Should inbreds be euthanized?

Post Reply New Topic

Bred and butter topic

Speaking of "incest", as a result of my ancestry search i have found I am related to thousands of UK citizens, but no royalty (thankfully). I may well be even "related" to my first born daughter as her father had relatives from the same Lancastershire area as mine in the 18th century, and because the town was small, there is a high probability of a common ancestor.

The UK is a small country, and for those with British ancestry, many family trees will overlap.

Offspring born as a result of incestuous relationships involving close relatives (eg, bother and sister ) are not to blame for their plight. But repeated incestuous behaviours are a problem, but not common in the general population. There is no slippery slope here. The British royal family is not a product of incest so much as it is a product of producing children outside of marriage, making them royalty, and then continuing to procreate with them, at least in the past. Among the younger royals, this "incestrend" has stopped at Diana, who was distantly related to Charles, as is Camilla.

Bred and butter topic

Speaking of "incest", as a result of my ancestry search i have found I am related to thousands of UK citizens, but no royalty (thankfully). I may well be even "related" to my first born daughter as her father had relatives from the same Lancastershire area as mine in the 18th century, and because the town was small, there is a high probability of a common ancestor.

The UK is a small country, and for those with British ancestry, many family trees will overlap.

Offspring born as a result of incestuous relationships involving close relatives (eg, bother and sister ) are not to blame for their plight. But repeated incestuous behaviours are a problem, but not common in the general population. There is no slippery slope here. The British royal family is not a product of incest so much as it is a product of producing children outside of marriage, making them royalty, and then continuing to procreate with them, at least in the past. Among the younger royals, this "incestrend" has stopped at Diana, who was distantly related to Charles, as is Camilla.

When society starts deciding who should live and die, that's when things start going off the rails. First they'd target ret*d and infirmed people, next they'd start targeting ethnic groups that were believed to be racially inferior and a drain on society. ...or just people that are different. They'd probably even kill autistics. That's how it worked in Nazi Germany. I see eugenics as a very cold, superficial, and non-spiritual outlook that looks at people too objectively and not individualistically.

I guess everyone has the right to be wrong, but I don't think people have the right to stay wrong after being corrected.

Darwin never said that the strongest survives, or at least not in the manner that you proclaim it. He stated that the fittest survives. That is, the individually that is better-suited for the environment in which he currently lives.

The problem with the social "Darwinists" and proponents of eugenics, is that they believe they can decide who is the 'strongest'. They believe that their arbitrary laws, and beliefs based on prejudice coincide with nature's opinion about it.

The problem is that you are not that smart, you are still worthless human beings that cannot predict what is more suitable to the environment. You cannot even predict what the environment will be.

And it is not a logical conclusion from Darwin's work. Darwin just presented us a mechanic that allows the differentiability in species through a simple method. He never presented a way to know which individuals will or should survive.