Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

knocker

Eugenics?

Recommended Posts

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But seriously castration should, in my opinion, be used as a likely very effective deterrent - and punishment - for criminals. And if we're removing such people from the gene pool as well, then I see no problem?

On a wider level, why exactly are there still so many inherited diseases afflicting us when the answer to eliminate them is so very, very, simple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But seriously castration should, in my opinion, be used as a likely very effective deterrent - and punishment - for criminals. And if we're removing such people from the gene pool as well, then I see no problem?

On a wider level, why exactly are there still so many inherited diseases afflicting us when the answer to eliminate them is so very, very, simple?

Galton would have had you signing on the dotted line in a jiffy. In 1928 many county councils voted for sterilisation of the 'unfit' including Cornwall. The necessary legislation was never passed. Different in America of course but that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem re. inherited diseases is that quite often the genes associated with them are recessive, so a pair of perfectly able-bodied parents can produce a disabled child through unfortunate cross-fertilization of the recessive genes (Mum = Bb, Dad = Bb, child = bb).

I believe that adults who probably can't, or probably won't, provide for children adequately shouldn't have children, but most genetic disorders aren't severe enough to fall into this category, and it is possible for individuals with various types of genetic disorder to still manage to have fulfilling lives. But on the other side of the coin, I think there's nothing wrong with adults deciding against having children because they have genetic disabilities and want to spare any future children from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite true but essentially this isn't about inherited diseases but moving towards a judgement on who is, or isn't, fit to have children. I appreciate it hasn't reached that stage, but it's a slippery slope. And if you factor in genetic engineering along the lines of a blonde blue eyed boy would be nice, then a few more bells start ringing. The American view on this was different to ours in that race predominated the thinking so the vast majority of Americans who were sterilised were black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like this at all, it assumes that people who are drug addicts now will never sort themselves out. What happens if one of these addicts cleans up and wants to start a family? Offering drug addicts £200 at their lowest point is always going to have some takers - but they're thinking about their next hit, not the long-term consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that adults who probably can't, or probably won't, provide for children adequately shouldn't have children, but most genetic disorders aren't severe enough to fall into this category,

what about big fat ugly people surely they must fit into this category??? :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like this at all, it assumes that people who are drug addicts now will never sort themselves out. What happens if one of these addicts cleans up and wants to start a family? Offering drug addicts £200 at their lowest point is always going to have some takers - but they're thinking about their next hit, not the long-term consequences.

Actually I agree with you, the "sterilisation" approach is not only a bit draconian but also has an air of "trying to make money out of drug addicts" about it.

what about big fat ugly people surely they must fit into this category??? :whistling:

A bit of a gross generalisation (pardon the deliberate pun...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe our genetics are not set in stone after all?

I don't know, but these articles are interesting:-

http://www.thetrutha...genes-cell.html

http://www.eurekaler...r-cho110306.php

My comments on the first link (concerning his claims on epigenetics) is that there is probably an effect - but the guy is exaggerating things a bit. Who knows eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about big fat ugly people surely they must fit into this category??? :whistling:

You mean OON? :shok: :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question:

Who exactly, within the panoply of human ignorance and prejudice, is both great enough and wise enough to decide whose life is worth living?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question:

Who exactly, within the panoply of human ignorance and prejudice, is both great enough and wise enough to decide whose life is worth living?

Honestly? Those who have will always preside over those who have-not. Always remember, normal is what everyone else is, and you are not ....

Eugenics was/is the biggest scientific fraud ever posited. Even our old friend, Arrhenius, was the director of some Eugenics centre.... and don't forget; people have already put this into practice with huge amounts of cases, over a wide range of countries utilising forced sterilisation to achieve the aim.

It is not a case of will it happen? It already has, it already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? Those who have will always preside over those who have-not. Always remember, normal is what everyone else is, and you are not ....

Eugenics was/is the biggest scientific fraud ever posited. Even our old friend, Arrhenius, was the director of some Eugenics centre.... and don't forget; people have already put this into practice with huge amounts of cases, over a wide range of countries utilising forced sterilisation to achieve the aim.

It is not a case of will it happen? It already has, it already is.

What eugenics centre was Arrhenius a director of? I only ask because I've never come across his connection. It was never put into practice in this country except for one or two very rare examples of strerialisation but isolating 'defectives' into colonies certainly was but not to the extent envisaged by the 1914 Mental Deficiency Act. Looking into how the authorities decided who should be classified as 'defectives' in Cornwall was quite an eye opener. I wouldn't agree with 'a wide range of countries' but certainly the US and Germany were in close collaboration well into the late thirties. I'm not sure most people realise how far down the eugenics road the US travelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question:

Who exactly, within the panoply of human ignorance and prejudice, is both great enough and wise enough to decide whose life is worth living?

Hello!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question:

Who exactly, within the panoply of human ignorance and prejudice, is both great enough and wise enough to decide whose life is worth living?

That question is one of the main reasons why we have to be very careful when we delve into this kind of subject area. It's one area where an "educational" approach would be far better (IMHO) than things involving enforced sterilisation.

What we really need is to encourage people in general to think before they have children. Will their children be likely to grow up into a good environment? Will they be able to provide adequately for their children? Will their lives be positively or adversely affected overall by the joys/burdens associated with bringing up children? I think the bottom line is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the potential "parents-to-be", if they think it through, will be better judges of that than anyone else. Sometimes, they may find it inappropriate to have children at a given time, and then that might change 5-10 years down the line (which is one of the critical flaws of the "sterilisation" policy). However, in practice, an element of "people having children because it's the done thing, without really thinking of the consequences, at a time when they aren't properly ready for it" can arise, particularly in run-down communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(which is one of the critical flaws of the "sterilisation" policy)

Personally I think that (forced) sterlisation policy is morally repugnant; no need for being rational about it.

As Pete intimates: how do you select the basis? Low IQ? High IQ? Immigrants, black people, white people, Muslims, Christians? Tall, short, thin or fat? Salary expectations? Genetic disease forecast? You seem to choose rational decision making ability as a basis for qualification of reproduction.

Each and everyone of these can be quantified - and it's a warning, Pete, about the nature of the 'I've nothing the hide' argument. It may be true today, but the selection criteria might one day be 'people named Pete' Sounds laughable, doesn't it?

Recall most of human history, and the arbitrary selection criteria used to quantify and summarily justify forceable abuse of the many over the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that (forced) sterlisation policy is morally repugnant; no need for being rational about it.

As Pete intimates: how do you select the basis? Low IQ? High IQ? Immigrants, black people, white people, Muslims, Christians? Tall, short, thin or fat? Salary expectations? Genetic disease forecast? You seem to choose rational decision making ability as a basis for qualification of reproduction.

Each and everyone of these can be quantified - and it's a warning, Pete, about the nature of the 'I've nothing the hide' argument. It may be true today, but the selection criteria might one day be 'people named Pete' Sounds laughable, doesn't it?

Recall most of human history, and the arbitrary selection criteria used to quantify and summarily justify forceable abuse of the many over the few.

Personally i agree with you in regards to your point about how do you select, in that just because your Mum may have had an IQ of 60, does not mean you won't of inherited your grandads IQ of 150, so on the basis of genetics, i do not agree with eugenics (though some could argue that aborting a child who will be born with a certain disease is eugenics), however i do agree with castration of murderers and rapists on social grounds, because the attitude/influence of the parent plays a large part, therefore the child would be statistically more likely to have the personality traits of the parent (that then leads us to the nature/nurture debate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that (forced) sterlisation policy is morally repugnant; no need for being rational about it.

As Pete intimates: how do you select the basis? Low IQ? High IQ? Immigrants, black people, white people, Muslims, Christians? Tall, short, thin or fat? Salary expectations? Genetic disease forecast? You seem to choose rational decision making ability as a basis for qualification of reproduction.

Each and everyone of these can be quantified - and it's a warning, Pete, about the nature of the 'I've nothing the hide' argument. It may be true today, but the selection criteria might one day be 'people named Pete' Sounds laughable, doesn't it?

Recall most of human history, and the arbitrary selection criteria used to quantify and summarily justify forceable abuse of the many over the few.

All very true. Well put indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...