|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 5, 2011 10:20:58 GMT -5
Hey guys, remember eugenics? Wasn't that a great idea! Let's give it another try fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you Eugenics, while preserving the natural, human and lawful rights of people, and making sure the methods actually work towards the inteded goal, is a great idea, yes. *tilts head* What is this, I don't even |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 5, 2011 14:13:35 GMT -5
Well, there is a branch of eugenics ("positive eugenics," I think it's called) that involves promoting the breeding of people with desirable traits rather than prohibiting the breeding of people with undesirable traits. It's possible to do this in accordance with the rights of people, although I suspect that it wouldn't make any kind of meaningful difference to the actual frequency of desired alleles.
|
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 5, 2011 15:37:43 GMT -5
*longs for the good old days when we could accomplish the same thing just by killing almost everyone*
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 5, 2011 15:54:22 GMT -5
Well, there is a branch of eugenics ("positive eugenics," I think it's called) that involves promoting the breeding of people with desirable traits rather than prohibiting the breeding of people with undesirable traits. It's possible to do this in accordance with the rights of people, although I suspect that it wouldn't make any kind of meaningful difference to the actual frequency of desired alleles. Doesn't it already happen, though? I mean, outside of rich men with disproportionally attractive wives, most people end up with someone of roughly the same attractiveness and intelligence as themselves. Geeks date other geeks. Jocks date cheerleaders. It's the circle of life. |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jul 5, 2011 16:16:58 GMT -5
Sterilization is just permanent abortion, really, and with how much the rightwing claims to be against abortion, I'm surprised that this idea is being seriously considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Jul 5, 2011 16:18:39 GMT -5
Well, there is a branch of eugenics ("positive eugenics," I think it's called) that involves promoting the breeding of people with desirable traits rather than prohibiting the breeding of people with undesirable traits. It's possible to do this in accordance with the rights of people, although I suspect that it wouldn't make any kind of meaningful difference to the actual frequency of desired alleles. Doesn't it already happen, though? I mean, outside of rich men with disproportionally attractive wives, most people end up with someone of roughly the same attractiveness and intelligence as themselves. Geeks date other geeks. Jocks date cheerleaders. It's the circle of life. And since Tai has no intelligence or attractiveness, he dates no one? That's how it seems, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 5, 2011 16:27:32 GMT -5
Sterilization is just permanent abortion, really, and with how much the rightwing claims to be against abortion, I'm surprised that this idea is being seriously considered. The right isn't against abortion per-se. They support restricting abortions because it allows them to tap into a voting block. Ironbite-that's all... |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 5, 2011 16:35:01 GMT -5
Hey guys, remember eugenics? Wasn't that a great idea! Let's give it another try fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you You do a marvelous Nostalgia Critic impression. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 5, 2011 18:01:10 GMT -5
Well, there is a branch of eugenics ("positive eugenics," I think it's called) that involves promoting the breeding of people with desirable traits rather than prohibiting the breeding of people with undesirable traits. It's possible to do this in accordance with the rights of people, although I suspect that it wouldn't make any kind of meaningful difference to the actual frequency of desired alleles. Doesn't it already happen, though? I mean, outside of rich men with disproportionally attractive wives, most people end up with someone of roughly the same attractiveness and intelligence as themselves. Geeks date other geeks. Jocks date cheerleaders. It's the circle of life. To some extent, sure. But we're not talking about dating, we're talking about breeding. Intelligence and affluent people are less likely to have kids, so positive eugenics in this case would involve creating some sort of incentive (money, perhaps) for Lord and Lady Smartypants to play the Duggar game and have 23 kids. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 5, 2011 18:03:46 GMT -5
Time for cloning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 5, 2011 21:35:53 GMT -5
Doesn't it already happen, though? I mean, outside of rich men with disproportionally attractive wives, most people end up with someone of roughly the same attractiveness and intelligence as themselves. Geeks date other geeks. Jocks date cheerleaders. It's the circle of life. To some extent, sure. But we're not talking about dating, we're talking about breeding. Intelligence and affluent people are less likely to have kids, so positive eugenics in this case would involve creating some sort of incentive (money, perhaps) for Lord and Lady Smartypants to play the Duggar game and have 23 kids. I thought it was pretty standard in 1st world countries to give tax breaks to middle and upper class people who have kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 6, 2011 5:25:19 GMT -5
Eugenics, while preserving the natural, human and lawful rights of people, and making sure the methods actually work towards the inteded goal, is a great idea, yes. *tilts head* What is this, I don't even Encourage people with good genes to breed and discourage people with bad genes from breeding. Assuming that there are something like 'good' or 'bad' genes. There aren't, I know. Still, you can select away from genetic diseases, and towards better tolerances and immunities, and the more we get to know about genetics, the better we have a chance to properly appreciate what a 'good odds' genome is. And you need to take care that the selection actually happens due to genetics and not due to class, which is what 'sterilize poor people' is threatening to become. So, it's a lot of ifs attached, but if it can be pulled off, I think it's a good idea, Vene. After all, it's happening to a small degree already with pre-implantantion diagnostics for artificial insemination babies, or in sperm banks, where the parents select which donor they want to use. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 6, 2011 8:45:12 GMT -5
*tilts head* What is this, I don't even Encourage people with good genes to breed and discourage people with bad genes from breeding. Assuming that there are something like 'good' or 'bad' genes. There aren't, I know. Still, you can select away from genetic diseases, and towards better tolerances and immunities, and the more we get to know about genetics, the better we have a chance to properly appreciate what a 'good odds' genome is. And you need to take care that the selection actually happens due to genetics and not due to class, which is what 'sterilize poor people' is threatening to become. So, it's a lot of ifs attached, but if it can be pulled off, I think it's a good idea, Vene. After all, it's happening to a small degree already with pre-implantantion diagnostics for artificial insemination babies, or in sperm banks, where the parents select which donor they want to use. *tilts head other direction* Still silly from over here |
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Jul 6, 2011 9:19:49 GMT -5
Sterilization is just permanent abortion, really, and with how much the rightwing claims to be against abortion, I'm surprised that this idea is being seriously considered. In the same way that the birth control pill is an abortion, I guess? |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 6, 2011 9:27:44 GMT -5
*tilts head* What is this, I don't even Encourage people with good genes to breed and discourage people with bad genes from breeding. Assuming that there are something like 'good' or 'bad' genes. There aren't, I know. Still, you can select away from genetic diseases, and towards better tolerances and immunities, and the more we get to know about genetics, the better we have a chance to properly appreciate what a 'good odds' genome is. And you need to take care that the selection actually happens due to genetics and not due to class, which is what 'sterilize poor people' is threatening to become. So, it's a lot of ifs attached, but if it can be pulled off, I think it's a good idea, Vene. After all, it's happening to a small degree already with pre-implantantion diagnostics for artificial insemination babies, or in sperm banks, where the parents select which donor they want to use. Why not just encourage genetic manipulation to get all of those benefits without worrying about the parents' DNA? You'd get more benefits with less chance of mutation giving problems in a much shorter amount of time. Breeding for traits is not that great, actually, as you're going to get ones you don't want to get the ones you do want. Take a look at dog breeding, or any other animal for that matter, and notice how many of the pure breds that have the desired traits (not just looks, there's still many bred for specific things like sense of smell and loyalty) have a lot of undesirable traits (like heart disease, shorter lifespan, etc.). Only by directly manipulating it can we be sure we get the desired traits, and not only that, eventually we'd be able to make them quite superior in many ways. Of course, many science fiction stories have already explored what might happen as a result of all of that, including how non-manipulated people will act towards them, which just cements that it's just not a good idea. Having them form their own society in a completely different location doesn't work either, as that only prolongs the clash. |
|
