Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/27/2008 4:32:45 PM EST
I memorized the definition for Eugenics many years ago:


Breeding an improved human species through purposefully directed evolution.


Eugenics deals with many aspects of obstetrics and virology along with various other medical programs.

All pre-natal care, vaccination, etc is an extention of Eugenics, but many people seem to associate the term with the wholesale killing off of "undesireables" and forced sterilization. The misuse of Eugenics notwithstanding, every tool can be misused, and as a group of gun owners I would think that most of us would acknowledge that the tool is not to blame for crimes, but the criminal that uses the implement in a criminal fashion.

That being said, how many here support Eugenics? If you've ever had a shot, and weren't forced to do so, then you're pretty much a supporter of Eugenics whether you know it or not.

I've been thinking for years that a good program to help Eugenics (and to stave off the prophetic dysgenics displayed in the almost-documentary "Idiocracy") is to offer any American citizen over the age of 18 $10,000 in cash, tax free, to volunteer to become permanently and irreversably sterilized.

My reason for thinking this would be a good endeavor is simple: only stupid people would accept this offer. Only people that have no desire to breed ( thus removing a majority of abortions from existence or necessity ), people with no desire to propagate their genetics ( violating their most basic animal instinct, obviously a sign of other defects ), and people with poor impulse-control ( which would make shitty parents and raise hooligans or give them up for adoption or get an abortion ) would jump at this program.

I'm almost certain that violent crime would drop within a generation after this program's implementation along with a reduction in the US prison population (due to fewer younger criminals coming into the system) along with a surplus of tax revenue from the freed-up funds from juvenile courts, juvenile detention, foster systems, subsidized abortions/family planning programs, etc.

The quality of life for all Americans would increase while preventing many negative influences from being introduced into society, but without actually harming or killing anyone.

I'm interested in the percentages of supporters and detractors along with a dissection of the benefits and any unforseen negative impacts this would have.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:36:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 4:38:52 PM EST by Maccrage]
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:38:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Maccrage:
I predict this won't end well. IBTL.


Why would say this ?? Just curious as to why ??

5sub
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:42:52 PM EST
I've saved this thread...wanna see the outcome.



Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:43:55 PM EST
Hitler and Margaret Sanger thought eugenics were great, so that kind of gives me guidance on what to think about it.

And let's not forget the product of eugenics..........

Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:45:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
Hitler and Margaret Sanger thought eugenics were great, so that kind of gives me guidance on what to think about it.

And let's not forget the product of eugenics..........



+1
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:47:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
Hitler and Margaret Sanger thought eugenics were great, so that kind of gives me guidance on what to think about it.

And let's not forget the product of eugenics..........



Hitler also liked bolt-action rifles and 9mm submachineguns while disliking chemical weapons.

So you hate what he likes and like what he hates?
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:49:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 4:49:45 PM EST by N1Rampage]
It's a fun little concept that delves between pseudo-science and academia. It was initially a fluke of interest and little 'hard' proof behind it. Some stuff about it is interesting and makes for good SciFi or fiction. Due to complexities in the gnome and nature always finding a way, it's fairly debunked. But still fun to fathom about; such as the Star Trek eugenics wars or in social comedies like Idocracry. Making things better and better is a quality that most Westerners strive for, so why not make people better and better? Oh well. Fun subject. Bad science. Inhumane results.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:49:25 PM EST
Interesting.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:50:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By PFC-Demon:

Originally Posted By raven:
Hitler and Margaret Sanger thought eugenics were great, so that kind of gives me guidance on what to think about it.

And let's not forget the product of eugenics..........



Hitler also liked bolt-action rifles and 9mm submachineguns while disliking chemical weapons.

So you hate what he likes and like what he hates?


Oh give me a break.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:51:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 4:52:45 PM EST by macman37]
Getting a shot does not equate to believing in Eugenics.

edit: Why do I get the feeling this will become a thinly veiled racial superiority screed? ("because we all got innoculated unwittingly as babies we should believe in the Ubermensch...")
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:51:15 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:54:10 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:56:43 PM EST
The poor are just stupid enough to fuck up their lives, but smart enough to milk the system. Your typical welfare queen knows that getting her tubes tied for 1,000 is a short term gain. Better to have a dozen kids and collect government assistance.

What we should do is offer first time offenders an option, prison or sterilization. Of course, that would actually benefit society, so liberals would legally block it from happening.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 4:57:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:04:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:11:57 PM EST
I support the idea, however, in actuall usage, some very bad things have been done in the name of it, over the last hundred years. not just the nazis either, some of the shit was done here in the good ol' USA.

You can say "person X is mor fit to reproduce than person Y" however, when the Zombie Apocalyps happenes, or when SARS or Bird Flu crosses over, you really don't know who will be more "fit" to survive.

So, i think it is a noble idea, but people should reproduce at random...


With that said, it would be nice to have a breeding program, to produce a super human. volluntary of course.


I vollunteer to donate my sperm to some lucky lady...
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:13:42 PM EST
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??

Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:14:54 PM EST
If you were a multi-billionare it might make for an interesting hobby.

Set up a foundation offering $10,000 to selected applicants who fill out an application, meet your requirements, and let themselves be sterilized in one of your offices.

Then you could use the app to try your eugenics experament.

Just make the app a basic IQ test. Advertise the program heavily in the poor communities.

It'd be a sick depraved thing, but it would be interesting to see if you could have any impact.

Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:15:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zan:
The poor are just stupid enough to fuck up their lives, but smart enough to milk the system. Your typical welfare queen knows that getting her tubes tied for 1,000 is a short term gain. Better to have a dozen kids and collect government assistance.

What we should do is offer first time offenders an option, prison or sterilization. Of course, that would actually benefit society, so liberals would legally block it from happening.


vascetomy or tubal ligation for a free plasma TV



just sayin...
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:16:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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 thought British socialized medicine had done much to right those wrongs.

5sub
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:16:46 PM EST

I don't think we're smart enough to direct our own evolution. We would make selfish choices that would not be in the best interests of our species.

Minor genetic tinkering is one thing (okay, I'll erase the Asthma gene from my offspring if possible) but full-on eugenics is quite another.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:18:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
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??




You gotta be CRAZY to try and grow tomatoes in Texas and Oklahoma !!

5sub
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:23:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
I don't think we're smart enough to direct our own evolution. We would make selfish choices that would not be in the best interests of our species.

Minor genetic tinkering is one thing (okay, I'll erase the Asthma gene from my offspring if possible) but full-on eugenics is quite another.


I believe ultimately we must direct if we're to survive as a specie. Eventually we must travel in space and our present form does not travel well in that environment.



5sub
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:26:11 PM EST
I disagree with what you think falls under the topic of eugenics. Medicine in general does not have to be classified as eugenics unless its use is discriminatory. If medicine is available to all, then there is no attempt to improve the species, only an attempt to prolong the lives of individuals. Medical treatment does not have anything to do with evolution IMO.

I also think your program sucks, and trying to rationalize it by broadening the definition of eugenics is low.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:32:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By PFC-Demon:

Originally Posted By raven:
Hitler and Margaret Sanger thought eugenics were great, so that kind of gives me guidance on what to think about it.

And let's not forget the product of eugenics..........



Hitler also liked bolt-action rifles and 9mm submachineguns while disliking chemical weapons.

So you hate what he likes and like what he hates?


Oh give me a break.


Seriously. I don't trust the human race from here to my monitor as far as fucking with our evolution goes.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:34:41 PM EST
Normally, I would say "Not just no, but Hell no!"

However, I just switched off the T.V., and I say "Can't happen quickly enough".
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:36:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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.


qft
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:41:19 PM EST
For the record vaccination runs directly counter to eugenics. Eugenics would seek to produce a race that is naturally resistant to disease. Vaccination provides an individual with artificial immunity to a particular pathogen. This immunity is not inheritable and is therefore of no benefit to the gene pool. In point of fact vaccination protects weaker specimens from the ravages of natural selection so that they can reproduce and damage the gene pool.

Anybody wishing to see a dramatization of Eugenics run amok should look up the movie "Gattaca".
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:45:47 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:46:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
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??




You gotta be CRAZY to try and grow tomatoes in Texas and Oklahoma !!

5sub


oddly enough, some varieties do well here and others don't.



Plant the Celebrity variety.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:49:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By swede1986:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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.


qft


There is always plenty of time for people to die. Culling events come along pretty frequently in human history. Might as well act civilized in the lulls in between.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:53:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
I don't think we're smart enough to direct our own evolution. We would make selfish choices that would not be in the best interests of our species.

Minor genetic tinkering is one thing (okay, I'll erase the Asthma gene from my offspring if possible) but full-on eugenics is quite another.


As chairborne already pointed out, we do direct our evolution in a way by allowing those who would otherwise die to continue existing.

I have benefited from modern medicine myself, as everyone with access to it has. I wouldn't be here without it, as I had my appendix removed when I was 15.

Link Posted: 5/27/2008 5:58:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 6:00:37 PM EST by Tony7189]
Sure lets throw the degenerate newborns off a cliff; better yet lets terminate them in the womb, lets sterilize all the undesirables after we round them all up, 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!
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:00:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tony7189:
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:02:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By PFC-Demon:

Originally Posted By Tony7189:
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.
Sorry just something that i feel strongly about. I can see the benifits that something like eugenics could have for humanity but I also feel that going down that path would kill the humanity in us all.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:04:23 PM EST

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??

They might taste better.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:05:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
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??


well played.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:08:45 PM EST
when it comes to human eugenics - I have some issues with it. Its one thing to discourage incest - or parents who are of high risk for certain genetic diseases.

The problem is who says which traits are good or bad? Ever see the movie GATACA? Excellent examples where you have your genetically tweaked humans vs natural borns and a whole caste type system arises.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:12:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:14:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
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??

originally posted by Lon_Moer: well played.

originally posted by 1paintball: They might taste better
Touch`e!!
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:14:17 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:19:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By postpostban:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
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?
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:21:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
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??




You gotta be CRAZY to try and grow tomatoes in Texas and Oklahoma !!

5sub


oddly enough, some varieties do well here and others don't.



Plant the Celebrity variety.


Porter and Romas do well. Most Italian tomatoes, actually, do pretty well.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:28:17 PM EST
Monsanto has opened up Pandora`s Box for us, we will soon see if they were smart enough to play God and not have the Earth suffer the consequences of unintended results, unfortunately, once the engineered genes are released, there is no calling them back.
Anybody care to shoot some craps?
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:29:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:30:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1paintball:

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??

They might taste better.

They very well may. But can you risk the production from 8 seeminly healthy plants to prop up the 2 substandard ones???



If you spend$100,000 on treatment for 1 'special' kid, that means 1000 other kids may receive no treatment at all.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:36:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 6:47:27 PM EST by 1paintball]

If you spend$100,000 on treatment for 1 'special' kid, that means 1000 other kids may receive no treatment at all.
I would eliminate people with no empathy from the gene pool, Sociopathy is not a desirable trait. (inside joke!)
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:39:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/27/2008 6:45:00 PM EST by 1paintball]

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.
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:40:11 PM EST
I don't know about all you degenerates, but I'm perfect.

And so are my offspring.






-3D
Link Posted: 5/27/2008 6:51:10 PM EST

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?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top