What do you think about human gentics?

[noname223]

I have an acquaintance who tells other people he supports eugnics. I think he uses this term to be provocative and he wants to trigger most libs as possible. My friends tell me to cut him out of my life. I have made a thread about him recently don't want to go into details. I just in this moment ignore him and instead talk to you.

Of course the Nazi crimes were horrible. Using the term eugnics is very very ignorant, inhuman and more than just stupid.

But the topic human gentics is a very touchy one. I think many people in this forum support antinatalism. So no kids at all. There are many different things which can be called human genetics. Some use tedious terms to depict supporters as monsters.

Honestly I am not an expert. And ethically it is very very complex issue. And I have way too less knowledge to give a competent insight in this topic.

I thought about making a thread about human gentics and the down syndrome. But I think due to the fact that the vast majority have made horrible experiences with life, often abuse and dealing with disability I thought maybe the discussion was too one-sided. In my country it is the discussion whether the insurance companies should pay for test which tell parents whether their child has the down syndrom.

And just starting this topic seems a little bit too cheap for me. I like when I can be contrarian but I have a clear answer for that question. I favor that insurances pay for the test.
The dude who claims to be in favor of eugenics claims it would be a good idea to select only people with a high IQ. What a foolish idea. Maybe he demonstrates that going that road can lead to pretty dangerous and stupid developments.

There are different ideas. Like transhumanism and posthumanism.
The goal to prevent certain hereditary illnesses.
Then there is the term designer baby. Not sure how widespread in other countries but I read about it a lot in the media.
I think even in China doing certain experiments with humans is a taboo. Probably for good reasons.
But with more and more enhanced technologies there will have to be answered ethically very difficult questions.


I think there are very interesting questions. But I can say for sure that I will never be the perfect person to answer them. I don't like biology much . It always annoyed me.

 

[whatevs]

You haven't argued against eugenics in this thread, you just aprioristically declared it foolish and dangerous. Eugenics would work with humans, just as it has worked with dogs, maize or horses.

Your friend is smart and honest. Eugenics is a great idea and would boost civilizational development by orders of magnitude. Not only that, it would decrease suffering by making heritable disorders more uncommon.

 

[noname223]

You haven't argued against eugenics in this thread, you just aprioristically declared it foolish and dangerous. Eugenics would work with humans, just as it has worked with dogs, maize or horses.

Your friend is smart and honest. Eugenics is a great idea and would boost civilizational development by orders of magnitude. Not only that, it would decrease suffering by making heritable disorders more uncommon.

Working on another thread currently. Can't debunk eugenics now.

His idea to select only people with high IQ is foolish. Diversity is very important for societies. Eugenics would destroy that.
For example who would be dustmen, clean the toilets, cashiers etc.?

 

[Suicidebydeath]

It's a controversial subject but I would say that I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion, and that I'm pro-choice when it comes to the right to live or die for people with horrible genetic conditions. I'm pro-choice for parents to make hard decisions when it comes to it, since below a certain age that's a lot of responsibility for someone to have to decide on their own life and I think parents should be responsible for all of their children.

As for eugenics in terms of selection based on iq, race, or disabilities, I think that's absurd. A google search on people with Down's syndrome for example which is one of the things eugenics focuses on shows that they're overwhelmingly happy, which I would think is the main thing that matters. I put people's personal happiness as the main sensible marker to have to make life worth living. I would date and have kids with someone with Downs, they deserve happiness and fulfilled lives just as anyone else. There would be a 50/50 chance of Downs being inherited which is a little sad, but I'm against eugenics in this case I use the same marker for people in relationships, if not they're happy, then what is the point etc.

Culling 'stupid' people isn't going to work. Who gets to decide where to draw the line? Who prevents the rebellion that arises from that decision? A lot of people think they're 'stupid' too when they have an iq thats average or above already. People have a tendency to render themselves infertile, which works for the purposes without causing resentment.

If we culled people that we disagreed with, then a lot of the people praising eugenics might even be the first to go. I think there would be a great divide.

I do think genetics in general is an unfair feature that is forced on everyone. It's unfair some people win the 'lottery' and some lose. I wish everyone could be on the same playing field, and treated equally. So I'de be for genetic alterations that would enhance someone's life. I'm against trying to tailor out people based on iq or race etc.

 

[whatevs]

It's a controversial subject but I would say that I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion, and that I'm pro-choice when it comes to the right to live or die for people with horrible genetic conditions. I'm pro-choice for parents to make hard decisions when it comes to it, since below a certain age that's a lot of responsibility for someone to have to decide on their own life and I think parents should be responsible for all of their children.

As for eugenics in terms of selection based on iq, race, or disabilities, I think that's absurd. A google search on people with Down's syndrome for example which is one of the things eugenics focuses on shows that they're overwhelmingly happy, which I would think is the main thing that matters. I put people's personal happiness as the main sensible marker to have to make life worth living. I would date and have kids with someone with Downs, they deserve happiness and fulfilled lives just as anyone else. There would be a 50/50 chance of Downs being inherited which is a little sad, but I'm against eugenics in this case I use the same marker for people in relationships, if not they're happy, then what is the point etc.

Culling 'stupid' people isn't going to work. Who gets to decide where to draw the line? Who prevents the rebellion that arises from that decision? A lot of people think they're 'stupid' too when they have an iq thats average or above already. People have a tendency to render themselves infertile, which works for the purposes without causing resentment.

If we culled people that we disagreed with, then a lot of the people praising eugenics might even be the first to go. I think there would be a great divide.

I do think genetics in general is an unfair feature that is forced on everyone. It's unfair some people win the 'lottery' and some lose. I wish everyone could be on the same playing field, and treated equally. So I'de be for genetic alterations that would enhance someone's life. I'm against trying to tailor out people based on iq or race etc.

Life is literally about the playing field being uneven and about unfair treatment. These things embody the mechanism of evolution in a nutshell.

Nobody actually wants perfect equality and it could never be achieved either way. I think people are overlooking things that matter more than supposed perfect social fairness that will never exist, like artistic beauty, metaphysics or objective truth, which are in danger in the modern world.

Working on another thread currently. Can't debunk eugenics now.

His idea to select only people with high IQ is foolish. Diversity is very important for societies. Eugenics would destroy that.
For example who would be dustmen, clean the toilets, cashiers etc.?

Ehem, have you read Brave New World?

 

[Life_and_Death]

It's a controversial subject but I would say that I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion, and that I'm pro-choice when it comes to the right to live or die for people with horrible genetic conditions. I'm pro-choice for parents to make hard decisions when it comes to it, since below a certain age that's a lot of responsibility for someone to have to decide on their own life and I think parents should be responsible for all of their children.

As for eugenics in terms of selection based on iq, race, or disabilities, I think that's absurd. A google search on people with Down's syndrome for example which is one of the things eugenics focuses on shows that they're overwhelmingly happy, which I would think is the main thing that matters. I put people's personal happiness as the main sensible marker to have to make life worth living. I would date and have kids with someone with Downs, they deserve happiness and fulfilled lives just as anyone else. There would be a 50/50 chance of Downs being inherited which is a little sad, but I'm against eugenics in this case I use the same marker for people in relationships, if not they're happy, then what is the point etc.

Culling 'stupid' people isn't going to work. Who gets to decide where to draw the line? Who prevents the rebellion that arises from that decision? A lot of people think they're 'stupid' too when they have an iq thats average or above already. People have a tendency to render themselves infertile, which works for the purposes without causing resentment.

If we culled people that we disagreed with, then a lot of the people praising eugenics might even be the first to go. I think there would be a great divide.

I do think genetics in general is an unfair feature that is forced on everyone. It's unfair some people win the 'lottery' and some lose. I wish everyone could be on the same playing field, and treated equally. So I'de be for genetic alterations that would enhance someone's life. I'm against trying to tailor out people based on iq or race etc.

this kind of made me think of like..prebullying. youre judging the person on something they may or may not even have and instead of loving them for who they are like people should be doing, theyre bullying and rejecting them before theyre even created.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

Life is literally about the playing field being uneven and about unfair treatment.

I mean, everyone could be born with the same chances as everyone else, but they could still all end up different. People could behave differently or they could have different aptitudes and inclinations but without being born with significant disadvantages.

I think it's ok to treat someone differently based on what they've done. E.g. if someone commits a heinous crime that harms another person then we can treat them differently. I think it's not ok to treat someone differently because they were born differently, maybe different physical aspects than is considered ideal, or maybe they're a little bit eccentric, or different. Maybe someone was born, not wanting to be alive at all, and that's ok too.

Artistic beauty, metaphysics and objective truth, are all important too. It's ok to have multiple priorities, someone can say e.g. a person loves animals more than people, but it's ok to understand that it's possible to love both without diminishing the other.

this kind of made me think of like..prebullying. youre judging the person on something they may or may not even have and instead of loving them for who they are like people should be doing, theyre bullying and rejecting them before theyre even created.

Thanks, you made me think about the differences a bit clearer.

 

[Rapière]

. E.g. if someone commits a heinous crime that harms another person then we can treat them differently. I think it's not ok to treat someone differently because they were born differently

What if someone is born as a sadistic psychopath who's sole source of pleasure is inflicting pain on other people? Can they be blamed for commoting a henious crime, when they were driven by the same pursuit of pleasure that drives the rest of us? Do you think it's fair to treat them worse on these grounds?