We're already under selection. I do not see a need for artificial selection. Way too many ways to abuse such a thing.
Poll: Natural Selection
- Thread starter SadisticFire
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Flatfrog said:
A society which runs a society based on an ideal for a body type will quickly be fraught with disease and problems. Eugenics and the even more idiotic "survival of the strongest" attitude that Spartans took are inherently self-destructive and vicious.
Well to take the edge off, I'll ask if that's a reference to something or the other. It sure sounds like it, and it bugs me that I don't know where it's from.The Plunk said:
I have no idea if the escapist is any more edgy. I generally dislike topics on eugenics, because I just personally despise them, but I don't think there any more hot button issues then normally.
Delightful satire of capitalism.tilmoph said:
If a nation actually did that, I think even Andrew Ryan would go
"What the fuck, man?"
Anyways, I'm actually envisioning a society where everyone has their tubes tied or receives a vasectomy, and aren't allowed to breed unless they demonstrate that they would be good parents, in good financial standing, and have no horrifically defective genes to pass on.
People on the "no-breed" list who would otherwise make good parents get to adopt children, and people on the "no-parent" list who otherwise have good genes get to conceive, and then give up their child to suitable foster parents. They could still visit, and be involved in the child's life, but some people just don't make for good parents.
Downsides:
A lot of people don't like the idea of handing over the very right to use parts of their bodies over to governments.
A somewhat competent government would be required to run such an operation.
We would need a much firmer grasp of what makes for a good parent.
...among others.
Upsides:
Lots and lots of consequence-free sex, resulting in an overall happier population.
Stronger genetic strain, which results in fewer birth defects, and mental and physical disorders, which results in:
*Lower healthcare costs, as there are fewer hereditary diseases to treat.
*Overall happier and more mentally stable population.
among others.
You can genetically engineer a "master race" without forcing people who you don't want to breed to suffer. People who are unfit to breed still deserve to exist. I myself have accepted that I probably shouldn't breed. I honestly think more people would be willing to put their lives in the hands of an organization if more organizations demonstrated that they know what the hell they're doing.
Like a number of other topics, I think it's good that we can have a civil discussion about the pros and cons of eugenics without someone screaming NAZIIII!!
I'm also going to make a random prediction:
In the future, billionaires will find a new hobby: using their wealth to create their own bubble societies based on different ideologies, and then discuss them with their peers.
"So Johnson, how's your Neo-Communist society coming along?"
"Swimmingly, Matthews. How's your Zen Anarchy?"
Why should we be slaves to the human gene when we could be creating the human machine?
We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of nature. We shouldn't need to stop people from being born because their genes might not work.
No, we need to use medicine and machines to fix whatever "problems" arise from someone's birth. We should be evolving humanity by our terms, not by turning into barbarians to satisfy the organic world.
We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of nature. We shouldn't need to stop people from being born because their genes might not work.
No, we need to use medicine and machines to fix whatever "problems" arise from someone's birth. We should be evolving humanity by our terms, not by turning into barbarians to satisfy the organic world.
does that make me sound like a bad guy?
Selective breeding won't be important in the future as I think a lot of people will take on conception treatments. For example here in the UK on the news just last week it said we are experimenting with the taking nucleus of a fertilized egg and putting into into another woman. This would mean the child would have DNA from 3 DIFFERENT PEOPLE, strange, but it would cut their chances of genetic diseases to almost nothing.
Who gives a shit about genetics when we can put our brains in a superior robot body? Technology is the great equalizer, and I put my faith in cybernetics research to fix all our shortcomings and ills.
High five! Mother Nature does nothing except abuse us and attempt to kill us in horrific, often painful ways. The sooner we crush it under our carbon fiber robo-heels, the better. Seriously, nothing prompted the bubonic plague. Fucking nature.zombiejoe said:
Disabled people aren't a problem.... people who are both mentailly, physically and financially fit to raise a child are ausually both willing and able to support their offspring, and if their child happens to be physically or mentailly disabled then it's parents usually end up making sure that the child doesn't end up being a burden on society.
The real problem are people who aren't fit to become a parent in the first place. The solution is ofcourse to impliment a license that is strictly regulated.
I ofcourse know exactly where this would lead, but I believe that the world would be better off if people who are drunks, addicted to drugs or violent weren't allowed to have children.
Why are we selling alchohol to people who become violent when they get drunk?
Why is it that we continue to put the same people in jail over and over instead of simply revoking their citizenship and kicking them out of the country?
Why is it that we waste resources on people who have no interest in being a benefit to the country they live in.
How about we kick out the undesirable ones that are already here and replace them with people who actually wants to live in the country.
The real problem are people who aren't fit to become a parent in the first place. The solution is ofcourse to impliment a license that is strictly regulated.
I ofcourse know exactly where this would lead, but I believe that the world would be better off if people who are drunks, addicted to drugs or violent weren't allowed to have children.
Why are we selling alchohol to people who become violent when they get drunk?
Why is it that we continue to put the same people in jail over and over instead of simply revoking their citizenship and kicking them out of the country?
Why is it that we waste resources on people who have no interest in being a benefit to the country they live in.
How about we kick out the undesirable ones that are already here and replace them with people who actually wants to live in the country.
Well seeing as the first two options are in no way shape nor form natural selection but rather eugenics none at all. Because eugenics is an utterly unnatural, cruel, disgusting and arbitrary practice that tends to have far more to go with genocide than improvement even with good intent by it's very nature as neutral or even perceived harmful genetics may be utterly beneficial.
While I agree there is a burden being placed on society to provide for and cater to those who, due to birth defects, are unable to care for or tend to themselves (physically or mentally)... I do not see it as being so much of a problem as to do demand the extermination of individuals.
I understand it's only fair if the family cares for the individual but often when the individual reaches their adult years the family will step back and the state will pick up the slack. It's a problem that can't be resolved without draconian measures.
Finding a way of stopping those defects from occurring should probably be our priority, rather than attempting to remove the immediate problem. I don't know if we fully understand what causes defects like Downs Syndrome or how to prevent them from occurring but that should be where we direct efforts.
I understand it's only fair if the family cares for the individual but often when the individual reaches their adult years the family will step back and the state will pick up the slack. It's a problem that can't be resolved without draconian measures.
Finding a way of stopping those defects from occurring should probably be our priority, rather than attempting to remove the immediate problem. I don't know if we fully understand what causes defects like Downs Syndrome or how to prevent them from occurring but that should be where we direct efforts.
The individual rights of the human to life outweigh the possibility of stronger genetics.
There are so many problems with the concept of organized enforcement that don't even need to be gone into.
The worst part with the concept? Variance and mutations are vital for continued existence. Time favors the species most able to adapt to changing environments, not the species fixated on a perceived ideal.
There are so many problems with the concept of organized enforcement that don't even need to be gone into.
The worst part with the concept? Variance and mutations are vital for continued existence. Time favors the species most able to adapt to changing environments, not the species fixated on a perceived ideal.
Look, its one thing to do "human pedigrees (yes they do exist)" to supposidly make perfect offspring but that ignores one huge fact. Our reproductive process is no where near perfect, it is incredibly flawed and as our genes continue to split in this broken process we only produce worse mutations as a result. Natural selection reduces the odds of producing more by eliminating those who already have them, but it by no means makes them all disappear. If youll note the beneficial ones are the whole premise of natural selection.
But, thats not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is we are sentient beings who can see beyond just our bodies conditioning and as such we should be the masters of our bodies not the other way around. By now we should have already found a way to better fix our genes and our reproductive functions (both in offspring and in simple cell division IE cancer) But medicine seems to keep tumbling while technology advances indefinitely. Eugenics is a primitive answer to a complex problem and we have evolved as a society beyond its use.
But, thats not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is we are sentient beings who can see beyond just our bodies conditioning and as such we should be the masters of our bodies not the other way around. By now we should have already found a way to better fix our genes and our reproductive functions (both in offspring and in simple cell division IE cancer) But medicine seems to keep tumbling while technology advances indefinitely. Eugenics is a primitive answer to a complex problem and we have evolved as a society beyond its use.
How do people still think eugenics has anything to offer?
But okay, let's pretend there wasn't a history of violence and degredation associated with this idea. The concept remains unevidence.
Put into evolutionary terms (and it's quite telling that no eugenecist does this), eugenics states that humans are in a low portion of fitness space, and it will take intelligent, top-down intervention to move us to a local fitness high. Sounds reasonable; we can say the same thing about any number of organisms, particularly in regards to a perturbed environment like our own. However, the entire thing is peredicated upon having a model of fitness space for humans.
In other words, in order to present eugenics as anything other than a baseless, subjective desire to remake humanity to fit some a priori view of what humans "should" be, you must present the fitness space model you are working with. That model is REQUIRED for ANY eugenics end goal to be taken as anything other than subjective nonsense, as that model is how a serious researcher would construct any rational end goal. Without it, you're simply ignoring the difference between the term "fit" as used in evolutionary theory and as used in social discusions.
When you do that, we can continue this discussion--again, ignoring ad arguendum the previously mentioned history of violence and degredation. And we're also not getting into the problems of implementation (there are three ways: mass slaughter of "inferiors", concentration camps, and forced sterilization, and in my opinion anyone not volunteering for one of these three options should be excluded from proposing them). But let's put the horse before the cart--please present your fitness space model. I'm sure anyone seriously presenting such a....controversial....idea has done their homework.
But okay, let's pretend there wasn't a history of violence and degredation associated with this idea. The concept remains unevidence.
Put into evolutionary terms (and it's quite telling that no eugenecist does this), eugenics states that humans are in a low portion of fitness space, and it will take intelligent, top-down intervention to move us to a local fitness high. Sounds reasonable; we can say the same thing about any number of organisms, particularly in regards to a perturbed environment like our own. However, the entire thing is peredicated upon having a model of fitness space for humans.
In other words, in order to present eugenics as anything other than a baseless, subjective desire to remake humanity to fit some a priori view of what humans "should" be, you must present the fitness space model you are working with. That model is REQUIRED for ANY eugenics end goal to be taken as anything other than subjective nonsense, as that model is how a serious researcher would construct any rational end goal. Without it, you're simply ignoring the difference between the term "fit" as used in evolutionary theory and as used in social discusions.
When you do that, we can continue this discussion--again, ignoring ad arguendum the previously mentioned history of violence and degredation. And we're also not getting into the problems of implementation (there are three ways: mass slaughter of "inferiors", concentration camps, and forced sterilization, and in my opinion anyone not volunteering for one of these three options should be excluded from proposing them). But let's put the horse before the cart--please present your fitness space model. I'm sure anyone seriously presenting such a....controversial....idea has done their homework.
Why don't we just kill everyone who doesn't have an IQ of at least 120 or has an annual income less than average? Or people who can't walk for five miles? People with glasses? People who can't remember the correct lyrics to songs I like? Or dog people?
Alternatively, why do any of those things?
Alternatively, why do any of those things?
Natural Selection is a game we can't not play. And you're wrong--every human doesn't survive. Miscarriages and still births are still a thing. And even if the birth goes fine, people still die before getting a chance to pass on their genes. And then of course there's the selection process that goes into making the baby to begin with--some people aren't as good at attracting mates as others. And even if they do attract a mate, the woman needs to actually conceive. Which means they either can't be using birth control or it can't be effective, and the woman and man must both be capable of producing offspring, and then an egg actually has to get fertilized, and it has to implant, and then it has to go to full term--lots of room for natural selection to occur before the woman even realizes anything has happened.SadisticFire said:
No, because we don't know what will be best for our species in the future. Hell, we don't know which traits are best now. My friend has an irregular heart rhythm which can and has caused issues for him. But it's the result of his heart having an extra valve, which could save his life if one of the others fail. So is that trait good or bad? What about light vs dark skin? People with light skin can produce vitamin D more easily, while people with dark skin are less prone to skin cancer. So which trait is better? How about the sickle-cell trait? If you just get one copy of the gene then it helps protect against malaria, but if you get two copies then it gives you sickle-cell disease. So is it a good or bad trait?
Depends on how you do it. If you're just politely asking people with "bad" genetics to not breed then it's completely moral, and also guaranteed to fail. If you want your program to actually work then you're looking at things like forced sterilization of the undesirables, forced breeding of the desirables (otherwise known as "rape"), and quite possibly mass murder. Because people really don't like being told what to do with their genitals, and you will need to use violence to make them comply.
I think you're advocating genocide. So, Heil SadisticFire?
I dunno. I was born with jaundice, so am I on the chopping block too?
Most of those with significant defects like Down's Syndrome have trouble procreating anyway. I believe that males with Down's are usually sterile.
So even if we disregard that, absolutely not. Killing people or neutering them because they don't fit our perceived definition of an acceptable human being is just morally repulsive, frankly.
Most of those with significant defects like Down's Syndrome have trouble procreating anyway. I believe that males with Down's are usually sterile.
So even if we disregard that, absolutely not. Killing people or neutering them because they don't fit our perceived definition of an acceptable human being is just morally repulsive, frankly.
Correction: There's literally no way to NOT abuse this power. Evolution is a lot of really crappy traidoffs. BrassButtons mentioned a few of them, enough to illustrate a critical point: in advancing pretty much any "ideal" trait you're going to introduce a number of detrimental traits. This is why a fitness space model is so critical: only such a model will allow us to determine how to perform the cost/benefit analysis in anything resembling an objective manner. Any other methodology results in nothing but subjective justification of the speaker's a priori desires, hardly a scientific procedure.moostar said: