Opinion on eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

I have read what I can on eugenics and I like what I see. I am disappointed that college no longer award degrees in eugenics. No, I am not talking about aborting, or killing but using non-violent methods of further perfecting the human race.


Am I the only guy on WP that has an interest in eugenics?


What is your opinion?

As an Aspie lesbian, two populations that might very well be selected against, I'm inclined to think that eugenics is a very, very bad idea. Hitler, America's history of slavery, and China are perfect examples of the incipient evil that would be visited upon the planet by legitimizing the selection of desirable humans for breeding purposes, by violent means or otherwise... there is no otherwise, you're not going to be able to keep "undesirable" genotypes from breeding in any other way.

The generic term for the subject is either Genetics (Applied/Theoretical) and Molecular Biology. Eugenics, per se, is not a scientific discipline.

Any evolutionist will tell you the only criterion on which natural selection works is reproductive success. There is successful reproduction or there is not. Perfection of our species is a political agenda, not a biological program.

Any characteristic that leads to making more of us is a biologically desirable characteristic. Nature does not care if we are "perfect" or not.

ruveyn

That's right, it should not get mixed up in politics, because that's how perfectly fit people who don't fit superficial criteria get killed, and therein lies one of the problems. Eugenics should not be placed in the hands of deliberate institutions that have proven less than benevolent, or even competent. Eugenics happens on its own through sexual selection, which means basically we're out, or at least heavily selected against, for the most part.

And yet somehow we still are 1 out of every 150 or 100... so there must be some advantage (no news to me) from being a little autistic. So not entirely selected against.

The problem isn't that it wouldn't advance the human race, the problem is who decides what features denote superiority?

Last edited by DNForrest on 03 Oct 2009, 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed. I've never understood that in the more "new age" ideologies/cults. Who's to determine what is 'perfection'? Are we not all human? Or are some [you] better than others [people you don't like]. Sadly, this is eugenics. It cannot be part of The Way (Judaism and Christianity), or much else. There for it is the unreligious who determine who is better and who should be 'phased out'.' As most truly religious people wish others to 'come to their side' for some reason or the other, or at least think "let them do as they will, they'll come here if they want to." The same with progress, there is NO measuring point to that, at all. At least, in eugenitcs, the point is to become little gods. Oh, they don't exist do they?

The point of that little rant (pretty tired here), is that eugenics is an extremly pathetic attpemt to clear the world of people you don't like, and has its place with National Socialism, [Ethnic] segregation, communism, racist little tunes out of the 60's and other things which had their chance, failed utterly, and should now just go away back from which the elitist, bigoted snobs from which they came.

And ye should know better, we on the autistic spectrum are some of the first to go on the Eugenic plan of action. After the Black and the Jews of course.

Do you suppose this is because in years past, even if 9/10 autistics would be perpetually rejected, that other 1 that got to be a notorious intellectual and had 20 kids, who carried the day? Or something like that?

What we have now is a product of past generations. But today things are different, and dating partners are perhaps pickier because the emphasis is on satisfying one's own desires and attractions, and not as much on seeing to it that everyone is included, relying on relatives to support arrangements, and covering for each others' deficiencies. Because of this, some of what is here now can be expected to be bred out.

I'm a severely autistic Jew, so I guess I know where my place is on the roster.

The only relevant field I can think of would really just be genetics. Eugenics is just an application of genetic knowledge.

Additionally, as can quickly be pointed out, who will say what genes are good and what genes aren't? If there is a central controlling authority, then this problem emerges immediately and has no good solution.

Eugenics is mechanical at best and cruel at worst. People basically have different advantages and disadvantages. And both and distributed differently depending on whether you're a jack of all trades or a specialist.

Evolutionary theory explains a lot, and does debunk religion and the idea that everything is socially constructed. But we don't need to look too deeply in it. Not everything relevant to the caves is relevant to modern society. And hell, evolutionary s**t is what inspired modern society in the first place.

Freezing up will save you from a rhino who can't see jack s**t and will probably think you're a tree, but you're better off getting the hell outta the way when some drunk driver who can't see s**t one way or the other speeding towards you.

Eugenics isn't a science, it's just politics of superiority. After WWII, the civilized world wanted nothing to do with such things.

We're outnumbered more than 100 to 1, and you think this means we are somehow favored? If we had some advantage, we would be the majority, or at least a relatively large minority. Hell, we barely even outnumber schizophrenics.

Eugenics and humans is like Lennie from Of Mice and Men and any furry animal. When he gets into it, he goes too far and too hard and ends up killing out of love and an infatuation with it.


I don't have a huge problem with Eugenics other than that humans, in general, aren't capable of pursuing it responsibly....too many people, invariably, end up getting hurt. I'm not sure anyone could be trusted with it, to be honest.

*deleted*

Advancing the human race (as a concept) is either meaningless or it means increasing our numbers, even at the expense of other species.

ruveyn

In a way, I can sympathize with the goal of eugenics. Man's intellect creates problems that the forces of nature deal with absent our interference.

As a rule DIVERSITY = STRENGTH. A diverse gene pool improves the species because the odds of something better suited to thrive can emerge and become the dominant breeder in the gene pool.

However, intellect is counterproductive. The handicapped who can't adapt enough to survive die out. The lazy don't survive. The sick and elderly don't weigh down the general population.

It's cruel, but that's how nature works, and nature produces a species superior in the art of survival.

Our "compassion" circumvents all of this, and since we see reproduction as a legal right, those who nature would not tolerate to survive breed and explode the numbers of "defects" in the gene pool.

Eliminating any particular political agenda, eugenics is about breeding out the weak and defective so that the species (as a whole) is stronger and more highly evolved over time. However, since those who stump for eugenics are often doing it out of political ideologies, I doubt it would ever be wise to use it in practice.