Eugenics

[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.