Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?

[Astonished]

It's a compulsion with you. 

Thousands of years of secular ethics, ethics which found their way into your own magic book...but you just can't see how anyone who doesn't believe in fairies might justify some ethical position any way other than "might makes right".

Really?

In any case, it's true that people aren't all that good at family planning (gee, I wonder why that might be, lol) - but also that we do have a poor track record with central control.  If you wanted to offer a more accurate criticism, rather than the usual shitpost, it would probably meander along the lines of the ethical thinking that leads one to such a conclusion is valid and sound, but that we have little practical ability to do so and a track record of worst case scenario failures.  It's not thew thought you're really railing against, but it's implementation.  If we were better people, it would be a fantastic idea...but we're not..so, for now, it isn't.

There's nothing about an ethics that sharply criticises our reproductive choices or even our ability to competentlky make them that leads, inexorably, to collectivist fascism.  There have been fascists who made similar observations, though. / shrugs

Personally, I think the world needs more of us.  Just choke the ever loving shit out of this rock and the next one, and the next one, and the next one -ad infinitum.  Genetic engineering can certainly help us do that, if we don't use it to shit all over ourselves first.  Ultimately, GE is just a shortcut to what we've been doing this whole time selecting our partners.

I think it's deeper than that, he just doesn't want to give that kind of power to anyone but his corrupt, phony-baloney fucking god.

I don't see what's wrong with something like,
"Hi, we're here to have a baby."
"All right, welcome to the lab. Just fill out these forms, please."
"Certainly."
"All right, just let me check your income and education levels...oh good, at least one of you is qualified to provide the adequate financial means of a family of three. I assume one of you will be the primary at-home care provider for your infant?"
"That's right!"
"Ah, it says here you two didn't take and/or pass the prerequisite parenting examinations to learn how to be good parents."
"Oh, is that a requirement?"
"Yes, absolutely. I mean, just look at history and how much child abuse occurred. This helps minimize both parental inadequacy and delinquency in the children they raise."
"We see...that sounds fair. Can you sign us up for that exam?"
"Sure thing. It's a class that takes place over the course of a couple of weekends for the next few weeks. It also gives couples time to think it over really hard before they make such a big decision."
"That makes sense, don't want to get into something binding with a partner it might not work out with."
"While you're waiting for all the paperwork to get itself in order, you can fill out this form for the sort of characteristics you want your child to have. There's a basic package, immunity to most diseases, increased intelligence, metabolism that would help prevent obesity and promote muscle development and cardiovascular health, and dampening of the hormones that trigger aggressive behavior. Other available refinements can be selected at the discretion of the parents. And yes, 'None of the Above' is an option for those who don't wish to give their children advantages and decrease their chances of dying or becoming sick and suffering."

I mean, is that in any way unreasonable?

[The Grand Nudger]

So already you are trying to reference an absolute that you claim doesn't exist. What makes a consequence good or bad?

Are you having trouble coming up with examples internally......or?

You just lost your mind over collectivist facism...so, that would qualify as a bad consequence, right? What makes that bad?

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm one of them.

Yours isn't something that can be seen on a baby though, so this wouldn't apply to you because autism cannot be detected on babies. You're suggesting that babies who have something visibly wrong with them should be allowed to be killed.

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean, is that in any way unreasonable?

Depends on your goals.  If what you wish to achieve is to get rid of the poors while creating an army of white and delightsome passive conformists who accept every intrusion bny the state no matter how fundamental, then no...it;s not unreasonable at all.

---

@ Cath, that's gods way anyway, what's the problem?

[Astonished]

I mean, is that in any way unreasonable?

Depends on your goals.  If what you wish to achieve is to get rid of the poors while creating an army of white and delightsome passive conformists who accept every intrusion bny the state no matter how fundamental, then no...it;s not unreasonable at all.

Sustainable population growth without runaway overpopulation, as far as what the genetic mods and reproductive regulation are for. Who the fuck says they're all going to be white, or any other ethnicity, maybe they can be made to tolerate low oxygen levels and all have a cyanotic skin tone? Then we can all be Mary Poppins, y'all.




One would hope increasing intellect across the board would lead everyone to the conclusion that a socialistic framework would be the best option to prevent anyone from lacking what they need and ensure power doesn't become too consolidated, and of course wealth equating with power wouldn't really be a thing in that kind of system. But that's up to them to decide. I'm just not counting on them ever becoming smart enough to not be fools and wrap their tools, know what I'm sayin', y'all?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sustainable population growth without runaway overpopulation, as far as what the genetic mods and reproductive regulation are for. Who the fuck says they're all going to be white, or any other ethnicity, maybe they can be made to tolerate low oxygen levels and all have a cyanotic skin tone? Then we can all be Mary Poppins, y'all.

Who says?  Market reality, political pressure, historical trends, and common sense.  If they;re engineering their children for advantage - then they'll engineer their children to whatever fits the privileged class. That's a white male conformist...in case you were unaware. Every little bit counts..in a world of superbabies. It'd be a waste to engineer an uberchild and then leave them black, or female, or "aggressive".

One would hope increasing intellect across the board would lead everyone to the conclusion that a socialistic framework would be the best option to prevent anyone from lacking what they need and ensure power doesn't become too consolidated, and of course wealth equating with power wouldn't really be a thing in that kind of system. But that's up to them to decide. I'm just not counting on them ever becoming smart enough to not be fools and wrap their tools, know what I'm sayin', y'all?

Hope in one hand, shit in the other.  Being smart (by whatever metric you'd be using) isn't an immunization against crazy, flat out evil, or just general idiocy on any other level.  You think that we'll become "smart" enough to realize a socialist utopia but simultaneously not "smart" enough to wear a rubber?

In any case, with genetic engineering, the problem of overpopulation..such as it is, can be solved anyway. We already solved that problem in our fields (how do you think we manage to grow enough food to feed everyone - you don't think that you'll ever run across a tightly spaced tomato forest in the wild, right) - it'll be high on the list of genetic mods for humans as well.

[Astonished]

Well since it's all hypothetical anyway, what the fuck ever. Like I said, I wouldn't be okay with any of this if it was restricted from anyone and as you point out, that ain't gonna happen anyway.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm one of them.

Yours isn't something that can be seen on a baby though, so this wouldn't apply to you because autism cannot be detected on babies. You're suggesting that babies who have something visibly wrong with them should be allowed to be killed.

I can't think of a single circumstances where the conditions I laid out should be applied. *

I'm a consequentalist so in theory there's a condition where anything could be justified. But many things in practice never happen.

It's all about minimizing suffering for me. I can't yet think of a case where euthenizing an infant would produce less suffering.

I mean, because it's a little more complex than just minimizing suffering because the good opportunities in life that are missed out on is important too. And disabled people have many many good opportunities.

* Actually... If it was a condition where they're literally paralyzed and in extreme pain all their life, I think a painless death early on would be better than a lifetime of intense pain and paralysis. So I guess that's one example I can think of.

[Catholic_Lady]

There are all kinds of people who continuously surprise us and overcome the odds. Who are we to decide for someone else that they shouldn't live because we assume their life will be nothing but a string of pointless suffering? Nonetheless, purposely killing a child for any reason seems absolutely heinous to me, but that's just me I guess.....

[Astonished]

There are all kinds of people who continuously surprise us and overcome the odds. Who are we to decide for someone else that they shouldn't live because we assume their life will be nothing but a string of pointless suffering? Nonetheless, purposely killing a child for any reason seems absolutely heinous to me, but that's just me I guess.....

Shows a lack of imagination and empathy on your part for others' suffering, from what I can tell, but that's just me I guess...


Every suicide of a teenager from bullying, abuse, etc., after years of their family getting that emotionally connected to them (possibly with siblings who came along after to also become a bigger loving family), would be far more devastating than if they were to die as an infant or as a miscarriage; that tragedy of short-lived, borrowed time is a harsh but all-too-common reality. Seems like an empty prospect to be pro-life and not be even more prolific about the things that actually help life thrive. But then there's that obsession with 'where did life come from? Evolution doesn't explain THAT!' sort of mentality, so it makes sense that pro-life fanatics would only focus on the origin of a life and not what happens after they pop out of that cooch. Or hell, the obsession with the thing that leads up to the creation of life, what with how batshit religious folk get about sex.