User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 27 of 27

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    So what do you consider "artificial selection" then?
    Eugenics fits the bill nicely, as would things like genetic manipulation in a lab.

  2. #22
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    But government encouraging people to have, or not to have children doesn't fit the bill?
    So, for example, you consider China's out of wack male/female ratio to be the result of "natural selection"?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    In this day and age, with the condition of the economy, wasting money on something as impractical as eugenics is foolish.

    From an ethical veiwpoint, it's ludicrous. I mean if willing participants splice their genes with other people into test tubes and artifically create infants who will grow into genetically improved beings, then I'm all fine with that. Telling people who can and can't have kids based on genetic factors is wrong, and anyone who thinks that the end result of such an endeavor justifies the means has the moral compass of a Nazi.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    But government encouraging people to have, or not to have children doesn't fit the bill?
    So, for example, you consider China's out of wack male/female ratio to be the result of "natural selection"?
    The government (or any other group) encouraging or discouraging certain reproductive behaviours simply applies selective pressure. Individuals then choose their own strategies based on these pressures, and those who come up with the 'best' strategies get to reproduce the most. In China, the 'best' strategy would probably be to make enough money and have enough connections that you can pay government fines rather than abort a second child, regardless of gender.

    From what I can tell, those who are aborting female children are actually exhibiting short-sighted behaviour that is counter to their reproductive interests. This is because young Chinese males are less likely to reproduce than females. As a result, in the long term the social pressures will change such that female children are more desirable.

  5. #25
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    In this day and age, with the condition of the economy, wasting money on something as impractical as eugenics is foolish.

    From an ethical veiwpoint, it's ludicrous. I mean if willing participants splice their genes with other people into test tubes and artifically create infants who will grow into genetically improved beings, then I'm all fine with that. Telling people who can and can't have kids based on genetic factors is wrong, and anyone who thinks that the end result of such an endeavor justifies the means has the moral compass of a Nazi.
    There should be some loose, flexible rules for determining who cannot have children(or many children). The moral outcry that would come of renewed government interest in eugenics has more to do with the selfish desire to have offspring, even when it's far from the best interest of society. For example, if you have a woman who makes less than $20k per year and who has several kids by several different absent fathers, who pays for that? Taxpayers do. My main interest doesn't lie in eliminating mental and physical disabilities, it lies in preventing people from having kids that won't be properly nourished or taken care of. I wouldn't have a problem with some people being sterilized after three kids if they cannot afford any more. I'm not just picking on irresponsible women, there's lots of irresponsible men out there too. It's a little more difficult to track them down though, since women are the ones usually stuck with the kid when the baby daddy bolts. Also, I wouldn't say that my moral compass is anything like a nazi's, that's just ignorant on your part. Eugenics is much older than Hitler's Germany and was used by most countries at some point in the past century including the U.S., Canada, U.K., China, etc, etc, etc. I'm not attempting to say that eugenics is right simply because of how popular it was in the past century, I just think that we have a much better understanding of human genetics than we did in the 1920's, so why not start formulating some regulations to get rid of people with the fuck-everything-I-see-and-not-use-a-condom-or-birthcontrol gene?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    There should be some loose, flexible rules for determining who cannot have children(or many children). The moral outcry that would come of renewed government interest in eugenics has more to do with the selfish desire to have offspring, even when it's far from the best interest of society. For example, if you have a woman who makes less than $20k per year and who has several kids by several different absent fathers, who pays for that? Taxpayers do. My main interest doesn't lie in eliminating mental and physical disabilities, it lies in preventing people from having kids that won't be properly nourished or taken care of. I wouldn't have a problem with some people being sterilized after three kids if they cannot afford any more. I'm not just picking on irresponsible women, there's lots of irresponsible men out there too. It's a little more difficult to track them down though, since women are the ones usually stuck with the kid when the baby daddy bolts. Also, I wouldn't say that my moral compass is anything like a nazi's, that's just ignorant on your part. Eugenics is much older than Hitler's Germany and was used by most countries at some point in the past century including the U.S., Canada, U.K., China, etc, etc, etc. I'm not attempting to say that eugenics is right simply because of how popular it was in the past century, I just think that we have a much better understanding of human genetics than we did in the 1920's, so why not start formulating some regulations to get rid of people with the fuck-everything-I-see-and-not-use-a-condom-or-birthcontrol gene?
    Even if the government mandated practices where people were steralized after having a certain number of children/were unable to affford more kids, it would raise a lot of ethical issues as to exactly who should be steralized and who should not, not to mention people getting up in arms about the government infringing on peoples rights. Also, combining sterilzation (an irreversable process) with government bureaucracy (not known for it's tactfulness) isn't a good idea. If tax payer money has to be spent on poor idiots who pop out kids all the time, then so be it, it's not such a huge drain that it jeapordizes the economy.

  7. #27
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    I'm against the idea of sterilization except in exceptional circumstances- wards of the state, etc, and only if mental issues are involved.



    Of course, if we ever go down the path of sterilizing people for reasons of inheritable physical disabilities, there will be hell to pay. I fully intend to kill anyone who tries to sterilize me, preferably slowly and painfully.

Similar Threads

  1. How much does it cost a night where you live?
    By kyuuei in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-30-2013, 11:14 AM
  2. how much should a puppy eat?
    By miss fortune in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:36 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 10:46 AM
  4. How much does gas cost?
    By miss fortune in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 07:07 AM
  5. I versus E: It's not how much you talk, but how you talk.
    By Brendan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 02:14 PM

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