Eugenics

[lucksack]

What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough? Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits. Or perhaps letting everybody have one own child first, because it's such an important thing for us to get an own child.

Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more, while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

[Fly]

Below is an interesting article on the future of genetics. I'm shocked the nytimes published this. The times, they are ah changing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no problem with it other than "possible moral problems", but those possible moral problems are significant.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't genes matter enough? Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't see a problem with having a committee of judges that decides based on their standards who should be allowed to reproduce? And how would they enforce it? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps letting everybody have one own child first, because it's such an important thing for us to get an own child.

[/ QUOTE ]
Despite that it still sounds unpleasant.

[ QUOTE ]
I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see a stigma against forced sterilization as a bad thing. You don't even have to make a slippery slope argument. But while the nazi incident shouldn't necsarrily be a reason (and I tend not to agree with slippery slope arguments) against supporting any sort of eugenics, it is still important to remember history and how eugenic attitudes led to forced euthenasia of many people and eventually leading to the holocaust. That is we have to be careful not to repeat past mistakes.

[mickeyg13]

The moral implications are enormous, but for some reason you wish to put those aside. OK...how about the fact that narrowing the gene pool significantly could actually lead to unexpected genetic defects. A diverse gene pool is overall healthy for a population to have; if the gene pool becomes too narrow than unlikely genetic anomalies might pop up more often.

[lucksack]

I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

[lucksack]

foal,
how about just criminalizing making a second own child? I don't see need for forced sterilization. Forced abortion, maybe, depending on how early it is (I don't have an opinion on abortion really).

I know it sounds unpleasant, but I see a LOT of potential in it.

[vhawk01]

Well, if we are ignoring moral problems, the biggest practical hurdle is essentially the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember that you are eliminating the genes of "stupid people." You might also end up getting rid of a lot of traits, effectively limiting the gene pool much more.

If you are considering this, watch the movie Gattaca, and tell me if you still think it's a good idea.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember that you are eliminating the genes of "stupid people." You might also end up getting rid of a lot of traits, effectively limiting the gene pool much more.

If you are considering this, watch the movie Gattaca, and tell me if you still think it's a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, then watch U-571 and maybe Event Horizon.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's from the Simpsons. The solutions to the problem (introducing predators) turn out to produce new problems.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, that old chestnut.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

you cannot just cast the moral issues aside, particularly when they are at the crux of the argument against eugenics .

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's from the Simpsons. The solutions to the problem (introducing predators) turn out to produce new problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the beautiful part is, when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on exactly what mean by eugenics.

[ QUOTE ]
other than possible moral problems

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not seem reasonably to ignore the moral problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a disastrous idea. The form of policing that would be need to implement these rules would far out do any imagined befits. I expect there would also be practical problems with implementation due to popular resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see the other huge problems.

[tame_deuces]

The biggest problem is that it is

1.) Extremely oppressive.

But ok, you said we should disregard that. The remaining problems are:

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea. Intellectual dung which someone with severe bias tries to make look good.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insane? Have you got any understanding of evolution? Don't you know that it goes by trial and error, that it is the combination of genes that matters and that genii are born sometimes to moronic parents?

What you are suggesting is a weakening of the gene pool!

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
foal,
how about just criminalizing making a second own child? I don't see need for forced sterilization. Forced abortion, maybe, depending on how early it is (I don't have an opinion on abortion really).

I know it sounds unpleasant, but I see a LOT of potential in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think China did this for awhile if not even to the present time. Welcome, Comrade!!

It's all about morality.

Modern abstract and especially scientific thought places man as a fifth wheel in thinking and therefore finds no connections to the world. This is the road to "no morality" in life. All of the world(s) are a moral tone poem. Look out into nature and this can be revealed to an artistic perception. Man is a part of this "moral tonality", a part of nature even though he disassociates himself in thought from nature which in reality is his very being.

[StayHungry]

Tame Deuces summed it up.

[InTheDark]

http://pbpl.physics.ucla.edu/About_Us/Bios/Carl_Spackler/smails.jpg

"The world needs ditch diggers too."

[JMAnon]

Eugenics should not be a mandatory social policy enforced by the government for reasons other posters have already stated (mainly, genetic diversity makes a species hearty and adaptable). Lifting research restrictions so that scientists can see what happens when they clone people or otherwise mess with genes would probably result in a lot of good things being discovered. Granted, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but I am okay with that.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[/ QUOTE ]

done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Well also it's not really the stupid / lazy that cause all the problems. Most of the time it's intelligent people that are screwing everything up... see Karl Rove, Karl Marx... wait maybe it's just the Karls.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[/ QUOTE ]

done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.

[/ QUOTE ]
Err tuskegee was not forced sterilization. And I'm pretty sure it ended in the 60s. There may have been a few cases afterwards, but not nearly as many. The holocaust kind of put people off the whole thing.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain?

[ QUOTE ]
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is how you define totalitarity, we already live in one. We are definitely not free to do anything we want.


[ QUOTE ]
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these would be quite easy to avoid if some kind of international eugenics program were started and planned well. The goals are so long term, that spending a lot of time in discussion and planning would be insignificant.

[ QUOTE ]
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know much about genetics, please explain why the prejudices are naive.

[ QUOTE ]
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria could be chosen democratically, and then let a computer program count the people that are good enough based on the criteria. It would not necessarily need to be told to people whether they are considered good enough or not.

[ QUOTE ]
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know why you think eugenics would assume that.

[ QUOTE ]
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you mean that religious fanatics (and their followers) would oppose, I think we should not give up. I mean, seriously, Christianity is such a joke, and a bad one, why would we let it ruin the future of humanity (and other animals) without a good try?

[ QUOTE ]

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways (in addition to the bias thing)?

[StayHungry]

Dude, you can't start choosing who is allowed to exist, Deuces explained it fairly clearly. You obviously are pretty ignorant to many things about humanity and history. Go read some good french philosophers like Foucault, Baudrillard etc. You might realise what can happen when things become completely regulated.

[StayHungry]

I should add that this is my opinion, I can personally sympathize with genetic tampering (because I'm healthy and lucky) but I realize the implications of genetic tampering and a government who begins such a program. Hitler was way ahead of you man.


EDIT: this quote from tame deuces sums it up most simply, "5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice."

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously are pretty ignorant to many things about humanity and history.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously are pretty ignorant about future and what humanity could be.

[StayHungry]

That's your opinion man, the technological future you want is a product of you being white and brought up in a westernized culture. The rest of the world might not agree with your views, this is what you don't seem to get. Whether or not eugenics is "right" is beside the point, the point is no one is given the inherent right to take over the world, it just kindof unfolds, mostly because of people like yourself who believe they are carrying the torch of the species

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem is that it is

1.) Extremely oppressive.

But ok, you said we should disregard that. The remaining problems are:

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea. Intellectual dung which someone with severe bias tries to make look good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this thread is absolutely BEGGING for an AC hijack, its the best I can do to simply allude to one and not actually hijack. I couldnt bring myself to refrain entirely.

[vhawk01]

FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.



done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.


Err tuskegee was not forced sterilization. And I'm pretty sure it ended in the 60s. There may have been a few cases afterwards, but not nearly as many. The holocaust kind of put people off the whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah it mostly ended in the 60's.

I just meant it wasn't over in 1901. actually I think it started about then and got rolling in the 20's.

tuskegee goes to ethics, and it was a racial thing which is the basis of eugenics (kill nonwhites and inferior whites, in a nutshell).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]

worked out well for the royals, didn't it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]

worked out well for the royals, didn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. A much better example than my snake/mongoose/gorilla thing, but I thought mine was funnier. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a problem, because we live in a democracy (and I don't know good, realistic options to democracy). Which means that the votes and opinions of "stupid people" will start to matter more and more when their amount increases. Politics (and business) is a field where selfish people (including psychopaths) can be successful, and only try to benefit themselves. And their opinions can't be too different from the opinion of the stupid people, or they will not be popular. The stupid people don't care much about future (after their own lifetime). Add corruption, international companies (which decrease the power of politicians) etc. to that, and it really doesn't look like the decisions made by the politicians would consider much else than well-being of the stupid people (including short-term future) while also having to deal with pressure from business world. This means that other things would be ignored more and more. These other things include, but definitely aren't limited to, long-term future of mankind and animals (and also the treatment of animals, which is quite sick now in my opinion).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just say you oppose the happiness of people other than you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a problem, because we live in a democracy (and I don't know good, realistic options to democracy). Which means that the votes and opinions of "stupid people" will start to matter more and more when their amount increases. Politics (and business) is a field where selfish people (including psychopaths) can be successful, and only try to benefit themselves. And their opinions can't be too different from the opinion of the stupid people, or they will not be popular. The stupid people don't care much about future (after their own lifetime). Add corruption, international companies (which decrease the power of politicians) etc. to that, and it really doesn't look like the decisions made by the politicians would consider much else than well-being of the stupid people (including short-term future) while also having to deal with pressure from business world. This means that other things would be ignored more and more. These other things include, but definitely aren't limited to, long-term future of mankind and animals (and also the treatment of animals, which is quite sick now in my opinion).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just say you oppose the happiness of people other than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with all this is that pretty much everyone now is smarter than anyone a couple thousand years ago. We are all getting smarter, not dumber.

Plus, if you really fear that we ARE getting dumber, our money and time would probably be better spent trying to educate all the dumb people rather than drive them out of existence.

If we somehow develop the technology and knowledge and experience and foresight to enact the plan you seem to be hatching, it would seem to also be possible to just make people smarter without, ya know, forced sterilizations or forced abortions or whatever. Thats MY kind of eugenics program.

[StayHungry]

Some guy said it earlier "the world needs ditch diggers". Capitalism will fail without "stupid people" to put in the elbow grease, and buy the worthless products. I'm sure the mile high futuristic skyscraper you're gonna live in in the future will need pathetic workers to get constructed. You seriously need to rethink you're totally naive attitude to everyone who isn't like you. You write off too many things with simple labels and aren't confronting your real motivations. At the end of the day you are condoning erasure of certain types of people cause you can't transcend your own righteousness.

[StayHungry]

You also seem to not really have an idea of who you want erased, just retards? or people who score below a certain point in IQ tests? just to be safe

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Some guy said it earlier "the world needs ditch diggers". Capitalism will fail without "stupid people" to put in the elbow grease, and buy the worthless products. I'm sure the mile high futuristic skyscraper you're gonna live in in the future will need pathetic workers to get constructed. You seriously need to rethink you're totally naive attitude to everyone who isn't like you. You write off too many things with simple labels and aren't confronting your real motivations. At the end of the day you are condoning erasure of certain types of people cause you can't transcend your own righteousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unbelievably heartless, shallow, and honestly, short-sighted attitude. It shows absolutely no compassion. And hey, I'm all for brutally honest statements that show no compassion, but if you are going to be cavalier about the plight of a huge group of other human beings on Earth, wouldnt it also help to be, like, you know, right?

The world most certainly does not need ditch diggers. At least, not if everyone were smart enough to innovate.

EDIT: What I mean to say, of course, is lets just let the Alphas and Betas handle the grunt work amirite?

[lucksack]

vhawk,

I'm not only talking about intelligence, empathy is important too (I don't know how much genes have to do with that though, or how it would be detected well).

What are you basing your claim that we are getting smarter on? How much do you think education affects intelligence? Forced education isn't that easy either..

Also, do you think we are now doing a good job in making the world a good place to live for future generations (and ourselves and animals)? Or near to that? Wouldn't a little help be needed? In my opinion, it is, even if more education helps too.

In addition, eugenics might solve problems other than that (mainly, the fact that we are not well adapted to modern environment, which causes depression etc.).

Edit: I also never said I'd support forced sterilization or abortion.

[StayHungry]

I was just trying to point out the role people play in this guys world. I didn't actually reveal anything about my own opinion, so how am I being heartless, I don't even really get your response. My opinion is, anyone who has an ideal that involves erasing people I'd say is the person bringing down humanity, since they obviously have no real self worth and only wish to further feed their fantasy life.

[lucksack]

StayHungry,
are you drunk?

What do you mean by "erasing people"?

[Phil153]

We're nowhere near the stage where we can understand the consequences of our attempted improvements. Giving people happy genes may well destroy much of art and the subversive roots of innovation. Giving people beauty genes might destroy some of the variability required to survive things like radiation increases, toxins and plagues.

Beyond that, there's the question of man playing God. I think it's an inherently bad idea for one person to determine the mental and physical makeup of another. We don't know enough about ourselves, our world, our universe and what may lay beyond it to do such things.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
tuskegee goes to ethics, and it was a racial thing which is the basis of eugenics (kill nonwhites and inferior whites, in a nutshell).

[/ QUOTE ]
eugenics isn't necessarily racist and racism isn't necessarily eugenic. most of the eugenics laws that existed in the 1900s were not race based, but targeted alcoholics, the "feeble-minded", sex offenders and carriers of genetic disease. many eugenics supporters were racist though, certainly.

[StayHungry]

I forgot, but I actually am a bit drunk. None the less, I think you've gotten some great answers Lucksack. If you want to go into depth thinking about what gene doctoring could achieve, write a dystopian sci fi novel, otherwise face the annoying morality of your fellow man.

[Subfallen]

I'll never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact: 0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes. Anyone care to explain why this isn't worth at least looking into?

[madnak]

So what kind of infrastructure are you looking at? And how do you intend to get it in place?

[StayHungry]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact: 0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes. Anyone care to explain why this isn't worth at least looking into?

[/ QUOTE ]


Cause we're not all obsessed with nerds

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Cause we're not all obsessed with nerds

[/ QUOTE ]

...says the man with the Nietzsche avatar.

[StayHungry]

Well he promoted Dionysus and the dancing god, not boring nerds

[StayHungry]

but touche i guess

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact: 0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes. Anyone care to explain why this isn't worth at least looking into?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for positive eugenics such cloning, etc. I'm just opposed to negative eugenics such as advocated by the OP.

[Subfallen]

StayHungry -

You obviously don't know your Nietzsche---he was rabidly philo-Semitic. When madness broke down his last inhibitions, he wrote in his final note to Overbeck: "Just now am having all anti-Semites shot." Or in Beyond Good and Evil: "[the Jews] are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race that now lives in Europe." etc. etc. etc.

[StayHungry]

Subfallen -

I don't know why you brought up his "philo-semitic" views, I mentioned dionysus and his writings of a dancing god...

[madnak]

But in a conversation about the Ashkenazi.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain?

[ QUOTE ]
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is how you define totalitarity, we already live in one. We are definitely not free to do anything we want.


[ QUOTE ]
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these would be quite easy to avoid if some kind of international eugenics program were started and planned well. The goals are so long term, that spending a lot of time in discussion and planning would be insignificant.

[ QUOTE ]
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know much about genetics, please explain why the prejudices are naive.

[ QUOTE ]
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria could be chosen democratically, and then let a computer program count the people that are good enough based on the criteria. It would not necessarily need to be told to people whether they are considered good enough or not.

[ QUOTE ]
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know why you think eugenics would assume that.

[ QUOTE ]
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you mean that religious fanatics (and their followers) would oppose, I think we should not give up. I mean, seriously, Christianity is such a joke, and a bad one, why would we let it ruin the future of humanity (and other animals) without a good try?

[ QUOTE ]

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways (in addition to the bias thing)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll refrain from digressing into politics since this is SMP, so I won't touch on the political issues. Besides we would just rail into the same ol' boring A vs S debate again.

Here:

There are no objective working means of figuring out which human traits are undesirable or desirable.

Eugenics isn't science, it is only bias sometimes dressed up as science.

[lucksack]

I think the vast majority would agree about some desirable traits.

It's defined as social philosophy, not science in wikipedia.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...)

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't read through the responses, so someone may have already mentioned this...

but the problem is everyone has a different idea on what are 'positive traits' and when it comes down to it, the people in power will be the ones to decide. an awful scenario if there ever was one.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.

[/ QUOTE ]



I really don't know why you think eugenics would assume that.

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c it isolates 1 factor (genetics) as the answer

edit: also, i still don't see why you think the moral issues are not worth discussing.

[lucksack]

dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

tarhee,

how does it isolate it? And I don't think moral issues are worth discussing in the same thread (at least not before it seems that the practical problems would be solvable).

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the vast majority would agree about some desirable traits.

It's defined as social philosophy, not science in wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the majority agrees on it doesn't mean it holds true.

The classic example is violent behavior. Most people would agree that violent traits are undesirable. But if you somehow manage to remove most violent traits you might end up with a society that is very easy to topple from outside or within (doesn't really matter which kind of society it is so this is potentially true for all societies).

So you can't really propose a good way of bunking traits into desireables and undesireable, which topples the eugenic philosophy.

As for it being a social philosophy, that is correct. But it usually pretends to be based on scientific principle when argued for by its proponents.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
We're nowhere near the stage where we can understand the consequences of our attempted improvements. Giving people happy genes may well destroy much of art and the subversive roots of innovation. Giving people beauty genes might destroy some of the variability required to survive things like radiation increases, toxins and plagues.

Beyond that, there's the question of man playing God. I think it's an inherently bad idea for one person to determine the mental and physical makeup of another. We don't know enough about ourselves, our world, our universe and what may lay beyond it to do such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like how I only impregnate blondes?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain?

[ QUOTE ]
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is how you define totalitarity, we already live in one. We are definitely not free to do anything we want.


[ QUOTE ]
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these would be quite easy to avoid if some kind of international eugenics program were started and planned well. The goals are so long term, that spending a lot of time in discussion and planning would be insignificant.

[ QUOTE ]
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know much about genetics, please explain why the prejudices are naive.

[ QUOTE ]
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria could be chosen democratically, and then let a computer program count the people that are good enough based on the criteria. It would not necessarily need to be told to people whether they are considered good enough or not.

[ QUOTE ]
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know why you think eugenics would assume that.

[ QUOTE ]
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you mean that religious fanatics (and their followers) would oppose, I think we should not give up. I mean, seriously, Christianity is such a joke, and a bad one, why would we let it ruin the future of humanity (and other animals) without a good try?

[ QUOTE ]

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways (in addition to the bias thing)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll refrain from digressing into politics since this is SMP, so I won't touch on the political issues. Besides we would just rail into the same ol' boring A vs S debate again.

Here:

There are no objective working means of figuring out which human traits are undesirable or desirable.

Eugenics isn't science, it is only bias sometimes dressed up as science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

tarhee,

how does it isolate it? And I don't think moral issues are worth discussing in the same thread (at least not before it seems that the practical problems would be solvable).

[/ QUOTE ]

How about rather than having "accepted" and "unacceptable" traits, we simply had freedom to choose? So everyone could make themselves smarter or taller or more beautiful, whichever. This is still eugenics, its just not the draconian, paternalistic "I know whats best now fall in line, tardos" type of eugenics you have in mind.

I enjoy the topic of eugenics I just dont see why only megalomaniacs should get to talk about it.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "sterilization" must play any role in my eugenics program, but if thats somehow part of the definition then fine, eugenics = bad.

EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "sterilization" must play any role in my eugenics program, but if thats somehow part of the definition then fine, eugenics = bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't have to sterilize. That is just me overstating actually which is probably bad.

But as a philosophy used on a societal level? Yes you will have to forcefully intervene into how people reproduce at some point.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic engineering is probably better, but I basically consider "eugenics" to be sort of the goal-oriented process, wheras screening and counseling and genetic engineering are the tools used to bring it about.

I'm willing to admit this is non-standard and possibly entirely an incorrect usage though.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact: 0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes. Anyone care to explain why this isn't worth at least looking into?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're referencing the Jews, yes?

THey have a eugenics program already. Rabbis tend to be the most intelligent members of the tribe and they have much larger than average families (like 4x larger).

There's a really solid, historically proven method to bring down the wrath of the rest of the world. You succeed beyond your numbers as a discrete group. This the Jews have done, several times, in most any culture. How's that worked out so far?

Asians in general have succeeded beyond their numbers in America. Koreans became the most recent victims of a mini-Christalnacht in LA during the Rodney King riots.

Bottom line, success is suspect by the losers in life. If you want to do some genetic engineering, make the proles more like sheep but don't get rid of them. I'm not cutting my own lawn.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

planned parenthood started out as a eugenics organization, google margaret sanger.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

planned parenthood started out as a eugenics organization, google margaret sanger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, google what policies the american birth control league (sanger's organization) advocated. There are some bad stuff in there so thank heaven it has evolved. Sterilization of the feebleminded is my favorite. Sanger's personal views may have been more edible though.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you couldn't have any kids then. I mean - it would worsen that society.

[madnak]

That's a different issue.

Also, the fact that I kick ass is independent from the fact that I'm a genius. Even if I were no longer a genius, I would still kick ass. Thus, my having kids is always +EV. Unless everyone else kicks even more ass than I do, in which case...

*head asplode!*

[tame_deuces]

It'll be one mean, intelligent and asskicking society. For what it's worth. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. Hell, even in today's society that isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, [censored]. I'd be able to do more in such a society, because they'd have better training and education programs. The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

way to dive head first through that strawman. im done in this thread. GO EUGENICS!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

way to dive head first through that strawman. im done in this thread. GO EUGENICS!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you missed his point. Everyone would be better off. We have castes right now, we would probably have castes in this future scenario as well, but the lowest caste would be far better off than the lowest caste now.

[StayHungry]

vhawk - You're still way too knee jerk and presumptuous about what you think would be "better" for everyone. You seriously don't seem to understand the IMPLICATIONS of this kind of thing, go look that word up.

[StayHungry]

I don't think I can continue in this thread, opinion seems to be divided between the people who want regulation of the species and those who are paranoid about the implications of such a regigm.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk - You're still way too knee jerk and presumptuous about what you think would be "better" for everyone. You seriously don't seem to understand the IMPLICATIONS of this kind of thing, go look that word up.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, wtf are you talking about? My entire plan for eugenics centers around letting people choose what they want for themselves, and you tell me that I'm being paternalistic?

Whereas your plan seems to be denying eugenics to everyone because you know whats best for them and the implications are too dangerous.

Bear in mind my earlier clarified personal usage of eugenics.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I can continue in this thread, opinion seems to be divided between the people who want regulation of the species and those who are paranoid about the implications of such a regigm.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying to outlaw it?

[StayHungry]

Yeh sorry, I wasn't completely up on what you were saying. I was just focused on your use of the word "better" in your last post, and the points Dragon was making.

You're still implying some kind of improvement will take place, when it will only create a shift in who is considered inferior. It will create a more discerning elitism. You seem to think all the new super humans will want to help everyone and carry everyone into paradise. Your argument rests on whether this will take place.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh sorry, I wasn't completely up on what you were saying. I was just focused on your use of the word "better" in your last post, and the points Dragon was making.

You're still implying some kind of improvement will take place, when it will only create a shift in who is considered inferior. It will create a more discerning elitism. You seem to think all the new super humans will want to help everyone and carry everyone into paradise. Your argument rests on whether this will take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

the main thing is assuming eugenics really will work, when all the historical data suggests otherwise.

now genetic engineering, that's can definitely "work" with all its accompanying problems/consequences.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
My entire plan for eugenics centers around letting people choose what they want for themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

you might want to look up the definition of the word eugenics. because what you propose is not even close. by definition, it involves entire populations and is certainly not voluntary.

your scenario rocks though. hope it happens someday.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you might want to look up the definition of the word eugenics. because what you propose is not even close. by definition, it involves entire populations and is certainly not voluntary.

your scenario rocks though. hope it happens someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

But I think people overestimate the impact of relative status in society. Let's say that I'm the best person in the world at a certain task, but then I become the worst person in the world at that task. Did I get any worse at the task? No. In fact (and here's the important thing) I'm still excellent at the task. I still do a great job at the task. But now everyone else does an almost-perfect job.

For this reason, I don't think the "dumbest person" in a genius society can be likened to the "dumbest person" today. In particular, even the dumbest person in a genius society will be able to perform all the necessary functions of life, to make reasonable decisions, to manage resources, and to communicate effectively. Such a person might never end up in a leadership role (because everyone else has even better leadership abilities!), but they will be independent agents in society.

And they'll have a fine quality of life. Will they be poor by our standards? Damn right. But they'll have a spacious space-flat with perfect climate control and a great view on the window display panels, they'll have all the Nutri-Pellets they can handle, they'll have the holonet and all 7*10^14 channels of VirtuaPr0n.

And personally? I think they'll be less alienated. I think they'll be more caring. I think they'll have lots of kinky atheist sex. But even if not, chances are everyone will have a safe warm place to sleep, plenty of food, and the freedom to say and think what they please.

If eugenics were the only way to achieve that... Would it be so wrong?

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you might want to look up the definition of the word eugenics. because what you propose is not even close. by definition, it involves entire populations and is certainly not voluntary.

your scenario rocks though. hope it happens someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

But I think people overestimate the impact of relative status in society. Let's say that I'm the best person in the world at a certain task, but then I become the worst person in the world at that task. Did I get any worse at the task? No. In fact (and here's the important thing) I'm still excellent at the task. I still do a great job at the task. But now everyone else does an almost-perfect job.

For this reason, I don't think the "dumbest person" in a genius society can be likened to the "dumbest person" today. In particular, even the dumbest person in a genius society will be able to perform all the necessary functions of life, to make reasonable decisions, to manage resources, and to communicate effectively. Such a person might never end up in a leadership role (because everyone else has even better leadership abilities!), but they will be independent agents in society.

And they'll have a fine quality of life. Will they be poor by our standards? Damn right. But they'll have a spacious space-flat with perfect climate control and a great view on the window display panels, they'll have all the Nutri-Pellets they can handle, they'll have the holonet and all 7*10^14 channels of VirtuaPr0n.

And personally? I think they'll be less alienated. I think they'll be more caring. I think they'll have lots of kinky atheist sex. But even if not, chances are everyone will have a safe warm place to sleep, plenty of food, and the freedom to say and think what they please.

If eugenics were the only way to achieve that... Would it be so wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

if so, maybe not, but ultimately you are just speculating regarding the outcome of such a program.

[willie24]

wow.

what is your goal? i understand the draw for nationalists who want to dominate the world with a super race, and also for people who want an excuse to give their own group more rights than another, but i don't understand how eugenics could "better the world." actually, i guess i don't understand the concept of bettering the world in general. if i'm unhappy, the world goes on unscathed. if the human race is exterminated, the world goes on. if earth explodes and life ceases to exist, it makes no difference to the world. the world can not be said to be "better" or "worse," because it has no emotion or want.

the same is true of "the human race." it can't be better or worse, because it isn't human and doesn't care.

when most people talk about improving the world, i think they probably mean - giving each individual (on average) a better chance to achieve his goals. for philosophical reasons, i personally think this effort is morally unimportant - but i can understand why someone might care about it, and, for the purposes of discussion, am willing to assume that it is a reasonable goal.

if your goal is to increase individual human happiness on average, how will eugenics help achieve that goal? in your answer, recall that life is governed by biology.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. Hell, even in today's society that isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, [censored]. I'd be able to do more in such a society, because they'd have better training and education programs. The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
ability is relative.

life is inherently competitive. there is only so much land on earth, sunlight etc. For you to live, something else must die (or at least not live).

your ability to do math problems would not suffer, but your share of the pie would.

[madnak]

There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people. It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people . It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people. It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do we need eugenics to do this, it's not as though that can't be done currently. it seems like you think better genetics will solve this problem b/c you assume more intelligent people will have a better sense of personal responsibility and just be better people in general. idk why this has to be the case.

[madnak]

I'm not arguing for eugenics except to play the devil's advocate.

But I think smarter people will be better able to figure out how to cultivate a large amount of energy.

I think the rest is true as well simply because I think people are inherently "good." I think many people are systematically immoral because they don't recognize the implications of their actions, and I think intelligence can help solve this problem.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there is an alternate meaning, im not aware of it.

"Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

now there is no doubt that the technological marvels that this theoretical society could produce would be staggering. i dont think anyone would argue that point.

however, this is a personal freedom/civil rights issue as much as anything. a society that actively classifies people, while giving fewer rights to certain groups is not one i want to live in. this is regress into a far worse time for humankind; regardless of what amazing things a society of elite intellectuals might produce.

and it is that very promise that has duped certain groups in the past into committing the worst sorts of atrocities.

[madnak]

"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as..."

I believe in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species. I don't think "especially by such means as x" means necessarily by such means as x. Also, I don't think positive eugenics has to be systematic, and it certainly doesn't have to be involuntary.

Rights are only relevant to negative eugenics.

Misapplication can cause trouble of course, but then, so can misapplication of any idea.

[dragonystic]

true.

i guess it comes down to how much faith you have in mankind doing this sort of thing. i saw earlier you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I think people are inherently "good."

[/ QUOTE ]

im a bit more cynical, and think theres really no way humans could do this without letting their own agendas, desire for power, greed etc...get in the way.

edit: also, it still would be involuntary. eugenics is the promotion of entire populations. you cant opt out. (if you can, its not eugenics.)

[madnak]

Well, the idea is that the population you're dealing with is composed of those who "opt in." Offspring who "opt out" would obviously just have to be removed from the gene pool - ie they're no longer allowed to participate in the program. The population doesn't have to be geographically isolated.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the idea is that the population you're dealing with is composed of those who "opt in." Offspring who "opt out" would obviously just have to be removed from the gene pool - ie they're no longer allowed to participate in the program. The population doesn't have to be geographically isolated.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if they get outcompeted, tough walnuts.

[lucksack]

I doubt the "opt in"-population would be big enough any time soon, I don't know though.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt the "opt in"-population would be big enough any time soon, I don't know though.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the latest alex jones film endgame it said that the darwins or his cousins or some family like that tried eugenics but maybe there was inbreeding or something and the whole thing was a disaster after 2 or 3 or 4 generations, like royalty being crazy and bleeders.