Eugenics..

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Challenger78, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    Which goes to show you that "natural selection" has become irrelevant in our unnatural society. Physical strength is not crucial to survival. It isn't "natural selection" when a hard-working construction worker is permanently injured by a faulty Mexican-manufactured crane at a construction site.
    Such a man could probably your heads off with his bare hands, before that faulty Mexican-manufactured crane took his entire leg off. How is that "natural selection" exactly..? An unnatural society caused his disadvantaged state through an outside force.

    In the meantime, we don't have "natural selection" in America. Nor do we have survival of the fittest. We do however have survival of the FATTEST, thanks to greed and corruption. If we were in the wild state, where natural selection actually operated, most of you fat slobs would be dead and gone within a week.


    We are no longer living in the wild state of nature... so there is no more reason to artificially emulate it either by killing people for no reason at all.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I agree! So the shooters should have a good reason for shooting someone else during the hunting season. Like, they didn't like the color of their skin or their hair, or didn't like their expression, or didn't like how short/tall they were. Anything, any reason is just fine. But you're right ...killing for no reason is just so wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    These names have certain mental disorders. Eugenics aims to abolish disorders and tries to make the "ideal". I am not saying that we need mental disorders for genius people, I am saying that if eugenics were applied in their times, these people would not have emerged since their genetic makeup wouldn't have allowed them to live among "ideals".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    Let's not forget that some of the world's most intelligent people are afflicted by such conditions. Can we say, Stephen Hawking anyone? That man has been afflicted by Lou Gehrig's diseases for ages... and he's probably more brilliant than everyone in this thread combined.
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Er, actually, most of the physicists I know/ knew describe him as "not bad, but not that brilliant". And have several nominations for smarter (and more "valuable") contenders.
     
  9. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    And who in the world are they...?

    Regardless, such things are offtopic and do nothing to change the idea that such physical disabilities somehow pollute mankind and stop the human race from exceling. Clearly, they don't. Are they good to have? Certainly not... but exterminating those afflicted or preventing them from producing children serves no purpose except to potentially limit further contributions.
     
  10. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    But if we develop the ability to remove the genes responsible for such diseases, who could object to that? No more myopia, baldness, allergies - I cannot understand why selectively removing these would be objectionable.
     
  11. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    What do you mean by "remove" the genes? As in, somehow eradicate myopia from an individual's genome and their future sex cells through some kind of chemical means? Well, sure... I don't think anyone would object to that kind of treatment -- if it were discovered. But right now, such things are genetically impossible with current advancements.

    If you mean, develop the ability to eradicate myopia by not letting anyone with myopia breed, then I can think of *many* people who would object to such a thing -- including me, and I don't even need glasses.
     
  12. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Yes, I mean genetic engineering. And I hope that it will one day give us the ability to get rid of genetically caused infirmities. Healthier humans are happier humans.
     
  13. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    No one. Human beings eradicated small pox disease in 1979 and no one complained for that. But eugenics is not about eradicating or removing the problem; it is about removing the person who possesses the gene. Eugenics do not see humanity as a combination of individual possibilities, it calculates that if you erase the cause (person or gene) the problems will dissapear from existence. Wrong. Because it attempts to isolate the gene or person ignoring the connectivity of things. If we follow this way we can end up end up seeing almost everything in our bodies and minds as faulty elements. When we start to eliminate the causes without knowing its entire environment and connections, that would not stop emergence of new problems; let alone it would also yield a fascistic chaos which can absorb everything that belongs to humans and their evolution.
     
  14. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Wouldn't that breed a race of athletic, dumbasses who only know how to shoot ?
     
  15. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Blanket Eugenics doesn't work, because certain characteristics may supersede others..
    If Eugenics existed, Stephen Hawking wouldn't exist.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    We should have the opposite of eugenics, forcing or encouraging dissimilar people to have children. That way, humanity will have the greatest diversity that natural selection can act upon.
     
  17. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    No argument here.
     
  18. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,398
    When slavetraders captured a bunch of people back in the day, they used to cull the group in two main ways; those who were obviously crippled or too old were eliminated immediately; the slavetraders would make the remainder run back and forth across the village compound. All those who couldn't move fast enough (ie people with bad hips, bad knees, et. al.) were killed, because obviously they would slow down the slave column when they were being marched to the coast for shipment.

    The problem with eugenics (as you see) is that it can be so easily misused by bastards (as above) or lunatics (such as Hitler). In Nazi Germany, as I've stated before, the insane, the mentally deficient, and the physically disabled were actively exterminated because they didn't fit in with the Nazi idea of the master race.

    Other than that, of course, there's the obvios racial element to eugenics; people of different races being deliberately and preferentially sterilised, as often happened in the US in the early days, during the height of the eugenics movement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  19. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Well since wars result in population gains and we already have 3-5 billion people too many, I don't think we need to worry about it.
     
  20. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    I would pick one with the biggest penis, because I want my son to have an edge in life.
     
  21. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    What about specialised eugenics.. with quotas for certain characteristics.. i.e. 100 bred specifically for this characteristic, etc... We'd still achieve diversity but on a controlled manner..

    However, reproduction is a hit and miss thing..
     
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Strength has always been irrelevant. The main problem with eugenics is people like you think "fittest" some how relate to how much you can bench press.

    It doesn't.

    Are rats strong? They are one of the fittest creatures in the world.

    It is fit as in a piece fitting into a puzzle.

    Death by misadventure is completely natural selection. It could be a crane, or a rock slide or a lightning strike...

    Putting on fat is a strong survival trait. The next famine they will be laughing at your skinny corpse.

    Wild has nothing to do with it.

    It is just did you live long enough to produce viable offspring?

    That is it. Everything else is optional.
     
  23. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Not quite. A mexican manufactured crane hitting a healthy construction worker while a wheelchair-type person is missed by the crane isn't natural selection. How can that be natural selection? It's not "natural" for mexican-manufacted cranes to fall on people. Nor is it natural that the healthy man dies while the wheelchair type is missed. It's pure chance. Natural selection results in something stronger or "fitter" prevailing, not the weak.
     

Share This Page