Eugenics

From wikipedia,

To put if in laymen's terms, eugenics is basically breeding by natural selection. It's taking the healthiest, fittest, most genetically "superior" members of society, and breeding them, and discouraging the "inferior" from breeding.

The ethical issues should be obvious. First, when I say "superior" and "inferior", I'm not referring to race or anything. I mean, people who are genetically "stronger" or "fitter", or healthier, or however you put it.

The problem is, who decides what is "better"?

As for me, I think eugenics is OK if we are unbiased in how we implement it; ensure truly that people aren't discriminated on the basis of race or nationality or something like that. Then, we can encourage or implement the breeding of the fittest. The reason is because this can help push the evolution and health of our own species.

If you wish to read it more in detail, here is the entire page on eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Suggestions_and_ideas

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe that the mental processes are more heavily judged than the physical state of a human being in the present day. In the past how you looked and what you could do physically was more important, but now with many "intellectual" jobs, running the marathon isn't exactly going to get you anywhere except maybe 26 miles. So to answer you question of who decides what is "better" I do not think there to be one person but there is a general agreement in the working world (multi tasking, PR skills, languages, math skills...)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh and might I add that as long as there are two lifeforms on this earth, one will be better than the other. But it's all a matter of what the environment throws at us. If we had to walk everywhere, over half of us would not make it one day. Therefore technology came to existence in order to ease our lives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are three forms of eugenics.

The first encourages the fittest to mate and raise more children.

The second seeks to remove the worst from the gene pool by sterilization.

The third seeks to manipulate DNA in the lab before fertilization.

 

People should be looking for ideal mates anyway. I know that's debatable today.
I don't think we have any right to weed out anyone or stop anyone from mating. We've done enough with medicine and technology to control our health.

 

One of America's greatest presidents was in a wheelchair. Hell no I don't support eugenics.

and Norse, if breeding of the fittest is implemented, your gay ass is so screwed. Oh wait, that came out wrong. Oh wait, that too.
Norse, I don't think you would qualify.

 

He wasn't great because he was in a wheelchair, though, he was great because of his actions, which had nothing to do with him being in a wheel chair

I consider myself rather fit. However, I would understand if my genetic information was less than satisfactory.

 

He wouldn't have had a chance to become a great man. wheelchair = inferior. inferior = dead.

 

We're speaking about what already was. Besides, eugenics doesn't murder the already existing people, it is about the future and breeding. So even if he didn't exist, well, he wouldn't have existed and it wouldn't have mattered because history wouldn't have included him. Just like you might not have existed. It's irrelevant, though, because you do, and I do, and he did.

 

Yeah, you would kill future great people because of a damn wheelchair, or blindness, or deafness. For crying out loud, Leonardo DaVinci was gay. Do you want to kill another future genius like him?

 

We can't kill future people because they don't exist. The future is for us to create: there will be geniuses with or without implementation of eugenics.

 

Norse, this quote. End of your argument.

 

you make my eye twitch.

 

How so?

Why? We can't kill people who don't exist. Either way, history plays its course, and any way it went, we could easily say "well, without this, this would not have happened"; interesting for speculation, but irrelevant in any serious terms.

 

you're right. The whole idea is completely irrelevant.

 

Eugenics? No, it isn't. It is for the greater good; implementing eugenics is better for the species and ensures the future generations don't suffer from nasty diseases and disabilities


Also, what I mean is, if Roosevelt did not exist, we wouldn't be sitting here speaking about him, would we? It's irrelevant. Everything that was, was, and everything that will be, will be. Everything that will be will eventually was, and by that point it is not relevant anymore.

Consider this: eugenics might mean the loss of certain future potential geniuses, but also the gain of others that would not have been there without eugenics.

 

who decides which genes are superior or inferior? while im all for reducing the human population, we have no right to tell other people whether they can or cant breed.

 

Scientists.

We wouldn't do it based on ethnic bias, but simply which genes are favorable and "better" logically, such as genes that give higher intelligence, strength, fitness, etc

 

Do you need everything spelled out?

Because you just said a person's disability has no effect on how great of a person they may turn out. So why eliminate them?

 

Because it's preferable not to have disability in the first place.