• 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

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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
Prove it.

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

You were the one that brought up the aesthetically pleasing attributes of people around the world. I expanded on that point because I thought it was worth exploring. How is responding to points you raise off topic? Maybe you dislike the way "Ti", if "Ti" exists, arrives at angles you don't expect, blindsiding you. You sense a trap, but you don't know what it is. You fear context, and so seek to place limits on the discussion.



Please rephrase this post in basic English.

Gosh, heaven forbid anyone bring up actual biology in a thread where people are invoking the magic of genetics, in a thread about "applied biology". I recommend, first, some introductory language texts, for those of superior breeding such as yourself.

Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_Stories_cover.png
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
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.

To my knowledge it's supposed to cap out at around 10 million within 3 or so generations (I can't quite remember the exact time frame), and we're all forecast to be able to sustain that. Let me tell you, I was really relieved to learn this. Nevertheless I still support an idea if it becomes a problem, and it wouldn't be one child. It would depend on a number of factors on what the consequences would be.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
Prove it.

I already have.

You were the one that brought up the aesthetically pleasing attributes of people around the world. I expanded on that point because I thought it was worth exploring. How is responding to points you raise off topic? Maybe you dislike the way "Ti", if "Ti" exists, arrives at angles you don't expect, blindsiding you. You sense a trap, but you don't know what it is. You fear context, and so seek to place limits on the discussion.

I was speaking deliberately vaguely. You made the mistake of having a link which showed the name of the model. At that point, your intentions became obvious, especially as I am already used to your style of posting and remember you playing this trick on me before.

I brought up attractiveness as a general extension of a point about eugenics & diversity. It was consequent on (only makes sense when taken in the context of) something I had mentioned already. That is different to making attractiveness an entirely new subject, which is what you did by posting pictures of people without much if any reference to the OP topic.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I recommend, first, some introductory texts, for those of superior breeding such as yourself. Gosh, heaven forbid anyone bring up actual biology in threads about "applied biology".

See above. Now, back to subject.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
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, if they were to survive, a substantial amount 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 (which takes many generations).

This is why modern medicine is needed. And medicine effectively "masks" the need for mutation to some extent.

You can try and bamboozle people with statistics, but your arguments are divorced from the daily reality. This is typical Ti thinking.

I think you are being intentionally ignorant. Other people understood. You either did not, or won't admit that you did. I told you about facts, and you say these facts are divorced from reality.

It's simple. The genetic strength is the genetic diversity of the population. I am using very simple math. Other people got it. Why can't you? One of the others (@jscrothers ) even spelled it out to you in grade school language.

Ebola (so far) effected only thousands of people, and it was fairly random in the traits aimed at (only geography). 2000<30000 (I hope grade school math isn't too complicated for you). You said 10% of the population aiming specifically at reducing diversity. (700000000>3000) Unless you are backtracking now about what you meant. There is a huge difference.

[MENTION=22098]Jarlaxle[/MENTION] made the point that the advances made to support our diversity are also a form of strength. It is not a "mask", the things we invent are assets. Without the medical technology, but with the other things, like plane travel, and these things, the Ebola problem would be much worse.

This isn't the first potential pandemic that our "mask" of medical technology has curbed. We kinda have one every few year (bird flu, swine flu, ...). It is our ability to support the diversity through the understanding we've gained that we have that allows us to combat these things.

Eugenics (at the 10% rate that you proposed) would be a creation of very own man made bottleneck.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for transhumanism, gene therapy, etc. But a centrally planned, mass genocide of 10% of the population based on some hypothetically deep understanding of what we believe is good vs. bad? No. Or as [MENTION=921]lowtech redneck[/MENTION] said, hell no.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
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.

...what? What he said is perfectly clear and easy to follow. Ygolo is working on a PhD, he pretty damn sure knows what he's talking about and has the authority to speak of what he's speaking of. The fact that you're not even trying to meet him him in the middle here really shows you aren't interested in discussing this matter with anyone that doesn't share the majority of your views on this matter. Quite frankly, why anyone is still trying to debate this with you is beyond me, because there will be no reasoning with you whatsoever. This seems like the case with nearly all of your political and political-related discussions (which is why I almost never try, it would be a complete waste of my energy).

Additionally, you said earlier that you were joking earlier when you said that Te is superior to Ti. Sure doesn't seem like that from the way you've been talking.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Mitigating genetic features that are in no way beneficial is bottlenecking? :shock::huh::shock:.

Wow.:doh:.

My point is you cannot tell ahead of time what is and is not beneficial.

EDIT: Also, seriously people. Do the math. Eliminating 10% of the population? Are you kidding me?
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
Not always. Genetics is not as simple as everyone tends to think. The complexity of genetics is enormous and thinking in terms of individual genes doesn't work in this context (as he pointed out).

Please give me one genetic advantage that the mentally handicapped have over the non-mentally handicapped.
 

Ghoul

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
66
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
huh
Most people don't TEND to think about it at all. I'm sure by making it seem cloudy and mysterious you can deter a good many curious people.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Please give me one genetic advantage that the mentally handicapped have over the non-mentally handicapped.

To answer your question, there isn't one.

However, you're not understanding the point several of us are trying to make here. In the future, we very well may be able to point select and eliminate genetic disorders that have mental handicaps associated with them on a fetus, blastocyst, or something along those lines, but that's not eugenics, that's gene therapy on an individual. That itself is fine, and would be a fantastic scientific innovation.

To attempt to clear all the genes that could potentially lead to the disorder not appearing anymore from a population would be enormously difficult, and could have drastic consequenses we can not predict. On a related and interesting note, many of these such diseases are recessive in nature. Oddly, having 1/2 a copy of the disease (i.e. an unaffected carrier) can actually be a good thing for the individual and give them strengths. Some of these genes could have a purpose, or have a already documented purpose.
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
To attempt to clear all the genes that could potentially lead to the disorder not appearing anymore from a population would be enormously difficult, and could have drastic consequenses we can not predict. On a related and interesting note, many of these such diseases are recessive in nature. Oddly, having 1/2 a copy of the disease (i.e. an unaffected carrier) can actually be a good thing for the individual and give them strengths. Some of these genes could have a purpose, or have a already documented purpose.


Well that's interesting.

"Oddly, having 1/2 a copy of the disease (i.e. an unaffected carrier) can actually be a good thing for the individual and give them strengths."

->Could you give me and example of this?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
:shock::huh::shock:. Yeah you can. :ohmy::nono::ohmy:.

LOL. I am not sure now if you are serious or not.

Not always. Genetics is not as simple as everyone tends to think. The complexity of genetics is enormous and thinking in terms of individual genes doesn't work in this context (as he pointed out).

^This.

If people are actually interesting in learning or having a serious debate instead of ... whatever this is.
There is a concept of gene penetrance that would be an interesting read about.

Our DNA gets transcribed to RNA which gets translated to Proteins. It is the proteins that form the complex machinery that make up the even more complicated machinery that makes us, us.

A trait, even one where we can isolate the genes for may be unexpectedly linked to other traits.

Keep in mind that sickle cell anemia protects against malaria. If malaria was as wide spread in the whole world as it is in some developing nations, sickle cell would be an advantage.

I believe it is low probability to find ways to eliminate traits (at the 10% of population level) that won't reduce the overall strength of our species. Let alone te moral arguments against mass genocide at that level.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Ah, I see. Good point.

"Oddly, having 1/2 a copy of the disease (i.e. an unaffected carrier) can actually be a good thing for the individual and give them strengths."

->Could you give me and example of this?

Sickle cell anemia. It protects against maleria. A heterozygous (one good copy, one bad copy) individual has resistance to malaria, and suffer few (if any) complications from the disease. Where as a homozygous individual (two bad copies) is very resistant, but can have nasty complications from it.

There are many more, this is just the first one I was able to find, and it's one where the evidence and data is cut and dry. When you start getting into mental disorders things become a bit more muddle due to the nature of, well, mental disorders.
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
Sickle cell anemia. It protects against maleria. A heterozygous (one good copy, one bad copy) individual has resistance to malaria, and suffer few (if any) complications from the disease. Where as a homozygous individual (two bad copies) is very resistant, but can have nasty complications from it.

There are many more, this is just the first one I was able to find, and it's one where the evidence and data is cut and dry. When you start getting into mental disorders things become a bit more muddle due to the nature of, well, mental disorders.

I get you now. It's almost as if sickle cell anemia is one end of an extreme. Unfortunately, sickle cell is the negative end of the spectrum.

Obviously, genetic manipulation (or whatever the official name for it is) is extremely complicated. A lot of time needs to be invested into learning the subject. Its too big of a thing to speculate on and make a bold move.

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

I'm dead serious. There is not one competitive advantage that they have. If there was, the mentally handicapped would be reproducing.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Please give me one genetic advantage that the mentally handicapped have over the non-mentally handicapped.
Just what do you consider to be "mentally handicapped"?

Yeah, I'm dead serious. There is not one competitive advantage that they have. If they did, the mentally handicapped would be reproducing.
The presence of gay people has been shown to have evolutionary benefit, yet their reproduction rate is very low compared with others. One needs to look at competitive advantage at the level of a species, not an individual.
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
Top