Sounds good on paper. In practice uh well we have that whole Holocaust thing but lets say in theory we could wipe out a bunch of "useless" or "bad" genes without killing millions of people do you think we should go for it?Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
well for starters, it would mean ethnic genocide according to this
I made that thread[-DER-]Omega wrote:
well for starters, it would mean ethnic genocide according to this
Surpreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may support it:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com … 584.column
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com … 584.column
Bad genes might be a good thing.
You might think blonde is an inferior hair colour, because it leads to pale skin and you burn in the sun easier so the risk of sun cancer increases and that puts a strain on the health care system for treating more cancer patients.
But blondes may be immune to a genetic defect that only crops up 40 years from now and could hold the key to curing the fault in everyone, but too late because you've killed them all.
You might think blonde is an inferior hair colour, because it leads to pale skin and you burn in the sun easier so the risk of sun cancer increases and that puts a strain on the health care system for treating more cancer patients.
But blondes may be immune to a genetic defect that only crops up 40 years from now and could hold the key to curing the fault in everyone, but too late because you've killed them all.
Exactly that. It's really not practical.Macbeth wrote:
Sounds good on paper.
Maybe we feel being lactose intolerant (<--- is) is a "bad gene" but in the future it may be considered a necessary gene, much like Aussie said. You really just can't rule one gene out as "bad".
The dinosaurs ruled the Earth. They were clearly the superior species.
Mammals were forced the hide in long grass and hide in burrows, never made it past a metre in height because they'd be easily picked off.
Then suddenly dinosaurs go extinct and the mammals become the dominant species.
Eugenics rules would have deemed mammals unworthy of existence long ago.
Mammals were forced the hide in long grass and hide in burrows, never made it past a metre in height because they'd be easily picked off.
Then suddenly dinosaurs go extinct and the mammals become the dominant species.
Eugenics rules would have deemed mammals unworthy of existence long ago.
Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), his famous quote
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
...Three generations of imbeciles are enough". From Wiki
even a genius like Holmes could be seduced by the idea of simplistic solutions like sterilizing imbeciles or criminals or drug addicts and that its application could be just and fair.
The real problem was that in practice eugenics was used against people of "other" enthicities. IMO its commits too much power to the hands of the state and concentrates that power in the hands of a few bureaucrats. Look what nazi Germany did with eugenics, and the US experiment wasn't much better. Eugenics is not a tool for transforming a multicultural society into a homogeneous society.
I've met Native Americans who were sterilized in the 1960's who it was claimed were mentally retarded or some such other Bull Shit. One of these people I met went on to do graduate school... So the practice of eugenics is flawed by the prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes of the people who believe it should be applied and becomes a tool for govt to implement discrimnatory policies against certain segments of the population.
IMO In a nutshell eugenics should be practiced against people who think eugenics is a good idea... society would definitely be a better place if their genes weren't passed along. That would be building a just society one snip at a time.
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
...Three generations of imbeciles are enough". From Wiki
even a genius like Holmes could be seduced by the idea of simplistic solutions like sterilizing imbeciles or criminals or drug addicts and that its application could be just and fair.
The real problem was that in practice eugenics was used against people of "other" enthicities. IMO its commits too much power to the hands of the state and concentrates that power in the hands of a few bureaucrats. Look what nazi Germany did with eugenics, and the US experiment wasn't much better. Eugenics is not a tool for transforming a multicultural society into a homogeneous society.
I've met Native Americans who were sterilized in the 1960's who it was claimed were mentally retarded or some such other Bull Shit. One of these people I met went on to do graduate school... So the practice of eugenics is flawed by the prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes of the people who believe it should be applied and becomes a tool for govt to implement discrimnatory policies against certain segments of the population.
IMO In a nutshell eugenics should be practiced against people who think eugenics is a good idea... society would definitely be a better place if their genes weren't passed along. That would be building a just society one snip at a time.
Tonight when joking around with one of my roommates, I said the reason I'm probably so picky when it comes to women is that I'm probably sub-consciously making sure that my future children will have the best genes possible. I'd like to contribute to society, rather than detract from it.
everyone does. That's why you're not banging the fatty with the great personality.mtb0minime wrote:
Tonight when joking around with one of my roommates, I said the reason I'm probably so picky when it comes to women is that I'm probably sub-consciously making sure that my future children will have the best genes possible. I'd like to contribute to society, rather than detract from it.
Actually killing/sterilizing people is too touchy. It's much more practical to pick out the weeds with something like a heavily tiered education system. If you keep people who have been objectively sorted away from the other groups for long enough, cross-breed numbers go waaaaaaaaay down. Once you have a caste system going after a couple generations it would be pretty easy to sweep the lower tiers under the rug if you will.
If you're into that sort of thing that is, don't flame me.
Nature did that on its own for billions of years. Just give it time, it will happen to us as well...