Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why are people against eugenics? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    You should; intelligence is strongly correlated to innovation



    But strongly correlated
    Developing nations don't have necessarily less innately intelligent people than UK/US etc.They just don't have the opportunity we do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    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?
    For starters defining intelligence is already a controversial topic in psychology. Different types of intelligence etc. So most people are intelligent is some form or fashion, then you'll be only choosing a certain type of intelligence, am I right? I'm guessing you're leaning on the side of being tops in stem subjects? But then how do you take into consideration people that were economically disadvantaged and have really good genes for problem solving but never got the opportunity to develop it?

    What you're suggesting is a very complicated task to undertake and it would be rife with corruption, prejudice and racism. How you can't see this is beyond me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    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?
    Slippery slope, I assume. First it's diseases, then it's undesirable characteristics, which sounds good in theory until someone with certain views gets to a position of power.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    You should; intelligence is strongly correlated to innovation



    But strongly correlated
    How old are you? Your views seem pretty naive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Developing?

    I agree
    Oops, corrected.

    But to go back to your point, I don't see how 'human intelligence' is decreasing as if that's a quantity you can measure like numeracy/literacy rates (not indicators of intelligence)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    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.
    But did we develop fire? No, fire is a naturally occurring thing.

    You could argue that via evolution, eugenics is a natural procedure... but for eugenics to work safely without harming anyone, much like fire, there would need to be heavy regulations.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i'm a massive supporter of the liberal eugenics movement. I believe that we should genetically screen and engineer in the whom to create a superior human species. We can also provide financial incentives for certain people to accept voluntary steralisation so that they remove themselves from the genome.

    Over several generations you'd see a big step forward.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    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
    No its pretty naive that you think most intelligent people in the world are educated. I'm sure there are kids in Africa that haven't seen a book in their lives with far more brain power than you and I combined but we would never know. 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.

    Also you cannot discuss eugenics without a plan to implenet it. Eugenics in and of itself requires implementation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    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.
    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 :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin: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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    1) Who determines who is "stupid"? Someone has to be put in charge. Meaning a select group will exercise power over many. If history is any indication, then rest assured we will end up with favoritism and implied slavery.

    2) Lots of <insert desirable trait> people had parents who weren't acknowledged as <insert the said deseriable trait>. Whilst I can agree intelligence is important, but I won't even claim it is the most essential characteristic in a human.

    Eugenics for all i care is discrimination.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    1) Who determines who is "stupid"? Someone has to be put in charge. Meaning a select group will exercise power over many. If history is any indication, then rest assured we will end up with favoritism and implied slavery.

    2) Lots of <insert desirable trait> people had parents who weren't acknowledged as <insert the said deseriable trait>. Whilst I can agree intelligence is important, but I won't even claim it is the most essential characteristic in a human.

    Eugenics for all i care is discrimination.
    Eugenics is discrimination but not all discrimination is bad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    The Nazis tried it with cows as well to bring Aurochs back from extinction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle

    They resembled them a bit in appearance but not genetically.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    People will always underestimate the damage caused by eugenics until they take a look at each gene in detail.

    For example:

    I hear a lot of "let's eradicate autism" whenever people talk about eugenics, which is indescribably stupid since autism is the reason why the modern world has what it has. When people think of autism they imagine a severely disabled person drooling down his/her shirt. They don't realise that Einstein had autism, Lincoln had autism, Bill Gates has autism, the guy who invented the Internet had autism, Newton is thought to have had autism and that's an insignificant fraction of the most successful and/or important people who have lived/are living who have autism. What enabled these people to be so successful is autism. That's remarkably different from the stereotype people think of. Autism has in fact been found to be the main cause of genius in people!
    The real irony is that while normal people associate autism with stupidity, people with high functioning autism tend to think of normal people as weird and stupid. Technically they're correct to as well, their IQs are way above those of normal people.

    Eradicate autism... such a thing would take us back to the dark ages.

    Point is, if you eradicate a particular gene you'd actually cause more harm than good. All 'bad' genes such as the 'warrior gene' (which is responsible for psychopathy) have both beneficial and adverse effects. This is true of the 'good' genes as well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    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 :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin: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.
    This is a good point. The biggest issue being a potential lack of diversity, unless you include diversity into a eugenics programme.
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    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.
    What you're arguing against is a lack of knowledge, not eugenics. If we had certainty, would you argue the same?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    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?
    If you have to factor in diversity in eugenics, then it wouldn't be eugenics since you would be allowing "unfit" genes to reproduce.

    And yes, I'll still be against it as per the diversity arguement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    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 :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin: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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    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.
    My post has everything to do with yours as it focues on the overcoming external stimuli such as diseases.
    Say you went ahead with the eugenics and you got rid of all diseases known to man and then 10 years after your "successful" program a new disease pops up and wipes away 90% of your very little diverse population, what happens then? Extinction of the human race?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daito)
    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?
    A better human race is a social construct. What is better? How far do we go? How many people should be discriminated against in order to reach the goal?
    Say we wanted to eliminated an illness.
    So we begin by not letting those with the gene have children.
    Then we do the same to those with risk factors.
    Then we do the same for those who have any risk.
    Eugenics is a risky game.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.