Time to ban the mentally ill

reply to post by Brown Bear


Forced sterilization is a form of negative eugenics which I don't agree with. Having said that, in some parts of Europe the government offers an a monetary incentive to sterilize people who are known drug addicts. The addicts get more drugs, and society benefits. That's a grey area I can accept.

There's no need to force sterilization. The fertility rate doesn't even approach replacement levels these days. Covert sterilization has already played it's role, in my assessment. We are less than a generation away from some awesome positive eugenic abilities becoming a reality. We can, and should wait it out.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Brown Bear

 

Forced sterilization is a form of negative eugenics which I don't agree with. Having said that, in some parts of Europe the government offers an a monetary incentive to sterilize people who are known drug addicts. The addicts get more drugs, and society benefits. That's a grey area I can accept.

There's no need to force sterilization. The fertility rate doesn't even approach replacement levels these days. Covert sterilization has already played it's role, in my assessment. We are less than a generation away from some awesome positive eugenic abilities becoming a reality. We can, and should wait it out.

edit on 17-12-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Please describe a form of positive Eugenics that doesn't include the forced sterilization of those with defective genes/DNA.

The prisons are filled with retarded and borderline retarded, and as I said, the crack babies and the rx'd out kids are reaching childbearing years. There is no reasonable expectation that they will produce and raise healthy children?

I have acquaintances stuck with defective grandchildren abandoned to them by their sons and daughters and they live in fear for their lives. Talk to a few of them and one quickly gets a sample of the misery these children produce now and into the future.

Originally posted by Brown Bear

Originally posted by Dispo
Please clarify, are you advocating eugenics?

Edit: I can't tell if this post is satire or not, if it is, add some smileys or something. If not, guaranteedreplies.jpg

edit on 15-12-2012 by Dispo because: (no reason given)

What's the problem with Eugenics? We see the problems that develop without Eugenics or any recognition of responsible natural selection... and they are significant.

These unhealthy nuts and morons are coming from somewhere.

edit on 17-12-2012 by Brown Bear because: (no reason given)

I think it's already been covered fairly well by other posters here, but since you addressed me I'll reply too.

Eugenics is morally offensive to the traditional western value system, where the rights of the individual are held above the rights of the state. It can be implemented in a number of ways, e.g. preventing breeding among undesirables, possibly through sterilisation or murder or it can be done through genetic engineering, a.k.a. "designer babies."

In the first example, you are forcibly removing the right of an individual to procreate, or even killing him or her. It is harmful to that person and therefore wrong, according to the system of values I was raised under. This is a knee jerk feeling that I can never shake because it has been ingrained in my psyche for decades.

In the second example you are altering a person before they can give fully informed consent on the process. This is also wrong under my system of values.

In other cultures where the individual is more subservient to the state, the topic of eugenics may be a less contentious issue and therefore not "wrong."

As for the practical and ethical implications of eugenics, if we stick to the OP's given scenario of culling the mentally abnormal population, we have to remember the implications of such an act.

Ethically, who decides what is a desirable trait in the population? If we do reach some kind of universal consensus about what we should select for in humanity, what happens in 500 years when an unforeseeable event occurs which favours traits we've bred out of the population like intelligence or strength, or poor eyesight, or a slow metabolism and so on? Are aesthetics a viable trait we can select for or is that wrong?

Eugenics brings up one of the greatest sci-fi dystopian premises of all times too, but nobody ever seems to make this logical leap until it's pointed out to them, I'm going to make a series of statements here, I think each one of them follows on from the previous one easily enough, I haven't come across a flaw in it yet, which saddens me:

There is a genetic ideal out there somewhere which makes humans in to the best we can be in every field.

This genetic ideal can be achieved with eugenics, mainly the genetic engineering branch.

This genetic template will cause everyone in the world to have the same genotype and phenotype, or they will be inferior to the rest of the world.

Everyone will eventually be bullied, coerced or convinced in to allowing their baby to be born with this genetic template.

The human race will essentially become a clone species.

Clone species are more easily destroyed e.g. climatic change, disease.

Eugenics will eventually lead to the destruction of the human race, as a major cataclysm hundreds of thousands of years away will wipe out 100% of the population instead of 90% due to the lack of variation within the species.

On a note which is closer to home, several traits are closely linked to many others, the main one in this context would be intelligence/propensity for mental illness. This isn't just in humans either, we see it as you work up the intelligence ladder on an evolutionary scale, I think one of the first animals on the intelligence scale to experience depression is the mouse, but it's a rare thing. As you move on to smarter animals, their mental cognition becomes less uniform leading to greater ranges of independent thought or "mental illness" e.g. parrots and primates, with humans having the highest rate of mental abnormalities in any known species. So yeah, my main problem with breeding out the schizos is that we'll end up in an Idiocracy style future where the stupid rule the world, but hey, at least we won't have any nutters about!

reply to post by Dispo




You've made too many invalid assumptions for me (or anyone) to respond to them.

You've also repeatedly mentioned Western "Values" which appear clearly bankrupt to many, and your own values which follow close behind your opinions derived from them.

This is not a State issue as you insist, but a matter of concern for both society and humanity, and the future of both which appears to be in great jeopardy.

Why should the genetically defective be allowed to breed more of the same? Hard choices need to be made for the benefit of all. Fortunately the coming Wars and hard times will cull many defectives and other realities will get the rest.

Originally posted by Brown Bear
reply to post by Dispo

 

You've made too many invalid assumptions for me (or anyone) to respond to them.

You've also repeatedly mentioned Western "Values" which appear clearly bankrupt to many, and your own values which follow close behind your opinions derived from them.

This is not a State issue as you insist, but a matter of concern for both society and humanity, and the future of both which appears to be in great jeopardy.

Why should the genetically defective be allowed to breed more of the same? Hard choices need to be made for the benefit of all. Fortunately the coming Wars and hard times will cull many defectives and other realities will get the rest.

Please tell me which assumptions you believe are invalid and explain why. If you do not do this we cannot further the debate and we will both be worse off because of it.

My values do not drive my opinions in any way, the reason I even mentioned them was in the interest of full disclosure. I do not ever let my personal beliefs stand in the way of logic, observation and facts, I thought I made that clear. I will never feel comfortable talking about eugenics because I've been raised to believe it's bad. You can't just not feel your gut feelings, you can however ignore them in order to have a reasoned and scientific debate.

Where I refer to the state in my post, you can read it as "the general collective." I used state because it was the first word meaning the general collective that popped in to my head. As a planet, we do not have a unified culture. In some cultures, the strength of the individual is the most important thing, so he or she would not sacrifice him or herself in any way in order to help the family/the neighbourhood/the state/the planet/the species, and there are several different levels of devotion between loyalty to self and loyalty to species. I'm arguing that the western system favours the individual more than the collective.

As for your question about genetically defective people, you don't seem to grasp the concept that your morality is not my morality is not the national morality is not the global morality and so on, you cannot just say why should such and such be allowed without qualifying your belief with objective facts and evidence.

Morality and semantics aside, I'd be interested to know what assumptions you believe I've made. Mainly in my logic chain leading to the destruction of civilisation. I can only see one, and it's not really a massive one.

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by Brown Bear
reply to post by Dispo

 

You've made too many invalid assumptions for me (or anyone) to respond to them.

You've also repeatedly mentioned Western "Values" which appear clearly bankrupt to many, and your own values which follow close behind your opinions derived from them.

This is not a State issue as you insist, but a matter of concern for both society and humanity, and the future of both which appears to be in great jeopardy.

Why should the genetically defective be allowed to breed more of the same? Hard choices need to be made for the benefit of all. Fortunately the coming Wars and hard times will cull many defectives and other realities will get the rest.

You've said about yourself, "My values do not drive my opinions in any way,"

Kid, there's no way I'm going to waste my time educating someone that would say something like this, That ship has sailed and you can only reach your own level with your own kind. The uneducated are not in this game or any other.

When you assume, as you have repeatedly, you say something about yourself. Do you know the difference between assumption and fact, between reality and delusion. You go through your stuff line by line and try to learn. Hee Haw.

edit on 18-12-2012 by Brown Bear because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2012 by Brown Bear because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Brown Bear


reply to post by Dispo


BB has a point. We are incapable of coming up with opinions entirely outside of our values. It makes no sense.

reply to post by Brown Bear


I think you're wrong. I have studied and commented on many controversial issues throughout my career, it's my job to leave my opinions at the door and base my conclusions on objective facts.

I am completely capable of ignoring my feelings, assuming that I am not says more about you than it does about me.

As I've said, I want to engage you in debate, I want you to tell me why you think I'm wrong, if your only objection to talking to me is the fact that I was raised to believe infringing on other people is wrong no matter what, which I've already stated is irrelevant, then I think you need to spend some time assessing your own opinions and prejudices.

Please stop saying I'm wrong without explaining why, "lol look at your posts you idiot" does not help me further my understanding, nor does it make you look clever. If you don't want to have a sensible exchange of ideas, that's fine, but don't pretend it makes you superior to me.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by newcovenant

 

From the quote you provide, it's obvious that standard health treatment wouldn't help this child. You seem to have difficulties making the connections I have attempted to transmit. All good.

edit on 17-12-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

What about targeted, focused solutions directed at his specific condition?
You can't say they would not have worked. Perhaps the static here is in your transmission? You might have difficulty getting a point across. All good.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by newcovenant

 

From the quote you provide, it's obvious that standard health treatment wouldn't help this child. You seem to have difficulties making the connections I have attempted to transmit. All good.

edit on 17-12-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

What about targeted, focused solutions directed at his specific condition?
You can't say they would not have worked. Perhaps the static here is in your transmission? You might have difficulty getting a point across. All good.