Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

I recently discovered an existing word for a nebulous concept that I've toyed around with over the years: eugenics.

Now that I've read up on it a bit, I have a question.

Is "eugenics" a bad word the way "socialism" is?

That's to say, are they considered "bad" words despite the fact that we actively employ the concepts they describe? Only not to the extent that one would imagine the "badness" associated with these words relates to?

In other words.

If socialism is such a bad thing, why not get rid of fire departments and let people put out their own fires?

If eugenics is such a bad thing, why do we (USA) not allow siblings to marry and procreate?

It seems to me that these concepts, like many others, have great utility. Only we've subverted that utility by associating the words that describe them with particularly extreme and destructive examples of the employment of said concepts.

Does anything I just wrote make sense?

Thank you.

I don't know if the Bible is anti-Marxist but it does say a few things about brothers and sisters bedding each other. It is rather silent about how Adam and Eve managed things.

yeah well I got flamed for admiting that I like the concept starting with letter "e" and ending with letter "s"

usually if you put it in other words people will agree with you. or maybe it's just this forum.

Eugenics, in the modern sense, is about 150 years old - though the roots and premise have existed for many centuries longer. Galton proposed it as a way of improving the 'stock' of the nation, by breeding the 'best' to stay 'superior'; others have later used it as justification for the slaughter of those they consider undesirable or a threat. To me, it falls under the heading of 'Subjects where it is folly for men to think they know best." Genetic diversity exists for a reason; to think that a single mind might determine which is best suited for an unknown future is asinine at best in my mind. The word is guilty by association, while in reality it is another name for practicing animal husbandry on the human species.


M.

Some people get pissed off by the idea of messing with what they consider "natural" things regarding people. It's alright to turn wolves into dachshunds and various fruits and vegetables into more abundant and more edible varieties but the idea of doing the same with people means we are not satisfied with the machinations of God who regularly turns out genetic cripples, idiots, and people subject to other horrible lifelong conditions. Improvements on God are to be frowned upon.
Of course, what one guy figures is an improvement may make a lot of other people unhappy.

I think that so many aspies like eugenics because we are all the products of psycho parents with f**ked up genes who really had no business having kids. I know that my parents really shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce, and I think most of us feel the same way. When I see addled meth addicts with six kids, and people with the combined IQ of a rock having kids that they neglect until the kids die, I can't help thinking that there needs to be a licensing system in order to reproduce.

What you're saying is that humanity is not bright enough to take charge of itself. That random variety with all its horrifying miserable products is superior to anything that mankind can produce.

Not precisely, but close. At our present level of understanding (and in my my, the foreseeable future) there is no mind, computer, or collective process that is sufficient to account for all variables and expressions of human existence and necessity. I recognize the application of animal husbandry, but also point out the susceptibility to infections and inherited health issues that result from such efforts in human history. To walk further down that road is to do so blindfolded in traffic, to my estimation. No one, nothing in this world promises you a horror-free existence, to have all the same opportunities or gifts of another - but it does give you the ability to choose whether to become defined by these things.


M.

Actually I agree to some extent with all of the replies my post has received.

Yes, that is a good way to say it.

Am I alone in fearing the result of the "demonizing" of this word/concept? Certainly, a concept such as eugenics demands the utmost in intellectual honesty. But should it be discarded simply because many humans are intellectually dishonest?

I think this is a fascinating topic.

Are you assuming that the present system of self-selected mates is random? I would argue that, because we DO select those with whom we procreate (with limited exceptions), we DO as a species practice eugenics. Every person who says to another, "I want to procreate with you" (probably not in those exact words) is kind of saying, "I think the human race should be more like you."

Admittedly, we do not have a central committee that makes these decisions, but people tend to follow trends and their peers -- one could argue that popular media serves a similar role, telling people what is attractive and, in doing so, steering the evolution of the human race. Thus, a best-selling author such as Ann Rice is not limited to steering the evolution of the human race through her own procreative choices, but through her noves she has helped shape the romantic preferences of, and thus the procreative decisions of, thousands, if not millions, of people.

Eugenics was given a (very very very very times infinity) bad name by the Nazis.


Interesting study, interesting topic but very dangerous results in the hands of irresponsible people who would use it for their own means.

Sexual selection isn't really eugenics. Sexual selection is a way of saying "more of me and you". Eugenics says "less of him and her". In order for an action to be a eugenic action, another person must be actively prevented from reproducing or being born BECAUSE of the DNA they carry. Castrating a boy so that he wil permanently sing in a high voice is not eugenic, although it prevents him from reproducing. Castrating a boy specifically to stop him from reproducing is eugenic. Aborting a fetus because you were raped and don't want to relive that through carrying a child reminder of that rape is not eugenic. Aborting a fetus because it carries particular DNA is.

Yes, this is what I mean when I say the concept demands a great deal of intellectual honesty.

I won't even get started on how easily that would be abused...

Although I sincerely doubt that humans might be steered towards a taste for human blood, there are no doubt standards for mates that might be established by the entertainment industry. A nice piece of ass can vary from the likes of Harlow to Monroe if shape becomes one of the criteria and of course, going to a wider spectrum, each time and each culture has its ideals. There is a common conception (I have read) that women are careful not to display all their excellent mental skills as that might frighten male prospects. So, although there are fashions in marital choice they are not necessarily in conformity to an analytical estimation of human superiority by survival standards.

I was going to reply, then I read this - QFT.


M.