Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[xitel]

They'd still be allowed to grow, to work, to play, to live their life to the end. They'd still be able to go to the hospital and get equal treatment. They'd still be allowed to marry and love whomever they wanted. No sort of signifying arm band or something like that. Just a simple sterilization to remove the chance of them breeding.

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.

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.

 

[SkyHawkMkIV]

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".

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

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...)

 

[Savryc]

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?

 

[roostuf]

No. No one can beat nature.

 

[xitel]

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?

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.

 

[Merkavar]

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.

ive thought about this topic a few times.

people seem to think that having children is a right. i dont think it should be. we have enough people in the world we dont need everyone to have kids. so why not limit who can have kids. im not thinking only let the best 10% have kids. im more thinking that the bottom 10% shouldnt be allowed to have kids or at the very least no more than 2 kids.

and my thinking is that genetics should only play a part in the decision. you might have great genes but if your uneducated, unemployed, wont be able to provide any real future for your kids then why should they be allowed to have kids. to continue the problem for another generation.

so im thinking eugenics cant be that bad as long as there is control, transparency and free of corruption. sterilise people that do not add to society. there are those birth control methods that are temporary (1-3 years) so if your situation changes like you got an education, a job, contributing to society you can be removed from sterlisation and allowed to have children.

people have brought up past attempts at eugenics to try to prove its bad. but the past attempts i know of seemed wrong from the begining. like in poland(i think it was poland) up to the 70s they steralised women for all sorts of crazy reasons like depression. i think we should learn from the past but that doesnt mean we cant try it again.

 

[BigCat91]

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.

 

[klakkat]

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.

 

[lumenadducere]

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.

 

[Savryc]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[nolongerhere]

They'd still be allowed to grow, to work, to play, to live their life to the end. They'd still be able to go to the hospital and get equal treatment. They'd still be allowed to marry and love whomever they wanted. No sort of signifying arm band or something like that. Just a simple sterilization to remove the chance of them breeding.

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.

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.

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.
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.

 

[SillyBear]

I don't agree with it at all.

How are you planning on controlling breeding?

Send police squads to every home to forcefully take people to the hospital for DNA-tests and possible castrations?

Castrate every new child born in a hospital if he/she doesn't have optimal genes? Criminalize birthing in any other place?

Just criminalize births outside of government approved births? What do you do with the children born illegally? Forced abortions if women are caught pregnant without permission?

Is there any way at all in which such a thing can go well?

I think the only way you could possibly do it would be to disallow government benefits for any children that are born "illegally". They won't get healthcare or financial aid.

I know that's how China enforces their one child policy.

 

[Marcus Thomas]

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.

 

[xitel]

snip

snip

Heh, again with the insults for offering a differing viewpoint. I'm well aware that I'm a horrible human being, that I don't fit in to society. But to be honest, I'm proud of that fact. It means I can look at things objectively.

Carsus, your comment about purebred dogs isn't really applicable, because purebred dogs are a result of inbreeding. It's the same thing that happens when humans inbreed for an extended number of generations. Secondly, segregation is very difficult when you don't see an external difference. How many gay people live happy lives without any express discrimination because they don't bring it up in public conversation? How many people with learning disabilities have perfectly healthy social lives because their disability isn't clearly visible to a stranger? Hell, I have several mental disorders myself, and yet people don't discriminate against me because I don't tell them about them. And again, please stop calling it "superior" and "inferior". It's an objective boolean value, not a subjective determination by someone who just doesn't like some characteristic.

Peanut, the point I'm saying is that medical intervention is causing people to continue getting these diseases and illnesses, generation after generation. We aren't developing the genome to actually become immune to these diseases. There are some people who are immune, mind you, to certain life-threatening diseases. But those genes get drowned out in the overwhelming amount of non-immune people. It's stopped being a gene pool and become a gene ocean.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Eugenics are an outdated and unproven method. I don't support it because it clashes with those "civil liberties" that people seem to like talking about these days.

 

[aei_haruko]

I support the medical usage of it, but I do not support the tampering of it for political gain, one is the applied research to do good, the other is the appplied research to do evil. so I support eugenics as a whole, but not in the specfic usage for the anhilation of races and peoples

 

[nolongerhere]

snip

snip

Heh, again with the insults for offering a differing viewpoint. I'm well aware that I'm a horrible human being, that I don't fit in to society. But to be honest, I'm proud of that fact. It means I can look at things objectively.

Carsus, your comment about purebred dogs isn't really applicable, because purebred dogs are a result of inbreeding. It's the same thing that happens when humans inbreed for an extended number of generations. Secondly, segregation is very difficult when you don't see an external difference. How many gay people live happy lives without any express discrimination because they don't bring it up in public conversation? How many people with learning disabilities have perfectly healthy social lives because their disability isn't clearly visible to a stranger? Hell, I have several mental disorders myself, and yet people don't discriminate against me because I don't tell them about them. And again, please stop calling it "superior" and "inferior". It's an objective boolean value, not a subjective determination by someone who just doesn't like some characteristic.

Peanut, the point I'm saying is that medical intervention is causing people to continue getting these diseases and illnesses, generation after generation. We aren't developing the genome to actually become immune to these diseases. There are some people who are immune, mind you, to certain life-threatening diseases. But those genes get drowned out in the overwhelming amount of non-immune people. It's stopped being a gene pool and become a gene ocean.

How do you become immune to cancer? You understand that cancerous cells are the same as the cells surrounding them except that the mechanism which stops them from trying to survive breaks. So they multiply, and form tumors, and kill people. You know why you don't have a natural immune response to this? Because cancer cells are really similar to the cells around them, and any immune response would end up destroying those cells as well. There may be a few people who are different, but they are no doubt susceptible to some other disease, so they probably wouldn't be able to pass it on after they got a free sterilization with the treatment for whatever disease they've caught.
Your argument is dumb. Really dumb. It's wondered into a dumb-ass competition, filled with people punching themselves in the dick and attacking bears with bike chains, and it's managed to mount a challenge for first place right off the bat.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

no way dude...depending on ones POV trying to do the selective breeding thing is either Man trying to play God or do the job that nature has done so well and trying to do so would either end in disaster or just plain badly

 

[Evidencebased]

Even if I thought it was scientifically feasible (which I don't), there is no morally acceptable way to enforce a human breeding program. Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy, and that includes getting to decide what their genitals get up to -- controlling who gets to have children leads to situations like in China, where women have occasionally been forcibly dragged into a clinic to have their fetus aborted against their will. Unless a person is abusive they should be free to have children if they like (or not have children if they like -- dragging in "good" women to be forcibly impregnated would be just as bad as forcibly sterilizing or performing abortions on "bad" women.)