It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ItDepends
Yes. A man to be admired for his accomplishments.
Not a hero. Not to me anyway. His disregard for the most basic of human rights won't allow me to put him on that pedestal.
I don't think I'd invite him over for dinner but I'll use his motors.edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
but to try and demonize him for it is just another smear campaign to try and tarnish the genius. good try though
What do you think of child protective services? "Society doesnt think nature is good enough, they feel they need to make laws and such"... What I meant with nature and evolution, is that undesirable parents who are not capable of taking care of themselves and their child have a greater chance of dieing, and their offspring dieing, so in this sense, evolution is a process of creating more 'yes contextually and relatively' desirable parents. But to go against that grain we would have to impose our own ideals and will on nature, which we do. So have you read articles regarding being able to choose and omit genes in babies and stuff?
Originally posted by Phage
Really? "Undesirable parents" were rendered incapable of reproduction by evolution? Can you provide some evidence of this? Seems that if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Eugenicists think evolution isn't good enough. They want to help it along, based on their criteria.
That is a far cry from declaring that someone, anyone, based on some vague prejudice should decide who is "fit" to have children.
Is there any doubt in your mind that this and more will occur in the nearer to near future?
Old Eugenics vs. New Genetics
Ultimately, the paper concludes that despite significant procedural, legislative and administrative differences between the old eugenics and the new genetics, and despite significant spatial, temporal and cultural variations in interpretation and implementation, at the ideological level, there is essentially no difference. The old eugenics was genetics and the new genetics is eugenics.
the genetic future
Genetically engineering our children will likely start with eliminating deadly diseases that owe their origin to some genetic factor. As the technique becomes more widespread and we get accustomed to it, acceptable applications will nudge towards less fatal diseases, and eventually to "improving" intelligence and various cosmetic factors (at some other time we'll discuss that loaded word!).
It will be very hard to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not because on one side of the line or the other, there will always be an intermediate case that will make the line seem arbitrary.
And at each point, those destined to profit will be keenly pointing out the arbitrariness of the line so that their application can be given a green light by government and by society.
It is crucial that we begin thinking about these issues. However, we cannot ignore that, through genetic engineering, we are already engaged in a massive eugenics project on other species. This project has hardly been scrutinized at all in public debate. Those capable of implementing the technology are assumed to also be capable of assessing whether and how it should be implemented.
I think that CPS is a very necessary service. I also understand that humans are subject to failures in judgement which can sometimes lead to poor decisions. This is one of the strongest point against eugenics, the idea that another human should have the ability to determine who is fit to reproduce.
What do you think of child protective services? "Society doesnt think nature is good enough, they feel they need to make laws and such"
It is one of the functions of society to care for such children, whether due to poor parenting or being orphaned. It is not a function of society to decide if those children should be born.
What I meant with nature and evolution, is that undesirable parents who are not capable of taking care of themselves and their child have a greater chance of dieing, and their offspring dieing, so in this sense, evolution is a process of creating more 'yes contextually and relatively' desirable parents.
Yes. Genetic engineering is not the same thing as eugenics. Genetic engineering does not remove one of the must basic human rights.
So have you read articles regarding being able to choose and omit genes in babies and stuff?
There are actually several points. Some more obvious than others.
Phage, i don't really get what's your point here.
As I have repeatedly said genetic engineering is not eugenics (with all due respect to Dr. Ekberg's opinion). Genetic engineering does not entail compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit by...someone.
"Enhancement ... for a better tomorrow."
My problem with Tesla is his stance on eugenics. I don't like the idea of eugenics. I don't like the idea of compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit by...someone.
So, what was your problem with Tesla again?
Originally posted by liejunkie01
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Phage
Yeah, getting pretty sick and tired of the eugenics = Nazism comparison. Sure, the Nazi's twisted the principle of guided reproduction and turned into something evil. But, can anyone tell me why, if were possible, it wouldn't be a bad idea to restrict reproduction using methods that were 100% reversible,
And don't give me that "you're playing God bulls***." From a societal standpoint, think of how a lot of negative aspects of society could be changed over the course of a couple generations. Instead of killing babies, just limit reproduction until someone can prove they are able to raise a child (monetarily, emotionally, etc.)
Sure, there are cases where great leaders were born into families that had nothing, but I would rather see guided reproduction over killing babies because of a "mistake" someone made.
I prefer freedom friend.
That means the right for each individual person to choose the path they wish to walk.
Not some self serving "better than everyone else" traitor of humanity making the decisions for us all.
Hell you might not have been born if we adopted your messed up ideology.
Seriously, your not playing god. You are playing the fool. The one who thinks that they deserve to be here and someon else does'nt. Get the irony?