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.

Views: 3196

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Genetic engineering? Fine.

Regulating reproduction? No.


The problem with Eugenics is that we don't know enough about our genetic structure to avoid what happens to pedigree dogs (to the best of my knowledge).


Also, discussion of schizophrenia: Fuck you. Aneurotypical people have as much right to exist as you.

Consider this an official warning.
"Fuck you." Adds nothing to the discussion and is a personal attack.
If you can't be civil, don't participate.

agreed 100% in your thinking.  We are not there yet, simply put.  So for now we have to live with the cards we are dealt.  Aneurotypical people, have the same rights as we all do, and there should be no distinction, between mental illness, vs. physical illness.  They are both diseases, so many are unfortunate to just get, through no fault of their own...that last phrase, sounds so retarded to me, but it needs to be said, as people seem to have this unique ability to blame other people for things they cannot help.


As to the longer term solution?  Find a way to make human beings think better, with 100 times more emphasis on compassion, empathy, and just fucking caring for other humans.  Unfortunately, I haven't figured this part out yet. heh




Eugenics can be very beneficial. One need only to look at the NBA and the NFL.
oh no he di'ent!

Yep, having been intimate with men resulting from the eugenics better known as 19th century Africans-to-Caucasians slavery, I find it nearly impossible to return to average westernised, medically kept alive men.


It's one thing to not have this intimate knowledge, but unfortunately, knowledge is not something that can simply be disregarded on a "humanitarian" bequest :(

I see it as being responsible. I have a close friend who has so many genetic diseases and even though she would love to have her own children, she would not want them to inherit all the genetic issues she has. It might be very hard for some but how can any parent not want the best for their children even if it means not being biologically related to them?

My idea for implementing the system - which seems to have gotten lost in all the replies - was to offer people the chance for free vasectomy/tubal-ligation upon making a donation to a publicly maintained Genobank.  That, in an of itself, would offer a LOT of motivation to women living in poverty.  Whether or not they take advantage of screening when they do have children is actually secondary.


Removing publicly managed (I'll use 'managed' rather than 'funded', because I agree that it is more accurate) education would simply result in fewer people receiving formal education - and could very likely lead to many more Christian funded schools, which I think we should both agree would not be a good idea.  Private health care has failed to provide health care to the masses, and there is no reason to think private education would be any better.

Well you didn't ask about the 'genobank' part of my idea - that being that there would be a facility for maintaining eggs/sperm for future use.  Yes, publicly managed, meaning tax dollar funded, just like the education system but alleviating some of the burden on the education system.


Secondly, imagine an education system absent of maybe 60% of unplanned children and you might be solving a lot of the problems you are talking about there.  The system is horrible, but better than no education at all - why not look at historical stats on literacy.  Having tutored adult literacy I feel I can confidently say that the obstacles faced by those without literacy are far more profound than most people realize.  The benefits of criminal activities go way up when one cannot meet the literacy requirements of the work force.

Space is not wanting because few people can afford it - or do not make it a priority financial choice, which is the entire point of a publicly managed/funded system.  Few women living in poverty with 2,3,4, or more children have actually chosen that situation for themselves - they've wound up there through lack of ability to stand by good choices, something that tubal ligation/stored eggs would offer them.


The change wouldn't happen overnight, and neither did the increase in literacy through publicly managed/funded education.  Literacy rates did increase though - dramatically.  I can argue, and defend at length, that it was that increase in literacy that prevented the sort of proletariat uprising predicted as inevitable by Marx.


Systems that increase social mobility greatly decrease potential social entropy by allowing exchanges between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes.  There is obviously a significant cost to maintaining such an illusion of egalitarianism, but that cost is generally lower than keeping the gate shut to the masses.  You can, obviously, take the approach of hiring half of the poor to kill/subdue the other half, but that entails long term commitments as well.  Essentially, if you want to move toward survival of the fittest in a capitalist system then you need to accept the fact that those whose most beneficial adaptations are for the physical procurement of capital will outnumber those whose most beneficial adaptations are intellectual - a very dangerous proposition unless you are adapted for both.

I had tubal ligation at age 30, after three abortions between ages 28 and 30, while on contraception(s). I had been requesting sterilisation since age 14. The patriarchal medical institutions need to stop treating women like breeders. If we say we want sterilisation that should be sufficient.


Sterilisation should be free, for pets and humans. Re-attachment should have costs.


Vasectomy is 95% reversible, this without medical/political will power. If we brought this topic to the forefront of family planning medicine, we could easily achieve 99.99% of reversibility.


I would condone vasectomies at birth, in lieu of circumcisions at birth.

Indeed - although listen to them howl!


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service