User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Eugenics?

  1. #51
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sizzling Berry View Post
    For me it is a question who has a right to decide with what set of genes you are going to be born. Your parents who on a genetic level are your equals and will live only for a few decades or natural selection that touches whole ecosystem and survived millions of years. We don't know enough about genetic processes on the population level to temper with it, as prplchknz said the more the merrier (by the way what a name - give the dyslexics a break ).

    But the worst is the feeling that somebody has power to temper with my genes - blah, blah. If there is anything private about me it's my combination of genes. If somebody has a power to modify it I am a product. What an ultimate power, somebody can change you as a person even before you exist.

    Another thing is stopping genetic basis of medical conditions - but that issue is not as straight forward as removing and replacing genes - there is always a trade-off.
    I was sited! did you see? did you did you did you did you?
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  2. #52
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Who will take out the garbage when everyone has an IQ of 160+?
    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    More importantly, who will tie everyone's shoes for them?
    The robots they designed and built...duh!!
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  3. #53
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    While I'm against the idea of eugenics, I'm also against the overuse of medications as well, which are allowing members of the world to breed, who should have died out; we *ARE* causing reversed eugenics...

    For a good example of this, look at the rate of diabetics in the world; it's a hereditary (well one type is anyway, the other isn't), case which is rapidly growing in population, mostly due to the fact that people who should have died from it, instead survived due to medicine, and pass it down to their children. Cancer rates are soaring with hereditary cancers being a noticeably large issue as well. Allergies are a *MASSIVE* one... know anyone who's allergic to something? Oh yeah, it's practically impossible NOT to these days.

    While it's good, for the individual, that these people have lived... it's slowly causing problems, and in the long term, we may end up breeding ourselves out of existence simply by letting the weak of the herd survive where they should've died, which can bring the rest of us down as a whole.

    And I speak of this as a diabetic myself, whom acquired such from heredity. I know if I ever have kids, they'll be at a high risk of cancer, of heart disease, and of diabetes.

    Does this mean that I think someone else should have the right to tell me I'm not ALLOWED to have children, due to medical concerns? No, it doesn't. If yeu want to start restricting people from having kids, how about yeu start with making them take a test first to show any remote inkling of responsibility instead of letting alcoholic abusive drug addicts pump them out so fast :O

    But yeah, there is no good answer, short of just curing all the diseases, which renders the issue moot.

    We do have a growing trend of general weakness in our genes though, and it is due to allowing those who should've been removed from it to breed. I still think they should be allowed to, but we should realize that this is still a problem that needs to be addressed, and ignoring it because it's not nice to say is not going to fix things.

  4. #54
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Who will take out the garbage when everyone has an IQ of 160+?
    IQ is a sliding scale based on the 'average' individual.

    100 is always average. If everyone had the equivalent of 160 iq today, then that iq would still be 100.

    There will always be those slightly dumber than the others. Sure they may be brilliant, but not brilliant enough. That or we'll figure out some us-vs-them mentality to divide it up. Develop a caste system so they're forced to do so from birth or whotever.

  5. #55
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Who will take out the garbage when everyone has an IQ of 160+?
    do they have arms and legs?

    still its possible for someone to take out the garbage
    i mean that doesn't rely on how smart you are its taking out the fucking trash.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  6. #56
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prplchknz View Post
    do they have arms and legs?

    still its possible for someone to take out the garbage
    i mean that doesn't rely on how smart you are its taking out the fucking trash.
    The point is that when everyone is made smart by means of eugenics, no one will want to perform menial tasks, like being the garbage man, working at McD's, cleaning the house,picking stawberries; thus eugenics implies the necessity of a caste system, and that implies social inequality, because someone will need to do menial things.

  7. #57
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    IQ is a sliding scale based on the 'average' individual.

    100 is always average. If everyone had the equivalent of 160 iq today, then that iq would still be 100.

    There will always be those slightly dumber than the others. Sure they may be brilliant, but not brilliant enough. That or we'll figure out some us-vs-them mentality to divide it up. Develop a caste system so they're forced to do so from birth or whotever.
    Do you realize that IQ is just a proxy here? If the goal of eugenics is to increase the IQ of the general population, then the fact that intelligence has increased is relevent, not the details of the metric used. Get it? It's really not that difficult...

  8. #58
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    The point is that when everyone is made smart by means of eugenics, no one will want to perform menial tasks, like being the garbage man, working at McD's, cleaning the house,picking stawberries; thus eugenics implies the necessity of a caste system, and that implies social inequality, because someone will need to do menial things.
    yeah but their's only so many awesome jobs, so people will still be stuck with menial tasks.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  9. #59
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Do you realize that IQ is just a proxy here? If the goal of eugenics is to increase the IQ of the general population, then the fact that intelligence has increased is relevent, not the details of the metric used. Get it? It's really not that difficult...
    Yes, but she was correcting a technical error in your use of the shorthand to describe the concept. Which you are still making. The IQ will not increase; the intelligence measured by IQ will.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  10. #60
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Smile

    Eugenics started in the USA where it showed itself to be evil. And this recommended it to the Germans who perfected it in the 30s and 40s.

    "Personality Types", was published in 1921 and was associated with eugenics from the beginning.

    All this is ignored because the most striking thing about the USA is its innocence.

    Why, the USA has made a literary form of 'The Innocent Abroad'.

    And if they are innocent, it means we fit into the opposite slot.

Similar Threads

  1. Eugenics. How much should it cost?
    By LEGERdeMAIN in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 11:32 PM
  2. America's Eugenic and Intellectual Role in the Holocaust
    By Venom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-09-2011, 04:29 AM
  3. What's wrong with eugenics?
    By Perch420 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 01:57 PM
  4. Pelosi calls for birth control to stimulate the economy (eugenics?)
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 01:20 AM
  5. Eugen Weber
    By Haight in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 09:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO