Stop being literal. It's a common phrase that everyone understands.
Scientific progress, human-intelligence progress.
Funny. Here all of you are, yet that's not your argument. Here's one of your arguments: 'Now that I think about it, eugenics doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In nature, sexual reproduction is considered superior because it allows quicker adaptation vs. asexual reproduction. Making a more homogeneous gene pool only reduces that adaptability.' Nothing about morality there. Another one is the sickle-cell anemia thing. Oh! No morality.

Science and intelligence is not everything. If anything, 'for the greater good' isn't a good enough excuse for the sterilization against someone's will- it doesn't matter if its just one person or a billion. If we were to give up morality, then would you also consider giving up individual freedom, since its a hinderance to social efficiency. I mean, why not? Since we can do this, why not that? There will be no limits to how far our atrocities can go.

I consider science and intelligence to be the main method of measuring humanity's progress. If you have another one, feel free to share. I also believe that 'for the greater good' is a good enough excuse, no matter how far we go. Coupled with my belief that the population of the Earth will crash due to environmental changes due to global warming, you can see where my logic lies - eugenics allows us to lower the population before that crash happens, while at the same time strongly speeding up evolution and scientific progress. Two birds with one stone. Further and slightly off topic, this is largely why I support a rather authoritarian government - because it will be able to make eugenics work, crush opposition to it, and create a society that speeds up progress while preserving the environment for future generations, allowing for a future utopia. The way the earth is going right now, I think that some very, very radical steps will have to be taken in our lifetimes that will lead to significant drop in living standards.

As for individual freedom, yes, I believe that to a certain extent, it should be taken away. However, most of that IS eugenics. The freedom to choose one's path professionally leads to that person working harder at his path, so freedom and efficiency would work together. Drugs and cigarettes should be outlawed, so people don't spread the idea to children to kill or cause cancer early; otherwise, I really can't think of what individual freedom you're talking about.

You are supporting a failed cause. Look up Hitler and Nazism. What makes you think any of sort you believe in is any different from what he did? Your ideals aren't going to make a utopia, rather a dystopia.
Plus Humanity's progress won't matter if you don't have a set of standards that will keep up with responsibities that come with greater power. What I mean by progress, is progress with responsibilities. And if you take a look at the world right now, Humanity is nowhere near responsible. Without it, we'd just rip ourselves apart. And to be honest, Eugenics is stepping over the line. If everyone thought like you did (thank god not alot of people are hitler-esque in the world), Humanity deserves being destroyed by its creation.

And uh no. If you're talking about near future (since you are mentioned global overload as a concern), there will be no method to change your gene layout while you live. You will have to fertilize countless eggs to get one with 'gene embryo'. (plus, this method will only be viable by the rich. insanely rich people.) And it won't be freedom. Parents decide for you. It is opposite of freedom. You have no control over your life.

Post has been edited 7 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:40 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: stop comparing the person you're arguing with to hitler. do

Please show how humanity isn't responsible, additionally defining what you mean by responsible. Also, please stop comparing me to Hitler without any evidence as if that proves anything. I gave my reasons for supporting eugenics, which haven't in any way been refuted by you. Taking my assumptions of the way the earth's going into account, do you happen to have a more humane alternative?
Not only does what you're talking about have nothing to do with freedom (because, believe it or not, children don't pick their genes even today...), but you also misunderstood what method of eugenics I was going for.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:41 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: make your points without commenting how horrible the other perso

Your method of eugenics is either non-existant, or morally impossible.

That's an idiotic answer. Most methods of eugenics are non-existant as of now, seeing as eugenics wasn't practiced to any great degree yet, and nothing is morally impossible.

Stop passing off my arguments as if they were nothing. You aren't even thinking them through.
It will be non-existant for the rest of our lives (because there is no technology for another millenia on altering DNA as you know it, or we'd need a huge breakthrough. The only way we know how to practice Eugenics is complicated, and I mean it. Due procedure requires selection of a human host, and selection of embryos. ) <- It will undoubtably be expensive. You seriously thought that having two intelligent people reproduce will just result in a smarter one? Wishful thinking.
And because the world won't allow it- it is impossible. Not after when we've learned our lesson already.

Yeah. Or we can skip what you said, and just stop the bottom 4% intelligence wise (measured by a generic government method) from reproducing every year.

You support totalitarian governments. You like 'the greater good' and consider it a good enough reason for possible atrocities against millions. That sounds similar to Hitler.
We could ask people not to reproduce, but by no means force them not to. And your idea is in no way, humane. Dont even say 'more' humane- because its not humane at all.


Skipping what I said would only mean 'I can't argue cause I have nothing to say, I am completely lost.'
And sterilizing the bottom 4% would just be unnecessary, because that would have negligible effect on natural selection. I hope you have learned how long human evolution took- and it took several billion years just to get this far. It will take millions more to just have noticeable change in our intelligence. Also, trying to say that getting rid of those people will speed up our evolution is also wishful thinking. (Upside or downside, take your pick) Also, there will be no need for population control- since population will naturally decline as the young gets scarce and the elderly only increases- or we kill each other off before that happens (Take your pick).

And stopping people from reproducing would go against 'their freedom'. And while we talk about freedom, you've also mentioned that you support a totalitarian government. Well I am going to talk about how that will not happen. The world currently believes in 'human rights'. It is belief that all humans are equal, and no quality makes right on inequality. And theres alot of history to it- in many parts of the world. Say for example, Black and White in the United States, the rich and poor in Russia, the nobles and workers in France. They are all examples of inequality in our history- and they all ended in a bloody mess: but not without gain. We gained 'equality', and thus freedom from influences that have gone too far. And for many of the world's population that have already experienced what it is to be 'free', and 'equal', it won't accept a totalitarian government (they usually come with the concept of the greater good, and with the motto 'end justifies the means'). Eugenics is in obvious violation of 'human rights'. And thus 'sterilization against people's will' goes against what the majority of the world believe in.

And I've mentioned about how far our atrocities can go without a certain standard we have to uphold. If there was a totalitarian government (and yes, this is probably the only government capable of your insane theory.)- it would need control over almost everything. It will need to brainwash people into believing something that isn't the truth, control media to uphold their interests, limit people's opinions (and getting rid of opposition), limit information, and entertainment. (Well you could ask, why limit information? Since you don't really think about what I say, I'll just have to explain. Humans are wonderful thinking creatures, and the population is driven by what we call 'ideals'. Even if people die, ideals don't. Thats why you probably want a totalitarian government, because you're fascinated by the hitler-esque type of ideals.) Well since, 'sterilizing unintelligent people against their will' is okay, then why not just kill them? Well they are certainly useless, unintelligent, and about to die too.

Why spend more money than is necessary? Then if we can kill people, why not people that oppose our government and is hindrance to our interests? But what about ideals? They don't die. Well, yes they do. We'd need to brainwash every child in this country, and have a controlled media! Well since not everything we do is so good, but when have we been moral? We could just lie to the public, they'd never know. Oh guess what, I think for the greater good, we need to test a nuclear bomb in a populated area! To test how fast our bombs can annihilate population- so we can defend you better! Oh deterrant! It will save lives more than we've killed today!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Factors_affecting_intelligence

And I suggest you read this through, thoroughly.
Secondly, in contrast to your 'belief', Intelligence is a hypernym- a grouping of several characteristics Humans hold. It is ridiculously hard to 'measure' one's intelligence accurately- and maybe even impossible at least in the near future. Do not speculate non-existant technologies to argue.
Thirdly, environment and a combination of genes (most genes have negligible effect on intelligence, and work in combination- meaning a wrong combination could result in lower intelligence) has effects on intelligence, which suggests your idea of eugenics need renovation. Because it doesn't work like that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:45 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: breaking up massive wall of text. stop comparing your fellow deb

Evolution can be sped up. Will it take a long time? Yes. However, eugenics can speed up the process hundredfold, thousand, who knows howmanyfold by encouraging those with good traits to reproduce and stopping those with bad ones from reproducing. I don't understand how you think population will decline as 'young get scarce and elderly increase', explain that. And here, you're ADMITTING that we'll start killing each other. And you don't want to avert that NOW, where instead of killing we could just sterilize, where it would actually improve humans, and before whatever forces us to kill each other happens?

Equality has nothing to do human rights. Everyone can be equally oppressed. Anyway, I know that it won't happen now, exactly because everyone's too stupid to realize that it needs to be done. When, in fifty years, world population hits 13million (7 billion times 1.3% growth per year), we start running out of energy, we can't provide food for everyone (and global warming might even reduce the food we can create), THEN it's going to happen. Anyway, by not sterilizing those in Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas and so on who keep making babies that won't lead happy lives... well, isn't that cruelty in itself?
Why not kill them? Because then you'd start some argument comparing me to Hitler. Oh wai-.
Honestly, I consider survival and prosperity of the human race more important than poor ideals. I want a totalitarian government because in todays world, where everyone values their dear democracy so much, the eugenics won't work. Yes, we need some brainwashing by such a government to turn opinion towards eugenics, just like living in a democracy has turned you against totalitarian governments (see? EVERYONE is brainwashed by something). We don't need to create a dystopia where everyone is a moralless idiot, we need (I think) a society that can recognize when something that infringes on human rights needs to be done for the greater good. I'm not saying we need to grab people and haul them into torture chambers, we just take the stupidest people (by generic test-thing) and either sterilize or penalize them for having children. That's it. We take the smarter people, and encourage them to have more children, by developing a culture where the more the merrier rings true to people. What's so horrible about that? Those people with problems lead normal lives, except for one aspect. Population is under control. Resources are preserved better, because population is under control. And eventually, there won't be poor saps starving in a far-off continent, because there will be enough food and water for everyone.
I'm not a genius. I cannot describe exactly what the ideal way to measure genetic intelligence is. This is what you give five billion dollars to a government agency for.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:46 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: not all sd worthy

Centreri, theres a good phrase that describes you well.
Easier said then done. And its not going to happen.

EDIT::
And no. Humanity lacks the technology to measure one's intelligence accurately. It LACKS the technology. God, why do you keep trying to imagine non-existant technology into your rescue? Do you think that even makes a valid argument? I think you're getting unrealistic.

EDIT::
Like I said. This is just wishful thinking. EDIT:: Oh and if you've read everything I said correctly, you'd know why THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

EDIT::
And I have to explain a common social effect that we learn in everyday school. Refer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_age
We, the developed worlds are at the stage of contraction. Population will diminish itself, naturally. I dont even know why I am explaining such a simple concept when if you think about it, is obvious.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Sep 13 2009, 10:49 pm by BeDazed.

As I already explained why. And I've said that eventually it will happen, probably in a much cruder way than what I described.

Provide a source.

And if you've read what I said, you'd know how it IS how it worked. Jesus, isn't it sad how your arguments are so generic I can just throw them back at you?

Yet, somehow, you're the only one who seems to think the population will shrink. Please, find a source that says that the median age will have enough of an effect to shrink the population.

Honestly, at this point you're just yelling 'You're wrong' at me. Comparing me to Hitler, saying it will never happen, stating that "the population will shrink by itself". It's clear I can't convince you. Maybe I'll stop trying.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:28 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: ad hominem, swearing, not SD worthy as was

Dishonest hypocrisy I see.

You know, these kind of statements have less value than information without a source. It won't happen, because apparently, you're trying to predict a future- which possibly cannot have a reliable source.

I've explained to you that intelligence works in combinations, and breeding will not necessarily result in any noticeable difference (and could result at random from intelligence going up or going down). Plus I've told you that speeding up evolution is a wishful thinking and it doesn't work like you think it does. And if this is just too much for you to consume, then I've also proved that your cerebral 'receptors' are too small.
Also you should look up the word 'contraction'.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 14 2009, 2:25 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: starting to clean up the mess made while we were away

Do the ends justify the means? And how exactly are the "inferior" preventing progress? Are they running in labs and smashing equipment?

Me:You can't simply ignore the morality of the issue because it is an important component of the issue.
You:You've made arguments that had nothing to do with the morality of the issue. You hypocrite.

I never said morality was the only issue with eugenics, or that all arguments against eugenics must relate to morality.

For those of you supporting the idea of eugenics I would recommend the 1948 (colour) Alfred Hitchcock film, Rope.

I find the general idea of eugenics repugnant because it goes against my own sense of morality, regardless of the practical applications I can see for it.

Putting crap into the gene-pool, and causing the various natural phenomena that I think will cause society to deteriorate, like global warming, forcing our food production through the roof, increasing energy usage, etc. And for most of them, life ain't a hoot, sterilized or not.
I've made arguments that had nothing to do with the morality of the issue because you make arguments that had nothing to do with the morality. I'm not the one who said that 'That is the issue. That's like saying if you ignore the morality of abortion*, it's an easy issue to decide.', implying that there was nothing to argue about EXCEPT morality.

There, no argument there. It's morally bad. I can't particularly argue with that.

No I know. I wasn't intending to argue against it so I didn't present one. I just disagree with it - you may call that arbitrary.

Those are the results of increasing population, not bad genes. Try again. And define inferior genes. You still haven't done that.

Leave it to xkcd to approach eugenics in a way we haven't in 7 pages http://xkcd.com/603/