Eugenics isn't that bad of an idea.

[BoredomSeeker]

Okay, so hear me out. Eugenics is often seen as this awful thing used to wipe out cultures and peoples, as this is how it has been used in the past. The holocaust is an extremely well-known example, for good reason as it was probably one of the very worst things humanity has ever done. Due to the holocaust, and it's relative recency, eugenics has gotten an extremely negative connotation.

Obviously, when I say that eugenics could be a good idea, I don't mean "Wipe out the Jews, gays, etc.", rather, I think we should restrict parenthood. Ideally, only very capable parents should have children, but this is hard to achieve and even harder an idea to sell to others, as they see it as a breach of freedom. So instead, how about a lesser but still effective form of this: People with genetic issues, such as mental illness and physical disability, should be barred from having children. This, too, is seen as a massive breach of privacy by the general population, because the right to have children is often seen as something 'sacred'.

However, I think your rights end where those of others begin; you can't murder someone because that would infringe on their rights. So why would you be allowed to have children if you are essentially condemning them to a life of suffering? We could reduce the amount of people who suffer due to genetic conditions in this manner fairly easily, but somehow people cling to the idea that life is sacred no matter what despite this.

 

[Homo erectus]

In eugenics the state decides who live or die. In suicide the individual decides that he or she should die. That is, top down vs. bottom up. Politics aside, both are theoretically trying to eliminate what is unwanted in order to achieve a better society, similar to selective breeding in pets and farming. The question is whether the judgement is correct or acceptable.

 

[pinkribbonscars]

The right to live or die should be up to the individual and not the government. I consider eugenics to be as barbaric as mandated psychiatric holds and suicide prevention.

 

[HaveToEndIt]

Disagree. Most people with genetic issues live their lives fine. But assisted suicide should be available to them and anyone else if they choose to.

 

[odradek]

I disagree too. I think Eugenics is always a bad idea. There is no universally agreed upon standard for these kinds of things. We're still learning stuff about genetics daily. The lack of an objective standard leaves all the room in the world for abuse.

Obviously, when I say that eugenics could be a good idea, I don't mean "Wipe out the Jews, gays, etc.

You don't mean it but, imo, Eugenics will inevitably lead down that path regardless of your intentions at the start.

 

[Chara]

The difference between murder and suicide whether assisted or not, is consent. Once someone is here, it should be their choice if they want to stay here. Life should neither be forced on them nor taken away unless they want it. If someone wants to have children, whether biological, adopted, disabled or nondisabled, that should be their choice. We should make it easier for people who have the potential to be good parents to adopt children, rather than discouraging people to have children. Reduce the stigma around adopting, taking care of people who are already here, and educate everyone. Birth rates will naturally lower.

How would you enforce this? Barring disabled people from mating? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? Who gets to decide who's too disabled to have kids?

You're born with an extra toe, is that too much? You're born without a finger, is that too much? You're born colorblind, is that too much?
You're born with adhd, is that too much?
You're born with a tail, is that too much?
You're born with a hare lip, is that too much?

Is someone who develops a disablity later down the line going to be barred from having children? What if your grandparents were disabled? Your parents?

What about cancer and other health problems like obesity and diabetes? Family history of poor vision? Are we going to prevent those people from having children?

Additionally, you do know that disabled people get born to nondisabled parents, and nondisabled children get born to disabled parents, right?

Some disabilities are completly manageable and or treatable as well.

And not all disabled people are not suffering. Being born with a disability doesn't mean you will suffer.

Know what does? Living in a world that mistreats you and will never allow you to be equal. Placing someone under a guardianship because they're nonverbal. Bullying. Inequal access. Having nobody who cares. Nobody who understands.

Have you ever talked to someone who desperately wants to have children but can't biologically after they've been rejected for fostering because they're gay, don't meet certain financial requirements, don't have a partner, are disabled?

They'd be better partners than all the nondisabled, wealthy, or straight people personally know.

Better parents than own parents, that's for sure.

Why should someone who is capable of having a child and WANTS one not be allowed to have one? Honestly?

How about we stop opening the door for more ableism, and make the world better for those of us who are disabled. It's easier to sweep it under the rug and say "she's a genetic mistake, so sad, at least she won't be making more. Such a shame she wasnt aborted. Always so sad when you see those people, if only someone knew they'd be disabled before they were born." instead of "she's getting overwhelmed, maybe we should try and make things less overwhelming. She's having trouble communicating this way, how about we provide a method she can use easily? How can we make things better?"

It doesn't have to be so bad. It isn't automatically. It could and should be made better.

 

[SilentSadness]

I just think this a bad idea, this is suicide discussion not eugenics discussion after all. I don't think people should be viewed like subjects.

 

[TheDog_]

I mean I get it. Some shit I deal with wouldn't be helped with societal acceptance and through following the social model of disability because shit just sucks and I would rather be dead. I just wish assisted suicide was legal so I could peace the fuck out because I know some people shit on that too because you have to be a good disabled and show the world you're empowered and shit. Ugh let me die

 

[Pluto]

Have you ever talked to someone who desperately wants to have children but can't biologically after they've been rejected for fostering because they're gay, don't meet certain financial requirements, don't have a partner, are disabled?

Ouch. That actually happened to me one time. I've never talked about it because I was left feeling very ashamed. Apparently, alcoholics and violent people are more worthy of caring for a child than I am. You're the first person who has acknowledged how much the situation sucks. Thank you.

As for the topic, the problem with it is the same problem Hitler made. Trying to actually define who is or is not worthy of life without absurd amounts of collateral damage.

So-called disabled people sometimes make extraordinary contributions, or at the very least are far more compassionate people than normies on Easy Street. Poor people have often turned into some of the greatest artists and musicians of all time. This is all just the tip of the iceberg.

None of this is an argument against legalising assisted suicide for individuals who determine their own quality of life is unacceptable. Even then, there are some caveats, but eugenics is never going to end well.

 

[disabledlife]

What motivates you to CTB? Social networks? The multinationals? Capitalism? Disabilities? Shitty parents? Your country? Unjust laws?

Who wants (be forced to) CTB because of social networks, injustices, multinationals, humans, birth inequalities,...? I give you my points of view and what pushes me to CTB. I want CTB because I was mistreated young, and I was never able to obtain justice, because of my country, the worst in...

sanctioned-suicide.net

In this link, I spoke about eugenics, why I defend it. On the other hand, I received a virulent response, in opposition, but which did not convince me.

This person certainly had the right to respond to opposing ideas, but, in principle, not the right to yell or judge, in my opinion.

Why does eugenics arouse such opposition?

And yet Eugenics means, in Greek, to be born well, Eu = Good, Genome = to be born (it seems to me), as Euthanasia means, in Greek, to die well, or peaceful death, Eu = Good, Thanatos = To die (it seems to me seems).

In ancient times, we already spoke of being born well and dying well, therefore of eugenics and euthanasia. In Celtic regions, a long time ago, euhanasia was legalized, but it was done with sticks, until the person who requested it was knocked unconscious and then died. There was no N, SN, and what have you, medical, at the time (Antiquity, Middle Ages), for a truly peaceful death. I knew it from the history of my own region.

Personally, I only think about the well-being of unborn people, I do not want people to suffer, because of selfish parents, selfish countries, handicaps, discrimination, rejections, etc., and to be pushed to CTB. And, even when pushed to CTB, people who attempt CTB are criticized, rejected, insulted, etc., because they dared to CTB!

I hope that people do not have to regret being born, because of bad parents, for not having had the chance to be healthy, for a good future, for having suffered rejection, discrimination, bans to exercise certain professions, to go to certain places, to see, to hear, to taste, etc., because of their health, illnesses, handicaps, size, beauty... I have always defended total equality rights and duties, opportunities, education, health, success in living, right to die, for everyone, without exceptions.

Of course I also think that everyone has the right, at any time, without justification, at the CTB, to benefit from assisted suicide, from euthanasia, regardless of their state of health, whether they are well born, or are poorly born, regardless of whether they have succeeded in life or not, etc!

 

[Argo]

The reason why all eugenics, will in practice be bad, is because all eugenics are a function of power. Who decides the value system of the eugenic protocol? The powerful. Obviously. It goes without saying. So what you essentially get is those in power mold the world for their needs. And what are those needs? Are they good? I would say no, I would say power and evil are synonymous. Because the powerful are only really interested in one game, and all of this will sound more and more tautological but it's the only way to really express the point. The powerful are interested in power. They want more power, they want fitness, survival. Is that... "good"? No, it's just mindless expansion, moving forward, domination, taking over. All of that is blatantly evil, and this is why power and evil are essentially the same.

Now, to your point, which is basically, "Isn't eugenics *technically* fine?" Yes, that is true. In principle, there is nothing wrong with eugenics, because in principle, you could ... start genetically modifying human beings to be super kind and ethical. You could start selecting away from traits like greed, callousness, and so on, but only in principle, because in practice, this move would never truly occur-- it would just be a front by the powerful to further distill more power.
A final point on eugenics, is that any concern over it, is ... just naiive and pointless, because eugenics is simply what has been occurring forever. There is already a sort of "psuedo eugenics" in the nature of things. Eugenics is merely a more focused expression of what has already been happening for millions of years via evolution through natural selection, which is a mindless survival and power game ( as opposed to a calculated, consciously engineered survival and power game when it comes to conventional eugenics).

So the points here are,
1) Is there anything *really* wrong with eugenics? No.

2) Can eugenics ever be good in practice? No.

3) It doesn't matter, since eugenics is the fundamental law of everything and power and evil are all being distilled anyway , whether there is an official eugenics program or not, so there's almost no point to worry about eugenics

 

[disabledlife]

I would like to know the response of parents when their poorly born children ask them these questions:

"Why did you give me life when you knew I was going to be born disabled?"

"Why did you give me life when you were incapable of educating me, caring for me, feeding me, allowing me to flourish?"

I heard responses from parents. "I want children so that I can get benefits, social assistance, without working.", "I want children because I love "owning" children and when they grow up, hop, get out, get out, and I will procreate again...", "I want children, so that they become like me, so that I decide, in their place, what they will eat, what they will wear, their jobs, who they will be married to. ..", "I want children, because they will pay my pension, so that I could sue them for alimony, because they are legally obliged to provide for me, as a parent". This is all true, I witnessed this. It's disgusting.

I have heard stories of parents who had their children taken away, following legal or social decisions, mistreatment, infanticide, abandonment, beaten children, child labor. Once their children were removed, they decided to procreate afterwards, and these new children were removed, for the same reasons, started to procreate again, and again! Procreation being a human right, just like the right to property.

There are even pediatricians, doctors, nurses, etc., who, seeing this, seek to sterilize these parents! However, as they do not have the legal right, but, in the face of these scandals, to children in distress, the only solution remains to consider these parents as incapable of discernment, with psychiatric expertise. And, then, decide, in their place, on forced sterilization. This is all true, I didn't invent anything! I saw this in Europe. It's just that the media prefers not to talk about it. This is known in the medical profession.

 

[Gonnerr]

Dying is the only solution to a sexually transmitted disease called life.

 

[disabledlife]

So yes, for the moment, before talking about eugenics, we should already legalize, everywhere in the world, without restrictions, reasons, etc, the right to a peaceful death, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unconditional access N, SN, noble gas, materials, etc.

Everyone must already have the right to CTB, to benefit from assisted suicide, from euthanasia, without restrictions, without reasons, at any time, at the request of the person who wishes it. It is an individual freedom, the ultimate freedom in truth. We just need to ensure that there are no disguised crimes, selfish motives, like people who want to push others to die, to receive inheritances, to eliminate their enemies. We would just have to make sure that it is the person who asks for it voluntarily, of their own free will.

Afterwards, we will see, in the near or distant future of euganism, knowing where the limit is between what seems legitimate or abusive, but knowing that many children have the misfortune of being born badly, and will find themselves forced to CTB for example, their lives wasted...

Nature is cruel, and will remain so, and it is always the luck of those who are born well or poorly, and society will remain cruel towards people who are different, disabled, etc., who will be rejected, discriminated against, judged, mocked , beaten, robbed, placed in prison, psychiatric internment, etc. It will always be like this, despite thousands of years of existence, humans have never evolved, just technology. It's an error of nature. Who knows, humans will disappear completely, incapable of having been wise, benevolent, especially towards others, nature...

 

[penguinl0v3s]

Obviously, when I say that eugenics could be a good idea, I don't mean "Wipe out the Jews, gays, etc.", rather, I think we should restrict parenthood. Ideally, only very capable parents should have children

This is good in theory, but not good in reality. How would that even be assessed? It's very subjective to say whether or not someone would be a good parent, and people can have wildly differing opinions about parenting styles. We can't even get our current justice systems working effectively, because it's known to have so many biases--and laws are shit that people mostly agree on, so upholding them is less controversial.

People with genetic issues, such as mental illness and physical disability, should be barred from having children.

It's unclear how much genetics plays a part in developing mental illnesses. Sure, there's a correlation between mental illness running in families, but that could be environmental. Such as a cultural style of parenting that's too authoritarian and makes a child unhappy. To what degree would you enforce a physical disability? Physical disabilities are a spectrum, where some are much less inhibitive than others. For example, colorblindness is a genetically inherited disorder, but I doubt anyone would argue for banning colorblind people from reproducing. Also, the people with disabilities who lived long enough to have children might not feel that their disability is that debilitating to their lives once they've learned to get used to it, in a way that outsiders wouldn't understand.

 

[disabledlife]

I thank you, for my part, for your sensible, logical, and detailed responses, from people opposed to eugenics.

It is only in this SaSu forum that I finally heard real answers, instead of having sermons, insults, being called crazy, dictator... and not only on eugenics, but on everything topics, which are censored everywhere else. There is a certain form of collective intelligence that emerges here, and not elsewhere.

I can understand the people who are opposed to the fact that the human species is not thoughtful enough, sincere, etc., to be able to manage a peaceful, stoistic eugenics, only for the good of future people to come into the world, and that this imposes restrictions from outsiders towards individuals. Unlike CTB, euthanasia, assisted suicide, which is an individual, ultimate freedom, supposed to bother no one, and supposed to be accessible to everyone.

As a reminder, defending eugenics certainly never means defending pro-lifers, banning all CTB, euthanasia, assisted suicide, this argument is unfounded.

Of course, I would never thank people who oppose all ideas, proposals, thoughts, opinions, etc., by insulting, denigrating, giving moral lessons, sermons, pretending to be heroes who are right about everything, everywhere...!

No one is right or wrong about everything, because no one is perfect. However, everyone can think, argue, use common sense, regardless of intellectual capacity, IQ, disabilities, illnesses, mental illnesses, everyone is capable of thinking, each at their own level, according to his abilities.

So everyone can try to get closer to reason as best they can.

Therefore, intellectual laziness, prejudices, insults, violence, nastiness, etc. must have no place in society.

Unfortunately, the opposite is happening, and to the great dismay of vulnerable, different, disabled people... which pushes, and it is a vicious circle, to eugenics, to violent CTB.

 

[Little_Suzy]

Eugenics is an intriguing concept. I believe that sterilization surgery should be offered to people as soon as they reach puberty. They can select an appropriate medical treatment when they decide to start a family.

The number of parents who abandon their children without remorse is shocking.

Consider how many children were chastised for wanting Christmas presents. Fck the parents who didn't buy anything for their children.

You should not have children if they can't enjoy a healthy, happy, traditional childhood.

Nobody is owed a child, and the entitlement to pregnancies and children is an oddly displayed phenomenon. lol

 

[Captive_Mind515]

Dying is the only solution to a sexually transmitted disease called life.

Eugene - ics! The final bridge in human evolution! ;)

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I don't think eugenics would be needed if we instead let assisted suicide be available for adults so that the disabled people who you're referring to can opt through the path of assisted suicide if life gets shitty. Or, well, it isn't even assisted suicide that we need. If N was available as an OTC drug, then we don't really need to be assisted.

All in all, I do understand that it's better to have never been born than to live just to die via suicide but eugenics would cause a power imbalance to favour the elites whereas assisted suicide shifts the power towards the individual if they are allowed to have it

 

[Forever Sleep]

It depends how you value people I suppose. Are you talking about how much someone contributes to society or how happy they have the potential to be? Some disabled people seem to be living reasonably happy lives.

Some of the most successful people in business on the other hand likely have sociopathic and/ or narcissistic traits. They are incredibly successful and probably very intelligent. They also wreak havoc for those around them! Many people are on here partly as a result of running in to a narcissist. I imagine those traits would only get stronger in a eugenics programme because those sorts of people are strong and- very good at hiding who they truly are!

I can see it going that way regardless to be honest. I think the quieter more passive people in this world struggle. To the extent quite possibly that they don't want to have offspring that would struggle like they did.

I do get your point though. Personally, I don't understand why someone struggling in life due to likely hereditary conditions would risk passing them on. I've in some part made a choice not to have children for fear of them ending up like me (and I wouldn't say I have anything that debilitating.)

But, to be honest, I hold anti-natilist views generally. I think all parents expose their children to risk. That's up to them though. It's not always clear who will struggle in life. All sorts can happen to even the most stable of families- both parents could be killed. The child could be sexually assaulted. The child could react badly to a vaccination. It's life- anything could happen. It's a gamble. Parents take that gamble with their child's life. They obviously thought it worth it- I hope they're right!

 

[honkpilleddoomer]

Okay, so hear me out. Eugenics is often seen as this awful thing used to wipe out cultures and peoples, as this is how it has been used in the past. The holocaust is an extremely well-known example, for good reason as it was probably one of the very worst things humanity has ever done. Due to the holocaust, and it's relative recency, eugenics has gotten an extremely negative connotation.

Obviously, when I say that eugenics could be a good idea, I don't mean "Wipe out the Jews, gays, etc.", rather, I think we should restrict parenthood. Ideally, only very capable parents should have children, but this is hard to achieve and even harder an idea to sell to others, as they see it as a breach of freedom. So instead, how about a lesser but still effective form of this: People with genetic issues, such as mental illness and physical disability, should be barred from having children. This, too, is seen as a massive breach of privacy by the general population, because the right to have children is often seen as something 'sacred'.

However, I think your rights end where those of others begin; you can't murder someone because that would infringe on their rights. So why would you be allowed to have children if you are essentially condemning them to a life of suffering? We could reduce the amount of people who suffer due to genetic conditions in this manner fairly easily, but somehow people cling to the idea that life is sacred no matter what despite this.

I believe only affluent people living in first world nations should be allowed to breed. Third worlders like me don't deserve to live
I would sell my life if it was a commodity so a billionaire could live longer, like the way poors sell their kidneys . Sadly it is not a commodity thus worthless.

 

[cold_severance]

it would be the same people who want to keep you in this hellhole no matter what, who decide who should or shouldn't procreate though. no thanks.

 

[disabledlife]

So, if I understand correctly, and it is an argument that seems well-founded. There should be no eugenics, because the pro-lifers will say, since you were born well, you have to live, it's obligatory, to thank us, therefore no right to CTB, euthanasia, peaceful death...

It was a fear that I actually had!

I would ask, but I can always dream, that euganism, if one day it exists, will certainly not be managed by pro-lifers, nor by capitalism, nor by obscure people, but by a democracy, in full transparency.

On the other hand, what should we think of the people who push (through mockery, harassment, humiliation, discrimination, poverty, etc.) the disabled, different people, etc., to the CTB? This allows pro-lifers to say that these people do not have the right to CTB, to euthanasia, etc., because other people forced them to CTB, to request euthanasia...

 

[Captive_Mind515]

 

[Morte]

Society is eugenic in its treatment. They treat you with much less respect when you are ugly, mentally ill, intellectually disabled, etc.
Being born into this already hellish world is bad enough, but even worse when you came from abusive family with shit genes. I would prefer antinalism to be the norm though.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

I believe only affluent people living in first world nations should be allowed to breed. Third worlders like me don't deserve to live
I would sell my life if it was a commodity so a billionaire could live longer, like the way poors sell their kidneys . Sadly it is not a commodity thus worthless.

I disagree with you. While financial resources are very important when raising a child, it is not the only factor which determines whether or not a child will grow up and develop into a healthy and content adult; being affluent does not prevent a person - more specifically a parent - from being abusive for example.

 

[honkpilleddoomer]

I disagree with you. While financial resources are very important when raising a child, it is not the only factor which determines whether or not a child will grow up and develop into a healthy and content adult; being affluent does not prevent a person - more specifically a parent - from being abusive for example.

Sure there can be abuse, but isn't poverty an abuse aswell? It's mostly poors and third worlders that beat their children to relieve stress, something that is mostly unheard of in the west. I know it I'm a third worlder.

 

[DeadManLiving]

These ideas overlap in the philosophy of antinatalism, pro-mortalism and particularly - sociobiology.

Mitchell Heisman committed suicide as an experiment in nihilism on his thousand page suicide note tote when he shot himself at Harvard Yard.

I recall reading a section that discussed the Holocaust and eugenics in great detail; he was Jewish himself, although I'm not sure if he argued for or against, or discussed some of ideas within his book. It covers a broad span of philosophical and other subjects. Extremely well written and structured word salad according to a critical review:

Massive, philosophically informed suicide note of a man who shot himself in Harvard ...

 

[jbear824]

Eugenics could be helpful, but humans are too corrupt to use it responsibly and for the betterment of all. If humanity in it's current form were to start using eugenics today, it would almost certainly be used to wipe out everyone who isn't "normal". Fuck that.

However I do agree that not everyone should be allowed to become parents. There should be mandatory classes and tests you have to take to prove you are fit to be a parent. That you will not bring harm to a child. That you won't brainwash or indoctrinate them. Yes we need better parenting standards big time.

 

[willitpass]

As has been stated already, the right to suicide involves the persons own consent and actions. Eugenics is horrific. Some of the best parents I know have some sort of physical or mental disability. And some of the worst parents I know don't. While nature plays into whether their children will become physically or mentally ill, nurture still plays a big role in whether the gene will present itself. It should be no one else's discretion as to whether or not someone is fit to live other than their own. I strongly strongly disagree.