Eugenics

I'm doing an argumentative speech in my writing class for eugenics. we got to choose the topic so i just went with the one i thought would be the most fun. I plan on arguing eugenics practices like requiring a parenting licence to reproduce and limiting reproduction in people with genetic disorders would be beneficial to society. What is your opinion on eugenics? Any information/sources you could link me to? General eugenics discussion

My opinion is that humans don't even know what we need for the future, we don't know whats best for us and we can't even all agree on where we want to be going. In this case its better to let the "weak" live cause one of those "weak" peoples minds could hold the solutions we need. Who has the authority really to argue that not allowing people with dangerous genetic disorders to be born is better for society than what one of them might produce. In addition, killing human beings and cutting the money for their services is probably the worst way to get us extra cash. we can't self direct evolution because we don't know what we are trying to evolve to. In addition we don't know the potential consequences of evolving to that point. Life and society is far too complex to assume eugenics wouldn't cause more problems than it would create.

Try reading the book beyond this horizon by heinlein, eugenics plays a role in that story, because society compensates for evolutionary weaknesses by genetically breading humans to be naturally strong and fast and biologically diverse. The book also talks about a war in which one country thought it would be a good idea to use eugenics and genetic engineering to make specialized humans, much like ants or bees (this is said to have backfired) data is used to make superior humans based on objective criteria, rather than subjective things like beauty or IQ (common traits that modern society talks about) I am trying to find some good points on all ends of the spectrum, but I will say that I am of the opinion that we need eugenics to ensure the survival of the human race. This can be argued by the effects of medical technology overcompensating for biological flaws. increases in cancer and other genetic disorders that even 50 years ago are being allowed to enter the gene pool with more frequency. I am not for racist eugenics (i.e. trying to make all children meed specific criteria) but I am for making sure that destructive genetic code does not destroy the human race. There is however a great issue in modern times when it comes to eugenics. on the one hand you have the moral view of people should be allowed to do as they please as to not infringe upon their freedoms as an individual. on the other hand, every himan is inevitably responsible for other humans on this earth many generation from now when it comes to having children. one arguement you could make is the epigenetic factors and how those affect offspring (i.e how famine and abundance of food affect the physical characteristics of every other generation) by this method, you could breed stronger people by making people suffer in some systematic format (i.e. deliberate and induced harsh conditions) is this ethical, should it be considered? everyday examples of eugenics https://history.libraries.wsu.edu/spring2015/2015/01/20/the-origin-and-consequences-of-canine-eugenics/ http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/5199/why-is-eugenics-encouraged-in-the-dog-world-and-condemned-in-the-human-world/p1 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/regulate-designer-babies/ https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/ https://people.creighton.edu/~idc24708/Genes/Eugenics/History%20of%20Eugenics.htm http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/7-beloved-famous-people-who-were-wildly-pro-eugenics https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics There was even a doctor in the united states who would sterilize poor people when they came in for unrelated medical problems, if i remember correctly, he wanted to stop stupid/unfit individuals form having children types of eugenics >forced sterilization >selective breeding (forced or socially encouraged, see rape used to further bloodlines like the mongols, and the indian caste system) >designer babies/gene selection and modification (see CRISPR and IVF) >evolution - placing people under specific conditions to make them adapt over several generations

I thought that this was a good powerpoint too

>>3930 http://www.lucidpages.com/doom.html

You should really read The Mismeasure of Man.

Lol, oh this should be good. In the current political climate, this should go down like a cup of cold sick. OP, please let us know how it went, or at least have somebody post it on Youtube when they hang you from a lamppost like Mussolini.

>>3943 That's right OP trigger those libs lolol

>>3998 ya trigger those beta nu males. epic win for us red pillers yet again am i right brother?

>but I will say that I am of the opinion that we need eugenics to ensure the survival of the human race humanity should survive because...? genetics will solve humanity's problems because...? be realistic please. >This can be argued by the effects of medical technology overcompensating for biological flaws. increases in cancer and other genetic disorders that even 50 years ago are being allowed to enter the gene pool with more frequency. do I really need to point out how this has no relevance at all, to survival? >There is however a great issue in modern times when it comes to eugenics. not really. you have a tiny group of idiots that support eugenics. >one arguement you could make is the epigenetic factors and how those affect offspring (i.e how famine and abundance of food affect the physical characteristics of every other generation) kind of funny how this again has less to do with genetics. that issue has to do with health. it's not really "eugenics" anymore when what you really want is a restriction on poor people to reproduce. that problem has to with education. people should know when it's a bad idea to have kids. why is this at all important in the consideration of survival? what do you even think causes famine? genetics? >by this method, you could breed stronger people by making people suffer in some systematic format (i.e. deliberate and induced harsh conditions) why? is this ethical, should it be considered? i think you have a very fuarrrked up idea of ethics. somehow it doesn't ring an alarm it's unethical to create a system of suffering, over a BMI number?

>>4000 >somehow it doesn't ring an alarm it's unethical to create a system of suffering, over a BMI number? so if we can get a technology that allows people to live fat and shorter lives on the basis that we have the technology to keep them alive indefinitely even though their health is deteriorating, and their poor life choices will with certainty cause a worse life for future generations by increasing rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart conditions in addition to possibly being linked to things like allergies and asthma, then it is justified to keep promoting this behavior? this becomes a definite problem when one takes the factors of resource allocation into account. >fat people have higher rates of health issues that will either be dealt with by a socialized medical system, or will place a burden on other parts of society my allocating resources that could be better spent elsewhere on infrastructure or development (money, manpower, or even technologies) >fat people are less capable of performing tasks related to the security and defense of their communities or nations even though military action is a last resort, they will need people to protect them because they would be incapable of doing it themselves >humanity should survive because...? genetics will solve humanity's problems because...? be realistic please. humanity should survive, because it is in its own interest to survive, other than adopting a nihilistic "humans serve no purpose on this earth and should be allowed to destroy themselves" attitude, it is in humanities best interest to prevent itself from dying out >do I really need to point out how this has no relevance at all, to survival? technology has always been relevant to mankind's survival, unless you somehow have disregarded maslovs hierarchy of needs >not really. you have a tiny group of idiots that support eugenics. just because eugenics does not correspond to your paradigm, does not mean that it is inherently stupid, in fact many proposals for the integration of eugenics in society advocate that it could create a healthier human race that is more resilient and can cope with existential threats as a species. the "idiots" who talk about eugenics in a different manner are the ones who advocate "pure races" or designer races based on arbitrary criteria like skin color or tallness. these people were also some of the most influential people in the western world on the basis of their capitalist reigns over the economy. >it's not really "eugenics" anymore when what you really want is a restriction on poor people to reproduce. that problem has to with education. preventing the "poor" from reproducing is in fact eugenics. people whose bloodlines were not affluent would not carry forward their genes into future generations. education is not part of eugenics, but education can be catered to present the argument that the poor are stupid and serve no purpose and should not exist, this would then be consolidated with preconceived observations about who is "poor" or "rich" especially in western countries, whites are associated with being economically self sufficient, and there are stereotypes about blacks. it would be simple to each people that blacks are the poor, while whites are the rich thus all blacks should be eliminated (using logical stepping stones, this argument has in fact been used) >people should know when it's a bad idea to have kids. sex happens? why is this at all important in the consideration of survival? purebred species tend to have more genetic defects that cause them to produce handicapped and unhealthy offspring. maintaining pure bloodlines of the royalty in many countries through incest caused a whole list of unhealthy humans what do you even think causes famine? genetics? famine is caused by a variety of factors, but when famine occurs, the body compensates by producing hardier more efficient humans. genetics and the environment are interrelated. it is not a stupid idea to produce hardier men and women who are more resistant to famine conditions, especially when one consideres that population blooms in the future have a high probability of creating adverse conditions due to lack of clean drinking water and famine (assuming we cannot find a way to develop better water filtration and fresh water production techniques)

>>3930 If we were to have a hypothetical parenting license, in principle, I think I might approve of it. However, that introduces government regulation into how people parent, and in the wrong circumstances, I might find that rather un-agreeable. As for other forms of eugenics (i.e. selective breading, screening for strong mental or physical disorders) I really am unsure of where I stand. Sometimes, I feel like many of the health problems that people sugggest eugenics could solve can be solved other ways (obesity for instance). What I definitely don't agree with is the concept of genetic engineering of humans. Not because I have something against us using technology to produce smarter, more capable people, but because I feel that in our current society, that sort of technology would be very inaccessable to the general public. It seems to me that it would only serve as a further seperator for the disadvantaged in society (we don't live in some futuristic wonderland yet). Wouldn't you feel super cheated for being less intelligent because your parents didn't invest in optimising your genetic outcome? That sort of thing strikes me as un-ethical, and there is zero consent on the part of the person being birthed.

>>4001 >, in fact many proposals for the integration of eugenics in society advocate that it could create a healthier human race that is more resilient Artificially selecting for features has an extremely strong history of creating less resilient populations.

>>4001 >so if we can get a technology that allows people to live fat and shorter lives on the basis that we have the technology to keep them alive indefinitely even though their health is deteriorating, and their poor life choices will with certainty cause a worse life for future generations by increasing rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart conditions in addition to possibly being linked to things like allergies and asthma, then it is justified to keep promoting this behavior? how am i promoting this behavior anywhere in my argument? congratulations you've soykaf out straws. anti-eugenics is not condoning bad procreation. >>fat people have higher rates of health issues that will either be dealt with by a socialized medical system, or will place a burden on other parts of society my allocating resources that could be better spent elsewhere on infrastructure or development (money, manpower, or even technologies) oh no increasing obesity because increased consumption and sedentary lives! >fat people are less capable of performing tasks related to the security and defense of their communities or nations i'm shocked how retarded this counterpoint is. i can't tell if you're trolling. >humanity should survive, because it is in its own interest to survive, other than adopting a nihilistic "humans serve no purpose on this earth and should be allowed to destroy themselves" attitude, it is in humanities best interest to prevent itself from dying out well that's not my argument again. i suppose you're just too fuarrrking stupid to question there is no imperative for eugenics to save humanity. there is no reason anyone should care if people end up extinct. it's in our interests? brilliant argument, it justifies nothing. you didn't explain how it's not wrong. you didn't answer my second question as well. by the way, nihilism isn't the negation of eugenics or the extinction of humanity as a problem. i care about people. >technology has always been relevant to mankind's survival, unless you somehow have disregarded maslovs hierarchy of needs i'm not sure what that even means. 3933's original claim was biological flaws matter to the survival of humanity and i reject that on the grounds there is no threat. medical technology isn't going to kill us off you dimwit. nongenetic factors like warfare and obliteration of the earth are the only real threats. >just because eugenics does not correspond to your paradigm, does not mean that it is inherently stupid, in fact many proposals for the integration of eugenics in society advocate that it could create a healthier human race that is more resilient and can cope with existential threats as a species. again, i can't see the justification for genetic preparedness so humanity has a better chance at surviving. if you want to mitigate disease you research medicine, or not have any children at all. i don't see the justification especially if your idea of a solution is to create systematic suffering. i suppose in the future we'll have advanced baby monitoring technology, genetic correction/therapy of known hereditary disorders like Huntington's, and that other crap, but you want to force people through trials because you're appalled by fat? somehow all the people with faster metabolism are gonna do a much better job at fixing society? > the "idiots" who talk about eugenics in a different manner are the ones who advocate "pure races" or designer races based on arbitrary criteria like skin color or tallness good luck avoiding these type of people in a society that licenses birth based on BMI numbers. > these people were also some of the most influential people in the western world on the basis of their capitalist reigns over the economy. oh yes our rich overlords who fuarrrk thousands of people over and inherited their wealth know what's best for us. can you prove to me rich people are the genetic master race? >preventing the "poor" from reproducing is in fact eugenics. no it's not unless you can describe to me the genetic makeup of the poor. you can't so it's just discrimination on a status that is IRRELEVANT. > people whose bloodlines were not affluent would not carry forward their genes into future generations. this means richer people have better genes because? >education is not part of eugenics not my claim. i think you're an illiterate retard. don't have kids. >but education can be catered to present the argument that the poor are stupid and serve no purpose and should not exist i'm confused. i'm not one who's a nihilist? my claim was it's a matter of education to inform people having children is a bad idea when they don't have the finances or the personality. i think it's also a matter of education people recognize overpopulation. additionally there is little to no guarantee your kid doesn't die a horrific death, is raped, whatever. i think secular education promotes there's no importance in having children. >this would then be consolidated with preconceived observations about who is "poor" or "rich" especially in western countries, whites are associated with being economically self sufficient, and there are stereotypes about blacks. it would be simple to each people that blacks are the poor, while whites are the rich thus all blacks should be eliminated the poverty of blacks was caused by racism and is prolonged by social darwinistic attitudes like yours. >sex happens? unprotected sex happens? >purebred species tend to have more genetic defects that cause them to produce handicapped and unhealthy offspring. maintaining pure bloodlines of the royalty in many countries through incest caused a whole list of unhealthy humans i think you're either religious or on the schizophrenic spectrum if you're concerned about Egyptians. >famine is caused by a variety of factors, but when famine occurs, the body compensates by producing hardier more efficient humans. genetics and the environment are interrelated. it is not a stupid idea to produce hardier men and women who are more resistant to famine conditions, especially when one consideres that population blooms in the future have a high probability of creating adverse conditions due to lack of clean drinking water and famine (assuming we cannot find a way to develop better water filtration and fresh water production techniques) so you think the solution is eugenics instead of mitigating famine. nice one.

Genocide all pale-skinned people because they are usually poor, low-intelligent and tend to not respect their bloodline. See: Eastern Europe, Germany, Southern States, Latin America Leave Semites and sub-Saharan Africans as an example of high-intelligent, honorary and strong specimen with good family values. See: Israel, Queens, France, Albania.

>>4001 fun fact regarding your maslow hierarchy of needs picture: maslow originally put the need of sexual satisfaction in the physiological tier, not in the third or higher tier as most psychologists use today. the boy really thought getting a nut out was on the same level as eating, sleeping, etc ((and i agree to be honest))

>>4013 people who like to advocate that they just believe in eugenics cause it's "logical" will never agree with this because it means that they might have to die and those dumb black ppl they are so much better than would live.

>>4007 this so much, Theobroma Cacao(that stuff you make choco out of) almost died out because of artificial selection.

>>4021 Eugenics to INCREASE genetic resilience.

>>4022 "Sorry m'boy, you'll be fuarrrking this chubby 40 yo eastern islander for the rest of your life. It's for the sake of humanity. She didn't get to choose either."

>>4001 >famine... When you're hungry or thirsty, it's the only thing that matters. You spend all your time trying to fulfill those needs. While this might be beneficial to individuals (your body compensating and making you hardier and efficient), it isn't for humanity. You simply don't have time left to spend on making technological advances, advances which could actually help fight famine ? When you're hungry, you just eat all the peas you can find. You don't waste hours studying them, etc.

>>4022 This implies that we have a way of measuring genetic resilience. Do you think we do? Can you show us that we do?

>>4023 Im not advocating forced reproduction, just like the birth licenses that were proposed, if people agreed to only have children in relationships that would produce more resilient offspring, you are still free to fugg, but only have children with specific geneotypes. like how having 2 people with sickle cell as a receive trait causes a child to have sickle cell anemia. it would take an immense amount of education, and you would open up a greater market for people to sell their wombs (which could be a source of income for a community) you could also avoid a handful of other lethal disorders that are caused by people breeding with the same race OR EVEN POSSIBLY PREVENT AUTISM these are all hypothetical >>4029 you could do like the flu, use data analysis (a growing field in everything) to figure out what the most likely human problems will be, and then figure out a way to combat that problem statistically. heck, you could even explore methods like mitochondrial vaccinations (not really eugenics, but could be used in conjunction with other data analysis to produce sickness resistant offspring)

What is your opinion on eugenics? i'm against postive eugenics since no matter what criteria is chosen it would end up being arbitrarly and coercitive. Also everyone should be given a chance blah blah That said i'm also against any kind of governement funded benefits, and if someone I've never met was dying in front of my house I woudn't care much for it

Eugenics doesn't even make sense anymore to accomplish what it's supposed to do. You could select embryos based on genetic diseases to allow nearly anybody to have a healthy baby. Even then, I'd be against it, because of course in modern society it would only be available to people with the cash, creating even more barriers between rich and poor.

>>4032 Do you have the statistics for Brugada from the second image? It was my understanding that it is not easy to diagnose, as one may have it but not have it show up on an ECG. In addition, there are also things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_QT_syndrome Long QT syndrome that may be possible. How can they know for sure that Brugada is responsible for 50%? Do they really spend that much on genetic testing in Thailand? I have some serious doubts about that second image you have posted.