Quoted: They very well may. But can you risk the production from 8 seemingly healthy plants to prop up the 2 substandard ones??? "seemingly" is the key word here, your judgment is based on phenotype only,  usually more than one gene controls the expression of a trait (phenotype) the variables are exponential.

No, we had also factored in past performance of that variety. If they look good at this stage, they are 99% likely to finish well.

do you deny vitamins to 500 kids so that the one that is alergic to peanuts can have his  peanutium ??suppliments instead???

Quoted: They very well may. But can you risk the production from 8 seeminly healthy plants to prop up the 2 substandard ones??? How about Steven Hawking?

Steve's been wrong about some shit ya know....

and lose of a stephen hawking is a chance you take.

there is no such thing as perfection, just constant improvement.
The Japanese have term for it that escapes me at the moment.


eta:
"Kaizen."



Japanese term that means continuous improvement, taken from words 'Kai' means continuous and 'zen' means improvement.

Some translate 'Kai' to mean change and 'zen' to mean good, or for the better.

The same japanese words Kaizen that pronounce as 'Gai San' in chinese mean:

Gai= The action to correct.

San= This word is more related to the Taoism or Buddhism Philosophy in which give the definition as the action that 'benefit' the society but not to one particular individual. The quality of benefit that involve here should be sustain forever, in other words the 'san' is and act that truely benefit the others

also:

Kaizen – the philosophy of continual improvement, that every process can and should be continually evaluated and improved in terms of time required, resources used, resultant quality, and other aspects relevant to the process. When applied to the workplace, Kaizen means continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike. Kaizen is not limited to manufacturing systems only. It also means continuing improvement in personal life, home life, social life, and working li

"Kaizen." Japanese term that means continuous improvement, taken from words 'Kai' means continuous and 'zen' means improvement. Some translate 'Kai' to mean change and 'zen' to mean good, or for the better. The same japanese words Kaizen that pronounce as 'Gai San' in chinese mean: Gai= The action to correct. San= This word is more related to the Taoism or Buddhism Philosophy in which give the definition as the action that 'benefit' the society but not to one particular individual. The quality of benefit that involve here should be sustain forever, in other words the 'san' is and act that truely benefit the others also: Kaizen – the philosophy of continual improvement, that every process can and should be continually evaluated and improved in terms of time required, resources used, resultant quality, and other aspects relevant to the process. When applied to the workplace, Kaizen means continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike. Kaizen is not limited to manufacturing systems only. It also means continuing improvement in personal life, home life, social life, and working li

They also have another word: "Hentai"

Quoted: "Kaizen." Japanese term that means continuous improvement, taken from words 'Kai' means continuous and 'zen' means improvement. Some translate 'Kai' to mean change and 'zen' to mean good, or for the better. The same japanese words Kaizen that pronounce as 'Gai San' in chinese mean: Gai= The action to correct. San= This word is more related to the Taoism or Buddhism Philosophy in which give the definition as the action that 'benefit' the society but not to one particular individual. The quality of benefit that involve here should be sustain forever, in other words the 'san' is and act that truely benefit the others also: Kaizen – the philosophy of continual improvement, that every process can and should be continually evaluated and improved in terms of time required, resources used, resultant quality, and other aspects relevant to the process. When applied to the workplace, Kaizen means continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike. Kaizen is not limited to manufacturing systems only. It also means continuing improvement in personal life, home life, social life, and working li They also have another word: "Hentai"

proving that no system is perfect...

A couple of problems with your scenario:

First, not everyone that has an abortion has no desire to have children. Maybe circumstances forced the need for an abortion from someone who will later go on to welcome a pregnancy.

Not everyone that doesn't wish to have children is mentally defective. As the opening sequence of "Idiocracy" showed, more intelligent couples deferred having children, or had less children.

The funds freed up from juvenile court would be spent in court fighting claims of those who regret their decision and claim that at 18 they were too immature to understand the ramifications of their irrevocable decision.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has already been implicated in forced sterilization programs on unwitting women of child bearing age in third world countries; I suppose we can watch and see how it impacts those countries.

Quoted: They very well may. But can you risk the production from 8 seeminly healthy plants to prop up the 2 substandard ones??? How about Steven Hawking?

Do you know if Hawking's ALS is hereditary or sporadic? If it's the latter, then your example doesn't apply.

Quoted: They very well may. But can you risk the production from 8 seemingly healthy plants to prop up the 2 substandard ones??? "seemingly" is the key word here, your judgment is based on phenotype only,  usually more than one gene controls the expression of a trait (phenotype) the variables are exponential.

Does it matter?  I hear this argument with regard to post-Griggs standardized testing.  Yes, perhaps all of the test are racist/sexist/biased against Aggies/whatever, but if they are an accurate reflection of reality, does it really matter?  If you have, say 23 or 24 different genes controlling the desire to molest chickens and you only see this manifested 1/4 of the time in the forms of a natural proclivity for banjo playing, you are still getting rid of the problem 1/4 of the time if you offer the kid a plasma TV and 60 banjo playing DVDs to get snipped before reproducing.

The poll options suck.  Eugenics FAILS because of those who would control it, not necessarily because it's a bad idea.

While it makes sense to try to "breed out" genetic diseases, it does not justify doing things that would be considered crimes against humanity.  

Our current "risk-adverse" and "soft" society is enabling the existence of people who would otherwise be unable to survive.  This is the biggest problem I see with eugenics and modern medicine.  

Perhaps the "best" way to achieve the desired goal is to remove the "safety nets" and let nature take its' course.  Stupid people will inadvertently remove themselves from the gene pool as they always have done.  Society and governments shouldn't be protecting people from themselves.  

Incarcerated criminals and individuals involuntarily committed to mental institutions are generally considered wards of the state.  Force-sterilizing these people probably wouldn't be all that hard from a legal standpoint.  

Certain classes of criminals are probably easier to justify sterilizing than others, and I don't think anyone would object to sterilizing the criminally insane.  Most people would see no problem with forced sterilization of sex offenders, either.  

Welfare and Social Security recipients who are acting as "baby factories" could be offered a choice: sterilization, or get off of Welfare/Social Security.  Or we could just "turn off" these social subsidies and let the "problem" take care of itself.  

People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that

Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that

Yes, that is a big problem.  We shouldn't be trying to breed a master race of humans.  In my opinion, eugenics should be confined to attempts at vaccinating against and breeding out specific hereditary illnesses, and sterilizing Welfare queens, some criminals and the mentally defective.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.   The problem is that there isn't a person alive who is free of  hereditary defective genes. We all have them. The simple minded ones are the ones who think they can breed all the defects out. I'm not suggesting that we could.  All I'm saying is if you have an infant who is found to have a heart defect while still in utero and that type of defect is hereditary, it might be the responsible thing to do to sterilize the infant at the same time you correct the defect.  I'm not advocating "culling" or "killing" anything or anyone, just preventing those who have the most obviously defective genes from reproducing.  If you had a child with down's syndrome would you let him/her get married and have children?

WTF?

Quoted: The last time we had a eugenics thread, all serious discussion of the merits and problems of (voluntary) eugenics to promote healthier, more fit future generations was shouted out by a bunch of fuckwads who couldn't get past the fact that Nazis promoted their own fucked up idea of eugenics over sixty years ago. When you're discussing ways to rid humanity of inherited diseases, birth defects, etc. and to make them more likely to be physically fit by selective (voluntary) breeding and medicine (including gene therapy), it gets very irritating to have a bunch of asinine cockmonglers keep shouting "ZOMG! YOU'RE NAZIS!" and repeatedly accuse you of wanting to exterminate the elderly, retarded, and non-white races, especially when you continually explain that that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion. I even mentioned that, had my parents had the option of tweaking my genes so I wouldn't suffer from asthma and terrible eye sight, I would have been grateful they'd done so rather than having to suffer from both as I do now. And then some rocket surgeon smugly stated that under "my" "program", I'd have been aborted as soon as my genes were shown to be imperfect. Oh, and let's not forget the guy who was bizarrely obsessed with "designer children". Rather than, you know, eliminating inherited diseases and birth defects like everyone who was in favor of limited, voluntary eugenics, said, this mouth-breather kept trying to say that people would instead make "designer children" and kids would follow fads and it would make a horrible mess that would scar these children for life because their parents ordered a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child back when those were popular and now red-haired green-eyed children are all the rage. You can't have a serious discussion on eugenics in GD. A bunch of mindless cockgoblins and people with the most inane worries come out of the woodwork and fuck it all up. It's kinda of like trying to pass a bill in Congress without the Democrats attaching a bunch of socialist bullshit to it.

+1

I'm in support of voluntary eugenics.  And people here just don't seem to understand it, no matter how much you explain it to them.

Dont frack with Mother Nature if you dont completely understand the consequenses

Quoted: Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that Yes, that is a big problem.  We shouldn't be trying to breed a master race of humans.  In my opinion, eugenics should be confined to attempts at vaccinating against and breeding out specific hereditary illnesses, and sterilizing Welfare queens, some criminals and the mentally defective.

If 2 guys are in a room in a blackout and 1 is blind which one is the disabled one?


The circumstances that may eventuate in the process of evolution may in fact favour the so-called 'defective' genes of today. This is true just in the last 500 years let alone over a huge time-frame. Women who have over-active thyroid and are genetically pre-disposed to being fat bitches were the women of choice not so long ago. A big wife was a sign that she was good for child-rearing (big families more hands in the field), was of 'good' stock (well-fed and cared for) and strong. Also the whiter the skin the better because it meant sub-consciously she was of good stock (wealthy no need to work the fields and get tanned etc) So a big fat white bitch with pale skin was considered premium pussy.

Nowadays it means sub-consciously she is lazy, isnt rich (rich people go on holidays and get tans in Jamaica or have free-time for tanning salons). It also means she doesnt look after herself and is un-healthy.

The exact bloody opposite!

This is only over a short time-frame. Nobody knows in 2000 years time what genes will be considered 'premium'. This is such a bad idea all round and a foolish thought process.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that Yes, that is a big problem.  We shouldn't be trying to breed a master race of humans.  In my opinion, eugenics should be confined to attempts at vaccinating against and breeding out specific hereditary illnesses, and sterilizing Welfare queens, some criminals and the mentally defective.   If 2 guys are in a room in a blackout and 1 is blind which one is the disabled one? The circumstances that may eventuate in the process of evolution may in fact favour the so-called 'defective' genes of today. This is true just in the last 500 years let alone over a huge time-frame. Women who have over-active thyroid and are genetically pre-disposed to being fat bitches were the women of choice not so long ago. A big wife was a sign that she was good for child-rearing (big families more hands in the field), was of 'good' stock (well-fed and cared for) and strong. Also the whiter the skin the better because it meant sub-consciously she was of good stock (wealthy no need to work the fields and get tanned etc) So a big fat white bitch with pale skin was considered premium pussy. Nowadays it means sub-consciously she is lazy, isnt rich (rich people go on holidays and get tans in Jamaica or have free-time for tanning salons). It also means she doesnt look after herself and is un-healthy. The exact bloody opposite! This is only over a short time-frame. Nobody knows in 2000 years time what genes will be considered 'premium'. This is such a bad idea all round and a foolish thought process.

Good points !  I hadn't quite thought of that.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that Yes, that is a big problem.  We shouldn't be trying to breed a master race of humans.  In my opinion, eugenics should be confined to attempts at vaccinating against and breeding out specific hereditary illnesses, and sterilizing Welfare queens, some criminals and the mentally defective.   If 2 guys are in a room in a blackout and 1 is blind which one is the disabled one? The circumstances that may eventuate in the process of evolution may in fact favour the so-called 'defective' genes of today. This is true just in the last 500 years let alone over a huge time-frame. Women who have over-active thyroid and are genetically pre-disposed to being fat bitches were the women of choice not so long ago. A big wife was a sign that she was good for child-rearing (big families more hands in the field), was of 'good' stock (well-fed and cared for) and strong. Also the whiter the skin the better because it meant sub-consciously she was of good stock (wealthy no need to work the fields and get tanned etc) So a big fat white bitch with pale skin was considered premium pussy. Nowadays it means sub-consciously she is lazy, isnt rich (rich people go on holidays and get tans in Jamaica or have free-time for tanning salons). It also means she doesnt look after herself and is un-healthy. The exact bloody opposite! This is only over a short time-frame. Nobody knows in 2000 years time what genes will be considered 'premium'. This is such a bad idea all round and a foolish thought process. Good points !  I hadn't quite thought of that.

So my suggestion to you is go out and shag a blind bi-sexual manically depressed borderline psychotic criminal bitch with a skin disease because you may well be 'way ahead of your time'

Quoted: So my suggestion to you is go out and shag a blind bi-sexual manically depressed borderline psychotic criminal bitch with a skin disease because you may well be 'way ahead of your time'

Quoted: Quoted: So my suggestion to you is go out and shag a blind bi-sexual manically depressed borderline psychotic criminal bitch with a skin disease because you may well be 'way ahead of your time'

Some of the female trash my mate has knocked up may well point to a a very disturbed mind but science will prove him one day to be an absolute fucking genius . He has been getting into the market while the interest is low because i have no doubt one day these women will be demanding porsches and diamond rings not his pathetic cheeseburgers and sex in the back of his un-registered ute

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that Yes, that is a big problem.  We shouldn't be trying to breed a master race of humans.  In my opinion, eugenics should be confined to attempts at vaccinating against and breeding out specific hereditary illnesses, and sterilizing Welfare queens, some criminals and the mentally defective.   If 2 guys are in a room in a blackout and 1 is blind which one is the disabled one? The circumstances that may eventuate in the process of evolution may in fact favour the so-called 'defective' genes of today. This is true just in the last 500 years let alone over a huge time-frame. Women who have over-active thyroid and are genetically pre-disposed to being fat bitches were the women of choice not so long ago. A big wife was a sign that she was good for child-rearing (big families more hands in the field), was of 'good' stock (well-fed and cared for) and strong. Also the whiter the skin the better because it meant sub-consciously she was of good stock (wealthy no need to work the fields and get tanned etc) So a big fat white bitch with pale skin was considered premium pussy. Nowadays it means sub-consciously she is lazy, isnt rich (rich people go on holidays and get tans in Jamaica or have free-time for tanning salons). It also means she doesnt look after herself and is un-healthy. The exact bloody opposite! This is only over a short time-frame. Nobody knows in 2000 years time what genes will be considered 'premium'. This is such a bad idea all round and a foolish thought process.

You know, things like a forward time orientation and impulse control were probably good things when Europe was covered with ice and they are good things today.

Quoted: Perhaps the "best" way to achieve the desired goal is to remove the "safety nets" and let nature take its' course.  Stupid people will inadvertently remove themselves from the gene pool as they always have done.  Society and governments shouldn't be protecting people from themselves.   Incarcerated criminals and individuals involuntarily committed to mental institutions are generally considered wards of the state.  Force-sterilizing these people probably wouldn't be all that hard from a legal standpoint.   Certain classes of criminals are probably easier to justify sterilizing than others, and I don't think anyone would object to sterilizing the criminally insane.  Most people would see no problem with forced sterilization of sex offenders, either.   Welfare and Social Security recipients who are acting as "baby factories" could be offered a choice: sterilization, or get off of Welfare/Social Security.  Or we could just "turn off" these social subsidies and let the "problem" take care of itself.

Well, the problem there is that the same social services that exist as safety nets will be abused by those people, and absent full privatization of those social services (possible, but not likely for the next 20 years given how badly George W. Bush screwed that up with his "ownership society" BS) it isn't likely.

In Texas, we were able to sterilize the mentally retarded for years (and it made sense then and makes sense now) and criminals wouldn't be much of a stretch, IF we could get a cooperative Supreme Court.  But given that the current "conservative" court (yes, I do mean Roberts) doesn't understand the difference between low IQ and mental retardation, I am not holding my breath.

So while it is a poor idea to be paying the most violent and least productive members of society to reproduce as fast as possible, the only legally acceptable options are voluntary right now.  And even those are dicey, given a liberal judge.

ETA:

In most states, sex with the retarded/insane is battery, I think.  There are all sorts of reasons why you don't want them to have babies, and their complete inability to be good parents is a big part of that.  But that doesn't seem to make an impact with liberals, who think that deinstitutionalization gives those folks a better life.  The same thinking leads liberals to believe that there is no problem with these folks having kids.  It's a real problem trying to get through to liberals on this.

In a former life I used to breed Springers. I, and my fellow breeders, practiced Eugenics on dogs. We carefully selected which dogs and bitches could mate after careful study of their pedigrees, their physical and emotional characteristics, their championship records (both show and field). We carefully ensured which puppies/litters were registered, which puppies should be sold on spay-neuter agreements, and in some sad instances, euthanized puppies at birth that were clearly deformed in major ways.

The thought of applying eugenics to human beings is appalling. Although the objective of eugenics is purportedly the "improvement of the breed", some of what may result from institution of eugenics include:

- Allowing, or not allowing, some couples to get married based on their genetic histories.
- Placing restrictions against certain ethnicities or racial groups.
- Abortion of fetuses which do not match a specific desired result. (Don't laugh. The One Child policy in China has resulted in the abortion of countless female fetuses over the past few decades. New biotech, used in worderful ways to better understand life, can also be used to map likely characteristics of unborn child, not just its gender.)
- Termination of any "unplanned" pregnancies.

For those of us who are Pro Life, eugenics should be considered a danger. We are warned in the papal encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae" (Gospel of Life) by the late Pope John Paul II, about some of the dangers that can come through eugenics.

Oh yes. as a previous poster reminded us, Hitler's Nazi Germany had wide scale Eugenics projects. They were trying to perfect the Master Race. This Master Race was basically "white". Most of the information on this topic is probably declassified by now. It's creepy.

Enough said.

I think its a great idea, but not the role of government.

Ever read any Heinlein?  "Time Enough for Love?"  There is a private organization that pays people to have children later and later in life, thereby incrementally increasing the lifespan of each generation.

Quoted: Quoted: Sure lets throw the degenerate newborns off a cliff; better yet lets terminate them in the womb, lets sterilize all the undesirables, the authority should be able to decide who can procreate and who shouldn't. Maybe we can even find the gene that makes individuals predisposed to free will and eliminate that while were at it. Wouldn't that be great! It's okay, I sometimes post in threads without actually reading them, too.

We noticed from your first post.  You couldn't have slanted your "Poll" to make anyone that disagree's with you look stupid, if you asked for help.

On a board full of men and women that claim to stand for so much freedom, the support for Eugenics and the talk about controling the habits of other human beings for better genetics or a better race is quite disgusting.  You bunch of hypocrites.  It's OK to be free as long as you fit in my little box, eh?  What happens when you're box isn't quite the same as someone else's box?  Who the hell are you to tell them anything about their personal lives that doesn't violate our laws or Constitution?  What makes you guys think that whatever flavor of eugenics that's imposed won't be abused by it's benefactors?  It has the potential to lead to things worse than the Third Reich and if human history says anything, it WILL absolutely and unequivocally be abused by some dirty bureaucrat.

Lets blame everything on genetics and not look into the fact that where and how most people were raised has more effect on how they will fit in to society than their genetics.  Nothing about the fact that this beautiful REPUBLIC is being turned into a nanny-state and destroyed by people who want more control and I think Eugenics is a control freaks wet dream.

No one has any right to tell anyone when, how or if they can reproduce.  Coning some ignorant kid into ending his reproductive life is low and depraved.  After all, most of the geniouses we have on Capitol Hill are the creme of the crop, right?  

Eugenics is bad science and is an open door to social engineering and other such horrible things.

That's my oppinion.  I probably wouldn't have even bothered posting if it weren't for the farse of a poll in the beginning.

It should have just read:

Completely
Partially
I'm a f*&ing idiot


Nice partiality.  

Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones??

Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way.





But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate:





I have 10 tomato plants.

10 out of 10 are defective.


Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated?


Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.   That's because "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means something, dude. Give it a couple of decades and we'll be gene-modifying our way to perfect little hereditary disease free kids anyway.  Watch Gattaca, it's probably the most accurate movie I've seen when it comes to the future.

Ask yourself why it will be like that.

IMHO it will be like that because the .gov will be eventually controlling healthcare, and they're going to look to cut costs by ensuring the healthiest populace possible.

It's not some tin-foil hat wet dream.

Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.

All good and well until it's you or your family


I mean we even treat our combat wounded... how can we survive as a warrior species


Typical bullshit

Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones??

Yes because tomatoes=humans to some

The fundamental problem with eugenics is that it assumes more knowledge than we have.

Quoted: Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones?? Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way. But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate: I have 10 tomato plants. 10 out of 10 are defective. Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live?

If by "Gardener" you mean "God", that position ignores that man has already taken a driver's seat role in prolonging a life that would expire without artificial means. Those faiths that eschew all medicine in lieu of divine intervention are the only ones that are living your example.


As far as forced sterilization of welfare queens, I take a slightly less harsh position than some of you. I believe that some people genuinely need a helping hand, but a far greater number of recipients abuse the system. Therefore, it would be unduly punitive to require permanent sterilization in exchange for governmental assistance. What would be an equitable solution would be to require mandatory birth control for the duration of the subsidy. Also, bonus monies for additional children should be halted. A fixed amount of assistance should be set at the time of approval. Take away the bonus for having additional children, and it stops happening, or at the very least, curtails it dramatically.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones?? Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way. But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate: I have 10 tomato plants. 10 out of 10 are defective. Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live? If by "Gardener" you mean "God", that position ignores that man has already taken a driver's seat role in prolonging a life that would expire without artificial means. Those faiths that eschew all medicine in lieu of divine intervention are the only ones that are living your example.

So, you're likening the use of intelligence that some believe God gave us to use science and medicine to save and prolong life to Eugenics?  I get the feeling that anything except letting life and nature run it's course is Eugenics?   I don't believe that for a second.  Using science and medicine to take away freedoms from individuals, to force your will upon them by sterilazation, forced breeding, euthanasia or down right killing them is more along the lines of Eugenics.  Eugenics always supports an elitist attitude which by the standards of the Founding Fathers and everything that's written within our Constitution and legal documents would suggest that's a bad thing.  

Why not go back to giving BASIC provisions to meet the needs of the poor, along with the ability for education so they can get themselves OUT of their situation.  Not providing them fancy cars, cable TV and food stamp money that allows them to eat better than most people that earn their living.  When one wallers in the mud long enough, they'll start to desire a shower so they can be an active part of the community.  If they don't, that's their choice.  And their children will have a choice as well.  But you, nor does anyone have the choice or right to implement any stupid science project doomed to failure on them.

Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.

I've often thought about this. How many people alive today would be dead due to a genetic deficiency or vulnerability if it weren't for modern medicine. Then these people go on to have children with the same deficient genes. I don't necessarily think we need to start letting people die, but it is interesting to ponder.

Quoted: Quoted: Gattaca didn't show eugenics "run amok".  It showed a eugenics program that worked during the conception process. An eugenics program "run amok" would be one that is actively engaged in eliminating living people with bad traits from the race. You know,  like Hitler sending the Jews to be killed en masse. CJ Actually it showed a social and governmental system where people were constantly monitored and controlled to enforce a caste system where an individuals merit was determined by his genetic heritage. That is very much what Eugenics is all about.

That's not what eugenics is about at all. Eugenics doesn't determine a person's worth and it isn't about creating some master race.

Eugenics is about selective breeding (you know, like we do to animals to get certain desirable traits?). People with desirable traits (beauty, physical strength, intelligence, etc.) would be encouraged to breed more often, while people with undesirable traits (Down's Syndrome, certain cancers, cystic fibrosis, etc.) would encouraged not to breed. Obviously anyone who forces people to breed to spread desirable genes or forcibly prevents someone from breeding to avoid spreading undesirable genes is violating human rights. Selective breeding would have to be entirely voluntary to work, and offering people who have certain hereditary diseases cash incentives to be sterilized would go a long towards eliminating those diseases, at least within local gene pools (say, within a certain state or country).

Additionally, we can artificially tweak the genes of people to correct any errors in their DNA that would lead to birth defects, certain diseases, etc. and we can ensure that they're more likely to be physically fit than they would otherwise.

We've been practicing eugenics for millennia. We selectively breed animals (how do you think we got so many breeds of dogs? Or cattle?), modern medicine prevents some forms of selective breeding by ensuring that people who would normally die without reproducing (diabetics, asthmatics, etc.), or at least just die, continue to live relatively normal, healthy lives.

That's what modern eugenics is. Trying to make everyone healthier by eliminating genetic diseases and passing on genes that are more likely to make them resistant to illness and more physically fit. Unless someone is retarded enough to think person A is superior to person B because A is white and B is black, there is no reason for anyone to think I'm inferior to anyone else because I have the gene for terrible eyesight.

Whereas you and a bunch of other people are seemingly obsessed with science fiction and Nazis, where psuedo-scientific bullshit was used to justify racism. That's not eugenics. That's stupidity on a mass level. Eugenics is also NOT part of any socialist/communist/fascist philosophy. Eugenics is SCIENCE, not politics, and not social standards.

If your wife got pregnant and doctors told you your kid was going to be retarded and weakly, but there was gene therapy that could make him normal and strong, would you go for the treatment, or refuse it because it's evil eugenics?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones?? Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way. But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate: I have 10 tomato plants. 10 out of 10 are defective. Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live? If by "Gardener" you mean "God", that position ignores that man has already taken a driver's seat role in prolonging a life that would expire without artificial means. Those faiths that eschew all medicine in lieu of divine intervention are the only ones that are living your example.   So, you're likening the use of intelligence that some believe God gave us to use science and medicine to save and prolong life to Eugenics?  I get the feeling that anything except letting life and nature run it's course is Eugenics?   I don't believe that for a second.  Using science and medicine to take away freedoms from individuals, to force your will upon them by sterilazation, forced breeding, euthanasia or down right killing them is more along the lines of Eugenics.  Eugenics always supports an elitist attitude which by the standards of the Founding Fathers and everything that's written within our Constitution and legal documents would suggest that's a bad thing.   Why not go back to giving BASIC provisions to meet the needs of the poor, along with the ability for education so they can get themselves OUT of their situation.  Not providing them fancy cars, cable TV and food stamp money that allows them to eat better than most people that earn their living.  When one wallers in the mud long enough, they'll start to desire a shower so they can be an active part of the community.  If they don't, that's their choice.  And their children will have a choice as well.  But you, nor does anyone have the choice or right to implement any stupid science project doomed to failure on them.

I was responding to the poster whom I quoted. However, while its ends are not the same, there is no question that the application of medicine has changed the natural course of those to whom it is applied.

I am not an advocate of involuntary eugenics; what I proposed regarding birth control while on welfare is A- non-permanent and B- completely voluntary. If someone doesn't want to accept the birth control, they don't have to...but they won't get a hand out either.

Quoted: I am not an advocate of involuntary eugenics; what I proposed regarding birth control while on welfare is A- non-permanent and B- completely voluntary. If someone doesn't want to accept the birth control, they don't have to...but they won't get a hand out either.

I've seen this brought up a bit on this website:  in exchange for government hand-outs the recepients must be on monitored birth control.  This is part of the impetus for me wanting to see how many people here support full or partial Eugenics, since I see the issue skirted in a lot of threads.

Improving the quality of person that constitutes members of our society would greatly reduce the need for social programs such as Welfare, WIC/Food Stamps, HUD/Section 8 housing, et al.

I don't like abortion, I don't like welfare, I don't like unemployment, I don't like many forms of government hand-outs and I genuinely believe that there is a solution beyond "cut them off!" or "fuck 'em!  make 'em get jobs!" that so many seem to cry for.

Quoted: Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.   All good and well until it's you or your family I mean we even treat our combat wounded... how can we survive as a warrior species Typical bullshit

I don't think bullets and shrapnel wounds are hereditary.

Quoted: Quoted: I am not an advocate of involuntary eugenics; what I proposed regarding birth control while on welfare is A- non-permanent and B- completely voluntary. If someone doesn't want to accept the birth control, they don't have to...but they won't get a hand out either. I've seen this brought up a bit on this website:  in exchange for government hand-outs the recepients must be on monitored birth control.  This is part of the impetus for me wanting to see how many people here support full or partial Eugenics, since I see the issue skirted in a lot of threads. Improving the quality of person that constitutes members of our society would greatly reduce the need for social programs such as Welfare, WIC/Food Stamps, HUD/Section 8 housing, et al. I don't like abortion, I don't like welfare, I don't like unemployment, I don't like many forms of government hand-outs and I genuinely believe that there is a solution beyond "cut them off!" or "fuck 'em!  make 'em get jobs!" that so many seem to cry for.

The difference, though, is that your solution is permanent and irrevocable. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm guessing that if you served in the military, your outlook on life is certainly different than it was before joining, yes?

People change, grow, mature and their politics and philosophies grow and mature with them. Someone who is drifting through life without purpose and can't imagine having children today might very well be established and anxious to have them 10 years from now. A permanent solution to a temporary problem seems excessive.

Quoted: Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones?? Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way. But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate: I have 10 tomato plants. 10 out of 10 are defective. Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live?

I was gonna let you slide, but there was compunded, epic fail in that post.:

Line 1) Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way..
I never said they were.


Line 5ish) Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated?
No one (except you) said plants were determining anything.


Line 6) Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live?

A) The Gardner has given me skillz superior to the tomato, and positioned me higher atop the food chain.
B) Umm, dude- that's Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

thanx for playing.

Quoted: I predict this won't end well. IBTL. Every shot I've had was not by my choice. Vaccinations when I was a kid, my parents made me get. Vaccinations in the Navy, ordered. But I do support pre-natal care, so by your definition, I'm a partial supporter.

Well that is what happens when you twist and distort the meaning of words or concepts as the OP has. Vaccinations and pre-natal care do not nor ever have equaled eugenics.

Quoted: The fundamental problem with eugenics is that it assumes more knowledge than we have.

Well said, damn that was brilliant.

Nothing wrong with doing it voluntarily, but as soon as someone develops a superiority complex, then you have a problem.

Quoted: Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.   I've often thought about this. How many people alive today would be dead due to a genetic deficiency or vulnerability if it weren't for modern medicine. Then these people go on to have children with the same deficient genes. I don't necessarily think we need to start letting people die, but it is interesting to ponder.

one analogy is:

people keep falling off a cliff.
so we build a state of the art million dollar treatment/trauma hospital at the bottom of the cliff, instead of building a $500 fence at the top.

Quoted: This topic always generates a shitstorm here.  Too many simple minded fools who can't see that what we have created with modern medicine is assisted devolution.  We keep people who would have died in childhood alive, fix their congenital heart defects in infancy, keep people alive with medication for a lifetime when they would have died otherwise (diabetics, etc.).  Yet we aren't responsible enough to see that those who carry hereditary defective genes don't pass them on.

That and any small framed women who NEED a caesarean to have a child, else it gets stuck and the mother dies and so does the baby if it is not cut out of her.  (ok, a bit extreme, but hey, it's the intarweb)

Quoted: People running the show would naturally think their genes are the superior ones. There's no way i want to look like George Bush and im sure most of the ladies dont want to get mounted by that

Ah, but you'd mount his daughter, so.. that does illiustrate a possible downside to eugenics.  The obviously bad, that might be easy to pick out and eliminate, but the sublet imperfect might not be, and in fact maybe best left alone.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have 10 tomato plants in the garden 8 seem to be doing pretty well 2 seem to be stunted and aren't doing well at all do I ignore the 8 healthy ones and spend all my time and money trying to 'save' the 2 worst ones?? Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way. But if we wanted to use your anaology anyway, we'd have to tweak it a bit. Here, let me demonstrate: I have 10 tomato plants. 10 out of 10 are defective. Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live? I was gonna let you slide, but there was compunded, epic fail in that post.: Line 1) Tomato plants aren't equal to humans. Let's get that out of the way.. I never said they were. It has to be stated, because some people assume they are Line 5ish) Which plants get to determine which defects should result in death and which defects should be tolerated? No one (except you) said plants were determining anything. It was your idea to use plants for the anaology. Don't get whiny on me. Line 6) Edit: and more to the point, wouldn't it be wiser to let the Gardener detemrine which plants live? A) The Gardner has given me skillz superior to the tomato, and positioned me higher atop the food chain. What you're saying - whether you realize it or not - is that you're god. B) Umm, dude- that's Darwinism, survival of the fittest. And rational people don't fall for darwinism. thanx for playing.

I support the idea, but like communism, it's implementation would get messy..

Quoted: The fundamental problem with eugenics is that it assumes more knowledge than we have.

werd

some of the shit going in the labs across the world ought to scare the shit out of most intelligent non-scientist people.

Some fucking scientist is trying to produce creatures in labs that smack of the Island of Doctor Moreau.

Some food for thought...

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=716739

Quoted: Some food for thought... www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=716739

not really applicable to this discussion.