Eugenics: pros/cons discussion

Post Reply New Topic

In a discussion I started here previously, the subject of eugenics turned out to be so popular that the original subject seemed to fall on the wayside. Since the subject has been broached, perhaps it's time we discussed eugenics in some detail.

Besides discussing its pros and cons, I am also interested in novel suggestions as to how we could make it feasible and prevent it from being botched as it has in the past. For example, could incentives such as access to welfare or the dissolution of debt take the place of the sort of brute force?

I would just point to the problem of information. As a biology student, the biggest thing I've learned is that we really know next to nothing about even the simplest aspects of life. We just don't have the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions on who should or should not reproduce, and besides that it is extremely rare for people with scientific backgrounds to hold political power. Therefore, I don't believe we can trust policymakers to make these types of decisions.

Yes, of course, it was terribly botched. We still have all these sick and weak people and there are still a hell of a lot of Jews left. And probably there is still a majority of brunettes. Terrible mess. We never learned the lesson of Butler's "Erewhon" where it was a crime to be sick. The American health system is a poor attempt where a major sickness leads directly to poverty and, hopefully, suicide so that the problem disappears.

Nevertheless, the basic problem remains. How to determine who should survive. Gun toters, of course, more or less have the problem solved. Just shoot everybody unarmed and then whack anybody else not alert enough to protect him/herself. The best man will win with the fastest gun, but then life will be rather lonely.

Sand: Finland sided with Nazi Germany during World War II with the sole, single, solitary, and utterly lone exception of a brief period of hostilities following the so-called "Continuation War." Therefore, you are an anti-semite by default, and you are indirectly responsible for the murders of millions of Jewish people. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, you Scandinavian anti-semite. Your entire country ought to renounce the right to its land and put it all in the custody of the government of Russia. Now, if you are truly incapable of recognizing sarcasm, then you really are too stupid to live, and I am not actually culpable for this fact.

Anti-Semite by default? I DONT THINK SO. Finland sided with Nazi Germany because it was in their politcal interests to do since they had an enemy to the east(Soviet Russia) that was intent on invaded and ruling over them. I can think of 2 other countries that joined the axis for the same reason(Italy and Hungary). Italy surrended to the allies, Hungary tried in vain to abandon the axis and consort with the US and UK but it backfired for them.

Last edited by Haliphron on 24 Apr 2009, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell, this is a logistical problem, and it doesn't really address the issue of whether or not eugenics could be beneficial to society. However, could you suggest any solutions to this problem that would help make eugenics a feasible means of improving society at large?

Largely because they are likely to be incompetent at it. Believe me, there are a number of physicists out there who would make strikingly poor politicians (begging your pardon for my earlier slip). I can actually think of a few chemists who have enough command over their environment to unify the world under a single government without the help of a cabinet, but they don't actually have any training in this field nor the desire to pursue it.

Good day.

Last edited by ThisisjusthowItalk on 24 Apr 2009, 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(Deleted by (embarrassed) poster for unjust attack on another user. My apologies to everyone)

Last edited by ThisisjusthowItalk on 24 Apr 2009, 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As a former New Yorker of Jewish parentage who was a member of the US armed forces from 1944 to 1946 in WWII and subsequently married a Finnish girl and now have Finnish grandchildren I can see the kind of judgment that you have in declaring some people fit to live and those to be eliminated. I have no idea what relationship you have to Himmler but I would not trust you to decide whether or not to euthanize my pet cat because of some odd disaffection for a physiological characteristic that might offend you. Human beings in general do not have the intelligence or decency to sit in judgment of each other since the intricacies of what, in the long run, is desirable and what is not cannot be determined by flawed human thinking. We are incapable of even providing each other with the basics of staying alive and preserving our planetary ecology. Your arrogance is disgusting.

Great answer!!

Well, you obviously have a very deep loathing for the Jewish people, for you turned your coat and fell in with the anti-semites just as soon as you got out of the service. How despicable of you. Besides, I don't see how being a combat veteran, assuming you ever saw combat at all, gives you the moral authority you are taking on the airs of.

Well, you could have said this without accusing me of being in league with Adolf Hitler, buddy-ro. Whether you agree with what you perceive my views to be or not, that was a gross non-sequitur of an answer. It was highly unjust and ignorant of you. You deliberately set out to uncritically pigeonhole me, sir. You were putting words in my mouth, man. You weren't trying to use the slight-of-hand that Orwell does, but it's still pretty low.

I am not entirely sure about your reasoning, though: in that case, how are we fit to judge what does or does not constitute criminal behavior? Would you advocate closing down all of our prisons and releasing the inmates? However, what if we were to determine that the ability to coexist peacefully with society at large is our primary criterion for determining whether human beings should be encouraged to reproduce: would you agree with the idea of giving prison inmates, especially the sort who would make for abusive or irresponsible fathers anyway, the option of voluntary sterilization in the place of serving their sentence to completion? Although this is not the concept of eugenics that you were brought up with, it still falls into the same category.

Wrong, bud. Most of us here in the West seem to have it figured out pretty nicely. There is very little hunger or need in most Western countries. The welfare state, which is our proudest luxury, has all but eliminated things like infantile malnutrition and death from exposure. I think that we could further this end if we employed humane, non-compulsory incentives to cull people who put themselves at risk of this kind of thing from the breeding population. I don't believe in the idea of "life unworthy of life," but I don't think it's very cool to leave people who are too ignorant to know better at risk of children they probably wouldn't want--if they knew what they were getting into--and are incapable of taking good care of. Even if we felt uncomfortable with quid pro quo incentives, perhaps one service we SHOULD offer is free sterilization for people who don't want to have kids once they've learned what's involved in trying to raise them. Wouldn't it be nice if we could figure out how to limit the joys of parenthood mostly to people who actually DO take enjoyment in them?

You set out to pigeonhole me first, dude, so how about we chill and actually discuss the issue without sniping at each other?

Last edited by ThisisjusthowItalk on 24 Apr 2009, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Don't pay him any attention. Orwell was using a bunch of slight-of-hand on another thread to try to put words in my mouth that I never had any intention of saying. He was actually cutting up my own words and trying to make it look like I was saying things I was not saying. He is not a trustworthy person to discuss anything with. He is incapable of having an honest discussion at all. He has no sense of honor or sportsmanship. He is worse than useless in this type of discussion. Do not pay him any attention. He has still utterly refused to own up to his deceitful, underhanded behavior. He still owes me a big apology for hacking up my sentences and trying to make it look like I was saying a bunch of crap that I wasn't. He's probably too much of a lowlying piece of scum to ever admit that he was doing it, so just don't pay him any attention. He's a jerk.

I'm sorry for being born.

Does eugenics necessarily involve an authority which "encourages" certain types of people to reproduce and "discourages" certain others?

(Editted for typo, and for edit explanation)

Last edited by McTell on 24 Apr 2009, 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hehe, thanks for taking that in good humor, bud. I was just trying to point out to Sand how silly it is to accuse me of being in league with Adolf Hitler and his cronies just because I suggested the idea of reconsidering our views on eugenics. I mean that's like saying that I'm an anti-semite just because I like German automobiles (I actually dig Italian stuff, though): it doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, I tend to things literally.

Well, maybe a better way to do it would be to, for one thing, make sure that people from even very poor backgrounds understand what is involved in parenthood and understand that it's almost entirely a lot of responsibility, and offer free sterilization for people who don't want to be saddled with that kind of responsibility. That way, most people who do go on to reproduce will be people who take pleasure and a sense of pride in having and fulfilling their responsibilities as parents. I know we've been practicing this hobby of raising children for like a hundred-million years, but not everyone is really interested in doing it. It's not good for them or the resulting crotch-goblins if they end up with responsibilities that they honestly don't want.

However, I think that it would be necessary to put a lot of thought and consideration into what would and would not justify quid pro quo sterilization. It obviously isn't something that it would be ethical to settle on lightly.