Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[RatRace123]

Can't say I support it. As soon as you start letting a small group of people decide what's best for the entirety of the human race, things start getting iffy.
Besides there are too many traits spread out among different groups of people that weeding them down, could lead to the loss of something valuable or special.

Beyond that, there's the whole implication of the "perfect race" thing, and that's just a bit too Aryan for most people's liking, myself included.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

No.. Fuck Eugenics..
Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..

Sorry for the double post, but that's bullsh*t. Darwin had nothing to do with Eugenics, or even the phrase "survival of the fittest" which was actually a term coined to damage his theories.

 

[Phasmal]

Seeing as under eugenics (as a child of two people with serious depression and other illnesses running in the family) I doubt I would be allowed to breed: I'm going to say no I dont support it.

 

[Pandaman1911]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Perfectly good traits could be lost among those.

We don't want that.

We would also weed out some stupidity too. Lets fix the negatives before we try to improve things.

That's not a very good argument. What happens if some traits are almost completely lost? We can't necessarily bring 'em back now can we? This is our entire race were talking about, best play it safe.

And fixing the negatives is essentially the same as improving things.

 

[GWarface]

No.. Fuck Eugenics..
Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..

Sorry for the double post, but that's bullsh*t. Darwin had nothing to do with Eugenics, or even the phrase "survival of the fittest" which was actually a term coined to damage his theories.

I see your bullshit and raise with a quote from Galton, the Father of Eugenics, Darwin's first cousin:

"Darwin's work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new "scientific" justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as "inferior". Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members"."

And even IF he didnt like the idea of killing and sterilising "inferior people", it still made alot of important people jizz in their pants because they now could legally remove all us unwanted peasants from their lives..

Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..

 

[crankytoad]

That's not Eugenics.

Eugenics is controlled breeding. What you're suggesting is gene therapy, which is not the same as eugenics.

Eugenics is by definition forced, that's what controlled breeding means. It means someone forces/controls who can and who can not breed.

Gene therapy is fine, eugenics is not.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I mean that the two can and should complement each other. For me, positive eugenics IS gene therapy, as any subsequent generations have reaped the benefits sought through the process.


In any case, controlled is not the same as forced. I fail to see how *positive* eugenics can be forced (puts me in mind of Hitler's 'baby factories' full of Aryan men yet rather underrepresented by Aryan women). Is it not eugenics for a government to simply encourage better genetic specimens to have children, especially with aforementioned free gene therapies? If you think that that is not eugenics, then fair enough, but I consider it to be.

 

[orangeban]

@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)

Actually, I think Gattaca rather effectively does demonstrate what is wrong with eugenics (at least of the style in the film, though I have problems with most other styles).

It automatically divides humanity into two, those who are "perfect" and those who rejected gene therapy (maybe for money reasons, maybe for moral reasons). This goes counter to all the work we have done on equality.

Though you make reasoned points.

Note: I like to point out that while we're on the same side of the political spectrum, you may be a wooly liberal, but I go past that and reach hardcore commu/socialist. Hence my worries about equality.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I don't get why Nazi Germany gets all the fame, USA, GB, Sweden, Denmark, and a ton of other countries did it into the 70's.
And we still allow women to get abortions of the child has genetic diseases and other illments, it's just not forced like in the old days.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

The idea of doing nature's work since society protects people who would have died off otherwise just seems to contradict the purpose of having a civilization in the first place. Sheltering the weak has led to the emergence of absolute genius in places we would never have expected it. The United States used to be involved in forced sterilizations to the world's acclaim until we found out that Nazi Germany was running a far less humane practice against Jews, gays, and Soviets. The world figured out it was wrong back then, I don't see any reason to revert to such idiotic thought processes.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

No.. Fuck Eugenics..
Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..

Sorry for the double post, but that's bullsh*t. Darwin had nothing to do with Eugenics, or even the phrase "survival of the fittest" which was actually a term coined to damage his theories.

I see your bullshit and raise with a quote from Galton, the Father of Eugenics, Darwin's first cousin:

"Darwin's work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new "scientific" justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as "inferior". Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members"."

And even IF he didnt like the idea of killing and sterilising "inferior people", it still made alot of important people jizz in their pants because they now could legally remove all us unwanted peasants from their lives..

Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..

I didn't know that to begin with, but I did know America wasn't much worse than Nazi Germany in the early 20th. However, I'm not particularly informed on American history out side the revolution because that's all that directly concerns Irish history. Maybe you have a point though.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

I semi support. We've basically defeated natural evolution with science to allow debilitating traits to pass on. Now it's just whoever can breed the most will be able to pass their genes on. Morals and fears are what's holding the human race back as a whole. Even if I'm cut out of the breed, make life good for me, but continue forward. If we can't allow eugenics, continue stem cell research to compensate.

 

[GWarface]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

 

[EvilRoy]

That's not Eugenics.

Eugenics is controlled breeding. What you're suggesting is gene therapy, which is not the same as eugenics.

Eugenics is by definition forced, that's what controlled breeding means. It means someone forces/controls who can and who can not breed.

Gene therapy is fine, eugenics is not.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I mean that the two can and should complement each other. For me, positive eugenics IS gene therapy, as any subsequent generations have reaped the benefits sought through the process.


In any case, controlled is not the same as forced. I fail to see how *positive* eugenics can be forced (puts me in mind of Hitler's 'baby factories' full of Aryan men yet rather underrepresented by Aryan women). Is it not eugenics for a government to simply encourage better genetic specimens to have children, especially with aforementioned free gene therapies? If you think that that is not eugenics, then fair enough, but I consider it to be.

Sorry to bump in here but the textbook definition of eugenics actually is controlled breeding. Eugenics isn't a belief system based on suggestion or an ideal.

Oxford Dictionary
the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

What you're describing is more of an optional 'better breeding' suggestion.

 

[GWarface]

No.. Fuck Eugenics..
Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..

Sorry for the double post, but that's bullsh*t. Darwin had nothing to do with Eugenics, or even the phrase "survival of the fittest" which was actually a term coined to damage his theories.

I see your bullshit and raise with a quote from Galton, the Father of Eugenics, Darwin's first cousin:

"Darwin's work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new "scientific" justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as "inferior". Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members"."

And even IF he didnt like the idea of killing and sterilising "inferior people", it still made alot of important people jizz in their pants because they now could legally remove all us unwanted peasants from their lives..

Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..

I didn't know that to begin with, but I did know America wasn't much worse than Nazi Germany in the early 20th. However, I'm not particularly informed on American history out side the revolution because that's all that directly concerns Irish history. Maybe you have a point though.

Im glad i have opened your eyes a little.. Thats why im here.. But dont believe what you are told, dont even believe what i tell you.. Look it up for yourself, the truth is stranger than fiction..

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut..

What do those addictions have to do with genes?

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Charles Darwin and Evolution says hi.

 

[CarlMin]

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'.

Do you also support "transhumanism"? I'm against that of much same reason I'm against eugenics.

 

[alandavidson]

I don't support eugenics, but please God, bring back natural selection.

 

[GWarface]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut..

What does those addictions have to do with genes?

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Charles Darwin and Evolution says hi.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with genes, but this is what counts when you what to get rid of unwanted people..
I wish i could remember the name of an US pro-eugenics movie from the 30's where a woman gets forced sterilised because her family is "bad" because of alcohol and her brother is in jail.. NOTHING to do with genes, but it still counts...


Show me that place in nature where animals decide wich species has to die and wich species is the "pure ones".. I dare you..

 

[crankytoad]

Sorry to bump in here but the textbook definition of eugenics actually is controlled breeding. Eugenics isn't a belief system based on suggestion or an ideal.

Oxford Dictionary
the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

What you're describing is more of an optional 'better breeding' suggestion.

After checking several sites myself, I realise that I have been working under a false definition of eugenics for several years now; thanks for point this out to me (Y)

Do you also support "transhumanism"? I'm against that of much same reason I'm against eugenics.

Although the question is now rather moot on my part, yes I fully support transhumanism