By definition, the "fittest" are whoever are most likely to produce surviving offspring. If you have a bunch of healthy construction workers who tend to get crushed by cranes and a bunch of guys in wheelchairs who tend to live a long time because they never do anything dangerous, then the guys in wheelchairs are more fit.
Eugenics..
- Thread starter Challenger78
- Start date
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
On average, wheelchair types die earlier than construction workers, I am certain.
That very well could be. I was simply trying to make the point that "fitness" is defined by over-all results, not by our ideas of what is "better".
Yeah, but you failed completely to factor in that most wheelchair bound people need help from other people doing lots of things just to survive.
Building/repairing wheelchairs. Building/maintaining wheelchair ramps. Making stores accessible for the wheelchairs. Building cars that can be operated by the wheelchair bound individual. ...and really the list goes on and on.
Baron Max
All that's relevant is how likely people are to survive and produce offspring. The specifics of how they do it are irrelevant.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Wheelchair types are one of the least likliest people to produce offspring, dude.
Why take the chance when you don't have to? It's like Russian roulette ...why even play the game even if the odds are stacked in your favor?
Baron Max
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you asking why bother reproducing?
For f*ck's sake, I'm not trying to argue that people in wheelchairs are actually more fit in the real world. I said that if they were more likely to survive and reproduce then they would be more fit, because "fitness" is defined by over-all results, not by whether we think any particular trait is "good" or desirable.
Back on topic, eugenics attempts to make the best and brightest, the most capable humans possible. The reason it is immoral and not sound, is it is completely with out ethics toward free will and the individual. For a better understanding of this issue, and exactly what I mean by this, these issues of fairness, and genetic perfection are expored and developed beautifully in the science fiction movie Gattaca. "There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit."
The human spirit is nonsense and irrelevant. If we are to focus on the survival of our species, then perfect efficiency and productivity are necessary; the individual is irrelevant in this case.
Cloning, and genetic engineering, and eugenics would all come in handy.
Cloning, and genetic engineering, and eugenics would all come in handy.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Gattaca is a film outlining one specific scenario, our imagination easily with come up with other scenarios. We apply eugenics all the time for example when we choose a mate we try and choose the healthiest, most productive, most intelligent available or possible at the time to reproduce with. Couples often choose to abort a fetus that would have physical disabilities. These are forms of eugenics. You really haven't made an argument for how eugenics is immoral, or how it interferes with free will or the individual. As Repo said healthier humans are happier humans.
Xylene: The problem with eugenics (as you see) is that it can be so easily misused by bastards (as above) or lunatics (such as Hitler)
Everything is liable to corruption or exploitation but its no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak).
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
That actually makes sense. There could be a scenario which Eugenics had rendered a species suspect to a certain disease, because the characteristics they were looking for may have hidden flaws.
I agree. There is no gene for determination.
Progress for the sake of progress is dangerous.
There is an argument that if you were to accelerate human growth, you would send the old to die ,and the young, in their prime, would do all the research and procreation, I can see how that would be handy, but it's like Frankenstein's monster, You cant' control it.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
You are the second person to use that damn statement. Where the hell does it come from ? Church ?
Anywho, Genius often comes from the oddest of places, and by pursuing Eugenics, we'd lessen our chances of benefiting from it wouldn't we ?
The main selling point against Eugenics came with the fact that people are vain and only care for themselves. Hence, Oddities such as lazy/off center eyes, and facial structure, will be discouraged, and people will want designer babies, naturally only the rich will afford and manipulate it.
If Genetic engineering allows for an engineering of intelligence in addition to superficial features, then a select group will be able to control others. Concentrated power is the enemy of justice. Even though anyone with Intelligence will see what is wrong with the status quo, to rely on those people who are a product of the genetic advances to repudiate them is a bit far fetched.
Life is complicated, you never can tell for sure that the healthiest and smartest people are the most adapted or that their contribution in human progress is the greatest. An actress may be stupid, yet able to create touching and images on a screen.
And there`re so many ties between humans... It`s like solving equation in infinite unknowns it`s impossible.
btw We have a theater where children with Down syndrome perform and their acting isn`t worse than that of normal people.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Church? Has your imagination completely failed you so you think people only arrive at things from church?
Eugenics isn't necessarily about ensuring genius, as you pointed out with african slaves they were culled and mated to ensure physical strength which is why they used men from the Mandingo tribe to mate with the women. If there are now a preponderance of physically strong muscular males among african american its because of this, something I have heard some acknowledge with pride.
So what if lazy off centered eyes and facial structure is discouraged? Having those qualities would not make them more intelligent and I am sure anyone who had to live with those features would be happy to live without them. You don't know if the wealthy are the only ones who would have access, it would depend entirely on the cost and the society one lives in. If its expensive perhaps it would only be available to those with money like quality health care and education in the U.S but in other countries like Sweden or Denmark for example it would probably either be available to all or only to those believed to have a higher chance of producing a defect.
You say that eugenics would allow a small group to control others, well a we already have that through limited access to food, stability, health and education services. Think of how many geniuses are being killed in the Congo or languishing away in a Sudanese refugee camp. Or how many people never utilize their genius due to limited access to education.
As I said the reasons you supply are not enough to keep the advantages of eugenics from being utilized. Think of all the technology that would not be available if everyone only thought of what could go wrong or what could be misused.