Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Eugenics Moral?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:49:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For those who don't know what it is, here's the Wikipedia article summing up the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org...

What do you think about it? Good? Bad? Why?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:51:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Morality is the respect of Objectively existent rights to which are designed such that every human life is given the opportunity and freedom to live his life to his own fullest potential. If the DNA alteration violates this in anyway, causing a disease or mutation, or genetic disoorder, then and only then is the procedure immoral.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:53:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see nothing wrong with being able to manipulate what your child looks like and being able to give your child enhanced intelligence, good personality traits, etc.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 10:03:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Positive or negative eugenics?

I think we should assume positive, not like what the Nazi's were trying to do or the idea of purposely giving a kid 5 arms and switching the places where his rear end and face are supposed to be.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 10:24:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would be very, very careful about genetically engineering intelligence. I feel it could sharply divide people even more so than it is now, and class in our country could become even more stratified as rich parents pay for genetic enhancements for their children while children of lower socio-economic status become essentially genetically inferior.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:24:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If it is possible to do it, someone is going to try it. So whether it's a good thing or not, we are going to find out.

Personally, I'd say this isn't a good idea. The current caste are hardly successful examples of eugenics programs in terms of social engineering, are they? The moment you have one group of people thinking that they are legitimately genetically superior to another group, it's a bad thing. It's never ended well.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:25:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 11:24:41 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
If it is possible to do it, someone is going to try it. So whether it's a good thing or not, we are going to find out.

Personally, I'd say this isn't a good idea. The current caste are hardly successful examples of eugenics programs in terms of social engineering, are they? The moment you have one group of people thinking that they are legitimately genetically superior to another group, it's a bad thing. It's never ended well.

Should read "current caste systems."
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 10:24:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I would be very, very careful about genetically engineering intelligence. I feel it could sharply divide people even more so than it is now, and class in our country could become even more stratified as rich parents pay for genetic enhancements for their children while children of lower socio-economic status become essentially genetically inferior.

How would having smarter people who happen to come from wealthy families be detrimental?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I support eugenics.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 11:29:13 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/13/2011 10:24:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I would be very, very careful about genetically engineering intelligence. I feel it could sharply divide people even more so than it is now, and class in our country could become even more stratified as rich parents pay for genetic enhancements for their children while children of lower socio-economic status become essentially genetically inferior.

How would having smarter people who happen to come from wealthy families be detrimental?

We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:37:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.

How would having a group of people who are inherently more intelligent and wealtheir than another group of people be bad? I still don't understand where the issue is in having a permanent "inferior" class. Additionally it could be an option to be able to make your child not only smart, but kind, compassionate, honest, hardworking, etc.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:06:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 11:37:41 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.

How would having a group of people who are inherently more intelligent and wealtheir than another group of people be bad? I still don't understand where the issue is in having a permanent "inferior" class. Additionally it could be an option to be able to make your child not only smart, but kind, compassionate, honest, hardworking, etc.

I think you might find quite a fight on your hands if eugenics were to be implemented so as to select for kindness or compassion.

If eugenics becomes a reality, then it's an all or nothing deal. Either everyone is genetically engineered or no one is. Otherwise you are courting widespread unrest. Also, since we can be reasonably certain some will oppose it on religious grounds, you will have to stamp out religion before you can make a go of it or they will simply suicide bomb the genetics labs.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:32:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 10:24:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I would be very, very careful about genetically engineering intelligence. I feel it could sharply divide people even more so than it is now, and class in our country could become even more stratified as rich parents pay for genetic enhancements for their children while children of lower socio-economic status become essentially genetically inferior.

insert Gundam Seed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 3:31:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 11:37:41 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.

How would having a group of people who are inherently more intelligent and wealtheir than another group of people be bad? I still don't understand where the issue is in having a permanent "inferior" class. Additionally it could be an option to be able to make your child not only smart, but kind, compassionate, honest, hardworking, etc.

The underclass would now be inherently genetically inferior. Ideas of equal opportunity go out the door as a powerful, genetically superior elite solidify their place on top of the American social hierarchy and stay there for centuries. Social unrest goes through the roof when these kind of practices are revealed. I don't see how a democracy can be maintained when entire social classes now rightfully claim genetic superiority.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 11:28:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:31:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:37:41 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.

How would having a group of people who are inherently more intelligent and wealtheir than another group of people be bad? I still don't understand where the issue is in having a permanent "inferior" class. Additionally it could be an option to be able to make your child not only smart, but kind, compassionate, honest, hardworking, etc.

The underclass would now be inherently genetically inferior. Ideas of equal opportunity go out the door as a powerful, genetically superior elite solidify their place on top of the American social hierarchy and stay there for centuries. Social unrest goes through the roof when these kind of practices are revealed. I don't see how a democracy can be maintained when entire social classes now rightfully claim genetic superiority.

Gattica is a fine example of how effort can sometimes outshine genetic modification. The film i mean.

Either way, we will always have the smarter, better people who become, or stay rich, while the dumb, retarded people stay poor. And its not like dumb people can only give birth to idiot spawns.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 11:40:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The rich have received many fancy technologies before the poor, ranging from phones to cars to air conditioning to the internet. Eventually, the technologies also became easily avaiable to the poor. Any temporary gap in genetics wouldn't be too much of a problem anyway, as we'd simply have a smarter, better upper class than before; intelligence is not a zero-sum game, after all.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 11:42:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We actually had a discussion about this topic in my English class in regards to Frankenstein, and we read an article that argued that manipulating the genetics of children somehow violated their rights, comparable to if not worse than the relationship between master and slave. I disagreed completely. Naturally, children are given a somewhat random set of genetics, and they don't have a right for the process to be completely randomized; if the parents give their child the genetics for good intelligence that he may have received anyway, who loses? Nobody.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 11:28:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:31:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:37:41 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/13/2011 11:33:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We'd have a permanent underclass for one. The wealthy become genetically superior to the non-wealthy. I feel this could undermine notions of modern democracy.

How would having a group of people who are inherently more intelligent and wealtheir than another group of people be bad? I still don't understand where the issue is in having a permanent "inferior" class. Additionally it could be an option to be able to make your child not only smart, but kind, compassionate, honest, hardworking, etc.

The underclass would now be inherently genetically inferior. Ideas of equal opportunity go out the door as a powerful, genetically superior elite solidify their place on top of the American social hierarchy and stay there for centuries. Social unrest goes through the roof when these kind of practices are revealed. I don't see how a democracy can be maintained when entire social classes now rightfully claim genetic superiority.

Gattica is a fine example of how effort can sometimes outshine genetic modification. The film i mean.

Either way, we will always have the smarter, better people who become, or stay rich, while the dumb, retarded people stay poor. And its not like dumb people can only give birth to idiot spawns.

Did we watch the same movie? I know I watched it years ago, but if I'm not mistaken the non-genetically enhanced brother constantly lived in the shadow of the genetically enhanced one and ended up committing suicide.

I'm aware of that, but there's no reason that someone being rich should allow them to give their children a genetic advantage. That's horrendous for the social fabric of society, and you've now divided groups into genetic haves and have nots. It seriously threatens notions of modern liberal democracy.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 1:28:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 12:04:23 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Did we watch the same movie? I know I watched it years ago, but if I'm not mistaken the non-genetically enhanced brother constantly lived in the shadow of the genetically enhanced one and ended up committing suicide.

Uh, i think you remember it wrong, or maybe you were too young to understand the movie.

The character played by Ethan Hawke, was the non-genetically enhanced sibling, always living in the shadows of his genetically enhanced brother.

So, Ethan bought the identity of the character played by Jude Law, who was crippled in a wheelchair, despite being genetically enhanced. Ethan then goes and enrolls into a very high class space mission, while avoiding detection by his coworkers and girlfriend who was played by Uma Therman, by using Jude Laws characters urine, hair and other scrapings in order to pass genetic tests.

In the final scenes, Ethan walks up to the launch platform, only to be stopped by a surprise urine test, to which he was not prepared. Although he fails, the doctor in charge of the test tells Ethan that he has known for some time about Ethans fraud, but let it go because his son was also born with a genetic defect that would prevent him from being an astronaut, despite the childs dream of becoming one. He switches the records, and Ethan shoots into space.

It is Jude Law who kills himself in the end, and not Ethan. So yes, you are mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm aware of that, but there's no reason that someone being rich should allow them to give their children a genetic advantage. That's horrendous for the social fabric of society, and you've now divided groups into genetic haves and have nots. It seriously threatens notions of modern liberal democracy.

Theres also no reason to stop them from allowing their children the genetic advantage.

Besides, theres already groups that exist today. The rich, and the non-rich. The haves, and have nots. The guy who works for 7 dollars an hour, and the guy who rakes in 300 an hour. Generally, the rich are already getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Its not anything you cant break out of, but the gap already exists.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 1:13:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is Jude Law who kills himself in the end, and not Ethan. So yes, you are mistaken.

Fair enough, but the movie is still very much anti-genetic enhancement. Genetic discrimination is widespread and there's a clear divide between those who are given the enhancements and the have nots. Vincent suffers through genetic discrimination and essentially has to trick the space program to let him on. The only reason Vincent beats his brother in chicken is because he saves no strength for the way back.

Besides, theres already groups that exist today. The rich, and the non-rich. The haves, and have nots. The guy who works for 7 dollars an hour, and the guy who rakes in 300 an hour. Generally, the rich are already getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.

The poor in this county are actually getting wealthier, but the rich today are not genetically superior to the poor. If you're from a wealthy and competing with a poor man for a job the employer can't really assume anything about your abilities simply from that fact.

Besides, the underpinnings of democracy are seriously threatened. Once you have a genetically superior class it's only a matter of time before it's reflected in law. "All men are created equal" no longer applies. I'm entirely aware that a child with two geniuses for parents has a leg up in terms of intelligence, but with genetic enhancements those legs up can be made across the board. Now we can say "this person is smart, this person is strong, this person is social" but classes are in no way indicative of ability. If this process goes through it'll be "this person is rich thus he is likely smart, athletic, sociable, tall, handsome...and rich!" You do agree the social consequences for this policy would be diasterous, right?

For the record, I have no problem with genetically modifying disease risk.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 6:15:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 1:13:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Fair enough, but the movie is still very much anti-genetic enhancement. Genetic discrimination is widespread and there's a clear divide between those who are given the enhancements and the have nots. Vincent suffers through genetic discrimination and essentially has to trick the space program to let him on. The only reason Vincent beats his brother in chicken is because he saves no strength for the way back.

The character played by Jude Law, received top-notch enhancements, but suffered a bout of depression because he came in second at a race. The character played by Uma Therman, also received genetic enhancements, but an in herant flaw prevents her from becoming an astronaut. Even within the genetically enhanced, even the ones who received the best enhancements, there still exists a hierarchy, a have and have nots.

Vincent on the other hand, manages to pass all the tests, and is seen as qualified, because of his hard work, and not his genetic enhancements. The problem in the film, is that the society discriminates between genetically superior and inferior people, but that does not have to necessarily be the case if modern society advances to this point. Although i am certain that if this became the case, people would be sued left and right for genetic discrimination, as we have in the past expanded discrimination to include things such as Gender, Race, Religion, etc, the point of the movie is that genetics is not everything, that hard work and determination, putting it all on the line is just as effective.

The poor in this county are actually getting wealthier, but the rich today are not genetically superior to the poor. If you're from a wealthy and competing with a poor man for a job the employer can't really assume anything about your abilities simply from that fact.

When did i ever say that the wealthy are genetically superior to the poor? What i said was, that the poor, with enough effort and work, can become rich, just like Vincent in the movie.

You assume as though genetic discrimination must necessarily follow from genetic enhancements.

Besides, the underpinnings of democracy are seriously threatened. Once you have a genetically superior class it's only a matter of time before it's reflected in law. "All men are created equal" no longer applies. I'm entirely aware that a child with two geniuses for parents has a leg up in terms of intelligence, but with genetic enhancements those legs up can be made across the board. Now we can say "this person is smart, this person is strong, this person is social" but classes are in no way indicative of ability. If this process goes through it'll be "this person is rich thus he is likely smart, athletic, sociable, tall, handsome...and rich!" You do agree the social consequences for this policy would be diasterous, right?

But you missed my point.

First off, it is utterly naive to believe that "All men are created equal" is necessarily true. The truth is, not everyone is created equal. Some people are born in better families, have better lives.

If we compare decently smart guy above average, who was born in a poor family, and could not afford College or University, against someone who was average, but was born in a rich family, enrolled in Yale, etc, The first guy may be smarter than the second, but the class has already determined which will have a better life. There are instances where classes DO determine the ability of a person.

Again, im not saying that this applies across the board. People have broken from this cycle. We have had truly brilliant people who, for example, managed to enter university thanks to scholarships. Vincent, in the film, breaks this cycle with hard work. But the fact that we have people who break this cycle, doesnt mean the class structure discrimination does not already exists.

If there was one spot left in Harvard Law school, which do you think the school will be most likely to give the position to? A fairly intelligent person, who comes from a poor family, or an average person who was a son of the president?

For the record, I have no problem with genetically modifying disease risk.

Neither do I.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 1:38:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 9:30:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
^I'd be happy to debate you on this issue if you're interested.

What would the debate topic be?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 1:45:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I strongly think it would be a good idea to eliminate the male gender from the human species.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 1:49:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 1:45:23 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I strongly think it would be a good idea to eliminate the male gender from the human species.

Great. Lets start with you.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 1:53:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 1:49:34 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/16/2011 1:45:23 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I strongly think it would be a good idea to eliminate the male gender from the human species.

Great. Lets start with you.

Notice: I don't endorse genocide. I'm talking about reproduction.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 2:27:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 1:53:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 1:49:34 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/16/2011 1:45:23 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I strongly think it would be a good idea to eliminate the male gender from the human species.

Great. Lets start with you.

Notice: I don't endorse genocide. I'm talking about reproduction.

Reiteration: Yes, and im talking about building a time machine and implementing this so that we can start with you.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 1:47:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 1:38:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/15/2011 9:30:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
^I'd be happy to debate you on this issue if you're interested.

What would the debate topic be?

How about:

"Given sufficient technology, prenatal genetic alteration ("designer babies") is socially desirable."

We would have to further define prenatal genetic alteration in terms of intelligence, appearance, athleticism, etc. The debate is difficult to capture in one sentence. Feel free to throw out an alternative.