Good/bad?

To get this started, go ahead and tell us why you feel eugenics is wrong or optimal. I'd like to see a discussion regarding this, so that I may gather everyone's viewpoints.

Eugenics is flawed as it doesn't allow for the leaps and bounds in genetic mutation that might occur amongst the genetics of someone who might be considered less desirable. Kind of like when two stupid ugly people create beautiful and intelligent offspring. Isolating genetic traits could lead to missing out on the creation of some amazingly beneficial genes to add to the pool. I prefer natural selection. Stupid people simply cause problems, those problems turn into wars, and then the stupid people die in those wars. The problem creates the solution, and the morons are weaned off without the need for any planned eugenics movement. It's much easier this way.

I believe in aborting children found to be flawed in utero, for example children with Downs Syndrome - unless of course the parents have enough money to raise their new pet without it affecting public money. I dont believe this is unethical. There is nothing worse, IMO, then selfish parents having deformed babies as some sort of testament to their "ability to love" - especially when they don't have the financial means to do so.

I dont believe in trying to genetically engineer "perfect" people though. That has implications of totalitarianism to me. So long as a baby has a chance to participate in the world of its own accord, I think thats where the line should be drawn.

Kind of like when two stupid ugly people create beautiful and intelligent offspring.

I've never heard of that, can you give me an example? And since when is beauty a utilitarian attribute? I can't think of many athletes or intelligent people who are very good looking. I don't think that has much to do with one's intelligence or physical capacity, unless we're talking about skull density, shape, etc.

I've never heard of that, can you give me an example? And since when is beauty a utilitarian attribute? I can't think of many athletes or intelligent people who are very good looking. I don't think that has much to do with one's intelligence or physical capacity, unless we're talking about skull density, shape, etc.

I see this lots. Ugly parents with a beautiful teen daughter with straight A's. My girlfriend is an example of this. Her mom and dad are no prize in the least, yet she's a model with a degree.
Superficial looks are always tied into any Eugenics movement, because Eugenics is about the pursuit of creating the perfect or ideal human. This includes athletic ability, mental capacity, and beauty/sex appeal. I don't know about you, but when people tell me about the perfect woman, she doesn't have a deformed face, a frame like a man, crooked teeth, squinted eyes, but is athletic and intelligent. She's not perfect unless she's attractive. Read about Eugenics if you don't know what I'm talking about.

That may be the goal of some eugenic societies, but it doesn't have to be. What I'm talking about are attributes that actually mean something, like intelligence. And getting straight A's is only a gauge of one's academic performance there are plenty of intelligent people who simply lack interest in school and make horrible grades.

That may be the goal of some eugenic societies, but it doesn't have to be. What I'm talking about are attributes that actually mean something, like intelligence. And getting straight A's is only a gauge of one's academic performance there are plenty of intelligent people who simply lack interest in school and make horrible grades.

I'm aware that straight A's don't equal brains. I didn't get straight A's, but many people who know me well, consider me to be the smartest person they know. I do disagree with you that beauty has no importance. Look at who we idolize in the media, and tell me looks don't matter. The whole idea of eugenics is to have it all, including looks. They might be a superficial attribute, but when I'm trying to get shit accomplished, my looks have definitely helped me accomplish things. Really if we have the choice, we're going to choose good looking and intelligent over ugly and intelligent.

To easeoflife's first post: Natural selection is a little at odds with what ideals humans aspire to. The stupid people don't necessarily die in those wars you mentioned, and the wars aren't necessarily caused by stupid people. Eugenics seems to be the more reasonable option than natural selection because society can block out the undesirable traits, rather than let them fucking breed and grow rampant from out-of-place evolutionary mechanisms. What if the morons breed better than ever because of the intellegentsia making their lives possible?

If I thought people could control themselves and not go on a totalitarian, racist, hysterecomy spree as opposed to simply preventing those with particular hereditary genetic disorders from having kids, I'd vouch for it. Of course, I imagine Hitler considered being a Jew as a hereditary genetic disorder.

Why does it bother you if the selections are made via race? You're still singling out a group of people, say, those with Chron's disease which is prejudice. In fact you really can't make many eugenic actions in the world as diseases are often racially prejudiced. With Chron's, you would be removing Ashkenazim, with sickle cell, Africans etc.

EaseofLife22, I somewhat agree.

Why does it bother you if the selections are made via race? You're still singling out a group of people, say, those with Chron's disease which is prejudice. In fact you really can't make many eugenic actions in the world as diseases are often racially prejudiced. With Chron's, you would be removing Ashkenazim, with sickle cell, Africans etc.

EaseofLife22, I somewhat agree.

It only bothers me because I believe that race has little to do with potential. I don't mind being prejudiced towards those with, for example, Down's syndrome, because it's an obvious genetic defect and limit on a person's potential. If someone doesn't have a lot of potential, but doesn't have any obvious genetic fuckups, then I would guess that ethically that person would have a right to a kid.

I see that logic going towards Brave New World society though, which seems absolutely terrible to me, so I guess my ethics are fucking retarded.

Also, your point on diseases being racially prejudiced is irrelevant becuase they would be sterilized or whatever for their disease, and not the race. Hence, it's not racism, right? Or am I missing something?

It only bothers me because I believe that race has little to do with potential.

Also, your point on diseases being racially prejudiced is irrelevant becuase they would be sterilized or whatever for their disease, and not the race. Hence, it's not racism, right? Or am I missing something?

You would be decimating races. It is racism because sickle cell is genetically part of black people, it primarily effects them and it is a pandemic. Just like eliminating people with AIDS would be racist as Africans have a genetic predisposition to acquire it. Also, race has a great deal to do with potential, unfortunately.

You would be decimating races. It is racism because sickle cell is genetically part of black people, it primarily effects them and it is a pandemic. Just like eliminating people with AIDS would be racist as Africans have a genetic predisposition to acquire it. Also, race has a great deal to do with potential, unfortunately.

But since the defining factor is NOT their race, it's not racism. It's simply coincidence. There's no belief of one race being inherently better than another involved here. All the belief is is that if someone has this disease, they are worse off than someone who does not. I don't know how to put it other than that.

Also, can give you me an example of a potential gap between two races to warrant eugenics to get that trait?

You could call it coincidence, but because sickle cell anemia is a part of black people, by and large, just as is their eyeballs, hair, muscles, brains etc it is still a "racial" cleansing. I personally don't believe any race should be decimated as that is a grave crime against humanity, which is unfortunately the goal of many eugenecists to this day, regardless of the divisions of man.

You could call it coincidence, but because sickle cell anemia is a part of black people, by and large, just as is their eyeballs, hair, muscles, brains etc it is still a "racial" cleansing. I personally don't believe any race should be decimated as that is a grave crime against humanity, which is unfortunately the goal of many eugenecists to this day, regardless of the divisions of man.

I can see your point. I'd like to point out that I wouldn't consider it moral either unless the condition was life threatening, or like Down's Syndrome, incredibly crippling in some way. The majority of africans don't seem to have fucked up genetic disorders like that, so, under my rule, it wouldn't involve the decimation of that particular, or any that I know of, race.

But, that sounds like a fairy tale. Like I said, if I thought people wouldn't fuck the idea up with racism, incompetence, or just a lack of morality, I'd be for it.

Yeah me too but it's not like it would matter, it could never happen in today's world.

Who decides what is good and bad in terms of genetics.

I think handing control of something as important as everyone's genetics to a government is one of the stupidest things you could ever think of. You think that a government who will turn against who you don't like is going to stay on your side forever?

You could call it coincidence, but because sickle cell anemia is a part of black people, by and large, just as is their eyeballs, hair, muscles, brains etc it is still a "racial" cleansing. I personally don't believe any race should be decimated as that is a grave crime against humanity, which is unfortunately the goal of many eugenecists to this day, regardless of the divisions of man.

People who are heterozygous for sickle cell anaemia are supposed to be able to cope with malaria better than 'normal' people.

I see this lots. Ugly parents with a beautiful teen daughter with straight A's. My online girlfriend is an example of this. Her mom and dad are no prize in the least, yet she's a model with a degree.

Fixed.

I'd like to argue an extreme position here, just for argument's sake.

What's wrong with perfection? What would be wrong with us all being perfect and lacking aesthetic individuality? We'd still be subject to our own natural inclinations, but we'd be better at persuing them. It would be like the internet in some respects.

On this web site people exist without age, without skin color, without gender, without clothes, without nationality, without any of the visual cues we usually use to discredit or ignore people who are unlike ourselves. All of these things are stripped away and the ideas themselves are laid bare.

Eugenics is flawed as it doesn't allow for the leaps and bounds in genetic mutation that might occur

yeah ... right. Like there's lot's of "leaps and bounds" in genetic mutation that had occurred naturally. Look at your self and the photos of people from the 1880s, I don;t see any "leaps and bounds" genetic mutations....

Yes, I do think that I support eugenics. I do support the sterilization of the mentally handicapped. I see no productive use of them as people, aside from what menial jobs some of the functioning ones can perform. I know it sounds harsh and utilitarian, but I am sickened by how these things are cherished and praised by the community just because they can gurgle out a few words, drool, and have stupid Mongoloid smiles on their faces. I understand that yes, their family probably loves them. I just don't want their burden ending up on the public's shoulder.

Uhm, I think that before we could have any sort of meaningful discussion on eugenics, we need to define the term properly first.

To me eugenics means human intervention in determining what kind of children will be conceived, and consequently brought into this world. This can be a very positive thing. For example, there are a lot of heritable diseases that are entirely preventable through prenatal screening, the only thing I can think of right now being the tendency/prone-ness to depression, which I have witnessed in a lot of kids nowadays (quite unfortunately); however, this doesn't have to happen and it can be prevented.

Of course, there is always the possiblity that eugenics might be abused/misused for discriminatory purposes. My solution to this is to make eugenics a voluntary, preferably civilian-based movement, instead of a state-sanctioned one. This means the government can't tell people what kind of kids they can or cannot have. However if people want to make their own decisions about what kind of offspring they wish to bring into this world they fully have the right to do so.

Uhm, I think that before we could have any sort of meaningful discussion on eugenics, we need to define the term properly first.

To me eugenics means human intervention in determining what kind of children will be conceived, and consequently brought into this world. This can be a very positive thing. For example, there are a lot of heritable diseases that are entirely preventable through prenatal screening, the only thing I can think of right now being the tendency/prone-ness to depression, which I have witnessed in a lot of kids nowadays (quite unfortunately); however, this doesn't have to happen and it can be prevented.

Of course, there is always the possiblity that eugenics might be abused/misused for discriminatory purposes. My solution to this is to make eugenics a voluntary, preferably civilian-based movement, instead of a state-sanctioned one. This means the government can't tell people what kind of kids they can or cannot have. However if people want to make their own decisions about what kind of offspring they wish to bring into this world they fully have the right to do so.

Genetic altering technology on humans is a really really bad idea to put in the public hands. The main reason would be that the technology to alter genes is really expensive, and requires specialized training in genetic engineering. The problem would be that not everyone would be able to access the technology, and it would consolidate into the hands of the wealthy elite. With this technology, you could isolate genes of the intellectually gifted, and make super smart people. Eventually, this group, coupled with the power they'd inherit from their parents, would lead to a new species or tier of mankind. By mere intellectual advantage, everyone without this advantage would always fall second to these people, solidifying a permanent class structure.

WAN, do you have a link to depression being triggered by a certain Gene, or are you blowing smoke out your ass?

Fixed.
Eat a dick. I'm visiting her next week, for a week. Make fun of me sleeping with a model all you want. Let's see you manage to land a hot girl over the net. Probably marry this one, cause she's the best.

Genetic altering technology on humans is a really really bad idea to put in the public hands. The main reason would be that the technology to alter genes is really expensive, and requires specialized training in genetic engineering. The problem would be that not everyone would be able to access the technology, and it would consolidate into the hands of the wealthy elite. With this technology, you could isolate genes of the intellectually gifted, and make super smart people. Eventually, this group, coupled with the power they'd inherit from their parents, would lead to a new species or tier of mankind. By mere intellectual advantage, everyone without this advantage would always fall second to these people, solidifying a permanent class structure.

WAN, do you have a link to depression being triggered by a certain Gene, or are you blowing smoke out your ass?

It's a worse idea to leave it in the government's hands. What's to stop them from creating a permanent class structure to further their own ends?

Having that tech in the government's hands won't necessarily make it any cheaper or more accessible.

Genetic altering technology on humans is a really really bad idea to put in the public hands. The main reason would be that the technology to alter genes is really expensive, and requires specialized training in genetic engineering. The problem would be that not everyone would be able to access the technology, and it would consolidate into the hands of the wealthy elite. With this technology, you could isolate genes of the intellectually gifted, and make super smart people. Eventually, this group, coupled with the power they'd inherit from their parents, would lead to a new species or tier of mankind. By mere intellectual advantage, everyone without this advantage would always fall second to these people, solidifying a permanent class structure.

Your argument totally ignores external factors; having certain genes isn't a guarantee of anything. As for having a class structure, well shit, we've had one of those since the dawn of recorded history.

It's a bit late to start complaining about it now.

Genetic altering technology on humans is a really really bad idea to put in the public hands. The main reason would be that the technology to alter genes is really expensive, and requires specialized training in genetic engineering. The problem would be that not everyone would be able to access the technology, and it would consolidate into the hands of the wealthy elite. With this technology, you could isolate genes of the intellectually gifted, and make super smart people. Eventually, this group, coupled with the power they'd inherit from their parents, would lead to a new species or tier of mankind. By mere intellectual advantage, everyone without this advantage would always fall second to these people, solidifying a permanent class structure.

I think you could be right in that genetic altering technology is expensive. However:

1. Like almost all other kinds of things, advances in technology will eventually make it affordable to the average person. Take computers for example. I believe they started out pretty big and expensive but now almost everyone can afford one.

2. Biotechnology requires highly trained specialists yes. However, it's no way near as prohibitively costly (as you were implying) as say industrial manufacturing, where one would need huge amounts of capital, human resources, properties, facilities, raw material, machineries...etc. In other words, biotechnology will be no more expensive than say, going to a brain surgeon. Still expensive? Yes. But not prohibitively so.



WAN, do you have a link to depression being triggered by a certain Gene, or are you blowing smoke out your ass?

I never said depression was triggered by a certain gene. Stop putting words in mouth so that I will engage in an argument with you, which you sorely crave.

Fuck off.

It's a worse idea to leave it in the government's hands. What's to stop them from creating a permanent class structure to further their own ends?

Having that tech in the government's hands won't necessarily make it any cheaper or more accessible.

While I agree with what you said, I just want to add something.

It doesn't even have anything to do with potential government misuse/abuse of the technology. It has to do with the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish, provided that they are not breaking any laws or infringing on the rights of others. And genetic altering is neither unlawful, nor does it infringe on others' rights.

It doesn't even have anything to do with potential government misuse/abuse of the technology. It has to do with the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish, provided that they are not breaking any laws or infringing on the rights of others. And genetic altering is neither unlawful, nor does it infringe on others' rights.

I agree with that. I do think that governments often take ridiculous stances on certain technologies. Having the government ban a technology on a 'moral' basis is just as bad as having them abuse another technology.

I believe in aborting children found to be flawed in utero, for example children with Downs Syndrome - unless of course the parents have enough money to raise their new pet without it affecting public money. I dont believe this is unethical. There is nothing worse, IMO, then selfish parents having deformed babies as some sort of testament to their "ability to love" - especially when they don't have the financial means to do so.

I dont believe in trying to genetically engineer "perfect" people though. That has implications of totalitarianism to me. So long as a baby has a chance to participate in the world of its own accord, I think thats where the line should be drawn.

*orgasms*

This, 100%.