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:Trying to control the human genome is a recipe for disaster, especially if run by a government institution.Weslebear said:SNIPEverythingIncredible said:SNIP
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: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:Trying to control the human genome is a recipe for disaster, especially if run by a government institution.Weslebear said:SNIPEverythingIncredible said:SNIP
if done democratically, it wouldn't be done at all. People all have their own ideas of "betterment".Weslebear said: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:Trying to control the human genome is a recipe for disaster, especially if run by a government institution.Weslebear said:SNIPEverythingIncredible said:SNIP
Hey Nazi knew how to dress.Cheshire the Cat said:I do agree with it to an extent. Wiping out genetic diseases sure, but there need to be a very definite cut off point.
But selective breeding has helped humanity for thousands of years with livestock and pets, what makes everyone so sure that humanity could not be improved by it? We breed other animals to enhance desirable traits, humans are no different, so get rid of the petty ethics and humanity could evolve faster.
Besides, the SS had awesome leather coats.
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:I'm all for making superior people, but I wouldn't want to live in a world similar to Sparta. What I mean is this: "This baby is weak. Let's leave him/her on a mountain to die."
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'm doing a study and in order for me to reach as wide an audience as possible, I'm presenting this poll here in the off-topic forum.
Yes, I'm sure several of you first thought a thread of this nature would be better suited for the Politics and Religion forum, but I have a motive for making this topic here in General Discussion.
It's quite simple really, all I would like for you all to do is select the option you agree with most in the poll and if you feel so inclined, respond to this thread with more details to your decision. Please do your best to not flame or call each other out about how "you're right and they're wrong." Keep it respectful please.
Yes, I used the search bar. Yes, I know this has been done before. No, using those old threads will not help me.
[HEADING=3]What is Eugenics?[/HEADING]
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.
And yet it's perhaps the article of the UDHR I most dislike. Hint: YAY heteronormativity!Hagi said:It's not evil because the Nazis did it. It's evil because it violates our human rights.Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
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:Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.
Dog breeders use eugenics in their work, and pure-bred dogs tend to have terrible health problems.weker said:Mankind can easily do it better then nature, because nature takes thousands of years, with much trial and error. Mankind can do it much faster and with less failures using selective breeding and genetics.SckizoBoy said:Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.