Eugenics

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2003-05-30 07:29pm

What exactly is it? Is it a good idea? SHould we do it to stop overpopulation?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-05-30 07:43pm

Eugenics is the removal of "unfit genes" from the gene pool via artificial selection.

No it's not a good idea, variation is the key to survival. Natural selection should root out really unfit genes, and we know disabled people etc can have fulfilling and meaningful lives.

Overpopulation will sort itself out at some point, as we'll run out of food and loads of people will die off, or whatever.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-30 07:43pm

No, a disregard for reproductive rights would be inherent in any forced system of eugenics.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-30 07:58pm

eugenics can also be the genering of humans to be more intelligent physically fit then the otherwise would be. i think its a good idea if its voluntary.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-05-30 08:06pm

kojikun wrote:eugenics can also be the genering of humans to be more intelligent physically fit then the otherwise would be. i think its a good idea if its voluntary.

It doesn't work, it always gets too elitist, and that spells death for a society.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-30 09:08pm

The only time it was tried was during the nazi regime and that was born out of racism, so you cant say anything about eugenics spawning an elit

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-05-30 10:03pm

kojikun wrote:The only time it was tried was during the nazi regime and that was born out of racism, so you cant say anything about eugenics spawning an elit

Actually the Nazi's took the idea from the US, which had no clue what it was doing. Then the Nazi's further corrupted it and gave it the stigma it still carries today.

Again I will be the bad guy.

If your going to put faith that man evolved through natural selection then you have to give credit to the methodology. Those that were genetic successes had lots of offspring and those who were genetic failures had few offspring. In the end those with who were fittest to survive ended up with the numbers and the species was made stronger.

Somewhere along the way mankind developed compassion, this weakness (often mislabeled as a virtue) will be the end of us.

We are so smart, we are 'enlightened', we are gifted with a sense of morality that makes us far superior to anything else on this planet. And it is this bullshit that made us think that we can simply turn away from the very system that created us, ignore it, and assume nothing bad will happen. We are like teenagers that throw away the wisdom of our parents because we have it all figured out .

Studies have been done, we know what is going on. The poorest and least successful humans are having the most kids, while the prosperous are having the least amount. This is the exact opposite of what nature intended us to do. We live in a society where the successful are forced to feed the non-successful and pay for their spawn. It gets even better, the more spawn the failures of society produce the more income they get, thereby encouraging them to have more kids. Folks we are losing a single IQ point each generation*. This may not sound like a lot, but it adds up.

What do you think would happen to an animal population over time if this sort of madness was inflicted on them? What if we systematically sterilized all but the stupidest and weakest animals and watched what would happen? You know where this is going, and I doubt you like it.

Evolution is a tool of nature, and nature is a cold bitch that cares nothing about you or anyone else. Never ever forget where you came from, you and I are a product of a cruel system where failure is punished by death.

You ever wonder why so many of us must wear glasses? You ever wonder why C-Sections are becoming more and more common? Ever wonder why so many people have to have medication these days? Other problems are Cystic Fibrosis, heart hefects, the wonderful diabetes, PKU, and a host of other genetic disease are constantly on the rise, why? Because in ages past these people died and didn't have many children, their genes slowed and stopped with them. But now we are a 'compassionate' people, unwilling to allow anyone to be left behind.

It is very strange that we humans breed animals like horses together, taking the best specimens we find to make a stronger offspring. Yet, we somehow think that doing it for ourselves is barbaric, and immoral. What would you think of a horse breeder that consistently put out the offspring from the worst horses in the race? Would you spend your life's saving on one?

Thomas Malthus said that the clock is ticking, and so it is. As a species we have four options, we must choose one.

1. Genetic Engineering
2. Eugenics
3. Return to natural selection (eliminate social programs)
4. Extinction

Doing nothing is the fourth option, and that is what society seems to be most okay with. It doesn't suprise me though, we have become a weak people, complete unable to stomach the hard decisions that arrive on our doorstep, and eagerly pass them off to future generations.

I await the roasting.

* Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-30 10:54pm

Too well said, snyder

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-30 11:24pm

Steven, you remind me of "Mohammed" who posted eariler on similiar theories. A characteristic of all civilizations is the protection of the weak.* Any evaluation of human history will reveal this.

Aside from your genetic determinism and unabashed eugenics leanings, I like your strongarm view of the world.

Hey just a quick question, do you read The Bell Curve?

BTW, I love that Heinlein quote. So true.

*Physical and mental weaknesses were generally frowned upon, but just becuase someone is poor or unprosperous doesn't mean they're 'weak' in some intrinsic fashion that their reproduction would spell doom for mankind. In fact, my parents at the time of my birth were poor idiot teenagers, should I have been allowed to be born?

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2003-05-30 11:26pm

So the movie Millennium(on humanity's decay) is right, we will become nothing but weaklings who cannot reproduce and too much bad genes. How nice.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-30 11:31pm

Steven Snyder wrote:1. Genetic Engineering
2. Eugenics
3. Return to natural selection (eliminate social programs)
4. Extinction

I would take number 3. Geneering involves conscious decision by someone, and something as drastic as the purposeful altering of mankind is too important to be put into anyone's hands. Nature is a cold bitch indeed, and she is also an impartial judge, which I prefer over stupid ignorant parents talking with a fertility doctor about what genes to insert their child ala Gattaca with any day.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-05-31 06:23pm

can anyone remind me of the name of that young American girl who was sterilised without her consent because she cored loe on the Stanford-Binet test?

To anyone who is actually thinking of defending eugneics, I recommend you read The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould - which also addresses the fact the IQ tests are a load of bullshit, and then look up The Eugenics Society on the web, especially the points about how black people are stupider than white people, and about forcing intelligent young women to become breeding machines.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 06:26pm

brat, thats BAD eugenics that doesnt serve the real purpose of eugenics, that being to create a truly superior human capable of surviving much worse conditions then we have now.

stop fucking confusing racism and mysogynism with eugenics.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-31 06:56pm

I love this shit...poor people aren't down on their luck, or products of a disfunctional education system, or victims of lousy economic policy (as in the entire third world)--they're GENETICALLY INFERIOR. Another Goddamn penny-ante intellectual who's found the solution everybody else is too soft and weak to see. Never mind that human society changes too fast for evolution to keep up. Never mind that there's zero proven links between success in human society and genetics, past superficial things like physical beauty. Never mind that we've been cheating natural selection since the invention of agriculture--perhaps we should stop cleaning open wounds because sanitation just lets people with weak immune systems survive, or living indoors because it's making us too sensitive to hypothermia. Definitely never mind that IQ tests are dubious at best. Just remember, they're not REALLY people, not like you and me; they're unfortunate mistakes, and mistakes need to be erased--starve them or sterilize them, and keep telling yourself they're not as worthwhile as you.

God damn it, I've had it with these people. At least fundies care enough about other people to want to save their souls.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 07:01pm

red, who are we talking about again? cause i dont think anyone here is saying that those things are genetically induced.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-05-31 07:08pm

kojikun wrote:red, who are we talking about again? cause i dont think anyone here is saying that those things are genetically induced.

Steven Snyder wrote: The poorest and least successful humans are having the most kids, while the prosperous are having the least amount. This is the exact opposite of what nature intended us to do. We live in a society where the successful are forced to feed the non-successful and pay for their spawn. It gets even better, the more spawn the failures of society produce the more income they get, thereby encouraging them to have more kids. Folks we are losing a single IQ point each generation*. This may not sound like a lot, but it adds up.

Not only do you have implication that wealth and success is genetic, but also that the Stanford-Binet test measures something innate that is deteriorating with time.

Not to mention that there is more to evolutionary success than simply having lots of children - there is also parental investment in terms of, for example, education and money. But of course, sociobiology is too complicated a concept for your average 'kill all people who aren't me' eugenicist.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-05-31 07:28pm

Eugenics is a pretty good idea. The problem is, it has never been done well. Ever. Anywhere. And the results of crappy eugenics programs are a lot of suffering and nastyness.

The history of wrongheaded eugenics is very interesting and anyone who's interested should have a look at this website: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

In other news: you want to know why we're having more c-sections? Because we can. You want to know why more people are dying of heart disease and cancer and shit? Take your pick: they died of it before, now the coroners can tell what it was. There are more people around anyway. They aren't dying of other things before they can die from these "new" crisies.

The only reason to consider eugenics would be if overpopulation continues to be a problem. The so called devolution of mankind may be a real problem, but it's one that will take thousands of years to matter. As for right now, people are running faster, lifting more, and living longer that any time before.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 07:34pm

brat: gotcha. he was just being an idiot, ignore him. sterilize him, even

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-31 07:49pm

Sriad wrote:Eugenics is a pretty good idea. The problem is, it has never been done well. Ever. Anywhere. And the results of crappy eugenics programs are a lot of suffering and nastyness.

Saying something is a good idea, except that every time it's implemented, it's a horrible failure and causes innocent people to suffer, is a longer and more complicated way of saying that it's a bad idea. See Marxism for further examples.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-05-31 07:55pm

RedImperator wrote:Saying something is a good idea, except that every time it's implemented, it's a horrible failure and causes innocent people to suffer, is a longer and more complicated way of saying that it's a bad idea. See Marxism for further examples.

I thought I got that point across okay by myself, but thanks for helping the slower folks in the audience get it.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-31 08:20pm

RedImperator wrote:See Marxism for further examples.

Damn you, you took my post idea!

I've never liked IQ tests. I've gotten everything from slightly slow to gifted on them.

I would give it up if I were you, Koji, you sound just like the communist apologists when you say "but they didn't do it right!"

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 09:34pm

Im not saying they didnt do it right, im saying they were motivated by prejudice. Eugenics is just natural geneering, which people seem to support.

*edit*

Allow me to clarify right quick. Eugenics cannot be compared to communism, and you cant say my arguement is like that of commie appologists. Communism is inherently forceful etc, but eugenics is selective breeding and has nothing to do with racism, etc. Its humans taking the place of nature.

If you want to throw out eugenics because its been used by bad people, then throw out all technology that the nazis also used; get rid of your jets and automobiles and rockets and radios and electronics. Throw out anything that anyone has ever used for wrong.

You dont because that would be stupid. Shut the fuck up about eugenics being bad, its a means to an end, and unlike communism, that means is not inherently wrong, like communism must be.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-31 10:14pm

Allow me to clarify right quick. Eugenics cannot be compared to communism, and you cant say my arguement is like that of commie appologists. Communism is inherently forceful etc, but eugenics is selective breeding and has nothing to do with racism, etc. Its humans taking the place of nature.

That's the problem. Once human judgement is put into play, the system is guaranteed to become biased and will turn into a failure. Not you nor anyone else has a right to tell someone whether or not, or who, they should breed with. Human's are more sentient than horses, they shoudn't be bred like them.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-31 10:40pm

Forced eugenics is bad, I never denied that, but how would voluntary eugenics be bad?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-05-31 10:57pm

Another problem with Eugenics is sociological. Massed humanity is sure as hell not gonna put up with a bunch of Supermen existing, ESPECIALLY when those Supermen are not related to them. How long until these eugenically improved people are ridiculed and then killed?