User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you support eugenics?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 21.05%
  • No

    30 78.95%
First 917181920 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 200

  1. #181
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Eugenics in a reality filled with humans has the potential to be either a dream or a nightmare. Personally I have espoused that we will face many issues ahead with regards to resource consumption and population growth, although theories and opinions vary on that score. If the amount of children people have becomes a privilege as opposed to a right, (governed by a country's laws most likely aka China), then the attraction of how to govern the population's 'health' would probably be fairly irresistible.

    The problem is we tend to advance ourself technologically before we do ethically or ideologically.

    I'm actually somewhat indifferent, but I am fairly adamant that there are a lot of people who I would not like to see get control over such a thing as eugenics should, (or rather when), it become more feasible. @SilentMusings would be chief among such people. Perhaps a system of interviews to assess the stability of the person would help.

    A job interview to dictate the colour of your child's hair and eyes essentially.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  2. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Hybrid vigour occurs when you breed two highly homogyzogus parents for a number of different traits together to get the best of both worlds. However, the random mating of two people who will be homogyzous for one trait, hetereozygous for others, and have a whole lot of traits with more complex inheritance patterns, just because they are appreciably "different", will not increase health. You have no idea whatsoever what you are doing in this case. It would be like me knocking up your sister after a one night stand compared to controlled pedigree dog breeding.

    If you can explain how the benefits of being heterozygous for any of the disorders I listed outweigh the consequences then you will have won this debate. But until then, you have not.

    As I have consistently pointed out, the probability of there being an advantage to being heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene, for example, does not outweigh the disadvantages. Not by a country mile. The reason these disorders persist in the population is not because they convey some advantage but because the heterozygous individual often does not have such severe symptoms if any and may be able to reproduce. This is not an argument against evolution, only that any useful mutation would take a while to spread in any given population unless the environment drastically changed. Bargining on that chance occuring during our lifetimes is not rational because it is very low indeed. That is why I posted the meteorite analogy.

    Why you people can't understand what I'm trying to tell you is utterly beyond me...

    That you are optimisitic about genetic technology is highly hypocritical considering what you have stated earlier. As I have pointed out, enhancement will also lead to a loss of genetic diversity, and along with it a whole set of societal problems created by the population being unnaturally healthy. Be consistent.
    I think the central point of contention is what we consider "eugenics".

    I am all for gene therapy (that doesn't eliminate the actual genes in the next generation till we know for sure we know what we are doing). I agree with family planning. I agree with distributing contraception. I agree with encouraging people in overburdened areas to not have children. I agree with rewarding people for having fewer children.

    I even think that making it manditory for people to stop having children to continue receiving welfare is not unreasonable.

    What I am opposed to is forced sterilization or mass genocide. I know that you said that this is not what you are advocating. But if you paint with a brush that say things like: things that reduce effective working life, you are painting with a very broad brush. This includes mental disorders. This includes autism. Hell, this even includes pregnancy.

    If it is not forced, if it is not en mass, and people are simply informed of disorders they could pass on and allowed to make decisions, who would be opposed to that?

    The probabilities change drastically if you move from
    1) individuals making informed decisions about their own progeny and being given incentive to reproduce less, to
    2) individuals being forced into being sterilized (by law or whatever) for simply having conditions that reduce working life.

    I know that you didn't explicitly say you wanted to eliminate many people based on traits alone, but many people interpreted this as your intention because of the other things you posted. Just thinking about things in such a broad brush is problematic.

    If this has all been a case of "violent agreement", we can leave it at that and have a good laugh.

    Based on the reps I've received, I have to say that many people believed you were painting with too broad a brush, and strongly implying some form of force based on phenotype (not genes, not behavior).

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #183
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post

    Based on the reps I've received, I have to say that many people believed you were painting with too broad a brush, and strongly implying some form of force based on phenotype (not genes, not behavior).
    Phenotype might be a word that is too big for someone of such superior breeding. Obviously, they perceive the universe with much more clarity than you or I, and so cannot be bothered to learn the meanings of such complicated terminology. They are too busy pondering important matters, like how to apply to Russian love camp.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  4. #184
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Phenotype might be a word that is too big for someone of such superior breeding. Obviously, they perceive the universe with much more clarity than you or I, and so cannot be bothered to learn the meanings of such complicated terminology. They are too busy pondering important matters, like how to apply to Russian love camp.


    It's impressive in it's own way: He got a bunch of us to argue against sterilizing him.

  5. #185
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post


    It's impressive in it's own way: He got a bunch of us to argue against sterilizing him.
    He should be grateful.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  6. #186

    Default

    eugenics - noun - the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics; a term so bristling with relativities one can imagine (some of) the consequences?

  7. #187
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by st-t-toat View Post
    eugenics - noun - the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics; a term so bristling with relativities one can imagine (some of) the consequences?
    Normally eugenics is referred to as a pseudo science.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Normally eugenics is referred to as a pseudo science.
    help me, my dear Mole, bring me out of myself ... where then do we draw the line here between the science and the pseudoscience?

  9. #189
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by st-t-toat View Post
    help me, my dear Mole, bring me out of myself ... where then do we draw the line here between the science and the pseudoscience?
    Well, science is based on evidence and reason. Science uses the scientific method. Science is based on scepticism. Science is published in peer review journals.

    Pseudo science mimicks science but without evidence and reason, the scientific method, scepticism, and without being published in peer review journals.

    Homeopathy is a pseudo science, while science is evidence based medicine.
    Eugenics is pseudo science, while genetics is science.
    Astrology is pseudo science, while astronomy is science.
    Alchemy is pseudo science, while chemistry is science.
    Mbti is pseudo science, while psychometrics is science.
    Creationism is pseudo science, while Natual Selection is science.

    Pseudo science is plausible, while science is fact.

  10. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    ... Eugenics is pseudo science, while genetics is science ...
    my dear Mole, thank you; i'm somewhat out-of-my-depth here, so, do please bear with me; shall we remain within the eugenics/genetics dichotomy you cite? my earlier quote (via oEOD) citing eugenics as a "science" is therefore in error? you have a tighter dictionary definition in mind, perhaps?

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTJ] What do you think of ESTJs?
    By JediM05 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 11:18 PM
  2. [NT] NT rationals, a question! What do you think?
    By Viva_Hate in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 07:09 PM
  3. What do you think about?
    By proteanmix in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 01:48 AM
  4. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM
  5. So...what do you think?
    By Oberon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 12:19 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