• Eugenics
    22 replies, posted
I was amazed that there was no social darwinist on this forum who made the topic of eugenics so I decided to make one myself with all the disabled people in the news. For those of you who don't know; Eugenics is/was a movement o trying to improve the human gene pool by promoting the reproduction of people with "good genes" and by restricting the procreation of people with "bad genes"(will explain the quotes in a second). At first, it doesn't seem like a horrible idea; as a mater of fact, I guess I wouldn't mind smarter people having and taking care of more kids. My main gripe with the concept is forced birth control to people with worse genes. Firstly, genetics isn't as simple as "good + good equals more good" or bad + bad equals more bad". Because of certain traits have dominance over others called recessive traits and since genes can mutate and gain different properties; strong couples don't necessarily have good children and a man or woman with "weaker genes" don't necessarily have weak children. But the main reason I was putting quotes over good and bad and strong and weak is this; a if not the leading cause for eugenics is less illness prevalence, but it impairs nature's best defense against diseases and uncertainty:genetic diversity. We ultimately don't know what's best because that can change based on societal and natural causes. Traits that are desirable today and traits that were desirable 1000 years ago differed and traits that are desirable 1000 years from now will probably differ from traits desirable now. Not to mention that if a new disease springs up and people who other wise might of not been born due to lack of diversity, turn out to be resistant to it, that's aid and progress that's lost out on when trying to instate a certain kind of "ideal population" that's trying to protect against illnesses in the first place. To summarize, genetics is complex and trying to produce an ideal population can not only easily fail but backfire. But one of the biggest beefs with eugenics is it's potential and damage for corruption. Who gets to decide who does and doesn't have children? what classifies as having unfit genes? Autism or down syndrome? A parent with lung cancer or a heart disease? My point is that it can very easily prevent mostly normal people from having children. And don't even get me started on how easily it can be used for bigotry and discrimination. What is going to stop others from disallowing people to become parents because of race,religion, class,sexuality, or even just general background prejudice? Even if their was a system in place to try to minimize discrimination; things can easily lead to a tyranny by the majority and I don't even want to imagine what would happen if that system was also corrupted. To sum things up, the amount of harm it could do, especially if it was exploited, outweighs any good it could cause(which isn't a lot as I mentioned). In the end, trying to improve the gene pool by restricting people with conditions from having kids is not only inefficient and misguided but also a violation of human rights. It would be way more effective and ethical to work on gene testing and therapy.
The reason there are no or few social darwinists on this forum is because they inevitably get banned for their beliefs, which I think are rotten and stupid as they go against human rights.
there's nothing wrong with voluntary or self-imposed selective breeding but once you get into things like killing undesirables the whole eugenics thing gets pretty messed up
Nowadays they use Euphemisms like planned parenthood and designer babies. Eugenics isn't gone, it's just taking a break while we forget and get distracted by another generation of change and calamity. Tommorow's eugenics won't be camps, it will be syringes. People will recieve incentives to get sterilized, or customized.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41974546]Nowadays they use Euphemisms like planned parenthood and designer babies. Eugenics isn't gone, it's just taking a break while we forget and get distracted by another generation of change and calamity. Tommorow's eugenics won't be camps, it will be syringes. People will recieve incentives to get sterilized, or customized.[/QUOTE] Theeeeere we go, the argument that abortion is eugenics.
[QUOTE=Levithan;41976154]Theeeeere we go, the argument that abortion is eugenics.[/QUOTE] What? I didn't even mention abortion, I said sterilization, huge difference.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41968984]The reason there are no or few social darwinists on this forum is because they inevitably get banned for their beliefs, which I think are rotten and stupid as they go against human rights.[/QUOTE] Which are, a human construction.
If the government paid you to be sterilized and keep you from reproducing I don't see what the problem would be with practicing voluntary eugenics. I think a lot of traits are genetic and that the human race would profit from keeping strong genes in while keeping bad genes out. The process would be very long-term though and choosing which traits are good and bad would make a ton of people feel removed or entitled. There's also no real guarantee it will improve anything. We've never really seen eugenics practiced long enough to notice the effects it has on everyone as a whole. The future might need a stronger, faster, and smarter human and eugenics is a possible pathway to that goal.
The only vocal social darwinist I've come across here is Reader, he's pretty much attacked for every post so I get the idea that Eugenics isn't something we support a lot here.
the only type of eugenics i'd support is if parents know for certain that their child would suffer from some chronic debilitating disease like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis, theirs research and Britain just legalized it, where by a 3rd genetic donor could step in and add the right types of genes. i just can't really think of a way eugenics could be justified else wise unless they invent a way to manipulate people's genes after birth, then one could consent to it instead of being forced to do it.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;41976594]Which are, a human construction.[/QUOTE] That's a whole other debate. And I don't see how that's relevant either way.
Eugenics is definitely a tried and tested slippery slope. Within the spans of no less than a decade it can go from encouraged selective breeding, to government programs to sterilize the homeless, then who knows where from that point. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DeandreT;41976715]If the government paid you to be sterilized and keep you from reproducing I don't see what the problem would be with practicing voluntary eugenics. I think a lot of traits are genetic and that the human race would profit from keeping strong genes in while keeping bad genes out. [/QUOTE] There's no such thing as "bad genes." Genetic diversity is inherently a good thing, and selecting specific "desirable" genes for specific traits is paramount to inbreeding and causes genetic depression.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41989871] There's no such thing as "bad genes." [/QUOTE] This is so wrong, there's genes and bloodlines that have massive heart issues all the way down the line, ones which have massively increased rates of disease, and all sorts of other nasty stuff. The idea of eugenics sounds nice at first but then you realize that people have to be forcibly sterilized you realize that's just so awfully inhumane that it should never, ever happen.
The thing with Eugenics is it sounds great until you realize you're likely not the one who will be making the decisions. It's all fun and games until you have to deal with a DMV equivalent to have a baby.
[QUOTE=katbug;41989972]This is so wrong, there's genes and bloodlines that have massive heart issues all the way down the line, ones which have massively increased rates of disease, and all sorts of other nasty stuff. The idea of eugenics sounds nice at first but then you realize that people have to be forcibly sterilized you realize that's just so awfully inhumane that it should never, ever happen.[/QUOTE] Nature's way of keeping population of species in check. Bad for the individual, but in a natural sense, completely okay.
Well I don't believe in breeding people with down syndrome with normal people. That's saying they have penises. The reason why is because its asking for a fucked up child.
[QUOTE=Sally;41992621]Well I don't believe in breeding people with down syndrome with normal people. That's saying they have penises. The reason why is because its asking for a fucked up child.[/QUOTE] not that I would pork a mentally disabled person, but I'm not going to stop anyone from boning just because their kids might turn out a little bit different
Have no problem with eugenics. Ideally, such a program would begin with voluntary sterilization, followed by a more aggressive state-sponsored approach.
[QUOTE=Sally;41992621]Well I don't believe in breeding people with down syndrome with normal people. That's saying they have penises. The reason why is because its asking for a fucked up child.[/QUOTE] While the chance is increased, it's not assured that the offspring will be affected. [QUOTE=Log1um;41993447]Have no problem with eugenics. Ideally, such a program would begin with voluntary sterilization, followed by a more aggressive state-sponsored approach.[/QUOTE] And there we go folks, nazis are beginning to register. I guess this topic is going to be interesting, indeed.
[QUOTE=gufu;41993802] And there we go folks, nazis are beginning to register. I guess this topic is going to be interesting, indeed.[/QUOTE] Excuse me?
[QUOTE=Log1um;41994077]Excuse me?[/QUOTE] That was a nazi view that you were expressing
[QUOTE=Log1um;41993447]Have no problem with eugenics. Ideally, such a program would begin with voluntary sterilization, followed by a more aggressive state-sponsored approach.[/QUOTE] What entails of a "more aggressive state-sponsored approach"?
The used to be totally with eugenics until I thought of the criteria. Who actually decides what deems you to be sterilized? We don't know everything, so I don't think that it's a good idea to assume that we can just make it so a certain group of people can never reproduce based on some criteria that doesn't have any basis other than low IQ levels or something, which also doesn't actually mean anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.