Eugenics

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You know, if I remember correctly, the Nazis tried this.

If you guys really think Eugenics is a great idea, by all means, knock yourselves out. Go for it. Take the steps to ensure a genetically superior person exists. Good luck. So forgive me, I have... I don't know, REAL shit to worry about I suppose.

Silly conversation...

You know what is sillier? Your inflated fear of such a ridiculous future.
What's next?
"Anti-aging medicine will only be affordable to the rich, and it will allow the elite to live longer for further exploitation of the shorter-living proletariat. Fuck trying to cure old age!"

What's funny is that that is not half as ridiculous as your absurd speculations.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You know what is sillier? Your inflated fear of such a ridiculous future.
What's next?
"Anti-aging medicine will only be affordable to the rich, and it will allow the elite to live longer for further exploitation of the shorter-living proletariat. Fuck trying to cure old age!"

What's funny is that that is not half as ridiculous as your absurd speculations.

Go for it, Jillian. I wont stand in your way. Have at it. It makes no difference to me. All this really is is speculative masturbation anyway. I INVITE you to try it out. You'll see no resistance from me. Go for it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Go for what? Jesus.

[HumanePain]

I happen to fall on Jillian's side because medical advances may start out benefiting the wealthy, but eventually they do benefit others as market forces drive the cost down to make products (medical service is a product) more affordable in order to reach a larger market. Lasik is down to $500 per eye, and even in my own lifetime the Rheumatoid Arthritis antibodies I self inject have dropped from $600 a shot years ago to a $20 copay with my health insurance now allowing the remainder, whereas when I began using it the insurance company wouldn't cover "experimental" medicines, and as a test patient for Abbott Labs I was able to receive the treatment for free.

So what I am trying to say is that Eugenics will spin off advances that will improve the lives of everyone, and that we may have some areas to regulate with vigilance, but fear for the most part is unwarranted.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

You know, nature tends to weed out those unfit for survival anyway...

Do we really need to meddle in it?

[Godslayer Jillian]

We always do, that's the whole point of hospitals.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You know, nature tends to weed out those unfit for survival anyway...

Do we really need to meddle in it?

We already do meddle in it. Those individuals who nature would normally deem unfit for survival do survive these days.

[Albert Mond]

Careful with that axe, Eugenics.

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

The only genes that would be removed would be those that are actually detrimental, like those that lead to mental disorders. If we get rid of all the crazies, then yeah, I suppose we'll be a bit less diverse, but in that case, that's not a bad thing.

Well, the idea is that some genes may cause both beneficial and detrimental effects. For example, people with sickle-cell anemia are immune to malaria. In severe cases, this genetic disease can cause severe symptoms up to and including death, but those with mild cases have few to no symptoms while still being immune to malaria.

Also of note, mental illness typically has environmental factors in addition to genetic factors.

Lastly, genetic diversity is a good thing. The more varied our genes, the more likely the species will survive as a whole in the case of an outbreak. If we all had the same genetic defenses, we could easily be wiped out as a species by a single disease. With genetic diversity, at least a small percentage of people somewhere will be naturally immune to any given disease.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Careful with that axe, Eugenics.

Haha! You atom heart mo' you!

[Pyre]

The only form of eugenics I believe should be implemented is the weeding out of mutated genes that cause adverse effects on the child. I do not believe in "intelligent" superiority, because that is social suicide. Instead of leaving it at that, I guess I should expound upon this:

If we start breeding "intelligent" children, then what will we be able to, then, compare their intelligence to? There will still be social standards and classification based on who is more superior, but it will simply be much more competitive. And then, who would the working class be comprised of?

But of course, intelligence is more nurture than nature: intelligent people usually breed intelligent kids because they're more likely to have the ability to offer a better education than a poor family. And poor, "stupid" families would not be able to afford having a eugenic child, so the idea of breeding out unintelligent people is null.

These two points seem disjunct because they're related very loosely.

And I am sure others have made these points, but I don't have time as is to skim through the multiple pages. I apologize.

[Pyre]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You know, nature tends to weed out those unfit for survival anyway...

Do we really need to meddle in it?

It USED to. We already meddled with it, which is why you see people with down syndrome alive well into their years. Naturally speaking, they wouldn't survive if we didn't spend so much time taking care of them.

Sorry if that sounded abrasive, but I am partially pro-euthanasia.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Haha! You atom heart mo' you!

Haha! You atom heart mo' you!
Haha! You atom heart mo' you!
Haha! You atom heart mo' you!
Haha! You atom heart mo' you!
Haha! You atom heart mo' you!
Haha! You atom heart mo' you!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And you're assuming that it will. You're the one making a positive claim (and an absurd and unbased one at that) so your dismissal of my skepticism of such a Huxley-like world is terrible.

You know what I like about this bit? It's basically just a three-sentence long "nahh-ahh". But then again, if he just said "nahh-ahh" he couldn't pad his non-argument with so many wonderful buzzwords. I particularly like how he's calling my "positive claim" "unbased" when it's based upon a freaking MOUNTAIN of evidence (being that most of human history involves this or that group finding yet another reason, rational or irrational, to lord it over another, weaker group). I also like how he first claims that my Rawanda example doesn't apply because westerner's aren't racist, then when I point out that Rawanda really had nothing to do with race, he claims race doesn't apply and calls it a "textbook Red-Herring".

My point, Jill, was that "social cleavage" (heh, boobies!) can be justified even for completely arbitrary reasons. Therefore, when you have a class of people who are scientifically "better" you're basically giving a loaded gun to a five-year old with anger managment issues.

I say "your dystopian fear is ridiculous" so you believe that my being actually reasonable is ridiculous?
"You can't know that! maybe we will become racist! maybe they will rule over us!" yeah, prove it; don't just feel morally superior for reading too much sci-fi. Would you make an argument of similar magnitude regarding private education?

WTF are you talking about? Are you dyslexic or something?

Okay...I'm going to...try to respond to this rambling, incoherent, yoda-esque attempt at an argument. I don't speak "Jillian" so correct me if I'm wrong here:

You seem to be asking me if I want private education outlawed because it's an unfair advantage for the rich?

No I do not, because honestly, private school's really not that much better than public school (or at least it's not nearly as much of an advantage as I imagine genetic augmentation would be).

That's actually a lie. Since when are better physical traits proof of inequality among people?
There's already genetic inequality. We're not all the same, are we?
So what makes future genetic manipulation any different than today? Either people are equal or they are not. I really don't get where your conclusion derived from.

Wow, so I'm lying now. Not just mistaken, but deliberately and maliciously lying about how multiculturalism is heavily based on ideas of equality! Good to know.

But seriously Jillian, if you can't see the difference between being dealt a proverbial "genetic hand" and your parents having enough money to "rig the deck" then I really don't know how I we can even continue this conversation.

So what about those that are genetically 'superior' now? Do people with higher IQ logically deserve position of overlords?
I mean, there ARE smart people already, you know. And some of these smart people are also good looking. And some of these smart good-looking people area also physically fit. And this number of intelligent, good-looking, healthy individuals in the real world is probably larger than the number of smart, good-looking, healthy 'supermen' that would be genetically engineered in that hyperbolic caste world.

Yeah, but you see, that's the thing, we really don't know exactly who is smarter than whom for the most part. I mean, You can base it on IQ, but really that's a pretty arbitrary test of intelligence when you get right down to it. I mean there are plenty of people with high IQ's who are socially retarded.

However, when a person has a fucking scientific "pedigree" it's much more obvious exactly who is worth more. Better-looking people allready get more opportunities than their fugly brethren, and superior intelligence, if it is displayed properly, is also a major advantage in the work place. Eugenics for the rich would probably magnify the allready considerable advantage these people have by staggering proportions. Plus I don't like the idea of someone messing with someone else's potential before that person is even born.

The belief of social stratification and hierarchies is by definition a conservative/far-right belief. So how am I wrong?

Where should I start? It's already been pointed out that you are mistaken in your belief that the super-rich are uniformly conservative, so there's proposition one and three out the window right there. I could also point out that just because belief in a social hierarchy is a conservative political belief does not necessitate those who participate in that hierarchy to share that belief.

...and really, are you actually so dense that you're going to make me explain to you just how little intelligence has to do with a person's political alignment?

[Godslayer Jillian]

You better not be caught saying that my political opinions are absurd when you make such ridiculous claims.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You know what I like about this bit? It's basically just a three-sentence long "nahh-ahh".

No. It's plain and simple logic. How about using it? You know that he who makes a positive claim is the one that has to defend it.
Know what? I'm not going to argue further until you tell me "yeah, I know that."
Otherwise you're just another Tam.
I'll gladly argue further when you do that.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Know what? I'm not going to argue further until you tell me "yeah, I know that."
Otherwise you're just another Tam.
I'll gladly argue further when you do that.

I'm going to throw peanut shells at you Jillian, until you resume arguing with Despanen. After all, that's one of the only attractions of the politics forums these days.

*throws digital peanut shell*

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You better not be caught saying that my political opinions are absurd when you make such ridiculous claims.

Yeah, I'd best not be caught talkin' bad bout no Anarchy! If I'm wrong 'bout Eugenics it done invalidates my arguments on all sorts of unrelated subjects! for realz. Dog's in glass houses throw no stones ya dig?

Seriously though, why even bring this shit up? Your political opinions have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and it's not an argument I care to get into at this time. Please stay on topic.

No. It's plain and simple logic. How about using it? You know that he who makes a positive claim is the one that has to defend it.
Know what? I'm not going to argue further until you tell me "yeah, I know that."
Otherwise you're just another Tam.
I'll gladly argue further when you do that.

Wait, so you're not going to argue with me, until I "admit" that a person making positive claims has to back them up? I need to "admit" that a basic rule of arguing exists? It's fucktarded, and frankly insulting that you'd assume I'm denying it. But what the fuck, the deeper I go into your thought process the more amused I become. I admit it. "Yeah, I know that" Now please daddy! Please can we continue this oh-so-important discussion about the merits of a dead never-implemented psuedo-science from the thirties?! Can we? I DON'T WANT TO BE ANOTHER TAM!

Now how the fuck do you suggest one goes about proving a claim about something that at this point is purely hypothetical? I grab a time machine and travel into the future?

Now before you cry "VICTORLY!" try to unravel my entire argument by jumping on the fact that I said: "it's undeniable" (What is it with you people and finding one tiny, and largely unrelated crack in an argument and your belief that attacking it will invalidate the argument?) it's called speaking (or I suppose in this case typing) conversationally to those of us who aren't social retards. You would know that if that communist-beard wasn't draining your intellect [<---That's a joke, not a positive claim. I don't have to prove the neural-dampening powers of your facial hair to win this discussion.]

I was exaggerating for effect. The point was, and always has been that given the history of human nature and class struggle, it is "undeniable" (ie: very likely if current trends continue) that even percieved genetic superiority in the hands of only the wealthy will cause a great deal of class friction. To support this point I cited examples of class friction from human history.

Now can you please get back to defending a disgraced and discredited Nazi-embraced theory? I could use a few more laughs.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Spare me the condescension and exaggeration.
I refuse to lose you again amid the series or argument mindfucks you're trying to hide behind, so we'll do this step by step.

First of all:
Tell me exactly why genetic inequalities justify social stratification if they are engineered but natural genetic inequalities don't.

Let's both try to keep our answers short and to the point.

[Despanan]

I'm not hiding behind anything Jillian. True I'm spicing up my posts with a little witty banter, but hey, that makes it more fun for me. I figured the audience would appreciate it as well.

But if you prefer this approach:

Tell me exactly why genetic inequalities justify social stratification if they are engineered but natural genetic inequalities don't.

I'm not saying they justify it, I'm saying people will use them to justify it. Natural genetic inequalities are more difficult to objectively measure than engineered genetic inequalities, as there will not be a paper trail "proving" the superiority of those with the former.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But engineered genetic differences would be by definition arbitrary, while natural genetic differences are the ones that could hypothetically explain some form of social hierarchy between the superior and the inferior.
So genetic engineering won't engender any form of fascist or racist system. Those sentiments must be there from the beginning if anything.
Which brings us to the second point: Why would anyone assume that in a society technologically advanced enough that is capable of genetic engineering, people not only haven't coped with this technological advancement, but in fact have regressed because of it?

[Despanan]

But engineered genetic differences would be by definition arbitrary, while natural genetic differences are the ones that could hypothetically explain some form of social hierarchy between the superior and the inferior.
So genetic engineering won't engender any form of fascist or racist system. Those sentiments must be there from the beginning if anything.

I disagree with this 100%. Whether the differences are natural or genetic doesn't really matter in the end, except for our ability to quantify them, and regardless people don't exactly have a good track record of thinking objectively about race and class. "those sentiments" are in no way required for Eugenics or genetic engineering to be implemented, and I'm not sure why you think they would.

Which brings us to the second point: Why would anyone assume that in a society technologically advanced enough that is capable of genetic engineering, people not only haven't coped with this technological advancement, but in fact have regressed because of it?

Why would anyone assume that a society advanced enough to understand and implement mass Eugenics programs, people not only haven't coped with this technological advancement, but in fact have regressed because of it?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Jesus Christ

Originally Posted by Despanan

Whether the differences are natural or genetic doesn't really matter in the end

But apparently with one we would have a society that separates itself by degrees of purity and in another we do not.

except for our ability to quantify them and regardless people don't exactly have a good track record of thinking objectively about race and class.

Genetic engineering does not quantify genetic purity!
Just because one can mess with the genetic code of a human being doesn't mean you're one step closer in realizing which pattern would create an "objectively" superior human being.

"those sentiments" are in no way required for Eugenics or genetic engineering to be implemented, and I'm not sure why you think they would.

Wait a god damned minute.
You have been arguing this whole time that with eugenics and genetic engineering, it would be inevitable that society would divide itself into superior and inferior, and yet I'm the one that is assuming sentiments of racial superiority are going to exist in this hypothetical future?
That's it; you don't know what you're talking about anymore.

Why would anyone assume that a society advanced enough to understand and implement mass Eugenics programs, people not only haven't coped with this technological advancement, but in fact have regressed because of it?

The Nazis are perfect proof of my point that eugenic does not lead to feelings of racial superiority; but rather those beliefs must have had been already there. I don't get how you couldn't understand that.

[Despanan]

But apparently with one we would have a society that separates itself by degrees of purity and in another we do not.

Yes, for the reasons I already outlined above. In one society it is too difficult to objectively prove an advantage, and thus the advantage is more esoteric, in another the advantage is medically documented.

Genetic engineering does not quantify genetic purity!

Here is where I would ask "why not?" But I worry it would turn out just like your "IT IGNORES CAUSATION!" argument did. (ie: you will continue to state it, without supporting it and when I eventually call you on it, you will leave the thread.) and I'm enjoying this.

...Yet I'm the one that is assuming sentiments of racial superiority are going to exist in this hypothetical future?

No, not at all. Your response here actually confused the hell out of me, so I went back and re-read your post a few times. I think I've managed to decode the Jillianspeak:

I read it originally as:

But engineered genetic differences would be by definition arbitrary, while natural genetic differences are the ones that could hypothetically explain some form of social hierarchy between the superior and the inferior.
So genetic engineering won't engender any form of fascist or racist system. Those sentiments ->[That it won't engender any fascist or racist system] must be there from the beginning if anything.

Because of the way you phrased it I originally assumed that you meant that the people implementing Eugenics would have to not believe in a fascist or racist system. Now I see that you were trying to say that for Eugenics to be implimented in a racist manner, the people using them would have to be racist.

Which I agree with, at least somewhat. We'll talk more about that next.

The Nazis are perfect proof of my point that eugenic does not lead to feelings of racial superiority; but rather those beliefs must have had been already there. I don't get how you couldn't understand that.

Scroll down the page. Germany was just the first country listed. There were multiple countries which implemented Eugenics and behaved in a massively racist/unethical ways, including the not-fascist united states:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.

I agree that Eugenics itself does not always lead to racist thought, just like christianity does not always lead to witch trials. However, Given our current history, I find the development of this type of thought very likely which is one of the many reasons I oppose it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Which then isn't an argument about eugenics engendering unpardonable social hierarchies.
That's going to happen one way or another is the society allows it.
Eugenics, private education, healthcare privileges, extreme capitalism, downright feudalism...
All these can cause seemingly (if we don't take human equality as a priori) justified caste systems. So why is eugenics any different than the others?

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Which then isn't an argument about eugenics engendering unpardonable social hierarchies.
That's going to happen one way or another is the society allows it.
Eugenics, private education, healthcare privileges, extreme capitalism, downright feudalism...
All these can cause seemingly (if we don't take human equality as a priori) justified caste systems. So why is eugenics any different than the others?

So you're arguing that because it's already happening, procedures which will add to the problem should be allowed?

I'm having trouble understanding how someone who supports inheritance tax because the money people want to pass on to their kids wasn't earned by them, can also support something which gives just as significant an advantage to those who've done nothing to earn it on the back of their parents' money. Because it WOULD be a financial issue, and one which has nothing to do with the "conservative wealthy" deciding to create a new generation of thinkers who'd challenge their nefarious cash-gathering practices. The fact is that this is not a procedure which saves lives or is even necessary for the birth of a healthy baby, therefore health insurance companies would not be prepared to foot the bill UNLESS, perhaps, an exorbitant rate is charged in the first place. In either case, getting the necessaries done will be impossible for those from poorer backgrounds, and those from rich backgrounds will have additional advantages aside from growing up with money and all the advantages THAT brings. I don't get what you don't get about that.