Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[Char-Nobyl]

I'm doing a study and in order for me to reach as wide an audience as possible, I'm presenting this poll here in the off-topic forum.

Yes, I'm sure several of you first thought a thread of this nature would be better suited for the Politics and Religion forum, but I have a motive for making this topic here in General Discussion.

Okay...but that's not a very good reason. It's honest, sure, but so is the cannabis legalization that "I just want to get high and not be arrested." You're posting it in the wrong section because you want more people to see it. But, I'll give you credit for being honest about it. Most people would have either not said anything, or just made up some bullshit reason.

[HEADING=3]What is Eugenics?[/HEADING]
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race.

Well, since we're working under that definition, no, I don't support eugenics. I do support regulating who can have children, but not by screening out people with "[un]desirable heritable characteristics."

With that in mind, consider the requirement of licenses before being allowed to have a child. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of legitimate test that doesn't discriminate and whatnot, but we're discussing ends, not means. The ends would be a state/country/world/whatever where a person needs more qualification than the right parts before they can birth and raise a child. Prove that you at least have the traits that would allow you to be a good parent, and the license is yours. Works for one birth, and you come back if you want more.

Screening would likely include a few factors, some weighing more heavily than others: financial stability, a standard background check, and your existing family size would all play into it, as would plenty of other standards I can't be arsed to think of.

And yes, plenty of people get pregnant "by accident," but there's a grace period that lets you apply and qualify even if you're already expecting. If you fail, and you don't have a family willing to accept the newly-birthed child (a family that passed the test), you're issued a fine, and the state finds a family for the child at its own expense. If you repeat that process a second time, the child will again have a home found for him/her, while the parent is incarcerated.

Phew. Got that out of my system. It's harsh, yeah, and even if it were implemented perfectly, I know full well that bad people can come from otherwise good parents.

Huh. "Imperfection born from a perfect system." Got a kind of Zen to it, I suppose. Describes humans pretty well, too. People talk about "the wrench in the works," but most of the time, the wrench is blameless. It's the guy who left it in the works that's to blame.

 

[Grottnikk]

Honest, non-flaming question: Isn't the population with the most diverse gene pool more likely to be able to adapt to changes? (If I'm remembering my old biology classes right) If that's the case, then doesn't eugenics seem a bit counterproductive in the long run? If you only allow people with all favourable traits to breed, you're gene pool is going to be as shallow as all hell, because who is 'perfect'?.

Biology aside, I think people ought to be able to choose who they have kids with. If that means they want to just have kids with whomever they love, then go ahead. If they want to pick and choose based on different criteria, then that's their prerogative. Lots of people already do it, in a way, when they choose a donor at a sperm bank.

My own personal opinion on what makes a person 'better', though, is that it goes way past biology (or at least way past our current understanding of it).

 

[jpoon]

I don't support forced eugenics but I will say one thing in support of it, there are a LOT of people [that I know of] that don't deserve the right to keep having children. I would be fine with a 1 child policy I suppose...

 

[KoalaKid]

Self-determination for the people of whatever nation is paramount, and eugenics takes away an individuals freedom of choice. Why should one person or government be aloud to choice what is best for everyone?

 

[Shockolate]

Ehhh, I somewhat support it i guess.

The second reason I don't want children is because I hate my genes.

 

[Happy_Mutant]

I find everyone's arguments interesting here, but the most obvious problem is we don't know nearly enough about genetics in general; we don't understand the core principals enough, we don't know how much genes control, and we don't know what methods of gene therapy work the best (if at all). Until we get a grasp on what genetics do, we shouldn't start experimenting with how to use genetics to improve ourselves.

It's a bit like asking "will you support the next war effort" before knowing who that war will be against, or for what. Sure, some will say "Absolutely!" or "No way!" on principal, but I don't think most of us want people making those policy decisions.

 

[General BrEeZy]

what did the scientist krogan on tuchanka in ME2 say?
...somethin' like "...those things take care of themselves. if Wrex is wrong, then he'll get torn to shreds, then the person with the next best idea comes along."

same principle: the problems in people will screw them over in the appropriate way; dont worry about it i say.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I support it to a degree.

 

[Ham_authority95]

It's not only an inhumane concept, but it's a bullshit concept that has been washed out of modern science since the early 20th century. It's not just because of Hitler that this isn't talked about anymore.

If you're a scientist or medical practitioner in the 21st century and you support eugenics as a method of curing diseases and "unwanted" traits, you will be a laughing stock.

 

[trigz04]

While I am opposed to it, I have still met people where my reaction was "You were ALLOWED to breed?"

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I believe in passive eugenics. Lets not coddle the weak and stupid. Let there be no laws demanding adults to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles. Let all drugs be legalized so people can OD to their hearts content.

Weed out the ninnies.

EDIT: I am also in favor of having reproductive rights taken away as punishment for certain crimes. We do not want your particular brand of crazy to live on, thankyouverymuch.

...I'd say this... but I don't want people to think I support this sort of thing. (Even if I do think stupid people should not reproduce)

 

[Sjakie]

I'm all for improving the human race as a whole. Eugenics is part of that. Same as with birth-control, gene-therapy.
If you dont try to improve yourself, your missing the point of life!

 

[Bobbity]

/edit
Crap, got this confused with genetic engineering in terms of preselecting sperm cells and all that. At least I think that's what I'm talking about, been ages since I've done anything on this topic.
ANYWAY, definitely not in favour of eugenics, no.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

No. It doesn't do anything but limit human freedom. With physical attributes, there's no reason for it. As far as I can tell, intelligence is determined by upbringing more than genetics, and our intelligence as a species has been improving over time. As for mental disabilities, we are more than capable of taking care of each other.

 

[tstorm823]

My reply to eugenics: most royalty spent centuries only keeping the genes they want in their families... enough said.

 

[MorgulMan]

To answer the question of eugenics as it was defined in the OP, no I do not support eugenics. I would go further, to say I oppose eugenics, will fight against eugenics, and believe that any government that tries to enact such a form of eugenics is fundamentally corrupt and should be overthrown.

Controlled breeding and forced sterilization treat those subjects on whom it is forced or coerced as property, as little more than cattle for the state or organization which tries to enforce it. This is a backwards view of the nature of things, unless of course (as proponents of such programs often do) one merely thinks that the right or moral thing to do is that which the strongest wishes to do. Hence my assertion above, that it should be killed with fire. Such a malformed and evil program is the sign of a malformed and evil governance, which should have a stake driven into its heart, its head severed, wolfs-bane stuffed in its mouth, followed by a burial at a crossroads.

 

[Silenttalker22]

They'd still be allowed to grow, to work, to play, to live their life to the end. They'd still be able to go to the hospital and get equal treatment. They'd still be allowed to marry and love whomever they wanted. No sort of signifying arm band or something like that. Just a simple sterilization to remove the chance of them breeding.

You honestly think there would need to be an armband? They'd be social rejects as soon as it happened in such a society. It wouldn't be a death sentence, it'd be a life sentence. No one would want to marry them except someone else of the class of "non-breeder". Honestly one of the more horrid solutions on here, short of the aggressive methods.

 

[Silenttalker22]

While I am opposed to it, I have still met people where my reaction was "You were ALLOWED to breed?"

Haven't we all -_-

 

[teisjm]

Dunno if this is the same, but while probably not aplicable in reality, limiting some peopel from having children don't strike me as an outright bad idea.
I'm not talking about genetics, but about expectet parental abillities.
To take an easy example, don't let hard drug addicts have children.
Don't let people currently locked in jail have children, at least not before they get out.
Don't let people with a history of pedophilia, wife-beating or other strong indicators of future abuse have children.

 

[UnusualStranger]

Spoiler: I think this needs to be reposted and read, simply because of the good material.

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'.

@Th3Ch33s3Cak3 and @Jabberwock King - bad company fallacy & association fallacy; just because the Nazis performed a bad kind of eugenics does not mean that all eugenics is bad. As Hardcore_gamer points out, Hitler himself was a staunch opponent of smoking (and cruelty to animals for that matter)

@Gunner 51 and @Rawne1980 - slippery slope argument; just because it may lead to a bad consequence doesn't mean either that it will or that the benefits of the original are automatically nullified (and this doesn't mean that I support eugenics no matter the cost, either)

@JoJoDeathunter, @SckizoBoy and @capper42 - just generally flawed logic. As a biologist, do you not think that man has been doing "something better than nature" for about 2,000 years now? As the only creature on Earth to be fortunate enough with sentient intelligence (and thanks evolution for that!) we've been making our lives better with each technological and medical breakthrough that is made. If you're right and we should not tamper in 'nature's business', why do you think it's alright to use vaccinations and anti-bacterial medication? For example, if you could choose between selective gene therapy and medication to eradicate Alzheimer's Disease, why *not* prevent all future occurrences rather than use a firefighter approach of removing it whenever you see it?

Notice my proposal there - selective gene therapy; THAT is eugenics. Not the forced sterilization of all those deemed to have a flaw. Not the intentional killing of those people either. Simply the insurance that such flaws will not reoccur again.

@Hagi - again slippery slope, as above. Let people who do not/can not take advantage of what modern science has to offer, the point is that as long as people *can*, the gene pool becomes stronger. On a personal side, these parents have been blessed with the assurance that their children will not suffer from whatever maladies science can prevent at the time. What's wrong with that?

@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)

Sorry for the essay, I just happened to click on this post and felt that eugenics was being horribly misrepresented in what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a witch-hunt

Alright, now that those things are taken care of...I support Eugenics. Why do I support them?

Largely because having babies is a skill that I don't think should be available to absolutely EVERYONE. And why is that? Because you can have a horrid blood disease, or some other debilitating disease which is only out of having kids, and what do you do? Pass it on to ANOTHER GENERATION. Why the hell are you doing that in the first place? Sounds like you are all too happy to pass on something that is terrible for your kids, but you figure that having kids is a "fun" thing to do, and "natural", even though you are likely surviving by unnatural medical means.

Second, I support them because much of humanity seems to have some strange idea that we should be able to make as many babies as we want, whenever we want, no matter the circumstance. From the animal standpoint, this is just stupid. Humanity doesn't have anything really keeping itself in check, meaning that we are almost completely in charge of what kind of population we have. No other thing on this planet has that choice. Meaning that we need to put a leash on ourselves, or we will end up doing something very stupid.

And finally, I support Eugenics because it means that we will actually be trying to better our species as a whole. As it stands right now, we combine every failure, every success, and every disease ridden individual who can make babies the same. Sad fact: They are not. It is sad that your disease ridden human being is not allowed to have a child, but you know what? In this scenario, you won't be making a child who will have the exact same horrid time as you did.