New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands

Post Reply New Topic

^^^Slightly simplified. Genetics works that way only when one gene and one gene alone is responsible for trait. In more complex genetic relationships, there is regression to the mean. One of the most cited examples is that two genius parents will have children who are less intelligent than either parent.

Why not?



Exactly.

And why should we not do what we can to give the people of the future both the best possible environment and the best possible genes?

Why should we allow our children and grandchildren to degenerate towards a point where they're unable to maintain the civilization their ancestors built?

Don't they deserve better?



We must fight against DYSGENICS.

And eugenics is the answer to this dire problem!



BS!



Back in the 1920s, literally anyone with any proper education was pro-eugenics... not because of some evil ideology but because it was commonly understood that eugenics was necessary.



Eugenics is totally scientific.

It's a science that's become discredited for political reasons, but it's still a science.



Nonsense!

The same biological principles that causes different breeds / races of to look and behave differently are responsible for different breeds / races of humans to look and behave differently.



As you said yourself, "people develop on account of both genetics and environment".

Our genes determine how we are as much as our environment, if not more!



Actually, several studies have proven a link between certain genetic mutations and Autism.




The more different two people are genetically, the more mediocre and average their offspring tends to be.

The more similar two people are genetically, the more extreme or exagerated certain traits will be become in their offspring. This includes both positive and negative traits, however.

Ideally, you'd want two parents to be genetically fairly close but not too close, to avoid mediocricy as well as inbreeding.



Sources please!

I am not going to waste my time arguing with people who promote eugenics. That was settled on the battlefield in 1945.

It's not about promoting eugenics its about whether or not its a valid science. Wars don't decide what is scientifically accurate.

No science that closes it's eyes to the merits of methods of progress outside it's own is a good science.
No science that makes choices FOR people without their consent is a Moral science.
Science as a whole is honor bound to consider all the angles, but not the angles that bar all other angles because those angles...are just a threat to a healthy and well rounded science. I'm not arguing against individual choices to alter one's genetics, that falls under personal liberty I am arguing against a eugenic policy.

Making people too tired to debate it further...isn't a win it's a loss. They just go away and there is a lesson to be learned in it.

Do they do it by force or by voluntary means?

Science and morality have nothing to with each other.

To my knowledge where they are able to get consent they do and where they are not they don't and they do it only in cases of extreme suffering. I hope that helps. That I know of it is not ABOUT eugenics but about the prevention of prolonged suffering. I recall reading about some cases not meeting standards a few years back and it was due to a number of doctors who had taken it upon themselves to better the species although this was not said outright as far as I could tell that was the gist. IT IS NOT OK in ANY first world country that I know of for individuals to begin taking such decisions into their own hands because it is a violation of human rights and in the Netherlands, which is where the world court resides...this is taken time and a half seriously.


There was a separate report a while back also where some people who were not in tremendous physical suffering but who had not recovered from as a result of any medication oriented treatment or therapy simply could not go on living and were so profoundly miserable they were likely to suicide and were granted exceptions....it's very rare however and it can EASILY loose a doctor their license...and because of this risk it really doesn't happen outside extreme cases.

That's untrue, they have PEOPLE to do with each other.

No science is meant to be unbiased.

Untrue.

"MISCONCEPTION: The job of a scientist is to find support for his or her hypotheses.

CORRECTION: This misconception likely stems from introductory science labs, with their emphasis on getting the "right" answer and with congratulations handed out for having the "correct" hypothesis all along. In fact, science gains as much from figuring out which hypotheses are likely to be wrong as it does from figuring out which are supported by the evidence. Scientists may have personal favorite hypotheses, but they strive to consider multiple hypotheses and be unbiased when evaluating them against the evidence. A scientist who finds evidence contradicting a favorite hypothesis may be surprised and probably disappointed, but can rest easy knowing that he or she has made a valuable contribution to science."

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

(there are many such examples)

People on their own are not PRECISELY unbiased. Is that some sort of license to cast off all effort? Aaaaaand Morality.
in the form of ethics. not ethics that stand in the way of research, ethics that keep unbiased research from turning into
Atrocity. Because Science must be Unbiased, people can't perfectly do that, and......Morality.

How is a poorly secured Cannon, on a ship on, choppy waters SOMEHOW a better cannon? it isn't.
How would never calibrating such a cannon simply because it cannot be perfectly calibrated make it a better cannon?
It would not.

What does that even mean?



Although moral issues can be addressed by science, science itself is fundamentally amoral.



Again... What does that even mean?



The whole point of eugenics is to prevent prolonged suffering, but at the collective level rather than at the individual level.

Eugenicists focus on the welfare of multiple generations instead of the welfare of just one individual, which IMO is far more important because it directly impacts the lives of millions of people!



I actually agree with that.

Such policies should be determined by interdisciplinary committees of scientists, not by individuals.



Daniel89 wasn't arguing that "no science is meant to be unbiased". He was arguing that "science is meant to be unbiased". This is just one of many examples where a missing comma or point makes all the difference

Either way, the point he was trying to make, is that science being fundamentally unbiased means that it is fundamentally amoral.

To be amoral, means to not take any stance whatsoever on what is morally right or morally wrong. Science doesn't care about what is morally right or wrong. It only cares about what is true or false.

What do you mean by "what does that EVEN mean?".

Are you implying that what I have said has no meaning?

Why not just ask me to clarify? What's the problem?

Veiled belittlement does not make one's case more convincing it makes it less.
Exhausting those one debates one's case with ALSO does not make one's case more convincing, it makes them too tired to continue and the silence that follows is not a victory it is a loss.

I was unsure which thing was intended, this is true but I do not need the words of others interpreted for me.
I addressed both possible interpretations, re-read and do not cast others in a single light when they occupy several.

I will be done now. Because it is exhausting.