EUGENICS

[warmonger1981]

Is eugenics a good idea? Who decides who gets the ax? Who should get the ax? The physically handicapped? The poor? Mentally handicapped people? The religious? Or maybe a specific race?

Should parents have the right to terminate their children at any age or maybe up to a specific age? Should children have the right to terminate their parents when mom and dad get old and brittle?

[khazalid]

eugenics is a horrible, regressive notion, because eugenics.

stop trolling.

[DoomYoshi]

eugenics is a horrible, regressive notion, because eugenics.

stop trolling.

I love when I am among the masses and they tell me a)genetic modification is terrible and b)selective breeding is terrible.

Based on these 2 principles, anyone who eats domesticated animals (including dairy), grain products or most vegetables is a Nazi. Eat pure food only to avoid eugenics.

[mrswdk]

Is eugenics a good idea?

That depends on what you think would be achieved by a eugenics program, and whether or not it is possible to devise a system of eugenics in which the benefits accrued would outweigh the negatives.

Perhaps you already have some ideas of your own. Share with us the fruits of your scholarly labor, oh great pontificator!

[Phatscotty]

Just contributing atm. Stumbled upon this a few weeks ago when I was looking for detailed information on the story of Pandora's Box, (A small and seemingly innocent act which ends up having catastrophic and lasting unintended consequences). as I wanted to know how the one's who were giving all the warnings handled the situation after it was clear the crap could not be shoved back into the bull.

so I checked this out,it's about the guy who discovered DNA and his story, and I ended up watching the whole thing. The opening 30 seconds I was HOOKED, as I clearly related . Another wonderful thing happened, followed by many wonderful things. That night I waws truly riding a spiral of inspiration and forethought, gettin my Tool fibonacci on and even wrote a poem myself. The thing I was not expecting though was getting a GREAT answer to a question I have long and oft wondered.... How exactly did the German people under the Nazi party come to tolerate mass murder and genocide of other Germans they considered 'undesirable?. I wonder this because I see the Progressives in America going the same route. So, in thsi video, Jim Watson, half-way through he is visiting Germany and touring a Holocaust museum with an extremely old German man. As they read testimonials of victims as well as 'doctors' who were motivated to madness in the name of 'the greater good' and 'moving forward' they toured the horrors of medicine's progressive era and viewed how it was applied to it's victims, Watson asks the German man... '
"Do you think they felt they were murdering people? Felt that killing innocent people was wrong? How did it come to be Jews were not given the status of 'human being?'"

The old German man responds "They COULDN'T see anything wrong with what they were doing. THAT'S WHAT/HOW THEY WERE TAUGHT IN THE UNIVERSITIES"



What are universities teaching today? anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-straight, anti-male, pro-anything but white, pro-Islam or no religion at all, pro-homosexuality, and pro-female, and pro-intolerance of ANYTHING else.

College Professor: Religious Right Worships a Fictional, ‘A**hole’ God of ‘White Supremacy and Patriarchy’

Take 'thou shall not murder' out of the education equation, combine that with these nut-jubs who only get angrier when they get what they want and preach more hate and grow even greedier and start making the very demands they laughed off just a year ago as 'will never happan!', and justify their non-thinking on emotions consumed with myths and generalizations of why their hate is justified and how they are righteous and how they believe they would be doing the world a favor, you can see where I'm going with this, as well the very reason I have been announcing that the Nazi's are back, the Nazi's are here, and the national socialism is now.

Where Conservatives in general tend to disagree with Progressives and hardcoreLiberals and want to discuss and persuade issues in great detail and at least try to be clear, whereas fanatical Liberals/Progressives believe Conservatives and Independents who disagree can't have a logical reason or rational repsonse (which immediately gets the 'they all' anti-science and sky daddy juices flowing) therefore Conservatives are evil and stupid and that is an excuse/justification for them to not have to listen to, think abot, or accept a challenge to any point. they just 'my way is right, if you dont like it, their is the highway' And that's where all this anti-religion and anti-Christianity stuff really starts to kick in. We want to change their minds based on facts and evidence and principles, they want us to leave the country, get a physical beating, and even die. IMO in the modern age of specifically not being allowed to teach 'thou shall not murder', the lines of morality and what is right and wrong are so blurred the morbid political correctness dictates nobody can even speak about what is right or wrong, and that is an environment ripe for homicidal and genocidal tendencies that seem to accompany every mass wave of socialim and collectivism as each generation comes into it's own and does not know the terrors and horrors of the previous socialist experiments and even purposefully tell and go along with lies.

[khazalid]

eugenics is a horrible, regressive notion, because eugenics.

stop trolling.

I love when I am among the masses and they tell me a)genetic modification is terrible and b)selective breeding is terrible.

Based on these 2 principles, anyone who eats domesticated animals (including dairy), grain products or most vegetables is a Nazi. Eat pure food only to avoid eugenics.

you love when you are among the masses? quite the haute bourgeois rascal m'lady. you'll be flashing an ankle to the colliers of a dusky autumn eve, next! simply riotous.

leaving aside your general inanity for a moment - the OP is quite clearly differentiating your catch-all from the pernicious, backwater ideology that 'the masses' think of when they think 'eugenics'.

go slide on it, DY, you fuckin' knob.

[mrswdk]

How exactly did the German people under the Nazi party come to tolerate mass murder and genocide of other Germans they considered 'undesirable?. I wonder this because I see the Progressives in America going the same route.

Are you taking part in some sort of hazing so that PLAYER, warmonger and sabotage will allow you into their group of insane OT posters?

[waauw]

eugenics will become unstoppable once we're able to manipulate human DNA surgically.

[/]

I believe that modern humans that are able to access proper medical care have a duty to practice basic autonomous genetics if they intend to reproduce. If you're going to have a child, why not do so in a right and careful way? Who honestly doesn't want their offspring to have a long and healthy life rather than suffering a debilitating condition that could have been easily prevented? With just some basic parental genetic screening, diseases like Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, Thalassemia, Tay-Sachs Disease, and Fragile X Syndrome could be virtually eliminated within our lifetimes. The benefits of a few at risk couples adopting or using a surrogate far outweighs the deaths they might cause by inflicting, horrific, incurable diseases upon their offspring and decedents.

And before anyone gets up in arms about Nazism or some shit; the vast majority of us that aren't royalty or hillbilly decendants have been practicing this sort of preventative eugenics for eons by not screwing our cousins.

[DoomYoshi]

eugenics is a horrible, regressive notion, because eugenics.

stop trolling.

I love when I am among the masses and they tell me a)genetic modification is terrible and b)selective breeding is terrible.

Based on these 2 principles, anyone who eats domesticated animals (including dairy), grain products or most vegetables is a Nazi. Eat pure food only to avoid eugenics.

you love when you are among the masses? quite the haute bourgeois rascal m'lady. you'll be flashing an ankle to the colliers of a dusky autumn eve, next! simply riotous.

leaving aside your general inanity for a moment - the OP is quite clearly differentiating your catch-all from the pernicious, backwater ideology that 'the masses' think of when they think 'eugenics'.

go slide on it, DY, you fuckin' knob.

They aren't different - only superficially. In one situation (what we have now) breeding and survival are not a given. In the other situation (eugenics) breeding and survival are not a given. In both cases, they are based on concepts of perceived fitness etc.

It's not a backwater ideology. Woodrow Wilson was a eugenicist. Helen Keller. Teddy Roosevelt. I understand that since you are behind the Great Firewall, you perceive United States as a backwater nation. I do not consider it as such.

[DoomYoshi]

I believe that modern humans that are able to access proper medical care have a duty to practice basic autonomous genetics if they intend to reproduce. If you're going to have a child, why not do so in a right and careful way? Who honestly doesn't want their offspring to have a long and healthy life rather than suffering a debilitating condition that could have been easily prevented? With just some basic parental genetic screening, diseases like Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, Thalassemia, Tay-Sachs Disease, and Fragile X Syndrome could be virtually eliminated within our lifetimes. The benefits of a few at risk couples adopting or using a surrogate far outweighs the deaths they might cause by inflicting, horrific, incurable diseases upon their offspring and decedents.

Yea, but then you wouldn't get as much welfare.

[waauw]

I believe that modern humans that are able to access proper medical care have a duty to practice basic autonomous genetics if they intend to reproduce. If you're going to have a child, why not do so in a right and careful way? Who honestly doesn't want their offspring to have a long and healthy life rather than suffering a debilitating condition that could have been easily prevented? With just some basic parental genetic screening, diseases like Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, Thalassemia, Tay-Sachs Disease, and Fragile X Syndrome could be virtually eliminated within our lifetimes. The benefits of a few at risk couples adopting or using a surrogate far outweighs the deaths they might cause by inflicting, horrific, incurable diseases upon their offspring and decedents.

And before anyone gets up in arms about Nazism or some shit; the vast majority of us that aren't royalty or hillbilly decendants have been practicing this sort of preventative eugenics for eons by not screwing our cousins.

I don't even think that it'll stop with modifying children to be healthy. Once you go down that road you might as well also modify the DNA for the child to be pretty, smart, naturally athletic, mentally strong, etc.

Already according to some studies the rich are becoming more and more handsome(as compared to the poor) because pretty women marry rich guys. With the coming revolution in genetics, this disparity will only increase.

[/]

I believe that modern humans that are able to access proper medical care have a duty to practice basic autonomous genetics if they intend to reproduce. If you're going to have a child, why not do so in a right and careful way? Who honestly doesn't want their offspring to have a long and healthy life rather than suffering a debilitating condition that could have been easily prevented? With just some basic parental genetic screening, diseases like Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, Thalassemia, Tay-Sachs Disease, and Fragile X Syndrome could be virtually eliminated within our lifetimes. The benefits of a few at risk couples adopting or using a surrogate far outweighs the deaths they might cause by inflicting, horrific, incurable diseases upon their offspring and decedents.

And before anyone gets up in arms about Nazism or some shit; the vast majority of us that aren't royalty or hillbilly decendants have been practicing this sort of preventative eugenics for eons by not screwing our cousins.

I don't even think that it'll stop with modifying children to be healthy. Once you go down that road you might as well also modify the DNA for the child to be pretty, smart, naturally athletic, mentally strong, etc.

Already according to some studies the rich are becoming more and more handsome because women are attracted to money. With the coming revolution in genetics, this disparity will only increase.

Why is everything about some slippery slope? It's like people think half of the world is populated by cackling mad scientists trying to gradually erode the laws for a Lovecraftian overlord. It's only been 30 some years since a human received a baboon heart transplant, any day now people will have tentacles!

[muy_thaiguy]

I believe that modern humans that are able to access proper medical care have a duty to practice basic autonomous genetics if they intend to reproduce. If you're going to have a child, why not do so in a right and careful way? Who honestly doesn't want their offspring to have a long and healthy life rather than suffering a debilitating condition that could have been easily prevented? With just some basic parental genetic screening, diseases like Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, Thalassemia, Tay-Sachs Disease, and Fragile X Syndrome could be virtually eliminated within our lifetimes. The benefits of a few at risk couples adopting or using a surrogate far outweighs the deaths they might cause by inflicting, horrific, incurable diseases upon their offspring and decedents.

And before anyone gets up in arms about Nazism or some shit; the vast majority of us that aren't royalty or hillbilly decendants have been practicing this sort of preventative eugenics for eons by not screwing our cousins.

I don't even think that it'll stop with modifying children to be healthy. Once you go down that road you might as well also modify the DNA for the child to be pretty, smart, naturally athletic, mentally strong, etc.

Already according to some studies the rich are becoming more and more handsome because women are attracted to money. With the coming revolution in genetics, this disparity will only increase.

Why is everything about some slippery slope? It's like people think half of the world is populated by cackling mad scientists trying to gradually erode the laws for a Lovecraftian overlord. It's only been 30 some years since a human received a baboon heart transplant, any day now people will have tentacles!

I don't think the Japanese would oppose that. Just from what I've read.

[tzor]

Why is everything about some slippery slope? It's like people think half of the world is populated by cackling mad scientists trying to gradually erode the laws for a Lovecraftian overlord. It's only been 30 some years since a human received a baboon heart transplant, any day now people will have tentacles!

The problem is not "Lovecraft." The problem is the ultimate extension of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment as reflected in the most extreme position of Austrian Libertarianism. In this mode humanity is no better than (and at times worse) than a machine. We don't think about improving a person's well being and dignity, but improving his output. Build a better man, just like a better car or computer.

This is the problem with after the fact eugenics. To be or not to be. I was born with a cleft lip. Sure it sucked but it beats the alternative of not being born at all. Before the fact eugenics have a different problem; you are effectively telling people that they don't have a right to have children, even if there is only a small chance that the defective genes will be passed down to their children.

People are different from animals and they get kind of annoyed when you start to selectively breed them. They get kind of annoyed when their parents try to do the same thing as well.

[Phatscotty]

How exactly did the German people under the Nazi party come to tolerate mass murder and genocide of other Germans they considered 'undesirable?. I wonder this because I see the Progressives in America going the same route.

Are you taking part in some sort of hazing so that PLAYER, warmonger and sabotage will allow you into their group of insane OT posters?

butt and soon after she will have a new religion

so, anyways. How about you share with me why you think today's progressive socialists are not going the same route as the german national socialists?

[warmonger1981]

Please mrswdk let's not throw insults and I won't take your ignorance as intelligence. A person with a golf ball size education has a golf ball size understanding. Eugenics is a legitimate issue to think about. As designer babies become more popular eugenics will be thought about more. The obvious benefit would be creating the perfect human. Physically stronger and mentally superior. A system of benefits would be a system in which the ends justify the means. Science has no emotion. Eugenics was very popular in the early twentieth century. The Nazi's had millions believing in racial superiority within a few years. Back then people had a conscience or were more spiritual. Now days science and logic seem to lead society.

[mrswdk]

Please mrswdk let's not throw insults and I won't take your ignorance as intelligence. A person with a golf ball size education has a golf ball size understanding. Eugenics is a legitimate issue to think about.

I never said it wasn't. Put forward your own ideas and we can discuss them.

As designer babies become more popular eugenics will be thought about more. The obvious benefit would be creating the perfect human. Physically stronger and mentally superior.

Does the technology to do this actually exist, and could it actually be applied across an entire society without incurring extortionate costs?

[/]

Why is everything about some slippery slope? It's like people think half of the world is populated by cackling mad scientists trying to gradually erode the laws for a Lovecraftian overlord. It's only been 30 some years since a human received a baboon heart transplant, any day now people will have tentacles!

The problem is not "Lovecraft." The problem is the ultimate extension of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment as reflected in the most extreme position of Austrian Libertarianism. In this mode humanity is no better than (and at times worse) than a machine. We don't think about improving a person's well being and dignity, but improving his output. Build a better man, just like a better car or computer.

This is the problem with after the fact eugenics. To be or not to be. I was born with a cleft lip. Sure it sucked but it beats the alternative of not being born at all. Before the fact eugenics have a different problem; you are effectively telling people that they don't have a right to have children, even if there is only a small chance that the defective genes will be passed down to their children.

People are different from animals and they get kind of annoyed when you start to selectively breed them. They get kind of annoyed when their parents try to do the same thing as well.

There are infinite reasons for why you theoretically might not have been born; father deciding to whack it in the morning, mother leaning a bit to the right during sex, and so on and so on. It's just the luck of the draw, there's nothing good or bad about it, and nothing's going to retroactively unbirth you at this point. The important thing is the future, genetic testing is not about erasing humans, it's about erasing disease.

This is the important distinction, this is the line that bars the slippery slope. Deciding not to breed is not hurting a child, reproductive material is simply genetics, it has no thoughts or feelings, it doesn't lament not having never existed. Spreading disease is hurting a child; even if it's just a tiny percent that could have been avoided, like having a mug of beer while pregnant, it's on the parents to do their best to avoid causing harm to their baby.

We quarantine the disease so that it doesn't spread, why do the rules suddenly change when it's not immediately visible? Would you say that Individuals with AIDS have the same right to attempt reproduction to their heart's content? Does someone infected by a deadly and contagious airborne pathogen have a right to walk around town and chat you up? We need to draw the line between a person's "natural rights" and willful negligence resulting in unending generations of suffering.

[mrswdk]

so, anyways. How about you share with me why you think today's progressive socialists are not going the same route as the german national socialists?

Nah, you're right. So who are the first people the progressives are going to gas?

[waauw]

Why is everything about some slippery slope? It's like people think half of the world is populated by cackling mad scientists trying to gradually erode the laws for a Lovecraftian overlord. It's only been 30 some years since a human received a baboon heart transplant, any day now people will have tentacles!

The problem is not "Lovecraft." The problem is the ultimate extension of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment as reflected in the most extreme position of Austrian Libertarianism. In this mode humanity is no better than (and at times worse) than a machine. We don't think about improving a person's well being and dignity, but improving his output. Build a better man, just like a better car or computer.

This is the problem with after the fact eugenics. To be or not to be. I was born with a cleft lip. Sure it sucked but it beats the alternative of not being born at all. Before the fact eugenics have a different problem; you are effectively telling people that they don't have a right to have children, even if there is only a small chance that the defective genes will be passed down to their children.

People are different from animals and they get kind of annoyed when you start to selectively breed them. They get kind of annoyed when their parents try to do the same thing as well.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly. Are you saying austrian economics compare society with machines? Which would be false of course.

[waauw]

As designer babies become more popular eugenics will be thought about more. The obvious benefit would be creating the perfect human. Physically stronger and mentally superior.

Does the technology to do this actually exist, and could it actually be applied across an entire society without incurring extortionate costs?

Nope, it doesn't exist yet. But current expectations are that science will be finished mapping our entire DNA-string somewhere in the next 20 years.
The companies doing the research are even patenting. This means the technology will probably be used to gain a profit. Most likely only the wealthy will have access to these 'designer babies'.

[tzor]

The obvious benefit would be creating the perfect human. Physically stronger and mentally superior.

That's simple to say but difficult to realize. The practical truth is that environment will have a far stronger influence in both areas than genetics and by the time you discover which genes give the optimal result genetic manipulation after the fact will be commonplace. In fact, I would suspect that in a couple of hundred years, the typical human would be a hyper-chimera.

This is the important distinction, this is the line that bars the slippery slope. Deciding not to breed is not hurting a child, reproductive material is simply genetics, it has no thoughts or feelings, it doesn't lament not having never existed. Spreading disease is hurting a child; even if it's just a tiny percent that could have been avoided, like having a mug of beer while pregnant, it's on the parents to do their best to avoid causing harm to their baby.

We quarantine the disease so that it doesn't spread, why do the rules suddenly change when it's not immediately visible? Would you say that Individuals with AIDS have the same right to attempt reproduction to their heart's content? Does someone infected by a deadly and contagious airborne pathogen have a right to walk around town and chat you up? We need to draw the line between a person's "natural rights" and willful negligence resulting in unending generations of suffering.

Fascinating. You apparently haven't been keeping up with recent news articles. There has been a whole controversy about medical personnel breaking quarantine because they thought they didn't have a disease and how wonderful and courageous they were by the lame-stream media.

You are also not familiar with the abortion crazy society at the same time going crazy over implanting a third person's RNA in order to allow a woman who conceive a child. Look at how much force China needs to maintain in order to maintain the one child policy. Yes, good luck with telling women they don't have the "right" to have a child.

[tzor]

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly. Are you saying austrian economics compare society with machines? Which would be false of course.

People with machines. The cost of labor is no different than the cost of equipment.

[mrswdk]

Most likely only the wealthy will have access to these 'designer babies'.

If such technology can indeed be created then, much like other technologies, it's gonna be pretty expensive at first but gradually become more and more affordable as production methods are refined.