I have some pretty strong feelings about eugenics (it's a good and necessary practice), but I find it very, VERY difficult to talk about it with anyone since I'm instantly labeled a Nazi for supporting it. I'm hoping the folks on Think Atheist will be more inclined to intellectual discussion than name-calling and dismissal.
The start off, some disclaimers: genocide is wrong; taking human rights away from people of a race/religion/hairstyle you don't like is wrong; concentration camps are wrong; violence in wrong.
There. Now to the actual discussion.
When I talk about eugenics, I'm talking about the practice of systematically removing debilitating genetic traits and defects from a population by means of regulating the reproduction of its citizens. Do you have Schizophrenia? Did you know that this ailment is genetic and very easy to pass on to you children? Please, do not punish an innocent child with this problem. Are you genetically healthy, intelligent, and talented? Do you have special immunities that make you less likely to get sick? By all means, spread these traits to future generations, either by having children yourself or donating to a sperm or egg bank. Do you want children but should not carry your genetic problems onto them? Adopt. Adoption will always be available no matter what the society (just because someone has good genetic material does NOT mean they would make a good parent). Do you say that adoption is not the same? Then I suppose you care more about satisfying your selfish desires than the well being of a child.
Eugenics is, at its base, very simple - think about the future first.
I'm leaving this post now for what I'm hoping will be thoughtful and anti-inflammatory discussion.
Even a basic history class will tell you that if you're going to invade Russia, you do it late in the spring and you either succeed or get the hell out before the end of autumn. You do NOT want to experience a Russian winter.
So, what's the deal, are you a neo-nazi or what? Did you read what you just wrote?
"One couldn't do worse than the nazi solution" And you used the word 'solution'.
And "unfortunately for eugenics" as if it was just getting a good rap going, and got all inconvenienced by those brilliant jews? Am I interpreting this correctly?
"Am I interpreting this correctly?"
I'll second that.
"Hitler, Hirohito, and Pol Pot had the right idea, they were just underachievers."
You have stated exactly what I believe and done so very well. I have a couple of genetically caused conditions that have made my life miserable so I had a vasectomy the day I was legally old enough to do so. To me anyone who knows they risk passing their flaws onto their offspring but choose to take that risk, not that the risk is to them, are incredibly selfish, egotistical and blatantly disrespectful to their own progeny.
I believe a child who suffers from a known hereditary condition should be allowed to sue for emotional and/or physical hardship.
And who would this litigation be aimed at? The child's parents?
We live in a "rights" obsessed society, right to bear arms, right to have sex even when the other doesn't, right to control all other species, right to control what we say to each other, right to breed, right to mentally abuse children with religious ideas, right to be wealthier than the neighbour, right to be an asshole.
To borrow the aliens analogy used earlier... If aliens were somehow to get a glance at today's society, they would see lawyers as the ultimate human evolution, cuz we are legislating the right to all human experience, and lawyers are mighty happy for this.
But break down your paradigm (induced by a religious society) and wonder... why should breeding a "right"? When you stop taking such selfishness for granted, you'll see the other thought makes more sense.
Interesting development here in New Zealand. The right-of-centre government here is pushing a law that will enable "the authorities" to remove children from parents who are strongly suspected of being a danger to the children. No conviction necessary.
Isn't "The Right" supposed to stand for LESS government?
I say let natural selection remain natural. We're too stupid to go fiddling with things that took millenniums to set up.
"I say let natural selection remain natural."
Where is natural selection perfect?
Why shouldn't humankind correct undesirable genetic traits if it can?
Nobody ever said it's perfect. It's just better at it's job than we are. We can royally fuck some stuff up without even realizing it until it's too late. Natural Selection has built in error correcting and adapting systems.