Both mental and physical, a line would have to be drawn. First, surveys given to all handicap people (this is on school records, easily accessible by the government (or anyone)) to determine their quality of life vs their level of handicap. The handicapped person would then have to complete the survey in their own hand and return it. It would then be clear as to where to mark the boundary between those to be euthanized and those that would be better off living. It would be humane killing, most likely lethal injection or gas combined with opiates. Feasible?

What about an Iraqi war veteran who lost both arms in an explosion? What about people like Stephen Hawking? No it isn't 'feasible'.

I've seen a lot of dumb shit on this place over the years, and even added a bit of my own stupidity.

Who would trust the inefficient, bungling fools of the government with weighty decisions like that when people who are handicapped/disabled/diseased have contributed some great stuff to the world.

If You were in a vehicle crash and became crippled you could choose to kill yourself if you wish, and I wouldn't stop you. To force others to kill themselves after they are injured or disabled is where the line is.

I think it's inhumane to let Molosh live.

I'd say that first off, people who are only physically handicapped or have become handicapped still have the right to choose their own destiny, living or dieing. However I do think that other people shouldn't be burdened by their misfortune so much. That said; handicapped people shouldn't be given so much money out of our pockets.

Mentally handicapped people should have the right to make their own decisions revoked. For the most part, the current system is quite effective at that. However, just plain dumb people (due to some minor mental handicap) can still provide society with some basic services like cleaning, sorting and even carpenting sometimes.

The more heavy mentally impaired people should not have been born alltogether. They have tests these days that can tell if an unborn has some kind of mental illness. If so, abortion should be mandatory.

I'm not saying I'm for or against all this. Its merely a way to make society more effective. Not more pleasurable or more ethical but more effective at production, reproducing itself, etc.

in cases where a child will 90-100% be badly deformed, or retarded, or has a junkie mother with AIDS, abortion should be mandatory

I'm for killing those with severe mental handicaps. For physical, I can't advise killing. However, if the physical handicap is inheritable, even by a 1% chance, the person should be sterilized to assure a clean gene pool. To bad most governments don't do this anymore, because the nazis did this, and the nazis killed the jews, which makes eugenics bad aswell.

It is inhumane to dissallow the handicapped (and anyone else, for that matter) to not have their opinion in whether they should live or not.

Oh, and Steven Hawking's an idiot.

I'm for killing those with severe mental handicaps. For physical, I can't advise killing. However, if the physical handicap is inheritable, even by a 1% chance, the person should be sterilized to assure a clean gene pool. To bad most governments don't do this anymore, because the nazis did this, and the nazis killed the jews, which makes eugenics bad aswell.

That is a very slippery slope buddy.

Gene therapy to eliminate inheritable defects (legit ones) would be better. No killing/bad press, and you get to actually improve the gene pool.

I think it's inhumane to let Molosh live.

FUCKING THIS!

That is a very slippery slope buddy.

Gene therapy to eliminate inheritable defects (legit ones) would be better. No killing/bad press, and you get to actually improve the gene pool.

I didn't say to kill those with physical handicaps, just to steralize. I guess you could add something to it, to only steralize if gene therapy fails. If by the time of puberty it is not cured, it should be steralized. This is so long down the road when everybody in the gene pool gets mixed with everyone else, all our kids aren't retarded, and have a healthy set of genes to benefit them.

Those with mental handicaps so severe that they're unable to communicate or grasp the concept of life, should be put to sleep. Society doesn't need waste lots of resources and money on something which is of less use and intellect then a donkey. Hell you can't even prove such mentally handicapped things have feelings beyond that of animals. Its like taking a paralyzed horse and trying to make it integrated into society by putting it in a room with others (school) and listen to songs and clap hands all day long. Until the day they prove that such mentally handicapped kids that can't even communicate can comprehend life/death, then I'm for killing them.

even 1% chance


Too much specialization leads to extinction, dick. You guys are bad at pretending you know how the "gene pool" works.

To add to the discussion, I think that not only do the mentally handicapped have a right to live but they should be afforded help from the luckier members of society. It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. What's the breeding rate of retards anyway? Retards come about as a genetic lottery, of sorts, between two normal people's genes, not as a result of a retard orgy spawning little retards.

This thread would make Orwell cringe... Have fun with your "perfect society", Nazis.

Is it not the job of the strong to progress society and evolution? Weaklings will only slow them down.

Too much specialization leads to extinction, dick. You guys are bad at pretending you know how the "gene pool" works.

To add to the discussion, I think that not only do the mentally handicapped have a right to live but they should be afforded help from the luckier members of society. It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. What's the breeding rate of retards anyway? Retards come about as a genetic lottery, of sorts, between two normal people's genes, not as a result of a retard orgy spawning little retards.

This thread would make Orwell cringe... Have fun with your "perfect society", Nazis.

So if we don't keep retards we'll go extinct? We should keep people with genes capable of surviving in a natural nomadic enviroment. That's the type of society that our genetics are made for. If we change our path now, we'll never be able to go back to a nomadic society if technology self destructs. Prepare for the worst. With steralazation, I'm not talking so much about just retards. I can't remember the name of the disease, but its one where you sleep 18 hours a day or so. Its hereditary. Theres nothing mental about it. However, what if this gene starts replicating beyond control? Then a large portion of society will not be capable of working. This will slow things down and make for a worse tomorow. What you're talking about with us going extinct if we don't have genetic diversity is being prone to disease. Retards aren't prone to disease more then any others. As people, its our responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy evolution of our species, even when not in a natural enviroment. You can't argue that those who would not survive in a natural nomadic enviroment are healthy for the gene pool.

When talking biology, you can't really draw feelings into the way. Feelings have always been crushed and always will. Its when people start thinking with feelings instead of logic that humanity starts to dive.

I'm thinking that you should practice what you preach. Go and live in the desert and don't vote.

I'm thinking that you should practice what you preach. Go and live in the desert and don't vote.

I'm not saying we should live in nomadic tribes. However, this is what our genetics are best suited for, and if you want our genetics to stay natural while living in modern society, we must use eugenics to make sure they aren't exposed to genetic drift unsuitable for our nature. Do you want to have domesticated genetics?

Is it not the job of the strong to progress society and evolution? Weaklings will only slow them down.

No, it isn't. Your theories would have been more applicable a couple thousand or even hundred years ago but not today. Being strong does not guarantee your genetic continuity and, conversely, being weak doesn't banish you to oblivion, genetics-wise.

So if we don't keep retards we'll go extinct?

You want to kill or sterilize those whom you feel are unworthy. So you kill all the retards. So the (roughly) 15% of the population a >75 IQ goes out the window. What next? People with AIDS? They cannot procreate in healthy manner and risk passing on the disease to the baby. Then to all the other 'undesirables'. You're left with a (much) smaller population of blue eyed blonde haired perfect people which is fine until a disease comes around that only affects blonde haired blue eyed people. This is an example of how "specialization can lead to extinction".

This isn't even mentioning the enormous moral impact of your perfect plan or the (non) feasibility of cherry picking the genes of an entire society.

We should keep people with genes capable of surviving in a natural nomadic enviroment. That's the type of society that our genetics are made for. If we change our path now, we'll never be able to go back to a nomadic society if technology self destructs.
My genes seem to be doing fine in this environment. Anybody disagree?

It isn't up to you to decide where our genes go anyway. I couldn't care less if I evolve an asparagus for an arm. Doesn't concern me one bit. What does concern me is a man with a superiority complex bent on the extermination of people he doesn't like.

If we change our path now, we'll never be able to go back to a nomadic society if technology self destructs. Prepare for the worst. Oooh scary!

With steralazation, I'm not talking so much about just retards. I can't remember the name of the disease, but its one where you sleep 18 hours a day or so. Its hereditary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy
Let's get rid of all the narcoleptics, too!

Theres nothing mental about it. However, what if this gene starts replicating beyond control? Then a large portion of society will not be capable of working. This will slow things down and make for a worse tomorow. Wouldn't narcoleptics be perfect for your nomadic society? Sleeping slows body processes, only wake to find food. We could become like koalas! :D

Also:

Narcolepsy is a neurological condition most characterized by Excessive Daytime Sleepiness(EDS).

What you're talking about with us going extinct if we don't have genetic diversity is being prone to disease. Retards aren't prone to disease more then any others. I'm not afraid of retards being prone to disease, I'm afraid of the New Humans(tm) being prone to disease as a large portion of the human genome is missing from the gene pool!

Saying that a less varied gene pool doesn't make a society more vulnerable is inane.

As people, its our responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy evolution of our species, even when not in a natural enviroment. Safe and healthy evolution of our species through the forceful expulsion of certain undesirables, usually through no fault of their own. Sounds reasonable.

Evolution and survival isn't marked by muscles and physical prowess anymore, no matter how much some (READ: you) would like to believe. We're past that stage. The death of those who were unable to adapt was a necessary evil in the days of kill or be killed. Hardly any longer. We can now afford to keep those people around and to afford them as much help as possible without hurting ourselves, which we can do. Either you accept that all lives are meaningful or you accept that none are. If the latter is true than this conversation is superfluous.

You can't argue that those who would not survive in a natural nomadic enviroment are healthy for the gene pool.Why not? There's plenty of people who would not have survived in the hunter-gatherer days whose contribution to society has been immeasurable (Stephan Hawking being an extreme example).

Feelings have always been crushed and always will.With the heavy, iron fist of Splam :p

Its when people start thinking with feelings instead of logic that humanity starts to dive.Not true. There are such things as instincts which do a very good job for most other animals and for humans as well. A baby does not logically think through and decide that to survive it must suck on its mother's breast, instinct tells it to do so. Likewise, (most) mothers do not love and take care of their baby solely to further the race. This doesn't even occur to them. Instinct guides them, though. To risk one's life to save someone else's is logically not worth it. It still happens, though. Usually to humanity's benefit. There are many more examples but I think you get it.

I'm not saying we should live in nomadic tribes. However, this is what our genetics are best suited for, and if you want our genetics to stay natural while living in modern society, we must use eugenics to make sure they aren't exposed to genetic drift unsuitable for our nature. Do you want to have domesticated genetics?

It isn't what our genetics are best for, it is what some people's genetics are best for. Genetics are genetics, some are suited to hot climates, and others are suited to cold climates. I don't see you trying to send blacks to africa because it's what they're best for.

We might use genetic techniques to try and improve bits of things, but I'm not going to trust governments (who are usually full of fucking morons) with that sort of decision. Do you really want to trust the dumb cunts who fuck up the simplest shit with huge decisions like that? It's bad enough they have the power to do what they can now, forget all the rest of this shit.

It's one thing to jack off with your 'big government that does what I want' fantasies, because you never see that power being used against you.

It isn't what our genetics are best for, it is what some people's genetics are best for. Genetics are genetics, some are suited to hot climates, and others are suited to cold climates. I don't see you trying to send blacks to africa because it's what they're best for.

We might use genetic techniques to try and improve bits of things, but I'm not going to trust governments (who are usually full of fucking morons) with that sort of decision. Do you really want to trust the dumb cunts who fuck up the simplest shit with huge decisions like that? It's bad enough they have the power to do what they can now, forget all the rest of this shit.

It's one thing to jack off with your 'big government that does what I want' fantasies, because you never see that power being used against you.

WTF dude. Evolution hasn't come far enough to make a very big difference in the survival of blacks in hot climates and whites in cold climates. The difference is very small. Genetic retards are way out way out of it. I'm not for killing those with down syndrome for example, unless its so severe that they can't communicate. I'm talking about the kid you know from school who you always see drooling, sitting in a wheelchair, and that makes wierd noises all day. The vegtables. Society doesn't need them, and they don't need society.

Go study some biology, specifically about how our species evolved and how natural selection works. And then understand how natural selection no longer plays a role in modern society. We wouldn't have come this far if it weren't for natural selection, thus we now need artificial selection that can mimick natural selection to make sure our genetics stay on the right path.

WTF dude. Evolution hasn't come far enough to make a very big difference in the survival of blacks in hot climates and whites in cold climates. The difference is very small. Genetic retards are way out way out of it. I'm not for killing those with down syndrome for example, unless its so severe that they can't communicate. I'm talking about the kid you know from school who you always see drooling, sitting in a wheelchair, and that makes wierd noises all day. The vegtables. Society doesn't need them, and they don't need society.

Go study some biology, specifically about how our species evolved and how natural selection works. And then understand how natural selection no longer plays a role in modern society. We wouldn't have come this far if it weren't for natural selection, thus we now need artificial selection that can mimick natural selection to make sure our genetics stay on the right path.

Put them "nomad style" in the environment of the other and see how they do. If westerners made themselves run as much as some people from third world places do they would have fallen arches in their feet very quickly.

I never knew anyone like that when I was in school, and their decision to be killed off should STILL not be left to the bunglers in government. Until you find a magical way to fix the seething chaotic mass of stupidity that is 'government' you will have a hard time winning this argument.

I know NS doesn't play a role now, and i'm glad that it doesn't. There's some good shit around now that would not have existed if things were all about being big and strong.

Farming isn't natural by any standards, and yet without it we wouldn't be having this conversation (we'd both be out hunting, again). Evolution is not about making the best thing, it's a 'duct tape and WD-40' solution to things. If evolution was about creating the perfect organism humans would have a spine that's optimised for a 2 legged creature, not a 4 legged one.

I think if the genetics of the human race are going to be manipulated on a large scale (very expensive) it should be to replace the duct tape and WD-40 of nature with something better.

Put them "nomad style" in the environment of the other and see how they do. If westerners made themselves run as much as some people from third world places do they would have fallen arches in their feet very quickly.

I never knew anyone like that when I was in school, and their decision to be killed off should STILL not be left to the bunglers in government. Until you find a magical way to fix the seething chaotic mass of stupidity that is 'government' you will have a hard time winning this argument.

I know NS doesn't play a role now, and i'm glad that it doesn't. There's some good shit around now that would not have existed if things were all about being big and strong.

Farming isn't natural by any standards, and yet without it we wouldn't be having this conversation (we'd both be out hunting, again). Evolution is not about making the best thing, it's a 'duct tape and WD-40' solution to things. If evolution was about creating the perfect organism humans would have a spine that's optimised for a 2 legged creature, not a 4 legged one.

I think if the genetics of the human race are going to be manipulated on a large scale (very expensive) it should be to replace the duct tape and WD-40 of nature with something better.

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live the government represents the people through democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Read that and come back.

It represents them does it? Good luck with that. Whether it represents the people or not is irrelevant when you're the one under the gun (or law) and unable to do anything about it.

It appears we disagree on whether it should be 'positive' or 'negative' eugenics.

I'd rather encourage the 'good' ones to breed rather than go around sterilising people. Using germ-line therapy to remove disease genes (legit stuff, not arbitrary crap) would mean that over time there would be less and less need to have a policy at all, since most of the population would be fine.

Sounds simpler and a bit less intrusive, while also delivering a smaller government (eventually). Win win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

As my friend once said, "Hilter fucked up eugenics for the rest time, that asshole."

However, this is America. Every human here has the right to live, however much of a drain on the system it is and at upwards of 80K/year for severely handicapped people to go from Kindergarten thru High school (my mom works in Sp.Ed.) it's a huge fucking drain.

The idea of humans banding together to decide which genetic material we wish to carry on in the future is fucking foolish and an epic fail.

Why?

Because we do not fully and probably never will understand the long term (talking evolutionary here) effects our actions will have. Lets say those who carry the genes for down's syndrome also carry genes that future humans will need to fight off a future plague.

We all die.

Human genetic manipulation on a species wide scale has the potential to destroy us all. PERIOD.

-----

That being said I will engage briefly in the slippery slope argument. A group of humans banding together and deciding what is desired and what is not desired in human genes is a BAD idea, and can NEVER be carried out without someone deciding fags, alcholics, and the just plain stupid should exit the gene pool.

-----

So to all of you fresh out of high school angst ridden psudeo-intellectual eugeneisists out there......kindly find something more productive and less foolish to occupy your thoughts with.

The idea of humans banding together to decide which genetic material we wish to carry on in the future is fucking foolish and an epic fail.

Why?

Because we do not fully and probably never will understand the long term (talking evolutionary here) effects our actions will have. Lets say those who carry the genes for down's syndrome also carry genes that future humans will need to fight off a future plague.

We all die.

Human genetic manipulation on a species wide scale has the potential to destroy us all. PERIOD.

-----

That being said I will engage briefly in the slippery slope argument. A group of humans banding together and deciding what is desired and what is not desired in human genes is a BAD idea, and can NEVER be carried out without someone deciding fags, alcholics, and the just plain stupid should exit the gene pool.

-----

So to all of you fresh out of high school angst ridden psudeo-intellectual eugeneisists out there......kindly find something more productive and less foolish to occupy your thoughts with.

Humans evolving to suit an artificial enviroment can also destroy us all, if that enviroment is then destroyed. This is much more likely then a genetic retard being immune to some disease which kills the rest of us. And if such a disease did kill the rest of us, the genetic retards wouldn't be able to survive on their own.

And why must eugenics be accompanied by someone deciding fags, alcoholics and the plain stupid must exit the gene pool? You back up none of your arguements. I only believe in the manditory sterilazation of those who cannot survive on their own, and where this weakness is passed onto their kids. I'm not talking about some IQ test where if you score low you're steralized. Thats just wrong.

If we don't steralize those who wouldn't be able to replicate in a natural enviroment, as natural selection would otherwise do, thats basically screwing with mother nature. Again and again humans are being proved that when you screw with mother nature, she screws you 10x harder.

....the genetic retards wouldn't be able to survive on their own.

Why not?

Are they unable to find shelter, defend themselves, and find food?

Please tell me how a retard is unable to any of the above and I will contend the point and debate to you. If you cannot, then your assertion is invalidated, and you should contend the point to me.

Fact is, they are perfectly able to survive on their own. In fact, I believe they would live in better harmony with nature than those who are able to think complex ideals up such as facism, atomic bombs, and germ warfare.

I think in the long run (say 200,000 years) the survivability of the human race would be more assured if the Earth were populated by people with I.Q. under 75.

Retards surely did not invent CFC's, the internal combustion engine, or coal power plants.

And why must eugenics be accompanied by someone deciding fags, alcoholics and the plain stupid must exit the gene pool?

Where does your argument for sterilizing retards begin and the argument for sterilizing those just above the retard line end?

Eugenics has historically been accompanied by such, that is my evidence. Please provide an example of a fundamental shift in human nature and paradigm if you believe we are noble enough to head down that path again without the negatives.

If we don't steralize those who wouldn't be able to replicate in a natural enviroment, as natural selection would otherwise do

Most retards are STILL smarter than the competition in a natural evironment (lions, tigers and bears, oh my).

The retard gene has survived floods, famine, war, plague since humans evolved.....how are they unable to replicate in a natural environment?

This goes back to: Are they unable to find shelter, defend themselves, and find food?

----------

You have your work cut out for you with the above, good luck, but I would like to add one final thought.

Every organism on the planet exists for one primal purpose....to pass on it's genetic material. It is the one thing that all living things on the planet have in common.

If I were to have a .5% chance of producing a retard, I am to be sterilized?

Fuck that.