of severe hereditary disorders and to help prevent social problems that arise from parents having children they cannot care for. Here in this third-world dump, I see thousands of people who sit on the road or townships living off scraps and drugs, and they have 5 siblings average! It is insane.
So I voted somewhat, yes I support the idea, but only used to prevent problems, not to "perfect" the human race.
I'm not going to get into the scientific arguments, since for me, they are less important than this: We, as human beings, have no right to control what our fellow human beings do unless their actions actually directly harm us. No, "there are too many people on the Earth" is not direct harm. No, "I want the human race to be better," is not an acceptable reason to control the freedoms of other people. Eugenics may not be evil, but it is dehumanizing. The idea that it's worth it to destroy some lives in order to save or improve a species is a false equivalence; the destruction of those lives is still wrong.
I think right now it's more important for humanity to focus on educating and aiding those parts of our civilization which have not yet caught up to the first world. If we want to reduce population growth and guide people towards smarter, stronger futures, the way to do that isn't to control the people - it's to give them access to the same high levels of technology, medicine, education, and so on that the developed world enjoys. Once that happens, statistically, birth rates will drop, IQs will go up, and we have at least partially corrected the problem without resorting to dehumanizing anyone.
Do I believe it's everyone's basic right to have children? I'm not sure. But I don't believe it is our basic right to make other people's life choices for them.
I think right now it's more important for humanity to focus on educating and aiding those parts of our civilization which have not yet caught up to the first world. If we want to reduce population growth and guide people towards smarter, stronger futures, the way to do that isn't to control the people - it's to give them access to the same high levels of technology, medicine, education, and so on that the developed world enjoys. Once that happens, statistically, birth rates will drop, IQs will go up, and we have at least partially corrected the problem without resorting to dehumanizing anyone.
Do I believe it's everyone's basic right to have children? I'm not sure. But I don't believe it is our basic right to make other people's life choices for them.