Eugenics

[sly1]

I was watching youtube and came across this gem series
http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=8726

it sparked some curiousity.

Lets entertain the notion that a superior human race could be brought about through eugenics. That all disease and malfunctions of human DNA could be rid.

now having entertained the idea.......

HOW could humans as a race impliment Eugenics, and would the methods be acceptable?

does the end justify the means?

 

[cosmictraveler]

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

 

[Myles]

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

What a silly question. Get rid of losers. Sandy is not too bright but even she knows that.

When all the losers have been eliminated, society can be redefined as small winners and big winners. So get rid of the small winners.

Now the problem becomes one of seperating the big winners from the really big winners, and so on.

Not an easy job but where there's a will there's a way

 

[sly1]

It depends on what the desired result was going to be. Superior in what ways exactly? Who's determining what the values are going to be in the design ?

well the main idea is to rid the race of certain traits and disease that were a hinderance or problem for living. such as cancer, heart disease, MD, dwarfism, diabetes, mental disorders, etc etc.....

its not to create a race of blue eyed light skinned blondes like hitler, but more to rid the race of unwanted/problematic genetic traits.

 

[cosmictraveler]

well the main idea is to rid the race of certain traits and disease that were a hinderance or problem for living. such as cancer, heart disease, MD, dwarfism, diabetes, mental disorders, etc etc.....

its not to create a race of blue eyed light skinned blondes like hitler, but more to rid the race of unwanted/problematic genetic traits.

But whoever is in charge would make the final determination wouldn't they? Then how do you know what THEY are going to actually do? Perhaps a few warriors along with the sheep??

 

[cosmictraveler]

Get rid of losers

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

 

[sly1]

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

I agree the notion is frightening because of the possibility of it being abused.....and it is HIGHLY likely it would be abused. However, for the sake of making a decision.....lets ASSUME there would be no foul play.



It is extremely difficult to bring this up in a discussion and stay "politicaly correct" and not imply genocide.

HOW would you "weed" out the weaker genes?

Depending on the method:
in your opinion and feelings, would it be right to "weed" out the weaker genetic lines for the better of future generations of the human race?

 

[Myles]

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

Haven't you heard of dollars and cents, real estate and so on. The true mark of a successful American is his wealth. And the wealthy will ,quite properly , run the show.

 

[Myles]

I agree the notion is frightening because of the possibility of it being abused.....and it is HIGHLY likely it would be abused. However, for the sake of making a decision.....lets ASSUME there would be no foul play.



It is extremely difficult to bring this up in a discussion and stay "politicaly correct" and not imply genocide.

HOW would you "weed" out the weaker genes?

Depending on the method:
in your opinion and feelings, would it be right to "weed" out the weaker genetic lines for the better of future generations of the human race?

It's been tried already by the likes of Hitler. If memory serves "weak-minded" people were sterilised in the US at one time, the last one being about 1956. I can't remember which state was the last to abolish the practice.

 

[spidergoat]

Many of the so-called diseases are the result of successful genetic adaptations to other environmental pressures. Sickle-cell anemia is the result of a good adaptation that protects against malaria. A genetic solution to both pressures is unlikely to come about merely through selective breeding.

 

[sly1]

Many of the so-called diseases are the result of successful genetic adaptations to other environmental pressures. Sickle-cell anemia is the result of a good adaptation that protects against malaria. A genetic solution to both pressures is unlikely to come about merely through selective breeding.

excellent point, so you would be against any form of eugenics i take it?

 

[sly1]

It's been tried already by the likes of Hitler. If memory serves "weak-minded" people were sterilised in the US at one time, the last one being about 1956. I can't remember which state was the last to abolish the practice.

Hitler was a bit more superficial......blue eyed blonde haired, etc etc. and his methods weren't the most practical and efficient.

I was unaware of the US steralization of weak-minds in the 50's.....interesting.

 

[spidergoat]

excellent point, so you would be against any form of eugenics i take it?

It's just that we don't know enough to know all the effects from selecting for our desired characteristics. What seems good for us today could be bad in future conditions. I think it's fine in research, that's how we got purebred dogs and domestic animals for meat. Applying this to society is much more problematic. It would seem to subvert individual rights for collective goals, and so couldn't happen in a free society.

It would be much better to concentrate on cures for diseases and genetic conditions.

 

[Myles]

Hitler was a bit more superficial......blue eyed blonde haired, etc etc. and his methods weren't the most practical and efficient.

I was unaware of the US steralization of weak-minds in the 50's.....interesting.

I'm not sure how widespread the practice was . I know Churchill was in favour of euthenisia but I have no information as to whether it was put into practice in the UK. At that time it was widely believed that it was "in the blood". That's the basis on which racehorses were bred. It was shown to be nonsense when we had an understanding of genetics.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Haven't you heard of dollars and cents, real estate and so on. The true mark of a successful American is his wealth. And the wealthy will ,quite properly , run the show.

But what about the rest of the world? Other countries don't always agree with your ideas of who is the "chosen" ones. Did you know that many people living in America were dirt poor when they were young? They worked their way up the ladder of success and are now very rich. According to your ideas those that are "poor" shouldn't have a chance but what if we all are born poor which, as I've stated, the majority were. :shrug:

 

[Myles]

But what about the rest of the world? Other countries don't always agree with your ideas of who is the "chosen" ones. Did you know that many people living in America were dirt poor when they were young? They worked their way up the ladder of success and are now very rich. According to your ideas those that are "poor" shouldn't have a chance but what if we all are born poor which, as I've stated, the majority were. :shrug:

You are on the wrong wavelength. You should think more like Sandy. Why should the rich remain inactive while the poor try to get rich. The poor are losers because they were bred in poverty. It's a self-perpetuating process.

Further, the process must start at some time and, if we listened to you. the program would never start. So stop arguing and let's get rid of the losers as a first necessary step!

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

who is going to choose what a "loser" is? Could it be that the religious people get involved and weed out what they call losers? Could a group of KKK people get in and take out all the black ethnic peoples? You see it really comes down to who's in charge doesn't it? :shrug:

Absolutely, and since wealth is, sadly, generally 'in charge' we have little hope of weeding out the real losers

conspicuous consumers,

people who subsist on vast amounts of resources and cannot seem to survive without incredible waste and expense. Clearly lacking the genetic ability to be creative or social they must compensate with habits that are detrimental to the environment and even themselves.

I feel sympathy for them because I can see they never achieve happiness, and thus the consumption continues at similar or ever increasing levels. Many of these people end up rich because they lack other qualities - sympathy, social interests, creative ability - and so pushing past others, leaping before looking, and capricious use of power seem the obvious behavioral choices.

But however much sympathy I feel for people with such genetic deficits, we are only allowing their suffering and everyone else's by allowing them to be born.

Given their undue influence over all 'democratic' nations, however, it may take considerable time before the eugenics program can be introduced.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Why should the rich remain inactive while the poor try to get rich. The poor are losers because they were bred in poverty. It's a self-perpetuating process.

But the rich never remain inactive they are always changing the laws to make certain they get more than they need. It is the rich who take away from the poor to make them that way to begin with. That is why people are rich, they use and abuse the system that was set up to try and equalize things between peoples by creating a middle class. Without a middle class you only have poor and rich with no one being able to gain anything from the poor parts of society.

 

[Challenger78]

I was watching youtube and came across this gem series
http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=8726

it sparked some curiousity.

Lets entertain the notion that a superior human race could be brought about through eugenics. That all disease and malfunctions of human DNA could be rid.

now having entertained the idea.......

HOW could humans as a race impliment Eugenics, and would the methods be acceptable?

does the end justify the means?

Unless you can make sure everyone has access to the capability and that no one race/country gets it early, then it might work. But the most populous countries would get the advantage if any World Wars started.

I don't think its worth it. Nature will find some way to combat this.

 

[sly1]

Unless you can make sure everyone has access to the capability and that no one race/country gets it early, then it might work. But the most populous countries would get the advantage if any World Wars started.

I don't think its worth it. Nature will find some way to combat this.

I agree that nature will probably find a way, I was just entertaining the idea because chances are......we as people will not let nature just do its thing......