Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I suppose I'm in favour in general terms. Mainly because I believe that to have the right to procreate then you should have to do more than just pass the physical exam.
Where I live in the UK, I've known girls who's sole plan in life is to leave school at 16, get pregnant by the first guy who comes along so they can then get on benefits and get a free council house as a single parent. And I found that offensive. No only because I pay my taxes which pay for their benefits while they sit around on their backsides doing nothing, but because it just seems a waste of a life to have such low goals.
You need a licence to drive a car, you need a licence to go fishing, you need a licence to own a dog. Hell in the UK you need a licence to watch TV. So why does something important like being responsible for a human life not require any sort of specialist training or evaluation for suitability?
Where I live in the UK, I've known girls who's sole plan in life is to leave school at 16, get pregnant by the first guy who comes along so they can then get on benefits and get a free council house as a single parent. And I found that offensive. No only because I pay my taxes which pay for their benefits while they sit around on their backsides doing nothing, but because it just seems a waste of a life to have such low goals.
You need a licence to drive a car, you need a licence to go fishing, you need a licence to own a dog. Hell in the UK you need a licence to watch TV. So why does something important like being responsible for a human life not require any sort of specialist training or evaluation for suitability?
To be fair it was implied in the benefit of strengthening the gene pool. In any case, in a later post I recant my support given my misunderstanding of the term 'eugenics'.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
As above. I will, however, say that your definition of fascism is as incorrect as my previous definition of eugenics (I'm not remotely saying I support fascism, just that you're using it incorrectly).AWAR said:
I am now a eugenicist in the same way that I am an atheist; I'd really prefer for only good genes to be passed on/everyone to become an atheist, but my liberal values prevent any action on either front that would infringe upon anyone's liberties.
Well no not really, especially if you read over my discussion with Hagi and EvilRoy. At the very least, any sort of biomodification that is not genetic cannot be considered a form of eugenics because it doesn't pass on to the next generation.CarlMinez said:
'Phones cause testicular cancer and brain tumours'CarlMinez said:
'Going over 20mph will cause permanent brain damage'
The wonder and risk of science is that you cannot know until you try. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you can hook yourself up to anything and there will be no bad consequences; my point is that blanket rejection of any technological advances without scrupulous testing and evidence is detrimental to human progress. Of course, if you reject inexorable human progress then this debate takes on an entirely different flavour. In any case, our entire sub-discussion is irrelevant to the OP's question on *eugenics*. As I said, although it might share common ground with transhumanism, they are certainly not one and the same
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, but it's really about as unethical as it could possibly be. Maybe an experiment with a group of volunteers would be in order--the scientific community would doubtless have many things to learn from something like that. However, it should never be enforced on a nation- or worldwide scale.
YAY! And I'm amazed that someone shares my opinion almost exactly to the letter on this subject O.OHardcore_gamer said:
While I am very much against people using it for selfish reasons or a warped sense of perfectionism, I do support using it to prevent the continuation of severe hereditary disorders and to help prevent social problems that arise from parents having children they cannot care for. Here in this third-world dump, I see thousands of people who sit on the road or townships living off scraps and drugs, and they have 5 siblings average! It is insane.
So I voted somewhat, yes I support the idea, but only used to prevent problems, not to "perfect" the human race.
I'm not going to get into the scientific arguments, since for me, they are less important than this: We, as human beings, have no right to control what our fellow human beings do unless their actions actually directly harm us. No, "there are too many people on the Earth" is not direct harm. No, "I want the human race to be better," is not an acceptable reason to control the freedoms of other people. Eugenics may not be evil, but it is dehumanizing. The idea that it's worth it to destroy some lives in order to save or improve a species is a false equivalence; the destruction of those lives is still wrong.
I think right now it's more important for humanity to focus on educating and aiding those parts of our civilization which have not yet caught up to the first world. If we want to reduce population growth and guide people towards smarter, stronger futures, the way to do that isn't to control the people - it's to give them access to the same high levels of technology, medicine, education, and so on that the developed world enjoys. Once that happens, statistically, birth rates will drop, IQs will go up, and we have at least partially corrected the problem without resorting to dehumanizing anyone.
Do I believe it's everyone's basic right to have children? I'm not sure. But I don't believe it is our basic right to make other people's life choices for them.
I think right now it's more important for humanity to focus on educating and aiding those parts of our civilization which have not yet caught up to the first world. If we want to reduce population growth and guide people towards smarter, stronger futures, the way to do that isn't to control the people - it's to give them access to the same high levels of technology, medicine, education, and so on that the developed world enjoys. Once that happens, statistically, birth rates will drop, IQs will go up, and we have at least partially corrected the problem without resorting to dehumanizing anyone.
Do I believe it's everyone's basic right to have children? I'm not sure. But I don't believe it is our basic right to make other people's life choices for them.
I say 'no' to eugenics. Historically, mankind has a habit of finding some reason why he's 'better' than the other man. We've seen it with racism, classism, nationalism, castes, and other such things.
The fact is; I don't know how humanity could go through a eugenics program without creating a class of 'lesser peoples' by default. There would be those who are considered 'superior' simply because of their genes; who would no-doubt be afforded more opportunities than the 'inferior' specimens.
Having 'bad genes' doesn't mean you don't have something to contribute to society.
The fact is; I don't know how humanity could go through a eugenics program without creating a class of 'lesser peoples' by default. There would be those who are considered 'superior' simply because of their genes; who would no-doubt be afforded more opportunities than the 'inferior' specimens.
Having 'bad genes' doesn't mean you don't have something to contribute to society.
It can be used for good, but it will most likely used for bad things. It is a great idea only if we got a model/template of a "desirable" or a "perfect" human that we are trying to achieve. Just an example would be that ancient Greece strong naturally muscular men were the ideal humans. In African tribes the idea human is Obese woman and tall agile men. My ideal human being is blond haired naturally strong bit under 180cm. personality: Logical, rational, calm, hard working, non-religious and sexually discreet (Basically sexual interest for breeding purposes not for pleasure). I am sure yours differences from that a lot. In order for us to use eugenics well and for good would mean we would all need to share the same opinions about what is a "human being" in it's essence and appearance.
Yes, by a corporation known for being indirectly responsible for the deaths of trade union workers in Colombia and Turkey, poisoning of large tracts of Indian farm land and large-scale local unemployment in El Salvador.Hardcore_gamer said:
Not disagreeing that the Nazis had some progressive ideas (cheap automobiles, motorways)but maybe pick some better examples next time? Furthermore since eugenics is essentially the concept of creating a genetic master race I would disagree with it if Nelson Mandela had suggested the idea.
Of course, Godwin's Law renders my argument pointless but what the heck.
But we are all human beings. Difference, and different view of "perfection," are inherent within is. There is NO perfect human being. No man is without sin, and I don't just mean from a religious standpoint - we all have vices, angers, loves, hates, and different things about us which are both ugly and beautiful. If you take that away, you're not aiding evolution, you're halting it.SinisterGehe said:
Eh. Eugenics is such a touchy subject for people. I prefer Genetic Engineering to Eugenics though, because it's manipulation of genes, not forced breeding. I like to consider myself a scientist. As such, I just want to be free to discover and create, what the general population chooses to do or decide about that is entirely upon them. If they want to take research and use it to kill everyone, I'll be dead so I can't very well complain. If a populace decides the research is too dangerous and can never be used, that's also fine. If I've finished, I'm probably bored and want to do something new anyway.
This is the way that I think about that kind of stuff.
This is the way that I think about that kind of stuff.
I don't support forcing people to not procreate, but I support recommending people with hereditary conditions not to procreate. i.e. I'd want people to make the choice of not procreating themselves, and I figure the government adding some incentive to the notion could perhaps help.
I think you misquoted me there..crankytoad said:
Im not saying that you should reject technological advances, im just saying if you know its bad for you and COULD manipulate your body and mind, then why do it?
The problem is that people think that all technological advances are safe.. Its before my time, but i remember hearing about mothers refusing to give their kids RC cars because of the dangers of the radiation and EMF..
But now, people dont give a flying fuck and happily gives there 4 year old kid a cellphone even though its widely accepted that those things are basicly microwave ovens in our pockets..
Its for another dicussion, but that shit IS dangerous in the long run..
For those that are interested in learning more about eugenics and its history of use in the United States and UK, I'd suggest reading the book "War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black. It's a little dry, since it's a history book, but its topic is very interesting.
As far as eugenics go, I'm against it. We attribute way more to DNA than it deserves credit for. Despite the problems people may have been born with, there are those that rise above their what others would predict for them to provide us with advancements that benefit the human race.
The problem with eugenics is that our predictions are often biased, wrong, or insignificant. The original eugenic programs introduced the IQ test. This test had questions about popular culture to prove that certain races and groups were genetically predetermined to be less intelligent because they didn't know the rules to the popular card game at the country club. Even if we just look at disease, would you want to deprive the world of the next Steven Hawking because of a genetic chance of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?
One of my favorite authors has severe dyslexia, but he publishes books anyway. In fact, he has attributed his dyslexia with influencing his writing style. Eugenics has a built in assumption that we are slaves to our circumstances and unable to excel beyond what life deals to us. The problem here is that this builds up a mentality where people quit trying to improve themselves and just settle for whatever life has dealt them. Complacency leads to mediocrity which in turn leads to downfall.
As far as eugenics go, I'm against it. We attribute way more to DNA than it deserves credit for. Despite the problems people may have been born with, there are those that rise above their what others would predict for them to provide us with advancements that benefit the human race.
The problem with eugenics is that our predictions are often biased, wrong, or insignificant. The original eugenic programs introduced the IQ test. This test had questions about popular culture to prove that certain races and groups were genetically predetermined to be less intelligent because they didn't know the rules to the popular card game at the country club. Even if we just look at disease, would you want to deprive the world of the next Steven Hawking because of a genetic chance of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?
One of my favorite authors has severe dyslexia, but he publishes books anyway. In fact, he has attributed his dyslexia with influencing his writing style. Eugenics has a built in assumption that we are slaves to our circumstances and unable to excel beyond what life deals to us. The problem here is that this builds up a mentality where people quit trying to improve themselves and just settle for whatever life has dealt them. Complacency leads to mediocrity which in turn leads to downfall.
