Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To answer the question of eugenics as it was defined in the OP, no I do not support eugenics. I would go further, to say I oppose eugenics, will fight against eugenics, and believe that any government that tries to enact such a form of eugenics is fundamentally corrupt and should be overthrown.
Controlled breeding and forced sterilization treat those subjects on whom it is forced or coerced as property, as little more than cattle for the state or organization which tries to enforce it. This is a backwards view of the nature of things, unless of course (as proponents of such programs often do) one merely thinks that the right or moral thing to do is that which the strongest wishes to do. Hence my assertion above, that it should be killed with fire. Such a malformed and evil program is the sign of a malformed and evil governance, which should have a stake driven into its heart, its head severed, wolfs-bane stuffed in its mouth, followed by a burial at a crossroads.
Controlled breeding and forced sterilization treat those subjects on whom it is forced or coerced as property, as little more than cattle for the state or organization which tries to enforce it. This is a backwards view of the nature of things, unless of course (as proponents of such programs often do) one merely thinks that the right or moral thing to do is that which the strongest wishes to do. Hence my assertion above, that it should be killed with fire. Such a malformed and evil program is the sign of a malformed and evil governance, which should have a stake driven into its heart, its head severed, wolfs-bane stuffed in its mouth, followed by a burial at a crossroads.
You honestly think there would need to be an armband? They'd be social rejects as soon as it happened in such a society. It wouldn't be a death sentence, it'd be a life sentence. No one would want to marry them except someone else of the class of "non-breeder". Honestly one of the more horrid solutions on here, short of the aggressive methods.xitel said:
Dunno if this is the same, but while probably not aplicable in reality, limiting some peopel from having children don't strike me as an outright bad idea.
I'm not talking about genetics, but about expectet parental abillities.
To take an easy example, don't let hard drug addicts have children.
Don't let people currently locked in jail have children, at least not before they get out.
Don't let people with a history of pedophilia, wife-beating or other strong indicators of future abuse have children.
I'm not talking about genetics, but about expectet parental abillities.
To take an easy example, don't let hard drug addicts have children.
Don't let people currently locked in jail have children, at least not before they get out.
Don't let people with a history of pedophilia, wife-beating or other strong indicators of future abuse have children.
crankytoad said: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
Alright, now that those things are taken care of...I support Eugenics. Why do I support them?
Largely because having babies is a skill that I don't think should be available to absolutely EVERYONE. And why is that? Because you can have a horrid blood disease, or some other debilitating disease which is only out of having kids, and what do you do? Pass it on to ANOTHER GENERATION. Why the hell are you doing that in the first place? Sounds like you are all too happy to pass on something that is terrible for your kids, but you figure that having kids is a "fun" thing to do, and "natural", even though you are likely surviving by unnatural medical means.
Second, I support them because much of humanity seems to have some strange idea that we should be able to make as many babies as we want, whenever we want, no matter the circumstance. From the animal standpoint, this is just stupid. Humanity doesn't have anything really keeping itself in check, meaning that we are almost completely in charge of what kind of population we have. No other thing on this planet has that choice. Meaning that we need to put a leash on ourselves, or we will end up doing something very stupid.
And finally, I support Eugenics because it means that we will actually be trying to better our species as a whole. As it stands right now, we combine every failure, every success, and every disease ridden individual who can make babies the same. Sad fact: They are not. It is sad that your disease ridden human being is not allowed to have a child, but you know what? In this scenario, you won't be making a child who will have the exact same horrid time as you did.
That's the entire point of what I'm saying. There would be no external changes. It wouldn't be a society in which people who are allowed to breed are BETTER than the people that aren't. Everyone would have the same opportunities in life, save breeding. That's the ONLY change. Not building a society of superior people.Silenttalker22 said:
Life would get boring with everyone being perfect. The "imperfections" that we have define who we are as individuals. I would never support the breeding out of said "imperfections".
We should not tamper with these things... You see this all the time with breeding of pets, Now tell me, if you have a pair of top quality show horses / dogs / cats / what ever, is their offspring going to be equally as good? no, you need to train them to be that good (If only you didnt have to train them...)
Please, most of the smug pricks here doing the whole "some people shouldn't breed" schtick probably aren't the best pick of the litter themselves. It also implies a false sense of superiority, what gives you the right to decide who can and can't breed? Why should we allow such arrogance to spread? Lets get rid of them so they can't pass it on, oh wait...
Sounds familiar doesn't it? But I would like to see the look on the face of the people who voted yes if they are informed they have "inferior" genes and cannot be allowed to spread them. They never think of that do they? Nooo, they're "intellectuals" how could their genes be inferior, right?
Sounds familiar doesn't it? But I would like to see the look on the face of the people who voted yes if they are informed they have "inferior" genes and cannot be allowed to spread them. They never think of that do they? Nooo, they're "intellectuals" how could their genes be inferior, right?
Actually, I'm fully aware that my inability to survive without medical intervention means that I wouldn't breed. I may be an intellectual, but that doesn't mean my genes deserve to be passed on. The point of evolution is survival, not betterment.Carsus Tyrell said:
i just think there are some people that should not have children. having children shouldnt be an automatic right, it should be earned, you should have to be able to provide a future for your child.
is it not child abuse to have a child that has a very high chance of a life cripplng incurable genetic disease?
i am not for eugenics that eliminate things like certain hair colours or skin colour, things that are essentially neutral. im more in favour of eugenics that remove clearly and extremely negative genes.
my reply in a nother thread yesterday.
is it not child abuse to have a child that has a very high chance of a life cripplng incurable genetic disease?
i am not for eugenics that eliminate things like certain hair colours or skin colour, things that are essentially neutral. im more in favour of eugenics that remove clearly and extremely negative genes.
my reply in a nother thread yesterday.
Freedom of choice...look if we control through saying you are not allowed to mate with these people that completely takes away from that person's rights as a human being. If we did it like in gattaca, where parents can have undesirable genes taken away from the child. Then not only does that child have no say in the matter, but you have this unequal balance of "superhumans" and geneticly inferior humans. And like they say in Gattaca that creates racism to a science...and looking back into the history of America, racism basically denies human liberties.
While I do believe we should be evolving ourselves, not only have past events shown humans can't handle eugenics responsibly, but those attempts that did bear fruit didn't produce any offspring that could be definitively called 'superior.' Therefore, I feel that eugenics is something that isn't beneficial for a modern society, and is likely to be detrimental.
Better approaches seem to be standard technology, which increases IQs just through the increased complexity; improved educational techniques; somatic genetic therapy and other improved medical techniques, since the longer we live (without going crazy from brain diseases) the more knowledge we can acquire. Cybernetics may also be an interesting way of self-evolution, particularly since implants controlled via the brain already exist (if not for commercial use) and are being improved constantly. Eugenics has too many drawbacks compared to these methods, and may be entirely obsolete in this era.
Better approaches seem to be standard technology, which increases IQs just through the increased complexity; improved educational techniques; somatic genetic therapy and other improved medical techniques, since the longer we live (without going crazy from brain diseases) the more knowledge we can acquire. Cybernetics may also be an interesting way of self-evolution, particularly since implants controlled via the brain already exist (if not for commercial use) and are being improved constantly. Eugenics has too many drawbacks compared to these methods, and may be entirely obsolete in this era.
Homogenizing the gene pool is a horrible, horrible idea, and that's what eugenics promotes. Plus it's incredibly inhumane and heartless. So no. Anyone who thinks eugenics is a good idea needs to learn more about genetics.
We've survived plenty well enough already, what we DON'T need is more short-sighted morons meddling with things they don't understand or don't know the repercussions of. All those purebred dogs? Whole mess of issues down the line, blindness, epilepsy, the works.xitel said:
Also, how could you possibly hope to enforce this? Do you think folk will stand idly by while you sterilize whoever doesn't fit into your world view? We're not cattle. How do you plan on bringing this dystopia of yours about? Do you honestly think the "Superior" and "Inferior" will just get along all hunky dory like nothing happened? It's segregation, just a more subtle, sinister form.
Although after glancing at the poll I'm somewhat relieved, at least the humane still outnumber the soulless automatons.
So the people who aren't allowed to breed aren't inferior, they're just ... what? If they've been sterilized, it's obviously because they've been viewed as inferior, while they're breeding compatriots are the path to the perfection of the human race. Do you think that this won't cause problems? There would be wars.xitel said:
And for your idea that anyone who can't survive without medical intervention? That's stupid. No, it really is just dumb. If you can't survive cancer without medical intervention, it prove that you're exactly the same as everyone else. Cancer is not something you survive, and it's not something that is decided purely by your genetics. You may be genetically predisposed to suffering from certain types of cancer. You may simply be unlucky, and suffer a mutation in a random cell that will have no affect on the genes that you pass on, and you'll die. And in your world, if you get treatment to survive, you'll be sterilized. What a wonderful and happy place that will be. Oh wait, sorry, I misspelled "festering pit of awfulness".
Medical intervention is responsible for the fact that human beings have a chance survive the majority of the diseases that we are able to contract. To deny someone the right to breed based on the fact that they would need it to survive a disease is just the stupidest thing ever.
Why does it seem that most of the people on this thread are assuming that this would be a mandatory thing? The definition given does not imply sterilizing people against their will or denying anyone the right to reproduce. Eugenics can be an entirely voluntary practice, and without those assumptions this would be something I could support. Although I wonder if gene therapy would make this obsolete.