General Discussion

For any not familiar with the concept, here's a recap:

The idea: Improvement of the human race through full or partial control of reproduction.

General argument for: Through modern civilization, we have succeeded in creating a gene pool where poor genetics are not only able to, but encouraged to reproduce. This can and has been shown to have resulted in a generally accellerating decline in the overall health of humanity, as people who would ordinarily have died before having the opportunity, pass their genetics on to the next generation.

General counterargument: Most practical solutions to the above problems can and in the past have been a major violation of basic human rights.

The public relations problem: Eugenic campaigns in the early 1900's led to the involuntary sterilization of thousands of Americans deemed "unworthy" of breeding, and similar concepts were directly tied into the driving force behind the Holocaust of Nazi Germany. In both cases, proponents of the concept made the blunder of mistaking racial and/or religious heritage to inherently be a genetic weakness/strength.

My stance is that the core concept has merit and possibilities of a humane method of improving our overall genetic heritage, or at least stopping its decline, should most certainly be explored. My primary concern, as usual, is that such can easily be taken too far in the wrong direction by those hungry for power and/or misguided by false ideals.

I'm interested in hearing your stance, proposals, and arguments, for and against the idea.

I don't necessarily think that it's really a matter of controlling the reproduction as more of just reintroducing large predators.  Survival of the fittest.

I'm against the practice because we all know it would lead to the creation of the evil Khan Noonien Singh.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

i think the problem with eugenics it always without a doubt leads to some sort of discrimination.

Logically homosexuality is extremely bad for the genepool if you are trying to get something out of it. Simple because a homosexual couple cannot add to the genepool.

Mind you i have nothing against homosexuals, asexuals, hypersexuals, etc as long it doesn't interfere with my life deliberately.

Also the only Practitioner of Eugenics in modern history is adolf hitler, thats as far as people who actually got a program off the drawing board.

First off... Hitler cat approves this thread!

The big problem with eugenics is the fact that we don't have everything nailed down yet. Even with everything we know, our knowledge of genetics is sketchy at best. this is just another manifestation of human hubris. We think we can do better than nature. Some things we can do very well for ourselves. This is not one of them.

And isn't it a little degrading to reduce humans to the level of livestock with selective breeding? There are some serious ethical issues with this "science."

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

First off... Hitler cat approves this thread!

 

The big problem with eugenics is the fact that we don't have everything nailed down yet. Even with everything we know, our knowledge of genetics is sketchy at best. this is just another manifestation of human hubris. We think we can do better than nature. Some things we can do very well for ourselves. This is not one of them.

And isn't it a little degrading to reduce humans to the level of livestock with selective breeding? There are some serious ethical issues with this "science."

On the upside i would not miss the possiblity of my children having down syndrome, or some other birth deffect that could affect there life in a negative way for the rest of their lives.

Eugenics and sciences with the same aim, could be applied without crossing lines that the majority of anyone would not disagree with being the point.

I believe Eugenics is not even necessary. Natural events will take place concerning human overpopulation. Starvation, Famine, Disease,Natural Disaster. In some countries this is already happening. If you follow Darwin exponential population growth at one point a population will reach a "critical mass". At these points populations naturally decrease significantly. Due to natural law.

In the case of a exponential population like China. Even if Eugenics were applied there would still be a 1.2% growth rate just off of differential alone(error).

the main problem with eugenics is simply a persons right to reproduce. do we have the right to reproduce or should we allow a government to say we have that right. also with whom can we reproduce.

so are you going to make my daughter have Steven Hawkings babies?

Taking up the responsibilities for a child are linked with the drive to protect your own offspring. Also the conection a child has with their parents is linked the knowledge of blood ties. If there is an authoritarian control making people look after children that have no blood ties with then there is going to be a lot of very screwed up people out there.

Of course some people adopt successfully, men become surrogate fathers to children not their own, but do we want to put additional resentment between parents and children by making people have children for someone else? by force? Do we abandon the idea of unions for the sake of love?

What about in utero gene therapy? so altering the fetuses genes before birth to give them advantages like being more resistant to cancer? or able to run well? would you give your child NIKE running lungs? Or good dose or REDBULL stamina genes? only a slight chance of psychosis...

that way those tht could afford the gene therapy for their children would have the super kids of the future, or at least those that sign their unborn children off as a living advertisement for the corporations. Would these advantages be inheritable traits or not. common lad, your superhuman, you need to work hard so that you fulfill our unreasonably high expectations of you as we paid good money for the genes you carry as well as having the obligation to provide the same advantages to your own children.

Children sueing their parents for not providing the gene therapy that the kid needed to compete in the modern world.

lots of fun with these moral dilemmas. To me eugenics comes down to one simple question "will you force your daughter to bear a child from someone not of their own choosing?" to which the answer is "no way in hell, that is as evil as locking her in the basement and raping her".

Originally posted by xpowderx

I believe Eugenics is not even necessary. Natural events will take place concerning human overpopulation. Starvation, Famine, Disease,Natural Disaster. In some countries this is already happening. If you follow Darwin exponential population growth at one point a population will reach a "critical mass". At these points populations naturally decrease significantly. Due to natural law.