Poll: Genes and children Or why some should not have kids

[Nicholas Woodruff]

We had an interesting discussion yesterday actually, about human evolution, and it actually relates to this. So shut up, and listen up.

Now, I'm a creationist, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in Human Evolution, but the rest of it I know for a fact exists. So bear with me here.

Humans, as a species, have reached a point where we defy evolution. If it gets cold, all of the ones not fit to the cold die off, leaving the hairier humans to live in the cold, we go inside, crank up the thermostat, put on some sweaters and listen to The Greatest Hits of Louis Armstrong.

So, by defying evolution, we defy Natural Selection. In fact, we use what is called a Artificial Selection. We die, when our bodies can no longer take it, not when natures condition destroys us. We have machines that help us live, and defy the process of natural selection.

Now don't fight my statement with "What if we die in a fire, drown, a tree falls on us, etc. etc." because we all know that current technology we can be saved, or live longer, if we recieve medical attention. And just being ourselves now a days, we defy natural selection.

So, to return on topic, and tie this all together, if we defy evolution and natural selection, there is no need for us to become Hitler, and try to 'Purify the Race,' which is exactly what this entire discussion is.

'Cleaning' the gene pool.

 

[JoeThree]

I swear to Christ... ANOTHER one of these threads?

What is with Asperger patients in forums and this shit? I get it, you were picked on and either wish the mean old bullies were never born, or you weren't. Move along, and for the love of shit, can we go a month or so without one of these stupid things?

 

[Liam Barden]

As an antinatalist, I have noticed the conspicuous lack of a 'NOBODY is responsible enough to create life' option on your poll.

I guess I have to go with no, since I dont think anybody should breed.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

There is more to life than appearance. If you think otherwise then I can understand why you wouldn't want to be alive, since beauty is subjective and you can NEVER be beautiful to everyone.

It's an impossible goal and you will only make yourself miserable if you try to pursue it.

. And just being ourselves now a days, we defy natural selection.

Natural selection isn't down to an individual its a species related concept. As a species we have great intelligence. That we have developed through natural selection. Therefore hospitals, central heating and safe houses are part of natural selection. We are extending our life spans. The age of retirement is going up. We are merely making humanity live longer as a species not defying natural selection.

Being over 30 years old was considered old in the middle ages...

 

[Johnny Impact]

I think stupid people shouldn't breed but that's an entirely different topic. I do think people should be screened not for genetic defects but for how good of a parent they would be.

Yes. Why we don't do this is beyond me. People love to claim it's everyone's right to have children. Why? Where did we dredge up this idea? Mother nature thinks it's right for the stupid to be eaten by tigers before they can breed. I happen to think it's society's right not to be held back constantly by people so dumb I can't believe they can put their pants on by themselves. If there truly is such a thing as "piss in the gene pool," stupidity is it.

As for parenting skills being a requirement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Colony. Fiction or not, we could learn a thing or two from such progressiveness.

OT: Not breeding because you're not physically perfect? Not so much. Who among us is perfectly formed? Let's see, we've got Catherine Zeta-Jones, and, hmm...nobody else. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her, making the whole next generation of humanity by herself.

Also, who decides what is attractive? Patrick Stewart is old, bald, and has a nose like the prow of an icebreaking ship. He's still considered one of the sexiest men alive. We also have things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring : freakish to the West, beautiful to the cultures who practice it. I happen to think body piercings are gross but these days you can hardly find an American without four or five. Beauty is subjective.

If you have a serious disorder that will be passed on, making the life of your offspring unpleasant, or expensive for society to support, it must be considered before you make your decision. Even then, you probably shouldn't be forbidden to breed for that reason.

 

[JambalayaBob]

So what you're saying is, this ***** wants a totalitarian government to decide who can have the personal freedom to do what they want with their own body? Yup, that sums it up. If you deny that this is what she was thinking, then just look at one scenario: What if you couldn't have children because you were bald at 25 or had bad acne? That doesn't even make any sense! What if the one thing you and your spouse still really wanted in your life was a child, and some bullshit test to make us closer to a "Master Race" stood in the way of that? Good looks are very subjective anyways, so this is just plain stupid. Anyways, we're actually programmed to find people that look like us in some way, this is why really fat people usually end up with really fat people for instance, and it's also why the Westermarck Effect happens, leading to minorities probably being discriminated against because most Americans are white, and I doubt people would base these tests for every race, since each ethnicity has different bone structure and are prone to different diseases.

 

[Brandon237]

Using eugenics for cosmetic traits is just wrong. I do support using it to remove dangerous hereditary diseases and to stop people who don't have the means to look after children from having children (social issues and such), but for cosmetic, arbitrary purposes? Hell to the no.

 

[WrathOfAchilles]

Baldness we can deal with. We need to stop the stupid and poor from multiplying. We're already headed for the movie Idiocracy. As for genetic problems we need to focus on removing them from the gene sequence itself not just isolate the people.

 

[psychodynamica]

Define, 'Good' genetic make up please. anyway i don't think we have the capability to decides that. in the cases of very genetically damaged people i would expect them not to have kids voluntarily, because putting a child through that ordeal horrifies me, but it should not be actively stopped as that would be just as horrific.

 

[orangeban]

Baldness we can deal with. We need to stop the stupid and poor from multiplying. We're already headed for the movie Idiocracy. As for genetic problems we need to focus on removing them from the gene sequence itself not just isolate the people.

Stop the poor from breeding? Gah, classism gland flaring. Okay, you can't just lump stupid and poor together, they are very, very different things. People aren't poor because of their genes, or because they are stupid, it's almost always because of circumstance. You can't just deny them a human right because they are poor.

 

[mrdude2010]

you start out with this and pretty soon you'll be conditioning people to accept certain jobs and consume more, and discouraging certain kinds of science that could make people unhappy, and banning media that causes passion

 

[teebeeohh]

1. everybody has the right to have children, because they want to.
2. shouldn't we rather eliminate the people who are shallow douchebags because a society full of balding bad-skinned smart people is gonna do a lot better than a society full of pretty people.

 

[aba1]

She can go fuck herself.
Does this mean i wouldn't be able to have children?
Becasue i have ADD amd pale skin?

There is no reason why people shouldn't breed, she is completely wrong.

I am in the same boat on both accounts as you but I think what the lady was getting at was deseases and things like a bad heart or other things that can be passed on. Her idea would in theory work and the ends makes sence but as the old saying goes "the means dont justify the ends". What should really happen is in the poor countries with all thep probelm in africa need a complete overhaul of there society only problem is that things like that take time money and alot of cooperation which none of is there.

 

[DementedSheep]

I kinda agree with hereditary illnesses (major ones) tho I don't know whether it should be law. I personally never want to have kids of my own because there are a fair amount of issues in my family tho I seem to have dodged the bullet with all them so far I could still pass them onto my kid. There is also the reason of parent with mental problems having kids, then not being able to look after them. Cosmetic reasons tho? Fuck off and that shit is subjective anyway.

 

[Avistew]

I can understand the feeling. I think it makes sense for people with serious disabilities to refrain from having biological kids and look towards other option in order to spare their kids if it's hereditary. I can see how consciously having a kid who, for instance, will never be able to walk and you knew it, could be compared with having a kid who can walk and breaking their spine so they can't anymore. Because you did that to this person, when you could have avoided doing so.

I think people with handicaps are deserving members of the community, but that sparing suffering for someone who doesn't even exist yet and instead taking care of a kid who already exists (and even better, one with your disability: it won't be your fault and you already know how to deal with it and give them the best life possible) is a good thing.

This kind of thing could never be enforced though. How would you decide what's okay or not? How would you enforce it? Forced sterilisation? Forced abortions? No, it needs to be a conscious decision on people's part.

And some things are really normal. Nobody has a perfect health. You need to wonder if it will seriously affect their physical and psychological health and make their life horrible.

 

[MorgulMan]

Let me put it this way. It seems you are asking the following:

"It started me wondering can anyone think of a reason why people with bad gene should [be allowed to] have children?"

I would put it differently.

"Why should the government be allowed to regulate who has children?"

I am not the property of my local, state, or federal government. There is not a bar code on my posterior, nor a bill of sale, nor any brand nor any other indication that I belong to the government in any way, shape, or form. Now, I am certainly subject to its just and properly drafted laws. And I may be punished or imprisoned if I violate those laws. But the government cannot tell me whom I must wed, or whether or not I can have children, legitimately. Any government that thinks it can is a vile, despicable counterfeit of proper government, and men of good will who find themselves under it should endeavor with all the might they have (using just and prudent means proportionate to the situation) to its destruction and replacement.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept that the government has the right and interest to regulate breeding through some sort of magical thinking like, "Because we are strong and you are weak, therefore we have whatever rights we can grasp and hold," the question would still be open as to what traits should be regulated out. Is tallness a boon or a curse? How about eye color? What about the unpredictable nature of the human spirit and intellect? "I'm sorry, Mr. & Mrs. Hawking. Genetic tests show that any offspring of yours would likely suffer from a severe nerve disease, leaving him or her paralyzed and sickly. Your application for reproduction is denied." What citizen of such a country could argue with this decision, to prevent the conception of a child sure to be a drain on the resources of all those around him, surely unable to contribute even the slightest to society at large?

Okay, getting too snarky here. Best to stop now. I'll just go back to breeding an army of freakishly tall red-heads like myself, the better to crush you inferior dark-haired fools.

 

[teisjm]

People like that woman are the reason for the problems she's talking about, not people without model-looks.
Some decades ago (i don't know how many, history isn't my strong side) black people were seen as second class people in many parts of the west, and even today, racism ain't dead.
What that woman is saying is compareable to someone back then saying that black people shouldn't have children, cause they would have a harder time than white children.
Today, that would come off as foul racism, and be shunned by the wast majority of people.
Yet i'm supprized to see so many people vote yes in the poll, when it clearly states that we're talking about cosmetics here.
Not intelegence, not health, not strength, but looks. Something that will have as little, if any impact at all on your abillity to perform a job, as the color of your skin.

Also, a whole different problem with that suggesting is this:
beauty is relative, let, for the sake of the example, classify peoples looks on a scale form 1-10, 1 beeing butt-ugly and 10 beeing gorgeous.
You could say that 7-10 ranks as good-looking.
If you bred out the 1-6's and everyone was 7-10, after people had gotten used to it (a few generations, perhaps less) 7 would be the bottom of the ladder, and considered butt ugly.
Unlike stuff like intelegence, health, and strength, beauty only works comparatively.
If everyone is a 10, you're still ugly as a 7, despite how you would have been viewed 50 years ago, where 7 was considered good (going with the breeding example)
If everyone can bench press 500kg, and you can only do 300, it's still more than 200, and enables you do do more then you would've otherwise could, despite the majority beeing more proficcient than you.

So if you wanna enhance humanity by breeding, focus on the areas that'll actually make a difference, and ehance us, and not something relative and superficial like looks, that can only lead to an endless spiral of futile attempts.

As for the screening of who could become a parent, i like that idea a whole lot more, as this could help reduce child abuse, and children becoming victims of terrible parrenting.

 

[Innegativeion]

Saying "good genetics" as if there is a theoretical evolutionary peak for which genes can be scaled in quality against; are you closer to the evolutionary peak or farther away?

(protip: That's not how evolution works)

 

[WrathOfAchilles]

Baldness we can deal with. We need to stop the stupid and poor from multiplying. We're already headed for the movie Idiocracy. As for genetic problems we need to focus on removing them from the gene sequence itself not just isolate the people.

Stop the poor from breeding? Gah, classism gland flaring. Okay, you can't just lump stupid and poor together, they are very, very different things. People aren't poor because of their genes, or because they are stupid, it's almost always because of circumstance. You can't just deny them a human right because they are poor.

I didn't say anything about either being linked to one another or either being genetic, only an idiot would believe that. While stupid isn't genetic it makes for bad parenting. Poor parenting leads to poorly behaved kids which leads to stupid adults which returns to bad parenting and so on. We don't need their offspring filling the earth.

As for the poor, yet again, not genetic AS I STATED ORIGINALLY by placing them in separate sentences. Their breeding should be limited. Who do you think pays for their welfare or hospital visits? Your taxes do. That's an unneeded strain on any country. Open you eyes and look around, on AVERAGE the higher intelligence individuals have 1 or a few kids. The people living in a 1x4 shack or trailer with flat tires kick out 4 or more.

Instead of looking for classism so you can stand up for the little guy pay attention to the reality of the world. These people are kicking out kids because they have nothing better to do then screw everything that moves and it will eventually drag you and your kids down.

BTW, I voted no on the poll because I understand genes are a separate issue from this. The world is run by morons. If you let them pick the genes to use it would only be movie stars having kids and then we'd be doomed to be retarded anyways.