• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eugenics

I wasnt aware that eugenics = mandated. I'm pretty sure there can be more than one path there; it doesnt have to be.

No, it does have to be societally driven, by definition. Eugenics isn't just a change in the genetic structure of the population - it is either enforced (negative) or encouraged (positive), but it isn't done at the level of the individual.
 
No, it does have to be societally driven, by definition. Eugenics isn't just a change in the genetic structure of the population - it is either enforced (negative) or encouraged (positive), but it isn't done at the level of the individual.

Citations? I didnt even imply the bold, btw.

 
Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.
 
Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.

The breeding of domestics animals is all pretty much the same in terms of the hazards and benefits of concentrating specific traits and yeah...humans are just other animals.

 
Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.
Can you imagine California Attorney General's counsel walking into SCOTUS oral arguments, defending their legal brief in favor of a state's right to regulate familial sex and marriage, based on a poodle study of puppy defects? We need science based on human genetics and biology and it can't be a 1977 study.
 
You may have noticed that scientific research often uses other animals in place of humans to reach conclusions about humans.

It seems humans are kind of nitpicky about taking part in experiments...
 
In order to selectively breed humans, you have to determine which traits are unworthy of continued procreation, and prevent people with those traits from having children.
This is unacceptable in my book, and I think unconstitutional.
If Eugenics is just a tool, it is a tool with inherent usage requirements that demand thinking I do not find acceptable.

I have to disagree with the contention that it is just a tool. I think Eugenics is indeed inherently bad.
I would compare it's usage to that of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Bad, but possibly necessary in extreme scenarios.

Even some kind of encourage/discourage thing like "we will provide subsidy to persons with these traits if they do not procreate" is highly questionable, in my opinion.

Additionally, I do not think that we currently have a firm enough grasp on genetics for a determination of which traits do what to be made. Or at least not with enough certainty that trying to promote or eliminate them is reasonable.


Selective breeding of humans is a tool that I would only accept the use of in an extreme hypothetical situation, such as "People with this trait will spontaneously combust in an uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction of at least 100 megatons in size at a random point in their life."
In short, something that will end the lives of them and many others nearby.
Although I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to have them live somewhere really far away from anyone else. That's a tough hypothetical scenario.
 
You may have noticed that scientific research often uses other animals in place of humans to reach conclusions about humans.

It seems humans are kind of nitpicky about taking part in experiments...
its not an experiment its a study. . The problem isn't finding human guinea pigs, we really don't need those, These people have to fill out questionaires, provide a genetic screen, and offer up their medical histories. The problem is finding people who openly admit to having familial parents. you put the wanted ad "if you have parents that are also your uncles, aunts, or siblings, please email us at......" Or "if you had sex with your sibling, or mother/father and begat children, please call 1-800-456 -5532..." How do you find people who want to answer those ads?
 
You are using the wrong context. Negative eugenics is the removal of stock from the breeding pool and positive eugenics is the bringing about of the breeding. Now they can be as simple as discouraging and encouraging, respectively, specific pair breeding, or go as extreme as in killing the undesirable and forcing the desirable to breed. The positive and negative in that context isn't about what the motivating force behind it is.
 
Eugenics generally occurs all the time, the smartest people tend to socialize with other intelligent people most likely marrying them and having children. The best looking tend to socialize and marry other very good looking people.

Money of course interrupts this process allowing the ugly or less intelligent to marry above their " level.

As for eugenics as a policy.

If a government were to have it as a policy, it would almost certainly result in tests to allow people to have offspring. The argument would of course be if these two people have offspring the chances are they will go on welfare and be a burden to society. So they will be allowed to marry but sterilized as to prevent reproducing.

As it would be elites making these decisions it is unlikely they would perform genetic tests to find the best potential pairing and force them to reproduce.

Artificial insemination and surrogate pregnancy of course could be used to have offspring of the most intelligent or best looking occur even if they never want to reproduce with the other

Imagine the offspring of Usian Bolt with a female Olympic gold medalist. The physical potential of that child would be massive. It of course just potential, as motivation, training etc would still need to occur on an elite level
 


US south east, parts of the ME, Hutterrite colonies
 
I believe there are two categories of Eugenics:

1) Simply allowing for natural selection. If nature decides that some humans are unfit for purpose then let it have what it can take. This is inconsistent with modern values (at least in the West) but is essential for the long term survival of our species.

2) Active manipulation of the gene pool. This is foolish because science doesn’t presently understand genetics well enough to know the scope and scale of the consequences.
 


Mutations occur which makes absolute certainty impossible. But in general if two tall people have offspring chances are there offspring will be tall
 
Eugenics is ultimately a subjective evaluation of the people in charge. Those “not worthy of life” dont get a say.
 
I must say that the way it was applied was always baked into the cake and there hasnt been a eugenicist that hasnt eventually turned into another one. Incest laws dont really count as eugenics because the outcome is not a specifically targeted group for erasure, it is done because it results in so many negative birth defects that dont allow a child to have a future.
 
I wasnt aware that eugenics = mandated. I'm pretty sure there can be more than one path there; it doesnt have to be.

Eugenics is specifically mandated. Its more than just choosing better suitors.
 
The breeding of domestics animals is all pretty much the same in terms of the hazards and benefits of concentrating specific traits and yeah...humans are just other animals.

Its also a bit different than just controlled breeding. The logic of the eugenicist requires expunging of the bad genes through execution, controlled breeding, or genocide. i.e. whatever those in charge consider to be bad genes. Its why we dont do it anymore.
 
Why do you think we dont do it anymore? To describe it as just a tool is to take it out of its historical context which it cannot remove itself from. This also takes eugenics out of the logical context upon which it is derived.
 

Eugenics is specifically mandated. Its more than just choosing better suitors.

No, it's also social theory, a science examining genetic outcomes, and/or a practice that can or may not be followed. It can be presented to a community or population...and followed based on principle, personal preference, or other personal factors.

 
Lets put it into real life context, sure in theory it may be possible but the people in charge wont wait that long. The resident forum eugenicist will attest to such i am sure.
 
This also assumes that controlled breeding is the only way for which we can improve on humanity, same with letting the weak die off for the strong.
 
Lets put it into real life context, sure in theory it may be possible but the people in charge wont wait that long. The resident forum eugenicist will attest to such i am sure.

For discussion purposes? No thanks. It's broader than govt use of force.

 
This. Theres a conflation problem in the opening post.
 
LOL We use our brains to reduce human suffering, cure diseases and extend our lifespans and that could do more harm than good? Meanwhile we are digging up millions of tons of fossil carbon every year from the last mass extinction and releasing it back into our air. Does anyone realize that the sequestered carbon buried deep in the earth is there because if it wasn't humans and much of the other life on this planet would not exist? We are "messing" with the carbon balance of the earth which has been the cause of nearly every mass extinction. Some would say the the earth has given us enough rope to hang ourselves.