(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: 1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races. But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

We ought to free the word eugenics from the stigma it has been received thanks to the Nazis and others. I'd wager that most of the research in genetics today is going to be used in eugenics in the future, regardless of whether we refer to it that way.

Of course, maybe I'd answer yes to #1 because I want to like looking at someone I'd want to spend the rest of my time with, and maybe I'd answer yes to #2 because I don't like spending more time around kids than I absolutely have to and I wouldn't want to spend the next 18 years caring for one, even if it was perfectly healthy.

And, for the record, as crucial as the excesses of the Nazi regime are to discrediting eugenics, the other crucial part is that, well, it's far less practical than people who've dabbled in genetics might think. Seriously, read up on epigenetics and tell me with a straight face that eugenics is still a plausible science. Beauty in particular is something that frequently has as much to do with nurture as nature. And also cosmetics, which are even further from nature than nurture. Indeed, selecting for phenotypic traits can be done, but, eventually, this is where it leads you, especially if you try to keep it purebred:





Adam exaggerates the problems exhibited in these purebred dogs, to be honest, but only slightly. When he says "all" when talking about the traits these dogs developed, think "the vast majority." Not necessarily all, but look at that bulldog, with its head so big 80% have to be delivered by cesarean section, nostrils so small that breathing normally can become hard (and also, hyperthermia is a major problem, which Adam doesn't mention), a body that can barely support the exercise necessary to keep its weight low enough to keep its joints (in addition to its heart and lungs) from fucking up, and a lifespan that's 5/8 what it should be. All because some people became obsessed with perfecting it through eugenics. Keep it up, this is what you will get.

In practice, Eugenics is reductive to the point of absurdity. Rehabilitating the discipline would require a massive overhaul of what it would actually mean (at least as big as the overhaul in atomic theory between Democritus and Dalton, likely bigger).

Given that I already have a child with down syndrome, I can emphatically tell you that I would NOT abort a baby if I knew it was going to be born with ANY kind of disability.

As to the first question - looks aren't everything. I'd rather surround myself with beautiful minds. People I can connect with on a mental level.

(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: 1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

Lol no. Eugenics is systematic and organized, and its application is mandated by the state with the explicit goal of "making the human race better"... Whatever that means. Choosing a partner is not even close to eugenics, as you only see their body and not their caryotype or genome. See that beefy jock over there? Absolute unit. He may be shredded and very, very attractive, but oops, he's carrying a Robertsonian translocation of chromosomes 14 and 21 that results in him having a very high chance of generating Down children. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

Now let's say for the sake of argument that you do get together with Mr. Beefcake over there and try to have a child with him. You get pregnant and find out that your son will have Down syndrome, and that your husband has that condition. In the end, what happens next is up to you to decide. If you don't have enough time or money to guarantee your Down child a decent life, you can choose to have an abortion. And I think it's easy to see how that's different from state mandated eugenics.

(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races.

*Inhales*

Boi

(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

Nah. Mental illness has a genetic component, but it isn't necessary nor sufficient to its development. You aren't born schizophrenic just like you aren't born - I dunno - a fascist, or a flat earther. Mental illnesses are not genetic syndromes. Google "pubmed", click on the first link that appears and then type "mental illness hereditability" in the search bar.

(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: 1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races. But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

We ought to free the word eugenics from the stigma it has been received thanks to the Nazis and others. I'd wager that most of the research in genetics today is going to be used in eugenics in the future, regardless of whether we refer to it that way.

If your own parents had been eugenicists, I wouldn't have had to read that rubbish, so I suppose it has its good points.

Boru

Can we start by aborting the psychopaths first?
Then we won't have to hear about eugenics ever again.

You can't de-stigmatise Eugenics. The term is tarnished beyond repair with its association with the Nazis. All you can do is give it a different name.

This is why it's instead now referred to as the Insurance Industry.

(August 15, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 15, 2018 at 11:21 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: At some point, humans will have to re-engineer some of the population to re-occupy vacant slots in the bio-sphere due to human predation and/or loss of habitat to various currently extant useful species.

I'd say an early variant to be engineered would be a human derived, but non-sentient, replacement for cattle.  Meat eating will always be a demand of the populace, and this is how that issue can be fixed.

A human derived 'food' animal would be designed to survive and thrive on a very inferior/subsistence diet and yet remain tasty, nutritious, and tender to eat.

I'd note the nations basements are filled with prototypes even today.  Overweight game addicts would have some useful genes for this project.  A little work on flavor and survivability, and you'd have it.  I also note, they would have to be docile and easy to subdue.  Shouldn't be too hard to dial in something very successful.

Too much marble, not enough muscle. 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, human bacon !!!

(August 16, 2018 at 9:19 am)vorlon13 Wrote:

(August 15, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Too much marble, not enough muscle. 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, human bacon !!!

I heard human flesh even taste like pork, and prohibition against eating pork in Bronze Age and Iron Age middle eastern societies may have had its origins in the association between pork and human flesh.

(August 15, 2018 at 8:50 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

(August 15, 2018 at 8:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Preferring good looking people is selective breeding. Not eugenics. Eugenics is bad, because it presumes we can control exactly what people will get by only focusing on certain people, and removing the rest. There is of course the issue of who should be included in this "good looking" group. Are we going to start seeing people breed for tiny waists, and huge boobs/butts? Or do we pick other factors? Are only white people considered good looking? How far do we go to make sure other groups don't breed?

The best thing to do is let people take their own risks, and make their own decisions.

(My bold) That's precisely what I advocated in my OP.

No one should be prevented from breeding but we must let expectant parents make optimal decisions that ensure healthy offspring.

Letting people make their own reproduction decisions is not really what eugenics is, though.

Eugenics | Define Eugenics at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed ...

(August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: 1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races. But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

We ought to free the word eugenics from the stigma it has been received thanks to the Nazis and others. I'd wager that most of the research in genetics today is going to be used in eugenics in the future, regardless of whether we refer to it that way.

1. I prefer to marry good looking women, but they seem too stupid to return this extraordinary compliment. So I am not sure letting their genes admix with mine would actually be eugenic and not counter-eugenic.

2. Didn’t have to face the choice, but i’d say no. However, eugenics is not about any life choice that might have a specific impact on the gene pool of the next generation. It is about systematic and coercive policy to weed out portions of the gene pool.

3. Leadership begins with oneself. Why have you not removed yourself from the gene pool?