Good Genes: An Argument for Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

For purely society reasons would not Nazi eugenics arguably be better then your good eugenics? Extermination probably would cost the taxpayer less and ensure the "defective" genes do not spread. Financial incentives means some people would choose to pass on the "defective" genes and some people with "good" genes but in financial or other stress would choose to take the money.

Like many of his ideas, Adolph Hitler "borrowed and improved" the American-British eugenics movement of the early 1900s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics ) ( http://listverse.com/2015/07/10/10-wide ... -eugenics/ ) with "world leaders" ( http://flashbak.com/top-ten-unlikely-an ... sts-32300/ ) falling over themselves in support; no one ever quotes the people whose heads were placed in the proverbial guillotine. Some would say that, after some 11 million people died of eugenic influences during World War II, Hitler actually turbo-charged the movement while simultaneously destroying it after the world learned all too much about the matter.

Now, if one wants to be a eugenicist, that is one's right, of course. But, don't be surprised when others dismiss the idea as "been there, done that, it's over."

I'll go first too. My parents were loving and caring, well my dad was when he was sane which wasn't often, but they really had no business making a child. I had numerous medical problems literally from the second I came out of the womb, and I still suffer today. My parents tried giving me a brother or sister, but after my mom had two miscarriages they stopped. Think about that, a miscarriage happens only to a fertilized egg that is too damaged to survive. My father was sickly his whole life, and died relatively young (age 69). My mom has a genetic predisposition to obesity and diabetes, both of which I have. I personally have chosen total celibacy, and would even if I could attract a sexual partner which I can't. My mom once told me that she always wanted a little baby to cuddle and coo at, but she really didn't care about what would happen when that baby became an adult, in many aspects of her life she just shrugs and says "whatever happens, happens", she is very meek and passive. She still thinks of me as that sickly little infant in an incubator, which is very frustrating.

While I may not be good for society, many disabled people were important to history. Hard to imagine where we wouldn't be be without them. Eugenics could prevent some important person from being born who maybe saves humanity all together.
Mean Stephen hawaknings would been aborted. Albet einstien would been aborted and many more who weren't know to be disabled but were. And for what? To increase physically fit arrogant mean people's population? At least I don't contribute to the meanness of the world. Oh fdr would been aborted too. How many other presidents if tested today would have some kind of genetic abnormality.

I'm not saying that disabled people can't do great things. And I am not talking about killing anyone. Just selective genetic reproduction.

And if they'd done that in the past non of those people would been born which was my point . What you want will prevent some future albeit einstin

Argument against eugenics: Nazi Germany.

/thread

You are mixing up the actual and the potential; the past with the future. Sure they're may be some genius missed, but others will be gained.
I don't understand why actual people are conflated with potential people. The world is full of possibilities, but they're not all going to happen.

In a limited sense it is practiced. Caries of single gene diseases, often are advise not to have children. However usually when there severely debilitating with limited lifespan and prospects.

I mean if you knew you child would be a in a lot of pain, have respiratory issues, couldn't move or do anything for itself, having to be kept alive. Would you choose to have that child?

Trisomy 21 (Downs) is more controversial, but the screening are decreasing numbers, even if many people disagree with this screening. The main issue is the level of severity varies greatly, many DS folk are able to live happy an fulfilling lives.

I think this is what makes so many AS people shy away from eugenics, autism is also a spectrum and stories of uncontrollably violent teenage autistics who have 12 hour long meltdowns and destroy the house and stories of autistic savants/geniuses like Tesla and Warren Buffett seem to cancel each other out. If you say, well where would we be without Tesla, some of these warrior mothers pull up blog after blog on their computers of women who have been mentally destroyed by very violent autistic boys. If the mothers say, wouldn't life be better without violent, destructive auties, we start babbling about Tesla.

That said, I have seen case after case of behavioral patterns in certain families repeating themselves from generation to generation. This is especially notable in cases of teenage parenthood, some families seem to be locked into a pattern of having babies as teens. At the other end, you have families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds who have held onto their wealth and increased it down the generations, while most "average" people who manage to acquire wealth via successful businesses have the wealth disappear after a generation or two.

My bad. Its not really analogous to Bruce Willis standing in the middle of Harlem with that sign, nor to my above examples either.

Your OP is more analogous to a missionary going up to the chief of the local tribe of cannibals and saying "look how tender the meat is on my arms", or like a Black person going to Klan meeting, and (not screaming Black lives matter)but saying "Yeah! Lets kill them n****rs!" ( or a Jew volunteering to go to Auschwitz during the Third Reich ( HEY! You all forgot to deport me!), or while we are on the subject: a disabled person volunteering to go to Auschwitz during the Third Reich). You are advocating a policy that you yourself would be among the first victims of.

My intent was to inform you of that seeming contradiction. But if you are already aware of the contradiction then you need to explain why you are advocating victimizing yourself.



Its more like

I've said several times that I am not advocating for killing living people. This is about genetic information in fetuses.


It's not a contradiction, it's an irony.


As I am a living person I would not meet the criteria.

Like I said...just because both parents are smart doesn't mean the kid will come out smart. Two mechanical geniuses who are socially adept could conceivably conceive a clumsy, asocial Asperger's-type kid.

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.

Don't forget: Hitler really had very few physical characteristics of his "master race."

I look more "Aryan" than he did---and I'm a Jew!

too bad not enough people saw the emperor was wearing no clothes.

People should also note at least some of the Nazi inner circle.

Take a look at a picture of Himmler sometime: do you see Aryan in him? He actually looked vaguely East Asian.

And Goebbels...wasn't he a fine physical specimen?