In defence of eugenics (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

I'm inclined to say that you have human rights if society collectively agrees to grant you human rights (moral nihilism, social construction, etc). There may be criteria attached, e.g. that it is a prerequisite that you possess a certain degree of self-awareness and conscious experience (such that a bee or a brainless fetus do not qualify), though they are bound to be ill-defined.

Well I always knew that YOUD be doubtful about universal human rights, so I count you as a friend and ally! Commence the festivities

 

[georgefren]

Haa.

Even if you were correct about the moral correctness of eugenics

how on earth do you propose carrying it out?
What if, say, the people involved dont particularly want to do it?

 

[KFunk]

Even if you were correct about the moral correctness of eugenics

how on earth do you propose carrying it out?
What if, say, the people involved dont particularly want to do it?

Dismantle the family unit. Children can be held in a communal creche and will refer to all those of previous generations as aunts/uncles, grandparents, etc. Partnerships between individuals of reproductive age will be selected by the philosophically trained ruling class who will match make couples according to their personal qualities and biological suitability.

 

[Iron]

Ultimately Hitler wanted to keep the gender pure

 

[prime-factor]

Eugenics as has already been pointed out is already occuring because people make personal decisions and choices as to who they mate with. This is in itself a very basic example of perpetuating advantageous traits. I guess it is human instinct to choose the best mate , but that is different for many people.

When Eugenics becomes a no-choice regime, where people must obey (e.g. sterilization) I think the implications are extremely dangerous.

The real danger here is mass population control. Eugenics operations are almost always aimed to drastically reduce a large portion of a particular group in a population (race, ethnicity etc, basically a group).

So, I am totally against it. It is wrong in my opinion.

Edit: As to intelligence being genetically influenced. From any race there will be intelligences of low-> average, above average, gifted, highly gifted and genius people. Hence, it is wrong to single out and control a group based on the presumption that they are genetically pre-disposed to lower intelligence. Also it is not intelligence in many cases, it is education and access to information that we take for granted.

 

[prime-factor]

"It's important to remember, even if group differences in racial intelligence are proven, and even if we begin to breed superior human traits, it in no way invalidates the universal nature of human rights."

The Pandora's box is where does this stop, is there a cut-off point for superior. On the surface, theoretically this is an intriguing concept. Superiority and the idea of continuing this advantageous human trait is already occurring, but it seems a draconian concept in many ways. But this is yet furthering elitist doctrine and dogma, where people ignore those who they believe are less intelligent. On a social level this will create a major bridge between rich and poor and further gap between.

 

[Graney]

oxymoron is a statement which contradicts itself (often comes in 2 words) ie. pretty ugly, bitter sweet

Thanks for the year 12 english lesson.

I was asking, where in my post was there an oxymoron?

When Eugenics becomes a no-choice regime, where people must obey (e.g. sterilization) I think the implications are extremely dangerous.

The real danger here is mass population control. Eugenics operations are almost always aimed to drastically reduce a large portion of a particular group in a population (race, ethnicity etc, basically a group).

Yeah, of course if it lead to a compromise of freedom, it would be an absolute evil.

However you're again committing the fallacy of proposition x (eugenics) must equal proposition y (fascism). The two are not linked and you can have eugenics free of facism and a society in which people were free to participate in eugenics would not necessarily mandate the government must control it and enforce it upon people.

Edit: As to intelligence being genetically influenced. From any race there will be intelligences of low-> average, above average, gifted, highly gifted and genius people. Hence, it is wrong to single out and control a group based on the presumption that they are genetically pre-disposed to lower intelligence. Also it is not intelligence in many cases, it is education and access to information that we take for granted.

Sure there are individual differences, and the existence of individual differences and the capacity for ordinary individuals to rise above and excel is an important reason why even in a society practicing eugenics, all individuals should be equal given opportunities based on merit.

However this does not mean population level differences do not exist or are not significant. Just because you may have some white sprinters who excel, does not mean there are not population level differences favouring physical fitness and strength in black athletes. The same may be true of intelligence and warrants further testing.

 

[prime-factor]

"However you're again committing the fallacy of proposition x (eugenics) must equal proposition y (fascism). The two are not linked and you can have eugenics free of facism and a society in which people were free to participate in eugenics would not necessarily mandate the government must control it and enforce it upon people."

First of. Hello . You make some excellent points, but if we look at the historical evidence it becomes quite obvious that nearly every eugenics operation starts off as an optional operation and then becomes forced on the populous. And going off history nearly every fascist totalitarian regime involved major eugenics operations (mass-slaughter, sterilization + more).

In regards to the government not necessarily controlling and enforcing it. Again, if we look at history this has nearly always been the case. Also eugenics would require huge funding, the essence of which only government or government-linked corporations could dedicate. Where is the money to keep eugenics going without government (or a governing body) going to come from. Also the legality of certain eugenics would rely on government rules and laws.

I am 100% for free choice. But I am also 100% for learning from the past. Eugenics, thus far has been devastating and in many case tragic.


"However this does not mean population level differences do not exist or are not significant. Just because you may have some white sprinters who excel, does not mean there are not population level differences favouring physical fitness and strength in black athletes. The same may be true of intelligence and warrants further testing."

That is correct. But population differences are nearly always based on levels of education. People in the poorest parts of Africa have IQ's of 70 > x because they have never been educated in the way that Western culture has. We base these so called 'significant differences' based on the cultural aspects of a society.

 

[Graney]

First of. Hello

Hi

And going off history nearly every fascist totalitarian regime involved major eugenics operations (mass-slaughter, sterilization + more).

Sterilization of political enemies does not equal eugenics. Name one totalitarian state, other than Nazi Germany that practiced eugenics. There may well be one or two exceptions I'm unaware of, but to say "nearly every... totalitarian regime" is an exaggeration.

Also, eugenics was popular everywhere in the early twentieth century, just like colonialism and other things we now consider absolutely evil. I can name a dozen Western democracies, including Australia and the USA, that practiced forced eugenics. Morality changed post WW2.

Citing moral opposition to any principle using primary evidence based on example of pre-WW2 governance is flawed. Too much has changed since then, the moral framework has completely shifted and you can't cite historical precedent from Pre-ww2 as strong evidence. Things are different. These mistakes will never be repeated.

The biggest change is individualism wasn't the powerful motivating force, Pre-ww2, that it is now. Pre-WW2 it was all about god, king and country. It was completely acceptable to sacrifice individuals for the good of the nation. Now the individual is everything, and that has now become inviolable. The individual is the cult and god of our age. Forced, unnecessary medical procedures for population level benefits will never be acceptable in the West again.

Totalitarianism is dead forever in the West. Freedom won.

Also eugenics would require huge funding, the essence of which only government or government-linked corporations could dedicate.

Individuals will gladly fund designer babies, enhanced offspring, selective breeding etc...

That is correct. But population differences are nearly always based on levels of education. People in the poorest parts of Africa have IQ's of 70 > x because they have never been educated in the way that Western culture has. We base these so called 'significant differences' based on the cultural aspects of a society.

I accept the research is controversial, mixed and unproven, but these respected scientists are claiming their findings show the differences in IQ levels go beyond what would be expected by environmental explanations alone, and a biological difference is a likely explanation.
Arthur Jensen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nobel prize winner and DNA pioneer James Watson is a supporter of this research.

I have no prejudice in this regard, but their research is valid and rigorous and their ideas deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[Graney]

Repository for Germinal Choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Klark Graham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classic.

 

[prime-factor]

'Sterilization of political enemies does not equal eugenics.'

That seems like a contradiction to me? (forced sterilization because of undesirability?)

Throughout history many mass-slaughterings have taken place. This is in itself a form of eugenics. I could name the countries. But it would take up the page.

'Totalitarianism is dead forever in the West. Freedom won.'

Of course. Our rights and freedoms are so well protected?. You're intelligent enough to be aware of 'free-speech zones', internet censorship plans, the propaganda perpetuated by governments?. The seeds of despotism are growing at our own door.

'Individuals will gladly fund designer babies, enhanced offspring, selective breeding etc...'

Good Point. But I still think that government would be fully involved.

'I accept the research is controversial, mixed and unproven, but these respected scientists are claiming their findings show the differences in IQ levels go beyond what would be expected by environmental explanations alone, and a biological difference is a likely explanation.
Arthur Jensen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nobel prize winner and DNA pioneer James Watson is a supporter of this research.

I have no prejudice in this regard, but their research is valid and rigorous and their ideas deserve to be taken seriously. '

Fair enough. I can't disagree about this. I guess further studies should be carried out on this.


What sort of eugenics would you like to see?

 

[binary star]

Plato supported the use of eugenics.

 

[Graney]

'Sterilization of political enemies does not equal eugenics.'

That seems like a contradiction to me? (forced sterilization because of undesirability?)

Eugenics is the practice of directing human evolution.
Sterilizing your political enemies is torture and punishment. State political enemies are not typically composed of a limited genetic range.

Sterilizing your political enemies has nothing to do with selective breeding.
It's got nothing to do with eugenics.

Throughout history many mass-slaughterings have taken place. This is in itself a form of eugenics. I could name the countries. But it would take up the page.

A mass slaughter is not eugenics, unless you mass slaughter people who possess a limited range of genetic traits. Any mass slaughter that was not an attempted genocide, is not a form of eugenics.
But that is plainly a rather different, extreme, and unconscionable thing, from the simple selective breeding and engineering we're endorsing here. It's not a fine line. Government's won't suddenly slip from endorsing selection for positive human traits to endorsing mass slaughter.

There is a moral chasm a mile wide between the two principles.

Of course. Our rights and freedoms are so well protected?. You're intelligent enough to be aware of 'free-speech zones', internet censorship plans, the propaganda perpetuated by governments?. The seeds of despotism are growing at our own door.

Comparisons between Australian internet censorship and genuine totalitarian regimes are idiotic. Slippery slope arguments are rubbish.

What sort of eugenics would you like to see?

Selection against whatever creates 9/11 truthers.

 

[Silver Persian]

But seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

 

[Enteebee]

But seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

Only those whom are healthy should be born.

 

[Silver Persian]

The breeding out of all homosexuals.

I'm not sure that homosexuality is a biological trait sir.

And by sir I mean you fucking cunt.

 

[prime-factor]

Eugenics is the practice of directing human evolution.
Sterilizing your political enemies is torture and punishment. State political enemies are not typically composed of a limited genetic range.

Sterilizing your political enemies has nothing to do with selective breeding.
It's got nothing to do with eugenics.


A mass slaughter is not eugenics, unless you mass slaughter people who possess a limited range of genetic traits. Any mass slaughter that was not an attempted genocide, is not a form of eugenics.
But that is plainly a rather different, extreme, and unconscionable thing, from the simple selective breeding and engineering we're endorsing here. It's not a fine line. Government's won't suddenly slip from endorsing selection for positive human traits to endorsing mass slaughter.

There is a moral chasm a mile wide between the two principles.


Comparisons between Australian internet censorship and genuine totalitarian regimes are idiotic. Slippery slope arguments are rubbish.


Selection against whatever creates 9/11 truthers.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

That sounds like direction of human evolution to me. Sterilizing people is eugenics, because you are directing human evolution by having control over who can bread and who cannot. That's just obvious. How can you deny that. Whether 'politically' motivated or not.

And you're probably right. I am not aware of any government in history engaging in eugenics or mass-slaughters or genocide. That sounds so outlandish. I always trust my government very much, so there is no problem at all.

Also, 'positive' human traits. Thanks God, I was needing someone to decide what they were.

 

[Graney]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

That sounds like direction of human evolution to me.

Yeah, sure it is, I didn't deny this, at least for the racial/ethnic part.

Genocide is a type of eugenics, but not all eugenics is genocide. Don't be so black and white about things.

Sterilizing people is eugenics, because you are directing human evolution by having control over who can bread and who cannot. That's just obvious. How can you deny that. Whether 'politically' motivated or not.

No, it's not if you're doing it on the basis of political views and not genetic traits. Sterilizing all marxists is not eugenics.

And you're probably right. I am not aware of any government in history engaging in eugenics or mass-slaughters or genocide.

Where did I say those things didn't happen?

Genocide is a type of eugenics, but not all eugenics is genocide. Don't be so black and white about things.

Also, 'positive' human traits. Thanks God, I was needing someone to decide what they were.

Some people are born inherently better than others in all sorts of measureable, quantifiable ways.

 

[tommykins]

Thanks for the year 12 english lesson.

I was asking, where in my post was there an oxymoron?

oic my bad.

 

[KFunk]

First off. Hello . You make some excellent points, but if we look at the historical evidence it becomes quite obvious that nearly every eugenics operation starts off as an optional operation and then becomes forced on the populous. And going off history nearly every fascist totalitarian regime involved major eugenics operations (mass-slaughter, sterilization + more).

In regards to the government not necessarily controlling and enforcing it. Again, if we look at history this has nearly always been the case. Also eugenics would require huge funding, the essence of which only government or government-linked corporations could dedicate. Where is the money to keep eugenics going without government (or a governing body) going to come from. Also the legality of certain eugenics would rely on government rules and laws.

I am 100% for free choice. But I am also 100% for learning from the past. Eugenics, thus far has been devastating and in many case tragic.

Consideration of the past can be valuable, but in this case you are using faulty logic to extrapolate from the past. You seem to argue in two directions: (1) that fascist regimes always feature eugenics and (2) that benign eugenics always leads to a troublesome fascist form

On (1), consider other things which are associated with facist regimes:
- Some (any!) form of government
- Armed force
- Drug use in the populace

The fact that they are associated should not be seen as a mark against them. Fascist regimes use logic and no doubt they need some semblance of a healthcare system (--> reductio ad absurdum). It seems a mistake to suggest that association, in and of itself, is a black mark.

On (2), I note that you say "nearly all", suggesting that benign forms of eugenics do exist (and if you cannot argue 'always' then you don't really have a case against eugenics per se - only certain forms). A fairly simple example is prenatal screening used by women to screen for genetic and morphological disorders, allowing them to terminate the pregnancy if they so wish. Such programs do not need to be government funded - they can take place in the context of a private healthcare system. In this case funding for eugenics comes from the people. Provided that abortion of the normal fetus is permitted (say, up to 24 wks) them legislation regarding termination following screening can be fairly simple.

Pre-implantation genetic screening in IVF is a fairly similar example which leads you into the territory of 'designer babies'. I would expect uptake of such technology to be consumer, rather than government, driven.