First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Eugenics, Salvation or Damnation?
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
Eugenics is the Study and Practice of Selective Breeding on Human Beings with the Aim to Improve the Species.

Modern day Eugenics would involve genetic engineering and who knows, gene splicing?

Branded as as a Evil practice promoted by the Nazi and Racist, it is nevertheless secretly praised and approved by the greatest Scientific minds of this era.

How can anyone deny this science without using religion, morals or any preconceived notion of Good and Evil.

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
'There is no evil to this... As long as all parties agree. You can not force people to mate, but if people are willing to have kids and have those kids spiced up.. then no harm no foul.

People do this to dogs and other animals all the time, we have to call that evil as well if its evil for humans to do it to them selves.

I try not taking my morals from something that thinks its ok to kill off millions of people. As this God of the bible does. Gasp People are doing there own thing, I better flood the world and drowned everyone. (what great show of Morals that bastard of a thing has hmm.)
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
I am not talking about mass genocide, nor forced mating.

But rather trying to make it legitimate to physically take actions to eliminate the detrimental aspects of the human Physiognomy and Physiology.

For example the "rape gene", maybe thousands of years ago it might have been useful to the survival of the species, nowadays I can not envision any possible positive aspect of keeping such an antisocial instinct in our gene pool.

If it was possible to identify the carriers of that gene would it be righteous to terminate its existence( the gene not the carrier) or would it be no more than a barbaric practice?

This is just one of many examples.



Posted 10/8/09
Simple. We'll use facts to counter the science of present day Eugenics, and that's inbreeding and cloning can weaken a specie due to genetic erosion: http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/obrien-e.htm
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
I don't favor eugenics. I don't think we have the right to deny someone their biological and human right to reproduce based on our opinion of inferior genes. Our genetics make us unique and keep the human race diverse. I think it's best if we invest that time and money into understanding the human genome and finding ways to turn off disease causing genes.
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
A 1992 article from national geographic?

Genetic erosion is no more than observational biology.

The real problem facing humanity is not genetic erosion but rather the opposite, because of enhanced health care and low infantile mortality
the law of nature does not have any say.

Whether you be strong, weak, healthy, or sick we are all allowed to live and procreate, and yes the diversity of the gene pool is maintained but so is the proliferation of detrimental genes.

We are killing Darwin.
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09

digs wrote:

I don't favor eugenics. I don't think we have the right to deny someone their biological and human right to reproduce based on our opinion of inferior genes. Our genetics make us unique and keep the human race diverse. I think it's best if we invest that time and money into understanding the human genome and finding ways to turn off disease causing genes.


You totally get my point about exploring the human genome, Eugenics is just the bigger picture
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/8/09

Nieel wrote:


digs wrote:

I don't favor eugenics. I don't think we have the right to deny someone their biological and human right to reproduce based on our opinion of inferior genes. Our genetics make us unique and keep the human race diverse. I think it's best if we invest that time and money into understanding the human genome and finding ways to turn off disease causing genes.


You totally get my point about exploring the human genome, Eugenics is just the bigger picture


But why would we necessarily need Eugenics if we can turn off disease causing genes? I don't think having a "master race" would be a good thing, but rather keeping the human race diverse but removing the problems of diversity.
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
The notion of a master race in Eugenics was devised by the Nazis.

True eugenics does not differentiate by race but by individuals and their Physiognomy and Physiology.


Posted 10/8/09

Nieel wrote:
A 1992 article from national geographic?

Genetic erosion is no more than observational biology.

The real problem facing humanity is not genetic erosion but rather the opposite, because of enhanced health care and low infantile mortality
the law of nature does not have any say.

Whether you be strong, weak, healthy, or sick we are all allowed to live and procreate, and yes the diversity of the gene pool is maintained but so is the proliferation of detrimental genes.

We are killing Darwin
.

I like you, you're not the one that's willing to take the easy way out.

Let's take a look at your example of the "rape gene", in a sense that it can make a person mentally prone to rape another, which can classify as a mental illness. That's not including women with rape fetish fantasy, for I'm not gonna talk about building romantic intimacy through the act of raping a complete stranger. That's not how rape can be justified here, folks!

Ultimately, there are some who ended up raping another person, regardless if they were prone to violence to begin with, were all suffering from various degree of autism to begin with. Which made them prone to neglect their rape victims' thoughts and feelings. Now, it's a well known fact that autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. However, just like what you've said, our humanitarian ideal is allowing an autistic culture to thrive within our society. But...


Nieel wrote:
The notion of a master race in Eugenics was devised by the Nazis.

True eugenics does not differentiate by race but by individuals and their Physiognomy and Physiology.

I don't think a prettier looking rapist who still suffers from autism is the answer to justify modern day eugenics.
Posted 10/8/09

DomFortress wrote:


Nieel wrote:
A 1992 article from national geographic?

Genetic erosion is no more than observational biology.

The real problem facing humanity is not genetic erosion but rather the opposite, because of enhanced health care and low infantile mortality
the law of nature does not have any say.

Whether you be strong, weak, healthy, or sick we are all allowed to live and procreate, and yes the diversity of the gene pool is maintained but so is the proliferation of detrimental genes.

We are killing Darwin
.

I like you, you're not the one that's willing to take the easy way out.

Let's take a look at your example of the "rape gene", in a sense that it can make a person mentally prone to rape another, which can classify as a mental illness. That's not including women with rape fetish fantasy, for I'm not gonna talk about building romantic intimacy through the act of raping a complete stranger. That's not how rape can be justified here, folks!

Ultimately, there are some who ended up raping another person, regardless if they were prone to violence to begin with, were all suffering from various degree of autism to begin with. Which made them prone to neglect their rape victims' thoughts and feelings. Now, it's a well known fact that autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. However, just like what you've said, our humanitarian ideal is allowing an autistic culture to thrive within our society. But...


Nieel wrote:
The notion of a master race in Eugenics was devised by the Nazis.

True eugenics does not differentiate by race but by individuals and their Physiognomy and Physiology.

I don't think a prettier looking rapist who still suffers from autism is the answer to justify modern day eugenics.


so by your logic since i am slightly autistic that makes a rapist someday?
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / London
Offline
Posted 10/8/09
I cannot put up a good debate if you use autism as pivotal argument.

The physiological difference between an autistic person and a "normal" one are non existent.

I have had real life experience with autistic people and its hard to classify it as a disease or behavioral anomaly.

"Mainstream Medicine still cannot fully explain Autism and the only universally respected theory is that autistic people have their brains wired differently, using an analogy think of us "norms" being PC using Windows and "autists" being Linux based."

Note : Savant Syndrome is a form of autism.

So unless you suggest that the rape gene carrier might become an awesome porn star, you should not use autism.
Posted 10/8/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:
so by your logic since i am slightly autistic that makes a rapist someday?

Nope, I don't say you're a potential rapist because you didn't rape anyone. While you obviously have an inhibition toward act of rape.

You just need to learn how to deal with girls intimately as a guy, that's all. When social science is your friend.


Nieel wrote:
I cannot put up a good debate if you use autism as pivotal argument.

The physiological difference between an autistic person and a "normal" one are non existent.

I have had real life experience with autistic people and its hard to classify it as a disease or behavioral anomaly.

"Mainstream Medicine still cannot fully explain Autism and the only universally respected theory is that autistic people have their brains wired differently, using an analogy think of us "norms" being PC using Windows and "autists" being Linux based."

Note : Savant Syndrome is a form of autism.

So unless you suggest that the rape gene carrier might become an awesome porn star, you should not use autism.

Thanks to the advance in medical science of gene sequencing and MRI scanning, we now know that the genome mutation know as the Fragile X Syndrome(http://autism.lovetoknow.com/Fragile_X_Syndrome) can relate up to one third of those with autism: http://www.fragilex.org/html/autism.htm

This is also true for most early born small infants that also suffer from birth defect such as autism are girls(http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/33318/being-born-small-early-raises-autism-risk.html), when they could have two X chromosomes with Fragile X Syndrome. That's the advantage of observational biology.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09
Tweeking the genes for "beauty" or '"athletic ability", or other superficial reasons goes against the grain, for me, for 2 reasons, one - it just gives me the creeps-( bad horror flix, atrocities, torture, concentration camps,etc.), & my other reason is due to a frustration w/ religious tradition dictates vs. & my own limited knowledge in the study of scripture. I just haven't run across any specific verses--- but I'd very much like to study any than others may know.

I would like to on record as saying I rather like the idea of the use of genetic engineering for helping people who wish to be parents, but hesitate because of hereditary diseases [ diabetes, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, these few came 1st to mind, but so many others], or due to genetic weaknesses [obesity, addictions / alcoholism, -again just a start of the list]. I'm sure there are many other productive possibilities. I really don't know why, under careful monitoring & personal choice (- nothing forced-), the use of eugenics should be a concern or question of ethics. Anything humanity puts its mind to can be perverted or abused, but that's not necessarily the best reason to ban or forbid it. It may not be for everyone, so we need to decide for ourselves as individuals.
Posted 10/8/09

farmbird wrote:
Tweeking the genes for "beauty" or '"athletic ability", or other superficial reasons goes against the grain, for me, for 2 reasons, one - it just gives me the creeps-( bad horror flix, atrocities, torture, concentration camps,etc.), & my other reason is due to a frustration w/ religious tradition dictates vs. & my own limited knowledge in the study of scripture. I just haven't run across any specific verses--- but I'd very much like to study any than others may know.

I would like to on record as saying I rather like the idea of the use of genetic engineering for helping people who wish to be parents, but hesitate because of hereditary diseases [ diabetes, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, these few came 1st to mind, but so many others], or due to genetic weaknesses [obesity, addictions / alcoholism, -again just a start of the list]. I'm sure there are many other productive possibilities. I really don't know why, under careful monitoring & personal choice (- nothing forced-), the use of eugenics should be a concern or question of ethics. Anything humanity puts its mind to can be perverted or abused, but that's not necessarily the best reason to ban or forbid it. It may not be for everyone, so we need to decide for ourselves as individuals.

The old proverbs still shine true that when "beauty is only skin deep", while "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Therefore how wonderful must be for those with real inner beauty to recognize the inner beauty of others.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.