Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As long as it`s to cull out disabilities and diseases. However if it is used to just bring up certain traits such as beauty (genetic traits such as bigger...ahem...appendages or blond hair) then it is completly wrong.
however i am surprised to see a great majority of people voted no. which makes me wonder if they`re just ethical wimps, or if they see how this could go wrong. (either that or they are gentically undesirable themselves and are just trying to protect themselves)
no offense to those who voted no, i`m just saying.
however i am surprised to see a great majority of people voted no. which makes me wonder if they`re just ethical wimps, or if they see how this could go wrong. (either that or they are gentically undesirable themselves and are just trying to protect themselves)
no offense to those who voted no, i`m just saying.
Umm, it was a joke, sorry if that wasn't clear. You were saying about swine flu, and I realised that I had some traits that made me des... You know, forget it, it was a crappy joke.xFreekill said:I don't understand how I made eugenics appear better.orangeban said:Oooh, suddenly I'm much more favourable to eugenics now I know it could work for me!xFreekill said:(I've already had swine flu, which makes me immune, provided it doesn't mutate to much (that is how it works right?))
Thats why they call it all these other names, such as Transhumanism, Social Darwinism and a bunch of others that i cant remember..The Unworthy Gentleman said:
And just look at mainstream movies and music videos.. Transhumanism and dehumaniation all over the place, thats how they want to make it popular..
I don't support it, largely from having read a fair bit about the eugenics project done here in Sweden during the 30's to 70's, but also due to the huge timespan necessary to make any real difference in the human genome. Even forced, selective and highly sped up evolution will still take many generations before there is any major difference, and there is no way to be sure that change will be for the better. Add to that that eugenics would have to be practiced in the same way all over the world to avoid immigrants from nations which do not practice it to mess up the project for the nation they immigrate to. It also gives a worrying type and amount of power to a small number of people.
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.GWarface said:
Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.
I'm not going to get into a scientific argument on how eugenics can or cannot improve the human race, but as I see it supporting eugenics instantly makes you classify human beings based on certain traits and then choosing who gets to have certain privileges (like reproducing) and who doesn't. So as far as I'm concerned, that is by definition Fascism and in my book absolutely nothing justifies fascism. All people should be entitled to proper healthcare, education and opportunities regardless any differences they might have. Consequently there aren't different kinds of "good" or "bad" eugenics.crankytoad said:
Despite the destruction and dehumanisation eugenics brought us since their introduction, people tend to forget. Do you know that during early 20th century America you could get neutered for having bad grades as a student? It's also true that eugenics played a huge role in Hitler's rise to power and manipulation of the public, dragging Europe to a devastating war.
Well, yes actually.
We already apply eugenics* to every aspect of our life from the crops we grow to babies in the womb. It's thoroughly woven into our lives, the important thing is that it's applied with a degree of perspective and moderation.
Like most things, it becomes very destructive when taken to extremes.
Eugenics refers to influencing the reproduction of any population of any species, not just humans
We already apply eugenics* to every aspect of our life from the crops we grow to babies in the womb. It's thoroughly woven into our lives, the important thing is that it's applied with a degree of perspective and moderation.
Like most things, it becomes very destructive when taken to extremes.
Eugenics refers to influencing the reproduction of any population of any species, not just humans
That certain government didn't practice eugenics, it practiced butchery and terror.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
Yes in theory, no in practice.
Too many factors that need to be considered, hard to control it / make sure government won't go rogue with it, and of course morals and ethnics.
Also, Americans used eugenics before Hitler did. In fact, that's where Hitler got the idea.
Too many factors that need to be considered, hard to control it / make sure government won't go rogue with it, and of course morals and ethnics.
Also, Americans used eugenics before Hitler did. In fact, that's where Hitler got the idea.
Besides getting rid of illnesses and such, I don't see any reason that is good enough not to let people have children if they want to.
Even on the off chance that we actually succeed, what use would it be? We humans are already the most intelligent and together with the weapons, the strongest beings on this planet.
Even on the off chance that we actually succeed, what use would it be? We humans are already the most intelligent and together with the weapons, the strongest beings on this planet.
Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..Pandaman1911 said:
I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..
And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..
Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..
Eugenics is flawed because a species' longevity is determined by its variety. There was an observational study done in the British Isle a long while back. Essentially a group of scientists kept track of the population levels of a certain type of moth that came in two distinct colors: brown and white. They found that the each color's prevalence fluctuated with the seasons. During the summer the brown moths were higher in number while during winter the white moths were higher. Predators went after the moths that they could see. The difference was which camouflage was adaptive or mal-adaptive. This demonstrates that while certain genes may be mal-adaptive now, they may become the adaptive gene later and vice versa. Also, the presence of certain genes does not mean 100% that something will manifest, it just leaves people at a higher or lower propensity for whatever that gene triggers.
Because we know (relatively) little about genetics, we should not manipulate them (trust me, finding the answer is like combating HYDRA, the more answers you find, the more questions that crop up). Our reach is beyond our grasp in this case.
On a more social level, one's decision needs to consider whether they care more about what they consider the "greater good" versus how much they care about self-determination.
Because we know (relatively) little about genetics, we should not manipulate them (trust me, finding the answer is like combating HYDRA, the more answers you find, the more questions that crop up). Our reach is beyond our grasp in this case.
On a more social level, one's decision needs to consider whether they care more about what they consider the "greater good" versus how much they care about self-determination.
That really covers the whole debate. Everything can be argued for positive until selfish, irrational humans get into the formula. Then it turns bad in, what is no doubt, 100% of cases. Not to mention the above argument that our variety is what ensures we don't all have the same vulnerabilities.Comieman said:
Also, I'm against forced preservation laws, like the seatbelt. The one guy argued on page 1 that it's for the kid so their dad doesn't die. Good, now he won't reproduce, and the kids are smarter and will probably buckle up.
Edit: I just remembered this quote on the wall at work that works well:
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
Charles Darwin
As soon as the media gets wind of a political policy though it'll be called eugenics. No matter how many different names you give it, it'll always revert back to eugenics if the media want to turn people against it.GWarface said:
I've always pictured people who supported it a little something like this "I am superior to everyone else because i am good at math and science yet nothing else, i feel because i am "smart" i am superior and we should have eugenics because i am social awkward and no one likes my superior tendencies!" Goodness i used superior and because a lot in that
Aah yes.. IF the media want the people to turn against it.. But what if the media is owned by those people that wants this to be introduced?The Unworthy Gentleman said:
Try looking up how many companies controls the mainstream media (im talking mostly US now) and you will be suprised..
I do not support taking rights away from the people and giving them to the government no matter the benefit. Plus, our understanding of the human DNA, whilst not in its infancy, is not enough to properly predict the genetic makeup of an individual. Anyone who supports eugenics has a gross misunderstanding of genetics.