Experiment?

doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Never heard of this fellow, but I agree with the things stated in the quotation.
I think coddling along those that would normally just die off is bringing human evolution to a standstill, and that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Water should be allowed to seek it's own level, even if that level is to be sucked down the drain.

I cannot say that these thoughts are completely alien to me although this is a rather harsh way to voice them.

But, eugenics is not "letting water seek it's own level". It is the idea of helping the water along the way we'd rather see it go.

I agree that there are a lot of people in the world that could stand some imporvement, and who are not interested to try to improve themselves. I agree that they should be allowed, as should anyone, to walk the path they have laid for themselves, even if it should take them to an early grave.

Quote:

Never heard of this fellow, but I agree with the things stated in the quotation.

Again, this bears witness of an extremely presumtuous ego. I doubt that you would place yourself among the obsolete majority.
Who is anyone to elevate themselves above humanity in this way and to start making assumptions and decisions that will affect the entire species?

0 Replies

cyracuz, eugenics also assumes that genes are the primary determinants of behavior, largely on the basis of comparisons between identical twins raised separately compared to fraternal twins. there's a level of uncertainty present in these studies, IMO, given that most identical twins are not separated at birth, so the samples are usually quite small. anyway, genetic determinism is a form of determinism, and as such, is really incompatible with notions of morality, which assume free will. that might be part of its appeal to DS, but as i've indicated on your thread about free will, i procede on the assumption that i act according to my volition, which is incompatible with my behavior being genetically determined.

0 Replies

I see.
I believe that there is some truth to both these notions. That they are not mutually exclusive. But that would mean that they are not at all, since the "freedom" suggested excludes determinism and vice versa.

0 Replies

not exactly sure what you mean, but i'm not claiming humans are tabulae rasa. it's just that eugenics emphasizes heredity, and discounts socio-cultural influence, far too readily in my opinion.

0 Replies

For me it is not really a matter of nature vs nurture.

Just imagine a world where, in a matter of several generations, things such as cancer /diabetes/alzheimers etc have been bred out of us. Image a world where each progressive generation gets smarter and more capable. People predisposed to violent/criminal activity, slowly with time vanish..as their tainted blood dies and is not reproduced.
The only 'cost' would be an impediment to our right to freely breed..a right that is destroying the planet anyhow. Selective and regulated breeding just seems like a really good idea to me.

0 Replies

Dok S, eliminating genetic illnesses, violence, and criminality is a worthwhile endeavor, although i doubt selective breeding can accomplish that in the space of a few generations. what puzzles me is the motivation for creating abler, smarter people. leaving aside the difficulty of measuring ability, as opposed to actual achievement, what makes a homogeneous population of smart & capable people preferable to a heterogeneous population with people of varying abilities? it's self-evident to you, perhaps, but not to me. having 2 Leonardos or 2 Shakespeares might be preferable, but do we need millions, let alone billions, of universal geniuses?

0 Replies

I see technological advancement as a worthwhile goal, I suppose. I just think we have the potential to be more than just fish in a bowl.

0 Replies

Regardless, dominance will come into play. The winner is not always the smartest viz-a-viz US Election 2000

0 Replies

t7200, geniuses can have disputes as well: for instance, Newton denied that Leibniz invented calculus independently. of course, Dok S thinks all negative traits are genetic, and can thus be eliminated by selective breeding. i assume he feels competition is OK, since he's trying to speed up evolution & competition is an engine of evolution, but i wonder if it's possible to preserve competition while eliminating aggrsssion. it wouldn't surprise me if both characteristics shared the same biological basis.

0 Replies

Quote:

of course, Dok S thinks all negative traits are genetic, and can thus be eliminated by selective breeding.

Ahem...I would point out that I made no such assertion. However, many negative traits, such as inherited diseases, mental problems (which lead to behavioral problems) have been scientifically demonstrated to be genetic.

It seem's downright foolish to me to even entertain the possibility of environment having absolutely no effect of peoples behaviors.

It's not nature fs nurture, it's both. People are quite proactive about improving people through nurture, but when it comes to tampering with 'nature' people get skittish. Why?

0 Replies

bit hasty with my post, and put words in your mouth, Dok S, for which i apologize. there's several reasons for skittishness over "tampering with nature." for one, eugenics is tarnished in the minds of many through its association with the Third Reich. eugenics also runs against the grain of an egalitarian ideal found in some societies, notably the US. finally, in free societies the abilitiy to choose a reproductive partner is pretty much taken from granted, so any program that requires approval by some agency before conceiving children will encounter great resistance.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

bit hasty with my post, and put words in your mouth, Dok S, for which i apologize. there's several reasons for skittishness over "tampering with nature." for one, eugenics is tarnished in the minds of many through its association with the Third Reich

Ya, those nazis fuxed up the 'groucho' mustache for all future generations too. But saying it's wrong just because 'the nazis did it' doesn't hold any real water, aside from propaganda value.

Quote:

. eugenics also runs against the grain of an egalitarian ideal found in some societies, notably the US.

Yes, damn that lefty shite. I would happily see it replaced with a meritocratic ideal. I really dislike egalitarianism

Quote:

finally, in free societies the abilitiy to choose a reproductive partner is pretty much taken from granted, so any program that requires approval by some agency before conceiving children will encounter great resistance.

Choosing a partner, sure. That wouldn't change. People have their rights curtailed all the time all the while applauding and cheering,(patriot act anyone?) it wouldn't be hard for government to go one extra step

0 Replies

doc S wrote:

Quote:

People are quite proactive about improving people through nurture, but when it comes to tampering with 'nature' people get skittish. Why?

I encourage self improvement. I see it as a human right to have the oportunity to improve your situation.

There are many aspects of society that infringe on this right. To be "tampering with nature" would infinge even deeper.

The idea of a select few determining who's genes to cultivate and wich ones to let dwindle, has more in common with nazi thinking than anything else.

0 Replies

A lot of babies going out with the bathwater today.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know