I agree with Spidergoat. Hitler had the right idea, but the implementation was off. The eugenics wasn't based on genetic quality but on prejudice and racism. I hope that one day, the negative connotations on the word "eugenics" will be no more, so we can get on with improving our race and speed up evolution a bit.
Satan is a mythological invention. It's no better or no worse to worship/praise him than it is Allah. In fact, judging from islam's track record, it might be preferable. ~String
I recall reading an article about how eugenics is basically a live and well in the USA: in clinics where women go for sperm donation. It's true, but I'd never thought about it that way.
There are many forms of eugenics some are less justifyable than others. Personally i like the idea of making economic incentives in the system to encourage a procreational behavior that is beneficial to society. Slaughtering millions of people or even a single person is of course off the table. That's just disgusting.
Isn't IVF like anti-eugenics. Isn't this equally troublesome? It does have the potential to weaken the human genome? Eugenics is a standard right exercised by many women today. The main concern is that it must be voluntary?
If individual selection of mates based on perceived reproductive fitness is "eugenics," then "eugenics" has been alive and well in most instances that sexual reproduction has ever occurred. The term "eugenics" implies some larger, explicit system for deciding who will mate with whom, and who will not mate at all, made in terms of genetic "fitness" and typically overriding the preferences of some or all of the individuals doing the actual mating. This would be things like forced sterilization of "unfit" persons, or the explicit pairing of people deemed "desirable" as parents (breeding of star athletes in China, for example). In contrast, arranged marriage for reasons of family ties or political influence would not count, since the basis for selection is not genetic fitness but social connections.
you think eugenics was bad then? They forgot to leave out the eugenics that was done on the native americans. Btw I fully support eugenics as long as it isnt done through killing and isnt racial targeting but rather bad mutation targeting. I think we need to make a bunch of clones of the worlds smartest people and have them mix more thoroughly through the human genome considering our IQ is expected to continually fall because intelligent people dont want kids.
Hitler used the same style as the people who destroyed and enslaved the Native americans, He actualy studied and marked it down as a good tactic and adopted it. peace.
The problem is genetics isn't the only factor. How they interact with the environment (bacteria acquisition at different ages has been remarked as a system that can sculpt the mind) and express in the individual phenotypically is not all down to the genes themselves. Many factors are involved. Removing genetic lines is something that shouldn't be done, or should only be done with extreme caution. All genetic material must be backed up and stored. Even identical twins can have different sexual preferences and IQs. The future for me will be more about genetic design, and less about eugenics (implementing new material rather than specifically removing old (unless directly disease causing. But we must even be wary of that because maybe it is human's weakness that makes us more advanced, or at least it is so spliced together as to be hard to remove. Maybe treatments of disease/aging whilst maintaining genetic makeups is an equally persuasive option? I am sure there will be more than one camp. That is the beauty of diversity)). A process of designed improvement. This in itself will create mistakes. But it will kickstart a much faster period of human evolution with the (intentional) mutations it will employ. Question is which countries will allow it to happen freely? Those countries will have the upper hand genetically. Well that's my general take.
