The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Abaddon]

Okay, let me rephrase:what's the point of this thread?

To give my 6000th post a suitably gritty thread

 

[Gogf]

If it involves restricting reproduction to only a select individual to bread perfict people, I am against that

So am I, and so is Masquerouge.

If it involves using immoral processes to scan and process human eggs and sperm and then implant them invitro, I am strongly against that.

What classifies as a process as immoral?

If it involves the use of abortions to flush out and eliminate an unborn human being because that child has a few defects, I am against that as well.

What about to "flush out" a two celled sperm/egg conglomerate that is literally only an hour old? Is that a "human"? I think not.

However, I do think CivGeneral has a point. Any process which seeks to route out those of us who are "defective" will eventually lead to us becoming a more or less uniform species. It's inevitable. What's considered "defective" will constantly be changing, and as we become more and more uniform very minor "disabilities" (like brown hair) will be considered worse and worse. There's a slight chance that a slippery slope like this might not happen, but why even open the possibility? What do we really gain from taking this enormous risk? The loss of a few individuals that we deem should not be alive, even though they have done no wrong?

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't understand the concept or the reason for this thread if that's what it is. Everyone can make their own choice. It's not a political issue and it's not one that we can really discuss on broad terms with any kind of accuracy or bearing on reality.

Apparently we can, 5 pages...

I'm against abortion in the third trimester, no matter what the reason, excluding a medical threat to the mother. Before your post, I would have said I supported it before that, but now I'm not so sure. If you intend to have a child, can support them and give them a good life, and choose not to have them because you believe that their life wouldn't be worth living because of a genetic disorder, is that fair? Right now I'm leaning toward the "it's morally wrong but should be allowed by law" stand, but I'm not really sure.

To me that's fair. And if no genetical defects were detected and the born kids had some, I would raise it and love it.

I
That's a terrible analogy. If I had both a genetic disorder and loving parents, I'm quite sure that I would be grateful to be alive. There are people who don't even have this, after all. You're assuming these children would be better off not alive than alive, which, in my view, is a totally unacceptable assumption.

Fair point.

I
No, there really isn't. The lines get blurred. If we root out traits we don't like without letting nature find the best ones, we will eventually end up with a relatively uniform species. The future of our species cannot be entrusted to some people who not have the knowledge of wisdom to realize which traits will be useful in the future.

The big problem is that our civilization do not let nature find the best ones, since people with genetical defects have a much better chance of reproducing than out there in the wild.

 

[Abaddon]

But thats eons away in a population of 6 billion.

Why not reduce the chances of Cystic Fibrosis, Breast Cancer.. and the many other diseases very obviously gnetically linked?

 

[Abaddon]

However, I do think CivGeneral has a point. Any process which seeks to route out those of us who are "defective" will eventually lead to us becoming a more or less uniform species. It's inevitable. What's considered "defective" will constantly be changing, and as we become more and more uniform very minor "disabilities" (like brown hair) will be considered worse and worse. There's a slight chance that a slippery slope like this might not happen, but why even open the possibility? What do we really gain from taking this enormous risk? The loss of a few individuals that we deem should not be alive, even though they have done no wrong?

But thats eons away in a population of 6 billion.

Why not reduce the chances of Cystic Fibrosis, Breast Cancer.. and the many other diseases very obviously gnetically linked?

 

[Gogf]

Apparently we can, 5 pages...

As far as I can tell, this mainly consists of you telling people that eugenics is an issue of personal choice.

To me that's fair. And if no genetical defects were detected and the born kids had some, I would raise it and love it.

Fine, then we agree here.

The big problem is that our civilization do not let nature find the best ones, since people with genetical defects have a much better chance of reproducing than out there in the wild.

Fair point. Our society has issues with birth rates; those who succeed in society do not necessarily have more children than those who do not. However, those who have the most debilitating genetic disorders probably do not have many children, or at least I would think they don't. It's a very weak form of Natural Selection, but it's still there. The best may not be those who reproduce the most, but the worst hardly do either.

 

[Gogf]

But thats eons away in a population of 6 billion.

Why not reduce the chances of Cystic Fibrosis, Breast Cancer.. and the many other diseases very obviously gnetically linked?

Not only can we not accurately judge how long it will take, but that's irrelevant. We can't just say "screw the future" because "it's a long time from now."

 

[Abaddon]

try telling in that to people when you mention the environment.

Anyway, you ignored the acutal decent part of my post.. surely you can go against that?

 

[Masquerouge]

As far as I can tell, this mainly consists of you telling people that eugenics is an issue of personal choice.

True. And in the definition I'm using, I see nothing that invalidates my viewpoint.

 

[Gogf]

Anyway, you ignored the acutal decent part of my post.. surely you can go against that?

I've replied to that many times before. Having children is your choice. If you don't want to do it because you're afraid they'll have a disability that you consider is worse than not being alive, that's your choice.

True. And in the definition I'm using, I see nothing that invalidates my viewpoint.

Which is that you should be able to not have children (wow, that's awkwardly phrased)? I don't see anything wrong with that either.

 

[Masquerouge]

Which is that you should be able to not have children (wow, that's awkwardly phrased)? I don't see anything wrong with that either.

Well, which is also that eugenics is not only that fear-mongering, Nazi terms, but something that actually makes sense and is moral on a personal level.

 

[Masquerouge]

Civgeneral, I said I wanted to cry because you came right after I almosts exhausted myself trying to separate eugenics from the government-backed perfect-race breeding programs, and that's exactly why you posted. Nothing against you, and I apologize if it sounded brusque...

 

[Gogf]

Well, which is also that eugenics is not only that fear-mongering, Nazi terms, but something that actually makes sense and is moral on a personal level.

The fact that this is a personal decision means that the morality of it varies. You may believe that avoiding having these children is a moral process, while someone else may believe that it is not. I see no reason to adopt either of these views in a broad, sweeping sense. As a whole, we should take no stance on this. Let people make their own decision. Isn't that the point of a personal decision anyway?

 

[Masquerouge]

The fact that this is a personal decision means that the morality of it varies. You may believe that avoiding having these children is a moral process, while someone else may believe that it is not. I see no reason to adopt either of these views in a broad, sweeping sense. As a whole, we should take no stance on this. Let people make their own decision. Isn't that the point of a personal decision anyway?

That's fine, but do you see these personal decisions as eugenical(?) in nature?

 

[El_Machinae]

A way of supporting (personal choice) eugenics would be to encourage the proliferation of technologies that allowed selection of traits in an embryo.

If PGD (Preimplantation genetic diagnosis) became easier, for example, genetic defects would be selected against by parents.

 

[Kozmos]

FFS what is wrong with the government running a small selective volounteer based eugenics program while the rest of the nation breeds like rabbits. This IMO would be the best solution.

 

[admiral-bell]

My question to the nazis that support this, is there proof that idiocy is hereditary. Howa about: Do stupid people really have more kids, or just ones that dont have the opportunity to go to college. And lastly, 9th amendment of the US constitution, Unennumerated rights. Take that Nazis.
(A 1,2,3 punch, brought to you by Admiral-Bell)


Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[classical_hero]

Whoops. I misread the question and thought it was a question asking if you are for Eugenics. I am totally against it.

I must remind myself not to vote when I am so tired.

 

[Perfection]

But thats eons away in a population of 6 billion.

Why not reduce the chances of Cystic Fibrosis, Breast Cancer.. and the many other diseases very obviously gnetically linked?

Why not just use Preimplantation genetic diagnosis?

 

[Abaddon]

FFS what is wrong with the government running a small selective volounteer based eugenics program while the rest of the nation breeds like rabbits. This IMO would be the best solution.

Makes sence to me.