Printable View
Been reading a lot of books about evolution lately, and that incest thread elsewhere in the Backroom got me thinking: a part of natural selection is the demise of less advantaged individuals in favour of more well-adapted/tougher individuals. This fact is celebrated in numerous books and Discovery Channel specials. So why is there such stigma when the same principle is applied to human beings -- i.e. eugenics?
Well, I think we had the topic here before and one more rational point was that those who are healthy now, may not be healthy anymore when the conditions on the planet change or a new disease comes up etc., having a broad base of different genes could help humanity survive then. Apart from that there's a belief of equality and that everyone should get the same chances to live and have fun, or in other words, if you were unfortunate enough to fall into the category of "not fit enough for life so we're gonna get rid of you", would you just happily agree? Which standards would have to be applied anyway? Whose standards are the best? Are black people better because their skin is more resistant to sunlight which might be important due to global warming? Are white people superior because some say so? Or are the Asians superior because they are many and coming up economically? Or do you think more along the lines of getting rid of uhm, sick people, but then again, who's sick enough to qualify, you got glasses? Sorry, but please follow the guy with the gun... :juggle2:
Humans have civil liberties - most would argue that animals don't. Further, I like to think we have evolved beyond the simple dog-eats-dog idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Also, who would determine who can no longer breed? How would we know that their view was correct?
Sounds like Husar is building up on his plan... ~:joker:
Why wouldn't there be ? I can see plenty wrong in treating human beings like some kind of animal stock to be "improved" by selective breeding; nevermind now that you're going to have a kind of hard time defining the content and aim of that "improvement".
Plus biological evolution stopped being important to humans long ago anyway. Too slow and uncertain. Cultural evolution does the job much better.
And, of course, the Nazis. They did a very thorough job demonstrating what exactly is wrong with the very basis of that kind of thinking and where it leads to.
Eugenics? When can I start building my clone army, to be led of course by the genetically superior Khan bred with superior genes to be stronger, smarter, and better looking? Human beings manufactured on an assembly line basis. Isn't that a little frightening?
There really should be no problem to a secular society. Fortunately for us all - a sizable portion of human beings still believe in a purpose and value to Human life given to us by God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
There are so many facets to human life and so many possible genetic combinations, that asserting the right to meddle in such matters implies precise knowledge of exactly how the environment, culture and the rest of human existence operate and what can be considered advantages and disadvantages beforehand - in other words, sheer arrogance bordering on claiming omnipotence. And if the latter isn't the case, then what improvement can man bring to an age-old process?
Let alone the nature vs nurture questions. There are more than enough examples of people who in theory are genetically fine failing in life, whereas there are also plenty of examples of people who have overcome their physical issues and shone.
Edit: TuffStuffMcGruff, I'd like to think that my post illustrates that your apparent lack of faith in your secular fellow man's morals is unfounded.
God has nothing to do with it, indeed a humanist secular society, I would think holds values of human rights and equality far beyond that of a God fearing society. But let us not divert the intention of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
As to the question it is pretty simple to answer - who decides. Who decides which nationality, creed, personality, physical attributes etc are worthy of continuation and those which are not. Evolution is different to wholesale destroy of a creed in the name of perfection or a 'superior' being, within the Human species. Evolution is already happening amongst humans, right now and scientists think the process is speeding up - though of course it still takes a relatively long time. Killing, letting others be killed or killing themselves - is something quite different and there is one question which makes the whole premise of one creed being better than others look laughable - who decides.
It is quite impossible if looked at a serious, intellectual level.
Tuffy's claim also rather falls apart in the face of the actual historical reality of eugenistic and racial-hygienic policies; those were chiefly practiced (by just about all "Western" states too...) in the first half of the 20th century, back when the average Joe and society in general was considerably more devoutly religious than is the norm today.
There are no such things as good or bad in terms of evolution. It all depends on the enviroment. As the enviroment is constantly changing, what that can be considered good will also do so. Something that is favourable in one enviroment might very well be disfavourable in another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
While it probably wasn't literally ment, evolution could take us anywhere regarding the views on human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I do not have to point to examples in history to say that that is not at all true. Religious people have been discriminating other humans since the dawn of mankind; just as much as non-religious. Gott mit uns!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That was a pretty blatant troll...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Thankfully, flame is one of the things that reliably kills Trolls. [/D&D nerd]
Mymy, I agree with JAG.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
what is this that I hear coming from under the bridge?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
anyway....even being 'godless' secular I don´t think this kind of stuff is a good idea....who could you trust to do it responsibly?...answer...no one.
The reality is that eugenics is NOT repulsive to modern sensibilities. Look eugenics up and tell me that it isn't being practiced today and opposed by those who believe that all life is sacred.
The Nazi's were not a Christian party. Just because the history of Germany was predominantly Christian doesn't mean that eugenics is accepted by those with a Christian message. People are having rampant pre-marital sex, but you can't honestly say that their faith in God or the church has led them to it. The leading factor in those actions tends to be secular "ethics" - just as it was the leading factor in the Holocaust and the other abuses that we can remember regarding eugenics.
People already abort their children with downs syndrome and other disabilities on a massive scale - many are now calling for that to extend beyond the womb into any deficient children that "should have been" aborted or the elderly and disabled.
That's a wee bit different from the previous version which involved the forcible sterilisation of "unwanted" individuals - "medical violence" as it has been called - if not their outright physical extermination, as in the extreme case of the Nazis.
The modern version is one way to answer the dilemma of "if you *know* your child is going to be born handicapped and have a difficult life, is it crueler to abort the fetus or let it be ?"
Kind of a rock and a hard place issue that.
Are you asking if the handicapped are better off dead? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:dizzy2:
Did you actually read the post before knee-jerking ?
If a baby is going to be born into terrible pain - the kindof pain we could only dream about in our worst nightmares - and then die after 48 hours of 'life'.
Is it morally more just to give birth to the baby and let it go through that, or to abort it.
That is what he is talking about, and you know it. That is not eugenics, that is sensible parenting and is a just question.
"Sensible Parenting starring JAG - this weeks guests, Warren Jeffs and Marybeth Tinning"Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
:painting: :whip:
Standing water doesn't even breed reptiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Often helps feed the leeches, though.
Although I agree that genetic diversity is a Good Thing I do not think that this goes against eugenics. There are many genetic mutations that are just bad, the most obvious is Down's, but there are of course many others. Downs are of course sterile but many others aren't.
In the UK we have reached a point where the failures have more opportunity to breed than those at the top. If you are successful you have one or 2 if any children as you pay for their upkeep. If you are unemployed then you start having children up to 15 or more years early and keep banging them out. Any type of control on this would be in breach of civil liberties and is of course not something we can address...
~:smoking:
As it happens, trying "any type of control on this" would also de facto be a regression to the interwar ideas of "social hygiene" which also, surprise surprise, were really worried about the class birthrate disparities...
Sounds like a straightforward question to me, so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As this is one of the fairly unusual cases where I find myself in complete agreement with JAG, I feel it is worth celebration! :birthday2: He hits the important points. Evolution is not a eugenics issue, as evolution happens regardless of human intervention. Eugenics is an attempt to manipulate evolution to certain human expectations, which may be profoundly ignorant, misguided, or discriminatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Chances are, you'll find people have always been having 'rampant' pre-marital sex. Nothing shocking, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Ajax
What is flawed is your insistance that only those who believe in God can hold that all life is sacred. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for being a moral human being. That's just Christianity and Islam (mainly) trying to protect their oligopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Go read the original post again. I'm not in the mood to explain the obvious to the deliberately misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony