55331
53019

Eugenics

Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?

Eugenics

Postby fvkasm2x » Aug 18th, 2009, 9:31 pm

Figured I would start a very controversial topic, since I just watched a documentary on Hitler. Anyone have opinions about Eugenics? Back in the day, Hitler had those in mental institutions and physically disabled put to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Short explanation for those who don't know the word: The controlling of reproduction in the human race. So for example, making it so that those with a family history of "retardation" and whatnot couldn't reproduce.

Obviously you can't just go kill people, but should we sterilize certain people?

It is common knowledge that the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. You see more trailer parks with 6 kids per family than you do McMansions with that many kids. Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?

Interesting tidbit about Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Canada
User avatar
fvkasm2x
Guru
 
Posts: 6603
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 1094 posts
Joined: Apr 1st, 2007, 3:06 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Eugenics

Postby skydawg » Aug 18th, 2009, 9:39 pm

more kids means more money from welfare
skydawg
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3241
Likes: 65 posts
Liked in: 436 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2005, 4:05 pm

Re: Eugenics

Postby WhatThe » Aug 19th, 2009, 7:47 am

In our era, we no longer need to kill, rather manipulate the genome and eliminate all those nasty defects before birth. Whichraises another set of moral questions. Designer babies no, healthy babies yes IMO.
WhatThe
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts

Re: Eugenics

Postby katzenjammer » Aug 19th, 2009, 8:26 am

Fortunately, many traits are controlled by many genes not to mention enviromental factors such that it is virtually imposible to point the finger at one particular gene. One gene might activate another which in turn may turn on some other process etc. The possible combinations are mind boggling.

Besides, who decides which trait is undesirable? Should we get rid of short people? black? the Irish? those addicted to castanet forums?
Happiness never decreases by being shared. ...
User avatar
katzenjammer
Board Meister
 
Posts: 610
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2005, 10:06 pm

Re: Eugenics

Postby sunluvr » Aug 19th, 2009, 8:28 am

katts wrote:Fortunately, many traits are controlled by many genes not to mention enviromental factors such that it is virtually imposible to point the finger at one particular gene. One gene might activate another which in turn may turn on some other process etc. The possible combinations are mind boggling.

Besides, who decides which trait is undesirable? Should we get rid of short people? black? the Irish? those addicted to castanet forums?


That would be a good start. :coffeecanuck:
sunluvr
Fledgling
 
Posts: 176
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 15th, 2009, 4:58 pm

Re: Eugenics

Postby fvkasm2x » Aug 19th, 2009, 8:58 am

katts wrote:Besides, who decides which trait is undesirable? Should we get rid of short people? black? the Irish? those addicted to castanet forums?


Ultimately it comes down to the government :ohmygod: YIKES!

Just 50 years ago in Canada, it was entirely possible that you could be sterilized.

As for designer babies, it kind of sounds like the movie Gattaca, where they could tell what your baby will be like while they are fetus. The parents could decide to abort it based on the news. Lots of people would have problems with this, because it isn't "God's Will" and that doesn't even include those against abortion straight up.

That's delving into another topic I suppose... since this one was mostly aimed at the concept of taking a teenaged kid with autism, down syndrome or any other form of "problem" and sterilizing them. Is that cruel? Does it make sense"
User avatar
fvkasm2x
Guru
 
Posts: 6603
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 1094 posts
Joined: Apr 1st, 2007, 3:06 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Eugenics

Postby WhatThe » Aug 19th, 2009, 9:26 am

well for a specific answer to the op. It is dead wrong for the govt, or intervening authority to sterilize or kill challenged people. I diverted because in a very real way this topic is quickly becoming moot. The completion of the human genome project has opened many doors, some of which are being used in medicine today, and this is only the beginning. We have exponentially increased our genetic knowledge over the last ten years alone, and manipulation will be very real very soon. Hell, if you want you can have your pet cloned now as we speak. I don't want to derail your topic fvkasm, but it does IMO lead to genetic manipulation in the lab now, as opposed to breeding/ sterilizing. Intersting topic. For the record, I wouldn't trust any govt to do the right thing when it comes to things like this.
WhatThe
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts

Re: Eugenics

Postby fvkasm2x » Aug 19th, 2009, 11:53 am

Understood WHATTHE, but I don't really think it is moot when looking at our society today. Right now in North America there are TENS OF MILLIONS of people aged 13-40 with some sort of "problem."

These are people in prison, people with some sort of mood disorder, mentally challenged, etc... and all of these people could be sterilized in the next few years if there was some sort of law passed. It could be argued that recidivist criminals can't provide a stable family or be a fit parent, so they should be sterilized. People under the poverty line and on gov't assistance should be sterilized so as not to be a drain on the economy. People with mental health issues and/or mental challenges should be sterilized because of the chance their offspring will carry these "diseases."

Even people under the age of 13 with current problems would be sterilized once they hit puberty... as the ability to alter genomes and/or change fetus evolution isn't applicable right now in a full sense.
User avatar
fvkasm2x
Guru
 
Posts: 6603
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 1094 posts
Joined: Apr 1st, 2007, 3:06 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Eugenics

Postby JonyDarko » Aug 19th, 2009, 12:54 pm

fvkasm2x wrote: Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?


You sir are an idiot for even typing this.


The problem with eugenics is who makes the decisions. Oh yeah and that whole killing / sterilizing people thing.


Also what is this doing in R&P?
User avatar
JonyDarko
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 840
Likes: 18 posts
Liked in: 40 posts
Joined: Mar 4th, 2008, 7:59 am
Location: Rutland, Kelowna

Re: Eugenics

Postby WhatThe » Aug 19th, 2009, 1:00 pm

ok, I see the broader context in which you are refering. The first thing that comes to mind an approach like that would perhaps diminish us, not only in a moral context but in real terms. Example, savantism, some of the abilities they have are astounding and could very well better us if we understood it. Genetic mutations, some good some bad, have been apart of us for millions of years giving risecto niche adaptations. Even if for the sake of arguement we sterilized/killed those in question, would it stop the problem you are talking about? I would think not, nature has a funny way of overcoming obsticles, and adapting to things we throw at it. Example resistance to penicillin. It seems to me life is not static. Another question becomes where would we draw the line? And how many times will the line be redrawn with successive govts and changing public perception. Perhaps another thing to consider is declining birthrates in the first world, as it is now we have to allow in immigrants to sustain our economy. What happens when therest of the world catches up to us in standard of living? Maybe it would be better to kill criminals, but for me, I can't get past the ethical and moral implications. My belief is we are stronger and better as a species when we lookafter those that can't themselves.
WhatThe
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts

Re: Eugenics

Postby quietlywatching84 » Aug 19th, 2009, 3:27 pm

Good idea, this is a great topic to do discuss morality (a classic philiosphical subject).

I would argue, is evolution not a form of eugenics in itself?

Think about it this way, all of us, who are alive today are at the moment, a winning evolutionary combination. The proof being that we were born.

If nature has decided that say deaf people, manic depressives are at the moment a good mix, who are we to judge? Is it possible, they have an advantage that maybe we don't which is allowing them to reproduce successfully?
Silence is golden and duct tape is silver.
User avatar
quietlywatching84
Übergod
 
Posts: 1870
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sep 17th, 2006, 3:47 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Eugenics

Postby hellomynameis » Aug 19th, 2009, 3:58 pm

quietlywatching84 wrote:Good idea, this is a great topic to do discuss morality (a classic philiosphical subject).

I would argue, is evolution not a form of eugenics in itself?

Think about it this way, all of us, who are alive today are at the moment, a winning evolutionary combination. The proof being that we were born.

If nature has decided that say deaf people, manic depressives are at the moment a good mix, who are we to judge? Is it possible, they have an advantage that maybe we don't which is allowing them to reproduce successfully?


Quite right, even sociopaths have an evolutionary niche that is currently expanding. Of course evolution under its conventional form cannot be subject to morality whereas eugenics absolutely must be.
"Books tap the wisdom of our species -- the greatest minds, the best teachers -- from all over the world and from all our history. And they're patient."
- Carl Sagan
User avatar
hellomynameis
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3171
Likes: 33 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: May 17th, 2007, 5:22 am
Location: Westbank

Re: Eugenics

Postby fvkasm2x » Aug 20th, 2009, 11:56 am

JonyDarko wrote:
fvkasm2x wrote: Should we be stopping the uneducated from producing more gas station attendants?


You sir are an idiot for even typing this.


The problem with eugenics is who makes the decisions. Oh yeah and that whole killing / sterilizing people thing.


Also what is this doing in R&P?


Ahh resorting to insults when people try to discuss something in a civil manner. Do you work at a gas station by chance? There is a recent article in Maclean's magazine that gives the stats for education and children in parents. The less education a parent has, the more children they have. The better educated people are, the fewer children they have. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't quote the % but the shoe fits. It was a generalization that is based in fact... no reason to get your panties ruffled.

I haven't once indicated my stance on the position... so I am not sure why you are attacking me for stating a viewpoint of others and/or posing a question.

It is in the R&P area... because it is a moral question, a question that has deep roots in religion and fundamental beliefs.
User avatar
fvkasm2x
Guru
 
Posts: 6603
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 1094 posts
Joined: Apr 1st, 2007, 3:06 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Eugenics

Postby fvkasm2x » Aug 20th, 2009, 12:00 pm

quietlywatching84 wrote:If nature has decided that say deaf people, manic depressives are at the moment a good mix, who are we to judge? Is it possible, they have an advantage that maybe we don't which is allowing them to reproduce successfully?


A very good point. But don't we already "play God" in the sense that we have surgeries, medicine, etc... to prolong life? These "weaker" people would have died at a young age naturally, but because of our advances in medicine and technology, we are not allowing nature to take its course. We are already the judges... by saying everyone must live as long as possible, even when it isn't God's will, nature's intent (or what have you).
User avatar
fvkasm2x
Guru
 
Posts: 6603
Likes: 290 posts
Liked in: 1094 posts
Joined: Apr 1st, 2007, 3:06 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Eugenics

Postby westsidebud » Aug 20th, 2009, 2:49 pm

fvkasm2x wrote:Understood WHATTHE, but I don't really think it is moot when looking at our society today. Right now in North America there are TENS OF MILLIONS of people aged 13-40 with some sort of "problem."

These are people in prison, people with some sort of mood disorder, mentally challenged, etc... and all of these people could be sterilized in the next few years if there was some sort of law passed. It could be argued that recidivist criminals can't provide a stable family or be a fit parent, so they should be sterilized. People under the poverty line and on gov't assistance should be sterilized so as not to be a drain on the economy. People with mental health issues and/or mental challenges should be sterilized because of the chance their offspring will carry these "diseases."

Even people under the age of 13 with current problems would be sterilized once they hit puberty... as the ability to alter genomes and/or change fetus evolution isn't applicable right now in a full sense.




i think your german flag in your avatar speaks volumes
GO CANUCKS GO
User avatar
westsidebud
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3808
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jul 18th, 2009, 11:36 pm
Location: bc canada

Next

Return to Religion & Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest