Notice
Notice: moved to open debate.
If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
Notice
Notice: moved to open debate.
If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I think Cthulhu's question end of post #4 Won the debate: "That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock?"
We just don't know this, not scientifically, not at all.
Pretending we do, and trying to design humans, is pretty darned scary.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (11-01-2014),southwest88 (11-22-2014)
Easy solution there, too: ignore them.
Start here.First thing is first. Definitions. What is the definition of ethics we're using to base this off of? Because not everybody has the same ethical inclinations.
Why is that relevant? It's not like anyone is actually being hurt by forced sterilization/abortion. So you can't ever have kids. You're still alive and well.Also is it optional or not? Because if not, then hell no good sir, grab your torch and pitchfork.
Alternatively, we could just relocate genetic violators and their offspring to one of the islands, like Madagascar. A sort of genetic quarantine.
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
It could only work in a military dictatorship then. Ignored a voting base long enough tends to not work so well in a democracy or a republic.
Not gonna lie. This doesn't help. Maybe I'm just dense.Start here.
What endows someone with the authority to tell another that he or she is not inferior and thus not worthy to breed?Why is that relevant? It's not like anyone is actually being hurt by forced sterilization/abortion. So you can't ever have kids. You're still alive and well.
Besides this would condemn senior citizens in some countries to death by eliminating a future support system I'm their old age - their offspring.
Then there is the whole free will aspect and such...
So how is this different from racial nationalism? Every region would have its "superior" set of genes. This would result in isolationism as far as gene flow is concerned.Alternatively, we could just relocate genetic violators and their offspring to one of the islands, like Madagascar. A sort of genetic quarantine.
Sent from my evil cell phone.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:12
With our current electoral climate, they'd have to wait 2-8 years to get their people in a majority, and by then, we'd be on the path to accomplishment and wouldn't have to care anymore.
Morally right or good.Not gonna lie. This doesn't help. Maybe I'm just dense.
Not really. People can still adopt already existing children. Our orphanages and foster care systems are full of children without good homes.What endows someone with the authority to tell another that he or she is not inferior and thus not worthy to breed?
Besides this would condemn senior citizens in some countries to death by eliminating a future support system I'm their old age - their offspring.
Then there is the whole free will aspect and such...
It would take some scientific investigation before it could be implemented, but we could allow some cross-pollination if we identify candidates from other regions who have good genes that we would like in our own gene pool, and vice versa.So how is this different from racial nationalism? Every region would have its "superior" set of genes. This would result in isolationism as far as gene flow is concerned.
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
One way we circumvent natural selection in this country is by unduly protecting stupid people with warning labels for example. Subway plastic bags actually say "do not allow babies and small children to play with this bag" No $#@!! Who could possibly be old enough to be in charge of a child and NOT know that? And if they did what chance does their child have anyway? Or the expensive warnings on metal ladders about how they can be fallen from and conduct electricity
There are some people who should never have children...for the sake of the children as well as society. Even knowing that, I just can't see interference in this issue except to make the options to childbearing available. I knew someone who believed that everyone should be sterilized at birth...and could have it reversed upon proof of (emotional, financial, etc) ability to rear children. I thought he was a nut... sometimes I wonder...but I still can't support it.
Thanks for an interesting debate on a controversial subject.
gee, no screaming or cussing or snarking...very enjoyable!
Last edited by PolWatch; 11-03-2014 at 08:07 AM. Reason: typo
Green Arrow (11-03-2014)
My beliefs are a distillation of what I was taught as a child and what I observe as an adult.
PolWatch (11-03-2014)
Sure they would. The USA has a lot of guns in it.
[/quote]
Morally right or good.[/quote]
Subjective values are not a good rubric to base this on.
Most people prefer to have their own biological children, hence we still have overcrowded foster systems.Not really. People can still adopt already existing children. Our orphanages and foster care systems are full of children without good homes.
Conceded on this point.It would take some scientific investigation before it could be implemented, but we could allow some cross-pollination if we identify candidates from other regions who have good genes that we would like in our own gene pool, and vice versa.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:12
(My bold)
Well, except that the Nazis took their notions of eugenics from the US & from the Brits. See
War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / by Black, Edwin.
New York : Four Walls Eight Windows, c2003. Subjects Eugenics -- United States -- History. Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States. Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States. United States -- Social policy. United States -- Moral conditions. Description:
xxviii, 550 p., [14] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.
The US had been in the forefront of eugenics for a time, to the extent that sympathizers & proponents gained control of the IN state prison & sterilized inmates without any consent or notice, nor any controlling legislation from the IN Lege (which was nearly overrun with KKK@ the time - perhaps a partial explanation). But eugenics was strong in the NE too, the South - where families with histories of sloth, criminality, mental defectives, poverty, inconvenience (this was the '20s, remember) were also sterilized. The official eugenics orgs & organs were elated @ their success in Germany, so much so that they became concerned that the US/UK were falling behind.
& so it goes. Excellent reading, but not for the faint of heart.