Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
I don't see why it can't work if properly controlled and done truly democratically. People are just being pessimistic, we don't know if we don't just go for it full on and the chance of something going wrong IMO is a worthy risk for our own betterment, because at the moment we really aren't all that great.zehydra said:
Are you going to reproduce with someone who you think shouldn't, No, just have faith that other people have that same judgement, That's how attraction works you find someone attractive because subconsiously you belive that they would be a good mate, and attraction isn't only physical either so don't think it ruins intelligence, i'm not saying eugenics would ruin humanity but it's immorale and will not help humanity.Weslebear said:
The only part of Eugenics that I support is the control of STDs and mental afflictions. As a person born with Aspergers syndrome, I have always been treated differently because I act differently. They try to understand by asking how I am different from normal people. I tell them, "I don't know. I've never been normal." It is extremely painful, and I don't want my children to feel the same pain that I feel.
But that said, it is still too easy for this kind of research to go too far. We as a species have a natural desire to pass on our genetics, hence the natural common desire for sex. It also spreads our family trees far and wide and continues it for future generations. Controlling what genes pass on removes the family from the picture. You can't just go on and destroy part of who your son will be just so that he might not be a homosexual. That crosses the line. We were born to spread who we are, not pick and choose what we want FOR our children. Trying to do so otherwise eliminates our own families' genetics, which is perhaps the most tragic and dangerous thing that could happen to humankind.
The STDs should be removed, BUT NOTHING ELSE.
But that said, it is still too easy for this kind of research to go too far. We as a species have a natural desire to pass on our genetics, hence the natural common desire for sex. It also spreads our family trees far and wide and continues it for future generations. Controlling what genes pass on removes the family from the picture. You can't just go on and destroy part of who your son will be just so that he might not be a homosexual. That crosses the line. We were born to spread who we are, not pick and choose what we want FOR our children. Trying to do so otherwise eliminates our own families' genetics, which is perhaps the most tragic and dangerous thing that could happen to humankind.
The STDs should be removed, BUT NOTHING ELSE.
Hey Nazi knew how to dress.Cheshire the Cat said:
That said yeah
No waiting they threw them off the cliff to die upon the rocks below. That said and with you Avotar I found that funny for some reason.MordinSolus said:
Well, I think if it can be implemented in a way that doesn't screw with their freedom, then it might be alright. But I don't support the idea, if that makes any sense. Let me put it this way:
Nature taking it's course is what everyone is arguing here, right? So we have a wonderful diversity and all that. But "nature", as is apparent, has got us very far as human being already. So far in fact, that we are also destroying the planet, and killing each other for stupid reasons. So although I don't really support eugenics, I do support population control. But that might be viewed by some as an even greater breach upon human rights.
It depends on the implementation also, not forcing people to pair up for certain genes, and preventing some from having a family of their choosing - if it's optional and consenting, then it's ok by me. Although I would never, ever do it myself. I even find people screwing around with the pregnancy process to try and deliver a boy, (more desirable in Asia than girls) to be somewhat despicable, but is rampant in many places.
Nature taking it's course is what everyone is arguing here, right? So we have a wonderful diversity and all that. But "nature", as is apparent, has got us very far as human being already. So far in fact, that we are also destroying the planet, and killing each other for stupid reasons. So although I don't really support eugenics, I do support population control. But that might be viewed by some as an even greater breach upon human rights.
It depends on the implementation also, not forcing people to pair up for certain genes, and preventing some from having a family of their choosing - if it's optional and consenting, then it's ok by me. Although I would never, ever do it myself. I even find people screwing around with the pregnancy process to try and deliver a boy, (more desirable in Asia than girls) to be somewhat despicable, but is rampant in many places.
Isn't it more desirable to have a gene pool with as much diversity as possible? If you select breeding to just a select few traits then the human race actually loses parts of itself. A smaller gene pool, as in less traits in this case, just leads to more mutations in the long run correct?
Nah us people are just fine as we are... be happy with what you got, play the cards life deals you strategically... everyone should be able to manage no matter what... diseases n stuff happen... but that's just life aye...
Best statement by FAR on this thread so far. And to be brief, one I can and do agree with.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
I don't support eugenics. Not because of morality, but because it's been proven to not actually work.Sneaky-Pie said:
I think it would be silly for me to support something which has been proven by scientific enquiry to be false.
Of course a lot of people will say here that they support it because it probably makes them look all 'edgy' and stuff, and it kind of fits in with general trendy Internet Nihilist thinking to support such things, but seriously, the reason why Eugenics has completely fallen out of favour in modern academic thinking is not because it's immoral but because it just doesn't work.
And yet it's perhaps the article of the UDHR I most dislike. Hint: YAY heteronormativity!Hagi said:
On topic: Eugenics is just stupid. We should be diversifying and deepening the gene pool, not the opposite.
Are you kidding? Nature says that very few of us will live to see our 20s, much less to the average age of death that we have today.SckizoBoy said:
I support eugenics somewhat, to screen out diseases and such, but personally I think that it would be far more effective to figure out out to artifically enhance and remove defects from our genes instead, fixing problems in decades instead of several generations.
despite being type one (hereditory) diabetic i find the idea of eugenics to be a sensible idea.
I mean, nowadays all sorts of people are being born that wouldnt have survived in the wild (epileptics, heamophliliacs downies etc) and these people are having children themselves thus spreading these negative traits. all we would have to do is ban seriously handicapped people from passing on thier affictions (not kill them). (also last time i checked reproduction was not a basic human right anyway)
however despite this i doubt it would work so well in practise (just look at communisum) and would probably spread to include things that dont really matter such as hair colour and skin tone.
I mean, nowadays all sorts of people are being born that wouldnt have survived in the wild (epileptics, heamophliliacs downies etc) and these people are having children themselves thus spreading these negative traits. all we would have to do is ban seriously handicapped people from passing on thier affictions (not kill them). (also last time i checked reproduction was not a basic human right anyway)
however despite this i doubt it would work so well in practise (just look at communisum) and would probably spread to include things that dont really matter such as hair colour and skin tone.
Dog breeders use eugenics in their work, and pure-bred dogs tend to have terrible health problems.weker said:
