Eugenics?

[Idolator]

whether they themselve cause any problems is irrelevant. we are discussing the human race, not individuals. worthless genetic dross should be discarded, not preserved because 'they're not hurting anyone'.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

whether they themselve cause any problems is irrelevant. we are discussing the human race, not individuals. worthless genetic dross should be discarded, not preserved because 'they're not hurting anyone'.

The point is that you may end up killing people who will not detract from the human race in any way. The chance of passing on a genetic disease for more than one or two generations is fairly small.

[Idolator]

isnt it better to kill someone for the betterment of humanty rather than for any of the reasons governments around the world kill now?

[elfstone]

I think that natural selection is a very complex process, and it becomes even more so in human civilization where memes play a role as important, if not more, as the genes. We simply do not have enough information to practice eugenics on a large scale. For example, many people with manic depression have proved to be very creative writers. Are their "bad" genes more important than the "good" memes they are more than able to offer?

Of course, in the case of a serious or hurtful disease, it can be morally justified to end a pregnancy that can only lead to suffering of mother and child.

[gcol]

Elfstone, quote:"For example, many people with manic depression have proved to be very creative writers. Are their "bad" genes more important than the "good" memes they are more than able to offer?"

 

The ethics and morality of gene pool manipulation by eugenics or other social manipulation methods could be debated for ever. You either agree or disagree in principle, rather like questions of religion. (There has been some discussion of the possibility of a 'religiousity' gene.... should that be bred out? Might solve some problems; but then others would say it should be bred-in.)

 

Given that that debate is unresolveable, consider at least one practical problem:

 

WHO WOULD YOU TRUST TO ADMINISTER/ADJUDICATE THE SELECTION PROCESS? Plus appeals procedures, adjudication panels, political and financial manipulation, etc.

 

Who would decide which are the good and the bad genes? Manic depression in the arts is but one example. How about sport? For example genetic disposition to higher/lower metabolic rate which is desirable in certain sports but may reduce longevity or reproductive efficiency. The more I consider this aspect, the number of examples I can imagine become unmanageable. Back to a point I made earlier, hac eugenic selection been a fact prior to this generation's conception, which of us would be here to debate it?

[Komatos]

isnt it better to kill someone for the betterment of humanty rather than for any of the reasons governments around the world kill now?

 

Anyone who fails to understand the logic of this is focusing too much on the emotional side of such a politic and not enough on the rational and logical side.

 

Emotional compassionate influence over ones political opinions and decisions interferes with what "should" be done.

 

The human race needs to overcome primitive instinct (emotions) to ever advance beyond these primitive times.

 

Science fiction interpretations of futuristic alien societies usually involve civilizations in which emotion is not an element. The society moves forward accepting losses rather than weeping over them. Accepting defeats rather than triumphantly dumping resources into meaningless causes.

 

Emotion and compassion hold the human race back. Compassion and emotion are acceptable so long as they are not costly enough to make the misfortunes of one become the misfortunes of many so long as the misfortunes of one are "less".

 

Eugenics are a revolutionary idea and it is the evolution of all mankind to one day embrace such a concept. Nazi Germany may have been lacking in some departments, but in terms of being the evolutionary masterpeice of the early 20th century, they were not lacking.

 

Their scientific research was never ethical or emotional but was always beneficial in ways never before achieved. Emotion in nazi germany was limited to Civic Virtue rather than compassionate dissent. Outside the box military strategic thinkers of nazi germany created modern military concepts of Panzer Divisions and Blitzkriegs which now define the military doctrines of armies world wide. Hitler and the nazis created a regime that would overcome emotion to create outside the box revolutionary advances. Every western liberal democracy was simply in the dust.

 

Read some of hitlers speaches rather than simply westernized propaganda.

 

Eugenics was a part of the Nazis longterm domestic policies that probably could have created a walking talking race of godly beings in comparison to the relatively weak genetic make up of modern mankind.

 

Unethical, unemotional, but not unintelligent and most certainly not ignorant.

 

The fact of the matter is, in the end, after such policies go through for enough generations and the wars are won the land is taken; The society that would result, is utopion, and more free than any democracy on the planet...

[Helix]

Eugenics was a part of the Nazis longterm domestic policies that probably could have created a walking talking race of godly beings in comparison to the relatively weak genetic make up of modern mankind.

 

So then you think Nazism is correct?

[gcol]

So then you think Nazism is correct?

 

Nazism is not eugenics, and vice-versa.

 

That argument is as futile as saying American Republicanism is wrong because it murdered Iraqi civilians. The one is not the be all and end all of the other.

[Helix]

Nazism is not eugenics' date=' and [i']vice-versa[/i].

 

That argument is as futile as saying American Republicanism is wrong because it murdered Iraqi civilians. The one is not the be all and end all of the other.

 

 

I understand that and didn't even say that they were the same. I only infered that by saying the Nazi race would be superior to what we have now -- which is what he said -- he favored Nazism.

[Steph]

wow. The majority of people are FOR eugenics? on a science forum? this is interesting and rather scary.

 

eugenics is simply not doable for a simple reason : the vast majority of people on earth have at least one allele of a dangerous genetic disease. I guess you could argue that 100 000 healthy people on earth could repopulate without genetic disease but, by the time they do, through mutation, we will have been brought back to the level where we are now... or humanity would have stopped existing (if you weed out "mutants"). So it wouldn't be just a few people undergoing minor surgery.

 

Its not even a question or being ethical or not, its just not doable. (oh and how do you go about neutering the majority? without getting killed in the process i mean.)

 

 

EDIT: to anyone talking about IQ tests... these are NOT valid tests of intelligence whatsoever. immigrants, and minorities in general, will score lower on those tests. poor people will score lower on those tests. Also, forcing people is doing exactly what the Nazis were doing. the gassing was not an integral part of their plan, it was a weird digression, an escalation of it (killing is lest costly than sterilization).

[Helix]

Steph:

 

I'm adamantly against eugenics as it's flawed from both a moral and scientific perspective. I can't believe some are for it, but to each his own.

[mattbimbo]

eugenics is not for me. it would be like going to heaven and finding myself trying to converse with the worst kind of prudish, boring, unimaginative, simple-minded people that i could possible imagine. come on, what would i talk about over a beer with these people? what would be written in the newspapers? even the phrase 'heaven here on earth' makes me want to puke. i did live in sweden for a while. sweden, no relation to eden, had a national eugenics policy pre-hitler. i am not sure of the details exactly but many 'mentally-handicapped' (and some artists) were sterilised. i believe sweden is now one of the countries in the world with the highest usage of anti-depressants and in vitro fertilisation. so much for eugenics, hey?

 

yeah, i know ivf treatment is another issue. although infertility hits 10% of the population we have at present little idea what determines which 10% it hits, one example of many which reveals how the science of 'genetics' is in its infancy, if that.

[jeskill]

wow. The majority of people are FOR eugenics? on a science forum? this is interesting and rather scary.

 

eugenics is simply not doable for a simple reason : the vast majority of people on earth have at least one allele of a dangerous genetic disease. I guess you could argue that 100 000 healthy people on earth could repopulate without genetic disease but' date=' by the time they do, through mutation, we will have been brought back to the level where we are now... or humanity would have stopped existing (if you weed out "mutants"). So it wouldn't be just a few people undergoing minor surgery.

 

Its not even a question or being ethical or not, its just not doable. (oh and how do you go about neutering the majority? without getting killed in the process i mean.)

 

 

EDIT: to anyone talking about IQ tests... these are NOT valid tests of intelligence whatsoever. immigrants, and minorities in general, will score lower on those tests. poor people will score lower on those tests. Also, forcing people is doing exactly what the Nazis were doing. the gassing was not an integral part of their plan, it was a weird digression, an escalation of it (killing is lest costly than sterilization).[/quote']

 

I agree with you too. I posted something similar earlier on, but I think it got lost in the debate.