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 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 200

  1. #61
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I would also like to see you try somebody with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's chorea that their disorder give them a selective advantage.
    The conditions themselves are not a selective advantage, but its possible that the genetic possibility of such conditions is directly connected to other, far more common genetic traits that are selective advantages in various circumstances. The same is true for any disadvantageous genetic condition, and we will always have insufficient knowledge or understanding to determine that such is not the case for any specific condition. Not that that is the most important reason to oppose eugenics, but its good enough.

  2. #62
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The conditions themselves are not a selective advantage, but its possible that the genetic possibility of such conditions is directly connected to other, far more common genetic traits that are selective advantages in various circumstances. The same is true for any disadvantageous genetic condition, and we will always have insufficient knowledge or understanding to determine that such is not the case for any specific condition. Not that that is the most important reason to oppose eugenics, but its good enough.
    What is the probability?

    Just because your situation is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is practically worth considering. Do we spend billions of dollars investing in a missile system to destroy meteorites just because there is a possibility one might hit Earth?

    Another bad argument.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    To focus on the genetics of eugenics is disingenuous because eugenics is not a genetic problem, it is a moral problem.

    Eugenics has been used to take us as close to absolute evil as we have come.

    And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was encoded as a response to the evil of eugenics.

    So those who speak of eugenics in neutral terms are eitheir morally blind or morally evil.
    I agree with you that it is a moral issue. But moral arguments fail to reach those who favor eugenics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Nobody is advocating inbreeding, and there is already adequate genetic diversity within any given population. At most we are looking at around 10% of the population being refused licenses. Do the maths. Genetic bottlenecks involve taking a few individuals from a large population and rebuilding from scratch, which is utterly different to what is being suggested here. I am getting tired of the strawman "arguments" been put forward here.

    I would also like to see you try somebody with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's chorea that their disorder give them a selective advantage.
    Speaking of doing the maths. Despite having 7 billion in our population, our effective genetic population numbers in the tens of thousands. The people with genetic disorders make up a lot of that effective population. If you are specifically picking out traits to rule out, you are trying hard to reduce the effective population.

    Given that, you will need to be more specific about what you mean and do the math. Trust me, I'll be able to follow. Because you can easily eliminate 30000 by ridding 10% of 7 billion if you are explicitly targeting those who are different.

    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

  4. #64
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    i think humans would mess everything up and ultimately be unsuccessful if they tried to select for the best genes.

    like...if you made a bunch of people and let a bunch of people develop naturally, then something big were to happen (like an alien invasion, or a tsunami, or a genetic wiping via disease (which is going to happen)) the created people would be worse off.

    it's the whole "pure bred" vs "mutt" thing. mutts have better genes.

    also, given my own "mutt" heritage...and the nature of it too...i think nature has it well covered. i mean my parents are from two different parts of the globe...and that happened naturally. with the interconnectedness we've grown into, genetic diversity is becoming less of a problem. humans are naturally creating their best.

    do i support eugenics? i really don't care. people do whatever they wish....the world is messed up. if it were up to me, nothing would be going the way it's currently going. my new attitude to the world is; "to hell with it". I'm in the camp of "human extinction is inevitable and will be an overall good thing".

    So, selecting for genes when we're all going to die anyway...is a cute way to pass our time at best. At worst, there's a whole load of social problems it may bring about...
    but what else is new?

    I think humans are done as a species. We're on our way out, I'm pretty sure of it.

  5. #65
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Speaking of doing the maths. Despite having 7 billion in our population, our effective genetic population numbers in the tens of thousands. The people with genetic disorders make up a lot of that effective population. If you are specifically picking out traits to rule out, you are trying hard to reduce the effective population.
    Same weakness as above. Low probability vs the benefits of eugenics.

    I am not going to get into a discussion about genetics when I already discredited this argument.

  6. #66
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    While SilentMusings is being characteristically uninteresting, I think there is a more interesting topic hidden here.

    The problem is, regardless of how much you oppose eugenics, it would seem that the technology to do it becomes more and more feasible, and I have observed that any technology that can be utilized basically is. This means eugenics, or something to that effects, has a good chance of being in our future. What do we do about that?

    The problem for me is like that of many others, I don't think there is an objective standard for genetic fitness, and if there were, I don't see how any particular person or group of people would be an ideal judge of that. So eugenics is going to be another instrument of power. Those who have power will wield the technology, and probably some groups of powerful people will be at odds with each other and you'll witness eugenics being used at cross purposes. It's rather horrifying to me, but again, it's starting to look inevitable.

    How might we mitigate the damage this technology can potentially do when it arrives?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #67
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    While SilentMusings is being characteristically uninteresting, I think there is a more interesting topic hidden here.

    The problem is, regardless of how much you oppose eugenics, it would seem that the technology to do it becomes more and more feasible, and I have observed that any technology that can be utilized basically is. This means eugenics, or something to that effects, has a good chance of being in our future. What do we do about that?

    The problem for me is like that of many others, I don't think there is an objective standard for genetic fitness, and if there were, I don't see how any particular person or group of people would be an ideal judge of that. So eugenics is going to be another instrument of power. Those who have power will wield the technology, and probably some groups of powerful people will be at odds with each other and you'll witness eugenics being used at cross purposes. It's rather horrifying to me, but again, it's starting to look inevitable.

    How might we mitigate the damage this technology can potentially do when it arrives?
    You pretty much nailed it. Eugenics (in some forms at least) will likely become easily viable in the not so distant future. The rate at which biochemistry and genetics is improving and advancing is actually accelerating, more so than was originally predicted. It's actually really exciting.

    I don't think we'll ever come up with an objective standard for genetic fitness either. At least in a broad sense. Individual traits, yeah we would easily say for some, but not all. Even further, traits that are sought after and beneficial are actually bad in high numbers. It makes me think of "a brave new world" by Aldus Huxley. You will need a broad spectrum of people in order for society to function. The second we start imparting control over that, and picking "who is who" is the second you create a dystopian world.

    Honestly, the ability to preform modern eugenics is a question of when, not if. I doubt the world will get on board with it though, much too controversial. If it does, it will be in some isolated locations and places. I think the only things that will really prevent it from running out of control will be to set laws on what is permitted. Which is unfortunately because that will severely slow technological advancement. It's likely to become the modern day nuclear bomb; just because we can, and have one it, doesn't mean we should.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  8. #68
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I agree with you that it is a moral issue. But moral arguments fail to reach those who favor eugenics.
    Yes indeed, our moral arguments failed to reach the eugenicists in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, so we defeated them in WW II and encoded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Same weakness as above. Low probability vs the benefits of eugenics.

    I am not going to get into a discussion about genetics when I already discredited this argument.
    You failed miserably in your attempt to discredit the genetic argument.

    I did the math for you. 10% of 7 billion is way greater than 30 thousand when you target the effective population. It is NOT low probability. The benefits are not real because the strength of the species is in its diversity, making eugenics self-defeating.

    I believe, you are avoiding getting into an argument about genetics because you don't understand genetics.

    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
    Likes N/A liked this post

  10. #70
    Google "chemtrails" Bush Did 9/11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    eNtp
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    γ Ni
    Posts
    4,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I did the math for you. 10% of 7 billion is way greater than 30 thousand when you target the effective population.
    Just in case this wasn't clear enough, 10% of 7 billion is 700,000,000. 30 thousand is 30,000.

    700,000,000 > 30,000.

    The alligator eats the bigger number. 10% of 7 billion is a bigger number than 30 thousand.
    Last edited by Bush Did 9/11; 08-10-2014 at 07:52 PM. Reason: My phone is too hard to type numbers on, oops
    J. Scott Crothers
    aka "Bush Did 9/11"
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics

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