Anyone heard of Eugenics?

[Stapel]

Well, if some sort of genetic disease would seriously endanger mankind, eugenics should eb possible....

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Stapel
Well, if some sort of genetic disease would seriously endanger mankind, eugenics should eb possible....

And the door is open...

 

[samildanach]

Well what do you want to do? Implant an embryo that has chromosomal abnormalities and then have the mother choose to abort it later.
My gut feeling, however, is that PID is wrong but I can't figure out quite why I am disturbed by it.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Hitro

And the door is open...

yeah.... I know.....

 

[a space oddity]

Originally posted by smalltalk


PS:
Anyone has seen Gattaca?

Yes, I did. Scary! In some ways this is done already with health statements where questions are being asked about family health history, from a notion that it's allowed to keep someone from being hired or insured if there's too big a risk involved. Having genetical 'proof' just elaborates on what already is done in that area.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Gattaca, YES ! I was twisting my brains trying to remember the name of that movie

But my oppinion:
I will not touch the segment of "mercy" killing, as it was covered by Fred and Huck Finn.

Eugenics has always been with us, in one form or another. We each have an ideal (or a general idea) of what a partener of the opposite sex should look like. So in a way, we all decide, in one small measure, how our children will look like.

Yet, for the first time, we are given the opportuinty to chose precisely how our offspring will look like. This is a two-edge sword. For one, there's the prospect of eradicating genetic disorders right from the womb (or before), the chance that no children will be born with malformations of any sort. Two, there's the growing prospect of designer babies, where a couple would be able to decide what height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, temperament will their sons and daughters have. One would inevitably lead to two (reguardless of special regulatios).

What many people seem to ignore is that with genetic screening there will shortly be the possibility to cure genetic diseases after birth.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Eugenics has always been with us, in one form or another. We each have an ideal (or a general idea) of what a partener of the opposite sex should look like. So in a way, we all decide, in one small measure, how our children will look like.

The basic point is that what you describe there is not Eugenics.
Eugenics means to artificially formalise the otherwise diffuse feelings you mention. It means to impose certain individual's views (or even feelings) in that area on others, and that is what's basically wrong with it.

 

[Sims2789]

delete post.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Originally posted by FredLC
Maybe I’ m reading a version of the forum rules that is different from yours, but the one I found on this link clearly states this two things:

The manner in which he posted his opinion was not to be intentionally offensive nor hateful and abusive. Also, inciting a response is not tantamount to trolling, as eyrei said. Trolling, as far as I can tell from the rules, would be saying something offensive or emotionally charged in order to incite a negative response. When you post anything or start any thread you want to post something that will incite a response. If not, why post at all? The mere mention of such nonsense as eugenics simply seems not, to me, cause for disciplinary action. He seems to genuinely want to discuss the issue in a mature manner.

In any case, like eyrei said, the mods shall determine what constitutes a violation of forum rules and regulations. Should you begin to concern yourself with such matters, you would only be wasting your time. Just let it slide.

 

[HuckFinn]

I don't mean to whine for moderator action here, because I am perfectly capable of defending myself and believe I can actually achieve something by doing exactly that when neccessary.

However, I find it interesting that if someone posted a thread about "stopping the Jews from breeding" or "eugenics: keeping black genes from spreading in our gene pool", I am sure it would be modded to hell in about three seconds...

 

[Johann MacLeod]

Originally posted by luiz


You are beign totally unfair, Sean. Many countrys have had eugenic policys in the past(Germany, Sweden, Serbia, etc) and America isn't one of them.
Furthermore simply because this poster is an american doesn't mean that this is what the mainstream american think. There are people with this sick belief everywhere.

when did sweden have one? i was unaware of this.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Enemy Ace


The manner in which he posted his opinion was not to be intentionally offensive nor hateful and abusive. Also, inciting a response is not tantamount to trolling, as eyrei said. Trolling, as far as I can tell from the rules, would be saying something offensive or emotionally charged in order to incite a negative response. When you post anything or start any thread you want to post something that will incite a response. If not, why post at all? The mere mention of such nonsense as eugenics simply seems not, to me, cause for disciplinary action. He seems to genuinely want to discuss the issue in a mature manner.

In any case, like eyrei said, the mods shall determine what constitutes a violation of forum rules and regulations. Should you begin to concern yourself with such matters, you would only be wasting your time. Just let it slide.

I most certainly don't want to play the role of Mod, but how exactly suggestions like "Hitler was right to kill people with disabilities" and "it's better be dead than be a son of prostitutes with rednecks" fail to fit the "abusive" and "hateful" criterias?

I might even accept an argument that he don't actually feel that way, and that he simply worded those things (very) badly... but still, plain and simple, this things he wrote does fit in those parameters.

You don't have to say "I hate" to write something hateful, you know...

HuckFinn has used this example before me, but I'll state it again... think of this: How would it sound if he had suggested things that were derogatory of other people instead of disabled people, prostitutes and rednecks? What if he had suggested, for example, that Hitler was right to kill jews, and that it's better to be dead than to be the child of a black person with a communist?

Hightlights the obvious, does it not?

Regards .

 

[HuckFinn]

I hate to push the same point, but here's another comparison that should serve to highlight this even better: Hitler's T4 programme, the systematic "mercy" killing of the infirm, is for me, as a historical event, about the same thing as the Holocaust is to a Jewish person.

What do you think the response of this place would be to a Holocaust revisionist who might suggest it was a Good Thing to happen... no matter how sincere it would seem his desire to be "mature" about it is?

I fail to understand why I am expected to be able to discuss this "maturely", in a cool academic tone. No other group of people has to debate for their life.

For some strange reason I am a WW2 and Nazi Germany hobbyist, and I must admit that I should probably look for other hobbies that better support my emotional well-being. I guess I just can't stop wanting to understand what the hell happened there at the time. In particular, I have tried to find out what happened to Germans who share my condition.

I would have been a happier person had I not looked into that. A lot of those stories have made me sob uncontrollably, and I am not even a man who flinches easily, having dealt with broken bones all my life...

Now, I had a few afterthoughts about the issues I wrote about earlier. They have to do with measuring quality of life. As I said, I find the "compassion" argument to be particulary nasty, because it looks all soft and cuddly on the outside while being nothing but death and destruction inside.

The most poisonous quality about the argument is that it has an element of self-fulfilling prophecy to it. The underlying idea is that a person can have a condition that makes a meaningful, happy life impossible. Thus it's better it is not even started.

This can lead to a slippery slope and sort of circular reasoning where the real reason why (otherwise perfectly viable) disabled people can not lead meaningful lives is that people believe they should have been dead to begin with because their lives can't possibly be worth living. If I am considered an undesirable freak, of course my life will be miserable and thus not worth much to me, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my actual disability!

I have always been extremely fortunate in my life when it comes to people's attitudes. I am very grateful for all the people around me who have made it possible for me to grow into the balanced, happy, active, self-assured individual I am today.

The only thing that could possibly make my life miserable is a bunch of crazy eugenicists seizing power... every day I live is a day I prove their assumptions to be false.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, one has heard of eugenics. It is an interesting and much maligned area of thought, and one that is very much along my own lines of belief, thought and policy.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Eugenics is not a bad idea, as long as it is not wrecklessly thrown around.

 

[Mescalhead]

Is the arguement against any type of eugenics founded on mere compassion or cold empirical science?

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
When Winstin Churchill was young, eugenics wasnt the dirty word it is today. Eugenics has two aspects: a moral and a scientific one. Morally, a breeding program to create superior humans is detestable. Scientically, its no big deal really, humans can be bred for certain characteristics just like dogs, cats, cows and any other animal can. Eugenics is a a moot issue anyway. We'll be able to create super humans much more easily in the test tube very soon, and we most likely will. The same exact moral problems will apply to test tube eugenics as apply to the old fashioned eugenics however.

all this has already been covered by a little tv series I like to call dark angel. the big question we are all asking is can a genetically engineered soldier beat up a guy from a eugenic blood cult? i mean this is what the whole issue boils down to in the end. dark angel shows us that the answer to this age-old question is the genetically engineered soldier. therefore genetic engineering is more effective than eugenics. So i say to you all, forget protesting against eugenics, rather protest cloning techs and genetic modifications cos thats where it's leading.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
I don't mean to whine for moderator action here, because I am perfectly capable of defending myself and believe I can actually achieve something by doing exactly that when neccessary.

However, I find it interesting that if someone posted a thread about "stopping the Jews from breeding" or "eugenics: keeping black genes from spreading in our gene pool", I am sure it would be modded to hell in about three seconds...

but that wasn't the intention of the thread. from what i can see it is a genuine thread wishing discussion of the subject (which is controversial) and puts forth some of the pros in the first post. it is not inflammatory beyond the topic it brings forth. anyway, as has been said, mod's decision. I reckon that the amount of spam about closing the thread is more likely to get it closed than the topic itself.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Yes, one has heard of eugenics. It is an interesting and much maligned area of thought, and one that is very much along my own lines of belief, thought and policy.

but i'm sure there is always a place for low born serfs in your ideal world...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by bobgote
but i'm sure there is always a place for low born serfs in your ideal world...

In an environment where technology, automation and such benefits are now in existence, there is less of a requirement for mass unskilled labour. Thus, that particular reason for keeping some types around is solved. Certainly, keep a few for novelty, hunting and menial tasks for the moment. The rest can be resettled.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


In an environment where technology, automation and such benefits are now in existence, there is less of a requirement for mass unskilled labour. Thus, that particular reason for keeping some types around is solved. Certainly, keep a few for novelty, hunting and menial tasks for the moment. The rest can be resettled.

Still great as a military resource though.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, for the same reasons. Furthermore, the operators of such automated military systems would be drawn from appropriate stock; elite rather than mass.