Eugenics

[Argeus the Paladin]

No, I am not a Nazi. But like a particular friend of mine somewhere else on the Net, I found some of the fundamentals of National Socialism rather interesting to look into.

Eugenics being one of them.

This is the theory and practice of trying to better the gene pool by artificial methods. Needless to say it runs in contrast with human rights most of the time.

But I get the feel that humans naturally attempt this anyways without any complex theory to back it up. When you get married, often your parents will give you advice against marrying a guy/girl whose family is known to have a hereditary disease running rampant (like my family and diabetes. Huh.) Some people would advice high-end white-collar workers to reproduce moar because that would hopefully bear lots of intelligent kids to better the country/society/whatever.

So, opinions.

[Elfdude]

So, opinions.

Eh, natural eugenic principles of the human race is more or less destroyed by the relative wealth of resources we are blessed (namely food, water and shelter) with and our ability to prevent the death of people who would've died long ago due to chronic or genetic illness.

I don't think the Nazi's were so far off with their idea of artificial eugenics, their premise that aryans were somehow the 'best race' was. I think it would actually be a pretty good idea to limit or eliminate reproduction of unfit parents. Particularly those who cannot afford, take care of or teach their children. It's hard for me to see highschoolers so naive they don't know where South America is and I solely blame this effect on the parents inability to teach their children. I also find it disgusting when I hear a child who believes HIV is a myth perpetuated by drug companies to kill people because their parents said so.

Either that or the government needs to take a bigger part in monitoring children's lives early on (the learning between 0-4 sets the pace for the rest of your life) and take them should the parent reveal that they are unqualified to raise a child.

[43rdFoot]

Eugenics operate under the principle that there are are "good" kinds of people and "bad" kinds of people. It's absurd.

[Boyar Son]

Eugenics operate under the principle that there are are "good" people and "bad" people. It's absurd.

I'm not too sure where you're getting at. you mean morally, or you mean that one person may be able to perform better than the other?

[43rdFoot]

I'm not too sure where you're getting at. you mean morally, or you mean that one person may be able to perform better than the other?

Both. It's both morally reprehensible, and incredibly egotistic and arrogant.

[Boyar Son]

Both. It's both morally reprehensible, and incredibly egotistic and arrogant.

Ok. but since you gave me reasons like morally reprehensible, and arrogant and egotistical. how is it, absurd? i.e. unreasonable/no rationality. for the latter argument, improving the race by leaving the strong isn't irrational (since it is dealing with genetics and health after all) if nature itself uses this idea (how Social Darwinists like to believe). isn't it that the only argument against eugenics is morality

[43rdFoot]

Ok. but since you gave me reasons like morally reprehensible, and arrogant and egotistical. how is it, absurd? i.e. unreasonable/no rationality. for the latter argument, improving the race by leaving the strong isn't irrational (since it is dealing with genetics and health after all) if nature itself uses this idea (how Social Darwinists like to believe). isn't it that the only argument against eugenics is morality

Arrogance and egotism are unsupported claims of superiority. It is irrational by its very nature.

Eugenics is irrational because the people who support it claim to know who the best kinds of people are, and hope to limit the gene pool by picking those people. This is all besides the fact that it is not supported by any real scientific method.

[Elfdude]

Both. It's both morally reprehensible, and incredibly egotistic and arrogant.

Hardly. The principle of eugenics isn't that one person is better than another but that certain genetic characteristics are preferable. This isn't about race, anyone of any race could randomly develop genes for strength, endurance, toughness or intelligence. It's simply fact that some genes are better than others. You can't tell me that preventing parents who aren't capable or that don't desire to raise a child is wrong.

Frankly the nazis gave eugenics a bad name. If you have a favorite dog breed for example that dog breed was created through eugenic principles, if you like disease resistant food that grows fast and produces a lot it was also created from eugenic principles. Obviously eugenics applies directly to humans but it's not a stretch to think that the world would be a better place if we could somehow artificially encourage good traits and attempt to weed out diseases and risk factors. I'd be happy with simply preventing incapable parents from ruining another generation.

I mean, of course starting a eugenic experiment so close to gene splicing technology would be retarded as it could never produce a genetically better population in time to be useful but say if the practice had started 2,000 years ago we'd be a race of genetically superior supermen.

[Argeus the Paladin]

But we know there are people who carry hereditary diseases that are yet incurable...

[43rdFoot]

But we know there are people who carry hereditary diseases that are yet incurable...

And? Besides the fact that most people carry genes that could be construed as negative, does that give you the right to determine how that person should live their lives?

[Argeus the Paladin]

No, of course not.

But let me ask you one extreme: Should people with HIV/AIDS breed?

If your answer is no, it counts as eugenics.

[43rdFoot]

No, of course not.

But let me ask you one extreme: Should people with HIV/AIDS breed?

If your answer is no, it counts as eugenics.

That's not for me to decide.

Hardly. The principle of eugenics isn't that one person is better than another but that certain genetic characteristics are preferable.

Ultimately those genetic preferences entail choosing people who are better suited to breeding than another person; one cannot simply cherry pick genes.

You can't tell me that preventing parents who aren't capable or that don't desire to raise a child is wrong.

A: I have no right to decide who is capable of raising a child and who isn't.

B: People who don't want to raise children don't have to raise children. I have no idea where you got that idea.

[Elfdude]

Ultimately those genetic preferences entail choosing people who are better suited to breeding than another person; one cannot simply cherry pick genes.

Why? Is the compassion to deny the next generation the misery of downs syndrome wrong? How about heritable manic depression? Quite frankly, where do you get off denying the rights of children in favor of the rights of their parents? Both are humans, the difference is children don't get to choose. Adults do.

A: I have no right to decide who is capable of raising a child and who isn't.

Uh huh, social services is evil. Children aren't people until they reach 18 anyways they don't deserve rights.

B: People who don't want to raise children don't have to raise children. I have no idea where you got that idea.

Funny, that doesn't stop people from impregnating others nor does it stop teenagers who see child raising as a glamorous thing from becoming neglectful once they realize how much work it is. Food, and shelter are all children require to grow up well right?

[43rdFoot]

Why? Is the compassion to deny the next generation the misery of downs syndrome wrong? How about heritable manic depression? Quite frankly, where do you get off denying the rights of children in favor of the rights of their parents? Both are humans, the difference is children don't get to choose. Adults do.

Who are you to decide who is worthy of breeding? People with downs syndrome often live fulfilling lives; manic depressives are often great artists. Who is to say there way of living is inferior to others?

Uh huh, social services is evil. Children aren't people until they reach 18 anyways they don't deserve rights.

This isn't about deciding if a parent or parents are incapable of raising children. You are saying you have the ability to decide who is going to be a good parent before they are parents. It's ludicrous.

Funny, that doesn't stop people from impregnating others nor does it stop teenagers who see child raising as a glamorous thing from becoming neglectful once they realize how much work it is. Food, and shelter are all children require to grow up well right?

What the are you talking about? What do unprepared teenage parents have anything to do with eugenics?

[TheXand]

Who are you to decide who is worthy of breeding? People with downs syndrome often live fulfilling lives; manic depressives are often great artists. Who is to say there way of living is inferior to others?

I'm a manic depressive (with no artistic talent ) and I feel that the world would be better off without it, same with Down syndrome, anything that has a negative impact on the quality of a person's life and makes them less than they could be should be removed from the gene pool, though I would suggest doing it through genetic engineering rather than selective breeding.

[Boyar Son]

Who are you to decide who is worthy of breeding? People with downs syndrome often live fulfilling lives; manic depressives are often great artists. Who is to say there way of living is inferior to others?

Well it really depends on what you want your kids to excel at.

they made a movie about this, where the world develops technology to make future generations into tall, handsome Aryan-Nordic-Slav master race people with superior skills in art or sports. it's a world where things are depressing for those who aren't made this way, and everyone ironically ends up becoming the same (all strong, smart, beautiful clones).

[Elfdude]

Who are you to decide who is worthy of breeding? People with downs syndrome often live fulfilling lives; manic depressives are often great artists. Who is to say there way of living is inferior to others?

Ignorance in the first case is bliss. But today technology exists to tell you before the baby is anything more than a few cells that they have downs. This means the parents who have babies with downs syndrome (in the first world at least) are choosing that their children have down's syndrome. How is this any different than choosing to cut off your child's arm or to beat them until they have brain damage? Just because it's naturual does not mean it's good. You are denying HUMANS the ability to decide how their life progresses. You are denying those with downs syndrome the life without puppet strings, individuality etc. etc. You are denying those with manic depression the will to do something as simply as living. Further you're burdening people with their problems.

This isn't about deciding if a parent or parents are incapable of raising children. You are saying you have the ability to decide who is going to be a good parent before they are parents. It's ludicrous.

I'll admit a parent could potentially mature during the process of having a child. Does it happen often? Murder is rare should we legalize it because we have no right to tell people not to kill others? There is no 'divine' or objective right. In the same way murder infringes upon the rights of those who are killed and burden's the family of the deceased. Genetic defects burden the family and infringe upon the rights of those children to be raised with equality of opportunity.

What the are you talking about? What do unprepared teenage parents have anything to do with eugenics?

Denying teenage parents their ability to have children would be a eugenic principle.

So you would rather that you were never born?

I'm manic depressive. At times I can say yes I very much did not want to have been born. I conquered my suicidal thoughts but few manic depressives are as lucky as I am. Entire family lines have been lost to manic depressive suicide. Parents, siblings and friends. I suppose we should allow those who have it to pass it on even if they're highly likely to take their lives because in a couple of circumstances manic depression was present in great artists? Totally bull. You don't know what it's like to be those people you have no right to force it upon them.

[Argeus the Paladin]

The argument against that is "Who are we to decide?"

[Argeus the Paladin]

The first one, I doubt it.

I believe there are laws that regulates the childbearing of HIV-positive couples in many countries.

[Argeus the Paladin]

You've pointed that one out. Indeed, even stuffs like laws against inbreeding is a sort of eugenics.