Good Genes: An Argument for Eugenics
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Everyone. The trick is to come to an agreement.
Well, what the majority may judge as unworthy may not be so to the individual target.
People are different; the valuations are different.
To me, the more faith in life, the more the value of life.
To deprive oneself in order to cause the Overman least "inconvenience." That is what I'm calling sacrifice.
I don't want to sound harsh: but moderate 'exploitation' should not be regarded evil. It's such a human quality.
_________________
I choose to be happy.
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
CockneyRebel
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,450
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
In my opnion it would depend on the illness/disability.
Downs children can lead happy and productive lives,a relative has cerebral palsy but he was able to become an Eagle Scout and is also one of the most intelligent human being I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
On the other hand a birth defect or genetic illness that removes ALL quality of live and will eventually be fatal should be prevented.One of my daughters friends gave birth to a child with a genetically passed illness.Im sorry I can't remember the name,but it effected the skin(collagen?) and it looked like it was sliding off his body.He constantly had lungs filling with fluid,constant trips to a special hospital.No cure,he lived a few years and it was all misery.
Misery for him,misery for the helpless parents.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
If eugenics ever gets established in society, not only people with autism will suffer discrimination, but eventually also people to whom eugenics is beyond their reach. Some new kind of "racism" will be born.
The same supermen have made wars, massacres, enslavement, pollution, animal abuse, etc.
Are you all confusing autism with failure, moral corruption, spiritual poverty, depression, etc?
_________________
I choose to be happy.
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
This is a likely possibility. The rich will make use of the new technology because they can afford it and the gap between the haves and the have-nots will be even greater. Reminds me of that movie Elysium with Matt Damon.
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
The wonders are overrated.
I have to agree with Ann. Life is mainly one big bucket of poo, with most people deliberately brainwashed so that not only do they not dare to say that the emperor has no clothes, they truly see clothes where there are none. There are no "wonders" of life. Life is one big endurance test, not a wonderful "experience".
If some people are defective, why shouldn't they be given the option of getting off spaceship earth so that the resources they consume may be put to better use?
As for another poster, yes if given the chance to die peacefully I would take it. The main problem is, suicide is very difficult due to the innate biological drive to survive which is not even conscious. This is why murder is so much easier to succeed at than suicide.
If you try to kill yourself, even if you succeed you will most likely go through a real nasty period where your body fights to live. Pills can take several weeks to destroy your liver. Even a gunshot to the head doesn't work right away, you usually take 12 hours or so to die.
The gas chambers were another really awful way to die, chosen for their ability to kill large numbers of people quickly, and Zyklon B chosen for its 100% fatality rate. The gassed writhed in agony as their bodies tried to fight the gas. It was similar to drowning, apparently.
So, I'm stuck in a position where two idiots had a sick kid, and now the kid is in his 40s and unable to contribute to society, just sucking up resources, and he can't override his innate genetic survival instinct to resolve the situation. It sucks.
So all of us 'defectives' should kill ourselves/volunteer for euthanasia so that we aren't taking away the air we breath, food we eat or any other resources from the better people. Yeah I think I will say no thanks and continue consuming resources.
I mean I am all for euthanasia for terminally ill/dying people who choose to have it done, I'd certainly opt for that rather than laying in a hospital bed for months with no chance of recovery with people trying to keep me alive 'just a little longer.' But yeah I certainly don't think it is a valid way to handle people with disabilities/conditions so they aren't 'wasting resources' not sure how resources used to help people are a 'waste' to begin with.
_________________
Metal never dies. \m/
Last edited by Sweetleaf on 06 Dec 2016, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Downs children can lead happy and productive lives,a relative has cerebral palsy but he was able to become an Eagle Scout and is also one of the most intelligent human being I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
On the other hand a birth defect or genetic illness that removes ALL quality of live and will eventually be fatal should be prevented.One of my daughters friends gave birth to a child with a genetically passed illness.Im sorry I can't remember the name,but it effected the skin(collagen?) and it looked like it was sliding off his body.He constantly had lungs filling with fluid,constant trips to a special hospital.No cure,he lived a few years and it was all misery.
Misery for him,misery for the helpless parents.
See that there seems like a fair case, I guess I am sort of of the position euthanasia should be done to stop suffering when there isn't a treatment or cure or anything that can alleviate it at all, the goal should never be to preserve resources for 'non-defective people'. In a case like that I would not find fault in ending that misery early I mean constant fluid filling the lungs would be like constantly drowning.
_________________
Metal never dies. \m/
CockneyRebel
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,450
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
No. The purpose of procreation is to have children, or, if you really want to look into it, to ensure the survival of your genes. Organisms do not operate on species levels.
No, the main purpose of procretaion is to have sex (which is good for the body) and to have a relationship to round up your personality, preferably with a person that is neruodiverse from you (which is good for your soul). Kids are more kind of a side effect. People do not operate on a procreational level (at least not mostly).
Eugenics is bad for a similar reason that having babies by your own father is bad. It contracts the gene pool. This sort of thing has led to extinction of species in the past.
The Broader Phenotype Theory of Autism says so. But it also says that those parents have some autistic traits themselves. In fact that is what makes them the fiercest advocates for eugenics in the first place. See Barron Trump and his father, and I would say that Barron is not the only child of Donald on the autism spectrum, Donald has often claimed his genetic superiority to others. See Thilo Sarrazin, Berlin s ex-minister of Finance, Gemany s most prominent racist and eugenitist, author of "Deutschland schafft sich ab" ("Germany is getting rid of itself") , the best sold serious German book between 2005 and 2015: Without any doubt he and his wife (a school teacher suspended for her harsh teaching methods, and a bit also for her husband s theories that she fully supports) consider themselves as the bearers of the "highgiftedness gene". As an incentive they want parents like them (with a university degree) to get 50.000 Euro per child, so that people with a university degree get more kids (so the money that other parents would get monthly and in small portions over their child s childhood). They have only two sons, one of them has been living from social benefits for years now, and is anything but well adjusted (he blames his parents for their bad education), and the other one seems to have some mental health issues, too.
People like the Sarrazins dont understand psychosocial causality very well, and exaggerate by far with "genes" (dont forget that Darwin and Francis Galton have both most probably been on the spectrum). Genes is only a contruct of something which LOOKS LIKE as if it were RELATIVELY stable, based on a sometimes not even that high PROBABILITIES that the kids are like their parents (see the pulitzer-prize winning Siddharta Mukherjee, "The Gene"). Now the DNA is not as fixed as we were told at school, not by far, have you ever heard of epigenetics? Then most DNA genes, if they are "switched on", work through the metabolism, so there are plenty of possibilites to influence this, also in non-medical ways. I would say that stress in pregnancy and on parents during the early childhood of their kids, and bad nutrition of the mother and the baby has a far bigger effect on the organism of a child than anything else. I guess if you are a woman and have grown a baby in your body, you belly is growing and very quickly in the last weeks of pregnany, and if you have breastfed it so that it has put on 200 grams and more a week in the first weeks and tripled its weight in the first year, you get that better. And then it makes a big difference whether there is a person around the child that is able to really take care of the child s developmental needs or not. (See Michael Rutter, "Genes and Behavior", this is something that NTs understand much better than ASD people do.) If nutrition, stress level and education would be close to optimal, it would, I bet, not take more than two generations to get rid of most if not any bad "genes". Unfortunately most of the time, kids often get the triple package: bad nutrition, high stress, non-optimal education. And so it might LOOK LIKE as if things are "genetic" /that is relatively fiexd from one generation to the next) that are actually not. So relative stability is something very relative, too.
The big fallacy of scientists is that they think everything before birth is genetic, and everything after birth environment (see Allan Schore, JOY & FUN. Gene, Neurobiology. Child Brain Development). In fact biology IS 100% environment, too.
Then what you say about teenage mothers over several generations. Sure one factor is that it appears much more normal to them to have children when young, because they know it from their family. (In a certain sense you have to de-normalize it for them, to make them get more in options). But there is a also a lack of opportunity in the education system (in Germany we have a good vocational trainign system for people without a highschool degree, and teenage pregnancy is rare), and a yearning for a child to take care of, better than your own mother did with you, or she managed to do only when you were little and she got attention for the baby and less when the girl was getting older, and to be loved better. Again: NTs understand such psychosocial causalities more inutitively and usually better than ASD people do.
I would say that the human brain is very complex, and so there is a relatively high probablity that something is going wrong. And it is particularly likely to go wrong, if people overdo it, are too good at multitasking, too much worrying about too many things, too intensely thinking of all possibilties, putting too much stress on themselves (and others), overambitious. You shouldnt drain your brain too much. In that sense, slow people (like some on the spectrum) are beneficial for the specie as a whole. They remind us that things can be done slower, that not everything needs to be done, and that it can be damaging to do too many things too quickly.
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
What if God's not okay with it?
What if S/he is?
See it goes both ways. I think it is folly to try to present oneself as knowing the mind of God.
That's an interesting perspective. I can't really disagree.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,103
Location: Long Island, New York
Based on a couple of videos you just know Barron is Autistic. Why did I get such bad genes I do not have the immediate ability to know for sure someone is Autistic that all of you seem to have. All I am able to see is a few autistic traits by a 10 year old up way past his bedtime. (sacasm and SMH)
I have apparently missed this. Link please.
Back to the main point of your post nearly all of the reputable autism specialists say autism or autisms are some combination of genetic and environmental factors but the eugenicists by definition do tend to ignore environmental factors.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What's good? |
06 Jul 2025, 9:24 am |
Hello all, good to be here! |
18 Jul 2025, 10:59 am |
Good intentions |
17 Jun 2025, 7:38 pm |
What's something good to listen to at work? |
05 Jun 2025, 4:15 pm |