Poll: Natural Selection

[Dinwatr]

How do people still think eugenics has anything to offer?

But okay, let's pretend there wasn't a history of violence and degredation associated with this idea. The concept remains unevidence.

Put into evolutionary terms (and it's quite telling that no eugenecist does this), eugenics states that humans are in a low portion of fitness space, and it will take intelligent, top-down intervention to move us to a local fitness high. Sounds reasonable; we can say the same thing about any number of organisms, particularly in regards to a perturbed environment like our own. However, the entire thing is peredicated upon having a model of fitness space for humans.

In other words, in order to present eugenics as anything other than a baseless, subjective desire to remake humanity to fit some a priori view of what humans "should" be, you must present the fitness space model you are working with. That model is REQUIRED for ANY eugenics end goal to be taken as anything other than subjective nonsense, as that model is how a serious researcher would construct any rational end goal. Without it, you're simply ignoring the difference between the term "fit" as used in evolutionary theory and as used in social discusions.

When you do that, we can continue this discussion--again, ignoring ad arguendum the previously mentioned history of violence and degredation. And we're also not getting into the problems of implementation (there are three ways: mass slaughter of "inferiors", concentration camps, and forced sterilization, and in my opinion anyone not volunteering for one of these three options should be excluded from proposing them). But let's put the horse before the cart--please present your fitness space model. I'm sure anyone seriously presenting such a....controversial....idea has done their homework.

 

[AngloDoom]

Why don't we just kill everyone who doesn't have an IQ of at least 120 or has an annual income less than average? Or people who can't walk for five miles? People with glasses? People who can't remember the correct lyrics to songs I like? Or dog people?

Alternatively, why do any of those things?

 

[BrassButtons]

I've been thinking about the genetics of the human species and about how I've been hearing a trend about people with mental/physical disabilities seem to be getting only more and more prevalent, and about how we seem to make sure every human stays alive, whether it's drawbacks can outweigh the good, meaning it can completely remove Natural Selection to make a species stronger genetically

Natural Selection is a game we can't not play. And you're wrong--every human doesn't survive. Miscarriages and still births are still a thing. And even if the birth goes fine, people still die before getting a chance to pass on their genes. And then of course there's the selection process that goes into making the baby to begin with--some people aren't as good at attracting mates as others. And even if they do attract a mate, the woman needs to actually conceive. Which means they either can't be using birth control or it can't be effective, and the woman and man must both be capable of producing offspring, and then an egg actually has to get fertilized, and it has to implant, and then it has to go to full term--lots of room for natural selection to occur before the woman even realizes anything has happened.

but it seems when the topic of having selective breeding or put to sleep, but it seems if you want to talk about this as an issue you will be regarded as a Nazi to the general population. But wouldn't the species get stronger in the future with it

No, because we don't know what will be best for our species in the future. Hell, we don't know which traits are best now. My friend has an irregular heart rhythm which can and has caused issues for him. But it's the result of his heart having an extra valve, which could save his life if one of the others fail. So is that trait good or bad? What about light vs dark skin? People with light skin can produce vitamin D more easily, while people with dark skin are less prone to skin cancer. So which trait is better? How about the sickle-cell trait? If you just get one copy of the gene then it helps protect against malaria, but if you get two copies then it gives you sickle-cell disease. So is it a good or bad trait?

is it still morally correct?

Depends on how you do it. If you're just politely asking people with "bad" genetics to not breed then it's completely moral, and also guaranteed to fail. If you want your program to actually work then you're looking at things like forced sterilization of the undesirables, forced breeding of the desirables (otherwise known as "rape"), and quite possibly mass murder. Because people really don't like being told what to do with their genitals, and you will need to use violence to make them comply.

I would say yes, and in an ideal world, by putting them to sleep so they aren't an economic drain, but that's my opinion, and I'm curious what others would say if they thought about it as well.

I think you're advocating genocide. So, Heil SadisticFire?

 

[moostar]

No, its wrong to just execute those who don't live up upon "advancing" the human race. Its a power that can easily be abused, and would just cause a series of controversial conflicts.

 

[Caiphus]

I dunno. I was born with jaundice, so am I on the chopping block too?

Most of those with significant defects like Down's Syndrome have trouble procreating anyway. I believe that males with Down's are usually sterile.

So even if we disregard that, absolutely not. Killing people or neutering them because they don't fit our perceived definition of an acceptable human being is just morally repulsive, frankly.

 

[Dinwatr]

No, its wrong to just execute those who don't live up upon "advancing" the human race. Its a power that can easily be abused, and would just cause a series of controversial conflicts.

Correction: There's literally no way to NOT abuse this power. Evolution is a lot of really crappy traidoffs. BrassButtons mentioned a few of them, enough to illustrate a critical point: in advancing pretty much any "ideal" trait you're going to introduce a number of detrimental traits. This is why a fitness space model is so critical: only such a model will allow us to determine how to perform the cost/benefit analysis in anything resembling an objective manner. Any other methodology results in nothing but subjective justification of the speaker's a priori desires, hardly a scientific procedure.

 

[Souplex]

What you're talking about is called "Eugenics".
I like the idea, but I'm worried about who would manage it.
Edit: I wasn't sure if the site ate my post, so I accidentally double posted.
I feel dirty.

 

[Souplex]

It's called eugenics.
I like the idea in theory, but it has a dirty history of racism, and if we were to regulate who can breed, I worry about who would be in charge of deciding who would get to.

 

[FalloutJack]

I wouldn't trust most judgements. People who have disabilities are not 'more prevalent'. They're getting more recognized for what they are, instead of being called crazy or some other misdiagnosis. Even still, if you want to go experiment with eugenics, the only program I want to hear is about getting rid of dumb-as-shit people who don't even have a disability. Really stupid assholes who, logically, should have lived a fairly-decent life if they gave two shits about it and tried. There are some people that need to be banned from the gene pool because there is really nothing there worth having.