What type of Eugenics do you support?

I disafree. I really think that the "history of breeding" like we unfortunately already had it will stay at least two generations (perhaps 50 years) in most heads here - and that's not only Germany.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

So you don't think it is possible to breed better intelligence or physical strength into the human race? It works for horses and dogs just to name a few. I'm not talking about humans having certificates or papers like a dog for a pedigree or anything.

I'm just asking you if you think it is possible or not.

At least it his been done - better: has been tried to do - since centuries: all the nobilty eberywhere tried to do so.

And although you didn't want to do like the Nazis, exactly that is what has been the aims of Lebensborn. (Even with a very similar description and argument.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
FD, you honestly don't think we will have some sort of breeding progam in place during our lifetimes - even if it is just to control population growth and nothing else?

I kind of take that for granted...

Cycloptichorn

Well, I don't doubt that YOU (= in the USA) something like that will happen.

Perhaps even in MY lifetime.

But I sincerely doubt that for other countries, especially those with a Christian background - like most in Europe.

Interesting that you don't consider the US to have a 'Christian background.'

Our religious nuts here are at least as nutty as your nuts, if not nuttier nuts, so it's hard to believe that the same objections wouldn't be issued here, as there, if that is an issue.

Cycloptichorn

Why do you believe that people that disagree with genetic altering are nutty?
There are mad scientists that could take this to a level that i don't even like to think about.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why do you believe that people that disagree with genetic altering are nutty?
There are mad scientists that could take this to a level that i don't even like to think about.

Who said anything about genetic altering?

My plan called only for natural breeding, the same as humans have practiced for millenia.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Back in December there was a story on NPR that dealt with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and a family that willingly underwent the procedure to be able to select from a group of embryos ones that don't appear to have mutated spinal muscular atrophy genes, a disorder that killed their eight-month-old child.

Probability statistics regarding success rates of these procedures are not mentioned in the story, and the reporter only states that there is no guarantee that the woman at the center of the story will get pregnant.

The story also mentions another case in which a family screened their embryos for genes that increase an individual's chances for colon cancer, a disease that isn't as deadly as spinal muscular atrophy, and brought up the issue of ethics and eugenics.

This technology is already being developed, and is being employed by more and more people.

Screening Embryos for Disease

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My plan called only for natural breeding, the same as humans have practiced for millenia.

Yeao - that's exactly the idea of the nobilty for centuries and the Nazis in the most perverted form (at least, the nobility didn't steal the breed and murder their original parents).

And that's one of the reasons - the main reason in my opinion - such won't happen here soon. (Though some conservatives really like that idea.)

0 Replies

It's happening right now unless you guys in Germany just wed people at random. You look for a mate that appeals to you.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
My plan called only for natural breeding, the same as humans have practiced for millenia.

Yeao - that's exactly the idea of the nobilty for centuries and the Nazis in the most perverted form (at least, the nobility didn't steal the breed and murder their original parents).

And that's one of the reasons - the main reason in my opinion - such won't happen here soon. (Though some conservatives really like that idea.)

No, it isn't the same idea as nobility and the Nazis.

Noone is forcing anyone to marry anyone they don't like, or saying that anyone has to be put to death at all. Only admitting that we have two seperate problems here which can be addressed by the same solution -

1, overpopulation is already a problem and is only going to get much, much worse without birth controls.

2, we would like to see the human race become smarter, tougher and longer-lived over time. It is difficult to see what the downside of this would be.

Selective breeding solves both problems: it limits the amount of new members entering your society, and encourages those lines of DNA which we feel will be the most profitable for humankind over time.

In all likelihood we will see far, far more genetic enhancement and altering than what my quite conservative plan calls for. My bet would be that you will have a hard time defining 'human' in 30 years.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Why do you believe that people that disagree with genetic altering are nutty?
There are mad scientists that could take this to a level that i don't even like to think about.

Who said anything about genetic altering?

My plan called only for natural breeding, the same as humans have practiced for millenia.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, ok, my mistake.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Why do you believe that people that disagree with genetic altering are nutty?
There are mad scientists that could take this to a level that i don't even like to think about.

Who said anything about genetic altering?

My plan called only for natural breeding, the same as humans have practiced for millenia.

Cycloptichorn

I support the same type of breeding. I don't think it is a good idea to alter the human genome in unnatural ways, you never know what is hiden in there which could be unleashed. Instead of the type of "super human" we would be aiming for, we could end up with something more along the lines of a monster. For some people I know they will call either one of the 2 monsters, but with the current polution of the gene pool there has got to be a way to breed humans with a healthy system that isn't going to be brought down by infections or disease.

0 Replies

I believe in negative eugenics. I think we should eliminate anyone who supports the notion of eugenics.

Select only for those who have no physical infirmity, and you would never have had Stephen Hawking . . .

http://www.businessworld.in/archive/010122/stephen%20hawking.jpg

That thought might not disturb some people, but there can be no doubt that he has a brilliant mind, packaged in an almost "useless" body.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Selective breeding solves both problems: it limits the amount of new members entering your society, and encourages those lines of DNA which we feel will be the most profitable for humankind over time.

From the statues of "Lebensborn" (source, English translatio):

Quote:

The organization "Lebensborn e.V." serves the SS leaders in the selection and adoption of qualified children. ...

1. Support racially, biologically, and hereditarily valuable families with many children.

2. Place and care for racially and biologically and hereditarily valuable pregnant women, who, after thorough examination of their and the progenitor's families by the race and settlement central bureau of the SS, can be expected to produce equally valuable children.

...

I admit that they wanted many children, not few.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We run a lottery for extra kids as well... start breeding for luck too.

Any combination of DNA is already so incredibly unlikely.

As there seems to be plenty of DNA out there in a wide variety of combinations, I would have to disagree with you on this one.

There's a lot more DNA, and even other forms of genetic coding, that isn't in existence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I believe in negative eugenics. I think we should eliminate anyone who supports the notion of eugenics.

Select only for those who have no physical infirmity, and you would never have had Stephen Hawking . . .

That thought might not disturb some people, but there can be no doubt that he has a brilliant mind, packaged in an almost "useless" body.

But if you don't select against those who have physical disability at all - merely allow more children to be born who don't have the disability - it doesn't keep potential Hawkings from being born at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It's happening right now unless you guys in Germany just wed people at random. You look for a mate that appeals to you.

Didn't notice this response.

Well, "yes" - some of the nobilty still have such "house laws", but most certainly (because unlawful) not with a similar language like done by the Nazis.

And "yes", quite a few conservatives ("old Nazis" as some might call them, mostly from from the parts which now belong to Poland again) do so more or less openly.

"No", if you mean that we generally marry here to breed a certain kind of new human being.

0 Replies

There are lots of people who should not be allowed to reproduce, however, should any form of social control be instituted, than those are precisely the ones who will be granted licenses to birth babies. Sad thought.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It's happening right now unless you guys in Germany just wed people at random. You look for a mate that appeals to you.

Didn't notice this response.

Well, "yes" - some of the nobilty still have such "house laws", but most certainly (because unlawful) not with a similar language like done by the Nazis.

And "yes", quite a few conservatives ("old Nazis" as some might call them, mostly from from the parts which now belong to Poland again) do so more or less openly.

"No", if you mean that we generally marry here to breed a certain kind of new human being.

Of course, McG meant that when you select someone to marry and reproduce with, you select them in part because you feel their genetics are good and would make a good child.

This is a small example of personal, selective breeing in action.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hard to believe, as most folks (here) end up getting married. I've heard it's different in Germany, lately.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Hard to believe, as most folks (here) end up getting married. I've heard it's different in Germany, lately.

Exactly. People are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment.

Has that changed in the States recently?

0 Replies

Oh heavens, in the states, people can have their babies killed before they're born, no worries here.

0 Replies

What type of Eugenics do you support?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know