[yiwahikanak]

I always figured that if the truly stupid were 'weeded out' by eugenics, the first to go would be the proponents of it...

[Figlio di Moros]

How clever, Yiwa; I've never heard that before.

Abortion may have the "effect", but it's not eugenics.

You're preventing new children from entering the gene pool; that's eugenics.

Godstud, what if it's done by encouraging the permanently unemployed, such as Alcoholics, drug users, or general welfare queens, to recieve visectomies/IEDs as a condition of payment?

That would fall under abuse, since it would be a form of state-sponsored blackmail. Blackmail and coercion are normally crimes. Why not sterilize mentally disabled people too, while you're at it?

No one brought up permanent sterilization; vesectomies can be reversed, as can the IUD. What it would do is prevent those on government assistance from having more kids at the taxpayers expense. We're not discussing unemployment insurance, or WIC assistance, or workers comp, but welfare. It's also not "blackmail" or extortion, it's simply a socially-responsible condition of recieving benefits.

[yiwahikanak]

How clever, Yiwa; I've never heard that before.

Thanks, me neither actually!

[CounterChaos]

You're preventing new children from entering the gene pool; that's eugenics.

You are correct...We humans participate by reason in our natural world, no less than the natural world gives its reason to us.

10 million children around the world die before their fifth birthday every year. Half of those are from Africa alone.

Abortion may have the "effect", but it's not eugenics.

You are also correct...Abortion is not something we consciously choose for reason of eugenics exclusively.

[Figlio di Moros]

Whether or not we choose for eugenic reasons, anything dealing with reproduction will effect our gene pool and therefore have a eugenic effect. We self-regulate when we get abortions, and it's had a positive effect, but "I can't take care of this kid", "I can't bring a kid with a terminal illness into the world", etc. are still eugenic lines of reasoning even if we don't conciously consider it.

[CounterChaos]

I am not against abortion, I am against genetic manipulation of the human species prior to becoming a homogeneous society. The path to becoming homogeneous is a natural genetic manipulation of the species already, one that imparts the positives and the negatives of our collective evolutionary development equally. Something desirable in a world without borders. Homogeneous development would naturally 'weed out' as yiwahikanak likes to describe it ,many undesirable traits, leaving genetic manipulation to then focus on correcting malignancies within the collective gene pool.

Genetic manipulation prior to becoming a homogeneous society would in my opinion be class/race/position/intellect/wealth exclusive and further alienate our species. Envision a world where one race would refuse to be a part of a homogeneous society and through genetic manipulation developed on their own in an entirely different direction than the rest of our species. I am a Utopian Socialist that understands that any successful Utopia must be race neutral. This can only be achieved through homogeneous behavior, as human beings are a inherently tribal and racially conscious species.

[nucklepunche]

I do not think this sort of thing will be major issue in the next few decades, but fifty or one hundred years from now I think it is inevitable that eugenics will loom huge as a central issue of the times. The major issue will be whether the moneyed elites are using genetic manipulation to separate themselves from the "rabble" so to speak.

[Figlio di Moros]

Considering the difference between societies, in fifty to a hundred years their could be a larger gap between Jews & Asians, and Europeans, as Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, and, tmk, Jews, continue eugenic cultural practices, while Americans and Europeans extend upper-class abortions which can lower our future group-IQ.

So, it could become a very big question as we begin to notice Northern-oriental nations gaining more technical supremecy over us as a result.

[CounterChaos]

Considering the difference between societies, in fifty to a hundred years their could be a larger gap between Jews & Asians, and Europeans, as Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, and, tmk, Jews, continue eugenic cultural practices, while Americans and Europeans extend upper-class abortions which can lower our future group-IQ.

I think the number one factor that is contributing the most to "selective areas" of homogeneous behavioral practices-is language. The last I read, the Philippines has 250,000 American expats living there-that is just Americans alone. Filipino's are very affluent in the English language and familiar with Western culture. Years of Chinese trade, five hundred years of Spanish rule and then American occupation; it is very rare to see a truly native Filipino now. I think we are going to see "pockets" of homogeneous communities mixed between certain subsets only. The reason I say subsets (I hope I don't break some rule here), is because from observation, I have noticed that most Filipinos prefer interacting with Caucasians or other Asians exclusive. Even reflective in their buying habits which include skin whitening creams, soaps and lotions of every description. The Filipinos are a very adaptive and mobile people as well, with eleven million of their people working as OFW's (Overseas Foreign Workers) around the world. This does happen among other racial groups as well, but not to my knowledge on the same or an equal scale as Filipinos.

I think the number two factor would be access. There is great difficulty in wading through the required documentation and requirements just to live in a country other than that of your birth. Even though we can physically get to those destinations quickly, the laws of that land apply, which as a general rule for some, does not promote homogeneous acceptance. It is not until we become a truly border-less society as a whole, before large amounts of homogeneous behavior will then be realized. Of course we still have to deal with racial prejudice and religious indifference as well.

In wake of no catastrophic human event, homogeneous world society is a very long way off, in my opinion.

[Daktoria]

Eugenics is a lot more than just abortion. It would include matchmaking and prohibition.

Genetic engineering is more than just eliminating your mistakes. It's about preventing mistakes as well.

[Agent Steel]

People have a bad idea of eugenics because of Hitler and the nazis, but eugenics in no way means killing. It simply means choosing how to breed. How to produce new children that will be the best they can possibly be. I see this as a good thing.

[CounterChaos]

Human eugenic practices where a superior intellect is the result, will doom the world to chaos. It upsets the balance of nature, an appendix that was never needed in our natural world. Like over-fertilizing a plant, the society will grow fast, but its roots will remain shallow, its stem will be brittle and weak, not allowed to slowly weather. An intellect needs to feed and once it has mastered our natural world, all that is left to temper the intellect is chaos. Chaos has a beginning but it does not have an end, the perfect realm for the insane. ~Sandori~

[Pants-of-dog]

The largest problem with eugenics is neither technological nor moral. It is the fact that we cannot see the future.

Eugenics would breed for desired traits, but what traits are desirable? Unless we know what we are going to face in the future, we have no idea what traits would be desirable in that future.

[Figlio di Moros]

We know good health, intellect, and fitness are good traits we'll likely find useful in the future...

[Suska]

We don't know enough about genetics to control it to our benefit. More likely to screw things up. Anyway, it's irrelevant, moral people will be good at what they do, ignorant people won't. Effectively gene's don't matter.

[Pants-of-dog]

good health, intellect, and fitness

Please define these terms.

[Figlio di Moros]

There's no point in defining them, since you already understand full well what they mean. Anyone without their head up their ass does.

[MacGyver]

I don't think eugenics are either good nor bad. It depends on the circumstances.

I am not interested in so called 'smart genes' - we don't want a world full of geniuses as that would be rather boring.
But what I would like to see is a world without defects and illnesses like Down Syndrome, for instance. If someone came up with a way to ensure that this defect could be bred out of existence simply by aborting the pregnancy, then I'd be all for it.

Years ago people were forcibly sterilised to prevent them from even falling pregnant in order to breed out such things as alcoholism. I don't agree with that - but I do agree with sterilising those people who are mentally retarded.

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to procreate, and some people should never be born.

[Pants-of-dog]

There's no point in defining them, since you already understand full well what they mean. Anyone without their head up their ass does.

Exactly. You are unable to define them.

What is good health? Freedom from illness? It could be possible to make a person immune to certain diseases, but would that be prudent? What would happen if we removee the genetic code that causes sickle cell anemia in Africans?

Intellect is also very hard to define. Do you mean someone who can remember facts? Someone with good logic skills? Someone who is capable of synthesising many different bits of information into a coherent whole? Someone who can read people well?

Fitness? This is so vague I am not even going to try. I will simply point out that generations of biologists have debated what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

[Suska]

I will simply point out that generations of biologists have debated what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

The answer is always, as Darwin himself put it, the most responsive to change. If you think the terms are vague maybe you're a brain in a jar after all. Or one of those people who thinks the only way to measure intelligence is with calipers.