Anyone heard of Eugenics?

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by 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.

Even mine-clearers?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Inefficient and communistic. Before they can walk through a minefield, probably under fire (thus diminishing their effectiveness to begin with), they need to be bred, fed, clothed, housed, occassionally cleaned with a high pressure hose, transported to and through the battlefield, and then 'prompted' to march on. Damn inefficient compared with a nice explosive or magnetic remote detonation, among other means.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Inefficient and communistic. Before they can walk through a minefield, probably under fire (thus diminishing their effectiveness to begin with), they need to be bred, fed, clothed, housed, occassionally cleaned with a high pressure hose, transported to and through the battlefield, and then 'prompted' to march on. Damn inefficient compared with a nice explosive or magnetic remote detonation, among other means.

Damn man, you have an answer for everything, so I suppose you would be the pertinent one to ask, is this a pimple or a boil?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, it is a nascent buboe. Congratulations, you have the plague. Next!

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No, it is a nascent buboe. Congratulations, you have the plague. Next!

That explains a lot actually.

But anyways, Simon, would you advocate for the general population (of adequate breed), a longevity based eugenics program, or a "super-human" physical quality improvement program?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

To create the superman, we must first start with good stock. Effectively, the second option, with elements of the first incorporated to a lesser extent at first, but emerging more in later generations. First, concentrate on quality and superiority of life, and then flow on naturally to addressing quantity.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
To create the superman, we must first start with good stock. Effectively, the second option, with elements of the first incorporated to a lesser extent at first, but emerging more in later generations. First, concentrate on quality and superiority of life, and then flow on naturally to addressing quantity.

Yes this would probably be the best option, as it would leave the population that is living in the best working order.

I assume for yourself, the policy would be to keep you alive at all costs though, with the nuances dealt with later.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I am but an instrument of the will of God, Destiny and Providence, as innexorable and terrible as the phlogiston sea. I am a river to my people.

 

[HuckFinn]

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

There is a scientific argument which has been dealt with before... evolution works just fine when left on its own devices, and most eugenics movements so far have been so ideologically biased that they would just breed us all into some creature that probably wouldn't be the best adapted to its evolutionary niche anymore. Just look at what we've done to dogs.

And what's that love affair with "cold empirical science"? I am a scientifically minded person myself, and an atheist even, but I am not a follower of that cult... science tells us what we can do, not what we should do. Too bad many people are not aware of the difference.

 

[croxis]

My question is who has the moral authority to decide where the breeding cut off line is?

And if you say it should be done by commity, you need to be slapped and get a job.

 

[Pirate]

Here's a point to consider: the same genetic "defect" that causes sickle cell anemia in North America provides a resistance to malaria in tropical climates. One man's disease is another man's vaccine. How the hell do you know what is good and what is bad? An analogy - the early U.S. military all but wiped out Native Americans during colonization, but come WWII more than 100 years later an ancient Native American language provided the only code that the Japanese couldn't break. Good thing we weren't successful in "taming the savages" and eliminating their "hethen" culture or there would have been no Navajo code-talkers to save our butts. Finally, what would have been considered genetic defects in certain cell receptors decades ago now are showing to provide immunity to HIV infection.

Morality aside, eugenics is just short-sighted.

 

[Laughing Gull]

if you want to look at another way:
eugenics would eliminate jobs and hurt the economy.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Laughing Gull
if you want to look at another way:
eugenics would eliminate jobs and hurt the economy.

i can't see how that would happen...
the jobs would still be there, they'd just be filled by those more suited to them.

 

[Laughing Gull]

Originally posted by bobgote

i can't see how that would happen...
the jobs would still be there, they'd just be filled by those more suited to them.

whole industries are built up around the care of incurable mental patients. without them, the industries would not exist.

eliminate certain genetic illnesses, and there will be no demand for medicine or treatment for those illnesses. so the pharma companies take a hit in the pocket.
there would be no need for R&D for improving the treatment or medicine, so there will be less demand for R&D type capital equipment.. so the companies that provide the capital equipment takes a hit in the pocket, too.

Well, the plastics company that provides up-to-spec plastic tubing to the capital equipment manufacturers is out of business too.

all those people without jobs. so now they can't buy that XBox at Best Buy, and that hurts Best Buy, and a butterfly sneezed in the forest and then it snowed at my house in So. Cali in July shortly thereafter.

In America, taking care of people who medically need to be taken care of is big business. Eugenics would eventually end that business because there wouldn't be anyone to take care of, except for the elderly.... but in a society where Eugenics would be embraced, I imagine the dependant elderly would be tossed in a vat of fire and disposed of...

edit: usage, spelling, content

 

[Double Barrel]

Originally posted by Syterion
education is the most important thing you can recieve in life. (Besides food, water, shelter, and love).

O.K., make that education is the fifth most important thing!



*ahem* (sorry, I found that statement really funny in an extremely serious thread...and the fact that he misspelled “received” when speaking of education! )

Anyway, first major props to Fred for some very well thought out posts. It doesn't get much better than that, folks. I agree 100% with everything he said.

With regards to any argument in favor of eugenics: you've got to be one sick puppy!

What about Stephen Hawking??? By any definition of eugenics, I suppose you would definitely eliminate one of the greatest minds of the past century!! Beethoven, as well, since he was deaf and his "quality of life" does not meet your standards! The list of positive contributions to the world by folks that would not meet your high standards is long, indeed. For all we know, the researcher that would have cured cancer died in Hitler's concentration camps!!

From one that truly believes that being offended is a choice, I've got to tell you that the mere thought of eugenics makes me sick to the bottom of my soul.

Unfortunately, I fear that many of today's viruses are eugenics programs in action that are being advanced by the global elite.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

So Darkshade, inform me why you aren't fit to be bred out of your own population.

I'm very curious.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So Darkshade, inform me why you aren't fit to be bred out of your own population.

I'm very curious.

Why would he create a philosophy that would eliminate himself?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Adolf Hitler did.

 

[Cilpot]

Originally posted by Double Barrel


What about Stephen Hawking??? By any definition of eugenics, I suppose you would definitely eliminate one of the greatest minds of the past century!!

Excellent example. I'll also add John Forbes Nash Jr. as a great mind who probably would be eliminated..

Well.. I have not much to add to this thread. Fred, HuckFinn and others have made some excellent posts here.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Adolf Hitler did.

Not intentionally