Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

How can any sane, just society with sufficient resources in modern times not promote and advance a system of eugenics?

Because that sane, just society with sufficient resources can use those resources to make use of the talents that the diabled do have, and recognize that the physically and mentally disabled are our friends and family members.

Additional arguments will likely just feed the troll.

Because of the insane, unjust ones that have.

Mods/Admins, isn't BraveMurderDay one of Ante/Anti-everything's bogus accounts? I know he has used almost identical arguments for euthinasia in the past.

Im shocked. Are you seriously advocating what i think you are?

ethnic cleansing of all neurotypicals? - thats a bit harsh mate.

"How can any sane, just society with sufficient resources in modern times not promote and advance a system of eugenics?"

Exactly right. Just how can we "not promote" eugenics? The society that I am familiar with is far too effective at reducing human potential. This might be a form of eugenics. Its practices definitely encourage some sort of eugenics and make the idea desirable. It makes the idea of getting rid of "undesirables" a bit more tenable. This is because your average person these days is likely to be a lot stupider than his or her ancestors, to have "meth mouth", to be unhealthy, to have an unhealthy mind, and of course we think he or she is likely to give us the HIV, the virus that kills through fear and shame.

They get us to destroy ourselves through emotional hangups just like they did to Germany in the 1930s. All of the things they did that "improved the economy" could have been done humanely, gently, and made a great nation out of Germany, but the investors were investing in something with much better short term profit, and that was war. A working economy could actually be established by having at least half the population doing nothing useful. I'd just as soon have them putting the US in space. That money is spent right here at home building businesses and providing jobs for people who have technological skills. That kind of spending improves the economy and pays for itself. Trillions of dollars in social services are traded for a lot less in money that circulates within the community. We could have done with improvements that wind up destroying us.

no.

Who are these nutters. Even Sean agrees with me that eugenics is bad!! !!

Chuck these nazis off the board immediately, Vivi!! !

Personal attacks are not allowed.

If we are to protect freedom of speech, we must also protect speech which we find appalling.

BeeBee

BeeBee beat me to it - exactly what she said.

RobertN

Everybody deserves their own views how they see the world no matter what We may think of their views.

Keeping in mind that Eugenics (through forced sterilization) has been upheld as constitutional in the United States it is among the most evil practices ever performed by mankind. In fact, I believe there is a state or two that still has the law on the books. In realty, it is intolerable for a free society, as one's reproductive rights are sacred.
With that said, if you look at the Wikipedia entry on eugenics, it mentions Huntington's Disease as a possible justification. I have a friend with HD, she and I at one time were in a relationship. We talked about the possibility of having children, she didn't want to chance bringing another person with HD into the world. Well, with modern science, it is entirely possible to have a child without the genetic defect that causes HD, via two methods: One, the preferred method, is In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). With this method, an egg is fertilized in a lab and an embryo grown to the point that it can be geneticly tested for the HD mutation. If the embryo is HD-free it is implanted for a normal pregnancy, if it has the HD mutation it is allowed to die in the lab. The other method is via testing of the amniotic fluid for the HD mutation and abortion if it is detected. While considered to be eugenics by some, the IVF method is considered by many to be ethical as the point of this is prevention of disease not some sort of genetic cleansing. The abortion method raises the debate about abortion, which is a whole other set of evil.

Machloket

Last edited by Machloket on 30 Nov 2005, 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I approve of eugenics...but only when it is entirely voluntary and doesn't involve exterminating people or sterilizing them against their will or coercing them into being sterilized. I think that wise, informed breeding choices in humans should be encouraged.

The biggest problem I see with eugenics is that it's too damn hard to predict which genetic stocks will produce the most valuable people. You can have a line that produces many people of moderate competence and societal value, and you can have a line that produces one person of very high competence and value (genius and/or sage whose insights are recognized and used) and many people of low potential. Which stock will be the better investment? Neither. It would be a good idea, in fact, to have both, because the moderately talented/competent people might have a better shot at making use of the genius's insights than the genius's own troubled kin, but the genius's gentic stock had to be there to produce him or her. If you have people who can pass on good memes as well as people who can pass on good genes, you have more potential for good.

Such as...personal attacks?

Not arguing with the policy, just this rationale. Banning speech in the name of freedom of speech doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems to me that it's more about maintaining order on a private forum, where freedom of speech doesn't necessary apply at all.

Jeremy

I beleive in the opposite of eugenics, purification could easily lead into incest.