Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The inevitable problem is that you need to define a metric for desirability of traits. Since there isn't really any objective way to do that, what you end up with is going to be an invariably insular view of desirability that favours all of the traits of the social group carrying out the eugenics plan.
And it's not even THAT simple. We probably can't even agree on what's desirable within just one culture. Is it desirable for people to be courageous or is that a dangerous, maladaptive trait?
And then there's the question of how many different goals you want to work toward. You probably don't want to just breed toward one perfect human model, you want varieties suited to different things. How many varieties and which tasks do you breed toward?
Evolution automatically takes cultural differences into account (or ignores them entirely) and evolves all groups in a manner that is most adaptive to their own environment without any need to divide the people into discrete, artificial groupings. And it's metric for success - reproductive success - is probably better than just about anything anyone's ever going to come up with.
And it's not even THAT simple. We probably can't even agree on what's desirable within just one culture. Is it desirable for people to be courageous or is that a dangerous, maladaptive trait?
And then there's the question of how many different goals you want to work toward. You probably don't want to just breed toward one perfect human model, you want varieties suited to different things. How many varieties and which tasks do you breed toward?
Evolution automatically takes cultural differences into account (or ignores them entirely) and evolves all groups in a manner that is most adaptive to their own environment without any need to divide the people into discrete, artificial groupings. And it's metric for success - reproductive success - is probably better than just about anything anyone's ever going to come up with.
I some what support it.
I dont think its right to say, "Only the beautiful millionaires can breed because their children will end up being beautiful millionaires."
But i do think people with genes that would cause their child to be deformed, sickly, or in constant pain should be moderated.
Two people with AIDs shouldnt be able to have a child. I have nothing against people with AIDs, nor do i hate homosexuals. (several of my best friends are, and i myself am Bi, to an extent.)
But if the baby is just going to be born TO DIE shortly after, its wrong.
Besides, there are too many people on the planet as is. And there are so many orphans out there, more children dont really NEED to be born at the moment.
As i said, i dont fully support it. No humans are "better" then others, but if it means that the product of your love will only cause pain, it should be moderated.
I dont think its right to say, "Only the beautiful millionaires can breed because their children will end up being beautiful millionaires."
But i do think people with genes that would cause their child to be deformed, sickly, or in constant pain should be moderated.
Two people with AIDs shouldnt be able to have a child. I have nothing against people with AIDs, nor do i hate homosexuals. (several of my best friends are, and i myself am Bi, to an extent.)
But if the baby is just going to be born TO DIE shortly after, its wrong.
Besides, there are too many people on the planet as is. And there are so many orphans out there, more children dont really NEED to be born at the moment.
As i said, i dont fully support it. No humans are "better" then others, but if it means that the product of your love will only cause pain, it should be moderated.
no, I do not agree with controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics.
however, I ALSO do NOT agree with controlled breeding to achieve the OPPOSITE...
which is what all this overkill welfare, high taxes, and safety lables and nannying seems to be doing.
however, I ALSO do NOT agree with controlled breeding to achieve the OPPOSITE...
which is what all this overkill welfare, high taxes, and safety lables and nannying seems to be doing.
I don't think you're seeing the bigger picture here. I'm against it for both ethical and practical reasons.6037084 said:
Ethical: Can you honestly tell me it's okay to force somebody to do something they don't want to, simply because you don't think they're desirable?
Practical: Let's say we do this. Hypothetically we have removed all undesired traits from humanity as defined by a government. Non everybody is strong and tall and fast and smart. But what's this? Oh no, a new disease has sprang into being. This disease is highly contagious and kill within a year, symptoms don't show up for a month, more than enough time to spread it around the world before anyone notices. What's worse, due to humanity's now poor genetic diversity, no one has an immune system that can fight it off and no vaccines more medications exist to fight it yet, so it's 100% fatal. If only we hadn't culled all the humans who might have had the genes necessary to combat this horror, but alas, we did, and now humanity is doomed. In conclusion eugenics is bad because it reduces genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is important because it allows a species to more readily adapt to changes in the environment. Without this, if the new environment isn't suited to the survival of one member of the species, then all the others will almost cerrtainly die as well. This is known as a genetic bottle neck, and any credible biologist will tell you it's very bad.
That has nothing to do with breeding or eugenics. Those are social issues that are a problem with the way people think, not the way their genome is set up. Eugenics is firmly rooted in the "nature" side, while all those problems are the "nurture" side of the equation.matt87_50 said:
Sneaky-Pie said:
I'm a supporter of Eugenics in a fairly big way. Of course the responses your getting shouldn't be a big surprise given the hard core left wing slant on these forums. Actually I'm surprised I'm not the only supporter.
In general Eugenics gets a bad rap due to the belief that it only means targeting minority groups for erasure, and the pursuit of some master race agenda. Not to mention the whole "free love" thing attached to modern liberalism and the defense of the right to pro-create and parents to choose whether to raise certain, disabled children. Ultimatly it does lead to a lot of society's problems.
Overall I support Eugenics because right now we have an issue with massive overpopulation, which is at the core of a lot of our problems and tensions. The human race is exploding beyond the abillity of the planet to support us at a decent standard of living, and resource depletion is becoming an increasing concern as we're literally decimating all the forests and strip mining the planet to death to obtain simple things like wood and metal, and we still don't have enough for all the people. One of the big reasons I have little respect for left wingers is contridictory arguements, such as screaming about enviromentalism and resource depleton and needing to conserve this stuff, ahile on the other hand claiming there isn't a population problem because dealing with it violates what they hold as moral principles.
Speaking for myself I feel it might already be too late but I think reversible sterlization should be mandatory, with parents only being allowed to have kids with goverment position. This permission involving both physical and social criteria. Basically the proof that the parents are in a stable relationship, and have the money to properly support a child (ie no more single welfare mommies playing "whose the baby's daddy" with DNA testing on daytime talk shows). What's more with what we know about mental retardation and disabillities nowadays the odds of accidently killing the next Einstein are minimal. Some badly damaged child is born, we put it down, we don't bring it into society where it will take 100x the resources to raise (perhaps with part of the expense falling to the society/goverment), the parents don't get a choice. Likewise, parents with known pre-existing genetic conditions won't be allowed to have kids, using similar (though by no means identical) criteria to insurance companies. The end result of this will be a stronger, healthier population, and also a *LOT* less people.
Now, for the part a lot of people will really hate, especially seeing as people will read things into it that aren't there, I long ago became convinced that a combination of mass murder and forced reversible sterlization of a lot of the third world would actually help the people there as well as the rest of the world. Simply put third world nations tend to have resources, just very little in the way of resources. In response to the shortages and enviroment the people there tend to have lots of kids to try and support the society which causes constant population explosions and makes the problems worse. That many poverty stricken people with few, if any, resources living together also causes these huge diseases and epidemics. Even with outside assitance it's nearly impossible to keep these areas functioning in many cases. The basic human instinct to counter hardship with as much reproduction as possible actually causing the opposite effect in Africa, parts of Asia, and South/Central America to name a few places. If you reduce the population, and then control it's growth it then becomes easier to create higher standards of living for the people that are there and gradually see it build in proportion to the controlled population growth. It becomes easier to bring in things like livestock to be raised since they will be able to breed as opposed to starving people slaughtering it all right then and there for food on the spot without a thought for the long term, and so on.
In connection to this latter point I'll simply say that just because something is repugnant doesn't mean that it's the wrong way to solve a problem when it's gotten that bad. Indeed one of the worst instincts of the US and the first world is to let problems grow increasingly worse while waiting for a magical solution, to the point where anything effective and within our reach becomes increasingly horrifying to comtemplate. The USA does better than most nations in thinking for the long term, but we still have difficulty getting our heads around how doing something really "bad" right now actually benefits far more people in the long term as generations pass. An Africa with a higher standard of living, and a population in proportion to it's enviroment's abillity to sustain for example benefits everyone,
including them. You kill hundreds of millions of people in abject misery now, a couple centuries later when billions of people live there pretty happily and are able to sustain themselves it's hard to say that it wasn't worth it. That's the kind of thinking I personally believe we need to get the globe in better shape for humanity in general.
Interesting goings in Canada.
We seem to be brilliant as kids and just frostbite and hoze out as the years go by, but in these late hours, mostly when i was a child, chronologicly, the leftos have made some 'polite requests' to children in terms of eugenics. And as was a child communicating under the guise of cool, i can tell ya whats going on.
Eugenics, like all things, if and when, will be ruled by the corrupt, shadowed under a guise of progress, against their blood enemies, emptying out the human race of rational behavior such as incomplacency.
Argue if you will, the odd something getting knocked down is not even an issue, which is basicly why everyone had to get as loud as some lefto punkes when some briefcases died.
Its nice to argue. It brings about inteligence, which has little or nothing to do with IQ.
The Return comes soon, but the human race will always be plagued by people hungry over nothing.
Where we can be content with the progress of time and the vitues of a settled life, better both for the heart and evolution, there remains the few, yet many, who will do anything to any harm for such a largely personal forward, which includes much of the eugenics people.
A race is made by a broad and settled spectrum of genetic knowledge, not too settled but more than now, more broad than north america, but less than the old regions, finding a sensible balance of all-round skills and selective.
The only question is: did i make this message difficult to change its meaning?
Even for matters of crime, there must be some. There is many types of crime by definition in the eras. From theft to rebelion to murder and every matter imaginable have been illegal in many spectrums, in many selections and degrees, and regardings the shifts in motives of the era.
I will finish by saying the north west is motivated by image. Crystal chandaliers.
Rebel as long as you can, it may be 50 years before the era falls and the etch of technology splits and sees moss.
It is not very polite to, however sublte, ask 8 and 12 year olds not to breed, and the many more to be tricked into slopping around in the dank, overpriced thing.
Though it was sublte enough to be a counter-effort, my middle name.
Do not fuck with walking cars that can put stuff in space I suppose is the lesson.
The talent is mostly carried on the father-lineage half, seems to have unhinged where i can almost see the most likely outputs with a spouse.
She often wants well adjusted, and all the calm love that heralds it assuming you are less boring than a kumquat
We seem to be brilliant as kids and just frostbite and hoze out as the years go by, but in these late hours, mostly when i was a child, chronologicly, the leftos have made some 'polite requests' to children in terms of eugenics. And as was a child communicating under the guise of cool, i can tell ya whats going on.
Eugenics, like all things, if and when, will be ruled by the corrupt, shadowed under a guise of progress, against their blood enemies, emptying out the human race of rational behavior such as incomplacency.
Argue if you will, the odd something getting knocked down is not even an issue, which is basicly why everyone had to get as loud as some lefto punkes when some briefcases died.
Its nice to argue. It brings about inteligence, which has little or nothing to do with IQ.
The Return comes soon, but the human race will always be plagued by people hungry over nothing.
Where we can be content with the progress of time and the vitues of a settled life, better both for the heart and evolution, there remains the few, yet many, who will do anything to any harm for such a largely personal forward, which includes much of the eugenics people.
A race is made by a broad and settled spectrum of genetic knowledge, not too settled but more than now, more broad than north america, but less than the old regions, finding a sensible balance of all-round skills and selective.
The only question is: did i make this message difficult to change its meaning?
Even for matters of crime, there must be some. There is many types of crime by definition in the eras. From theft to rebelion to murder and every matter imaginable have been illegal in many spectrums, in many selections and degrees, and regardings the shifts in motives of the era.
I will finish by saying the north west is motivated by image. Crystal chandaliers.
Rebel as long as you can, it may be 50 years before the era falls and the etch of technology splits and sees moss.
It is not very polite to, however sublte, ask 8 and 12 year olds not to breed, and the many more to be tricked into slopping around in the dank, overpriced thing.
Though it was sublte enough to be a counter-effort, my middle name.
Do not fuck with walking cars that can put stuff in space I suppose is the lesson.
The talent is mostly carried on the father-lineage half, seems to have unhinged where i can almost see the most likely outputs with a spouse.
She often wants well adjusted, and all the calm love that heralds it assuming you are less boring than a kumquat
depending on how you apply it..I would say it can reduce the amount of genetic deceases and also can do what natural selection should do...but unfortunately it's true purpose is to create a perfect "race", but if used well, it can be beneficial.
Eugenics is uniformly, unequivocably, unquestionably A BAD THING- we as a species do not posess the necessary foresight and knowledge to know what traits and what genes are needed or might be needed in the future or might evolve and mutate into one we need.
Eugenics shrinks the gene pool, making it harder for any species to adapt to a change in environment- and before anyone says "humans are no longer evolving" let me say that is wrong, with each passing generation height, average IQ levels, what is currently perceived as physical beauty and a whole plethora of other traits increase at significantly noticeable levels.
Inevitably such a dogmatic post like this one is gonna get some butthurt iconoclasts (new favourite word BTW) whinging at me but know this- I have spent the last 3 years of my life in higher education studying genetics which culminated in a dissertation on the subject, this not intended to be arrogance but is me simply stating that what I have said here is not something Ive made up for arguements sake or to get some hipster cred for having a dissenting opinion- its me echoing decades of knowledge and data obtained by people of such vast intellect to make the rest of us appear as gnats in comparison.
EDIT= Just saw someone try and justify it by saying we could eliminate genetic diseases by using eugenics, there is a better way of doing that its called Gene Therapy.
Eugenics shrinks the gene pool, making it harder for any species to adapt to a change in environment- and before anyone says "humans are no longer evolving" let me say that is wrong, with each passing generation height, average IQ levels, what is currently perceived as physical beauty and a whole plethora of other traits increase at significantly noticeable levels.
Inevitably such a dogmatic post like this one is gonna get some butthurt iconoclasts (new favourite word BTW) whinging at me but know this- I have spent the last 3 years of my life in higher education studying genetics which culminated in a dissertation on the subject, this not intended to be arrogance but is me simply stating that what I have said here is not something Ive made up for arguements sake or to get some hipster cred for having a dissenting opinion- its me echoing decades of knowledge and data obtained by people of such vast intellect to make the rest of us appear as gnats in comparison.
EDIT= Just saw someone try and justify it by saying we could eliminate genetic diseases by using eugenics, there is a better way of doing that its called Gene Therapy.
don't bring the population problem in to this... I agree that should be controlled, but controlled simply by limits on how many children you can have... not WHO you can have them with...
just to be clear: Eugenics: "sorry, you can't have a child with the woman you love because we put both your DNA in this machine and computer says no"
thats basically it, right?
maybe in extreme circumstances where odds of a horribly disabled child are extremely high - there are always options like adoption, and couples who simply can't have kids deal with these isses already.
but yes, I agree that over population is a problem. I believe mass murder may one day be a viable solution. untill then, ditching aid and welfare programs, as well as safty lables - not a terrible idea.
I also agree that if a child is born severily disabled, advice should be given in atleast a neutral if not leaning towards the euthanise side of the debate. though one mustn't underestimate the truma on the parents given such a decision.
Therumancer: your arguments seem to not quite give enough respect to the core animal instincs embeded in all of us. desireable or not, I don't think they will be so easily eliminated as you seem to assume.
I also think - whilst the population issue is pretty much the biggest Elephant in the room - you are perhapse overreacting to it a bit.
lets not write off natural selection just yet... it is only fair to remember that A LOT of humanities efforts at the moment go towards circumventing natural selection in a way that would have the OPPOSITE effect of the desired goal of Eugenics... the aforementioned aid, welfare (paid for by the higher taxes of the productive members of society, thus, rewarding the undesirable breaders while discouraging the desirable ones).
furthermore, its not like a majority of the world are retards... I don't think there is a particularly big problem with 'bad genes' at the moment... there are people's who's enviroment are very detrimental to their health, but I don't thing genetic problems are that big a deal.
in short:
limit births, maybe as simple as 2 children each (don't have to be with the same partner) lord knows this would assure you REALY WANTED to share a child with a person, also a plus.
and take the safty lables off of everything.
and we will be just fine.
if not, well, a little genocide never hurt anyone.
on the natural selection side, lets not forget about the planet's defences too.
deadly epidemics obviously spread more easily in areas of over-population. interesting! the system works!
maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic. but NO ONE will EVER tell me I can't try to have a child with the woman I love.
just to be clear: Eugenics: "sorry, you can't have a child with the woman you love because we put both your DNA in this machine and computer says no"
thats basically it, right?
maybe in extreme circumstances where odds of a horribly disabled child are extremely high - there are always options like adoption, and couples who simply can't have kids deal with these isses already.
but yes, I agree that over population is a problem. I believe mass murder may one day be a viable solution. untill then, ditching aid and welfare programs, as well as safty lables - not a terrible idea.
I also agree that if a child is born severily disabled, advice should be given in atleast a neutral if not leaning towards the euthanise side of the debate. though one mustn't underestimate the truma on the parents given such a decision.
Therumancer: your arguments seem to not quite give enough respect to the core animal instincs embeded in all of us. desireable or not, I don't think they will be so easily eliminated as you seem to assume.
I also think - whilst the population issue is pretty much the biggest Elephant in the room - you are perhapse overreacting to it a bit.
lets not write off natural selection just yet... it is only fair to remember that A LOT of humanities efforts at the moment go towards circumventing natural selection in a way that would have the OPPOSITE effect of the desired goal of Eugenics... the aforementioned aid, welfare (paid for by the higher taxes of the productive members of society, thus, rewarding the undesirable breaders while discouraging the desirable ones).
furthermore, its not like a majority of the world are retards... I don't think there is a particularly big problem with 'bad genes' at the moment... there are people's who's enviroment are very detrimental to their health, but I don't thing genetic problems are that big a deal.
in short:
limit births, maybe as simple as 2 children each (don't have to be with the same partner) lord knows this would assure you REALY WANTED to share a child with a person, also a plus.
and take the safty lables off of everything.
and we will be just fine.
if not, well, a little genocide never hurt anyone.
on the natural selection side, lets not forget about the planet's defences too.
deadly epidemics obviously spread more easily in areas of over-population. interesting! the system works!
maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic. but NO ONE will EVER tell me I can't try to have a child with the woman I love.
zehydra said:
Thank you from the heart of my bottom for your sage counsel. <- This ok?
...will be using "If you're gonna use sarcasm, be more clear." as a punchline for a "Things a real-life Vulcan Might Say." routine.
Oh, and can I have my ladder back when ya finished?
Where do people get the idea that humanity has transcended the laws of nature, nothing (bar maybe atomic fission) that humanity has done is any way revolutionary, medicine isn't unnatural there are many species that make use of plant's for medicinal purposes, many species use tools, we just do these things on a greater deeper understanding, and likewise we can't control evolution, not effectively anyway, if you instate a Eugenics program you'll simply devide people.
It's a deep instinctual drive to procreate and trying to prevent it on any scale for Eugenics to have effect people will group together and fight back (figuativly or literally), and even IF, and i do mean IF, you could stop the "undeirables" breeding with the "desireable", you bloodywell couldn't stop any genetic mutations, so unless you want to install a police state or kill all people with an undesirable trait, ya can see where this is going can't you
I ask any of you supporters of Eugenics to present me a method for implementing Eugenics without the aforementioned echo's of the Nazi state
It's a deep instinctual drive to procreate and trying to prevent it on any scale for Eugenics to have effect people will group together and fight back (figuativly or literally), and even IF, and i do mean IF, you could stop the "undeirables" breeding with the "desireable", you bloodywell couldn't stop any genetic mutations, so unless you want to install a police state or kill all people with an undesirable trait, ya can see where this is going can't you
I ask any of you supporters of Eugenics to present me a method for implementing Eugenics without the aforementioned echo's of the Nazi state
My brother is a really big athletic guy, he talks about how when he marries, it won't be for love or attraction. No, when he picks his "mate" it will only be for desirable genetics so his son will be a monster that he will name Achilles. Which I am all for.
Yes, and people often misuse that 'right' to gain an unfair advantage over others. Welfare, for example. A single mother with six kids and no job in the ghetto can receive as much, if not more, than a single parent with two kids and two jobs. That, I believe, is morally wrong.capper42 said:
I am in favor of both Positive and Negative Eugenics, the practice of encouraging beneficial traits and discouraging detrimental ones, respectively. There actually was a court case a long time ago where the judge ruled to have the offending party sterilized due to a family history of uselessness, criminal behavior, and general stupidity dating back three generations. "Three generations of degenerates is more than enough." is what he said, I think.
Well, there are worse freedoms that can be taken away from you. And I can't see how it's worse than traditional, original arranged marriage. It's also one of the more fascinating and supportable "fascist" or "authoritarian" ideas out there. I'm an extreme libertarian, but I'm also an extreme transhumanist. And as such eugenics seems a wonderful and romantic evil.
I personally support at least genetic engineering. I'm too Libertarian to support something even as fascinating as eugenics. But I do find it more moral than traditional arranged marriage, that is for certain.
I personally support at least genetic engineering. I'm too Libertarian to support something even as fascinating as eugenics. But I do find it more moral than traditional arranged marriage, that is for certain.
I agree with part of what you're saying, (the nazi bit. - Highways, VW, and several other things are also things the Nazis came up with.Hardcore_gamer said:
Though fanta was a PR thing because it was devised by the Coca Cola company when selling Coca Cola itself to America's enemies was seen as bad publicity.
But eugenics has some really nasty side-effects when applied to human populations. Principally, the problem that inevitably arises, is who gets to decide what is 'good'?
Controlling who does, and does not get to breed is not a trivial matter, owing to the fact that it's a basic aspect of the biology of pretty much any species that most member of the species can breed. (within the obvious restrictions imposed by the male/female devide, that is.)
Incest for instance may be taboo, but there's nothing about it that inherently prevents offspring between closely related individuals.
And while being gay makes it less likely you'll have children, it doesn't make you incapable of it.
Nor does being mentally or physically handicapped cause you to be incabable of having children. (unless the injury is specifically to your reproductive organs.)
So... Again, you end up having to artificially enforce this somehow...
Which just, simply leads to a question of who gets to decide?