Eugenics

[Martian Luger King]

Good/bad?

To get this started, go ahead and tell us why you feel eugenics is wrong or optimal. I'd like to see a discussion regarding this, so that I may gather everyone's viewpoints.

[easeoflife22]

Eugenics is flawed as it doesn't allow for the leaps and bounds in genetic mutation that might occur amongst the genetics of someone who might be considered less desirable. Kind of like when two stupid ugly people create beautiful and intelligent offspring. Isolating genetic traits could lead to missing out on the creation of some amazingly beneficial genes to add to the pool. I prefer natural selection. Stupid people simply cause problems, those problems turn into wars, and then the stupid people die in those wars. The problem creates the solution, and the morons are weaned off without the need for any planned eugenics movement. It's much easier this way.

[dagnabitt]

I believe in aborting children found to be flawed in utero, for example children with Downs Syndrome - unless of course the parents have enough money to raise their new pet without it affecting public money. I dont believe this is unethical. There is nothing worse, IMO, then selfish parents having deformed babies as some sort of testament to their "ability to love" - especially when they don't have the financial means to do so.

I dont believe in trying to genetically engineer "perfect" people though. That has implications of totalitarianism to me. So long as a baby has a chance to participate in the world of its own accord, I think thats where the line should be drawn.

[Martian Luger King]

Originally Posted by easeoflife22

Kind of like when two stupid ugly people create beautiful and intelligent offspring.

I've never heard of that, can you give me an example? And since when is beauty a utilitarian attribute? I can't think of many athletes or intelligent people who are very good looking. I don't think that has much to do with one's intelligence or physical capacity, unless we're talking about skull density, shape, etc.

[easeoflife22]

Originally Posted by Martian Luger King

I've never heard of that, can you give me an example? And since when is beauty a utilitarian attribute? I can't think of many athletes or intelligent people who are very good looking. I don't think that has much to do with one's intelligence or physical capacity, unless we're talking about skull density, shape, etc.

I see this lots. Ugly parents with a beautiful teen daughter with straight A's. My girlfriend is an example of this. Her mom and dad are no prize in the least, yet she's a model with a degree.
Superficial looks are always tied into any Eugenics movement, because Eugenics is about the pursuit of creating the perfect or ideal human. This includes athletic ability, mental capacity, and beauty/sex appeal. I don't know about you, but when people tell me about the perfect woman, she doesn't have a deformed face, a frame like a man, crooked teeth, squinted eyes, but is athletic and intelligent. She's not perfect unless she's attractive. Read about Eugenics if you don't know what I'm talking about.

[Martian Luger King]

That may be the goal of some eugenic societies, but it doesn't have to be. What I'm talking about are attributes that actually mean something, like intelligence. And getting straight A's is only a gauge of one's academic performance there are plenty of intelligent people who simply lack interest in school and make horrible grades.

[easeoflife22]

Originally Posted by Martian Luger King

That may be the goal of some eugenic societies, but it doesn't have to be. What I'm talking about are attributes that actually mean something, like intelligence. And getting straight A's is only a gauge of one's academic performance there are plenty of intelligent people who simply lack interest in school and make horrible grades.

I'm aware that straight A's don't equal brains. I didn't get straight A's, but many people who know me well, consider me to be the smartest person they know. I do disagree with you that beauty has no importance. Look at who we idolize in the media, and tell me looks don't matter. The whole idea of eugenics is to have it all, including looks. They might be a superficial attribute, but when I'm trying to get shit accomplished, my looks have definitely helped me accomplish things. Really if we have the choice, we're going to choose good looking and intelligent over ugly and intelligent.

[Defect]

To easeoflife's first post: Natural selection is a little at odds with what ideals humans aspire to. The stupid people don't necessarily die in those wars you mentioned, and the wars aren't necessarily caused by stupid people. Eugenics seems to be the more reasonable option than natural selection because society can block out the undesirable traits, rather than let them fucking breed and grow rampant from out-of-place evolutionary mechanisms. What if the morons breed better than ever because of the intellegentsia making their lives possible?

If I thought people could control themselves and not go on a totalitarian, racist, hysterecomy spree as opposed to simply preventing those with particular hereditary genetic disorders from having kids, I'd vouch for it. Of course, I imagine Hitler considered being a Jew as a hereditary genetic disorder.

[Martian Luger King]

Why does it bother you if the selections are made via race? You're still singling out a group of people, say, those with Chron's disease which is prejudice. In fact you really can't make many eugenic actions in the world as diseases are often racially prejudiced. With Chron's, you would be removing Ashkenazim, with sickle cell, Africans etc.

EaseofLife22, I somewhat agree.

[Defect]

Originally Posted by Martian Luger King

Why does it bother you if the selections are made via race? You're still singling out a group of people, say, those with Chron's disease which is prejudice. In fact you really can't make many eugenic actions in the world as diseases are often racially prejudiced. With Chron's, you would be removing Ashkenazim, with sickle cell, Africans etc.

EaseofLife22, I somewhat agree.

It only bothers me because I believe that race has little to do with potential. I don't mind being prejudiced towards those with, for example, Down's syndrome, because it's an obvious genetic defect and limit on a person's potential. If someone doesn't have a lot of potential, but doesn't have any obvious genetic fuckups, then I would guess that ethically that person would have a right to a kid.

I see that logic going towards Brave New World society though, which seems absolutely terrible to me, so I guess my ethics are fucking retarded.

Also, your point on diseases being racially prejudiced is irrelevant becuase they would be sterilized or whatever for their disease, and not the race. Hence, it's not racism, right? Or am I missing something?