|
ServantOfBaphomet
StarKitten's Boyfriend


Registered: 10/14/09
Posts: 2,986
Loc: αßπΣσµτΦΘΩδ∞
|
|
Patlal
might wanna stay off the pipe for a few days.
lol
-------------------- Do what thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law Love is the Law. Love under Will
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!! The Sovereign Peanut has Spoken!!
|
SurReality
PsychAdemic


Registered: 12/21/06
Posts: 11,808
Loc: Colorado, USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
|
i like how most of the opposing views are just taking personal jabs rather than intelligent responses.
really seems to show what happens when eugenics isn't taken seriously.
-------------------- ProDOPEFiend Diary: (my public diary) PodCast
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
|
So someone explain how eugenics is a good idea objectively speaking. And I won't be fooled by the following arguments: * It will improve the human race: this assumes that there's an objective measure of how good we are. Anyone with the faintest idea about evolution knows that there is no such thing as a good or better species. * it will reduce human suffering: there will always be ways in which humans suffer, including from bad health (accidents, violence) * it is better for the environment: consider how the human species relates to the rest of nature (it's not disjunct from it) and also consider the possibility that genetic improvements (which are questionable; see above) to our species doesn't imply we'll become more focused on sustainability.
Finally, also consider that one of the major advances of western society is the freedom to pursue one's happiness and that having children is for most people the most important source of happiness in their lives.
Any discussion about eugics has to come to the point where its proponents have to face the fact that their idea involves severely limiting the options and freedom of choice of a large part of the population. Any concept of eugenics that doesn't involve this lacks a selection mechanism that puts it outside the realm of eugenics (as the original proposal in the op), as it won't result in an improvement (see above) of the gene pool.
Now go ahead and make an intelligent argument for it. I'm all ears. But I'd be surprised if you managed to not slide down a very slippery ethical slope very quickly indeed.
|
SurReality
PsychAdemic


Registered: 12/21/06
Posts: 11,808
Loc: Colorado, USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Moral eugenics. [Re: koraks]
#22207315 - 09/08/15 01:32 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I for one don't support eugenics as op describes. But I think eugenics is a way to prevent child abuse in general.
I think one simple rule society should consider is evaluating the psychology of any authoritative figure, especially parents.
If this means some people won't be happy, I think is fucked to cater to the happiness of an adult at the expense of the physical and mental health, maybe even happiness, of their children.
-------------------- ProDOPEFiend Diary: (my public diary) PodCast
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel



Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: Moral eugenics. [Re: Patlal]
#22207357 - 09/08/15 01:41 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Patlal said: So Hitler was on to something with his master race idea. There's no denying it. If we bred the best with the best, we would be far beyond what we are now. Turns out he took the psycho way, which is a shame.
How about moral eugenics? Individuals with good health and high IQs with no history of nothing bad giving their consent to be part of that group of people.
Here's how. Qulaifying females are a year or two from menopause (early 40s). They should have 0 health issues or mental problems, high IQ, good athleticism and aesthetically great bodies
Men: 60 years old, no history of disease, high IQ athleticism and good mental health, good bodies. Take their sperm, put it in the females bellies. With everyone's consent of course
Why so old? Because if you have a 60 year old man and a 40 year old woman with no health issues, you practically guarantee that the kid won't have health issues in his youth. If for example I have a kid at 20 and die from a heart attack at 25, then my kid has more chances of dying n his twenties.
We have a sufficient amount of people to get quite a few million people to do this without risk of inbreeding. Sure it's not gonna be 100%. But after doing that for a few generation, you'll come to see that people are getting stronger, smarter, healthier and better looking.
And by the way. You won't be picked. The bar is set at Tom Brady. Anything below that in term of body and smarts disqualifies you. So, I'm sorry, but you're not part of the 1% I'm looking for.
We would streghten the human species by a lot don't you think?
Its immoral to not have eugenics. Forcing hereditary diseases and low IQs on children is wrong. Eugenics is the greatest level of good morality.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
|
Quote:
SurReality said: I think one simple rule society should consider is evaluating the psychology of any authoritative figure, especially parents.
That's not eugenics. It's a policy that would control who has the right to have children based on something other than their genetics. There's pros and cons to it, but it's not part of a debate on eugenics.
|
SurReality
PsychAdemic


Registered: 12/21/06
Posts: 11,808
Loc: Colorado, USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Moral eugenics. [Re: koraks]
#22207452 - 09/08/15 01:56 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Don't you think intentionally passing on genes that will cause life long health issues will fail a psych evaluation?
-------------------- ProDOPEFiend Diary: (my public diary) PodCast
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
|
A psychological evaluation won't be specific in the genetic traits it will allow to be passed on and it will also block many with perfectly 'good' genetics from procreating due to other issues. Nature vs. nurture and all that. Argue all you want, but your policy (while it certainly has a lot going for it) isn't a good example of eugenics.
|
SurReality
PsychAdemic


Registered: 12/21/06
Posts: 11,808
Loc: Colorado, USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Moral eugenics. [Re: koraks]
#22207499 - 09/08/15 02:03 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
alright yea thanks. i understand, i didn't completely see eugenics as only controlling genes but more of a birth control.
Also if you have outstanding genes but not capable to be a good parent I think it would be best to be influenced to adopt your children...
Edited by SurReality (09/08/15 02:17 PM)
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
|
Ah, so a simple misunderstanding. These things happen!
Funny thing, deciding if kids are better of being placed in a foster family is the job of my gf's father. It's a huge dilemma as even in cases where the kids own parents are pretty shitty, it's generally even worse for a kid to grow up in a foster home.
|
SurReality
PsychAdemic


Registered: 12/21/06
Posts: 11,808
Loc: Colorado, USA
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Moral eugenics. [Re: koraks]
#22207805 - 09/08/15 03:03 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yea I assumed that actually. Obviously that would need to change before encouraging adoption.
Actually that is my main argument for adoption not being a viable option to abortion. I actually turned several pro-life people to pro-choice in a high school debate with that point alone.
-------------------- ProDOPEFiend Diary: (my public diary) PodCast
|
|