The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Gabryel Karolin]

That's not what I meant. There is a difference between giving something to someone who has shown that they will make good use of it, and denying someone something on the grounds that they are not helping society enough.

So no prisons then?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There is, again, a difference between "clearly harming socity" and "not doing enough to help society in the way we define helping society".

 

[Abaddon]

Can you tell me how many different genes code for eye sight? Even if you could, what are you going to do with all those people who are carriers of poor eye sight allele yet have normal eyesight (and there will many of those)? The problem with your basic premise is that you have no clue of how complex genetics is, making you believe that you can magically select individuals based on some complex attribute such as intelligence, which is sure to involve a large number of genes.

Borrow a entry level genetics textbook, read it (and understand it), and then come back. Your idea of eugenics would only be feasible with things like Huntington's disease or other similar type of diseases (for which the defect in question is known and which is coded with 1 or few genes). And I can tell you that people are already getting screened and get counseled for those type of things. No offense, but you don't even grasp the basics of the subject (genetics not eugenics), which leads to very faulty premises and arguments that don't make a whole lot of sense.

My statement was tongue in cheek.

I was hinting at the question "where do you draw the line"

I mean, next we could decide blondes have more fun.. so lets not allow any other hair colours to breed!

I'm actually a Bsc (Hons) Zoology so, ya, I know genetics.