I see nothing wrong with voluntary, positive eugenics.

Forced sterilization is kind of mean don't ya think?

(May 29, 2015 at 1:40 pm)KUSA Wrote: Forced sterilization is kind of mean don't ya think?

That's negative, involuntary eugenics.

Don't worry Aroura our misuse of antibiotics will very soon take care of the overpopulation problem.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:40 pm)KUSA Wrote: Forced sterilization is kind of mean don't ya think?

Yes, it is.  But freedom has a price, and I'm not comfortable with the price of a mass extinction event.  That's just my personal opinion.

I think everyone should have the right to have 1-2 kids PER COUPLE, and after that, tough nuts. No more kids.

@cocunningham, I do think nature will take are of our overpopulation problem with something like what you have suggested, or some other fast spreading highly  deadly viral disease, but will it already be to late by then?

"According to evolution"?

When did you interview her?

I realize the ethics are a nightmare, but some experimentation would certainly be interesting. What happens if some of our DNA believed to be 'useless' is deleted and a human being is allowed to come to term that way ??

Human beings have on board, all the DNA needed to make their own internal vitamin C except for one specific gene. It would be fascinating to fix that (rats can, they don't have a lack of a that gene) and see what happens.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Aroura Wrote: I realize this isn't really eugenics, but I'm all for people being restricted to one or 2 children per couple, and forced sterilization after that.
Yep, I said that.

The implications of giving any government that sort of intrusive power are unacceptable regarding civil liberties.

(May 29, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Aroura Wrote: I realize this isn't really eugenics, but I'm all for people being restricted to one or 2 children per couple, and forced sterilization after that.
Yep, I said that.

The implications of giving any government that sort of intrusive power are unacceptable regarding civil liberties.

Right.  I understand the problems with my suggestion, and I also understand why it will never be implimented; because humans are (naturally)selfish beings who value their own liberty over the life of any other thing on the planet.  They often value it over their OWN life.  I'm just looking at long term consequences of the freedom to have 12 kids that all live to be 80+ years old.  It isn't good, and it will take away the freedom of future generations to have things like, say, fresh water and...food. 

I still think it would be the right thing to do, but I realize most people would disagree with me. 

---

Let me be clear about someting real quck,then I need to go for a while.

I think everyone has the right to live their life the way they see fit, unless that way impinges on the safety or rights of others. Having unlimited babies (19 kids and counting style, or even just 3 or 4), is impinging on everyone's right to have enough healthcare, food, water, etc to go around, therefore I think that right should be restricted or liscenced.

I can clarify more later, but I think that should explain why I think that specific right should not be protected the way other rights are.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Twisted Wrote: I was thinking that according to evolution eugenics might not be a wrong thing to do but I've always been against it,i think that every human is unique and has his own place in this world so its a wrong practice

Can you explain what on earth "evolution" has to do with whether eugenics is a wrong thing to do or not - at all? I don't see the connection.
If you had said live stock breeding gave you ideas about eugenics, I'd at least se a connection, but not with evolution (either the theory or the bitch).