Turn on thread page Beta

Eugenics watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    it already happens daily, with men and women chosing their most adequate partner. is this not eugenics?
    that aid evolution though. non-random mating means that the hardy-weinberg equilibrium of alleles does not hold true... & so those with a balanced polymorphism may be preferrentially passed on.

    also most people mate on the basis of health i think (clear skin & symmetry are universally seen as attractive) although there's likely to be cultural variation. one of the correlations in mates is ear length apparently..yes, a key factor when i'm chasing men..

    i suppose, this is subconscious eugenics though-as opposed to something that would be likely to have be either be forced upon a society, or lead to a genetic underclass due to expensive technology & the whole "designer baby" issue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Every single human throughout history could believe that X is bad, but that does not change the fact that value judgements and feelings exist within the mind and psycho-somatic body respectively and are not the object itself. Indeed X could be very harmful to humans but that still does not mean that the object itself is bad, only that us humans judge X to be bad based upon our perspective, predisposition, and position.

    And, true, morality is not subjective - the concept of morality, ie that objects are inherently good and evil etc independently of a perceiver, cannot exist as a subjective concept, only as an objective claim. And since only the most ignorant would believe their feelings are part of the object itself the days of morality are numbered. Morality, as I said, is simply the unconscious assumption that how we feel about an object is an objective part of the object itself. When one is conscious of the distinction of the perceived from the perceiver, and the role of perception, the concept of morality is dissolved with other ignorance.
    Well I think you have removed the worth and value of morality despite knowing that so many people have a sense of it.

    What do you mean object itself? Does that matter? We can never stand outside the self so to try and think of an intrinsic objective quality of something is not only meaningless but pointless. There is no such thing as a white object, a bad object, a good object, a pretty object....but we ALL use these phrases to talk about our own sensations of things. Ultimately it is our perception which is important, not the object which we are perceiving.

    Objectivity does NOT matter. Subjectivity does.

    And hence, morality is important.

    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Well I think you have removed the worth and value of morality despite knowing that so many people have a sense of it.

    What do you mean object itself? Does that matter? We can never stand outside the self so to try and think of an intrinsic objective quality of something is not only meaningless but pointless. There is no such thing as a white object, a bad object, a good object, a pretty object....but we ALL use these phrases to talk about our own sensations of things. Ultimately it is our perception which is important, not the object which we are perceiving.

    Objectivity does NOT matter. Subjectivity does.

    And hence, morality is important.
    Then you don’t accept the concept of morality either – i.e. that objects have inherent values.

    You’re saying we value objects etc. That’s not morality – that’s its antithesis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Oooops, I thought this was a thread on morality. Doh.

    Yes I have no problem with it if through this process we are able to get rid of unhealthy genes.
    So I should not be allowed to reproduce then, simply because I has autism?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    So I should not be allowed to reproduce then, simply because I has autism?
    autism isnt genetic, is it? anyway, autism can be beneficial to society.


    (ps the eugenics i am thinking of isnt about stopping people from reproducing)

    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    So I should not be allowed to reproduce then, simply because I has autism?
    No one disagrees with the principle that certain people should not be permitted to reproduce (eg people with severe genetic disabilities, mentally disabled etc). The question is where we draw the line. Frankly I would neuter half of India - they're breeding too much too fast. That's what China is doing with its own population and it should be praised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    autism isnt genetic, is it? anyway, autism can be beneficial to society.


    (ps the eugenics i am thinking of isnt about stopping people from reproducing)
    Autism is hereditary (sp), but why should the fact that some autistics can make real differences, there are some that will require constant care. So one would argue, it is better not to allow any of them to reproduce.

    It will get to a point where everyone will have genetic tests to see if they carry any faulty genes or hereditary (sp) diseases and if they do, sterilising them.

    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Autism is hereditary (sp), but why should the fact that some autistics can make real differences, there are some that will require constant care. So one would argue, it is better not to allow any of them to reproduce.

    It will get to a point where everyone will have genetic tests to see if they carry any faulty genes or hereditary (sp) diseases and if they do, sterilising them.
    Basically, mate, if it costs too much resources to maintain a certain blood line then that blood line must come to a close.

    That is why, for example, I argue that we should immediately cease all aid to Africa. The best charity is to let the weak perish. The African's days on this earth are clearly numbered - Mother Nature is determined to destroy them by whatever means. They do represent a more primitive strand of the human species which, sadly, has to go, just as one day us Europeans will even go to make room for another race that has evolved from us and out evolved us.

    But the entire point of eugenics is to better people, so that sterilisation is not needed.

    We could fix your family's poor blood line with eugenics. With the genetic disease gone no-one would object to your blood line continuing.

    As I said, the best charity we have is to let the weak perish. But a better charity would be to give them eugenics. Let us develop it, and go forward.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    autism isnt genetic, is it? anyway, autism can be beneficial to society.


    (ps the eugenics i am thinking of isnt about stopping people from reproducing)
    Then what are you planning? Getting all the smart people to breed to create intelligent children? It doesn't work - Eugenics is mainly proposed by people with little to no knowledge of genetics or by those trying to be contoversial.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Then you don’t accept the concept of morality either – i.e. that objects have inherent values.

    You’re saying we value objects etc. That’s not morality – that’s its antithesis.
    Morality does not state that object have inherent values but simply that there are set values we place on them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Basically, mate, if it costs too much resources to maintain a certain blood line then that blood line must come to a close.
    The Royal Family, who also have their share of bad genes from inbreeding, would here qualify for extermination. Shall you break it to them or shall I?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Basically, mate, if it costs too much resources to maintain a certain blood line then that blood line must come to a close.

    That is why, for example, I argue that we should immediately cease all aid to Africa. The best charity is to let the weak perish. The African's days on this earth are clearly numbered - Mother Nature is determined to destroy them by whatever means. They do represent a more primitive strand of the human species which, sadly, has to go, just as one day us Europeans will even go to make room for another race that has evolved from us and out evolved us.

    But the entire point of eugenics is to better people, so that sterilisation is not needed.

    We could fix your family's poor blood line with eugenics. With the genetic disease gone no-one would object to your blood line continuing.
    Oh, so would you mind having your family progression stopped simply because they were considered impure or diseased? I take it you are saying this as someone who feels he has nothing to fear from your proposed course of action.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the problem with all this is that it tries to put the benefits of "society as a whole" in front of the benefits of oneself.

    I don't think this is right actually. No one will consider future generations more important than themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    They do represent a more primitive strand of the human species which, sadly, has to go, just as one day us Europeans will even go to make room for another race that has evolved from us and out evolved us.
    how do they represent a more primitive strand of the human species?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That is why, for example, I argue that we should immediately cease all aid to Africa. The best charity is to let the weak perish. The African's days on this earth are clearly numbered - Mother Nature is determined to destroy them by whatever means. They do represent a more primitive strand of the human species which, sadly, has to go, just as one day us Europeans will even go to make room for another race that has evolved from us and out evolved us.
    Your ignorance is quite astounding.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Basically, mate, if it costs too much resources to maintain a certain blood line then that blood line must come to a close.

    That is why, for example, I argue that we should immediately cease all aid to Africa. The best charity is to let the weak perish. The African's days on this earth are clearly numbered - Mother Nature is determined to destroy them by whatever means. They do represent a more primitive strand of the human species which, sadly, has to go, just as one day us Europeans will even go to make room for another race that has evolved from us and out evolved us.

    But the entire point of eugenics is to better people, so that sterilisation is not needed.

    We could fix your family's poor blood line with eugenics. With the genetic disease gone no-one would object to your blood line continuing.

    As I said, the best charity we have is to let the weak perish. But a better charity would be to give them eugenics. Let us develop it, and go forward.
    That's horrible! I'm glad you're not in charge of the world. I bet you wouldn't feel that way if YOU were the dying African. Yeah would you really say "let me go as a sacrifice in the bid to promote a less starving race"? BAh!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    Your ignorance is quite astounding.
    It is really quite worrying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    That's horrible! I'm glad you're not in charge of the world. I bet you wouldn't feel that way if YOU were the dying African. Yeah would you really say "let me go as a sacrifice in the bid to promote a less starving race"? BAh!
    I think he views himself as safe from his proposed actions, that is why he has no problem advocating them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Just an LSE guy]Basically, mate, if it costs too much resources to maintain a certain blood line then that blood line must come to a close.
    QUOTE]

    also how do you calculate the costs/benefits of a certain 'bloodline'? something that may be undesirable in your eyes could actually be highly beneficial. a person with a debilitating disease may cost the national health serice in terms of money but how do you know that they will not contribute the same, if not more back to society. and contributions are not necessarily simply in monetary terms.

    your comment to the autistic poster on thsi thread also displays a limited understanding of the condition. have you never heard of the autistic savant? they have extraordinary cognitive skills which most people would find impossible to learn:
    these include mathematical calculations, memory feats, artistic abilities, and musical abilities.....the last one is something i have direct experience with as the charity work i am involved with displays such tendencies.

    According to the centre for the study of autism "The estimated prevalence of savant abilities in autism is 10%, whereas the prevalence in the non-autistic population, including those with mental retardation, is less than 1%."

    i dont think you take into account how the 'costs' which would keep these 'bloodlines' going could actually be insignificant to the benefits we accrue from their abilities.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    No one disagrees with the principle that certain people should not be permitted to reproduce (eg people with severe genetic disabilities, mentally disabled etc).
    I do
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 9, 2004
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.