|
Eugenics
|
| Drkinferno |
Posted on 01/16/2013 22:59:41
|
Wanker
Posts: 908
Joined: 11.05.11
|
(got this debate idea from Hat's comment)
basically, eugenics is the idea that humanity can be improved by only allowing people with good genes reproduce while people with bad genes are not to reproduce at all. Basically, it's to improve humanity overall. Some traits are desirable while others are not. Considering traits that can be useful, like aspergers (which I honestly have myself), others (like downs syndrome) not so much.
The movie idiocracy (a society run by idiots) makes a point when idiots outproduce intelligent people to the point they eventually die out. Enough is enough when 18 imbeciles are allowed to live when superior people are weighed down. If we overproduce to the point that we strain the available resources, we should at least make sure that only the worthy are allowed earth's resources. |
| |
|
|
| theatticus |
Posted on 01/16/2013 23:18:18
|
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 13.12.12
|
First off, Idiocracy is the greatest, funniest, most intelligent movie ever created and I will never get tired of it.
Second, I agree that eugenics would be a very effective way to make progress with humanity, but think of the social hurdles to get over with that. Imagine being told that you cannot have kids because you aren't good enough for them. There would be a complete meltdown if a government tried to enforce that. Granted, after a couple of generations there wouldn't be too many people who weren't considered good enough to reproduce, because the "bad" genes would have been weeded out.
I like the idea, but it's just a little too creepy for me, and I honestly can't think of how they would implement that without jailing half the population. By all means tell me if I'm wrong.
Never judge a book by its movie. |
| |
|
|
| JJX5 |
Posted on 01/16/2013 23:35:18
|
Numpty
Posts: 1350
Joined: 11.03.12
|
I have one problem with this idea, it might get out of had to the point to where only rich and successful people are allowed to have children and go back to , inbreeding , still goes on in the south but it will become how it did in England where the royal family would inbreed with sisters family ect
HotCoco is mean to ocelots.
I will not accept acts of such douchebagery ~~~
i am a troll nice to meet you 
QQ more, so i can float on your tears badkid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HgDkwsVDn8 |
| |
|
|
| Carnage |
Posted on 01/16/2013 23:43:55
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4245
Joined: 28.09.11
|
Eugenics is very similar to selective breeding which we have been doing with animals for thousands of years. The problem arises when you consider the ethical and moral implications of the experiments. Different dog breeds were created via selective breeding, but along the way on the quest to create a dog like a beagle some hybrids were created that were perfectly fine dogs but didn't have desired traits. They weren't any less dog they just weren't desireable. But then that raises the question of who will decide what constitutes "undesirable"? Obviously if you're trying to make a beagle you don't want a hybrid with a smashed in face, but someone trying to make a pug would want it. It's totally arbitrary and it becomes a slippery slope covered in snot when you try to apply such practices to humans.
Plus as was mentioned in the abortion thread, our knowledge of how genes affect each other is much too limited to be able to predict outcomes of removing certain genes, and what's to say if you try to be rid of gene A, which turns out to be an oncogene, that it isn't linked to a gene that codes for something useful like lymphocyte production.
We can't predict what repercussions our actions will have if we start to "play god". Eugenics is good in theory but totally impractical/impossible at our current level of scientific knowledge.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
 |
| |
|
|
| Drkinferno |
Posted on 01/17/2013 00:05:06
|
Wanker
Posts: 908
Joined: 11.05.11
|
Carnage wrote:
We can't predict what repercussions our actions will have if we start to "play god". Eugenics is good in theory but totally impractical/impossible at our current level of scientific knowledge.
Is it playing god to kill something or let it live? Both. If someone has a tumor, you don't debate about it, you remove it. Playing god allows humans to overcome nature (which tries it's hardest to kill us off). Humanity has already been "playing god" for years, and so far I think we could do better. |
| |
|
|
| Carnage |
Posted on 01/17/2013 01:39:47
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4245
Joined: 28.09.11
|
Yes we have been playing god. Humans have been able to stave off natural selection for longer and longer and we have much more control over our lives than ever. I think this has had some negative side effects too. Diseases like cancer are, imo, a direct result of our ability to alter our own natural selection. 1000 years ago people really didn't live past the age of 35 and now we consider that young. Now that we are living so much longer, a disease like cancer, which is generally a late-life onset disease is becoming much more common. Also there are other diseases like Huntington's or congential heart defects that aren't likely to be discovered until the person has already reproduced and passed on the "bad" gene.
I'm not saying that living longer as a whole is a bad thing I'm just saying it has had negative consequences. If we start to mess with nature then problems arise. Eugenics would be taking it even further, and like I said before, we can't predict where that will take us.
We can't predict those types of things. It reminds of the so-called butterfly effect, and how something can be seemingly unrelated yet be connected. You can't know all possible outcomes of your actions. It seems cliche but what if a butterfly flapping its wings in china causes Joe Schmoe to get hit by a car. Causality is very tricky.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
|
| |
|
|
| JJX5 |
Posted on 01/17/2013 01:45:35
|
Numpty
Posts: 1350
Joined: 11.03.12
|
to add to this drk you keep saying "well haven't we played god already?" Well I'm going to use one of the things my teachers / parents used to sy to me. So if someone jumps off a cliff you'll follow them because someone else did it? No one said playing god with ok, but surviving nature well we don't survive nature , we all simply hold it off for as long as you can , everyone does eventually. But however sometimes I will agree with you it's not really fair to keep someone who it's technically dead alive or I'm going to use the example a vegetable they can't do anything on their own and are just attached to tubes all their life that's wrong in my opinion . but it's up to their family so this circles back to the abortion debate a little but overall because one person does it or a group of people do it doesn't necessarily mean its ok
HotCoco is mean to ocelots.
I will not accept acts of such douchebagery ~~~
i am a troll nice to meet you
QQ more, so i can float on your tears badkid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HgDkwsVDn8 |
| |
|
|
| JJX5 |
Posted on 01/17/2013 02:39:42
|
Numpty
Posts: 1350
Joined: 11.03.12
|
Regardless of religion or religious beilifes you can purposely or unintentionally play god , it may be in a way you might not even to have thought this, I beilive in god but belong to no certain religion or church , but even people with religion I've heard them say "don't play god" or "it's not nice to play god" yes there are things you can't do that god can but then you can be like the devil without being the devil you can do every terrible act you can come up with but that's like "playing the devil" so to speak, I think anyone can play god it just depends on what the extent your going to try and play, like bring the dead back to life? No you can't do it but even so I don't think playing god is really common but that's just me
HotCoco is mean to ocelots.
I will not accept acts of such douchebagery ~~~
i am a troll nice to meet you
QQ more, so i can float on your tears badkid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HgDkwsVDn8 |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 01/17/2013 05:59:15
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
ZA Code wrote:
I assume that if you say 'play god' you believe in a god.
I believe humans arent playing for god, since(if you have a religion) he created us and knows what we can do and what our limits are.
I agree with you 100%.
Us playing God is not good, we already have nuclear weapons. Imagine Texas got whipped out by a nuclear bomb just because Texans have "bad genes", or the whole America. America have the unhealthiest people. |
| |
|
|
| Carnage |
Posted on 01/17/2013 09:59:08
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4245
Joined: 28.09.11
|
ZA Code wrote:
I assume that if you say 'play god' you believe in a god.
The term "playing god" is a euphemism and doesn't necessarily mean that one has a religion or believes in God.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
|
| |
|
|
| BloodBrother |
Posted on 01/17/2013 10:09:12
|
Senior Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 06.12.12
|
Part of the problem with today's society is the evolution of medicine. The evolution of medicine has given society to live longer and longer and allow the diseases, illnesses, cancers to mutate. Had we allow natural selection to take place these diseases would not likely exist do to evolution.
I don't think it would be fair to only certain humans to reproduce, because I think, that if given the opportunity everyone can be beneficial to society, but some do not get that chance for various reasons.
"Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
 |
| |
|
|
| The Hat of Love |
Posted on 01/17/2013 13:34:56
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 9035
Joined: 31.07.11
|
'Playing God' essentially means taking the place of God. It's often used for things the affect nature like this.
The thing about eugenics is, I think, that it's altogether rather sinister. I mean, what it essentially says is that if you're not a good enough human we are going to take away your right to breed. Immediately we've run into a problem.
Firstly, who is going to decide what is a desirable trait in humans? And where is the line going to be drawn? How do we find this out? Will we have a series of full physical and mental exams and tests at the end of primary school to see how 'good' a human you are? And if you're not strong or smart enough you get sterilised?
What are you suggesting exactly? What I mean is who are we stopping from breeding? Is it just people with genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis or will criminals and people with a IQ be sterilised as well?
Secondly, what humans do, what all animals do and the way nature has worked for billions of years, is two things. Firstly, we survive. Secondly, we reproduce. Why do we survive? So that we can reproduce and pass on our genes. Nature isn't perfect, of course, but I think we all have the right to reproduce, don't we, a right that is more basic and instinctual than other human rights?
The World Health Organisation:
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
(http://en.wikiped...ive_rights)
Thirdly, what gives you the right to tell people that they can't have children? 'No, sorry, you're not good enough as a human and we kind of want to make the human race better so you can't have children.' It is the opinion of the person or people in charge of the project who are deciding the future of humanity based on their own views, judging people who they don't know and taking away their rights because they have a disease or aren't good enough to breed.
I don't think it's right to take away such a basic part of a humanity for the 'betterment' of the rest. I find the basic principal immoral enough but an actual implication is bound to result in uproar, and for good reason. And looking realistically at it, even if you start off with just encouraging people with genetic illnesses not to breed, how long after that would it be before that progresses to sterilisation of them, then to dangerous criminals, then to minor criminals and people who might be stupid or who aren't what the government want? Maybe I'm being the pessimist but do you really thing that if a government were to implement such a scheme it wouldn't be affected by the interests of those in charge? Their personal opinions would likely dictate who is and is not allowed to reproduce. Eugenics is the kind of thing I'd expect to find in some dystopian future like 1984, where people who oppose the government or commit crime are not allowed to have children, not in a civilised, moral world.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 01/17/2013 14:32:25
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
Can you clearly define the terms of the motion? How are 'good genes' differentiated from 'bad genes'?
I would expect any such definition would be extremely subjective. Nobody should get to choose what human traits are good. Inevitably, this would probably end up in the realms of racism - it reminds me of the Nazi's regime anyway.
There's also the issue of reducing the gene pool. Variety is important for survival of a species - it provides greater scope for adaptation through natural selection. We can't emulate this process.
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| JJX5 |
Posted on 01/18/2013 03:57:12
|
Numpty
Posts: 1350
Joined: 11.03.12
|
^^^ well for some people it's a mental disorder or any weird "disease" they might have on being born like Down syndrome , or something along the lines of that I would assume that's what they mean by bad genes
HotCoco is mean to ocelots.
I will not accept acts of such douchebagery ~~~
i am a troll nice to meet you
QQ more, so i can float on your tears badkid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HgDkwsVDn8 |
| |
|
|
| BloodBrother |
Posted on 01/18/2013 09:23:44
|
Senior Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 06.12.12
|
ninja wrote:
There's also the issue of reducing the gene pool. Variety is important for survival of a species - it provides greater scope for adaptation through natural selection. We can't emulate this process.
Spot on Ninja. With a smaller amount of genes, trivial issues would become much more prominent and the chance for adapting to said issue would be much less.
"Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
|
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 01/18/2013 11:58:32
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
JJX5 wrote:
^^^ well for some people it's a mental disorder or any weird "disease" they might have on being born like Down syndrome , or something along the lines of that I would assume that's what they mean by bad genes
Giving one example doesn't define something. If this is vaguely defined, then people will inevitably be discriminated against. You can't just sterilise people because you think they're 'weird' - normality is subjective.
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| SpartanJaz |
Posted on 01/18/2013 12:28:34
|
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 13.08.12
|
Exactly right, Ninja.
I know someone with Asburgers and I'd consider him much more sane than some I know who have no 'mental illnesses' at all. (Mental illnesses being a stupid idea imo as we all have psychological flaws. A speech somebody made at TED concerning insanity comes to mind here)
(In fact, here: http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html)
E: Here's a Youtube version of that great TED video incase you want HD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c
Really though, watch it. It's very interesting.
Insanity does not exist. Mental illnesses are just stupid ideas invented by... psychopaths, which of course don't exist. 
Edited by SpartanJaz on 01/18/2013 12:36:39 |
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 01/18/2013 14:11:45
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
Maybe if we were a base society it would be beneficial, but we're not base. We are an emotional and complex humanity. So much so, that "desireable" genes would NEVER EVER be agreed upon. Plus, some of the finest "stock" humanity has is still capable of doing atrocious things. Plus, not all disorders are genetic, many are environmentally produced - so even if we did have the finest genetics being allowed to live, that would not guarantee that humanity would be any better off socially or morally. The only thing all this would do is give them more resources. I don't think its a good idea. I think letting nature run its course is the only fool proof way to make sure the pendulum of humanity is able to swing to the fullest.
If you DON'T do the selective genetics things - eventually over population will weed out the weakest and the cycle will begin again. I am a firm believer that history repeats itself and that the pendulum always returns to where it started. I believe that the earth and all life is cyclical and what is to come will come in the long run, no matter what kind of effort we put into it. The only thing we can do is try to survive.
 |
| |
|
