Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Would rather relocating them at other sides of the country have been more humanitary? :ninja:

I think the most humane thing to do would be to just not do anything to them against their will.

When it comes to selective traits such as appearance which are highly subjective to personal opinions, I think that should be a personal choice from the parents instead of society.
After that, I see no problem with parents wanting a blonde blue eyed child though genetic engineering.
I would love to give my potential child traits I find beautiful.

As for race/ethnicity, if there was such a race that was suffering from more then normal about of bad genes, I'd be OK about phasing them out. I doubt natural selection would ever produce such a race as they would have died out already so this seems like a non issue when it comes to health issues.

My point on the race thing isn't that one race might have more bad genes than another, but they would have different ones. If a certain negative trait was known to be more common is, say, Jews, someone who knew that and didn't like Jews could get a law passed to prevent people with that gene from breeding.. It would sound good to the public on the surface, since it's against a certain trait, but it would still be targeted at a certain ethnic grouping.

Also, we can't really weed out all bad genes (because that would pretty much wipe out the human race--no one's perfect) so the traits that remain would probably emerge more frequently. One of the things about genetic diversity is that the more diverse the population, the less likely it is that two pair of the same bad gene will pair up in one person. You've heard of inbreeding, right? If your genetic pool is too small, then you will amplify the traits common in that pool, both positive AND negative. Many breeds of dogs, for instance, have certain health issues that are very common. Mutts, however, don't tend to to inherit those problems because they come from two different gene pools--each one has different bad genes, and that works as a bit of a correction mechanism because the puppy doesn't get two copies of the same bad trait.

Hmm, I honestly find it really disturbing when people want to be able to pick and choose how their child will look. You choose the colour of a new car, or your wallpaper; but not your children, they're not a commodity. For me that's extremely shallow, implying that someone would love a child less if they weren't attractive enough.

I thought your arguement for eugenics was because it would eradicate disease, not be used for cosmetic reasons, to eradicate ugliness as it were...

And what if it was your race that had those bad genes, and you were told that you had to be sterilized because of that? Would you still be OK about it then?

I don't see why not, parents already make many choices for their children.
Assuming the choices they make about the babies' apparance won't be harmful. I suppose there's the potential that some parent might want to create a baby with a strange deformity thus causing the child to be teased. Assuming the choice is neutral or of benefit for the child, why not?.
Why would the child ever care if the parent choose them to have blonde hair rather the choice being made by nature and chances.

@Doomfishy: But order can't be just about what everyone wants. Sometimes people need to apply extreme actions in order to benefit society. For example, in order to get the analfabetization levels to zero, Ecuador's president made a law that students have to alfabeticize people who haven't got their Primary School Certificate, or else they won't fulfill the requisites to graduate. And for these people who don't have the certificate, won't be allowed to work until they get on the program.

This law got a lot of resistence, because students would have to stay late at school, and go on saturdays too. Sometimes they would have to go to danger zones too, something parents still don't approve of completely. And the people who haven't finished their Primary School need to work everyday to get enough for lunch, and having to go to school just takes time that could generate instant money.

@Jelly: Well, up until now I haven't shown any signs of having an illness, or so I believe, but I know I come from families with mental problems, heart deformities, renal complications, and diabetes. Unless genetic engineering could either prove I have less than 25% of having a son with these problems or fix that, I don't want to bring a schizophrenic child to this world. Living with my cousin has made me see from early age how having a mental illness can affect the family [and the neighbors >_>'']

I don't see why making a son come out blonde and blue-eyed would be a bad thing. Would you think the same if I wanted a dark-haired green-eyed one? I actually think that would make the world more diverse in colouring, for only those with enough to pay would make their kids have traits that nowadays seem to get more exotic by the minute xD

I just personally find the thought of being able to pick your baby's colouring from a chart to be beyond wrong. I can't really put into words what I find so disturbing about it, it's gut instinct I suppose. If people want to change their own appearance once they're old enough to make that decision then fine, but some "design-a-baby" machine is just too immoral for me.

Well, I'm just going with my philosophy, that if it makes me or someone else happy and hurts nobody directly or indirectly, then it's not bad.

Or maybe is just my desire to see more natural green-eyed people. All I see are brown eyes and colored contacts, makes me feel that before the day I die, green and blue eyes will be as rare as finding an albino.


That, or maybe I'm just immoral. Most of the time I don't see a logic behind what's called "moral" or "ethical", but I haven't looked for a definition either so I can't really complain.

Responding to the part about if my race had the bad genes. Yes I'd be Ok with that.
I mean the goal should be so future people can have healthier, happier lives...So in theory if that were to wipe out my race, I'd be Ok with that.

Me personally being sterilized is a non issue since I am asexual. However I would submit to being sterilized as long as I could choose how.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@Doomfishy: But order can't be just about what everyone wants. Sometimes people need to apply extreme actions in order to benefit society. For example, in order to get the analfabetization levels to zero, Ecuador's president made a law that students have to alfabeticize people who haven't got their Primary School Certificate, or else they won't fulfill the requisites to graduate. And for these people who don't have the certificate, won't be allowed to work until they get on the program.

This law got a lot of resistence, because students would have to stay late at school, and go on saturdays too. Sometimes they would have to go to danger zones too, something parents still don't approve of completely. And the people who haven't finished their Primary School need to work everyday to get enough for lunch, and having to go to school just takes time that could generate instant money.

I have no idea what "analfabetization" is, so I don't really follow.
And what are these "danger zones"?

Without having a better understanding of what you're talking about, I can't really compare it to this discussion. Could you explain a little more in-depth?

In any case, making kids stay late or go to school on Saturday isn't even remotely comparable to forcing life-changing surgical procedures on unwilling citizens due to something they can't even control.

The list of horrendous civil rights violations that have been committed for "the good of society" or "the greater good" is dismally long. Hitler's actions are included. Consider what he did:

- Sterilized a large number of mentally and physically ill people, preventing them from passing on any hereditary weaknesses.

- Systematically killed a large number of disabled and ill patients, thus saving the taxpayers huge sums of money, which could be put to less "futile" uses.

Just because something has societal benefits doesn't mean it's even remotely ethical. Good policy protects the individual as well as the community.

Analfabetizatión is the term used to the state of not knowing how to read or write. And danger zones is how we call places plagued with delinquents and gangs.
And by that I meant they're making kids work as teachers without certificate or previous preparation, mix that with the amount of homework we get at this level, and you get a kid working relatively more than an adult. But we've got to make a sacrifice to make strangers learn how to read, write, etc and hope they make an effort and learn or we may not graduate.

But really, what is better? To act now, make a sacrifice and prevent a degradation of the human species, or wait, leave life continue it's course, and learn how to survive with these?

Wow! If we are going to restrict people on which people they can fuck, I mean, make love too. Maybe we should just start killing off socially innacceptable people in broad daylight at the town square.

Allowing any form of restriction like this is unfucking believable. Will never happen. 'Cause I will be honest with you. You will not tell me when I can and can not fuck.

Lol, I don't think these days wanting to fuck equals wanting children, so in theory, you can fuck, just not get pregnant o.o

But in order to prevent the pregnancy of a 'bad mix' intels you must control all intercourse in general. Whether you are fucking or trying to have sex to make kids.

It would be a huge rights violation. Eugenics have been used historically to justify all kinds of racism, genocide, purges, sexism and the like. Hitler was largely motivated by eugenics. It's just a monstrous concept with consequences of unmatched evil.

Apart from all of that, it's impractical anyway. If prohibition of alcohol didn't work, regulation of sex absolutely won't work. There are just some things in life that you can't truly stop people from doing, and having unprotected sex with the person of one's choice is one of them.

Eugenics is basically a reliving of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. Eventually, selective breeding in this manner would just cause everyone to be the same.

Then again, according to Nietzsche, the realization of the Ubermensch is a utopia. But I'd rather have this dysfunctional society than a lame one where everyone thinks the same way.

Basically, this is like the inverse of the Hardy-Weinberg law, to the extreme inverse that similar effects begin to happen.

Eugenics reduces the gene pool, mutations, and prevents new gene flow, through extremely selective mating. This causes evolution to occur in such a way that eventually little or no evolution can occur. Which is bad. Since viruses don't undergo eugenics too.

If everyone was the same, and suddenly a virus sprang out of nowhere and no one had resistance to it due to the same genes, then bad things would happen.

Although there is SOME good to it, but this is medical rather than social or psychological. People of mixed races often find it difficult to find compatible organs or bone marrow or whatever. With highly selective breeding, the DNA will be more similar, resulting in better chance of compatibility.

But because it just doesn't feel right to have everyone the same, I'd still say no to eugenics.

Originally Posted by finalitycarrot

Although there is SOME good to it, but this is medical rather than social or psychological. People of mixed races often find it difficult to find compatible organs or bone marrow or whatever. With highly selective breeding, the DNA will be more similar, resulting in better chance of compatibility.

Extremely selective breeding has its medical downsides, too. There is a reason that purebred dogs tend to have a plethora of breed-related health problems that mutts typically avoid.

Yeah, that's basically my point...a virus that people have no resistance to could wipe out all the humans... :/

With all the newfound safety laws and features in today's society i think it would be a very good thing to do. The earth is overcrowded, and by only allowing those with good genes to have children, diseases that are passed on from one family member to the next could be wiped out.

And there will always be accidents, leaving some children without families. People who couldn't have children could adopt orphans and raise them like their own.

Also, as elitist as this sounds, things like mental retardation, which i have nothing against, i have a cousin whose legally retarded, could be bred out of society.

The only people who would really have anything against it are those who have something in their genes that could negatively affect any children they have, and they look to doctors to come up with solutions for their problems that may just not exist.

But those are just my views, and i have a generally negative view on society as a whole, so yeah.

Here's the only problem: What if a disease that mutated from another one suddenly surfaced and no one had immunity to it, EVERYONE would die.

That, and Ubermensch...Hitler and the Aryans.

Well... in the world are 2 absolutes... Life, and stupidity. You can't breed idiocy out of the gene pool though...

As for the human rights thing, a lot of people cherish their heritage even if the genetics aren't highly pure. Plus, parents want their "family name" to continue as well.


Personally I may not want kids... but if my girlfriend decided someday she wanted a kid... it would be very cruel of the government to prevent her from having a kid just because she's epileptic or something.

Uh can we say Hitler? Sorry but he practiced eugenics. and other not so lovely things. He believed in making the human race pure. He beveled in state controlled breading.

The government should have absolutely no say in who can breed and who can not. Eliminating someone from the gene pool just because they say have a learning disability that may be passed on or a blood clotting disorder that may be passed on is wrong. Or Dwarfism, Dwarfism is a genetic thing but many little people have average sized children.

Not to mention that most human beings have a genetic predisposition to some disease or another. Altimeters, breast cancer, prostate cancer, being a few. Also limiting the gene pool can have undesirable effects.

Eugenics is wrong, and easily abused. Someone in power can decide that say left handed is an undesirable trait, or blue eyes are undesirable. Killing people just because you think something is wrong with them is immoral and evil. Not allowing them to have children for the same reason is also immoral and evil.

As far as designer baby's go, its a lot of weird for me, but if people relay want to have that blue eyed blond haired child it's not illegal. It's not perfect ether. I can also see someone wanting to make sure their child does not suffer form some genetic malady that they do, or one of their relatives does. This is a personal choice however, one made by the parents not the state. Though one should remember that genetics are a tricky thing, and we don't really have a solid understanding of them. We haven't mapped out the entire genome yet and we have no clue what allot of it does. The genome is also very interdependent and not something to be fucked around with. You could very easily mess up one factor by trying to improve another. You could easily kill rather than cure. Or eliminate something very desirable while trying to eliminate an undesirable trait. Especially when it comes to the brain or human intelligence. Insanity, ADD, stuttering, and other disorders are many times dovetailed with genius. So while eliminating say your kids ADD you may also severely hamper his intelligence.