Could There ever be a case FOR Eugenics?

Ok,
so you meant it in an idealistic context. Thanks, thats clearer now.

Do you have any links to Rawls work?
I'd be interested in having a read.

John Rawls

Wikipedia is always a good start for research. Most of what I learnt on the man was from textbooks and the like, but I'm sure there are many good articles/essays online on him.

Originally posted by Eddie999
Darwin wrote nothing of the strongest surviving, nor did he make any reference to human society or ever use the term 'survival of the fittest', which was coined by Spencer.

EXACTLY. Thats what I said - Spencer and 'survival of the fittest'. Thank you for backing that up!!

Some folks are getting Darwin mixed up with SOCIAL Darwinism and 'survival of the fittest' by Spencer. There is a big difference in the two concepts.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
EXACTLY. Thats what I said - Spencer and 'survival of the fittest'. Thank you for backing that up!!

Some folks are getting Darwin mixed up with SOCIAL Darwinism and 'survival of the fittest' by Spencer. There is a big difference in the two concepts.

Yeah, namely that there is MUCH more evidence for Darwin's theory than for Social Darwinism. The latter was just a result of elites twisting Darwin's theory to justify their exploitation of everyone else. Big surprise that the Nazis embraced the concept, with their wet dreams about the super Aryan race.

Social Darwinism is a load of crap, simple and plain. It's great if you're a greedy, ruthless elite, sure. It leads you to justify using the Untermeschen as lab rats to "improve the human race."

The eugenics argument is one of the biggest loads of horse spit that I've ever seen. In fact, I CANNOT think eugenics without thinking racism.

Nazis, Margaret Sanger...you do the math.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Social Darwinism is a load of crap, simple and plain.

Probably. But since you dont' even understand what social darwinism is, and don't even understand where the term 'survival of the fittest' came from ... it wouldn't be possible for you to make a credible statement about it.

You owe me an APOLOGY. You came on here telling me that I was wrong and didn't understand Darwin blah blah blah. YOU then proceeded to confuse Darwin and Social Darwinism. YOU were wrong. This is your quote -

Originally posted by truthseeka
This is precisely the problem with people who don't understand natural selection. I can tell by how you have thrown around the phrase "survival of the fittest."

Admit you were wrong and apologize.

Nazis, Margaret Sanger...

I have always said that Margaret Sanger, the goddess of Planned Parenthood, did the work of the devil. I have never understood why black America embraces abortion. If they read up on Margaret Sanger and WHY she wanted abortion available ... black Americans would be thinking very differently about abortion and Planned Parenthood.

www.blackgenocide.com...
*warning - this link contains links that, if clicked on, are bloody.




[edit on 5/11/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Probably. But since you dont' even understand what social darwinism is, and don't even understand where the term 'survival of the fittest' came from ... it wouldn't be possible for you to make a credible statement about it.

Ja ja ja. I know full well what Social Darwinism is, and the argument is horse spit.

You owe me an APOLOGY.

As long as I owe you, you'll never be broke.

Eugenics is an idea that should have been instituted long ago. We routinely use it in all animal breeding and plant culture.
If we didn't, we would have a hodge podge of unreliable egg/milk/grain/root/leaf or whatever producers

There are over 4000 heritable defects in the human species. Doctors do not usually tell folks that their defects will be passed on to their children. And so we have hare-lipped parents giving birth to 3 or 4 such offspring. And don't mention that it can be corrected by surgery. It is best to stop it before it spreads.
Eugenics weeds out defectives of all classes. I really don't think that the rich want to produce deformed children.

Ah, "spiritual" point of view.. What is THAT?? I believe that spiritual is a concept invented in the imaginations of humans. It is an attempt to think/feel absolute perfection. It has nothing to do with reality.
We live and have our bodies in the real world. There is no obligation to pollute it by allowing our species to degrade.

Oh yeah, they helped Africa spiritually, they brought it Christianity and Islam. So now they kill each other over differences in relgion.

Just exactly what is wrong with the so-called "vanity" selection? Why is it wrong to want your child to have certain characteristics - like blue eyes or curly hair? What is the object of limiting choice?

whitewave said she had 6 children; she did not say she was on wellfare, and apparently to day she is not so poor. She has a computer and internet. There are a lot of poor people who are not being supported by wellfare.

Summerking, how many down's syndrome children do you have or are supporting? A society cannot progress to better things when it it burdened with defectives who cannot care for themselves. This is a waste of resources. It is enough that there are those handicapped thru accidents who wish to cling to life, and with their cause I sympathize.

With selective breeding and genetic manipulation intelligence can be increased, as can any other characteristic. Do the research. I am a long time dog fancier - I have seen over 50 year's worth of what can be done. Sadly the dog breeders concentrate on physical form rather than intelligence, altho they do care a lot about temperament.

Re Eugenics and Nazis: It is well past time to wake up to the fact that the Nazis used Margaret Sanger's ideas. Yes, popular Eugenics was originated in the good ole USA!!! Remember that! And quit referring to it as a Nazi thing. It isn't!

Any group has a right to decide what it wants for itself. They make the decisions. Those individuals who don't like it - go join another group.

Eddie, how do you know that no one would wish to be exterminated before they were born? How would they know? Minor mental & physical defects can become big, if the subject persons were allowed to breed.

Aso what no one seems to understand is that even minor physical defects can cause life-long mental/emotional pain and anguish to the one who has it. It may be minor to others, but the the individual it is HUGE!!!

truthseeka, if you cannot think of eugenics without thinking of racism, you have a problem.

All hail, ohzone, arbiter of reality.

You're the omniscient being who'll decide what the best features of humanity are or will be? Oh, joy forever unconfined, we is all saved...

Huh...whoever thought I'd agree with Truthseeka AND FlyersFan on a topic. Strange, that.

Eugenics, and euthenasia go hand in hand. The undesirable mouths will not be born and if they are will be slaughtered. All by people like you, ohzone. That'd be a hell of legacy for you. How many millions before you're satisfied with the numbers killed, 1 million?, 2?, 1 billion? hmmm? You'll be in good company, though...Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and oh so many others, including unfortunately all too often the United States gov't. who also practiced sterilization of black women. Enjoy...

I also notice its not white, blonde blueeyed that are your primary targets, just poor Africans.

OhZone, who are you to decide which children should or should not be born? Those very babies that you would eliminate are frequently the kindest most loving people in the world. Who are you to decide that a child born with a birth defect isn't as good as any other? Take a step back dude and find your humanity it is sorely lacking.

OK guys, I just got back from the pub, so if this doesn't sound like I want it to, then I apologise.

We are talking here about the modern concept of eugenics.

We are not talking about previous ideologies, or nazi's, or ethnic cleansing or anything similar.

Please refer to the links for the modern view of eugenics, and the eugenics in china and cyprus.

I feel I was very clear about this - if not then I apologise - I will try to be clearer in future.

Can we get the thread back on track and not let other issues derail it please?

We all have strong feelings about this, but this should not be about personal ideology, it should be about discussing the points raised in the OP.

If I have offended anyone with this forthright post, then please review all the posts, read carefully what I am looking for, and if you still feel that way then let me know and I will endeavour to explain further.



Thanks

I've always given the benefit of the doubt, budski. If you'd be so kind as to link to what you are refering to, I'd be appriciative.

Some of the opinions I've been hearing, or reading rather, hit way too close to home, as I'd have been targeted by these would be eugenisists. It's not likely I'll change my opinion any, but I'll give it a chance...

I may have lost track of what you initially were talking about. So link it up, please.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by seagull]

Originally posted by seagull
I've always given the benefit of the doubt, budski. If you'd be so kind as to link to what you are refering to, I'd be appriciative.

Some of the opinions I've been hearing, or reading rather, hit way too close to home, as I'd have been targeted by these would be eugenisists. It's not likely I'll change my opinion any, but I'll give it a chance...

I may have lost track of what you initially were talking about. So link it up, please.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by seagull]

Thanks Seagull,
in fairness I too would have been targeted, being asthmatic, depressive, with a dodgy ticker and a wrecked lower lumber, not to mention being an ex-catholic of irish heritage.
This is the reason I would like this back on track - it had started to become personal.
If you read the OP, and check the links and the parts I pointed out you will see where I'm coming from.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by budski]

[edit on 11-5-2007 by budski]

Eugenics doesn't work. While it works with things such as cattle which have obvious physical traits, the genetic traits of a human really determine little when it comes to survival.

Anyone who wants to implement eugenics is pretty damn evil, anyway. Men controlling the reproduction of men... Can't get more authoritarian than that.

This may be a topic for a different thread, but I feel the question I'd like answers to has a place here.

The question is:

If you were rich, successful, were fulfilled in every way, with everything that you could ever dream of, and your success was a direct result of genetic engineering, would you still feel the same way?

Answers on a postcard






And of course, the opposite applies - but that's a different conversation........

[edit on 11-5-2007 by budski]

seagull says: "You're the omniscient being who'll decide what the best features of humanity are or will be?"
*****Your statement is meaningless. You are getting carried away with and emotional tantrum devoid of any rationality there.
Undesireable mouths will never be conceived. That is different isn't it? The only euthanasia would be for those cases that slipped by the prenatal examinations and were born defective/unable to develop into a self responsible person.

The mention of Africans was to address the part of the subject already raised. This was not intended to make Africans a "target".

So you would have been non-existant if Eugenics would have been in place before you were born? But tell me, do you want your children and perhpaps many susequent generations to have your defect? Are you defending the "right" to produce defective offspring? - which may place a financial hardship upon societyand use up resources in general..

gallopinghordes says: "OhZone, who are you to decide which children should or should not be born? Those very babies that you would eliminate are frequently the kindest most loving people in the world. Who are you to decide that a child born with a birth defect isn't as good as any other? Take a step back dude and find your humanity it is sorely lacking."

****Any human that cannot take care of itself including financially supporting itself is a burden upon the rest of the society isn't it? How many of them have you adopted or contribute $$$ to care for? Are you really so cold-hearted and cruel as to decide that anyone should suffer a life in a defective body?

budski, I thought that you were very clear on the matter. There are always those who identify as victims of such proposals. Your problems were congenital? You inherited them? They were detectable before you were born? Your question is perfect for the subject.

Eurgenics would work fine. Start with general education. And then gather groups of volunteers. Ah, a "super race". Tell me exactly what is wrong with that? With 4000+ heritable defects, we have a long way to go.

To answer the question in the OP, yes, there can be a case for eugenics. In a perfect world people would prefer to bear children only when their pocketbooks are lined with the necessary $100,000.00 per child requisite to raise that child. They would prefer only healthy, beautiful, intelligent offspring and, if the world remained perfect, all would benefit from such an arrangement.
We now interrupt this scheduled program of fantasy to drop kick you into reality. This is not a perfect world and if healthier, etc. children were all that there were several glitches would arise to threaten such utopia. There would be no cause for or experience of compassion because compassion is manifested on the weak/imperfect. There would be much more able-bodied breeders to bring us back to the point of over-population. A new standard of one-upsmanship would necessarily arise to separate the most "desirable" from the less preferred.
I have nothing against breeding programs, per se but the potential for abuse borders dangerously close to actual abuse.
Besides, we already have a eugenics-like program in the U.S. It's called politics. The politically incorrect keep getting rounded up, locked in cells and not allowed to breed. The undesirables are being starved to death by being forced to pay extortionary amounts of money in taxes, gas prices, rents, etc. They're being compelled to work 2 jobs just to be able to put bread on the table and have no time or energy left over to breed. Ours is a more subtle method of selective breeding but just as effective.

Jesus effing Christ.

We now have OhZone calling for the prevention/extermination of "undesirable" humans, in an effort to create a "super race." Sound familiar?

Bottom line is this: the people who call for eugenics are almost always of European descent. The VAST majority of targets for a worldwide eugenics program would be people of non-European descent. I am a person of non-European descent, or, as Margaret Sanger would say, a black human weed.

I'm done with this thread. Pure, unadulterated TRASH. Rotten, stinking GARBAGE is what I smell in here. You transhumanist types have fun...

Originally posted by budski
This may be a topic for a different thread, but I feel the question I'd like answers to has a place here.

The question is:

If you were rich, successful, were fulfilled in every way, with everything that you could ever dream of, and your success was a direct result of genetic engineering, would you still feel the same way?


Answers on a postcard

And of course, the opposite applies - but that's a different conversation........

[edit on 11-5-2007 by budski]

whitewave, and all who have replied


that's a noble reply, but I would still like an answer to the question posed.


or don't you guys have the balls to be honest with yourselves.....




[edit on 11-5-2007 by budski]

[edit on 11-5-2007 by seagull]

Just a quick question here..

Those that support Eugenics,

Would you have even allowed Stephen Hawkins to have been born?

Or Albert Einstein, who was thought for most of his childhood to be developmentally disabled?

Beethoven,
Byron,
Homer,
Lautrec,
Pope

On and on the list of those that would have been "discontinued" by eugenics..

Semper