Just...
Edit: Blast it! That's supposed to be Australia, not Australie! Is there a way to change the thread title?
And you're right, Stompie, it is sad, though from the story, it sounds like they will end up being able to live there.
This is pretty shameful. Our country is wealthy because of our foreign trade and skilled immigration. The two main parties have a very harsh view of immigration ethically, but are happy to accept the monetary and technological gains of skilled migration. The refusal because of his son's condition weakens the ethical nature of the country as well. Sheesh. If this family were Asian, I can imagine the racist comments some undesirable elements of our country would spew on message boards, TV and in private conversations.
why? are asians not kindly welcomed in Australia? That seems odd for me as I live in the USA and we are pretty welcoming to most anyone.
Even the least popular group in the US now, the Indians and Iraqi, Isreali, Muslim people are some of our most educated citizens. Many are great entrepreneurs and doctors.
as I live in the USA and we are pretty welcoming to most anyone.
I really hope you're joking. IIRC it's extremely difficult to get a green card. If the fall outside the preset quota, he would need to be part of the Green Card Lottery just like anyone else ... (and 50K out off 10 milion ... not good odds if you ask me.)
On topic. Its sad, but that's bureaucracy for you ...
why? are asians not kindly welcomed in Australia? That seems odd for me as I live in the USA and we are pretty welcoming to most anyone.
Even the least popular group in the US now, the Indians and Iraqi, Isreali, Muslim people are some of our most educated citizens. Many are great entrepreneurs and doctors.
Perhaps I exaggerated out of anger at the story. Many asians come to Australia and do well, and Sydney, for exampe, is very cosmopolitan. Quite a few areas in Australia have a variety of people, and you can see young kids and uni students with friends from different backgrounds. BUT, there are some very racist, conservative areas... and elements. Even in international cities like Sydney you have racists, prejudiced people and groups. And they tend to focus their hate on asians. They also tend to spew a lot of rubbish. It was accepted in the mainstream to talk of 'The Asian Invasion' and 'Yellow Peril' until the late 70s. There are many friendly, tolerant people, but there are also many who hate the new Australia, particularly some older types of people.
P.S. Go to the australian localized yahoo site or ninemsn.com.au, read news stories and people's comments. You can see the crap some people spew under anonymity. I can see segments of America spew crap on Yahoo! Answers. I never get amazed at how so many people in general can believe so much crap.
The reality is that at some point, we have to make tough decisions, and Australia, unlike most countries, has not shied away from this one. Having health requirements for immigration is entirely valid, and the fact that he'd be a burden on taxpayers is a real issue.
Its unethical to produce children with severe developmental disorders, and it is not unethical for Australia to discourage the practice of doing so.
Australia did the right thing.
The reality is that at some point, we have to make tough decisions, and Australia, unlike most countries, has not shied away from this one. Having health requirements for immigration is entirely valid, and the fact that he'd be a burden on taxpayers is a real issue.
Its unethical to produce children with severe developmental disorders, and it is not unethical for Australia to discourage the practice of doing so.
No. Just no.
First, his father is a doctor, and, from everything in the story, could have assured that this would not have been an undue burden on taxpayers.
Second, you don't know the degree of Down's that he has. As the article states, some of these people are capable of getting college degrees. I don't have a link right now, but there's a video out there of a man with Down's who works as a policeman telling off people who consider people like him subhuman.
And finally, the irony of saying you're for the choice of women, except when that choice is to have a child with Down's or the like, is hilarious.
Read his quote again, folks. How long before the government tells us exactly how many kids we can have, and tests them for "suitability" to live?
Second, you don't know the degree of Down's that he has. As the article states, some of these people are capable of getting college degrees. I don't have a link right now, but there's a video out there of a man with Down's who works as a policeman telling off people who consider people like him subhuman.
I'm aware that Down Syndrome is a spectrum disorder, but the government of Australia feels that he is far enough along that he's going to be an undue burden. Yes, some people with Downs can function normally. Most can't.
And finally, the irony of saying you're for the choice of women, except when that choice is to have a child with Down's or the like, is hilarious.
I'm for women having the right to choose to abort their fetuses.
I'm also for women aborting children with birth defects which will significantly impact their quality of life and be a drain on society. This includes but is not limited to mental retardation. They SHOULD do so; it is irresponsible to do otherwise. People who have such heritable disorders likewise should not reproduce.
Read his quote again, folks. How long before the government tells us exactly how many kids we can have, and tests them for "suitability" to live?
How long before the average intelligence of humans drops because the stupid outreproduce the intelligent?
Ideally genetic engineering will solve this problem, but in the end, something is going to have to be done about it.
...from everything in the story ...
note however that the story is not objective ...
Second, you don't know the degree of Down's that he has
but neither do you.
Read his quote again, folks. How long before the government tells us exactly how many kids we can have, and tests them for "suitability" to live?
Wait ... aren't governements that forbit abortion doing exaclty that?
- The suitability test = the pregancy test.
- The verdict = you must have the child.
For a well written article about how this is true, read here.
- The suitability test = the pregancy test.
- The verdict = you must have the child.
Perhaps.
Of course, one requires a death, one does not.
In before "they're not real people/humans" and the like. Whatever. Some of us are on different sides of this divide (not necessarily directed at you Qube in this particular instance).
Oh, and in before "silly superstitions" or something, too.
Perhaps.
Of course, one requires a death, one does not.
something I wanted to add as reply but going to much off topic
sure ... one requires death, the other requires a horible life (perhaps not down syndrom, but children born without epidermis and other painfull deformations ...).
Of course, one requires a death, one does not.
You're right. Having babies which require an extra $50,000 each per year in care from the government causes them to spend that money on them instead of a police officer, so when a domestic dispute occurs, the police are understaffed and are not able to get there before the agressor kills the other person. Every year.
So basically, you're advocating people dying every year in order to allow someone who is never going to be a functional part of society to exist. Or for children to get a worse education because they can hire one fewer teacher in order to accommodate the child.
All that, versus a lump of parasitic sub-sentient cells? I'll take the coat hanger every time.
So basically, you're advocating people dying every year in order to allow someone who is never going to be a functional part of society to exist. Or for children to get a worse education because they can hire one fewer teacher in order to accommodate the child.
All that, versus a lump of parasitic sub-sentient cells? I'll take the coat hanger every time.
You know, I've seen some vitriolic crap come from you before TD, but this one takes the cake. If I've read your past few posts correctly, you're espousing a belief in eugenics. No one but the fittest, strongest and most suitable have the right to live, do they? And who makes the choice?
However, I think they (the govt., not ppl) might have shot themselves in the foot here: given the expense it might take (where'd that $50k figure come from?) to accomodate a special needs kid like this vs. the possible money/aid saved by having that 1 Dr. in this remote area of Australia, well...
Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They aren't seeing the big picture, only dollars and cents. The article should've looked for a press release from the medical community there, not simply the govt. and normal citizens. I'm quite sure a good many (what few there are) doctors would concur that his presence/vocation is more important than the money levied for an isolated incident that is his child.
I mean, quite simply, how many isolated incidents will a doctor deal w/ in his professional lifetime? Thousands. That's all they do. No one goes to the dr. when they're feeling great. You go when you're f'ed up.
ie)He is capable of saving many many lives and improving many more, specifically, Australia's constituency, or more like the way they see it, their tax base. Dead ppl can't be taxed or vote. Sickly ones cost more money to care for. LAck of medical care often goes hand in hand w/ these, yes?
So, I'd venture the money/ppl they'd save by keeping him there and helping their very own ppl outweighs the problem of money for his son. Not only that, but as a doctor himself, I'm sure he's quite capable of alleviating some of the burden on the state by being a competant medical professional and acting in said capacity at home as in the office as the bone of contention being a medical one as well. It's not like some carpenter seeking permanent residency w/ an autistic child. He can't do jack as a carpenter, but a doctor already has a leg up at work/home this way.
There is a shortage of doctors and they're giving this guy static? I wonder how much ass they'd kiss if he said, "Fine, I'm out, going back to Germany." Yes, it sucks the taxpayers have to take up the slack, but he's a doctor and they aren't exactly making min wage, so he can supplement that, work a deal, whatever; they need to negotiate w/ this guy BADLY as to lose him is likely to cause more harm for those 50k+ Australians he serves vs. the cost of upkeep for his son. The lesser of 2 evils then, whatever.
Furthermore, this kind of bad press easilly outweighs the possible costs they are looking at in the long view. It's like settling out of court. Sometimes its the more cost effective measure. This kind of tarnish isn't likely to go away soon in the medical & international community and will likely cause alot more dmg. than the monies tendered to get his kid his treatment needed.
You know, I've seen some vitriolic crap come from you before TD, but this one takes the cake. If I've read your past few posts correctly, you're espousing a belief in eugenics. No one but the fittest, strongest and most suitable have the right to live, do they? And who makes the choice?
I think you're confusing "right to reproduce" with "right to live". I'm not for putting the stupid in ovens, but I am for them not having children. I don't see reproduction as a "right", in any event.
And yes, I do support eugenics. As Wikipedia writes:
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
This is a good summary of it. The idea that it is some horrible thing is quite silly.
The problem is that some crazy people have advocated it, and thus people believe that it is all about killing Jews. The Nazis had limited knowledge at best of genetics, and their program was not based on science but on hatred - eugenics was simply an excuse to kill people, but that doesn't make it bad.
A scientific eugenics program wouldn't be a bad thing, but currently we lack the knowledge to implement a really wide-scale one - we can only act against that which we know and understand. So while we could get rid of known genetic disorders, we couldn't enhance the population's intelligence beyond a certain point because we really only know a few genes which cause retardation, but we don't know which genes make you actively more intelligent than the norm (and currently, we believe the number of those genes is enormous, so I suspect it will be a while before we get a strong grasp on it).
This is a good summary of it. The idea that it is some horrible thing is quite silly.
Not silly at all. It is very rational if you are capable of stepping back and grasping the ramifications.
The problem is that some crazy people have advocated it, and thus people believe that it is all about killing Jews.
Eugenics has been supported by many people over time, both past and present. It has also been actively practiced in modern progressive countries like the US, Britain and Canada.
The thing is though; there is one blatant similarity between every group of people who have administered Eugenics programs (not just the Nazis). These people have all had very high intelligence, and very low wisdom…. a disturbingly dangerous combination for someone with that level of power.
Not silly at all. It is very rational if you are capable of stepping back and grasping the ramifications.
I understand the ramifications far better than you do, most likely.
The thing is though; there is one blatant similarity between every group of people who have administered Eugenics programs (not just the Nazis). These people have all had very high intelligence, and very low wisdom…. a disturbingly dangerous combination for someone with that level of power.
Versus idiots with power, which is the end result of not having eugenics programs (which, it is arguable, a massive genetic engineering campaign would also fall under)?
The reality is that eugenics came about as an idea long before genetics was really understood on the level it is today. As such, it is somewhat tainted by the fact that in the past, people didn't really understand it, and as such it was oftentimes largely arbitrary.
I do not advocate eugenics programs beyond our current comprehension, but I think that our current comprehension really does logically lead to eugenics.
Not all people ARE created equal, and eugenics, ironic as it may seem, is actually a good way of leveling the playing field.
I understand the ramifications far better than you do, most likely.
Versus idiots with power, which is the end result of not having eugenics programs (which, it is arguable, a massive genetic engineering campaign would also fall under)?
The reality is that eugenics came about as an idea long before genetics was really understood on the level it is today. As such, it is somewhat tainted by the fact that in the past, people didn't really understand it, and as such it was oftentimes largely arbitrary.
I do not advocate eugenics programs beyond our current comprehension, but I think that our current comprehension really does logically lead to eugenics.
Not all people ARE created equal, and eugenics, ironic as it may seem, is actually a good way of leveling the playing field.
I was a genetics student in college, so I consider myself exceptionally well schooled in the subject. I don't understand at all your argument that genetics somehow leads logically to the adoption of eugenics as part of our society. You are right however in asserting that eugenics is often espoused by people who don't even understand the science behind their supposed arguments, which is why it remains in the realm of pseudo-science and not accepted policy options.
As far as I have ever seen, eugenics involves the creation of a superior race of humans, which is accompanied by a desire to make a more "pure" gene pool devoid of perceived negative traits like disorders, sub-par athletics or intelligence, or even undesirable racial and physical traits with no apparent physical disadvantage. The problem is that nature has its own way of choosing successful populations, it's called natural selection. Anemia was evolved as a defense against malaria, for example. We only recently realized that, and if we had engineered a population entirely without anemia (a heriditary undesirable genetic disease) then there would be whole regions of the world that lacked that hard-won evolutionary resistance to the disease.
This example of the benefits of even apparently disadvantageous genetic diversity is a simplification and not an entire argument, but I find it convincing nonetheless. It also ignores other possible negative ramifications like racial or even socioeconomic superiority issues that might result from a eugenics program.
The most fundamental biological imperative is to spread one's genes into the next generation, and I think you might be surprised by the strength of the backlash if you tried to deny exercise of that imperative to a segment of the population that was somehow deemed genetically inferior.
With all that said, I don't think it is eugenics to selectively abort fetuses with known conditions that prevent or severely curtail quality of life, and will prevent or significantly decrease the chance of the grown individual from having a productive existence or reproducing. In that case it is an act of public good and prevents unnecessary suffering and grief.
But that last point is more in the realm of my personal opinion, while my first point I submit as my "professional" view, such as it is.
I was a genetics student in college, so I consider myself exceptionally well schooled in the subject. I don't understand at all your argument that genetics somehow leads logically to the adoption of eugenics as part of our society. You are right however in asserting that eugenics is often espoused by people who don't even understand the science behind their supposed arguments, which is why it remains in the realm of pseudo-science and not accepted policy options.
Science never leads us anywhere, but science does help us understand what will happen if we do certain things.
As is, the birth rate amongst the intelligent is considerably lower than among the stupid. This will have the natural effect, over time, of increasing the proportion of stupid people and decreasing the proportion of smart people, because the stupid will outreproduce the smart.
As far as I have ever seen, eugenics involves the creation of a superior race of humans, which is accompanied by a desire to make a more "pure" gene pool devoid of perceived negative traits like disorders, sub-par athletics or intelligence, or even undesirable racial and physical traits with no apparent physical disadvantage. The problem is that nature has its own way of choosing successful populations, it's called natural selection. Anemia was evolved as a defense against malaria, for example. We only recently realized that, and if we had engineered a population entirely without anemia (a heriditary undesirable genetic disease) then there would be whole regions of the world that lacked that hard-won evolutionary resistance to the disease.
Yes, eugenics inherently involves the creation of a superior race of humans. However, it does NOT inherently involve racism or similar. The idea that it does is born out of ignorance.
Natural selection only barely applies to humans anymore due to advances in medicine and society. Many people are alive today who would not be alive in tribal societies, plain and simple. Indeed, very few people die young these days, and even things like CF and childhood cancer are often beaten off long enough for their subjects to reproduce. We're destroying the positive influence of natural selection, but we're not putting anything in place to fill the gap, simply put. This is why eugenics is necessary. If you remove all selective pressure on a population, what happens?
The idea that anemia is a worthwhile counterargument is a misunderstanding of what I'd advocate, and isn't that big of a deal anyway. Why? Because we can simply bank DNA. If we later discover "Oh, no one is resistant to this anymore" we can create a test population in the next generation via GE (or simply figure it out via cell cultures and such) and then apply it. Moreover, as I've said previously, I do not advocate going beyond the current boundaries of our knowledge. Certain traits are deletorious, and in any event you obviously wouldn't engineer the entire population to be entirely genetically uniform, especially not all at once.
This example of the benefits of even apparently disadvantageous genetic diversity is a simplification and not an entire argument, but I find it convincing nonetheless. It also ignores other possible negative ramifications like racial or even socioeconomic superiority issues that might result from a eugenics program.
Both of these supposed social ramifications are simply wrong. Those arise from people pursuing such programs for the wrong reasons and not doing it in a scientific manner. As such, they are not valid counterarguments, as I could argue the same thing about schooling. Or heck, about you getting knowledge of genetics.
The most fundamental biological imperative is to spread one's genes into the next generation, and I think you might be surprised by the strength of the backlash if you tried to deny exercise of that imperative to a segment of the population that was somehow deemed genetically inferior.
Tough. They're a burden on society, and creating more of themselves is highly unethical and immoral. I am willing to tolerate their existence, but I am not willing to tolerate them creating more of themselves.
As is, the birth rate amongst the intelligent is considerably lower than among the stupid. This will have the natural effect, over time, of increasing the proportion of stupid people and decreasing the proportion of smart people, because the stupid will outreproduce the smart.
only if
(1) intelligence is inheditairy (if stupid + stupid can give smart ...)
(2) you forget: smart people live longer then stupid people :D
(it reminds me of Improving Natural Selection 101: remove 'dumb' savety texts)
Tough. They're a burden on society, and creating more of themselves is highly unethical and immoral. I am willing to tolerate their existence, but I am not willing to tolerate them creating more of themselves.
To use your words...Tough. What are you going to do, right now, about it? You can't force people to have abortions, not breed, get snipped, etc. Good luck getting that passed.
I'm curious, what basis are you using for your morals? You did state it was "immoral".
Tough. They're a burden on society, and creating more of themselves is highly unethical and immoral. I am willing to tolerate their existence, but I am not willing to tolerate them creating more of themselves.
You never have answered my question. What if your opinion on the matter targets you for "sterilization"? You have demonstrated a desire to counteract the natural force of evolution and therefore have no value to the gene pool, do you submit?
What constitutes a value to the species? Do I have a value to the species because I have a full head of hair at 35 or does my brother because he's balding at 32? Do my blue eyes get me an extra nod or does my son's brown eyes? Who chooses? I have an IQ of 196*, does that make me better or worse than my brother's 192? It's a question I won't answer, what right do you have to make it?
*Fat lot of good it does me, I have an odd bit of learning problem called dyscalcia. I don't even see numbers the same as you do. I have to make alot of my numerical calculations based on assumption because my brain just doesn't catch it.
(1) intelligence is inheditairy (if stupid + stupid can give smart ...)
Intelligence is highly heritable. Roughly 3/4ths of IQ is heritable.
(2) you forget: smart people live longer then stupid people
I've never seen any data to this point, and it doesn't really fix the issue, as they don't live THAT much longer even if they do.
To use your words...Tough. What are you going to do, right now, about it? You can't force people to have abortions, not breed, get snipped, etc. Good luck getting that passed.
Well, here's the thing, though: you're complaining about Australia doing their part to prevent this.
So obviously, something CAN be done.
The reality is that its not my problem. I don't have a problem with dealing with what IS, but when mistakes continue to be made my sympathy wanes.
If the people are not responsible, then they don't deserve my benevolence.
I'm curious, what basis are you using for your morals? You did state it was "immoral".
That which causes the least harm to the future.
You never have answered my question. What if your opinion on the matter targets you for "sterilization"? You have demonstrated a desire to counteract the natural force of evolution and therefore have no value to the gene pool, do you submit?
Perhaps it is easy for me to advocate this position, having no illnesses, a family history of long lifespan and good health in old age, very high intelligence, ect. Heck, my family even has a good history of HAIR on my father's side. But I have friends who feel the same who have various issues who refuse to reproduce for the very reason that they don't want to pass on their bad genes, and who think people who don't and still have children are idiots. I don't think this is something I hold because I am so well endowed by nature.
Its also worth noting that I myself am an intelligent person who does not want to reproduce, but I feel almost obligated to do so because of my excellent genes.
What constitutes a value to the species? Do I have a value to the species because I have a full head of hair at 35 or does my brother because he's balding at 32? Do my blue eyes get me an extra nod or does my son's brown eyes? Who chooses? I have an IQ of 196*, does that make me better or worse than my brother's 192? It's a question I won't answer, what right do you have to make it?
It isn't the species which concerns me, ultimately, but rather intelligent life in general. Its not just humanity, but all the universe.
Science doesn't tell us what is right and wrong, but it does help tell us what will happen if we do certain things. It allows us to make predictions.
What right have I to do such? The right of the benefactor and the duty of the elite.
And focusing on minor traits is simply not correct. If there's no real difference between white and brown hair, practically, its not something we should be selecting for. Only if a trait is linked to something which is actually meaningful should we select for it.
Incidentally, what test did you take to determine that you had an IQ of 196?
Natural selection only barely applies to humans anymore due to advances in medicine and society. Many people are alive today who would not be alive in tribal societies, plain and simple. Indeed, very few people die young these days, and even things like CF and childhood cancer are often beaten off long enough for their subjects to reproduce. We're destroying the positive influence of natural selection, but we're not putting anything in place to fill the gap, simply put. This is why eugenics is necessary. If you remove all selective pressure on a population, what happens?
I have always seen eugenics as a pretty draconian measure to solve the medical problems of humanity. In most cases, genes only affect the predispositions of phenotypes in the children. Every sperm as a different genetic caracter, with it's flaws and qualities. That is why brother and sisters are not all alike. A real eugenics program should stop/outlaw all natural reproduction and start gene selected reproduction (in vivo or in vitro). That of course is pretty expensive if done for an entire population.
I think a better option would be finding treatments (gene/stem cell/ etc..) for the different ailments. So only the small fraction of the society that as problems can be addressed and not the entire population. This strategy also as the advantage of being 'politically' neutral. By that I mean that no hidden agenda can be pursued or minorities/others are not loosing rights (the right to reproduce)*. Sure, you can say that this method does nothing for the overpopulation, but it is true of eugenics also. Choosing the genetic standard for a population does not fix the number of children.
Another point, is that most illness/conditions are greatly affected by the environnement. Look at the statistics: cancers on the rise, fertility of man going down 50% in fifty years (caused by pesticides and phtalates), etc... I think the best strategy is to work on the environnemental aspect of the medical issues before trying to engineer a better human species. Of course, everything I have said pertains to the medical prospects of eugenics. The social aspects (intelligence, life span, hair, etc..) are discussed after this second quote.
As is, the birth rate amongst the intelligent is considerably lower than among the stupid. This will have the natural effect, over time, of increasing the proportion of stupid people and decreasing the proportion of smart people, because the stupid will outreproduce the smart.
The problem with the 'social eugenics' approche is that they artificially select the traits they find superior/desirable. What key factor will be important for the survival of the human specie in the futur? What gene will preserve a portion of the population from a pendemic? Hell, you're quote could be used to favor the "stupids". Since they breed more, they are more likelly to survive in the long term. Maybe that is the trait we should encourage?
*Incidentally, that is why eugenics as always been associated with facism. At it's core, there is the mythology of the superior human (not necessarily race). There is also the obligation to remove the right of procreation to a fraction of the population that is viewed as inferior.
I understand the ramifications far better than you do, most likely.
Highly unlikely. You fail to consider fundamental aspects of human psychology, i.e. even intelligent people are prone to arrogance, ignorance and corruption. It doesn’t matter how “logical” eugenics is. It will inevitably be run by people who are power hungry and who make decisions on who is allowed to reproduce based on self serving purposes. It always happens and always will happen.
The reality is that eugenics came about as an idea long before genetics was really understood on the level it is today. As such, it is somewhat tainted by the fact that in the past, people didn't really understand it, and as such it was oftentimes largely arbitrary.
The funny thing is that people still don't have a clue what they are talking about with genetics, and the real experts know this. There is an old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and this is a perfect example. It is dangerous for people with a small amount of knowledge about genetics to go around thinking they can use it to manipulate the human race. (Through eugenics or genetic engineering.)
Even the worlds top experts are only scratching the surface of genetics, and it will be a very long time before they fully understand it. Even recently, the worlds experts were proven to be very wrong about basic assumptions of the subject matter. For example, it used to be assumed that certain genetics would lead to things such as downs syndrome, autism etc, but it is far more than that. Monozygotic (identical) twins have been found where one of the twins is autistic and the other isn’t…. these children have the identical genes, and they both have the gene “responsible” for autism, but they both don’t have the disorder.
The fact is that “scientific” fact is often proven to be wrong (in any field), and eugenics are based on these “facts”.
The funny thing is that people still don't have a clue what they are talking about with genetics, and the real experts know this. There is an old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and this is a perfect example. It is dangerous for people with a small amount of knowledge about genetics to go around thinking they can use it to manipulate the human race. (Through eugenics or genetic engineering.)
Even the worlds top experts are only scratching the surface of genetics, and it will be a very long time before they fully understand it. Even recently, the worlds experts were proven to be very wrong about basic assumptions of the subject matter. For example, it used to be assumed that certain genetics would lead to things such as downs syndrome, autism etc, but it is far more than that. Monozygotic (identical) twins have been found where one of the twins is autistic and the other isn’t…. these children have the identical genes, and they both have the gene “responsible” for autism, but they both don’t have the disorder.
Yes, the genes are not the only important thing to consider, I was implying that in my previous post, but I could not find any source for it (only my memory) so I didn't say it explicitly. Fortunatly, Nature came to my rescue. Look at this news for a more enlighten discussion (I am a physicist... so no expert on the subject).
Read his quote again, folks. How long before the government tells us exactly how many kids we can have, and tests them for "suitability" to live?
I would guess 5 more years at this rate.
The idea that anemia is a worthwhile counterargument is a misunderstanding of what I'd advocate, and isn't that big of a deal anyway. Why? Because we can simply bank DNA. If we later discover "Oh, no one is resistant to this anymore" we can create a test population in the next generation via GE (or simply figure it out via cell cultures and such) and then apply it. Moreover, as I've said previously, I do not advocate going beyond the current boundaries of our knowledge. Certain traits are deletorious, and in any event you obviously wouldn't engineer the entire population to be entirely genetically uniform, especially not all at once.
I think this little quote elaborates our differences of opinion quite succinctly. I would never advocate the creation of a "test population" incorporating known genetic diseases, then let them loose to see if maybe there is some collateral benefit or if they all just get sick and die like you expect them to. Cyctic fibrosis doesn't have any secondary phenotypic benefits? Ok, scratch that one off the list, let's make a generation of children with Parkinsons.
Deciding that you will not "exceed the boundaries of our knowledge" misses the point; often we do not know the boundaries of our knowledge. Once not very long ago we were convinced of the truth of the "central dogma" of molecular biology: one gene leads to one product, which has one phenotypic expression. Now we know that different genes can be alternately spliced and expressed, that upstream or downstream markers can have fundamental efffects on gene expression and developmental timing, that genes may code for RNA products which selectively prevent certain proteins from being translated, that entire genes can be transposed to different areas of an organisms' genome, that horizontal transfer of genes between individuals is not only possible but was likely to have been a formative event in the evolution of humanity . . .
I could list things that we've discovered about the fundamentals of human genetics in just the past few years for pages. Many of these discoveries were completely unexpected, and a lot of them made us completely re-evaluate knowledge that we thought we had a deep understanding of. Meddling in our genome is certainly a therapeutic option for extreme cases of genetic disorders threatening basic health. I agree with you that certain traits should be eliminated from the gene pool when they are purely dangerous. But I draw the line with experiments or policies that deny a person their basic right to reproduce or live a free life.
That said I wait for your response!
I'm also for women aborting children with birth defects which will significantly impact their quality of life and be a drain on society. This includes but is not limited to mental retardation. They SHOULD do so; it is irresponsible to do otherwise. People who have such heritable disorders likewise should not reproduce.
Our first gynaecologist told us that our son would probably not survive to birth and that he would almost certainly be born with severe mental and physical handicaps if he did. Fortunately my partner's a doctor and she double (and triple)checked and it turned out that it was simply a laboratory error and his stupidity (he made some fairly banal medical errors which she picked up on).
And he was born and he was absolutely fine.
Why is a down's syndrome kid of less value than a healthy kid who's simply stupid or a callous bully? I've worked with down's kids and they have a lot to teach us.
Steven Hawkings is pretty severely disabled and yet is a highly valuable member of British society.
Steven Hawkings is pretty severely disabled and yet is a highly valuable member of British society.
Yeah, I think it's safe to say the null hypothesis has been firmly rejected regarding this.
Faelar
Steven Hawkings is pretty severely disabled and yet is a highly valuable member of British society.
The following people had genetic mental or physical disorders, and would have been aborted at birth if we followed eugenics:
Stephen Hawkings
Albert Einstein (Autistic)
Isaac Newton (Asperger's syndrome)
Beethoven
Vincent van Gogh
Leonardo da Vinci
John Nash (they made a movie about his issues.. "A beautiful Mind")
George Washington
Alexander Graham Bell
Charles Dickens
etc...
The following people had genetic mental or physical disorders, and would have been aborted at birth if we followed eugenics
Yes, but that's irrelevent, isn't it? perhaps everyone would have an average IQ of 300 right now if we used eugenics.
(You're advocating against process X, because process Y has some good results? What if process X has better results?)
Yes, but that's irrelevent, isn't it? perhaps everyone would have an average IQ of 300 right now if we used eugenics.
(You're advocating against process X, because process Y has some good results? What if process X has better results?)
No, it's not irrelevent. The point is that people with disabilities can still be valuable and contributing members of society, sometimes with incredible results.
You say that "perhaps" everyone would have IQ 300. And perhaps everyone would have an IQ of 110. It's not just about IQ, mind.
My problem with the whole concept is that it reduces people to numbers, even on an individual level.
Besides, as Werral said, current testing can, and does, show false positives.
"Process X" may theoretically have better results as far as "superior genes", but I don't know if what's left would be the human race anymore.
We still dont' fully understand genetics. What about hereditary traits? I mean, you could have two people, each from a long line of healthy individuals, and their genes combine...oops! A new defect. Defects and disease happen. Rather than trying to "breed them out", lets just try to cure them.
I'll give a personal example: One of the staff members at my church is a perfectly healthy, functional individual. But, he does have a physical flaw; one of his arms was malformed when he was born. It never grew properly. His mind works just fine, he functions fine in society. He's married, has kids (none of whom display this trait, mind). Should he have been allowed to be born? According to eugenics, I suppose not.
No, it's not irrelevent. The point is that people with disabilities can still be valuable and contributing members of society, sometimes with incredible results.
is that relative? people with disablilitys can be above the 'bar' (better then us) ... but that bar is also set by not using eugenics. Eugenics would put the bar much higher (everyone would be smarter) ...
(to try and make myself more clearer: suppose a good quality of plants is the height (=resulting criteria of eugenics) and darker plants are bigger then light plants (=light is having a disorder). The fact that some light plants are higher 12" when most dark plants are only 8" is a good thing, don't get me wrong ... but does it matter when using selective crossing (=eugenics) all plants are larger then 15" ?
Besides, as Werral said, current testing can, and does, show false positives.
so does the justice system ... but we still use that, don't we?
My problem with the whole concept is that it reduces people to numbers, even on an individual level.
Ah, but that happens all the time. When you want a loan, when you want ensurance, when you pay taxes (to calculate how many taxes you pay), etc, ...
(in reference to the OP) This is simply because there is no time/manpower/money to handle everything on a person to person basis.
Calling the fact that there are people falling through the maze, an Epic Fail, is IMO either grose exhaduration.
One of the staff members at my church is a perfectly healthy, functional individual.
should he have more rights then the next person? because that's what you're advocating for the doctor: the bureaucratic machine gave him a 'NO' ... but since the doctor has a son with down syndrow, you're saying his case should be re-evaluated, no? basically, people with sick children have more rights, then others?
What gives you, or anyone else, the right to set the "bar" for existance like that?
The justice system isn't 100% fatal. Abortion is something like 99.99% (there are cases of survivors, but it's incredibly rare. Go look up just what they do). Someone wrongfully imprisoned can be set free. Someone wrongfully dead is a bit harder. The other thing is that the justice system actively works to prevent these holes, and fix them whenever possible. That is not the case wtih recommendations on abortion.
And to flip this, you're advocating less rights for the "deformed and disabled" because of their conditions. It's kind of like denying somebody something because of, oh, I don't know...skin color?
I mean, people have been throwing out the concept of selective rights to reproduce. Seriously? No. Where do the criteria begin and end? What determines intelligence? What about an individual's will and motivation to apply their abilities. Give me a hard-working average intellect over a lazy genius every day.
I have always seen eugenics as a pretty draconian measure to solve the medical problems of humanity. In most cases, genes only affect the predispositions of phenotypes in the children. Every sperm as a different genetic caracter, with it's flaws and qualities. That is why brother and sisters are not all alike. A real eugenics program should stop/outlaw all natural reproduction and start gene selected reproduction (in vivo or in vitro). That of course is pretty expensive if done for an entire population.
Genes have an incredibly large influence on humans, just as they do every other animal. Yes, they do not completely determine everything about you. But they influence it heavily, and ignoring that influence because environmental factors have an influence as well is naive.
We should and do work to control environmental factors as well, and I am a strong proponent of enhancing some of those - a better educational system will result in a more intelligent populace. But it can only do so much.
I think a better option would be finding treatments (gene/stem cell/ etc..) for the different ailments.
Mass genetic engineering of populations is very likely what will happen at some point in the future. But ultimately, that is no less eugenics than controlled breeding; the end impact is the same, and really, it basically has the same human rights impact as well.
Additionally, anything developmentally related has to be gone after preemtively, before those genes matter. We might be able to fix someone with some sort of immune system disorder, but something which has to do with organ or brain structure is likely unfixable after a certain point.
So only the small fraction of the society that as problems can be addressed and not the entire population.
The vast majority of the population has problems by my standards. Average intelligence in the US is too low.
But, I must point out I am not advocating genetically engineering the population for intelligence at the moment as we do not really know enough to do so effectively on the population at large.
By that I mean that no hidden agenda can be pursued or minorities/others are not loosing rights (the right to reproduce)*
There is no right to reproduce in my eyes, any more than there is a right to practice medicine.
Choosing the genetic standard for a population does not fix the number of children.
It does, actually. The smarter the population is, the fewer children they'll have.
Look at the statistics: cancers on the rise, fertility of man going down 50% in fifty years (caused by pesticides and phtalates), etc...
And this can be attributed, at least in part, to the lack of natural selection. If your father would have died of cancer, but didn't, and had you, then what are the odds of you having cancer? If your father is nearly infertile and science had to make him a baby, what are your odds of being fertile?
Additionally, on top of the above, cancer is partially on the rise due to better diagnostics and the simple fact that people live longer than they used to.
The problem with the 'social eugenics' approche is that they artificially select the traits they find superior/desirable. What key factor will be important for the survival of the human specie in the futur? What gene will preserve a portion of the population from a pendemic? Hell, you're quote could be used to favor the "stupids". Since they breed more, they are more likelly to survive in the long term. Maybe that is the trait we should encourage?
No, it isn't.
Reproduction is not inherently good, and the idea that it is is, quite simply, wrong.
We protect the stupid, which allows them to reproduce more. Indeed, some might argue that this is even unethical; people talk about letting nature take its course, but we don't let it with many people.
*Incidentally, that is why eugenics as always been associated with facism. At it's core, there is the mythology of the superior human (not necessarily race). There is also the obligation to remove the right of procreation to a fraction of the population that is viewed as inferior.
Its not mythological. The reality is that some people are better than others, due to their genes, their environment, upbringing, ect.
All men are created equal is a myth, and an obvious one at that.
People simply WANT to believe it, but belief does not make it so.
Highly unlikely. You fail to consider fundamental aspects of human psychology, i.e. even intelligent people are prone to arrogance, ignorance and corruption. It doesn’t matter how “logical” eugenics is. It will inevitably be run by people who are power hungry and who make decisions on who is allowed to reproduce based on self serving purposes. It always happens and always will happen.
All government is this at its core, yet empirical evidence is that having a strong central government is a good thing, not a bad thing.
This isn't a valid counterargument. Moreover, there are ways of controlling for such, which we apply to real world governments. It'd probably be a bureaucracy similar to the CDC.
The funny thing is that people still don't have a clue what they are talking about with genetics, and the real experts know this. There is an old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and this is a perfect example. It is dangerous for people with a small amount of knowledge about genetics to go around thinking they can use it to manipulate the human race. (Through eugenics or genetic engineering.)
Is our current knowledge perfect? No. And I know that. I know a great deal about genetics, and am somewhat insulted by the fact that you think I'm ignorant about the subject matter. What do you think I studied?
And it isn't dangerous to think we can alter humanity. We CAN. Right now. Today. We could fix a lot of issues. We know about a ton of diseases. Indeed, if you understood genetics as well as you believe, you'd know genetic testing exists for many genetic diseases today. This is precisely what a modern eugenics program would look like.
Even the worlds top experts are only scratching the surface of genetics, and it will be a very long time before they fully understand it. Even recently, the worlds experts were proven to be very wrong about basic assumptions of the subject matter. For example, it used to be assumed that certain genetics would lead to things such as downs syndrome, autism etc, but it is far more than that. Monozygotic (identical) twins have been found where one of the twins is autistic and the other isn’t…. these children have the identical genes, and they both have the gene “responsible” for autism, but they both don’t have the disorder.
First off, being identical twins does not necessarily mean you are entirely identical genetically. There still is SOME variance due to mutation, however small.
That said, genes aren't the only factor, but moreover, not everything is equally controlled by genes or equally possible to stamp out via eugenics programs.
Autism is a spectrum disorder. As such, it cannot possibly be controlled soley by a single gene. All spectrum disorders are caused by a variety of factors. There may be only one gene involved (though I and pretty much every autism researcher doubts it), and environmental factors are also involved.
We never have claimed to understand autism completely from a genetic standpoint. The idea that we did comes from reading a popular science article about it wherein they vastly exaggerated the importance of their research. Anyone in any sort of serious science knows better than to rely on such articles for their information. Indeed, one of the important skills for a scientist is reading an actual scientific paper and seeing how much of it is garbage.
I am not advocating dealing with autism at this time, as we do not UNDERSTAND autism well enough to deal with it.
Eliminating certain known genetic disorders is a good thing.
Eliminating every genetic disorder may well not be possible due to heterozygote advantage and other factors. But that doesn't mean that eugenics is bad or is a bad idea.
Making everyone in the population as intelligent as I am is simply not possible at this time because we don't know what makes me intelligent, and I wouldn't advocate a program whose goal was to use what little knowledge we have at the moment to do so.
Yes, the genes are not the only important thing to consider, I was implying that in my previous post, but I could not find any source for it (only my memory) so I didn't say it explicitly. Fortunatly, Nature came to my rescue. Look at this news for a more enlighten discussion (I am a physicist... so no expert on the subject).
That article is about a very well-known process, and 94% is not a surprising number for it - its not like we didn't know this was happening, and at a very high rate at that (the previous number was 74%, according to the article, and we KNEW that number was low). Indeed, our immune system basically relies on this process for certain things.
Incidentally, though, using the word "dignity" is pretty... well, awful.
People have this bizzare fascination with "humans on top", but in reality that mentality is more than unjustified. We've spent as long evolving as anything else on the planet, so there's no particular reason to believe we're more "advanced" gentically speaking until we start modifying ourselves (and indeed, some creatures can already basically do this on some level, so in some ways we're catching up, though variable gene expression does help us close the gap somewhat).
Titanium Dragon, according to you, what makes a person stupid?
Having a g significantly below my own.
I think this little quote elaborates our differences of opinion quite succinctly. I would never advocate the creation of a "test population" incorporating known genetic diseases, then let them loose to see if maybe there is some collateral benefit or if they all just get sick and die like you expect them to. Cyctic fibrosis doesn't have any secondary phenotypic benefits? Ok, scratch that one off the list, let's make a generation of children with Parkinsons.
The question in such cases is usually one of heterozygote advantage, similar to sickle cell anemia, rather than the actual diseased expression. Having sickle cell anemia is bad. However, having one copy of the sickle cell anemia gene grants you resistance to malaria and under ordinary circumstances has little negative phenotypic effect (though to be fair, it still does have some, which makes it somewhat questionable as something we'd really want as a general trait, as there are likely better methodologies for dealing with malaria).
As such, assuming that having one copy of the gene has little or no real side effect, creating a small number of people with a copy (but not two) of the allele isn't unethical at all.
Deciding that you will not "exceed the boundaries of our knowledge" misses the point; often we do not know the boundaries of our knowledge. Once not very long ago we were convinced of the truth of the "central dogma" of molecular biology: one gene leads to one product, which has one phenotypic expression. Now we know that different genes can be alternately spliced and expressed, that upstream or downstream markers can have fundamental efffects on gene expression and developmental timing, that genes may code for RNA products which selectively prevent certain proteins from being translated, that entire genes can be transposed to different areas of an organisms' genome, that horizontal transfer of genes between individuals is not only possible but was likely to have been a formative event in the evolution of humanity . . .
The idea that we don't know the limit of the boundaries of our knowledge is somewhat false, actually. We know the boundaries of our knowledge fairly well oftentimes. Over time we actually have come to better understand the boundaries of our knowledge.
As the old saying goes, the fool believes himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. No one was wiser than Socrates for this reason.
We know the limits of a great deal of our knowledge. We know the precision of certain things to within certain boundaries of error.
Is genetics complex? Sure.
But we know enough to deal with certain things, and we KNOW we know enough to deal with them.
Again, I'm not advocating breeding people for intelligence today because we don't know enough to do it. I think that'd be good to do someday, but today is not that day.
I could list things that we've discovered about the fundamentals of human genetics in just the past few years for pages. Many of these discoveries were completely unexpected, and a lot of them made us completely re-evaluate knowledge that we thought we had a deep understanding of. Meddling in our genome is certainly a therapeutic option for extreme cases of genetic disorders threatening basic health. I agree with you that certain traits should be eliminated from the gene pool when they are purely dangerous. But I draw the line with experiments or policies that deny a person their basic right to reproduce or live a free life.
Again with the right to reproduce. Why is this a right?
I don't see it as such. Reproduction is an enormous responsibility and has enormous potential for abuse. Many people are simply not qualified to reproduce.
We force people who do things like drive, treat patients, ect. to be licensed, and I see no reason why reproduction should not function in the same way, as abuse of reproduction has enormous consequences.
Why is a down's syndrome kid of less value than a healthy kid who's simply stupid or a callous bully? I've worked with down's kids and they have a lot to teach us.
Because they're not able to function on their own, by and large, they aren't an efficient expenditure of our resources, ect.
Steven Hawkings is pretty severely disabled and yet is a highly valuable member of British society.
And eugenics would help ensure that there were more highly intelligent people like Hawking, and fewer people with crippling medical disorders.
Albert Einstein (Autistic)
Einstein was not autistic. There are a lot of myths about Einstein having various disabilities, all made up by people who want to make people with disabilities feel like special little snowflakes.
Albert Einstien did not have autism. He did not suffer from ANY mental disability.
Isaac Newton (Asperger's syndrome)
No. Additionaly, it is questionable whether Asperger's would even be eliminated by a eugenics program, as it is only arguably deletorious. But diagnosing someone who has been dead for four centuries with a mental disorder he probably didn't have is a classic example of people again trying to make special snowflakes.
Beethoven
How much better of a composer would he have been if he wasn't deaf?
Vincent van Gogh
Was he a good painter because of his mental issues, or in spite of them? I would tend to say the latter.
Additionally, there's a good chance that his mental issues were caused by or excaberated by lead poisoning, drinking, smoking, and eating too little.
Leonardo da Vinci
Suffered from nothing. Again, special snowflake syndrome.
John Nash
He strugged for years with schitzophrenia. Would he have been better off without it? I don't know if that question is answerable.
Interestingly, he apparently cured himself of it, and he feels that it was beneficial to him. Remember, as I've said, not all such issues are necessarily something which can be fixed in this manner.
George Washington
Seriously?
Alexander Graham Bell
No.
Charles Dickens
No.
Beyond the fact that most of these people had absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with them, and only lately have been claimed to have such by people who want to pretend that having mental issues is a good thing, the reality is that a eugenics program won't eliminate people like this but create more of them.
Your argument is inherently completely worthless because it has no logical foundation. John Nash wasn't a great mathematician because he had schitzophrenia; he was a great mathematician in spite of it.
No, it's not irrelevent. The point is that people with disabilities can still be valuable and contributing members of society, sometimes with incredible results.
Yes, it is irrelevant, because people without disabilities can be valuable and contributing members of society and COST LESS MONEY TO SUSTAIN.
Moreover, eugenics will change the average, and move it upwards, applied properly.
My problem with the whole concept is that it reduces people to numbers, even on an individual level.
Ultimately people are numbers. We're made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but no one ever said that reality would fit your ideals.
Besides, as Werral said, current testing can, and does, show false positives.
Which is why you double check stuff. Making important decisions off of a single data point tends to be a bad idea.
"Process X" may theoretically have better results as far as "superior genes", but I don't know if what's left would be the human race anymore.
This isn't a bad thing.
I'm saying they should have the same rights as healthy people; that to move to the country. You're advocation less rights. Down's isn't even communicable! It's one thing to discuss a short-term quarantine of an individual contracted with a virulent and deadly disease. That is not what this case is. (Incidentally, "Epic Fail" was purposeful Hyerpbole).
You do not have the right to move to another country. This is, again, an imaginary, made-up right. There's no RIGHT to move to another country. There's no RIGHT to their health care system.
And the idea that there is such a right is dangerous.
Downs is communicable - you pass it on to your children. Its a genetic disorder.
And the reason they're excluding him is because he's bad for their society. You're denying the Australians the RIGHT to have a healthy populace and the RIGHT to not have to make special accomodations at their considerable expense.
You're violating their RIGHT to have a 30 child class, their RIGHT to have safe roads.
Using the word right carelessly leads to the above.
In short, no. They have every right to deny this person entry.
What gives you, or anyone else, the right to set the "bar" for existance like that?
The fact that we have to pay for it.
Making everyone in the population as intelligent as I am is simply not possible at this time because we don't know what makes me intelligent, and I wouldn't advocate a program whose goal was to use what little knowledge we have at the moment to do so.
That's a spinal issue. None of us are flexible enough to shove our heads that far up.....
Sorry, forgot myself for a moment. CoC and all....
I'm saying they should have the same rights as healthy people; that to move to the country.
Moving to a country isn't a right. Its a privilege (as it needs to be obtained).
One the doctor did not obtain. ... why would they need to make an exception for him, and not for the next person who did not pass obtain the privilege?
And to flip this, you're advocating less rights for the "deformed and disabled" because of their conditions. It's kind of like denying somebody something because of, oh, I don't know...skin color?
... did you just claim that colored people are deformed? or we're you hyperboling again?
Downs is communicable - you pass it on to your children. Its a genetic disorder.
only for those not thinking wikipedia is the spawn of satan
(link)
Fertility amongst both males and females is reduced, males being unlikely to be able to father children and females having significantly lower chances of conception, around half of the offspring of someone with Down's syndrome also have the syndrome themselves;[40] there have been only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children.[41][42]
Fertility amongst both males and females is reduced, males being unlikely to be able to father children and females having significantly lower chances of conception, around half of the offspring of someone with Down's syndrome also have the syndrome themselves;[40] there have been only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children.[41][42]
What do you think I studied?
Nothing?
... did you just claim that colored people are deformed? or we're you hyperboling again?
NO.
That is not what I said or intended. It was a combination of hyperbole and condemnation. That is, I see the devaluation of a human being due to physical/mental deformity/disability just as despicable as devaluation based on skin color.
Both thought trains are bad.
This is the point where I just say that TD, Qube, and those who think similarly are simply not going to agree with me. We view Life, the Universe, and Everything from fundamentally different perspectives.
Incidentally, I pay taxes to, so my opinion carries just as much weight and right as TD's.
Making everyone in the population as intelligent as I am is simply not possible at this time because we don't know what makes me intelligent, and I wouldn't advocate a program whose goal was to use what little knowledge we have at the moment to do so.
It might not be that difficult. Perhaps you are intelligent, but you are probably less intelligent than you believe yourself to be.
The theory that Leonardo Da Vinci was dyslexic is based upon his writing (a tendency to mirror writing common in left-handed dyslexics). It's nothing to do with "special little snowflakes".
Maybe your programme might produce more intellects with an IQ score similar to that of Hawkings, but that doesn't change the fact that such a program would have eliminated Hawkings himself. And have you ever considered the fact that such a severe disablity combined witha great intellec tpushed him beyond the limits of what he might have done otherwise?
Working to eliminate genetic disorders is probably a good thing, nevertheless we simply do not know enough at the feotal stage about how valuable
a member of society someone will be. There are intelligent dossers who contribute nothing to society as well as low IQ who work hard and get things done.
If you want to eliminate wastage in the population, your goal would be better met by aborting individuals atthe age of 25 if they failed to reach a performance level. Though such a society would rightly be considered a totaliratian nightmare.
Again with the right to reproduce. Why is this a right?
I don't see it as such. Reproduction is an enormous responsibility and has enormous potential for abuse. Many people are simply not qualified to reproduce.
We force people who do things like drive, treat patients, ect. to be licensed, and I see no reason why reproduction should not function in the same way, as abuse of reproduction has enormous consequences.
Never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Article 16 (bold mine):
[INDENT]1)Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2)Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3)The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. [/INDENT]
Yes, procreation is a right. Like I said many times before, it is MORE then a right, it is one of the properties that define the concept of life. Any system that denies this basic need of life is NOT going to work or is going to need ALOT of repression on the people.
As a side note (this is more a tought process then a argument), why should everybody need to be extremely intelligent? Many jobs would be unfulfilling, because they are purelly manual. Many jobs don't need a high I.Q. and can be just as important to society. Why should the farmer have 300 I.Q. ? I am the son of a farmer and I sold the farm because I wanted to become a physicist. Manual labor was not for me, I loved torturing my brain with questions and finding answers. I have seen the life of my father: a good, productive and fulfilling life. But it was not for me. Sure, I can see the hype of saying we improve the human race. What I am saying is why do you think it needs improving?
On another topic
Both of these quotes in the same post. You cannot be so contradictory. That is why I love Diogenes of Sinope, he always practiced what he preached.
As the old saying goes, the fool believes himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. No one was wiser than Socrates for this reason.
Making everyone in the population as intelligent as I am is simply not possible at this time because we don't know what makes me intelligent, and I wouldn't advocate a program whose goal was to use what little knowledge we have at the moment to do so.
Both of these quotes in the same post. You cannot be so contradictory. That is why I love Diogenes of Sinope, he always practiced what he preached.
- I say X
- you hyperbole it to Y
- you say Y is wrong, and thus claiming I was wrong.
So please ... stop it.
(you were at a point claiming claiming that I'm a racist, because I'm pro-abortion and believe that eugenics works (note that I never discussed the moral decision of the line where eugenics should be used))
@Werral: high IQ is not the same as distaste for manual labour. IIRC At one time president of Mensa of Belgium worked as someone who picks up trash.
(it allowed him to continue his thoughts while working. not being forced to think of other stuff)
@Paul_profession_baker: Yes, procreation is a right.
What if you are sure that your child will have a horrible life (a life of constant pain)?
@Paul_profession_baker: Yes, procreation is a right.
What if you are sure that your child will have a horrible life (a life of constant pain)?
Well, I think that is a choice left to the parents, not to strangers with only marginally neutral agendas. It should be a responsible choice, because such a child will involve more nuturing. Parents should be given all the facts without any emotional appeals, be it towards keeping the child or abortion. The end decision will depend only on the emotions/taughts of the parents.
As you can see, I am not against abortion. I am against irresponsible or state dictated abortions. The right to be parents should remain to the parents.
Way to derail.
I would postulate that general survivability and happiness are the most desirable components of a human life, and any relationship those have with (high, comparatively speaking with human average) intelligence are primarily weak correlations.
I've traditionally been in the top 1-2% of the US in intelligence-related activities (various test scores), and I can't say it's done me a whole lot of good.
Perhaps it is easy for me to advocate this position, having no illnesses, a family history of long lifespan and good health in old age, very high intelligence, ect. Heck, my family even has a good history of HAIR on my father's side. But I have friends who feel the same who have various issues who refuse to reproduce for the very reason that they don't want to pass on their bad genes, and who think people who don't and still have children are idiots. I don't think this is something I hold because I am so well endowed by nature.
Its also worth noting that I myself am an intelligent person who does not want to reproduce, but I feel almost obligated to do so because of my excellent genes.
Lmao.
Gosh, I sure hope you decide to reproduce TD. Whatever will we do without the introduction of your genes into the gene pool? Why, the entire universe might become devoid of intelligent life if you don't procreate! It's your duty!
/sarcasm
First, anyone who otherwise desires to have children who chooses not to do so because of their perceived "inferiority" due to their genetics is operating on a flawed premise and has a very poor grasp of genetics in the first place.
Second, you have a very poor grasp of evolutionary theory if you assert that "intelligence" is "preferable" to "stupidity" when it comes to a species' survivability. If "stupid" humans truly are outbreeding "intelligent" humans, to the point where there are no more intelligent humans, then fertility obviously confers more of an evolutionary advantage than intelligence.
Third, humans certainly have a right to procreate. It falls under the right to privacy. Any attempt to take away the right to procreate also impinges upon the right of a woman to have an abortion, etc. But that is neither here nor there, since any talk of "rights" moves away from a scientific discussion.
Finally, eugenics has always been and will always be a bad idea, specifically because it entails a small, select group of people (the eugenicers) who make value judgments based only loosely on science for large swathes of the population (the eugenicees) and then enforces it without their consent. It contains vast potential for abuse, while promising only questionable results.
Genetic cures to known diseases is always the best route.
Faelar
So, um, those wacky Aussies...
Honesty, I'm not surprised. They're just aware of the fact that a welfare state is incompatible with an open-door immigration policy.
Also demonstrated by the fact that taverns don't throw open their doors and shout "FREE BEER!" at 5pm...
The father of the child has already said as much. They wouldn't be taking pensions for him. Ontop of that, rather than having some of the best disabled care in the world, if Aussieland really bought into the philosophy of "keep the best eat the rest" why not just drag all their disabled people out into the street and shoot them in the face too while they're at it?
To say it's hypocritical is a vast understatement. And it astounds me (and some how it always manages to) that douchebags are allowed into power in the first place.
Epic Fail Austrailia. Epic Fail.
Honesty, I'm not surprised. They're just aware of the fact that a welfare state is incompatible with an open-door immigration policy.
In terms of brevity and political savvy, I'd say that's a pretty wise statement.
Or, if you prefer, "Well said."
Cpt_Micha: Given that it's a doctor. (And we all know how much doctors make they're after all one of the reasons Americans are broke) I don't think the kid's going to be taxing community resources (you have to qualify for that sort of thing in the first place income wise at least over here in the USA if you make too much you don't qualify)
Good point. Though I don't necessarilly blame the entirety of the medical community so much as the insurance one, contemporary lifestyles/sloth, and the prevailing sense of entitlement many subscribe to.
But, after 4 years of school, and another 3-4 of interning and one's residency, the debt accrued is staggering, so I guess that's one reason they often command such salaries. 6-figure debt, especially in this economy is scary.
And now, here in the US anyway, they're making the malpractice insurance so incredibly high that it's becoming increasingly difficult, impossible in some locales, to practice medicine, particularly for OBGYNs (often 2 patients, not 1).
In terms of qualification for "assitance", I don't have a clue how they run things over there, but it's baffeling given the father's vocation and all.
The father of the child has already said as much. They wouldn't be taking pensions for him. Ontop of that, rather than having some of the best disabled care in the world, if Aussieland really bought into the philosophy of "keep the best eat the rest" why not just drag all their disabled people out into the street and shoot them in the face too while they're at it?
I know, I know...
This kind of press is surely going to cost them alot more than the alleged $50k/yr in the medical community and world opinion. They can't afford to not have doctors in such impoverished/understaffed areas.
I'd wager what he "brings to the table" in area 'x' far outweighs the financial burden possibly levied on the tax payers.
To say it's hypocritical is a vast understatement. And it astounds me (and some how it always manages to) that douchebags are allowed into power in the first place.
Well, to be fair, they get voted in, but yeah, douchebags nonetheless.
And here we are on "Super Tuesday".
I don't even want to turn on the TV tonight cuz' it's not gonna' matter until the smoke has cleared tomorrow morn.@Werral: high IQ is not the same as distaste for manual labour. IIRC At one time president of Mensa of Belgium worked as someone who picks up trash.
(it allowed him to continue his thoughts while working. not being forced to think of other stuff)
It was Paul who said that, so I agree. But still high IQ is not necessarily the most desirable trait. What if we get lots of highly intelligent people but they're all complete bastards?
Furthermore having teh same IQ does not make you the same person. There are reasons other than IQ why Einstein, Gallileo, Feynman, Darwin, Michelangelo and Gandhi (for example) did great things. If you aborted Hawkings for his disease or Beethoven for his deafness and ensured that an equally (or higher) IQ child was born, that does not mean you would find out about black holes emitting rays or get the 9th Symphony.
In my experince, doctors who have had personal experience of illness (as in this docotr's case) generally make better doctors than those who haven't.
Do you posses high levels of all the above factors/attributes TD?
My guess is no.
There are way too many possible useful traits for eugenics to be considered, there is no way you can come up with a way to determine what traits best enhance the species and maximize it's chance at survival.
Evolution (since eugenics is selective evolution of a sort) is all about survival, the species that is best adapted to it's conditions survives/thrives. Reproducing more = better odds of survival; I'd say the "stupid" people that TD is looking down his nose at are obviously doing a better job of ensuring the survival of their genes (and the species as a whole) than the so called "intelligent" ones.
This really seems like a rant against people that may have wronged you in the past and aren't as "intelligent" as you are.
Gene Manipulation = :D
Eugenics =
Interesting discussion at any rate.
The theory that Leonardo Da Vinci was dyslexic is based upon his writing (a tendency to mirror writing common in left-handed dyslexics). It's nothing to do with "special little snowflakes".
No, it is based on people wanting to believe it. Nothing more.
Maybe your programme might produce more intellects with an IQ score similar to that of Hawkings, but that doesn't change the fact that such a program would have eliminated Hawkings himself. And have you ever considered the fact that such a severe disablity combined witha great intellec tpushed him beyond the limits of what he might have done otherwise?
Yes, I have, and he was a genius before he was unable to walk.
Never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I don't care about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People write all sorts of fancy stuff all the time.
The very idea of it is rather silly anyway.
Yes, procreation is a right. Like I said many times before, it is MORE then a right, it is one of the properties that define the concept of life. Any system that denies this basic need of life is NOT going to work or is going to need ALOT of repression on the people.
I don't really care that it is a part of human existance, because it is fixable medically. Pure and simple, we have control over it.
As a side note (this is more a tought process then a argument), why should everybody need to be extremely intelligent? Many jobs would be unfulfilling, because they are purelly manual.
Those jobs won't exist.
What I am saying is why do you think it needs improving?
Absolutely. We can always do better.
Whenever TD expresses his views, all I can think about are Nazis...
That's because you fall for the old fallacy of "because the Nazis did it, it is bad".
In reality, there are far worse things. Patriotism is the cause of Nazism's success. If you're a nationalist, you're far more dangerous than a eugenicist.
The biggest problem is that it is entirely unclear at this time whether great levels of intelligence are even evolutionarily desirable.
Evolutionarily desirability doesn't really matter. We are capable of doing things which evolution, without our intervention, cannot.
And who is to say that us modifying ourselves isn't the logical conclusion of evolution itself? I would tend to say that the ultimate in evolution is the ability to manipulate the process itself to your advantage.
Second, you have a very poor grasp of evolutionary theory if you assert that "intelligence" is "preferable" to "stupidity" when it comes to a species' survivability. If "stupid" humans truly are outbreeding "intelligent" humans, to the point where there are no more intelligent humans, then fertility obviously confers more of an evolutionary advantage than intelligence.
Second, you have a very poor grasp on REALITY if you think I asserted that.
However, to be entirely fair, intelligence IS preferable to stupidity, all other things being equal. But all other things are not necessarily equal.
But a species' survivability is irrelevant, because we control it.
I'm an animal, but I'm a person as well. Are you?
Additionally, you're making the hilariously erroneous assumption that survival is a "good thing", and that evolution = morally correct. This is simply not the case. Evolution is reality, but it is an unthinking, unfeeling process; NOTHING about evolution is "ethical" or "moral". Its simply a natural process. Thinking of it as morally good is like thinking of gravity as morally good - its a complete non-sequitor which reveals a fundamental lack of comprehnsion about science itself.
Third, humans certainly have a right to procreate. It falls under the right to privacy. Any attempt to take away the right to procreate also impinges upon the right of a woman to have an abortion, etc. But that is neither here nor there, since any talk of "rights" moves away from a scientific discussion.
I have to deal with your offspring. So it is an imposition on me and everyone else in society, quite simply put.
Finally, eugenics has always been and will always be a bad idea, specifically because it entails a small, select group of people (the eugenicers) who make value judgments based only loosely on science for large swathes of the population (the eugenicees) and then enforces it without their consent. It contains vast potential for abuse, while promising only questionable results.
All good governments function on this very premise.
I'm a fairly smart guy as well, that doesn't mean I have the right to say that intelligence is the only trait we should be looking for. What about strength, toughness/stamina, athleticism, artistic talent, appearance, metabolism, fertility, immune system/recuperative ability,etc?
Do you posses high levels of all the above factors/attributes TD?
Yes, actually, I DO possess all of them. I was a varsity cross-country and track runner, in addition to everything else.
There are way too many possible useful traits for eugenics to be considered, there is no way you can come up with a way to determine what traits best enhance the species and maximize it's chance at survival.
We are far, far beyond mere SURVIVAL.
Surviving is simply insufficient.
My goal is far, far greater.
My goal is far, far greater.
And fortunately for the rest of us, opposed by the rest of us.
Your goal is not greater, it's based on the fallacy that you'll be part of the greater good. Your sheer lack of any kind of compassion and humility demonstrates that you are clearly not among the better portion of the species.
Our value, our humanity, isn't based on the strongest, fittest or smartest. Our value to society is based on the things that can't be reproduced in a lab. If nothing but perfection of the physical form is considered, your perfect people will not endure.
They'll be destroyed by people born the old fashioned way at the fringes of your perfect world. They'll be knocked from that pedestal you're building by the drive and desire to reproduce without those test-tubes of yours. The forbidden fruit of a child made from the flesh of man and woman will shatter your dream and grind it into dust.
I have to deal with your offspring. So it is an imposition on me and everyone else in society, quite simply put.
The exit is that way. Don't forget to tip Doctor Kevorkian, please.
And fortunately for the rest of us, opposed by the rest of us.
Your goal is not greater, it's based on the fallacy that you'll be part of the greater good. Your sheer lack of any kind of compassion and humility demonstrates that you are clearly not among the better portion of the species.
Our value, our humanity, isn't based on the strongest, fittest or smartest. Our value to society is based on the things that can't be reproduced in a lab. If nothing but perfection of the physical form is considered, your perfect people will not endure.
They'll be destroyed by people born the old fashioned way at the fringes of your perfect world. They'll be knocked from that pedestal you're building by the drive and desire to reproduce without those test-tubes of yours. The forbidden fruit of a child made from the flesh of man and woman will shatter your dream and grind it into dust.
This.
And fortunately for the rest of us, opposed by the rest of us.
Your goal is not greater, it's based on the fallacy that you'll be part of the greater good. Your sheer lack of any kind of compassion and humility demonstrates that you are clearly not among the better portion of the species.
Our value, our humanity, isn't based on the strongest, fittest or smartest. Our value to society is based on the things that can't be reproduced in a lab. If nothing but perfection of the physical form is considered, your perfect people will not endure.
They'll be destroyed by people born the old fashioned way at the fringes of your perfect world. They'll be knocked from that pedestal you're building by the drive and desire to reproduce without those test-tubes of yours. The forbidden fruit of a child made from the flesh of man and woman will shatter your dream and grind it into dust.
Hey,
You are speaking ill of the genetic superior (Perhaps it is easy for me to advocate this position, having no illnesses, a family history of long lifespan and good health in old age, very high intelligence, ect) who do you think you are? I'm surprised he even brought up the fact he’s highly intelligent I mean you can tell by his infallible arguments. You must be one of those genetic degenerates.
TD, say that the world ends (because it would if you got your way. Humanity would snuff itself out) and you get your way. Who gets to judge "who's good enough" to breed? And to have the right to live? There is no way even remotely possible what you propose would be resistant to the innate corruption of Greed, and Wrath.
(aka the Human condition of corruption) There's no way shape or form that you could prevent your system from being abused in such a manner to make it even remotely outweigh the negatives. It would not happen immediately, but over time it would shift to various minorities. "Well they are minorities obviously they aren't as well made as we are!" and that leads to Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing. "But smart people don't do things like that" Bull**** they don't. Hitler wasn't stupid. (if he was he would not have gotten to power in the first place. And there's no way you can say all of Germany was subpar of intellect to -elect- him) Hell there wasn't even a "eugenics" program system going in Germany before he came to power and look at what he managed to pull off.
He was well on his way to exterminating an entire ethnic group because "they are inferior!" Now imagine, if what he was doing was considered socially acceptable. Think about that for a few minutes.
Now imagine an entire planet with that system in play. You wouldn't even have enough room to bury all the bodies that would be created.
You are talking about slaughtering people because they have "undesirable" traits.
Say I had something even remotely like your view on things. I'd slaughter the people that thought it was okay to think that what you propose is a good idea because they lack any form of human compassion, dignity, or moral scruples. All of which to be lacking of are vastly more undesirable traits to have going than a lack of Iq, physical fitness etc etc in my eyes.
Because not only am I probably genetically superior, I'm morally superior as well. It takes more than Iq and "desirable" physical traits to make a good human being. If things were that simple, we wouldn't have the human race the way it is.*
*Micha does not actually believe he is genetically superior, nor morally superior than the majority of the human race, nor does he subscribe to such delusional views as to think Eugenics, Ethnic Cleansing, "moral" Cleansing, nor Genetic Engineering will fix the world's problems.
Hey,
You are speaking ill of the genetic superior (Perhaps it is easy for me to advocate this position, having no illnesses, a family history of long lifespan and good health in old age, very high intelligence, ect) who do you think you are? I'm surprised he even brought up the fact he’s highly intelligent I mean you can tell by his infallible arguments. You must be one of those genetic degenerates.
Who he is? He's the morally superior.
And fortunately for the rest of us, opposed by the rest of us.
Your goal is not greater, it's based on the fallacy that you'll be part of the greater good. Your sheer lack of any kind of compassion and humility demonstrates that you are clearly not among the better portion of the species.
That's the irony of the whole thing isn't it?
Those that promote eugenics with the goal of creating the “perfect mind” very often have severely deformed minds. They are highly logical and intelligent, but lack foresight, insight, compassion and the ability to properly function within a social setting. Since we are on the D&D sub-forums, I can re-state this as: High INT, but very low WIS and CHA. I would hardly call that a “superior genetics”.
Unfortunately, the lack of self-awareness and insight makes these people incapable of accepting or understanding that they are in fact mentally challenged. They go around demanding that they are superior, and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.
Eh. It's impractical right now as our understanding of what causes what in human genetics isn't really up to snuff yet.
But give it a few decades and there will be a "genetic selection" office in every fertility clinic where a person in a white coat is more then happy to help a couple choose the best genes for their little baby.
Evolutionarily desirability doesn't really matter. We are capable of doing things which evolution, without our intervention, cannot.
And who is to say that us modifying ourselves isn't the logical conclusion of evolution itself? I would tend to say that the ultimate in evolution is the ability to manipulate the process itself to your advantage.
Perhaps I misused the term and should have used something else that more closely matched the message of the rest of my post (which you ignored).
Regardless, now we're in even more dangerous territory, because your claim that certain given traits are desirable to the point of severely limiting the most basic of human freedoms to achieve them can only be ultimately justified because "you said so."
Personally, I have nothing against a society that is formed somewhere with the goal of using eugenics to reproduce, but only if admittance to such a society is entirely optional. No taking existing countries and passing laws to force this down everyone's throats, kthx.
I have to deal with your offspring. So it is an imposition on me and everyone else in society, quite simply put.
And we in turn have to deal with your parent's offspring and suffer their impositions..............
Personally, I have nothing against a society that is formed somewhere with the goal of using eugenics to reproduce, but only if admittance to such a society is entirely optional. No taking existing countries and passing laws to force this down everyone's throats, kthx.
So you mean more of a club or a commune say? I'd have no legal or even moral objections - though "optional" can often involve considerable coercion - look at cults like the Moonies and others. Nevertheless I'd find such a society pretty repugnant.
Your goal is not greater, it's based on the fallacy that you'll be part of the greater good. Your sheer lack of any kind of compassion and humility demonstrates that you are clearly not among the better portion of the species.
I have a greater compassion than you are capable of imagining. I am not compassionate just for the people of today, but for the people of all time, everywhere. Its not just about the present, its about the future as well. The future is far more important than the present.
Our value, our humanity, isn't based on the strongest, fittest or smartest. Our value to society is based on the things that can't be reproduced in a lab. If nothing but perfection of the physical form is considered, your perfect people will not endure.
Total strawman argument. Nothing about my goals conflicts with making better people. Nothing about my argument makes them "worse". No, this is simply something you made up to justify your position, but it has no basis in my proposals or in reality.
Our value, our humanity, isn't based on the strongest, fittest or smartest. Our value to society is based on the things that can't be reproduced in a lab. If nothing but perfection of the physical form is considered, your perfect people will not endure.
Only if I fail. You see, you're failing to remember an important fact - intelligence correlates inversely with such behavior. Additionally, as they're more intelligent than people today, more of them will see and understand the value of it. Their education will be better and they will be better people.
Your appeal to emotion demonstrates the lack of substance to your opposition.
TD, say that the world ends (because it would if you got your way. Humanity would snuff itself out) and you get your way. Who gets to judge "who's good enough" to breed? And to have the right to live? There is no way even remotely possible what you propose would be resistant to the innate corruption of Greed, and Wrath.
Those today are far, far more vulnerable to it.
Being intelligent makes you less prone to such, not more. The idea that it does otherwise goes against current data.
He was well on his way to exterminating an entire ethnic group because "they are inferior!" Now imagine, if what he was doing was considered socially acceptable. Think about that for a few minutes.
But this is humane. This isn't about genocide, and the idea that this is is simply wrong and stems from a complete lack of comprehension of my stance.
The goal is not to kill people, but simply to prevent them from reproducing. There is a fundamental difference between the two.
The idea that I'm supporting genocide reveals your own mentality. You are projecting.
You are talking about slaughtering people because they have "undesirable" traits.
No, I'm not.
Those that promote eugenics with the goal of creating the “perfect mind” very often have severely deformed minds. They are highly logical and intelligent, but lack foresight, insight, compassion and the ability to properly function within a social setting. Since we are on the D&D sub-forums, I can re-state this as: High INT, but very low WIS and CHA. I would hardly call that a “superior genetics”.
Are you really capable of making that sort of judgement?
Eugenicists do not lack the foresight, compassion, insight, and the ability to function properly within a social setting. The idea that they do is borne out of sheer ignorance. I'm sorry, but your complete lack of comprehension of who eugenicists are amounts to a complete strawman argument.
Wells, Shaw, Keyes, Kellogg. Are these people without your traits? No. Heck, Wells alone has ALL of the traits you listed.
Clearly, then, your argument is false.
You are not examining this rationally, but rejecting it irrationally, and your argument shows it. Look at your preconceptions, examine them, and understand them. Only then can you look at the world objectively.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but there is a strong internal bias against it due to the indoctrination people undergo today. That bias is not a good reason to reject it out of hand.
Regardless, now we're in even more dangerous territory, because your claim that certain given traits are desirable to the point of severely limiting the most basic of human freedoms to achieve them can only be ultimately justified because "you said so."
Thing is, ALL morality is inherently founded in "because we said so". Sure, we may have logical reasoning supporting our point of view, but...
Personally, I have nothing against a society that is formed somewhere with the goal of using eugenics to reproduce, but only if admittance to such a society is entirely optional. No taking existing countries and passing laws to force this down everyone's throats, kthx.
We conquered the South to end slavery. Clearly, doing this is entirely acceptable if we consider the alternative horrible enough, under our moral system.
But obviously any such program will be far more successful with a populace which understands it.
And we in turn have to deal with your parent's offspring and suffer their impositions..............
You cannot change the past, only the future.
Thing is, ALL morality is inherently founded in "because we said so". Sure, we may have logical reasoning supporting our point of view, but...
Sure, but you're advocating imposing your morality on people who might not agree (unless you want to make the cessation of reproduction voluntary -- and that doesn't appear to be the case).
We conquered the South to end slavery. Clearly, doing this is entirely acceptable if we consider the alternative horrible enough, under our moral system.
Subtle but big difference -- your system imposes your will on others, while conquering the South was specifically done to stop people from imposing their will on others. You could try to argue that the rest of the nation was imposing their will on the people who were imposing their will on others, but I think that's just a trick of logic as opposed to a sensible argument.
The more conservative, and more likely, idea is that people would be able to select and choose the genetic make-up of their children as opposed to the random-crap shoot it is now. How is this denying anyone freedoms? Is giving your children the best genetic material you could scrape together from the parents that horrible of a choice?
Wells, Shaw, Keyes, Kellogg. Are these people without your traits? No. Heck, Wells alone has ALL of the traits you listed.
While Welles advocated Eugenics on and off throughout his life, you may note that his "Rights of Man" was perhaps the model of the "Universal declaration of Human Rights".
This is from Welles's "Rights of Man":
"'no man shall be subjected to any sort of mutilation or sterilization except with his own deliberate consent, freely given [...]. He shall not be forced to take drugs nor shall they be administered to him without his knowledge and consent'" (New Worm Order 143), and number two, which states that "'he is entitled to sufficient education to make him a useful and interested citizen'" (139).
Then later in 1944:
The supreme task before our awakening minds is the re-education of
the world. [...] We have in the radio, the film, in the facility for
the rapid transport of material and specimens, all that is needed to
cover the world with schools, and in the multitude of quickened
minds this straggle has evoked, a supply of men and women who have
discovered that by teaching we learn. There are claptrap phrases
about backward races and inferior peoples. [...] There are no
backward races. All over the earth babies start from scratch, full
of distinctive and untried possibilities, which the New World will
develop eagerly. (10-11)
So while he did advocate eugenics for quite some time, he later recanted and rejected it completely - partly as a result of scientific improvements and partly as a result of WWII. Here's the complet e article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7051/is_1_14/ai_n28150697/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Subtle but big difference -- your system imposes your will on others, while conquering the South was specifically done to stop people from imposing their will on others. You could try to argue that the rest of the nation was imposing their will on the people who were imposing their will on others, but I think that's just a trick of logic as opposed to a sensible argument.
Exactly.
Escher Enigma: Actually TD is advocating a compulsory policy. There is one problem with the whole "choose your children" thing. It's fine for eliminating genetic diseases (maybe) but a lot more dubious when parents say, "We want our child to win the beauty pagent" or "We want a baseball star" or even simply "We want a boy".
Sure, but you're advocating imposing your morality on people who might not agree (unless you want to make the cessation of reproduction voluntary -- and that doesn't appear to be the case).
We do this all the time. Don't use drugs, don't drink and drive, don't kill people, ect.
And I would obviously prefer that it be voluntary, but is that going to happen?
Subtle but big difference -- your system imposes your will on others, while conquering the South was specifically done to stop people from imposing their will on others. You could try to argue that the rest of the nation was imposing their will on the people who were imposing their will on others, but I think that's just a trick of logic as opposed to a sensible argument.
Nice rephrasing, but couldn't I just say my system PREVENTS these people from imposing their will on the next generation?
That is kind of the point, after all.
Escher Enigma: Actually TD is advocating a compulsory policy. There is one problem with the whole "choose your children" thing. It's fine for eliminating genetic diseases (maybe) but a lot more dubious when parents say, "We want our child to win the beauty pagent" or "We want a baseball star" or even simply "We want a boy".
Here's the thing though - even sans a formal eugenics program, this already happens, and once we gain more power with genetic engineering, it will increase further. Indeed, selection for gender already takes place.
There is one problem with the whole "choose your children" thing. It's fine for eliminating genetic diseases (maybe) but a lot more dubious when parents say, "We want our child to win the beauty pagent" or "We want a baseball star" or even simply "We want a boy".
... how is that different then today? Seriously, helicopter parents who want to live vicariously through their kids exist now, choosing superior genetic traits for your children can't make it worse. Insane parents will still be insane parents. And hopefully by the second generation the "insane" part would have mostly been weeded out.
Sides, if you really want to look at the "disturbing implications" area, what about sexual-identity, freckles, red-hair (in England), skin-tone, handedness, and size of genitalia and breasts? There's all sorts of things that could be conceivable controlled for. Think of it, if left-handedness was, for some reason, fashionably "in" for a year-or-so there might be a wave of children that would be predominately left-handed. For once entire classrooms would be full of left-handed children, only for the next year to go back to normal. Wouldn't that interesting?
As for TD's more totalitarian ideas... eh. It's not going to happen unless there's some serious political/social changes. Well, it might in China. But in the rest of the world it's not a concern. Genetic Selection though... that's going to happen. Sooner-or-later, it's going to be reality.
Is this really an argument for genetic differences? or is a matter of parental education, class, wealth and cultural differences?
Asian families often have more offspring because of cultural views. It is deemed prosperous to have more children, and those children will look after you in your old age.
White, western wealthy middle-class families often have less or no children due to their outlook on society, their own concerns that their own life and ambitions are maybe more important than raising a child in a world that is already well populated with people.
Poorer, less well educated and well nurtured people in western society may procreate younger and have more children due to ignorance. The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy in europe. This isn't because the working-class of britain have less IQ, but because of lack of education and understanding. Maybe there only ambition is to have a family, because they see little else worth striving for in life.
This is NOT a matter of intelligence, but more a matter of social structure, culture and the consequences of it.
To come closer to the original topic, as far as offspring with disabilities go, they generally appear from two perfectly healthy human beings with probably no awareness of any disabilities in their past family tree. For example, I've not known a single case of someone with Down's Syndrome having a child of their own.
We do this all the time. Don't use drugs, don't drink and drive, don't kill people, ect.
And I would obviously prefer that it be voluntary, but is that going to happen?
Ahh, so your system would be voluntary unless people didn't want it? That makes it all better, doesn't it?
That, sir, is monsterous. Assuming for a moment that your grand design somehow becomes palatable to the majority of society, you can bet that I and those like me will fight tooth and nail to destroy your perfect plan. What your plan would create is a mindless, sycophantic society of perfect physical specimens, never questioning, never doubting, always secure in their perceived perfection.
You, sir, are a totalitarian. You would strip away the rights of the individual to reproduce because you don't want to have to "tolerate" their offspring? Consider me your foil. I not only tolerate the offspring of others, I revel in them.
It is in my compassion for the weak that I find strength, you would destroy them. And yes, preventing their birth does count as destroying them. You would take Nature from the equation to make your perfect society of supermen, I would be the grass that cracks the concrete of your pretty sidewalks.
The pack protects me. The fat, the thin, the tall, the short, the pretty and the ugly, all of these are my pack mates and they are needed in all their variety. That variety is what makes the pack stronger. In weeding out the variety, you weaken your superhuman society.
Me, and those like me would tear at the edges of your pretty tapestry until it was nothing but thread and then your supermen would be shown for what they are, a pathetic echo of humanity. Humanity is made up of humans, not engineered supermen. We've dealt with the likes of you before. It may be ugly, it may be messy, but Humanity always wins. What can I say, it's human nature....
I'm not arguing your science. You may be right, eugenics might be better. But you'll never find out as long as there are people like me on this Earth. And before you point out that my argument is just emotion, you might want to remember that it's emotion that seperates us from the machines that we build. A computer is logical, a human being is emotional. If you think for a brief moment that I would submit to being sterilized or seeing others sterilized for your perfect society, you are mistaken. I would rather see you sterilized, Dr Malthus.
Drama queen much?
Seriously. Chill. If we ever do see anything along the lines of genetic selection for children in our lifetimes it will almost certainly be as an option at a fertility clinic. As I said before, you aren't going to see that level of reproductive control in the free world anytime soon barring dramatic and chilling changes.
Hell, just think about it for a second. To achieve the kind of level of reproductive control that TD seems to advocate you would have to accomplish a few things: either kill or sterilize segments of the population that have genetic material deemed "too dangerous to pass on", start doing that at birth to babies once the plan takes off, get all girls on the pill the moment they hit puberty and have slipping up punishable by law, expanisve and omnipresent fertility clinics that would be able to do the kind of fine manipulations and calculations necessary to determine the best traits from two people as well as achieve that result...
I can tell you right out the first isn't going to happen as long as men place so much of their ego and pride in their balls, as it would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment".
The baby-killing and baby-sterilizing step won't happen, as people are too fond of the ugly things no matter any rational arguments.
The all-girls-on-the-pill step won't happen because of the religious right
And the last won't happen because that would require expensive equipment present in far too many locations with trained specialists, all paid for by the government and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
In short, relax. It's an interesting idea, but it certainly isn't going to happen like TD describes anywhere anytime soon. Except maybe in China.
Re: GoblinPride
Drama queen much?
Sorry, it's the Winston Smith in me.
One fundamental flaw in this argument is that 'stupid people have more offspring'.
Is this really an argument for genetic differences? or is a matter of parental education, class, wealth and cultural differences?
Its a matter of both.
Here's a fun fact:
Class? Wealth? Those correlate strongly with intelligence, and likewise against having more offspring.
Ahh, so your system would be voluntary unless people didn't want it? That makes it all better, doesn't it?
Just like how we want people not to do drugs or kill people, but if they do, we throw them in jail?
Kind of my point, really.
Just becasue we don't want people to do X, doesn't mean that people won't do it anyway.
That, sir, is monsterous. Assuming for a moment that your grand design somehow becomes palatable to the majority of society, you can bet that I and those like me will fight tooth and nail to destroy your perfect plan. What your plan would create is a mindless, sycophantic society of perfect physical specimens, never questioning, never doubting, always secure in their perceived perfection.
No. The intelligent society ALWAYS questions. The smarter the populace is, the more difficult it is for it to be controlled.
You're making stuff up. I'm sorry, but its as simple as that.
You, sir, are a totalitarian. You would strip away the rights of the individual to reproduce because you don't want to have to "tolerate" their offspring? Consider me your foil. I not only tolerate the offspring of others, I revel in them.
Well, they are delicious on rye.
And no, I'm not a totalitarian. I'm very much not one. But I believe that society has issues, and this is a major one.
I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but really, I don't expect everyone to see it that way. But, someday, hopefully they will.
Ideally speaking, of course, we'll never really have to have a formal eugenics program - instead, free genetic engineering for all. Everyone can have a child with incredible intelligence, health, ect. People will choose this because they want a positive future for their children.
It is in my compassion for the weak that I find strength, you would destroy them. And yes, preventing their birth does count as destroying them. You would take Nature from the equation to make your perfect society of supermen, I would be the grass that cracks the concrete of your pretty sidewalks.
So you hope people are born without limbs. That they're mentally retarded.
I'm sorry, you are the monster. You're condemning these people to horrible lives. Some of them aren't even really people, per se - when a parrot is smarter than you are, you aren't a person.
I'm not. I'm saying these people don't have to exist. No one needs to be born without limbs. No one needs to be born mentally retarded.
In my world, all men are created equal. It won't be an ideal, some pipe dream; it will be reality.
It is wrong to deny all mankind these benefits, and it is wrong to allow others to do so.
You're advocating making people with downs syndrome; making people without limbs; making children with cancer. I'm opposed to all those things.
But you don't see it that way.
But why am I the monster, when I seek to make all men better, bring them up, while you are not, when you seek to let them be born horribly malformed, with no chance of a normal life?
You claim you have compassion. But you don't. You have emotion. It is easy to confuse the two, but emotion is not compassion. I have compassion for these people because I seek to prevent these horrible things, and to in their place have people who are better. I seek a day when no man is born without the ability to speak, or talk. I seek a day when no one has to suffer through cancer before they graduate from fifth grade. I seek a day when no one has to spend a day per week going to the doctor to get their lungs checked so they do not suffocate in their own mucus.
Where is your compassion for these people? It isn't compassionate to allow people to be crippled, to allow them to be retarded, to allow them to have cancer. It is compassion to prevent those things.
The pack protects me. The fat, the thin, the tall, the short, the pretty and the ugly, all of these are my pack mates and they are needed in all their variety. That variety is what makes the pack stronger. In weeding out the variety, you weaken your superhuman society.
Pack mentality is bad. We are not animals. We are people. Or at least I am.
All of the forms of this mentality lead to sorrow and suffering. Nationalism, racism, sexism...
Me, and those like me would tear at the edges of your pretty tapestry until it was nothing but thread and then your supermen would be shown for what they are, a pathetic echo of humanity. Humanity is made up of humans, not engineered supermen. We've dealt with the likes of you before. It may be ugly, it may be messy, but Humanity always wins. What can I say, it's human nature....
You have never dealt with the likes of me before. My predecessors were not "dealt with", and I won't be either.
And before you point out that my argument is just emotion, you might want to remember that it's emotion that seperates us from the machines that we build.
No, it isn't. Emotion is naught but animal instinct, instinctive drives to do things to optimize your reproductive success.
I seek to more than my genes. I seek to be more than an animal. I seek to be a person.
Do you?
What seperates us from computers is our intelligence and complexity, not our emotion.
I would rather see you sterilized, Dr Malthus.
Of course you would. Because you fear for your reproductive success. Its a natural emotional response from an animal.
But you are a person as well. You should rise above it, and respond as a person, not as an unthinking thing.
Are you really capable of making that sort of judgement?
This coming from the person who thinks that he can judge if a person deserves to be born or not....
Eugenicists do not lack the foresight, compassion, insight, and the ability to function properly within a social setting. The idea that they do is borne out of sheer ignorance. I'm sorry, but your complete lack of comprehension of who eugenicists are amounts to a complete strawman argument.
Not a strawman at all, simply a logical conclusion based on the facts.
Wells, Shaw, Keyes, Kellogg. Are these people without your traits? No. Heck, Wells alone has ALL of the traits you listed.
Clearly, then, your argument is false.
Clearly.... right. Wells was naive and later realized the folly of his argument (i.e. he gained wisdom).
You are not examining this rationally, but rejecting it irrationally, and your argument shows it. Look at your preconceptions, examine them, and understand them. Only then can you look at the world objectively.
They are not preconceptions, they are based on simple logic. All of the pro-eugenics arguments are based on a lack of foresight, a lack of compassion, and a lack of social understanding. It is a reasonable conclusion to make that those who promote eugenics must lack wisdom and social skills… why else would they support an argument that does.
Here's a fun fact:
Class? Wealth? Those correlate strongly with intelligence, and likewise against having more offspring.
And correlation does not equal causation. You must recognize the fallacy in that argument.
No, it isn't. Emotion is naught but animal instinct, instinctive drives to do things to optimize your reproductive success.
I seek to more than my genes. I seek to be more than an animal. I seek to be a person.
Do you?
What seperates us from computers is our intelligence and complexity, not our emotion.
I feel sorry for you. I’m not just saying that, I truly feel sorry for you. If that is your definition of what it is to be a person… and why we are better than machines, then you are missing out on the true wonders of life.
Unfortunately, trying to explain to you what you are missing out on is like trying to explain to someone born deaf about music.
What seperates us from computers is our intelligence and complexity, not our emotion.
Wrong. Do computers have emotion? no. Emotion is part of what seperates us from machines.
So you hope people are born without limbs. That they're mentally retarded.
I'm sorry, you are the monster. You're condemning these people to horrible lives.
If I want to live a horrible life, that's up to me. You do not get a say in the matter.
Suppose I had been struck blind and deaf and lost all my limbs in a tragic accident. Would you come over to my house and kill me? Would you advocate someone else doing that?
OK then. Why's it suddenly different when we're talking about a baby?
The future is far more important than the present.
Is it? That's odd, because I'm quite sure that I live in the present rather than in the future. Do you expect the changes you suggest to produce any significant benefits within our lifetimes? If not, why should I care? The fate of humanity no longer makes any difference to me once I'm not alive to witness it.
Yeah, it's crappy.
Would you prefer the country said, "Wait, you're rich, come on in, you ARE an exception."
I would rather see you sterilized, Dr Malthus.
Dude, why so extreme solutions? I mean, look at who you're talking to. Do you really think he ever felt the touch of an unpaid human woman?
Would you prefer the country said, "Wait, you're rich, come on in, you ARE an exception
+1
also, you can't see the difference between the doctor who says "but I'll take care of him" or the person who although he has no job, says that he'll work very hard ...
off topic:
Hell, just think about it for a second. To achieve the kind of level of reproductive control that TD seems to advocate you would have to accomplish a few things: either kill or sterilize segments of the population that have genetic material deemed "too dangerous to pass on", start doing that at birth to babies once the plan takes off, get all girls on the pill the moment they hit puberty and have slipping up punishable by law, expanisve and omnipresent fertility clinics that would be able to do the kind of fine manipulations and calculations necessary to determine the best traits from two people as well as achieve that result...
note however, that (most(?)/some/...) current brithcontrol programs don't work like that: some give (for example) tax benefits to people with less children.
Now, to 'enforce' genetic improvements, one could simple give tax benefits to people who used certain way to get chidren (controlled invitro*/...).
(*: down syndrom could be easely avoided, as this is the creation of an additional chormosone in the first steps)
No genocide, killing or sterilisation needed here. It is completely voluntary.
And yet ... its very good for the genepool.
The problem with issues like eugenics is that, people start to think how it will be done and imagine the worst: this makes the discussion 'you're either pro or against eugenics'.
How about I'm pro improving the genepool, if it can be done in a humain way ?
Wrong. Do computers have emotion? no. Emotion is part of what seperates us from machines.
What seperates man from machine is the inability to guess what a person will do next.
You say computers don't have emotion. I disagree (from the list of wikipedia)
- confused: command unknown
- excited: -> more memory allocation / higher cpu priority
- apathetic: -> less memory allocation / lower cpu priority
- cautious: error checking
- guilty: popup window with an error
- anxious: do stuff in idle time
- confident: pre caching. (caclulate things you'll probably need in the future)
- embarrassed: don't show a popup window if something went wrong
- ...
Don't forget that humans are also basically a just a extremely complex neural network, with a lossy memory.
If I want to live a horrible life, that's up to me. You do not get a say in the matter.
(1) isn't that also what a law forbidding abortion stops?
(2) its not up to you, its up to your parents. You do not get a say in the matter (to quote you).
(in a cold view: who knows best? 2 random people who love each other, or a specialist in the matter?)
(1) isn't that also what a law forbidding abortion stops?
(2) its not up to you, its up to your parents. You do not get a say in the matter (to quote you).
The point was that nobody is in a position to decide for me whether my life is worth living or not. I am not some pet animal to be put down at your convenience. There is no difference between saying "It's OK to abort this baby because I'm saving it from a horrible life" and "It's OK to murder this man because I'm saving him from a horrible life." It isn't acceptable, not least because it requires one to draw an arbitrary line on how "horrible" a life has to be before it is considered "mercy" to end it, rather than murder.
please, everyone, refrain from flaming. thx
The point was that nobody is in a position to decide for me whether my life is worth living or not. I am not some pet animal to be put down at your convenience.
I was pointing out that that is not the case
(1) "The point was that nobody is in a position to decide for me whether my life is worth living or not" - anti-abortion laws break this: they decide that every life is worth living. (heck, IIRC, in ome countries suicide is a crime)
(2) how can you decide if you're life is worth living, if you can't even think yet? - when you 'notice' that one of your cells split wrong - giving you a additional chromosone ?
- when you notice that you won't have a skin when you get born.
- ...
I was pointing out that that is not the case
(1) "The point was that nobody is in a position to decide for me whether my life is worth living or not" - anti-abortion laws break this: they decide that every life is worth living. (heck, IIRC, in ome countries suicide is a crime)
(2) how can you decide if you're life is worth living, if you can't even think yet? - when you 'notice' that one of your cells split wrong - giving you a additional chromosone ?
- when you notice that you won't have a skin when you get born.
- ...
That's rather the whole point, isn't it? The child isn't able to make that decision, or at least communicate it.
So we condemn them to a painful execution. Yeah, sure, it's legal. Doesn't change what it is.
Quote from Qube
on topic:
No genocide, killing or sterilisation needed here. It is completely voluntary.
And yet ... its very good for the genepool.
That's rather the whole point, isn't it? The child isn't able to make that decision, or at least communicate it.
So we condemn them to a painful execution. Yeah, sure, it's legal. Doesn't change what it is.
yep. painful* execution of phychological trauma of being an unwanted child
*: painfull? from what stage can you feel pain? are all types of abortion painfull?
The problem is: are you really improving the genepool? Let's step aside from the medical applications and look at the 'social improvement' aspect, i.e. intelligence enhancing, beauty, heigth, etc. What you are doing is selecting traits you find favorable in humans. Thus reducing the size of the genepool. A reduced genepool is not an improvement, this is a well documented fact. A healty population has a good variance in there genotypes.
yes and no.
for example: a genepool will be better of without 'has 80% chance to develop cancer by age 30'
That's just ridiculous. If there are pop-ups is because someone put it there
If
- you react of adrenaline a certain way (agression), just like a computer reacts to an event (ex. an error occurred) (show popup).
- the adrenaline is created by external events (someone insulted you), just like a computer reacts to an extrenal event (user said he needed to divide by zero).
A neutral net is not like a computer. You can't really program a neural net.
thats strange ... in the course "Artificial Intelligence" at the univercity, I saw the opposite
Self-learning neural networks, dynamically changing behavior, ... are not science fiction, but reality:
link to a free AI game using neural network and genetic algorithms
Rant with Qube
Quote from Qube
Ifthe computer shows a pop-upyou feel angry, that is because is becausesomeonenatural selection implemented it:
- you react of adrenaline a certain way (agression), just like a computer reacts to an event (ex. an error occurred) (show popup).
- the adrenaline is created by external events (someone insulted you), just like a computer reacts to an extrenal event (user said he needed to divide by zero).
rant with Paul_profession_baker - about computers and emotions
I disagree:
- a artificial neural network will store its previous experiences
- many AI algorithms use a random generator* (use of random numbers).
For example: There is a 60% chance the AI will choose the best solution, 30% chance of choosing the second best solution, 8% chance to pick the 3rd best solution, ...
*on PCs a random generator is deterministic, but if hardware is present, nothing stops a computer from using [time, in seconds, from 1980]*[outside temperature]*[current light intensity] ... making it as deterministic as a human
In a decision process, your internal factors (experience, memory, hormonal balance, ... ) and external factors (time, temperature, ...) determine your decision.
- If all these inputs are the same for a computer, it will pick one answer
- If all these inputs are the same for a human, it will pick one answer.
I see no difference.
also because there will always be a reason why a human did something (even if it was 'its brain calculated it wrong'). I can not think of any of those reasons that can't be implemented with a computer (if the hardware is present)
a artificial neural net is a computer program: its his software (or hardware, if you want to implement the complete algoritm using hardward NAND ports). It works completely like a neural net (or at least what we know of it), but its much more simpler (limitations by the current technology).
as I said: use and implementation of a neurtal network, using a non deterministic random generator, and you got a non-deterministic computer
Good example you give; now let me prove my point.
You know that game where you have a ball, a star and a cube; and 3 holes with the same shape? ... and ever seen a child try and ram the ball object into the square hole?
Here its the same thing: you've learned the neural network to act on every object it sees (like a real child learned that a cube goes through the square hole - in this case, the child only had the cube while playing), and one day, there is a cloud. (one day there's a ball instead of a cube) ... which it has learned to react on (so the ball goes also through the square hole).
Not the same at all. A computer is completly deterministic. If the same process is run with the same inputs, the same error and same pop-up will occur. A human faced with the same reaction can react with many different (some times contradictory) actions.
I disagree:
- a artificial neural network will store its previous experiences
- many AI algorithms use a random generator* (use of random numbers).
For example: There is a 60% chance the AI will choose the best solution, 30% chance of choosing the second best solution, 8% chance to pick the 3rd best solution, ...
*on PCs a random generator is deterministic, but if hardware is present, nothing stops a computer from using [time, in seconds, from 1980]*[outside temperature]*[current light intensity] ... making it as deterministic as a human
In a decision process, your internal factors (experience, memory, hormonal balance, ... ) and external factors (time, temperature, ...) determine your decision.
- If all these inputs are the same for a computer, it will pick one answer
- If all these inputs are the same for a human, it will pick one answer.
I see no difference.
also because there will always be a reason why a human did something (even if it was 'its brain calculated it wrong'). I can not think of any of those reasons that can't be implemented with a computer (if the hardware is present)
I think we are only differing on semantics. To me, a neural net is different from a computer.
a artificial neural net is a computer program: its his software (or hardware, if you want to implement the complete algoritm using hardward NAND ports). It works completely like a neural net (or at least what we know of it), but its much more simpler (limitations by the current technology).
Unlike computers, neural nets are not completly deterministic. You cannot always predict the effect of changing a parameter.
as I said: use and implementation of a neurtal network, using a non deterministic random generator, and you got a non-deterministic computer
On the initial test, the turret kept firing with or without tanks. The problem, the photographes with tanks where taken on a sunny day and the ones without on a cloudy day. So the neural net was actually selecting the presence of clouds/illumination.
Good example you give; now let me prove my point.
You know that game where you have a ball, a star and a cube; and 3 holes with the same shape? ... and ever seen a child try and ram the ball object into the square hole?
Here its the same thing: you've learned the neural network to act on every object it sees (like a real child learned that a cube goes through the square hole - in this case, the child only had the cube while playing), and one day, there is a cloud. (one day there's a ball instead of a cube) ... which it has learned to react on (so the ball goes also through the square hole).