Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[Bran1470]

I do support this because we have lost the whole survival of the fittest with modern medicine. That said the population is getting dumber and dumber and lazier due to unwanted genes; The truth is that dumb people are breading more and more (kinda like in the movie idiocracy)Than smart people.

 

[BSCCollateral]

It's utter trash. Mankind isn't intelligent enough to engineer itself.

Very true.

And, of course, the idea gets even sillier if you think about implementing it. Sure about 17% (at the moment) of the respondents here "support Eugenics." That's because the original poster used meaningless terms like "improving."

What does "Improve" mean? What traits are the program breeding for?

And let's not forget unintended consequences. Lose sickle-cell trait and you're making a population more vulnerable to malaria.

 

[orangeban]

I do support this because we have lost the whole survival of the fittest with modern medicine. That said the population is getting dumber and dumber and lazier due to unwanted genes; The truth is that dumb people are breading more and more (kinda like in the movie idiocracy)Than smart people.

You can't "lose" survival of the fittest. If anything, you "win" survival of the fittest (though it's even better to say you "win" at natural selection.)

We have evolved to the point where we are perfectly adapted to our enviroment, we don't need to evolve any more, not unless something distatorous happens. The alligator has also "won" natural selection, it hasn't evolved (much, slight changes have occured but thats normal) for millions of years, we know that alligators were around with the dinosaurs.

And why are dumb people breeding more than smart people? The only thing that I can see influencing large groups of society about how many children they have, is the quality of sex education and availability of contraception (or laws like China's 1 baby policy) and those things aren't genetic (note: large groups of society, a single person can obviously be influenced by friends, partners and family, but were talking averages here.)

 

[Hagi]

And yet it's perhaps the article of the UDHR I most dislike. Hint: YAY heteronormativity!

On topic: Eugenics is just stupid. We should be diversifying and deepening the gene pool, not the opposite.

It's only heteronormative if you live in backwards places that don't allow gay marriage.

Gay marriage has been legal for half my life. I've grown up with the idea that marriage was intended for any two people, regardless of gender, who intend to spend their lives together.

It's not the article that's stupid. It's most countries backwards definition of marriage that's retarded.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, I just saw a part of a program which was about test tube babies and eliminating the embryo's with Huntingtons. I thought ''Yeah, why not? Why is this illegal in Europe, but allowed in Austarlia? Who benefits from having Huntingtons disease? Wouldn't it be better for humanity if no one had Huntingtons?''.
But you can go too far in this. Like the fluorescent puppy, or like recreating Leeloo in The Fifth Element. Or Jurassic Park. Which will happen if we don't do anything about eugenics.
On the other hand, we've been plant breeding for hundreds of years. Take wheat for instance. There is a virus, called UG-99, also known as Black Rust. In the mid 50's, a scientist used classic plant breeding to create a species of wheat which is resistant to this virus, so that not half the farmers had to watch how his harvest began to whither and die. We have been eating that species ever since. Now, a mutated species of the virus has shown up, and we are working on the classic way to create a resitant type of wheat. Mostly, because the classic breeding is faster with wheat. No one is complaining about that, while it's basicaly doing the exact same thing, only now it's on a farm instead of a laboratory.
In short, eugenics? Yes, but only if we keep a strict eye on it.

 

[Whateveralot]

I definately support eugenics, but I don't think everyone should just start doing it, and I don't think everyone will. However, it's a science worth investing in. Let's just hope China isn't going to breed an army of super-soldiers..

 

[orangeban]

how about every family is allowed 1 child regardless of anything, and only seleceted families with the right... "stuff", could have more than that? It would work much more slowly than the methods mentioned in page 1 (restricting breeding outright excepting desirable outputs) and would allow everyone that "basic human right" that for some reason people cling to so badly.

Anything to tidy up the gene pool a bit would probably be benificial, (EDIT: not clense, or fix, just spruce up. Kinda like wiping the dust off your tv to make the picture more clear instead of messing with the settings)

See the intro sequence to Idiocracy for more info on why unregulated breeding could spiral out of control, (and to an extent already has)

Ug, that video is rubbish, the problem there isn't that people are stupid, it's that they aren't well educated. You have to educate people about sex in order to stop them breeding out of control.

People in third world countries have an awful lot of kids, not because they're stupid, but because there is no education about sex, and no contraception available to them.

 

[Vivi22]

Humanity has demonstrated time and again that not only can we not do pretty much anything better than nature, we aren't very capable of accurately judging the true value of another human being. SO no, I don't support eugenics.

 

[Sidiron]

I personally would prefer to leave any gene-screening or modification to those that want to have their own little Aryan children or whatever you see as the pinnacle of Humanity. As since we have the power to improve the human condition, why not.

However, I will keep my diversity and if, heaven forbid, I do go forth and procreate then I will happily pass on my imperfect genes to the sproggs. Even if this means in centuries future the descendants are vilified or persecuted, as it gives them the choice to take it up or leave it or if desired, wipe out the upper class with a single virus targeted at their identical genes.

Humans never like what they don't understand and even more so if it is in conflict with the status quo and their taught morals.

To all those before me who have mentioned the fact that most pedigree bred animals end up with very debilitating problems, Kudos to you. (>^_^)=b

 

[Sgt. Dante]

how about every family is allowed 1 child regardless of anything, and only seleceted families with the right... "stuff", could have more than that? It would work much more slowly than the methods mentioned in page 1 (restricting breeding outright excepting desirable outputs) and would allow everyone that "basic human right" that for some reason people cling to so badly.

Anything to tidy up the gene pool a bit would probably be benificial, (EDIT: not clense, or fix, just spruce up. Kinda like wiping the dust off your tv to make the picture more clear instead of messing with the settings)

See the intro sequence to Idiocracy for more info on why unregulated breeding could spiral out of control, (and to an extent already has)

Ug, that video is rubbish, the problem there isn't that people are stupid, it's that they aren't well educated. You have to educate people about sex in order to stop them breeding out of control.

People in third world countries have an awful lot of kids, not because they're stupid, but because there is no education about sex, and no contraception available to them.

Lack of education = people being stupid about 99% of the time (always an exception)

And contraception is readily available in the 3rd world, It's just that the people are being incorrectly educated about them and fed lies and propaganda about their use.
see: Condoms cause AIDS [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7947460.stm]

Yes education is important but in reference to the above video do you think that high school jock didn't have to sit through the same sex ed classes as the rest of us? More to the point he either is too stupid to think about it or too stupid to care. Restricting the breeding of such a man would cause a significant drop in the number of unwanted, unloved and uncared for children who will quickly be seen as a nuisance by their (far too immature) deadbeat dads and cheerleader moms. In our 1st world at least education isn't the issue as much as idiocy is.

(also that video is a spoof, it deliberately exacerbates the problem to insane levels, but in principle it is the "less educated" (feel I?ve said idiots enough for one rant) that have more and more children rather than the "more educated" tend to know when enough is enough (and are able to support their kids themselves rather than rely on state handouts which is a rant for another day))

 

[The Funslinger]

Down with eugenics!

Also, a certain goverment tried this whole eugenics thing some 70-odd years ago. Didn't work out well.

Also, it depends what is a postive gene. If somone has short legs in comparison to the rest of their body, somone might consider it a bad gene. However, this would help with swimming ( look at Micheal Phelps as an example). This probably refers to lots of diffrent genes too.

Plus, variety is the spice of life.

True, but Eugenics is useful for weeding out genetic disorders like Huntington's Disease or glandular disorders.

I don't support Eugenics, but I see it as an option on a path we may need to take. Humanity has essentially shielded itself from natural selection. The better alternative? Stem Cell research for gene therapy.

 

[viking97]

for the most part no, but making it illegal for people with birth defects to have children (if it is known that these will be passed on) and those defects severely hinder quality of life (like not just something to do with looks, that can be the parents decision) to have children doesn't seem entirely un-reasonable. sad, but not unreasonable.

 

[Quagmirian]

I don't think we should ban people from having children if they have a large risk of disease or deformity, but we should definitely advise them that it is a bad idea.

 

[Bran1470]

I do support this because we have lost the whole survival of the fittest with modern medicine. That said the population is getting dumber and dumber and lazier due to unwanted genes; The truth is that dumb people are breading more and more (kinda like in the movie idiocracy)Than smart people.

You can't "lose" survival of the fittest. If anything, you "win" survival of the fittest (though it's even better to say you "win" at natural selection.)

We have evolved to the point where we are perfectly adapted to our enviroment, we don't need to evolve any more, not unless something distatorous happens. The alligator has also "won" natural selection, it hasn't evolved (much, slight changes have occured but thats normal) for millions of years, we know that alligators were around with the dinosaurs.

And why are dumb people breeding more than smart people? The only thing that I can see influencing large groups of society about how many children they have, is the quality of sex education and availability of contraception (or laws like China's 1 baby policy) and those things aren't genetic (note: large groups of society, a single person can obviously be influenced by friends, partners and family, but were talking averages here.)

Are you kidding me? we haven't adapted medicine has made us this way. OK I want you to have a child and when you get that child never take him to get a vaccine or take him to the hospital or give him medicine and i want you to see how long that child last.

 

[Zeekar]

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.

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.

Less failures? Last time I checked, nature has never "failed". Mankind on the other hand? We've certainly had our ups and downs. Having government step into our bedrooms of all places when they can't even be trusted with our economy would certainly be a significant "down" in our history.

Besides, subjectively, the thought of being seen as livestock to be bred for certain traits by an outside body feels wrong. That has got to be worth something in this argument.

Evolution is a series of random mutation that allow a creature to survive sometimes, however evolution does not always improve something, as one are born with usless mutations or ones that kill them.

You...Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? Evolution is not random - it's gradual genetic adaptation in response to external phenomena. Nothing is mutating and the changes over generations are certainly not random since they can be linked to a distinct external cause. Granted, that cause (being natural changes in the environment) may as well be random as far as we're concerned.

Individuals of the species with traits that favor their surroundings survive to mate, thus passing on their genes. Those who do not have favorable traits usually (but not always) die off due to intensely variable outside conditions.

Eugenics is assuming a lot about what is best for our species, and as I said before, we can't even come to a consensus as to what is best for us in the short term. It could turn out that even genetically passed diseases are somehow good for us in the long run. Stranger things have happened.

Wait, you were just messing with me, weren't you? Oh, you.

 

[latenightapplepie]

It's not the article that's stupid. It's most countries backwards definition of marriage that's retarded.

It's clearly implied in the article that marriage is between men and women. That's why I don't like it. Of course, I don't think I've ever seen an opponent of same-sex marriage rush to the UDHR for support.

This is off-topic, I should stop.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Eugenics was largely proven to be complete bunk, it's origins laying in primarily racism based 'mythological' thinking. Natural Selection and mating instinct already promotes 'the best partner' concept, and wide breeding improves genetic stability, immune system, and health.

Human beings are not dogs. We are astoundingly more complex. You cannot get two people to hump and predict the base outcome.

PS: Wow I was able to do this without Godwyn'ing it I am impressed with myself.

 

[nolongerhere]

I do support this because we have lost the whole survival of the fittest with modern medicine. That said the population is getting dumber and dumber and lazier due to unwanted genes; The truth is that dumb people are breading more and more (kinda like in the movie idiocracy)Than smart people.

You can't "lose" survival of the fittest. If anything, you "win" survival of the fittest (though it's even better to say you "win" at natural selection.)

We have evolved to the point where we are perfectly adapted to our enviroment, we don't need to evolve any more, not unless something distatorous happens. The alligator has also "won" natural selection, it hasn't evolved (much, slight changes have occured but thats normal) for millions of years, we know that alligators were around with the dinosaurs.

And why are dumb people breeding more than smart people? The only thing that I can see influencing large groups of society about how many children they have, is the quality of sex education and availability of contraception (or laws like China's 1 baby policy) and those things aren't genetic (note: large groups of society, a single person can obviously be influenced by friends, partners and family, but were talking averages here.)

Are you kidding me? we haven't adapted medicine has made us this way. OK I want you to have a child and when you get that child never take him to get a vaccine or take him to the hospital or give him medicine and i want you to see how long that child last.

I want you to cut yourself off from all society. No shelter you didn't make yourself, no clothes you can't make yourself, no food you didn't grow or hunt yourself, no benefits at all of a modern society. They're just making you weak, and reducing your ability to progress the species.
While you do that, I'll sit here and bask in the comfort of being a member of a species that can influence the environment around it to fit it. That doesn't die from simple diseases because it's learned to treat them. A species that is capable of looking after it's weaker members, because it doesn't have to spend every day fighting for it's survival. And I'm going to enjoy it.

 

[Hagi]

It's clearly implied in the article that marriage is between men and women. That's why I don't like it. Of course, I don't think I've ever seen an opponent of same-sex marriage rush to the UDHR for support.

This is off-topic, I should stop.

No it's not. That's what you're making out of it.

If you look hard enough you'll always find something to be offended by, stop looking so hard.

 

[JambalayaBob]

Eugenics as an idea, in a sense I support, I don't support eugenics as a way to tell people who they can and can't breed with though. I think that if we find a way to alter an embryo before it starts significantly developing, we should use the technology to prevent things like mental retardation and asthma, and if we get it to a point where parents can pick what they want a child to look like, or make sure they don't get a gay child, then that's fine too, it IS their child after all, and the child won't care if he/she finds out. Basically, as long as it's controlled either by individuals on their own terms and not forced on people, or by some kind of technology that lets you alter genes for the child's sake or the parents' sake, it's fine.

...I dont know about the gay part...makes it sound like some kind of disease..and why do epople opoase gayness? religious veiws? makes them feel uncomfortable?

is gayness somhow inferior because they cant breed? why is that an issue when everyone rants about over-population?

just saying If I were gay that would be kind of offensive

Fuck you. I don't hate gay people, I know some pretty cool ones personally. The only reason I used that as an example is because some parents might not want their children to have to grow up with the ridiculous prejudices that come with being gay. Being gay isn't a bad thing, but it sure does make your life harder. If the future parents of a child wanted their kid to grow up without having to suffer through all that bullshit, I'd suspect that the most likely candidates for opting to do this would be gay couples. It wouldn't be harming the child in any way, why should he/she care if he had a small chance to be gay if his parents didn't take precautions?

A lot of what can make someone gay can't be prevented even with the ability to reconstruct genes, because it has to do with the stuff they see in their formative years and there's not a whole lot to control that. You may think such a claim is ridiculous, but those first few years of life are very influential over your psyche, and while part of what causes homosexuality is genetic, a lot of it is still based on life experiences.

Personally, I don't want children, but given the opportunity, I'd probably rather raise a gay child, so I'd make sure he was gay. I think it would be more interesting that way, plus gay men get laid wayyyy more frequently, so there is a trade off to be had there.