• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Eugenics: what do you think?

Do you support eugenics?


  • Total voters
    38

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm a fan of intelligent/educated breeding, but not government-regulated breeding. My answer to this is more government funding to public education and public health awareness. No legal restrictions on reproduction beyond discouraging inbreeding. It's be nigh impossible to enforce, anyway. The question becomes how to adequately and fairly care for children in poor conditions - overburdened families or with disabilities, etc. - who did not choose to be born.

To be honest, the gene pool generally takes care of itself. If someone is that disabled, they cannot or will not reproduce. Natural selection has done a fine job over the years. If we don't kill ourselves off with pollution, natural selection will probably continue to do a fine job keeping our species intact. I think we should worry more about the aberrations we are creating and less about how to improve on something nature already has a pretty decent hold on.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,447
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Firstly, I sense what you are trying to do, and won't take the bait.

You said you found people attractive all over the world, so I thought I'd show you a picture of an Israeli model. What would be the problem with that?

However if you must know, that model is not quite my type either actually. I know this sounds very fussy, but distinct jaws and cheekbones are quite a masculine feature and I find them unattractive on women. The most important thing to me in attraction is facial features/proportions that I can relate to. Craniometry, not hair or eye colour. I am still looking for examples of models I find attractive on the net. I am dead serious when I say that I find "ordinary" girls more attractive.

If craniometry interests you, I suggest taking a set of calipers on all your first dates, and performing skull measurements. Don't know if that's going to help much with purity, though.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
You said you found people attractive all over the world, so I thought I'd show you a picture of an Israeli model. What would be the problem with that?

I said that I like being able to see differences in average appearance when moving from place to place. This is Ni-Te at work - enjoying the process of finding a pattern and making categorisations based on it. A world with a number of regimented, distinct groups is very aesthetically pleasuable. From a general artist's perspective, I like stark constrast and variation in my life (applied to politics, many nation states), not a muddled mess (multiculturalism/globalisation) which is clearly unnatural and has no order to it.

If craniometry interests you, I suggest taking a set of calipers on all your first dates, and performing skull measurements. Don't know if that's going to help much with purity, though.

I prefer an Anglo-Saxon to Nordic appearance: Christina Moore and Emilia Clarke are good examples of this. As i have notied elsewhere, the diversity in appearance that European peoples show is one of the things that makes us special. Ironically, non-Europoid peoples value this in us more than we do ourselves (cue the fetishization of white women by black men).

Here:
Christina_Moore.jpg

emilia%20clarke-thumb-380x237-9965.jpg
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Natural selection has done a fine job over the years.

Natural Selection is red in tooth and claw, and completely blind.

Natural Selection has been used to justify Social Darwinism, an evil and oppressive social system.

And Natural Selection can't possibly do any job, good or otherwise, because Natural Selection is blind.

Democratic countries, rather than being based on Natural Selection, are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on human history not Natural Selection.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
It is time to get back on topic. People who can't relate their posts to eugenics in some way, could you do everyone else the honour of starting a new thread or shutting up.
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
Another article http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../71369-nine-dies-father-hides-death-days.html about people having disabled child after disabled child has made me bang my head against a wall... Why doesn't somebody ask questions? Get involved? At least advise the couple to stop having children!

I am a firm believer in some sort of negative eugenics. Many people seem to believe you have a "right" to procreate as much as you have a right to free speech or to own property. I disagree, because in many cases the taxpayers end up having to support women's decisions to let somebody shoot their diseased seed into them, sometimes when they are well aware of the risks. Something ceases to be a right when it harms other people in some way, whether immidiately or in the future. Liberty is not the same as licence.

Anyway, I am interested to see what others' views are, and have also attached an extract on eugenics which explains the rationale well.


Very interesting subject. You would hope that people have the common sense to stop procreating after 2 disabled children. Its a very tough subject to deal with. Its almost worth it to disallow procreation after a certain point in my opinion.


Natural Selection is red in tooth and claw, and completely blind.

Natural Selection has been used to justify Social Darwinism, an evil and oppressive social system.

And Natural Selection can't possibly do any job, good or otherwise, because Natural Selection is blind.

Democratic countries, rather than being based on Natural Selection, are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on human history not Natural Selection.

Whats evil to one is good to another. Universal benificiallity doesn't exist.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,447
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
It is time to get back on topic. People who can't relate their posts to eugenics in some way, could you do everyone else the honour of starting a new thread or shutting up.

Am I not permitted to admire the beauty of the people of your native land? I'm just celebrating human contrast and variation. I think she'll be an excellent addition to the GOT cast next year. Your mention of Clarke made me think of it.

Anyway, I agree. I dated someone of Frisian and English descent once, and she had amazing blue eyes. I'm not poetically exaggerating, they were like the sky. It was probably the best relationship I was in. So I agree, here's to contrast and variation!
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Whats evil to one is good to another. Universal benificiallity (sic) doesn't exist.

We fought a world war against one totalitarianism to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And we fought a Cold War to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And today we are struggling against a totalitarian political religion to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And interestingly today, the enemies of freedom and equality preach cultural relativism.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Am I not permitted to admire the beauty of the people of your native land? I'm just celebrating human contrast and variation. I think she'll be an excellent addition to the GOT cast next year. Your mention of Clarke made me think of it.

Anyway, I agree. I dated someone of Frisian and English descent once, and she had amazing blue eyes. I'm not poetically exaggerating, they were like the sky. It was probably the best relationship I was in. So I agree, here's to contrast and variation!

I think you are confusing your sexual desires with the pseudo science of Eugenics.

This is quite natural, as when we are holding a hammer, everything appears as a nail. And it is the same with sexual desire, everything, even a pseudo science is bent to our desires. It's comical.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,447
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think you are confusing your sexual desires with the pseudo science of Eugenics.

This is quite natural, as when we are holding a hammer, everything appears as a nail. And it is the same with sexual desire, everything, even a pseudo science is bent to our desires. It's comical.

Huh? When did I advocate eugenics?
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Very interesting subject. You would hope that people have the common sense to stop procreating after 2 disabled children. Its a very tough subject to deal with. Its almost worth it to disallow procreation after a certain point in my opinion.

This I do agree with. I would be in full support of laws that put a limit/cap on the number of children a family can have.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
This I do agree with. I would be in full support of laws that put a limit/cap on the number of children a family can have.

China has already done this with their One Child Policy. But they have abandoned the policy because of its consequences.

And we should keep in mind that Demography tells us that the world population will stop growing in our lifetime then fall.
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
We fought a world war against one totalitarianism to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And we fought a Cold War to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And today we are struggling against a totalitarian political religion to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And interestingly today, the enemies of freedom and equality preach cultural relativism.

We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao :rotfl::doh::rotfl:.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I support genetic testing, advising couples on the risks associated with having children, and all in all allowing people to access as much biological information that they can.

I am on the fence on the idea of genetic engineering a child by picking and removing traits. Some areas I am fine with, others I am against.

I do not support the notion of placing laws allowing or disallowing individuals to have children.


From what I understand of eugenics, I generally don't support it.

This is my stance as well.

As to who would be part of an elite, well...under the scenario I have laid out, at first it would be anyone who didn't have a serious genetic disorder. However as "elite" implies a minority, I do not consider conventional eugenics, which would only target a small percentage of the population, to be a vehicle towards elitism. However, as over time technology will make precise manipulation of the genome a reality, an elite group will coalesce. The financially wealthy will make up this group - like today, we will be able to access better quality treatment, and a wider range of it, than the majority. As much as I will be condemned for saying it, I do truly believe that this is the way it should be, because if everybody had equal resources there would be no motivation to work hard. Some inequality and diversity is desirable in a society. This is why I think eugenics should be regulated, and I laid out how in my earlier posts.

Arguments about genetic diversity are overly hypothetical. For a start, I would point adherents back to my meteorite analogy. Also, they fall on their face when you consider that many people with serious genetic disorders are going to be a biological dead end, either due to other people practicing a primal form of eugenics on them or the invalids themselves dying or being incapable of putting themselves out there. I also mentioned that medical advances mean that we don't rely on genetic diversity in the way we once did.

Sorry to say, but there is a serious lack of Te in this thread.

You seem to conveniently ignore facts that are real by calling them "hypothetical" and then make up facts to further your own argument. This behavior seems much more like mental mastrubation than anything people have put forward regarding generic diversity. You might as well just not engage people if you cannot actually deal with the facts they bring up, if all you are going to do is imply things like "10% of 7 billion leads to low probability of eliminating 30000. I win."

I am telling you that humans have already gone through genetic bottlenecks, and it was natural selection, and the variety of individual choices that people made that allowed us to get through. There may have been mass genocides and similar things in the past, but we've never been capable of doing that at the scale we are capable of now.

Every example (not hypothetical) of the past uses of Eugenics (in the usual definition of the word, not the any selection is Egenics definition you are trying to bamboozle people into using), has lead to what is effectively genocide.

The argument about genetic diversity (which has a very definite scientific definition*) is:
1) Systematically, centrally, removing traits from a population has a HIGH probability (not low) of weakening our genetic strength as a population.
2) Therefore Eugenics is self-defeating, even if it were some how moral to commit genocide.

I think this is what you are not getting, diviersity itself is measure of the genetic strength of the species, not because individual traits exhibited are necessarily stronger, but because in addition to the mutations, there are cross-overs and various recombinations, that can then lead to stable and even beneficial new traits.

Many of the things we now consider strengths (like having a brain that consumes so much energy) may have at one time been a small liability till combined with other things that made it possible to become a strength. These combinations are not easily predicted. The ability to support slight liabilities that later becomes strengths is one way evolution climbs mount improbable faster (and why social species became so successful).

Might I remind you that genes don't directly encode traits. What they encode for is a terribly complicated machine that through many levels of hierarchy lead to what we see as either disease or behavior.

This complexity is not hypothetical. It is more real than the hypothetical belief you seem to have of someone being able to pick out "good only" and "bad only" genes. It is more real than your fantasy that some "expert" set of humans can know better about what is fit and not fit than 3.5 billion years of evolution.

In addition, evolution works on populations, not individuals. How do we measure the genetic strength of a population? It's genetic diversity*.

*Genetic diversity is defined by biologists to be the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species.

If you want to continue on your hypothetical discussion about some mythical expert humans being able to pick out "good only" vs. "bad only" genes, I leave you to your mental masturbation.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,447
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao :rotfl::doh::rotfl:.

What's debating with a Ti user like?

Its_a_trap.jpg
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao :rotfl::doh::rotfl:.

Mole is a skilled troll, and uses obfsfucating language on purpose. Te users generally like clarity and directness. I find debating INTPs to be "like having to read a text book". When I tell them to distill their points and use clear language, they accuse me of being unintelligent - even when I explain that not being able to express yourself in a way that other people can understand is a sign of low intelligence. lol

You should have noticed that no Te users have attempted to divert this thread - we appreciate it when people stay on topic.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
You seem to conveniently ignore facts that are real by calling them "hypothetical" and then make up facts to further your own argument. This behavior seems much more like mental mastrubation than anything people have put forward regarding generic diversity. You might as well just not engage people if you cannot actually deal with the facts they bring up, if all you are going to do is imply things like "10% of 7 billion leads to low probability of eliminating 30000. I win."

I am telling you that humans have already gone through genetic bottlenecks, and it was natural selection, and the variety of individual choices that people made that allowed us to get through. There may have been mass genocides and similar things in the past, but we've never been capable of doing that at the scale we are capable of now.

Every example (not hypothetical) of the past uses of Eugenics (in the usual definition of the word, not the any selection is Egenics definition you are trying to bamboozle people into using), has lead to what is effectively genocide.

The argument about genetic diversity (which has a very definite scientific definition*) is:
1) Systematically, centrally, removing traits from a population has a HIGH probability (not low) of weakening our genetic strength as a population.
2) Therefore Eugenics is self-defeating, even if it were some how moral to commit genocide.

I think this is what you are not getting, diviersity itself is measure of the genetic strength of the species, not because individual traits exhibited are necessarily stronger, but because in addition to the mutations, there are cross-overs and various recombinations, that can then lead to stable and even beneficial new traits.

Many of the things we now consider strengths (like having a brain that consumes so much energy) may have at one time been a small liability till combined with other things that made it possible to become a strength. These combinations are not easily predicted. The ability to support slight liabilities that later becomes strengths is one way evolution climbs mount improbable faster (and why social species became so successful).

Might I remind you that genes don't directly encode traits. What they encode for is a terribly complicated machine that through many levels of hierarchy lead to what we see as either disease or behavior.

This complexity is not hypothetical. It is more real than the hypothetical belief you seem to have of someone being able to pick out "good only" and "bad only" genes. It is more real than your fantasy that some "expert" set of humans can know better about what is fit and not fit than 3.5 billion years of evolution.

In addition, evolution works on populations, not individuals. How do we measure the genetic strength of a population? It's genetic diversity*.

*Genetic diversity is defined by biologists to be the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species.

If you want to continue on your hypothetical discussion about some mythical expert humans being able to pick out "good only" vs. "bad only" genes, I leave you to your mental masturbation.

Please rephrase this post in basic English.

EDIT: I will be nice today, but understand that most people have little interest or understanding in science. Become the first INTP the in history of the interest who learns to keep your posts to 250 words or less and speaks in concepts and general language when possible.

Humans have not been through a genetic bottleneck for tens of thousands of years, and the bottlebeck assumed to be cuased by the Toba eruption (c. 70,00 BCE) was meant to have wiped out a considerable amount of the total human population. You refute your own argument again by suggesting on the one hand, the level of genetic diversity is low enough that removing some disabled people will harm humanity as a whole, yet then mention that there are a number of different ways in which mutations can occur in any given individual.

I want to take a real life example to prove my point that you are not thinking very practically, as well. Look at the current Ebola outbreak. Even if I granted you all the points you have made in the thread, the number of inidviduals who would be resistent to the virus in any given population would be low enough that (untreated) in the worst case scenario of a global pandemic, a substantial proportion of the population would be eredicated. Therefore, the diversity would actually be lowered due to the oubreak casuing a severe bottleneck and proceeding too rapidly for useful mutations to spread through the population. Presumably you realise that this takes many generations?

This is why modern medicine is needed. And medicine effectively "masks" the need for mutation, and the weight of your first premise, to some extent.

You can try and bamboozle people with statistics, but that doesn't strengthen the argument itself. Typical Ti thinking.
 
Top