This seems to employ a definition of eugenics that different from any I have encountered.
I have always understood eugenics, (liteally “good births”), to be the attempt to shape future society by reducing or eliminating undesirable members from successive generations, not an effort to sweep away those who are undesirable, now. (Certainly, the Nazis made an effort to “purify” their society, but eugenics was only one of several efforts in which they engaged to that end. I have never heard Auschwitz or Einsatzgruppen associated with eugenics, per se.)
Humans have always practiced basic eugenics themselves, without needing any “help” from fools with their own agenda. Less than half of all men who ever existed left descendants (over 80% of women did, by the way). And funnily enough, the promoters of eugenics always seemed ot have in mind that obviously the things they liked were genetically better than the rest somehow, even when it was fairly success-neutral thigns like skin color, height, or whatnot. They assumed that such things correlated to intelligence or health, but it didn’t.
So for anyone who likes Eugenics, let me ask you: how exactly are you going to do better than people’s own evolutionary choices? Second, what exactly do you want more of, and how far exactly are you willing to go to see it done?
(tomndebb, this means you, too. Maybe you especially. I don’t trust the nice eugenicists any mroe than the cruel ones, because what you leave out is that Hitler started with the weak and “unfit” in his eyes, and even the kindly-seeming Progressive bastards lied, cheated, and sterilized their way to their pseudo-paradise.)
Since we’re imagining a genetically engineered paper utopia, it’s easy to imagine one in which the grunt work is parcelled out to its citizens on a temporary equal basis. Even in the real world, lots of countries require military service from their populations.
Having an intelligent person collect garbage would have all sorts of advantages, including them figuring out more efficient routes and having fewer accidents.
Also, you’ve gone from genetic engineering to eliminate defects and promote general improvement to a world where “everyone is a genetic clone with identical abilities.” The two are not remotely similar.
What do you think eugenics means, anyhow? Killing the elderly is not going to affect the gene pool a hell of a lot, with the possible exception of Pablo Picasso.
But I agree about the diaper changing machine. Lots of intelligence applied to any problem is likely to improve it, and we all know that engineering Ph.Ds are the nicest people.
You know, I really don’t have a problem with Eugenics…it’s kind of like Communism…looks great on paper but can’t be done in reality.
The main problem with Eugenics is that ‘someone’ is going to have to make a decision on what to select for. They will, most likely, tend to vaue things that are like them and devalue things that are not like them. Much like the executive of a company or Dean of Education sitting in their office thinking about who to lay off or who to fire and replace with someone cheaper. They hardly ever say…“You know…I should lay me off…that would be a good decision” or “You know, I could fire me and replace myself with someone who makes half what I do…that would be good for the company”. No, they tend to think they are irreplaceable and that OTHERS should be culled.
So, you will have a group of people calling the shots on Eugenics and I bet…just bet…that they will consider their characteristics ‘desireable’ and others not so much.
Required testing is absolutely okay as it doesn’t force anyone to do anything once they get that information. Forcible sterilization in the rest of these scenarios is obviously wrong, but how would you feel about temporarily halting their ability to have kids? For instance, what if welfare were available to anyone who needed it for up to 1 year and anyone willing to get an IUD for up to 4 years? Is this a problem because it encourages people to behave in a certian way or is it totally acceptable because it isn’t a permanent change?
I’m glad you are that confident in the government’s use of such information. Don’t you remember the uproar against the idea of compulsory testing for HIV and the reasons behind it?
Actually no, I don’t. I’m young enough that I never really heard anything about that. I think there is a huge difference between testing for HIV and testing for tay sachs though.
The problem is what is done with the info. Even if the government has the best will in the world (which I highly doubt) they are basically incompetent with information, and people rightly fear their compulsory test information would get into the hands of health and life insurance companies. Back in the dim and distant past (the 1980s) there were stories of people being refused life insurance for having HIV tests, even if they were negative, as the insurance company felt the act of getting tested made you a higher risk category.
Think of it as cultural eugenics, if you like, since I believe that human cultural evolution is a more important and immediate influence on humans than genetic.
I am not recommending euthanasia for the elderly. I am talking about using things like Norplant to affect people based on their behaviors rather than their genes.
I thought there was a case some years ago, where some criminal was paroled on the condition that he be sterilized, or something similar. IIRC, he had dozens of children and wasn’t paying child support for any of them. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. But it is limited mostly to preventing reproduction based on reproductive-related behavior - not having more children when you are on welfare, for instance - rather than trying to prevent “bad” genes from being propagated.
Well, that’s relative, there will always be those taht are less capable than others. Even if the least capable person is a super athlete genius by today’s standrds, they may not be by the standard a thousand generatations from now.
If we are all engineers won’t they hjave robots doing taht sort of stuff?
Yeah, my memories of the 80’s mostly include Care Bears and slumber parties, so I’m not familiar with the situation you are talking about at all. What happened to those fears? I don’t know anyone under the age of 35 who hasn’t been tested at least once in their lives for HIV and I work in health insurance and we don’t even ask if you’ve ever been tested to sign someone up for a policy.
It means the idea you were suggesting (or appeared to be suggesting in with a straight face) was put into practice by the Nazis.That’s normally a hint that it’s not something anybody else should be doing. In point of fact I think Hitler got the idea from proposals and programs in the U.S., so if you like, you can say American eugenics theories inspired him. Again, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for those ideas. There was a little more to Nazism than sterilizing retarded people, so I think the question “Does that make us Nazis?” is loaded and without meaning. Regardless, sterilizing people without their consent is a horrible thing to do. And it’s generally agreed that wiping out groups of “genetically inferior” peopel is also horrible.
Well, you asked if eugenics deserves its negative connotations, and I wrote “Fuck yes.” I thought you would take that to mean I am opposed to it.
I don’t think you are allowed to ask. My opinion of life insurance companies (but not their workers) is such that I have no doubt if you were permitted to ask a question, you would.
There would have to be massive safeguards before I wouldn’t actively oppose mandatory testing. And even then I am not sure I’d be comfortable with it. Generally in these cases I prefer education and free access. Like with contraception for drug users.
I do not support any eugenic theory and nothing I have posted could be construed in that way. I have noted that some proposed ideas would be irrelevant to eugenics and I have asked for a clarification about word usage. That I am not falling over myself to join the chorus of rational and ethical people in condemning the very idea simply means that there are sufficient voices on that side of the discussion, not that I actually believe that eugenics is either possible or ethical.
What would your criteria for these groups? Just intelligent people breed? What about other traits? Don’t want smart people dropping like flies from a cold or other illness. Wait, there are drawbacks there. Drug resistant tuberculosis is on the rise and cystic fibrosis might provide provide some aid there. The same for malaria and sickle cell anemia. That might work for the first generation, but the second one is screwed. See how complicated it gets. Eugenics were bad and stupid when done the first time around, but more so when you see it’s not very workable.
