Do you agree contrary to some people that eugenics is actually moral because it eliminate human suffering?

[foxsquirrell]

Imagine if we could engineer future generations to be more attractive and intelligent people.
That is eugenics as far as I know.
Some people think it is immoral. Because they say things like every person regardless of any physical and intellectual characteristics has his or her dignity. Every person is beautiful the way he or she is. And all these psychological bandages. :/

But if you think about it, whats better than being attractive and intelligent to make you feel good, and have a happy and worthwhile life?

Eugenics can give this to people. To future generations. And so contrary to being immoral it is moral (very moral), because it eliminates people's suffering!
What is immoral is letting humans suffer and do nothing about it!

If it can happen or not is a different issue. At this stage we are asking ourselves IF such a thing like eugenics exists will you be in favor of it?

I think presently it is possible to some degree with genetic engineering, and the idea of eugenics if it takes hold can be further developed to a high degree of efficacy. Thereby achieve a noble goal for the future of humanity.

Yes I agree with eugenics

No I disagree with eugenics

[jshm2]

TBH the reason we laugh at people like you is that what you are saying is what every generation before that practiced eugenics has said, and they all failed.

There just is no way you can decouple eugenics from discrimination and bigotry of some sort.

In fact it's particularly funny this generation. What you are pigheadedly suggesting under your eugenics theory would have lead to Dr Steven Hawking being "aborted" as he was neither "pretty" nor of "good health".

Given the choice, people would rather abort you, than Hawking.

[Soteris]

Eugenics, even if you ignore all the immoral parts of it, is really fucking stupid. This is especially true today when we can literally genetically engineer ourselves to a theoretically perfect degree without ever having to rely on something as unreliable and inefficient as "breeding".

So regardless of your opinions of Eugenics, its a thoroughly obsolete idea that should just roll into the nearest ditch and die in a fire.

[foxsquirrell]

Is breeding that inefficient? Selective breeding seems to work pretty well with dogs for example?

[Soteris]

Yes it is incredibly inefficient and dog breeding has been quite the failure considering the sorry state we have left them in. The amount of genetic diseases in dog breeds is horrific.

[OlderAndWiser]

So you cut off the balls or ovaries of every person who some exalted somebody deems to be unworthy of reproduction? Who makes that decision; Joe BIden's Minister of Truth?

[foxsquirrell]

That's a good idea for the human race.

[OlderAndWiser]

1. Freedom and autonomy are bad ideas for the human race?

2. How do we decide who is attractive enough to reproduce?

[foxsquirrell]

The how we think about it later. Right now the question is if you agree with the concept or not.
Assuming that we can at least find ways to improve the future generations would you agree with it or not?

[OlderAndWiser]

No, I do not agree to concepts without knowing how they will be implemented. Do you understand the difference between Communism and the USSR?

[foxsquirrell]

Yes I do. But what has that got to do with what I am saying?
I do not think your logic is correct to compare what I am discussing with what you just said.

[foxsquirrell]

What do you understand by the way by the term implemented? You mean how it will work?

[OlderAndWiser]

Communism is an appealing social philosophy but every time someone tries to implement it on a large scale, it turns into an opporessive dictatorship. So I'm not gping to agree to a theory because it sounds good in theory; I want to know how it's actually going to be implemented.

Eugenics is often used as a means of political control and oppression. Think abot what an enormous power it is to decide that a man or a woman will not be allowed to ever have children. Don't you see the enormous potential for abuse?

[foxsquirrell]

That's is true. Abuse is reprehensible. And I strongly disagree with it. We must not jump to conclusions however, and think that eugenics will be this way. After all we can start slow improving the population a little, and continue from there. That example of communism and abuse should not be made as the blue print to what will always happen. The world has limited resources and unless you want a garden to be taken over by weeds, one must take care of it. To hell these sweeping statements of human rights and all.

[NamerOfStars]

I'd tell you to go read Chesterton on the subject (in fact, I will: go read Chesterton on the subject), but the obvious rebuttal is much more succinct: if you think that having a narrow range in the genetic lines of your population is a good thing, why not go find the Pautexet, and ask them how that worked for THEM. Or the Mississppians. Or the Cherokee. Or the Blackfoot. Or...

[foxsquirrell]

Why do you equate eugenics with a narrow range of genetics?

[NamerOfStars]

Because that's the exact definition of what it is. Genes aren't Legos.

[OldWorldOrder]

Eugenics is the correct position simply because strength is better than weakness. Capability is better than in incapability.

There are very real logical reasons why eugenics is correct and dysgenics is incorrect. It's about a much bigger picture than "human suffering," or whatever. Those are just emotions.

[foxsquirrell]

Emotions which support what you said, that strength is better than weakness.

[BayTiger]

Killing someone because you don’t like their genes is immoral. There’s nothing attractive or intelligent about such barbaric behavior. A lot of brilliant but disabled people like Stephen Hawkins would have been culled if the eugenicists had their way.

[foxsquirrell]

Stephen Hawking is one in a million. On the whole it would be beneficial for the human race, and so yes moral. As the saying goes, and as nature law is, you have to be cruel to be kind. This overdose of morality is eroding the strength of the human race.

[BayTiger]

All geniuses are one in a million. The human race would still be significantly worse off Einstein didn’t escape Hitler’s eugenics program. Who’s to say you wouldn’t have killed Galileo due to some flaw in his appearance?

Last time I checked there are no gas chambers in nature. Murdering people like Einstein based some dictator’s opinion of his heritage is immoral and stupid. And yes, people like Einstein will be murdered because eugenicists always base their programs on useless features like mode shape and eye color. Plenty of brilliant people are descendants of those you would deem unfit for society too.

[foxsquirrell]

On the whole it would be better. There will be a better Einstein and a better Galileo etc. Those are just examples. I'm talking on the whole effect. And I am not suggesting we kill anyone who is already born.
Time will take care of those.

[Cubus]

Dr. Mengele was doing eugenics in Auschwitz. Do you believe he was eliminating human suffering?

Hitler's Germany also wanted to make "future generations to be more attractive and intelligent people" by exterminating Jews. Do you support it?

[foxsquirrell]

I dont know what Mengele was doing in Auschwitz. But I think I read once he was experimenting on twins for one thing who were already born. Nothing to do what I am talking about.
Hitlers's Germany had a good goal if it intended to improve future generations. The Jews being exterminated is not eugenics, its not wanting a particular group of people not to exist anymore.
Again nothing to do with what I said. You are just throwing here whatever first things come to your mind.

[ChrisWaters]

It isn't often that you find good looks and superior intelligence in the same person.
They would have to have separate breeds of physically hot people, and nerdy looking geniuses which is basically what already exists.

[humanearth]

That's humans playing God and I'm against eugenics and bioengineering.

[foxsquirrell]

Why are you against it? Nobody is going to kill anyone already born. Its only the future generation which we are trying to improve here.

[MagicCarpet1]

It has already happened. The purebloods will carry on human's legacy.

[msc545]

No, you cannot "engineer" this; have a look at the statistical concept of "regression to the mean". Eugenics has never worked and never will.

[foxsquirrell]

But do you agree with it if it worked?

[msc545]

Of course not.

[notwoke]

we're doing the exact opposite right now by financially incentivizing the least productive among us to breed at everyone else's expense.

[foxsquirrell]

Exactly! You are right!

[OddBeMe]

Eugenics can't do that because genes don't work that way. Its been disproven.

You'd have a better argument with DNA manipulation.

[foxsquirrell]

By eugenics I understand ANYTHING which can improve the genetic make up of future generations.
Selective breeding is also an example. They do it a lot with some animals already.
If that is not the definition of eugenics, I am clarifying here and now what I meant by it.

[OddBeMe]

No like Freudian is different from Jungian. There are multiple branches of science.

And eugenics was a branch that spawned a lot of 20th century horribleness so I would change your language. Just call it Genetics.

There are real arguments being had about it similar to this. How much can/should parents engineer the genes of their child. Is it right to give birth to a child that could have had the chance to be rid of a genetic illness? Is it wrong to abort a child because you know it will be mentally handicapped?