[quote]Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.[/quote] [color=#1af]Eugenics, to me, is simply trying to force evolution to either discourage negative traits, or encourage positive traits (or both). How do you all feel about this idea? Is it good/bad? Moral/immoral? I'll save my thoughts for a little later in the discussion.[/color]

Quote

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Eugenics, to me, is simply trying to force evolution to either discourage negative traits, or encourage positive traits (or both).

How do you all feel about this idea? Is it good/bad? Moral/immoral?

I'll save my thoughts for a little later in the discussion.

You suppose ethnic cleansing is a tactic?

You suppose ethnic cleansing is a tactic?

I am a full fledged supporter of Eugenics. I have a Machiavellian approach toward the subject: "the end justifies the means." It has the capability to advance our mental and physical capabilities by exponential powers and do marvelous things for the human body and psyche. I do not believe it is unethical due to the long term benefits by doing such a project and science; there are not that many dangers in advancing this subject in comparison to others.

I am a full fledged supporter of Eugenics. I have a Machiavellian approach toward the subject: "the end justifies the means." It has the capability to advance our mental and physical capabilities by exponential powers and do marvelous things for the human body and psyche. I do not believe it is unethical due to the long term benefits by doing such a project and science; there are not that many dangers in advancing this subject in comparison to others.

[quote=name:Doodan]You suppose ethnic cleansing is a tactic?[/quote] [color=#1af]Ethnic cleansing is certainly a form of eugenics, but it encourages and discourages the wrong characteristics. Racial differences have little effect on your capacity to improve. However, intelligence differences have a huge effect on your capacity to improve, thus intelligence is a characteristic that should be encouraged (rather than being a certain race).[/color]

Quote from [Doodan]:]

You suppose ethnic cleansing is a tactic?

Ethnic cleansing is certainly a form of eugenics, but it encourages and discourages the wrong characteristics. Racial differences have little effect on your capacity to improve. However, intelligence differences have a huge effect on your capacity to improve, thus intelligence is a characteristic that should be encouraged (rather than being a certain race).

As long as the chick is hawt :p I like the idea as long as it is not literally forced on people.

As long as the chick is hawt

I like the idea as long as it is not literally forced on people.

[quote=name:SiN]As long as the chick is hawt :p I like the idea as long as it is not literally forced on people.[/quote] [color=#1af]It doesn't really work if it's not forced. Most mothers aren't going to give up their children of below average intelligence for the sake of improvement of humanity.[/color]

Quote from SiN

As long as the chick is hawt

I like the idea as long as it is not literally forced on people.

It doesn't really work if it's not forced. Most mothers aren't going to give up their children of below average intelligence for the sake of improvement of humanity.

I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support. Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.

I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support.

Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.

[quote=name:Doodan]I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support. Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.[/quote] [color=#1af]Sterilization would have to be used. And the whole thing would be fairly complex, so much so that society would basically have to be centered around the idea. I don't see how we would end up being excluded. We are, for the most part, fairly intelligent people, here at SEN :P[/color]

Quote from [Doodan]:]

I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support.

Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.

Sterilization would have to be used. And the whole thing would be fairly complex, so much so that society would basically have to be centered around the idea.

I don't see how we would end up being excluded. We are, for the most part, fairly intelligent people, here at SEN

Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap. Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.

Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap.

Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.

[quote=name:BeDazed]Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap. Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.[/quote] [color=#1af]The lower class also tend to have more children (I believe, I can't quote any statistic on this one) which balances out the death rates, and probably even reverses the trend, to cause the lower class to grow more than the upper class. And, if we actually reproduced for our entire lifespan, the upper class living longer might make a difference. But we don't, most people get all their reproduction done long before death, so extending our lifespans really has no effect. I believe your theory is incorrect. As Doodan said, the lower class breed like rabbits.[/color]

Quote from BeDazed

Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap.

Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.

The lower class also tend to have more children (I believe, I can't quote any statistic on this one) which balances out the death rates, and probably even reverses the trend, to cause the lower class to grow more than the upper class. And, if we actually reproduced for our entire lifespan, the upper class living longer might make a difference. But we don't, most people get all their reproduction done long before death, so extending our lifespans really has no effect.

I believe your theory is incorrect. As Doodan said, the lower class breed like rabbits.

[quote=name:BeDazed]Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap. Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.[/quote] Eugenics is the intentional practice. What you describe is an unfortunate evolutionary path. Also, think of the French revolution. Nerdy, no most women won't want to give up their substandard child in today's society, however this very thing was understood and natural in the Spartan society. If people were conditioned this way it would be done. I don't think everyone should be forced into eugenics, however I myself practice it in a way as I won't have offspring with any women that is obesely unhealthy or with several other attributes I consider undesirable.

Quote from BeDazed

Our current form of society already has this form of 'Eugenics'. You speak of. The top of the line, people with money and power will obviously use the ever advancing technology to extend their lives, enhance their offsprings, and thus keep power over the lesser beings. Gradually, as time would pass the upper class and the lower class will evolve into different beings, leaving an impenetratable class gap.

Fatality rates will be higher for the lower class, and catastrophic natural events- fatality will obviously be higher for the lower latter. Our society IS a form of Eugenics.

Eugenics is the intentional practice. What you describe is an unfortunate evolutionary path. Also, think of the French revolution.

Nerdy, no most women won't want to give up their substandard child in today's society, however this very thing was understood and natural in the Spartan society. If people were conditioned this way it would be done.

I don't think everyone should be forced into eugenics, however I myself practice it in a way as I won't have offspring with any women that is obesely unhealthy or with several other attributes I consider undesirable.

[quote=name:NerdyTerdy][quote=name:Doodan]I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support. Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.[/quote] [color=#1af]Sterilization would have to be used. And the whole thing would be fairly complex, so much so that society would basically have to be centered around the idea. I don't see how we would end up being excluded. We are, for the most part, fairly intelligent people, here at SEN :P[/color][/quote] If Eugenics were to be enforced, your hopes of passing your lineage would be completely reliant on the regime's acceptance of you. What if they didn't accept you? The regime would pick whatever standards they preferred, and everyone else would be screwed (I think of what George Carlin said: "The people who control the world are in a club, and you're not in it."). Sterilization would have to be mandatory for those that didn't pass. Can you imagine trying to sterilize most of the world's population? It would be impossible. Even Hitler couldn't chase all of the gypsies down. Imagine the cost of resources and lives to even attempt it. And when you think about it, do you really want everyone in the world to be like you? All I'm saying is that an ideal outcome to eugenics is pure fantasy, and if it were to come to fruition, it would require total fascism to enforce. [color=#86EE59][b]*Can't help but notice Nerdy's avatar*[/b][/color]

Quote from NerdyTerdy

Quote from [Doodan]:]

I can see why one would be attracted to the idea. It sounds a bit Utopian, if "advancement" is your fancy. But humans are humans, and in the end, petty differences would become a deciding factor in what bloodlines are allowed to live and die. Odds are, most of you (us?) would end up getting excluded if such a policy became law. And who's to say what kind of "intelligence" is the most useful? There are too many subjective areas for me to give this kind of thing my support.

Oh, and good luck getting the lower classes in any society to stop breeding like rabbits.

Sterilization would have to be used. And the whole thing would be fairly complex, so much so that society would basically have to be centered around the idea.

I don't see how we would end up being excluded. We are, for the most part, fairly intelligent people, here at SEN

If Eugenics were to be enforced, your hopes of passing your lineage would be completely reliant on the regime's acceptance of you. What if they didn't accept you? The regime would pick whatever standards they preferred, and everyone else would be screwed (I think of what George Carlin said: "The people who control the world are in a club, and you're not in it."). Sterilization would have to be mandatory for those that didn't pass. Can you imagine trying to sterilize most of the world's population? It would be impossible. Even Hitler couldn't chase all of the gypsies down. Imagine the cost of resources and lives to even attempt it. And when you think about it, do you really want everyone in the world to be like you?

All I'm saying is that an ideal outcome to eugenics is pure fantasy, and if it were to come to fruition, it would require total fascism to enforce.

*Can't help but notice Nerdy's avatar*

The problem with this sort of thing is that humans don't really know what they want. Take dogs for example, we made them how we wanted, and now I feel sorry for their species. Any wolf could whoop a dog.

The problem with this sort of thing is that humans don't really know what they want.
Take dogs for example, we made them how we wanted, and now I feel sorry for their species. Any wolf could whoop a dog.

Nerdy, you really should include your main argument in the first post. That is all.

Nerdy, you really should include your main argument in the first post. That is all.

In a practical sense, no, it's probably not a possible thing to accomplish on a large scale. But in a small-scale sense, I'm all for it. For example, when a person gets to a point (or is born in a state) where they cannot in any sense contribute to society, and are only draining resources (food, water, electricity, time of the people taking care of them), I don't believe they should be kept around.

In a practical sense, no, it's probably not a possible thing to accomplish on a large scale.

But in a small-scale sense, I'm all for it. For example, when a person gets to a point (or is born in a state) where they cannot in any sense contribute to society, and are only draining resources (food, water, electricity, time of the people taking care of them), I don't believe they should be kept around.

[quote]In a practical sense, no, it's probably not a possible thing to accomplish on a large scale. But in a small-scale sense, I'm all for it. For example, when a person gets to a point (or is born in a state) where they cannot in any sense contribute to society, and are only draining resources (food, water, electricity, time of the people taking care of them), I don't believe they should be kept around.[/quote] That is, not at all very practical either. Every human being is a contributory to a human society, providing knowledge, and being a consumer. To you, could you shoot your mother and father once they hit retirement? (That isnt even Eugenics)

Quote

In a practical sense, no, it's probably not a possible thing to accomplish on a large scale.

But in a small-scale sense, I'm all for it. For example, when a person gets to a point (or is born in a state) where they cannot in any sense contribute to society, and are only draining resources (food, water, electricity, time of the people taking care of them), I don't believe they should be kept around.

That is, not at all very practical either. Every human being is a contributory to a human society, providing knowledge, and being a consumer. To you, could you shoot your mother and father once they hit retirement?
(That isnt even Eugenics)

I believe the ugly/stupid should be limited to 1 child. I have a ridiculously high metabolism would be very desirable to the majority of the gene pool. I've never had to diet or watch what I ate unlike the general population. If everyone had my same beneficial gene I believe the world would be a better place.

I believe the ugly/stupid should be limited to 1 child.

I have a ridiculously high metabolism would be very desirable to the majority of the gene pool. I've never had to diet or watch what I ate unlike the general population. If everyone had my same beneficial gene I believe the world would be a better place.

[quote=name:BeDazed]To you, could you shoot your mother and father once they hit retirement? (That isnt even Eugenics)[/quote] It's also not really what I meant.

Quote from BeDazed

To you, could you shoot your mother and father once they hit retirement?
(That isnt even Eugenics)

It's also not really what I meant.

[quote]I am a full fledged supporter of Eugenics. I have a Machiavellian approach toward the subject: "the end justifies the means." It has the capability to advance our mental and physical capabilities by exponential powers and do marvelous things for the human body and psyche. I do not believe it is unethical due to the long term benefits by doing such a project and science; there are not that many dangers in advancing this subject in comparison to others.[/quote] This.

Quote

I am a full fledged supporter of Eugenics. I have a Machiavellian approach toward the subject: "the end justifies the means." It has the capability to advance our mental and physical capabilities by exponential powers and do marvelous things for the human body and psyche. I do not believe it is unethical due to the long term benefits by doing such a project and science; there are not that many dangers in advancing this subject in comparison to others.

This.

Well im totally against eugenics. I view the best possible society for mankind in which the weak are protected by the strong, it might sound nice to have a 'spartan' society, but in reality eugenics seams to be a recipy for disaster. Who would be the one to decide who cant and can live? If we all were pushed to be the best we could be, wouldn't that just make the chances for accidental incest occur frequently, causing even moar problems than we had with a large gene pool? This sounds like something that were happen in a terrible dictatorship, because ppl will ALWAYS have disagreements, and if there were to be cutbacks on who is allowed to live, then how would a decision on who ever be achieved? You could take into consideration what slavery did for our country. Economically it was great, but morally and logically the idea drove our country to war with itself. The thing is i think the same thing would happen if eugenics were forced. Now, if a couple has a child that has cystic fibrosis, and they decide to have an abortion that is their own choice, and the only form of eugenics that will ever be allowed in this country (even though i disagree with abortion as well).

Well im totally against eugenics. I view the best possible society for mankind in which the weak are protected by the strong, it might sound nice to have a 'spartan' society, but in reality eugenics seams to be a recipy for disaster. Who would be the one to decide who cant and can live? If we all were pushed to be the best we could be, wouldn't that just make the chances for accidental incest occur frequently, causing even moar problems than we had with a large gene pool? This sounds like something that were happen in a terrible dictatorship, because ppl will ALWAYS have disagreements, and if there were to be cutbacks on who is allowed to live, then how would a decision on who ever be achieved?

You could take into consideration what slavery did for our country. Economically it was great, but morally and logically the idea drove our country to war with itself. The thing is i think the same thing would happen if eugenics were forced. Now, if a couple has a child that has cystic fibrosis, and they decide to have an abortion that is their own choice, and the only form of eugenics that will ever be allowed in this country (even though i disagree with abortion as well).