No fancy link, no news story this time. This time I am asking simply: do you agree with eugenics?
Do you think that it is morally right to force a mentally disabled child to live difficult life, simply because you want to have a kid? What about racial profiling?
Destroying unfavorable parts of the human genome, in order to make a smarter, healthier, better human race? That is basically Eugenics.
I personally think that killing off people because of intelligence problems is a good idea. Racial profile and cleansing is wrong and immoral, but killing the people who are stupid is good. People ailing from physical abnormalities should be allowed to live, however, because if they weren't, then we would possibly kill off people like Stephen Hawking, so physical killings are a bad idea, in my mind.
The more severe cases that could never support themselves or even partially support themselves, maybe. However, just because someone is of low intelligence doesn't mean they will be a detriment to society and they could still lead happy lives. Also as for "urifying" the gene pool of a population, I don't think it's highly likely that any truly mentally retarted person is going to have kids.
I'm for the weeding out of genetic/hereditary diseases through the use of eugenics but I think there's a cut-off point between 'breeding out serious flaws' and trying to breed out people who might not be the most intelligent or best looking.
What do you mean by intelligence problems? Do you mean that people who aren't good overall, because if it were so, than the great genius Albert Einstien would have been killed, because he was horrible at all of the subjects at school except for math and physics. He also didn't pass highschool until a couple of tries later. According to your eugenics laws, he would have been killed because no one really saw anything in him, but when he was given the chance to flourish, he probably became one of the most smartest men to ever Live. I think that you shouldn't kill off anyone just because they are different, but you should respect everyone's individuality. Who knows how many Eistien's you have killed?
Y'know, most plans for Eugenics don't actually involve killing people right off the bat, a number of the ideas that I've seen put forth have involved either making those people you want to weed out have vasectomies or... I've completely forgotten the medical term for the female equivalent... OR the screening of embryos for genetic defects.
In the broadest sense I think that eugenics is ultimately desirable. It is in its application where we run into a moral quandary.
Take for example the domesticated dog. Nearly every breed known today is the result of eugenics. We have specifically bred dogs to achieve traits which we find desirable. We haven't mass culled subspecies the exterminate weakness, we haven't committed genocide, we've simply realized that breeding can net specific results when done properly and with an end goal in mind.
The same thing could be done with humans with little difficulty, although given our rate of development and reproduction it would take centuries to achieve the results we can with canines in merely a decade or two.
Certainly breeding humans to be more resistant to disease, have longer life spans, more rapid healing, et cetera would be of a benefit to our species. Part of the problem, though, lies in the need to bar certain individuals from breeding in order to achieve this result which many find immoral.
I ask this, though. Is it more moral to allow anyone to breed? Or to bar those who would likely produce offspring with high risk of detrimental deformities? If we could eliminate things like cancer, down syndrome, cleft palate, spinabifida, and numerous other afflictions would that be worth the cost of barring at risk individuals from breeding?
Or what if, by scientific process, we could allow them to procreate, however only after screening and selecting individual sperm and eggs which carry less risk of passing on these deformities? Would that be an acceptable alternative to completely restrictive breeding? Or would that even be a viable option if perfection is the goal?
I don't agree with it as of now with whatever technology we have, it sounds scary and ... communist! (jk)
Who knows how many Eistien's you have killed?
The only way to have killed Einstein using Eugenics would have been to kill his father, who wasn't retarded, therefore not a viable contender.
OR the screening of embryos for genetic defects.
Sounds okay. Would you rather have it as leaving the mother to decide whether she wants an abortion or forcing it upon the family??
I ask this, though. Is it more moral to allow anyone to breed?
We keep talking about the survival of our species. If anyone would care to look at a chart, our population has doubled time and time again in just the past 150 years. I think we're doing pretty good. So I guess it is moral. Even though we might get someone with a defect, in terms of our species, it's just as likely we may get someone with a supermutation.
Would that be an acceptable alternative to completely restrictive breeding?
That sounds like the best idea to me, if it were possible. I don't think people would mind if their sperm/eggs were somehow filtered to keep the baddies out. It would seem, if anything, to be an insane breakthrough. I doubt that's gonna happen though.
In high school, a guy in my class had Aspberger's Syndrome, and he was actually a nice, though confused, guy. The fact that he was handicapped didn't make him any less of a person.
I personally think that killing off people because of intelligence problems is a good idea. Racial profile and cleansing is wrong and immoral, but killing the people who are stupid is good.
Really, your suggestion disgusts me. I really didn't expect anyone in today's society have such opinions. If you think you have the right to "weed out" those you consider worth less, then you're no better than the Nazis.
Oh, right, because there's absolutely no way that a handicapped person could have a normal life.
That's just one example of a handicapped person. And I think he's trying to say that if such eugenics were perfected in a humanitarian way, would it be right to use them in order to rid society of these people that have harder lives. [i think]
Well, the Special Olympics is full of examples of mentally handicapped people who live their lives successfully. Intelligence does not make you human any more than being human guarantees a high intelligence.
If, as suggested earlier, a mental disability is discovered in an embryo, then I believe the parents should be allowed to have an abortion, but only if it's what they want. However, people who have already been born should be given a chance to live their lives, regardless of intelligence or handicap. Lots of disabled people enjoy their lives.
But, then, how would you feel if one of these handicapped people were able to procreate and found partners? Would you think it correct that society would want to 'weed out' these genetic issues?
After all, that very person could have a child, the child could be not showing the gene, and then down the line affect the sons of others who married said child.
iMogwai, I think you are misunderstanding a bit. We (well, most of us) aren't saying we should kill handicapped people. That is one very extreme end of eugenics which brings to mind the anti-semitism of Hitler's Nazis. We are simply saying that perhaps those with detrimental conditions, or predispositions to those conditions, would be barred from breeding.
We don't need to cull the current population or commit atrocities to enact a successful and humane eugenics program among the human race. Such a program could very likely eliminate these conditions from future generations completely, resulting in a better human race.
That is the ultimate goal of any eugenics program, making a species the best it can within whatever parameters you can and toward whatever goal you set.
And I think he's trying to say that if such eugenics were perfected in a humanitarian way, would it be right to use them in order to rid society of these people that have harder lives.
Exactly. I wasn't saying that anyone who is stupid gets born and then shot. Nothing as sadistic as that. There is (or at least I have heard there is) technology now where we can modify the embryo in the womb, getting rid of mental disabilities.
you're no better than the Nazis.
Y'know, if the Nazis had won that war, you wouldn't be saying that. It is all perspective. Have you ever seen a person so mentally handicapped that they can barely walk, drool all over themselves, and at the age of thirty, still can't defecate in a toilet? That is what you would be preventing by using eugenics. You may kill off a few mentally handicapped people that would have been self sufficient, functioning cogs, but I believe that that is the risk you must take to help rid the world of those who create more of a burden on society than they help it.
than the great genius Albert Einstien would have been killed, because he was horrible at all of the subjects at school except for math and physics.
Wouldn't he have failed simply because High School was to boring for a person of his mental capacity?
an example of eugenics that could be used w/ us humans is w/ blond people... we're a dying breed. from a few things I've read... we won't be around for much longer... we could save the blond haired blue eyed people of this world w/ eugenics. w/o it... we'll be given fake blond dyed hair.... and it just won't be the same w/o us real blonds.
Wouldn't this basically be telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies? Exactly what would be the limits of where we say one person is okay to breed and another isn't, and who would get to set those limits? It seems to me best intentions aside it's use is wrought with problems.
or gene therapy w/ their sperm/eggs would make that somewhat void and archaic. ...but that's similar to picking ur kids gender... and we saw there was somewhat of a general opposition to that in muh thread a long time ago. but do we have the right to alter babehs like that when a mishap could deform it?
