Eugenicists

Post Reply New Topic

Ive come to the sobering conclusion that those who advocate Eugenics, particularly those with the power to direct policy, should be neutralized before they cause undue harm to innocent people. Any one else agree? Perhaps if Hitler, Himmler, and Mengele were selectively assassinated the Holocaust might have never happened.

I remember seeing (but not reading) a novel in which the Jewish protagonists go back in time and kill Hitler when he was a homeless bum. Then they return to their own time to find that the world is in much worse shape for Hitler never having lived.

I think we need a way to make the romantically rejected happy, to avoid being, for lack of a better term, a Species of F***ing Sadists. Every tender kiss and touch should not be at others' expense.

As luck would have it, this seems to be a very difficult problem. How are we going to save hearts from being broken?

If we cured every disease on the planet, wouldn't that allow people with 'worse' genes to get by in the world? What happens when one of their children is even more disabled? The idea of making the planet safe doesn't seem to guarantee that the suffering won't 'skid in' somehow.

A crucial idea of both Hinduism and Nietzschean philosophy is eternal recurrence. Scientists are discovering that the universe is governed by chance. Will I eternally recur as only myself and have only one future, as if trapped in a Hell (or hopefully, a Heaven) of being me? Or do I get the freedom to slide into a different outcome next time, maybe with a better-paying job or a girlfriend? Are such questions even meaningful?

Let's say that instead of curing diseases, we simply legalized voluntary euthanasia. Would people become reckless, understanding that they had voluntary euthanasia as a last resort for everything? Or would they value their lives enough that they would not? How do we know we wouldn't eternally recur as only ourselves to lead short-lived, unfulfilling, and never-ending lives? Is this just something we have to be afraid of? Or can it be proven that nature is kinder to us?

Let's say we allowed the romantically rejected to use drugs and have voluntary euthanasia under a eugenics program. Would this work? Would they understand that they were loved, that we cared about them? What would the life experience of such a drug-user be like? Would they mind the withdrawal effects?

Did Hitler choose which people to burn only by observing their physical appearance? Or did he intend to discourage failure, however it may be defined, by using painful means of extermination? Might he have felt in fury that the solution to heartbreak was to be found in a furnace? Can anyone justify such an excruciating regime? One thing is for sure: romantic rejection itself can be excruciating.

What do we do here? I can't just sit back and watch ourselves be called losers.

I'm struggling to find a solution to this problem. I don't want anyone's 'lovemaking' to essentially involve torturing me.

I don't want to see any human eugenics research being done... you get a lot of Shatner looking like an idiot:

To be more accurate, I could have written:

"Scientists are discovering that the universe is governed by laws of probability."

depends how you define eugenics. I don't believe there are "undesirable" people either, but I also don't believe that people should be encouraged to procreate uncontrollably and live off state benefits without having worked a single day of their lives (like it is in some European countries). poverty runs in families and giving people a chance to parasite on the system is something I'd like to see removed.

'Parasite' is a word that people throw around a lot. But as someone who truly enjoys giving a helping hand to the homeless, I think it's kind of dumb.

They're not sucking from you. They're just asking for your help.

There are many people out there who are stuck in wheelchairs receiving disability income. Ask yourself this: Are they parasites?