It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are your thoughts on Eugenics in the Modern World?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I believe that eugenics is still practiced today. Royals cannot marry outside the royal blood lines. Look at the family histories of our presidents and you'll find they're all related to some prior president. The children of corporate leaders marry the children of corporate leaders.
One of my favorite sayings is: "there's not enough chlorine in the gene pool", I just have to be careful where I say it. Because modern medical science makes it possible for people to live 'normal lives' that would, 100 years ago, have died of "natural causes", bad heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, physical deformity before they reached breeding age, we now have a very unhealthy population in the western world because some of these deformities are passed on through the genes.
Yes, our world population is too high. I believe we recently passed the point where the farmlands of the world are able to feed our current population. Due to farmland erosion and the Agra-business practice of over-farming depleting the soils ability to produce without chemical fertilizers, there is less food being produced each year and it's of a poorer quality.
Is eugenics the answer to all this? I don't think so. Who's going to make the decisions? I don't want the responsibility of deciding who can and who cannot have children and how many they can have, or who can breed with who because of their eugenic profile. Who makes the definition of a "lower level person"? I would question the motives of anyone who wanted that job. We don't need another corporate controlled Hitler.
I believe Mother Nature will soon take the job...




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


As for your specific question:

1). Forced Sterilization -> Never.
2). Applying for a permit to birth a child with your lover. -> Depends on the hassle of getting the permit and the punishment for not getting one.
3). Segregation of lower level humans -> Integration and accommodation should be the norm, segregation only as it benefits the individual. I don't know what you mean by lower level, but I'll assume you mean the disabled.
4). Killing off of the undesirables -> Never.
5). More comprehensive Genetic testing of human potential prior to birth -> Yes. I find this to be inevitable.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
if it ever does get to the point where the earth is over populated i think there is a better way of reducing the population other than eugenics.

trying to guess which couples might produce the most genetically desirable children is gamble at best. it would be far better to go to the other end of the spectrum,to people who are already born and have proven themselves to be genetically undesirable. criminals like, serial killers, murders, child molesters (politicians?) etc, have already proven themselves to be undesirable. executing undesirable and defective humans like the aforementioned criminals would be a win/win. it would reduce the population, save tax payers money, and allow people to continue having children as they chose.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


As has always been the case, education is the answer. Case in point, the population of the US would be shrinking if not for immigration. The food supply would not be a problem and how many individuals the Earth could safely accommodate, is directly related to how literate and advanced the population is.

Currently producing enough food is not an issue; the problem is getting the food to everyone. Hunger is directly related to the literacy level, culture of the region and its government. In many cases hunger exists because the government uses it as a tool for control, or the infrastructure is inadequate due to illiteracy in the culture.

What is not a solution is for those who self-describe as one of those who should live, to decide who should die, procreate or be born. We as humans are incapable of seeing beyond our own bigotry and prejudice. That is simply the way we are, the way our minds work. The instinct to survive is something we are born with, that predetermines how we will respond to the threat of elimination.

Even the suggestion Eugenics is rational or reasonable is dangerous. Dangerous at a level, that could lead to the end of civilization even faster than the wrongly perceived overpopulation.

Have you considered it from the viewpoint of you being one of the inferior humans to be culled, or to have never been born? To fully realize the nature of Eugenics you must approach it from that point of view. Perhaps that is why it’s considered a topic only seriously considered by sociopathic / narcissistic personalities. History has shown us that is true.

Education however is a positive solution that would lead to a sustainable population and a good standard of living for everyone.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
the earth is not even close to max capacity.

go to alaska or any part of northern canada.


Max capacity is not calculated from living space. Either the world is incredibly simple in your head, or you enjoy obfuscating the conversation by dropping straw man arguments.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by SteveR
 


the earth is not even close to max capacity.

go to alaska or any part of northern canada.

northern russia, the pampas of south america, the jungles of the amazon are barely populated.


Good to know all we have to do is stand on a piece of land to live.

It's so simple. Why didn't I see it?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Good to know all we have to do is stand on a piece of land to live.



Somehow this got an REM song stuck in my head



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


I'm all for Eugenics but we haven't a government system that can safely apply it. Eugenics exists outside of any racial, religious considerations. It can be a very cheap and easy, but at the same time dangerous and powerful tool to shape human evolution.

Humans now exist outside of the constrains of natural selection, natural selection has no morals and is optimized to enhance a species survivability in a natural environments and deal with slow changes in that environment. Eugenics is simply bring scientific control to the natural occurring processes of life, reproduction and death.

We are not ready to delegate these decision processes on any government body, you can however be proactive and responsible in the choices you can make as individual about life, reproduction and death.

PS: As bad examples that still exist today look to dogs and other animal breeders (even farm animals) to see the evil that can result. Genetics is a tool for eugenic control also.
edit on 15-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragonskrye
 


I believe wholeheartedly that the elite hold Eugenics as a religion of principals. They would move to solidify this ideology if the application would not seem so controversial.

AAC



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Eugenics in and of itself is not evil.

Why is it evil to want a better body? I'd love to have a more efficient body that is highly resistant to disease, doesn't age, doesn't have the teeth decay on you, have better eyesight and never need glasses ever again, and things like that. Being obese causes health problems, and while i want to see an end to the stigma attached to obese people, it's not an evil thing to want to have a healthier more active lifestyle.

I'd love to see an end to cancer and AIDs and things like that. Eugenics can do that, if people would stop identifying with people like Hitler. Eugenics doesn't have to mean have a single ethnic group that is all the same. I'm so tired of people equating Eugenics to Hitler.

Yes, some awful things have happened in its name, but it doesn't have to be that way.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 

I read somewhere on ATS that the entire human population could fit and function in an area the size of Texas.

The idea that the earth cannot support the population is a myth.


I'll just leave this here from a previous discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


There are mountains, tundra, deserts, land covered with ice, volcanic areas, etc. Adjust your calculations to subtract those areas from your original number, unless you're the one who wants to live in the middle of the Sahara, attempt to grow grapes on the side of Mount St. Helens, or cultivate wheat in the Antarctic. Your "debunking" also assumes that we should remove all wilderness to accommodate farm land for humans, which involves killing most species of plants and animals that are not food for humans.

In short, your so-called debunking is lacking substance.

Also, your math is a bit...off.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
the thing i think that is wrong with our perspective on humanity and its role in nature is that we do not always place ourselves within its boundaries. we have a very anthropocentric view of the world we live in. we tend to think that we have an almost godlike control over things such as societal growth and i do not mean only in population. because we have found many things to help us survive, we start to lose sight of the fact that nature is a continuing process. it isnt as though, just because we solved one problem, that we are done with it. several consequences arise( ie, the invention of life saving medicine has caused population to balloon which brings with it many other problems).

though our "development" (no matter how poorly defined) isn't always out of our hands. let's use the simplistic analogy of the dyke with the hole in it. plugging the one hole is not going to change the fact that there is an underlying problem being the extreme pressure just behind the wall. patching here and there is not sufficient. the obvious answer would be to alleviate the pressure beyond the wall but at what cost? something(or someone) will have to be on the short end of the stick. this is very natural whether we used an "unnatural" method or not. it is a simple rule of the universe that cannot be denied.

so, i come to my point; what is acceptable to us to become "better"? (to get it out of the way i am not advocating exterminating anyone or forcing anyone to comply with disgusting laws). with that said, i believe that underlying pressure is genetics. the manipulation of genetics is a great tool although this would be in conjunction with improved social programs. why would it be wrong to manipulate the genes that cause people to be seriously violent? or less intelligent? sociopaths or psychopathic? i do understand that there are carriers of genes that are correlated with being a serial killer. although i did see a show where the actual researcher did have that very gene but was not one. he attributed to being in the proper environment as a child.

we can't be naive and believe that only social engineering is sufficient and fast enough to bring us much needed change. the underlying propensity needs to be addressed. i'm not idealistic enough to think that this is a complete solution but as with anything in nature it is the compromise that can turn the tide in our favor. it is only the natural progression; to find the best tools for the situation to solve the problems at hand.
edit on 9/16/2012 by homeskillet because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/16/2012 by homeskillet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
After thinking about it - - my conclusion is.

Until humans voluntarily take on the responsibility for their own actions in irresponsible procreation - - - forced law may be required.

Such as in China.

Overall statistics show those in the category of "higher education" - - have fewer children.

Education is definitely a key factor in the responsibility of irresponsible procreation.

Culture is one of the most difficult things to change. How do you change a culture that men prove their virility by how many children they produce? Or religious culture that thinks every child is a gift from god?

Force really is the only answer. How its forced is the BIG question.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Many years ago I worked in a state owned psych/developmental facility in southern California called Fairview. Most of the patients were severely developmentally disabled. They mostly had deformities and an IQ less than 40. Parents of these children gave permission to have them sterilized after some became pregnant and carried to term, often normal children without anyone to care for them. Yes, many of those children conceived were from janitors and orderly x convicts who had raped the patients who were unable to speak or fight back......it was very very sad.

I had many female patients that had total hysterectomies, or were given the pill every day to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

At that time, I personally thought it was a good idea, seeing what I had seen and knowing what I knew about development disabilities.

This new Eugenics ideology is scary however......Our future generation will be the chosen ones to inherit the Earth?? Those with the most money wins I guess in this scenario....



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


The things you are talking about are Genetic Engineering. Eugenics (as in sterilization) will not produce a population that doesn't age, is immune to cancer, and has perfect teeth. Unless you want to sterilize 99% of people. Sterilization for major genetic disease would keep the genome healthy. This is how it works in nature through natural selection. Population control was often conflated in this thread (not really eugenics) but it goes hand-in-hand with eugenics for the responsible and moral stewardship of humanity. Population control is desperately needed for the good of the Earth, and the improvement of children's lives (we license prospective good parents while ruling out obvious bad candidates).

Genetic Engineering of the human genome is pandora's box. This is very, very different than old eugenics. It is the line where we cease to be a natural species and we become a genetically modified organism. It ends the 4 billion year process of evolution from which our DNA is derived. The implications are greater than anything else mankind has ever done. Where does it end? A dystopian future where so called 'humans' are created for specific purposes. Monsanto-like corporations running around owning the patents of new forms of human being. A new racism and segregation of society based on superiority? You should at least be aware of what you are proposing, it is not the eugenics as discussed in the OP. I think the purpose of the old eugenics was to keep humanity in line with natural law. This is a noble pursuit. GM humans resolves problems by removing us entirely from natural law. There is really no moral foundation. If you wish to end cancer, AIDS and other problems then resolve the real world causes. Look at the junk we eat, the pollution we breathe, and the genetic disease we knowingly pass on because of the selfish (seemingly unalienable) right to have kids. Genetic Engineering would not help the planet or improve the lives of children. Licensing our breeding unarguably does both. There are two roadblocks. One, it is perceived as discrimination (to our detriment, all discrimination is taboo in the modern politically correct world) and Two, reforming humanity requires a global consensus.

Capitalism as it is requires a sub-class of people. This is something Marx understood in his deconstruction. Whether it be low wage workers here at home or the millions literally enslaved in China making our junk. The sub-class makes the world go round, but it is an offensive concept when one considers the betterment of humanity. If one country (such as ours) were to unilaterally lower its population it would eventually be outperformed economically and dominated politically. In this environment one sided reforms aren't possible. We could only end the demands of competitiveness so key in balancing the international stage when there is a global consensus on improving humanity. It is obvious how competition in the global economy and political stage suppresses humanity, rules out improvement of our lives and our species, and desecrates the Earth.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise

This new Eugenics ideology is scary however......Our future generation will be the chosen ones to inherit the Earth?? Those with the most money wins I guess in this scenario....


Why? Why would money be the deciding factor?

I do think there should be a licensing program to procreate. However - - proving that you have the desire and future earnings to raise a child - - food - housing - education - etc - - - does not require you to be of the "chosen ones".

We do need diversity and being of the elite definitely does not guarantee the next generation. There's plenty of "bozo" useless children of the elite in this world.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Good post, SteveR.

We should consider that the alternative life modernization has created (Fast foods, synthetic drugs, chemically enhanced foods/processed foods) has also inflicted genetic alterations to our species.

If we have installed negative affecting policy into the human way, why not have a positive implementation to counter-balance what we all seemingly are okay with.

Eugenics does not have to be as barbaric as what we already do to ourselves.

AAC



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Eugenics does not have to be as barbaric as what we already do to ourselves.


Agreed. Well stated. So important to put it into perspective.

Interesting thread. I noticed when you examine the merits of anything controversial, there will always be numerous people who try to shut down minds and conversations by bringing up this man. I wonder when that tactic will ever die out.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join