Eugenics?

[Lark]

Crime or life science? What's your view? I'm a total supporter of Eugenics in theory, I'm unsure how to put it into practice but I believe that the majority of misery created by anti-social behaviour and other equally troubling behaviour arises mainly from not simply neglect or abuse and its impact across the life span but the genetic inheritance passed on through the years. Bad or recessive genes combine with environment with predictable results.

It's a pressing problem, I've read and considered research that all the existing therapeutic interventions in the form of health and social services in the UK will be totally ineffective with certain hard core populations since they are so cognitively challenged the chances of responding to any intervention is remote.

Interventions could care for these individuals, mitigate for them the consequences of their actions to a certain extent (which may or may not involve injustice or at the very least disatisfaction to others) but it will not rehabilitate them, which may or may not happen with the full passage of time and further maturation towards old age.

 

[Halla74]

Crime or life science? What's your view? I'm a total supporter of Eugenics in theory, I'm unsure how to put it into practice but I believe that the majority of misery created by anti-social behaviour and other equally troubling behaviour arises mainly from not simply neglect or abuse and its impact across the life span but the genetic inheritance passed on through the years. Bad or recessive genes combine with environment with predictable results.

It's a pressing problem, I've read and considered research that all the existing therapeutic interventions in the form of health and social services in the UK will be totally ineffective with certain hard core populations since they are so cognitively challenged the chances of responding to any intervention is remote.

Interventions could care for these individuals, mitigate for them the consequences of their actions to a certain extent (which may or may not involve injustice or at the very least disatisfaction to others) but it will not rehabilitate them, which may or may not happen with the full passage of time and further maturation towards old age.

Not interested, thanks.

I'm quite fine having had the chance to select my mate of my own will and accord, and not what some elitist geneticist thinks is best for humanity based on my DNA and that of available females at the time I was "scheduled" to reproduce.

That would inevitably turn into an Orwellian nightmare if ever implemented by a given society.

FROM: Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.

Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany."


How do you see this as a useful/viable theory? Just curious?

 

[matmos]

Not interested, thanks.

I'm quite fine having had the chance to select my mate of my own will and accord, and not what some elitist geneticist thinks is best for humanity based on my DNA and that of available females at the time I was "scheduled" to reproduce.

That would inevitably turn into an Orwellian nightmare if ever implemented by a given society.

FROM: Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.

Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany."


How do you see this as a useful/viable theory? Just curious?

Well I'm all for eugenics. Then we could selectively breed Lark out of the gene pool.

 

[Lark]

Not interested, thanks.

I'm quite fine having had the chance to select my mate of my own will and accord, and not what some elitist geneticist thinks is best for humanity based on my DNA and that of available females at the time I was "scheduled" to reproduce.

That would inevitably turn into an Orwellian nightmare if ever implemented by a given society.

FROM: Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.

Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany."


How do you see this as a useful/viable theory? Just curious?

Thought about it a lot after seeing an episode of House in which the disorder was unravelled once it was revealed that at the genetic level at least the two sufferers were effectively family.

NI isnt a very diverse society, maybe its just because of that but I think that information about genetics would be as useful to people as personality typology if they were selecting partners.

I dont necessarily see that as anymore elitist than the agreement that everyone drives on the one side of the road for instance.

 

[Into It]

Calculating the future population shows that there's going to need to be some change in the freedom of reproduction for the good of everyone. As long as we're able to tell people they should not reproduce - or not more than once perhaps - I see no reason why we shouldn't take the opportunity to eliminate some useless diseases from the gene pool - and raise our IQ's while we're at it.

 

[Lark]

Calculating the future population shows that there's going to need to be some change in the freedom of reproduction for the good of everyone. As long as we're able to tell people they should not reproduce - or not more than once perhaps - I see no reason why we shouldn't take the opportunity to eliminate some useless diseases from the gene pool - and raise our IQ's while we're at it.

I dont know that there is a straight forward population problem, for instance the small number in the developed world consume way more than those in subsaharan africa, so population growth in the developed world is the problem not population growth per se and its more the case that consumption and consumerism the the problem than population growth.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I suspect that some sort of bad virus will come out of asia or africa and wreak havoc on the 2nd and 3rd world nations of that part of the world.

I mean like a billion people or more, gone.

 

[sculpting]

I read once that sociopathy is present typically at rates of less than 3% but in an inner city enviornment it rises to rates of 20%. The author linked it to increased stress as children causing increases in basal cortisol and leading to higher levels of testosterone as well. Biology told these folks that they world was a tough, highly competitive place and then programmed them that cheating and lying were the best ways to make sure you survive and procreate.

I think it is far too influenced by epigentics and by complex SNP patterns to figure out how to do this. Even if you could, you would very likely eliminate some very useful behavioral patterns in the process.

 

[Sniffles]

I oppose Eugenics.

 

[Tiltyred]

I don't oppose Eugenics in theory, but when you start to talk about implementing it, I find a lot to complain of. It just doesn't seem doable.

Genetic tinkering, maybe. I would not be against some genetic tinkering, perhaps.

 

[nozflubber]

We already have eugenics in place, it's not just a theory...

It works something like this:

Those that have this thing called health insurance get cared for and live.

Those that don't have this magical card don't get cared for and die.

Can't you see it's transparent wisdom!? Passive Eugenics is teh BEST, especially when based upon something as socioeconomic status. Blessed art thee ass-kissers and business moguls, may they have more opportunities to spred their genes til poor people are no more. Amen.

 

[Quinlan]

This will end badly.

 

[Litvyak]

I'm pro-eugenic. The reason for negative feelings towards eugenics originates from the abuse of the term by Nazi Germany. Eugenics is not frenology or some bullshit theories about the inferiority of jews, it is a concept of human progress.

It's very difficult to put it in practice though.

 

[incubustribute]

We already have eugenics in place, it's not just a theory...

It works something like this:

Those that have this thing called health insurance get cared for and live.

Those that don't have this magical card don't get cared for and die.

Can't you see it's transparent wisdom!? Passive Eugenics is teh BEST, especially when based upon something as socioeconomic status. Blessed art thee ass-kissers and business moguls, may they have more opportunities to spred their genes til poor people are no more. Amen.

Please stop your whining and contribute something of value to the conversation.

I mean, I'm no mod, but did the OP ask you anything about health care reform? If you want to debate the evils of capitalism, start your own "I hate it when people work for their money" thread and enjoy your responses. I'll go get the Orville-Redenbacher

At any rate, I don't see how Eugenics could be implemented to the good of society. Give scientists the right and ability to breed humans, and you have big brother from Brave New World deciding what "qualities" humans ought to possess, and all the equality people have fought for for so long is gone.

 

[Litvyak]

Eugenics is the fundament of equality. The only thing humans couldn't abolish in terms of 'liberty' is the right to possess the same chance for success and happiness. If you're born blind and without legs, I say you're pretty fucked up in our liberal democracy.

you have big brother from Brave New World

^ I hope that was a joke.

 

[prplchknz]

no not enough variety. if we implement eugenics it be in the long run for the worse.

 

[incubustribute]

^ I hope that was a joke.

It certainly was not intended as one, but perhaps I misunderstand the goal of implementing eugenics. I was considering the possibilities of abuse when the government inevitably gets to regulate who is born with certain human traits and who is not.

 

[Lark]

Brave New World features a world were the various strata are deliberately breed to be content with their rank, status and prospects, its as dystopian as the Nazi attempt to hijack the concept.

The same way the Russians hijacked equality as communism and have tried to create and control a pan-western/european anti-Islamic terror ideology.

I dont believe that you could possibly consider the availability/rationing of health services eugenics, not even passive eugenics, it could be considered social darwinist, which is something different altogether and I certainly wouldnt argue that at all.

If it is the evils of capitalism you are talking about that would be worth a thread, however, I would ask you, these countries without available health services, were you thinking of the lawless and dependent parts of the developing world or the countries were the "poor" are "victims" of an obescity epidemic?

 

[Halla74]

Thought about it a lot after seeing an episode of House in which the disorder was unravelled once it was revealed that at the genetic level at least the two sufferers were effectively family.

NI isnt a very diverse society, maybe its just because of that but I think that information about genetics would be as useful to people as personality typology if they were selecting partners.

I dont necessarily see that as anymore elitist than the agreement that everyone drives on the one side of the road for instance.

The road to hell is paved with best intentions...

The gene that a scientist might be able to "remove" or "replace" or "factor out" of an embryo, or the human race for the matter, might very well be toxic/lethal in one series of codon sequences, but could be beneficial in others.

A person's DNA code is so complex, it is impossible to know the totality of interrealtions between genes, despite the apparent ease as of late in identifying problematic sequences.

Do not mess with the territory of God, it is beyond man's comprehension for a reason, and that is why we have been given tools such as love, lust, and other forms of desire to allow us to maintain viability as an overall species despite having acute cases of disability that vary from person to person.

Our gifts are infinitely variable, as is our uniqueness, as are our possible imperfections.

 

[Dooraven]

I oppose eugenics due to the simple fact that one person who is extremely good at something probably sucks at something else. This is where IQ tests fail miserably at.