|
|
#21
05-09-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Eugenics
how about the flip side, i.e. not selective mating, but having couples screen the fetus for genetic defects and aborting the ones with harmful abnormalities. i can see this being done in the near future.
|
|
#22
05-09-2007, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
how about the flip side, i.e. not selective mating, but having couples screen the fetus for genetic defects and aborting the ones with harmful abnormalities. i can see this being done in the near future. [/ QUOTE ] If by near future you mean 100 years or so, ya maybe, but I seriously doubt we will ever see this happen.
|
|
#23
05-09-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me  [/ QUOTE ] thread saved
|
|
#24
05-09-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] how about the flip side, i.e. not selective mating, but having couples screen the fetus for genetic defects and aborting the ones with harmful abnormalities. i can see this being done in the near future. [/ QUOTE ] If by near future you mean 100 years or so, ya maybe, but I seriously doubt we will ever see this happen. [/ QUOTE ] This is being done today.
|
|
#25
05-09-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By allowing everyone to survive and reproduce, we aren't letting evolution do it's work. [/ QUOTE ] We're not? Survival of the fittest doesn't mean murdering people with less desirable traits. If someone is stunted to the point where they are unable to survive, "nature" will take care of them. [/ QUOTE ] In modern society, people with less desireable traits have more children and our social programs support them all. [/ QUOTE ] QFT
|
|
#26
05-09-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
How's about this. At a certain age (say 16 or so), you are tested for intelligence (something like grades + SAT score + talents) and physical fortitude (predispositions to disease, body type, physical defects, etc.). Based on your ranking, you are assigned the number of children you can have (something like they have in China - 1 baby per couple). the more genetically fit you are, the more baby credits you have, but everyone is entitled to something. [/ QUOTE ] There are just a few major problems with this: (1) Who makes up the criteria? How do you weight everything? How do you compare an Olympic athlete that isn't bright with a Nobel prize winner who is 400 lbs? (2) What if a gifted young athlete gets in a car crash and is crippled at 15. Genetically, he may have great 'athlete' genes, but he cannot pass your tests. (3) $$$$$$ talks. Bribery will be rampant. In China, if you have more than 1 child you have to pay a fine which wouldn't be a problem for the wealthy elite. (4) Will the state take children from those who have more than their allowed amount? What will happen to those children (I assume they will be killed since you wouldn't want their inferior genes in the gene pool)? I guess you could forcibly sterilize people after they have their allowed amount of children. If anything, I think that the future will be closer to Gattaca than forced eugenics. Parents will have the OPTION of having their child 'free of defects', but it will not be mandatory (who wouldn't want their child to have the potential of being a world-class athlete or great scientist?). This may create a genetic heirarchy just like in the movie.
|
|
#27
05-09-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you unilaterally opposed to the idea: How many generations do you think we are removed from a legally-imposed population control? [/ QUOTE ] Not too many, but rage rage against the dying of the light and all that.
|
|
#28
05-09-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
Gugel,
Typically (In America for example) middle class white traits will be favored and others ones will be bred out, it also influences the control of the rich as they are the most likely to be able to afford it. So you'll see a skew of white middle class virtues. Also there are some issues about disease susceptibility involving a fairly homogeneous gene pool.
|
|
#29
05-09-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
I have a hard time taking OP seriously when his statement mentions eugenics getting a bad rap by from Nazis. Bit of an understatement, eh?
One could argue, a women's right to abortion is a huge step forward for eugenics. Population control will happen, and it can't happen soon enough IMO. I think there is a very good chance eugenics is currently happening in secret, by many different groups of people with many different genetic "goals". I imagine a lot of people's acceptance of eugenics will be along the lines of improving their own gene transfers to their children, but as soon as you tell a person his genetics are bad or inferior, you've got a whole other fight.
|
|
#30
05-09-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By allowing everyone to survive and reproduce, we aren't letting evolution do it's work. [/ QUOTE ] We're not? Survival of the fittest doesn't mean murdering people with less desirable traits. If someone is stunted to the point where they are unable to survive, "nature" will take care of them. [/ QUOTE ] In modern society, people with less desireable traits have more children and our social programs support them all. [/ QUOTE ] QFT [/ QUOTE ] All those beautiful, blonde, blue-eyed, healthy, ethical Mormons having 8 kids per family are on welfare? Who knew? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
