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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I do
    As do I, as it will be impossible to breed out all diseases, not without stopping anyone reproducing that had any bad genes.

    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Morality does not state that object have inherent values but simply that there are set values we place on them.
    Rubbish, no wonder you're going to Warwick.

    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    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.
    My blood line is actually quite strong. My grandfather and my father have had heartattacks, but that's mainly because of stress due to having to work very hard to pay the taxes that pay for degenerates who dont wont their children to be cured via eugenics.

    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    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?
    I couldn't agree more - our "Royal" family are quite *******ised. We really do need a new family to occupy the throne (the House of Gnostic perhaps?).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    My blood line is actually quite strong. My grandfather and my father have had heartattacks, but that's mainly because of stress due to having to work very hard to pay the taxes that pay for degenerates who dont wont their children to be cured via eugenics.
    I thought so, why else would you be preposing this.

    (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!
    No, but give it time (the LSE is known for producing many politicians).

    Of course if I was in bongo bongo land I would be saying "give money to me - pity is good". That argument is from a position where life is in decay.

    I am in a position where my life is in ascendancy, where my life is growing, increasingly. To me pity is to weaken me, to damage life, and to commit vast resources to something that cant be helped.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    No, but give it time (the LSE is known for producing many politicians).

    Of course if I was in bongo bongo land I would be saying "give money to me - pity is good". That argument is from a position where life is in decay.

    I am in a position where my life is in ascendancy, where my life is growing, increasingly. To me pity is to weaken me, to damage life, and to commit vast resources to something that cant be helped.
    i pity you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Eugenics? How do we know which genes are entirely bad or not? How do we know a perfecthuman with the perfect genome will lead a happy life? And who are we to decide whats perfect? WE dont, people with with disabilities, genetic diseases, autism, dyslexia still have a lot to give to the world. Our greatest scientists were autistic, like Newton and Einstein. Eugenics is an ideal, which cannever really be achieved - because we cooperate better as a community - sharing our strengths. Eugenics would never be successful, evenutally they'd be overthrown by non-eugenics - because no one can defy nature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JnA)
    Eugenics? How do we know which genes are entirely bad or not? How do we know a perfecthuman with the perfect genome will lead a happy life? And who are we to decide whats perfect? WE dont, people with with disabilities, genetic diseases, autism, dyslexia still have a lot to give to the world. Our greatest scientists were autistic, like Newton and Einstein. Eugenics is an ideal, which cannever really be achieved - because we cooperate better as a community - sharing our strengths. Eugenics would never be successful, evenutally they'd be overthrown by non-eugenics - because no one can defy nature.
    here here. And eugenics drops a major ******* if we get it wrong. It only needs us to get it wrong a few times, and since we are not yet at the stage of
    (Original post by Just An LSE Guy)
    Uebermensch
    then mistakes would surely happen. Then we'd know not to play God in future, thus evolving us in an undesirable way. Plus, mutations are what make some people extremely disturbed, or extremely criminal, or EVEN extremely gifted. how, and at what stage of development do eugenics supporters propose to exterminate the mutated gene? See what i mean about making mistakes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    Rubbish, no wonder you're going to Warwick.
    When did I say I was going to Warwick?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just an LSE guy)
    And please people - lets keep morality out of this. Morality is simply the projection of one's feelings and values onto other people. I can just as easily argue that eugenics is a virtue as others can say it is a vice. So let's not be so dumb, ok?
    Most animals can be considered dumb by humans. Humans are the ones that consider the morality of an issue. It's what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Surely it is infinitely more desirable to discuss the morality of an issue than wholly ignore it.

    Furthermore, arguing whether eugenics is a vice or virtue is the whole point of D+D and is in the name of good debate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    See what i mean about making mistakes.
    put simply: too much could go wrong, and natural evolution has done a fine job so far, so why meddle?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is certainly the next step in science and it is inevitable that it will happen.
    I personally am in full support, we're human, we can do it, then why not?
    I like the argument against morality as most of you know i hate the term and feel it is just simply used to hinder the progression of the human race and blocking of 'tough' decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all those pro-eugenics posters. What do you think us gives us the right to meddle in nature ? We are ultimately responsible for the state of society in the future and it would be wrong of us to ignore the fact that what we do know has implications for the future.

    Simply put, eugenics is not a sustainable path for the future and it therefore must be a bad idea/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    It is certainly the next step in science and it is inevitable that it will happen.
    I personally am in full support, we're human, we can do it, then why not?
    I like the argument against morality as most of you know i hate the term and feel it is just simply used to hinder the progression of the human race and blocking of 'tough' decisions.
    We have the power to completely desolate the world using nuclear weapons, but should we do it? of course not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    To all those pro-eugenics posters. What do you think us gives us the right to meddle in nature ? We are ultimately responsible for the state of society in the future and it would be wrong of us to ignore the fact that what we do know has implications for the future.

    Simply put, eugenics is not a sustainable path for the future and it therefore must be a bad idea/
    I think youre possibly confusing those who discussed it objectively with those who actually propose it seriously. There are only 2 that ive noticed who seriously propose it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    We have the power to completely desolate the world using nuclear weapons, but should we do it? of course not.
    Ah but the difference is that this would bring no benefit to humanity whereas eugenics *arguably* could.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    We have the power to completely desolate the world using nuclear weapons, but should we do it? of course not.
    I was waiting for such a stupid hyperbolic comment.
    It'll happen wiothin the next 20 years no doubt as it is the logical next step in science.
    AND ENOUGH WITH RIGHTS THEY ARE A HUMAN CONCEPT AND NOT REAL!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    I was waiting for such a stupid hyperbolic comment.
    It'll happen wiothin the next 20 years no doubt as it is the logical next step in science.
    AND ENOUGH WITH RIGHTS THEY ARE A HUMAN CONCEPT AND NOT REAL!
    And since humans will be acting upon other humans, therefore our HUMAN rights will come into play.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am being objective. Of course there are prospective benefits to eugenics, and even if i am to (under duress) remove the aspect of morality, I still think that the arguments against the practical implementation of eugenic procedures - such as "getting it wrong" and "going against the will of nature and evolution - which have served us well so far" - far outweigh any possibility of "taking the human race forward".

    And in anycase, why are we so quick to say wrongdoings or errors are due to genetic disposition ? It is this assumption that weak people have weak genes which leads to one of the main arguments for eugenics being upheld and discussed. But what if we are wrong and in fact it's 'nurture' and not 'nature' that leads to crime, illness and disease. And even if we assume that our genetic make up is at fault, do you know how long it takes to islate one gene such that it can be changed ? And do you know how many genes can control one trait or feature of character ? The answers are a long time and a great deal. So where is the practical aspect.

    If we are going to be so clinical by removing the morality aspect, then please, oblige me with some practicalities that don't involve "we can do it now"
 
 
 
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 like carrot cake?
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.