NationStates Jolt Archive

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide of races perceived as inferior.

You answered your own question.

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

I think the problem is that eugenics was part and parcel of the Nazi Agenda, so there's been a natural revulsion for it in the last half-century. And while improving the human race is not necessarily a bad idea, its the doing it by intervention that puts people off. I would not care to have the government of any nation deciding which people can and cannot have children (I say this despite the opposite thought I had about the three idiots who blazed through a fully red traffic light this morning on my way to work).

How could anybody be in a position to judge what is a good trait or a bad trait? Even in the case of genetic diseases, the genes may have some advantage in other situations ie the genes that lead to Sickle Cell Anaemia help protect against malaria.

Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide of races perceived as inferior.

You answered your own question.

Historically this happened. This isn't necasarily what Eugenics is though. This is more likely what happens when Eugenics is used as a tool or 'Justification' for an ulterior motive.

Other than all the horrors done in the name of eugenics it if far too slow. Eugemics would take several generations to have noticible effects and that is far to slow for humans to wait and be patient for. You'd need someting like the Bene Gesserit with their Other Memories to fulfil an eugenics program. Second, genetic engineering may allow enhanced traits within one generation, no selective breeding required.

When we do it with animals, it's breeding. When we do it with people, it's Nazism.

Voluntary eugenics could be a good thing, infact it's pretty much how evolution happens. The idea of sterilizing undesirables however is not a good one. We're not yet certain of much about our genetic make up it's not really possible to make intelligent decisions about our breeding as yet.

Besides, too little genetic variation threatens species survival.

When we do it with animals, it's breeding. When we do it with people, it's Nazism.

No, when the government does it, it's Nazism.

If free market forces do it, I bet it will be called "a fuckload of money".

The main problem aside from the nazi connection, is how do we decide what the norm is, who gets to decide what should be treated and what should be left. It is a minefeild of medical ethics.

well I guess we will have to face it soon in the form of Genetic engineering

Of course the study of eugenics is still valuable though since there are differences between groups of people

The main problem aside from the nazi connection, is how do we decide what the norm is, who gets to decide what should be treated and what should be left. It is a minefeild of medical ethics.

The money will decide, no matter what laws are passed.

A whole branch of science dedicated to the study of guys named Eugene? I can't BEGIN to tell you what's wrong with THAT!

Eugenics is bad because it keeps me out of the gene pool. Nuff said.

I support genetic engineering to fix diseases but not to engineer beneficial traits like intelligence or aptitude in to children. That does nothing but further segregates and divides our society according to those lines.

The money will decide, no matter what laws are passed.

You might be right there, but once it gets into the hands of medical ethics boards it will take years to go anywhere. I belive.

Eugenics is bad because it keeps me out of the gene pool. Nuff said.

Not necessarily. You may have good genes that more than make up for your bad ones, and any genetic diseases can eventually be breeded out.

I support genetic engineering to fix diseases but not to engineer beneficial traits like intelligence or aptitude in to children. That does nothing but further segregates and divides our society according to those lines.

I think you make avery good point. Just thinking about the cost, will it further the gap between the haves and have nots?

As an idea -- a concept -- there's nothing wrong with it at all. The notion of the improvement and strengthening of the human gene pool isn't in itself evil or infamous.

The problems are of implementation, then, and they are manifold:

A) Who decides which traits are worth keeping and which are culled?
B) Shall eugenics programs be subject to public review, opinion or vote?
C) Even if subject to copious review, shall it be mandatory?
D) If it is mandatory, will there be penalties for those who choose to opt out?
E) If some people opt out, can there even BE a true eugenics program? Mustn't everyone of breeding age and capacity participate?
F) The movie GATTACA -- those imperfect in some areas may be savants in other very important areas.

Overall, though, I'm most troubled with the implications of problem A -- who decides?

I support genetic engineering to fix diseases but not to engineer beneficial traits like intelligence or aptitude in to children. That does nothing but further segregates and divides our society according to those lines.

Doesn't that diminish the liberty of parents, and state subsidies could help those too poor to afford them. First perhaps a lottery system and eventually, as prices fall, a universal entitlement, at least some enhancements like intelligence, memory, and health.

A) Who decides which traits are worth keeping and which are culled?

I think some speak for themselves, such as autism and Down Syndrome. But still need to be careful, such as in the case of high-functioning autism.

I support genetic engineering to fix diseases but not to engineer beneficial traits like intelligence or aptitude in to children. That does nothing but further segregates and divides our society according to those lines.

what about making people living 200 years showing little aging past there 20's?

and I wonder if this will be covered under the NHS?

Ever since Dawkins claimed apporoval for eugenics, there has been a lot of militant athiests coming out and expressing approval as well. Which is worrying.

Annie Lennox is still a great singer...

Ever since Dawkins claimed apporoval for eugenics, there has been a lot of militant athiests coming out and expressing approval as well. Which is worrying.

Well, I'm not militant or an atheist so.. :)

I noticed a mention of voluntary Eugenics. Seems like a nice idea, but could it ever work?

The less intelligent members of the race are probably more likely to spawn offspring if current trends are anything to go by.

Ever since Dawkins claimed apporoval for eugenics, there has been a lot of militant athiests coming out and expressing approval as well. Which is worrying.

No, he didn't. He said that the discussion of eugenics shouldn't be taboo and that there should be debate on it. He said that he thought of a couple of reasons why eugenics would be a bad idea, but at least there should be an open discussion.

Annie Lennox is still a great singer...

Eu... rhyth... mics?

the idea of eugenics is sound. but i dont think humans are smart enough to "play god". humans are random creatures. a gentic inferior person may randomly posses a kill thus making him superior to a genetically superior human. until we have all the knowledge in the world. keep it random.
i assum most people on this forum promote eugenics, like bottle, being that most of you are from countries were you allow that.

Ever since Dawkins claimed apporoval for eugenics, there has been a lot of militant athiests coming out and expressing approval as well. Which is worrying.


That Dawkins fella actualy scares me quite a lot

Evolution has done fine up to now.
If I was a coelecanth (sp?) I wouldn't say that, but as a human I think evolution has done a bang-up job.

When we are still so far short of comprehending what evolution has given us, it's nothing short of ridiculous to think we could do better.

I like eugenics. Playing God always seems to produce such entertaining results. :)

I think you make avery good point. Just thinking about the cost, will it further the gap between the haves and have nots?

Yes, it will. Not only that, but it will also destroy merit-based society by creating a caste of genetically-engineered supermen who are able to dominate their respective fields due to their parents' ability to afford extensive genetic engineering programs.

That terrifies me. Personally, I think we should focus on moving on from biological bodies and on to something better, like machines.

Yes, it will. Not only that, but it will also destroy merit-based society by creating a caste of genetically-engineered supermen who are able to dominate their respective fields due to their parents' ability to afford extensive genetic engineering programs.

That terrifies me. Personally, I think we should focus on moving on from biological bodies and on to something better, like machines.

You first. I'm not having sex with a vacuum cleaner.

You first. I'm not having sex with a vacuum cleaner.

Yes...just show me where to sign and I'll be there.

You first. I'm not having sex with a vacuum cleaner.

If you had an intelligent vacuum cleaner you wouldn't say that. It might post a bitchy reply!

The problem is in answering "Who gets to decide what is an improvement, and who or what is undesireable?"

If you had an intelligent vacuum cleaner you wouldn't say that. It might post a bitchy reply!

I've met several intelligent vacuum cleaners on this forum already, and they are quite bitchy...

The idea is fine, and shunning it because a bunch of idiots once set out to mis-implement it is pure stupidity. The fact that it was once in the process of being implemented in a ludicrous manner doesn't say anything about the idea in itself, apart from that such implementations give disastrous results. Eugenics has been utilized in many different forms throughout human history with varying results; ancient Sparta in an example. Still somewhat questionable, but an order of magnitude less so.

Each implementation must be judged on an individual basis; seeing as they utilize different solutions and have different outcomes, this should be evident. There are forms of eugenics that have recently become possible, and even more than will become feasible in the not too distant future; genetic engineering is one that could allow humanity to progress from its current, miserable state. It has the potential to improve human nature, which is in desperate need of a massive overhaul; save extinction, it is the only cure for human stupidity.

Some basic forms of eugenics recently developed are in use even now, such as prenatal testing/screening. To quite a few of you: What are you waiting for? Why not point out that magic little link to the nazis, capable of silencing just about any discussion, and cry about how evil it is?

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?


well creepy, the answer lies in what you mean by eugenics.

so what do you mean? how would it be done? who decides what the priorities are? how do you get the nearly 100% participation needed in order to be successful?

answer those questions and youll have your answer.

Yes, it will. Not only that, but it will also destroy merit-based society by creating a caste of genetically-engineered supermen who are able to dominate their respective fields due to their parents' ability to afford extensive genetic engineering programs.

That terrifies me. Personally, I think we should focus on moving on from biological bodies and on to something better, like machines.

You find the idea of genetic supermen terrifying but becoming machines is appealing? That's just weird.

The problem with eugenics, as has been stated, is the idea that we'd be working toward someone's idea of idealism for humanity.

Some things seem obvious, yeah, like eliminating blood disorders and such, but I think even that can ultimately turn into a slippery slope. Think of a lot of physical traits that aren't considered disorders in any way, but someday might, if all the "real" ailments are gone... like having a lot of freckles or being left-handed. Neither of which is considered abnormal today, but someday, when everything "bad" has been eliminated, where do you go from there?

And of course, who makes that judgement call? One or more flawed humans who may or may not have a personal agenda.

To the OP: I agree it's wrong for people to start labeling you a Nazi sympathizer for expressing your opinion. IMHO it's people that shout down folks' opinions that more closely resemble Nazis!

The problem is in answering "Who gets to decide what is an improvement, and who or what is undesireable?"

You and lunatic shall be the decision makers! :D

Eugenics is already being used.. if in somewhat limited cicumstances.

IVF embryo screening and pre 18 week genetic testing are both forms of eugenics.

Not many people seem too upset by those ideas... like most things it needs to take it slow and just sort of creep in. Slow and steady wins the race.

All this mad jumping in and creating a superrace business is not gonna get us anywhere other than into trouble.

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

I am making the assumption you are white? Most of the people I have heard talk of the merits of Eugenics have been white.

Recessive Genes make Eugenics kind of useless.

You might also want to get yourself checked for being a carrier of something. Many Caucasians are carriers of the Cystic Fibrosis gene. There are about 1000 known variations. Not all are lethal. Some maybe benign. How will we know?

Since Nazi was mentioned. You do know that the low grade races in the former USSR out engineered the master race when it came to Tanks for example?

The master race principle is nothing more then attempt of self aggrandizement.

As far as the slippery slope argument goes, if we run out of debilitating genetic disorders, I would recognize it as a success and leave any questions as to whether or not to move onto left-handedness to those brilliant people of the future.

I really get tired of people making justifications against eugenics or anything else because nobody in the future will have any kind of morality. You are not the sum total of morality; everyone else is not a despicable evil person. Have a little faith in humanity.

The benefits of eliminating genetic disorders far outweigh the potential that society a few hundred years from now will do something you consider immoral. They will anyway – just look at how morality has changed in the last 60 years. An unmarried woman having a child was horrifically scandalous, and carpet-bombing a friendly city was acceptable because there were some enemy troops in the area.

And FYI – you do not need 100% participation for eugenics to help, any participation at all has an effect. The higher the percentage, the more effective it will be, but even a minority of the population participating would have a major impact on the passing down of genetic disorders. Of course it is fairly impracticable in current society, simply because it is linked with Hitler (as vegetarianism should be ;) ), so genetic engineering is by far the more likely solution to fixing genetic problems in society.

Of course there are people who are claiming that genetic manipulation is an inherently evil thing because it will give some people an advantage (making people better than they would be otherwise is the whole point). Somehow these people deny that they are logically bankrupt unless they also complain that education should be forbidden because it gives the well educated an advantage over the poorly educated, or those who received good nutrition growing up, or did not suffer any childhood diseases, etc.

Eugenics through forcing others not to breed is a crime, life will sort out the misfits from the winners, however, improving the genetics of mankind should not be shunned just because. We should progress even further in improving mankind than just eliminating genetic disorders. To do otherwise would just be to cease on improvement motivated by fear alone. If we are capable of creating this change than it WILL occur no matter what the intentions are of governmental leaders and other groups, to fight it would be impossible without cracking down on freedom. Therefore rather than fight this issue we must instead try to find ways to deal with it as a society.

well creepy, the answer lies in what you mean by eugenics.

so what do you mean? how would it be done? who decides what the priorities are? how do you get the nearly 100% participation needed in order to be successful?

answer those questions and youll have your answer.

I'd ALWAYS start with breeding licenses.

Some people don't deserve children. Some people shouldn't have children.

I include myself in the second category. I have several inheritable diseases that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let alone my children.

I'm sure many people will not like that idea though.

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

Eugenics is great. I think the opponents of eugenics basically are ignorant folks who associate anything connected with the Nazis as bad. They are ignorant dumbasses because the nazis created the first modern highway system.

The Nazis were not the first eugenics around. I think that the Spartans were pretty ardent supporters of eugenics. Now some folks have been pretty extreme with it but basically the idea that you abort fetuses that have undesirable traits is a pretty decent idea unless you are one of those damn pro-lifers.

Let what should die die...stop keeping premies alive when they should die.

I'd ALWAYS start with breeding licenses.

Some people don't deserve children. Some people shouldn't have children.

I include myself in the second category. I have several inheritable diseases that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let alone my children.

I'm sure many people will not like that idea though.

Been reading Starship Troopers?

Don't open Pandora's Box.

Granted there are times I think people should have a license.

However, it would be far worst to have people telling you when you can breed. Once, they define that, then the next thing is the "proper" raising of your children.....

Eugenics is great. I think the opponents of eugenics basically are ignorant folks who associate anything connected with the Nazis as bad. They are ignorant dumbasses because the nazis created the first modern highway system.

The Nazis were not the first eugenics around. I think that the Spartans were pretty ardent supporters of eugenics. Now some folks have been pretty extreme with it but basically the idea that you abort fetuses that have undesirable traits is a pretty decent idea unless you are one of those damn pro-lifers.

Doh! I keep forgetting you are a troll.....

Doh! I keep forgetting you are a troll.....

Yeah...what a great strategy: "Let's kill people with genetic diseases...I mean, it's not like Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, Kurt Godel, or anyone else deserved to live".

How about this?

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/khan.gif

It's fiction, but it sure is plausible.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd ALWAYS start with breeding licenses.

Some people don't deserve children. Some people shouldn't have children.

I include myself in the second category. I have several inheritable diseases that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let alone my children.

I'm sure many people will not like that idea though.

well there ya go.

thats whats wrong with eugenics.

by requiring breeding licenses you are putting the future of humanity up to POLITICIANS (who have to make the law) and BUREAUCRATS (who will implement the law).

there are no 2 groups less likely to do a good job in deciding who breeds and who doesnt.

I'd ALWAYS start with breeding licenses.

Some people don't deserve children. Some people shouldn't have children.

I include myself in the second category. I have several inheritable diseases that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let alone my children.

I'm sure many people will not like that idea though.

I think eugenics is an intriguing path to explore for the future. Why should we be limited by our nature anymore than we have to? People curse poor eyesight, diabetes, and stupidity, but mention a definitive remedy, and people go crazy.

However, the idea of breeding licenses is not a good idea.

Deep down, I've always thought that Eugenics wasn't a bad idea. In my opinion improvement of the human race is fundamentally a good thing.

I've 'debated' this with other people in the past though and it pretty much always ends with them labeling me a Nazi sympathiser.

So, what are your opinions. Is there and good in Eugenics or should we leave nature alone?

Wiki Eugenics article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

Because humans aren't equipped with rational faculties that are up to the task of choosing genetically desirable mates.

When breeding dogs for jobs or other animals for meat or what have you, there is always a quality of life issue for the animal. Virtually every breed of dog has an associated health issue. Now that people are breeding cats, the same thing is happening with them.

Imagine being a human that was bread to be strong, but you die of blood-clots when you turn thirty. Sure there are no guarantees for the rest of us, but you'd know from childhood that you've got zero chance of living to 40, and you must marry a woman who will produce more of the same. A woman who is likely to look like a butch lesbian.

Breeding works for producing one desired trait, but it would be impossible to create a race that is both strong, and obedient, and healthy within the next 500 years. They'd be riddled with cancers, cardio-pulmonary issues, and probably would start a rebellion within a couple of generations. And that's just trying to breed workers.

How do you go about breeding for qualities like leadership ability (impossible because it's mostly based on social advantages)? Math skills (sky rocketing autism rates)?

It just isn't feasible.

It's like Communism. Wanting it to work doesn't make you evil. Thinking it can work makes you an idiot.

Eugenics through forcing others not to breed is a crime, life will sort out the misfits from the winners, however, improving the genetics of mankind should not be shunned just because. We should progress even further in improving mankind than just eliminating genetic disorders. To do otherwise would just be to cease on improvement motivated by fear alone. If we are capable of creating this change than it WILL occur no matter what the intentions are of governmental leaders and other groups, to fight it would be impossible without cracking down on freedom. Therefore rather than fight this issue we must instead try to find ways to deal with it as a society.

What if the forced abstinance from breeding saves or improves the lives of millions of future people?

However, the idea of breeding licenses is not a good idea.

I know that with my standards of what makes a fit parent the human race would go extinct. Damn few fit parents.

Another interesting angle to explore is the relationship between mother and fetus in the moral arguments concerning eugenics.

Should the woman be precluded from genetically manipulating the fetus?

What if the forced abstinance from breeding saves or improves the lives of millions of future people?

Aren't you a libertarian?

I know that with my standards of what makes a fit parent the human race would go extinct. Damn few fit parents.

The main problem is that the issuance of licenses would be almost entirely determined by arbitrary cultural inclinations.

We can certainly imagine a situation where homosexual and single prospective parents could be discriminated against even though they may be perfect parental candidates.

Aren't you a libertarian?

Sort of.

I am also a devil's advocate.

What if the forced abstinance from breeding saves or improves the lives of millions of future people?

At the same time, what if that abstinence results in someone not being born who might have made an even greater difference?

The main problem is that the issuance of licenses would be almost entirely determined by arbitrary cultural inclinations.

We can certainly imagine a situation where homosexual and single prospective parents could be discriminated against even though they may be perfect parental candidates.

I realize that. My standards are just high.

At the same time, what if that abstinence results in someone not being born who might have made an even greater difference?

Do you like legislation based on this sort of rationale?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Medicine and modern technology has caused the human gene pool to become weakened by the reproduction of people who would otherwise have died before being able to. The best way to counter this is to prevent these people reproducing, to preserve the genes of humanity.

I advocate mandatory sterilization of those with inheritable diseases which cause lifelong mental and physical suffering or distress: downs syndrome for example. If the particular disease has a higher chance of 1 in 800 of being passed onto offspring, then both parents should be sterilized too.

Yes, it's harsh. But it's right.

I realize that. My standards are just high.

That bodes well for your children

Because humans aren't equipped with rational faculties that are up to the task of choosing genetically desirable mates.

When breeding dogs for jobs or other animals for meat or what have you, there is always a quality of life issue for the animal. Virtually every breed of dog has an associated health issue. Now that people are breeding cats, the same thing is happening with them.

Imagine being a human that was bread to be strong, but you die of blood-clots when you turn thirty. Sure there are no guarantees for the rest of us, but you'd know from childhood that you've got zero chance of living to 40, and you must marry a woman who will produce more of the same. A woman who is likely to look like a butch lesbian.

Breeding works for producing one desired trait, but it would be impossible to create a race that is both strong, and obedient, and healthy within the next 500 years. They'd be riddled with cancers, cardio-pulmonary issues, and probably would start a rebellion within a couple of generations. And that's just trying to breed workers.

How do you go about breeding for qualities like leadership ability (impossible because it's mostly based on social advantages)? Math skills (sky rocketing autism rates)?

It just isn't feasible.

It's like Communism. Wanting it to work doesn't make you evil. Thinking it can work makes you an idiot.

well said.

if you look at dogs, mutts are more robust than purebreds. the human decision of what dogs to breed with each other produces good looking but physically weak dogs. why would we do better with forced breeding of people?

At the same time, what if that abstinence results in someone not being born who might have made an even greater difference?

It comes down to consequencialism. The problem with it is all the consquences of any action can never fully be known.

Do you like legislation based on this sort of rationale?

If it involves restricting the rights of individuals solely on the basis of their genetic makeup, yes. I think this is a place that does not have a defined role for the state; it's entirely possible that something seen as "undesirable" may end up being very beneficial.

We simply don't have enough knowledge to make that kind of decision, and restricting the rights of individuals to freely have sex and/or children concerns me.

It comes down to consequencialism. The problem with it is all the consquences of any action can never fully be known.

No, they can't, and that's why eugenics is a risky proposition given our currently limited knowledge of genetics.

Because humans aren't equipped with rational faculties that are up to the task of choosing genetically desirable mates.

When breeding dogs for jobs or other animals for meat or what have you, there is always a quality of life issue for the animal. Virtually every breed of dog has an associated health issue. Now that people are breeding cats, the same thing is happening with them.

Imagine being a human that was bread to be strong, but you die of blood-clots when you turn thirty. Sure there are no guarantees for the rest of us, but you'd know from childhood that you've got zero chance of living to 40, and you must marry a woman who will produce more of the same. A woman who is likely to look like a butch lesbian.

Breeding works for producing one desired trait, but it would be impossible to create a race that is both strong, and obedient, and healthy within the next 500 years. They'd be riddled with cancers, cardio-pulmonary issues, and probably would start a rebellion within a couple of generations. And that's just trying to breed workers.

How do you go about breeding for qualities like leadership ability (impossible because it's mostly based on social advantages)? Math skills (sky rocketing autism rates)?

It just isn't feasible.

It's like Communism. Wanting it to work doesn't make you evil. Thinking it can work makes you an idiot.

The health issues of specialty dogs has everything to do with the method of breeding and nothing to do with the isolation of traits.

Eugenics does not rely on excessive imbreeding to be a success.

If it involves restricting the rights of individuals solely on the basis of their genetic makeup, yes.

That is not the rationale (the possibility of an as of yet nonexisting person creating an immense good) that you were relying on before.

We simply don't have enough knowledge to make that kind of decision,

I doubt that is entirely true. Modern biology's predictive ability is incredible.

and restricting the rights of individuals to freely have sex and/or children concerns me.

I certainly agree.

That is not the rationale (the possibility of an as of yet nonexisting person creating an immense good) that you were relying on before.

What I mean is that I believe the possible consequences of this idea may not be worth the restriction of individual rights that it would require.

I doubt that is entirely true. Modern biology's predictive ability is incredible.

But how far can we make predictions? Eugenics programs might run one, three, ten or more generations and we have no idea what genetic engineering might do over that timeframe. Going even further out, it becomes even more uncertain.

One concern is what exactly constitutes a desirable trait; for example, one person might see engineering dexterity and physical ability as desirable, even if it comes at the cost of less intelligence. The opposite is also possible, as are any number of combinations.

The problem with Eugenics is that it is an old and outdated form of genetic engineering. There are far faster and more effective methods present today that can deliver the same if not better results.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Medicine and modern technology has caused the human gene pool to become weakened by the reproduction of people who would otherwise have died before being able to. The best way to counter this is to prevent these people reproducing, to preserve the genes of humanity.

I advocate mandatory sterilization of those with inheritable diseases which cause lifelong mental and physical suffering or distress: downs syndrome for example. If the particular disease has a higher chance of 1 in 800 of being passed onto offspring, then both parents should be sterilized too.

Yes, it's harsh. But it's right.

Down's isn't a genetic disorder. Not in the traditional sense of the word, and it would be impossible to eradicate. Downs is caused by trisomy of the 21st chromosome, not any special gene on that chromosome, and can happen to any human (as many as 25% of all embryos, including those that come to term and those that don't, have chromosomal abnormalities. The vast majority of these are not viable). What defines a disease? Would a mutation in a gene that predisposes one to cancer be defined as a disease? Even though we can easily destroy and treat most cancers?

Down's isn't a genetic disorder. Not in the traditional sense of the word, and it would be impossible to eradicate. Downs is caused by trisomy of the 21st chromosome, not any special gene on that chromosome, and can happen to any human (as many as 25% of all embryos, including those that come to term and those that don't, have chromosomal abnormalities. The vast majority of these are not viable). What defines a disease? Would a mutation in a gene that predisposes one to cancer be defined as a disease? Even though we can easily destroy and treat most cancers?

I advocate mandatory sterilization of those with inheritable diseases which cause lifelong mental and physical suffering or distress. If your cancer can be cured, it's hardly lifelong, is it?

I advocate mandatory sterilization of those with inheritable diseases which cause lifelong mental and physical suffering or distress.

Whoops, there went all the fat people.

By the way, I find your stance sickening.

I advocate mandatory sterilization of those with inheritable diseases which cause lifelong mental and physical suffering or distress. If your cancer can be cured, it's hardly lifelong, is it?

Why sterilize when you can cure?

Rather than trying to eliminate defective genes through policies that might be considered inhumane, maybe we should try to increase the number of offspring that intelligent, healthy, or long-lived people have. This would reduce the percentage of undesirable genes in the gene-pool and produce more intelligent and healthy people which can only be a good thing for society as a whole.

Whoops, there went all the fat people.

By the way, I find your stance sickening.

So?

Why sterilize when you can cure?

If it can be cured, it's not lifelong. Ugh.

So?

Oh, I just wanted to distance myself from your form of fascism and rebuke you for it. "All it takes for evil to prevail..." and all that.

Oh, I just wanted to distance myself from your form of fascism and rebuke you for it. "All it takes for evil to prevail..." and all that.

My "so" referred to both parts of your, uh, rebuke.

My "so" referred to both parts of your, uh, rebuke.

Oh, it wasn't so much for you as it was for me. Opposing ideas such as yours is what allows me to check the calibration of my internal, ethical compass. That way I know I'm still a decent person.

Oh, it wasn't so much for you as it was for me. Opposing ideas such as yours is what allows me to check the calibration of my internal, ethical compass. That way I know I'm still a decent person.

An amusing exercise in futility, then.

If it can be cured, it's not lifelong. Ugh.

But conditions that are "lifelong" today may not be a decade or two from now.

But conditions that are "lifelong" today may not be a decade or two from now.

In that "decade or two" millions of people could suffer life when they need not have done.

In that "decade or two" millions of people could suffer life when they need not have done.

People are going to suffer regardless of eugenics. Even if you sterilize people with these conditions, all it would take is one random mutation to survive for another problem to appear.

People are going to suffer regardless of eugenics. Even if you sterilize people with these conditions, all it would take is one random mutation to survive for another problem to appear.

If faced with the choice of reducing suffering, even only moderately, versus leaving suffering as is, I choose to reduce suffering.

If faced with the choice of reducing suffering, even only moderately, versus leaving suffering as is, I choose to reduce suffering.

And I choose to direct money either towards fighting suffering as it exists now or developing the cures that will end suffering in the future. Obviously, we both have the same goal, just different ideas on how to accomplish it.

And I choose to direct money either towards fighting suffering as it exists now or developing the cures that will end suffering in the future. Obviously, we both have the same goal, just different ideas on how to accomplish it.

The fundamental difference is that I do not believe life has iintrinsic value, and therefore have absolutely no qualms with preventing new life arising should the result mean a healthier society.

The fundamental difference is that I do not believe life has iintrinsic value, and therefore have absolutely no qualms with preventing new life arising should the result mean a healthier society.

But if life has no value, why bother to end suffering?

But if life has no value, why bother to end suffering?

Life has no intrinsic value. Value must be earned. Something that has not been born yet has not yet earned value.

Life has no intrinsic value. Value must be earned. Something that has not been born yet has not yet earned value.

Earned how?

Earned how?

If I respect you, or care for you, or appreciate your sapience, then you have earned value.

Life has no intrinsic value. Value must be earned.

But how does one earn value? By taking away a person's opportunity to earn their value, you're inflicting the same problem on them that you're trying to solve through eugenics.

But how does one earn value? By taking away a person's opportunity to earn their value, you're inflicting the same problem on them that you're trying to solve through eugenics.

Huh? That makes no sense. I'm not taking anyone's opportunity to earn value. If sterilized, how can a person create another? It's absurd to talk about the value of a person who can never exist.

If I respect you, or care for you, or appreciate your sapience, then you have earned value.

Kinda arrogant with you being the ultimate decider of value, huh?

Huh? That makes no sense. I'm not taking anyone's opportunity to earn value. If sterilized, how can a person create another? It's absurd to talk about the value of a person who can never exist.

They could have existed if the person weren't sterilized.

Kinda arrogant with you being the ultimate decider of value, huh?

I never claimed to be the ultimate decider. If I respect, care or appreciate you, you have gained value in my eyes. You can gain value in the eyes of others.

They could have existed if the person weren't sterilized.

Dealing with possibilities seems ridiculous to me. We're talking about people who don't exist. They have no rights, because they don't exist.