Why is the world so eugenics-happy? (rant)

Post Reply New Topic

It's a poverty that a child must die, so that a woman can live her life as she wishes. - Mother Teresa

There was a man who dreamed of abortion and euthanasia. That man was Hitler. Doctors blindly followed in his footsteps by doing genetic research and developing the technology to cause eugenics to happen. There was some British guy who came up with the idea of labelling people as undesirables, but I forget his name. He came up with the idea and Hitler acted on it, 200 years later. The doctors have been blindly following in Hitler's footsteps since 1933. I think that's horrible. I think it's wrong that certain populations have to be wiped out in order for old-fashioned people to feel more comfortable. There is something wrong with weeding people out of the human gene pool because of it. There are a lot of technology around to greatly reduce the health complications of people who have genetic conditions. There are also job training programmes that can assist people with various cognitive disorders find work. There are even reality TV shows around the world that help to make that possible. I think all people who are conceived should be given a chance at life and that people should give them a chance. It would strengthen the economy, but not everybody's going to do that. Not everybody feels the same way I do. The WP Nazi is a staunch Pro-Lifer. Go figure.

Everybody on WP is entitled to their own opinion about this.

I've always found Mother Teresa to be overrated. I think she may have been a bit of a sadist - she encouraged people to suffer rather than seek medical treatment.

I remember reading about that, as somehow suffering is a normal thing commonplace to the human condition.Seriously I doubt someone should have to suffer regardless of what form or duration that might take.

I had no idea about that. Than again, I know nothing.

I request that someone reply to my post.

Autism is by definition a disorder. However, just because something is a disorder doesn't mean it's inherently bad, and it can actually be of huge advantage to the society. Also, the question needs to come is the disorder inherent to the neurology of the person, or is it the result of the way it interacts with society? Disability is ultimately a social construct because evolution doesn't give a damn. There is no right or wrong, only what survives and what doesn't. But just because something ends up dying out doesn't mean it was inferior either, it just means it couldn't survive in the enviroment it was in. The question of whether someone with autism could live in ancient times is completely irrevelant, as we don't live in ancient times. We are a part of nature, and it changes as we change. The question we actually need to ask is 1. can autistic people survive if society supports them and 2. are autistic people valuable for being autistic? For at least some people on the spectrum, the clear answer is "yes" to both points.

If it's not something that's inheritable, it's not covered by eugenics. Eugenics is only considered with bringing about desirable genes. Anyway, there is NO evidence that autism is the result of toxins. What we actually have is evidence that autism isn't entirely genetic (which does NOT mean it's caused by a toxin), and some sketchy correlational studies which have connected autism to just about everything. Further analysis shows what is most likely going on is that toxins can cause mental retardation, and when mental retardation is comorbid with autism an actual diagnosis of autism is signficantly more likely.

Your last point makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of someone who actually understands how mental disorders work.

there are individuals in society who can't sleep a night without somehow plotting the downfall or utter extermination of those who oppose the notion of conformity all the while they lie to humanity by arguing that such lack of regard for life is for the greater good of the gene pool.

in other words they want to do what the NWO is already doing by enslaving humanity into a perilous orgy of blind obedience along with rigid conformity on steroids.

If autism is supposedly 100% genetic, then why are there identical twin pairs where one isn't autistic? The epigenome which is susceptible to environmental influence is responsible according to the best science.

The triple hit hypothesis is looking to be a theory.

Who said autism is 100% genetic? I specifically stated that we have "evidence that autism isn't entirely genetic". The problem is you don't understand what not being 100% genetic actually implies, thinking it means that there must be toxin involved or something.

The epigenome can be affected by outside factors. What factors do you think they are?

First, the epigenome doesn't even need to get involved to explain it. Second, I actually think they're mainly social factors, not biological ones. When it is biologically, it's probably not that it causes autism, but that it causes mental retardation which in turn makes the autism more likely to be diagnosed.

Such as stress or anxiety during pregnancy?

No, I mean social factors after birth. Stress and anxiety during pregnancy results in biological factors.

I agree rats_and_cats. I have an alternative argument for why eugenics is BS (at this point in human history) but I am a bit too exhausted to have people argue at me.

Why is there a 50/50 chance of autism from Fragile X? It is obviously increased in chances from a syndrome.

Fragile X is a genetic disorder, so I don't see what your point is.