Why are people against eugenics?

You should; intelligence is strongly correlated to innovation



But strongly correlated

Why does it?

Intelligently nudging humanity is better than leaving it to chance.

At the moment, human intelligence in developed nations is decreasing, because more educated people are having fewer children than less educated people. Isn't that a disaster waiting to happen?

I never have been able to understand why people would not want to eliminate disease in the human race via eugenics. I understand that when it comes to ethnicity, intelligence, etc., the practice of eugenics could be catastrophically misused. But if by employing a minimal degree of eugenics we could eliminate cancer, MS, and other diseases we've been unable to cure, why would we not do that?

You should; intelligence is strongly correlated to innovation



But strongly correlated

Developing?

I agree

A

The slippery slope argument... I'll offer a similarly flawed counter-argument; if we applied the slippery slope argument to everything, we wouldn't have developed fire, for fear of what it would lead to.

Naive to believe that education and innovation are correlated to intelligence?



Look up the Flynn effect (and the reversal of it in developed nations); again, its about the best measures of intelligence, rather than objective measurements themselves

This discussion (as well as the global discussion) of eugenics has veered off into one of gene manipulation; these two things are not (or at least they shouldn't be) related. Eugenics was conceived as a means to elevate humankind by eliminating or "breeding out" the scourges of our species (i.e. physical and mental disease) that we were (and still are) unable to eliminate by medical means. I think we can all agree that disease sucks and the world would be better off (albeit far more populated) without it. Eugenics as originally conceived (long before anyone even knew genes were a thing) was thought to be a viable way to increase the odds that your childrens' childrens' childrens' children would be spared the suffering brought by incurable illnesses. It was not conceived as a means to ensure one's offspring would have a 'desirable' eye color, hair color or any other physical trait . . . those things are achieved through genetic manipulation (which I agree could very well lead to a complete breakdown of society as we know it). First the Nazis and now science have gone and mucked up a perfectly decent concept that could improve the quality of life of each coming generation over that of the preceding generation. It's not about whether people prefer blue eyes over brown eyes; it's about whether people prefer to have cancer or not to have cancer.

This discussion (as well as the global discussion) of eugenics has veered off into one of gene manipulation; these two things are not (or at least they shouldn't be) related. Eugenics was conceived as a means to elevate humankind by eliminating or "breeding out" the scourges of our species (i.e. physical and mental disease) that we were (and still are) unable to eliminate by medical means. I think we can all agree that disease sucks and the world would be better off (albeit far more populated) without it. Eugenics as originally conceived (long before anyone even knew genes were a thing) was thought to be a viable way to increase the odds that your childrens' childrens' childrens' children would be spared the suffering brought by incurable illnesses. It was not conceived as a means to ensure one's offspring would have a 'desirable' eye color, hair color or any other physical trait . . . those things are achieved through genetic manipulation (which I agree could very well lead to a complete breakdown of society as we know it). First the Nazis and now science have gone and mucked up a perfectly decent concept that could improve the quality of life of each coming generation over that of the preceding generation. It's not about whether people prefer blue eyes over brown eyes; it's about whether people prefer to have cancer or not to have cancer.

The two concepts may not be tied originally however over the last century developments have made it possible to use genetic manipulation to reach eugenics ends.

Well consider this your first coherent argument against eugenics.

http://qr.ae/RQzzgg


I'm assuming that saving the species is a worthy goal, I would like to add that since we cannot predict the future or what abilities and physical features it would take to survive, breeding who we think are the "best" people could well end up being our demise as a species, because we would reduce diversity and potentially lose alleles that may turn up to be crucial for survival. The survival and success of our species is in great part due to our social nature, and breeding individualist s who think they are the best specimens may end up being hugely detrimental. It could well be that the humble, cooperative, quiet people that end up being sterilized or killed if a eugenics program was implemented, would be exactly who would keep the species alive in a catastrophic situation. This is just a hypothetical example.

Why? How do you measure it? This leads to the question, how do they know who to cross off the list? They can overthrow their best genes, mistaking them for sour grapes. That's my point, and that's why eugenics is bad.

This is a good point. The biggest issue being a potential lack of diversity, unless you include diversity into a eugenics programme.
What you're arguing against is a lack of knowledge, not eugenics. If we had certainty, would you argue the same?

So maybe you didn't read this the first time...

http://qr.ae/RQzzgg


I'm assuming that saving the species is a worthy goal, I would like to add that since we cannot predict the future or what abilities and physical features it would take to survive, breeding who we think are the "best" people could well end up being our demise as a species, because we would reduce diversity and potentially lose alleles that may turn up to be crucial for survival. The survival and success of our species is in great part due to our social nature, and breeding individualist s who think they are the best specimens may end up being hugely detrimental. It could well be that the humble, cooperative, quiet people that end up being sterilized or killed if a eugenics program was implemented, would be exactly who would keep the species alive in a catastrophic situation. This is just a hypothetical example.

Your post has nothing to do with mine. I'm saying that the "outbreeding" of disease has nothing to do with the designation of certain traits or abilities as being more desirable than others, or with the extermination or sterilization of people who don't possess those desirable traits (whatever they might be deemed to be by whomever might deem them so). And I fully acknowledge that human beings' corruptible nature would make it impossible for us to implement a morally sound eugenics program at this juncture of our existence. I'm just saying that the intent of the eugenics movement as originally conceived was simply to eliminate suffering caused by disease, not to pick and choose the attributes of our offspring.

In its true form, eugenics is just self improvement of the human race, as in breeding desirable traits. Therefore, if we advocated eugenics, wouldn't it just lead to an improved human race, and thus, a better human race?
And if not, what are the arguments against it?