Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Should positive eugenics be allowed?

Chloe8
Posts: 3,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:56:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

That's not going to be a thing in America any time soon.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Chloe8
Posts: 3,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 1:55:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

Yes I can see logic in the sterilization of people sent to prison. I can't see it coming into law though.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 1:58:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

Because......crime is genetic?
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 2:45:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 12:56:41 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

That's not going to be a thing in America any time soon.

Maybe in a hundred years when reproduction is a right that can be confiscated for the good of the future of the human species.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:37:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 1:58:14 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

Because......crime is genetic?

https://www.bostonglobe.com...
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
janesix
Posts: 5,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 9:25:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

No
Chloe8
Posts: 3,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 10:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 9:25:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

No

I'm guessing you come to that view based on the fear of a greater gap between rich and poor?
janesix
Posts: 5,841
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 10:14:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 10:08:51 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 9:25:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

No

I'm guessing you come to that view based on the fear of a greater gap between rich and poor?

No. I just think humans should let nature take it's course.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 1:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 1:58:14 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:55:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

Forced sterilization for felons and their offspring will be common in the near future.

Because......crime is genetic?

No one is suggesting that criminal tendencies are encoded into criminals' genes in the same sense that puberty is. The claim is that differences in genetics predisposes some more than others to violent criminal behavior, which is not at all implausible. Of course, virtually anyone can be driven to crime given the right circumstances, and it's fair to ask whether such circumstances are responsible for a given criminal's history, but the assumption that the explanation can never be traced back to genes is a bad one. It's probably a major factor.
"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2016 10:14:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/8/2016 10:08:51 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/8/2016 9:25:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?

No

I'm guessing you come to that view based on the fear of a greater gap between rich and poor?

No. I just think humans should let nature take it's course.

What an Amish worldview....
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:26:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?
It seems that these sort of eugenics would be very expensive and available only for the super rich. I'm not sure if we need a rich class that is not only wealthier but physically superior as well.
Chloe8
Posts: 3,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 3:59:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2016 12:26:34 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?
It seems that these sort of eugenics would be very expensive and available only for the super rich. I'm not sure if we need a rich class that is not only wealthier but physically superior as well.

Potentially they could be offered under a national health care system?

If the rich can afford it I can't see a justifiable reason to stop them. In time the technology would get cheaper and more affordable.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 10:25:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/9/2016 3:59:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 12:26:34 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?
It seems that these sort of eugenics would be very expensive and available only for the super rich. I'm not sure if we need a rich class that is not only wealthier but physically superior as well.

Potentially they could be offered under a national health care system?

If the rich can afford it I can't see a justifiable reason to stop them. In time the technology would get cheaper and more affordable.
But it would result in an even wider gap between the classes. When the rich become not only wealthier but objectively superior as well, there would be no way a guy from a poor background would get to a position that could be similar to theirs. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I also doubt that the technology would get all that cheaper. There would certainly be price reductions, but I could see these sort of Eugenics companies acting like the big pharmaceutical companies with high prices for cheap to make drugs.

The only way it would work without a giant imbalance is some sort of national health service where it is controlled heavily. I'm not a big fan of this but it seems like the only way it would work.
Chloe8
Posts: 3,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 9:31:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2016 10:25:52 AM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:59:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 12:26:34 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 3/7/2016 6:35:39 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my view they should be. there are many ways in which positive eugenics are beneficial to humanity. People who are potentially happier, more intelligent, harder working, kinder, more physically attractive and with resistance against disease, illness etc can only be a good thing for humanity in general.

What do you think?
It seems that these sort of eugenics would be very expensive and available only for the super rich. I'm not sure if we need a rich class that is not only wealthier but physically superior as well.

Potentially they could be offered under a national health care system?

If the rich can afford it I can't see a justifiable reason to stop them. In time the technology would get cheaper and more affordable.
But it would result in an even wider gap between the classes. When the rich become not only wealthier but objectively superior as well, there would be no way a guy from a poor background would get to a position that could be similar to theirs. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I also doubt that the technology would get all that cheaper. There would certainly be price reductions, but I could see these sort of Eugenics companies acting like the big pharmaceutical companies with high prices for cheap to make drugs.

The only way it would work without a giant imbalance is some sort of national health service where it is controlled heavily. I'm not a big fan of this but it seems like the only way it would work.

Yes a government scheme offering services of eugenics to all parents would be a good idea. It would remove fears it was only beneficial to the rich and increase the number of babies born with superior genetics. It would be expensive but I think the long term economic benefits would outweigh this initial government investment. Increased tax paid by these individuals and reduced need for government money throughout their lives would mean a substantial initial investment by the government would be justified.