Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[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Eugenics are an outdated and unproven method.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.)

 

[Vault101]

can somoen tell me....does it actually work?

and really how do you decide who gets to have children and who doesnt?

 

[Extravagance]

No. In effect, it was used as an excuse for Nazi support in the USA pre-WW2. Along with the first IQ tests which were soon adopted by the Eugenics movement at the time, it led to the blocking of around 6 million jewish and eastern european immigrants fleeing from Germany and the surrounding areas, and inforced the argument that white = better than black. Yes, arguing from histoical negativity is not the best, I do know this.

Whilst I can see it being used as a good thing, it's chance for miss-use is currently far too high. Like Communism, it has the potential for a great practice, but is unachievable at this current point.

 

[Rin Little]

I honestly don't know what to think of Eugenics other than the fact that it used to exist naturally for the human race but we've effectively wiped it out due to all the advancements in medicine. Anyone following me here? Natural selection? Yeah... That kinda doesn't exist for us anymore...

 

[TheDutchin]

well realistically we've already done about as much as we can to stop natural selection, so there needs to be SOMETHING to replace it. However, like many have said, far too corruptible. Comparable to communism, great in theory, terrible in practice. Idiocracy, anyone?

 

[Savryc]

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.

Objectively my arse, funny how the "horrible human being" that "doesn't fit into society" is the one that wants Eugenics. You're no more objective here than I am.

How is cutting down diversity in the gene pool a good thing? How is Eugenics, a.k.a selective breeding, superior to advancing medicine and cybernetic/artificial replacements and gene therapy?

Then there's the logistics of the whole thing and somehow convincing the populous that taking away their freedom to have kids is for the best on the off-chance that generations down the line there might be some slight improvement. Yet the neighbours, they can still have kids. Because they have better genes. Sure lets discriminate against a part of the population, not based on their actions and deeds, but on something they have absolutely no control over. Still think everyone's going to get on just fine? Sounds like a powder keg to me.

 

[redisforever]

As someone on the first page said, the temptation is immense. Breeding out things like evolutionary mistakes though, maybe.

Also, am I the only one who instantly thought uGenix from Timesplitters 3?

 

[Seishisha]

Im basicly against this idea. its sound in theory after all who wouldnt want a child with all the best genentic qualities, the problem is its a massive attack on your rights. heres an example of how it could get blown out of proportion say in theory this is legalised that would mean only people with no inherent defencts of any kind could have kids. if you wear glasses your eyes are not as good as somone who doesnt need them, your right to procreate is revoked.
there is a history of mental illness in your family, your right to have kids is revoked. this list goes on and on.

So basicly bad idea, population control is taken care of automaticly anyway, it might not be nice to say this but earthquakes or any other natual disasters, violent crime, suicide even old age kills people thats less population instantly and it all adds up, the last thing a socicity needs is a ligitimate reason to stop procreation

 

[Vault101]

Eugenics all the way; you're either good enough or you're not. Get the gene-splicer out and let's weed out the dead wood.

please tell me what "good enough" is

plus Im sure there are better ways to improve humantiy

 

[mental_looney]

I don't see how it's possible you can't force women to have kids just to pass on desirable traits and you can't class "beauty" as a desirable trait as it's massively subjective.

There is no acceptable way to say you have to have x amount of kids that you may not actually want or you can't have any at all.

Breed us like cattle in baby farms and have the state look after the children as long as you can get away with no one actually having to carry said super babies. No wait just sterilize everyone then have the government keep DNA and gene records of everyone and use them to selectively create babies from these when we need more, kinda Brave New World like.

But remember we can't all be massive shiny adonis super men, even in a perfect society until we invent robots someone still needs to empty the bins and clean the loos.

 

[Beautiful End]

Eugenics? I first thought of...

Thanks for the description.

For the most part, I'm against it. You can't tell people how many kids to have just because the entire human population tells you to. That's kinda edgy, getting into one's freedom rights and stuff.
On the other hand, some people should be advised against having kids. For example, where I come from, you'd see poop people begging for money and they would have like 5 children around. Come on, you barely have food for yourself and you're still having kids? No, these people are not rape victims, they're just poor and horny. What sucks is that these kids then roam the streets.
In that case, I would tell them that it's not fair to have another kid if they can't provide a roof over their heads or a meal everyday. I wouldn't force them to stop having kids but...well, I don't know.

About enhancing people's genetics: I'm not sure how these Eugenics work (I simply didn't know of the term) but I am against unborn children being genetically enhanced for whatever reason; the only exception being that everyone knows the kid will be born with some sort of disease or disability. But if it's just because someone wants their kid to have blue eyes or to be taller or smarter, then no. There's a certain beauty that comes from naturally born children: they have pros and cons. Variety's good! It's who you are. If we get into this, next thing you know, we're gonna have a world full of Barbies and Kens.
However, if an adult makes the choice to get something altered, then I suppose that's fine as long as it is for a powerful reason, again, like a sickness or something like that.

Hope I understood that correctly.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

I like the idea in theory... Not if it was to be used on the entire human race but if it were, par-say, used in a small isolate community (lets say... first people to settle Mars!). If those few people breed weakness then the generations that follow will be in trouble...

I'm not saying "Lets breed out brown eyes!" or anything like that, but breeding out certain genetic diseases would be a good thing wouldn't it?

 

[Weslebear]

I do support this notion.

However, figuring out what traits are favorable should be just as much of a science.

If we do figure this out, I see no reason why not. Anything that makes humanity better is good.

EDIT: This thread makes me sad. We're never going to improve humanity if we keep sticking to this naturalist bullcrap.

We should take every chance we can get to improve ourselves as a species so that we can overcome the challenges that await us.

I agree wholeheartedly good sir.

Also, breeding IMO is not a human right. If it is not necessary for living without discomfort then I don't believe we have an innate right to it.

There are a lot of people that are allowed to breed even though they have a high chance of a deformed or highly disabled child, no child deserves that. I just don't think that should be allowed, it wouldn't happen naturally because people with those kind of issues would most likely die off but thanks to our technological advancements life is easy enough to survive for anyone. Controlling the gene pool would bring in an ethical way to replicating survival of the fittest.

Obviously vying for some super human clone army where everyone is the same is ridiculous and immoral to remove our identity but there are many things that could do with being bred out of the gene pool.

 

[zehydra]

Even if Eugenics was a good idea, (which it's not), you guys have to remember that Scientists never hold political power. Political power comes from those willing to sacrifice anything and everything good to obtain it. There would be political struggles by politicians, not scientists, to control what happens with the DNA pool.

 

[zehydra]

I do support this notion.

However, figuring out what traits are favorable should be just as much of a science.

If we do figure this out, I see no reason why not. Anything that makes humanity better is good.

EDIT: This thread makes me sad. We're never going to improve humanity if we keep sticking to this naturalist bullcrap.

We should take every chance we can get to improve ourselves as a species so that we can overcome the challenges that await us.

I agree wholeheartedly good sir.

Also, breeding IMO is not a human right. If it is not necessary for living without discomfort then I don't believe we have an innate right to it.

There are a lot of people that are allowed to breed even though they have a high chance of a deformed or highly disabled child, no child deserves that. I just don't think that should be allowed, it wouldn't happen naturally because people with those kind of issues would most likely die off but thanks to our technological advancements life is easy enough to survive for anyone. Controlling the gene pool would bring in an ethical way to replicating survival of the fittest.

Obviously vying for some super human clone army where everyone is the same is ridiculous and immoral to remove our identity but there are many things that could do with being bred out of the gene pool.

Trying to control the human genome is a recipe for disaster, especially if run by a government institution.