Would you support eugenics?

[Acorn Eyes]

If I'm missing any other possible responses let me know.

[MrDynamicMan]

No, thats a fucking slippery slope, that ends up with either mass culling or complete civil collapse and/or another world war. The logical end result of eugenics is bombing entire villages of "unpoductive citizens," state tests that if you fail you get executed, arbitrary lines where officials can simply choose if they want all *ethnic group, political group, etc* executed for their unproductivity.

[Monte_Carlo]

Nope.  Hasn't ended well despite various attempts by various countries.   Slippery slope doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

Also people with autism can be hell of a lot more productive than some perfectly healthy people out there.  Also let's face it... a lot of disease/disability is genetic and is a crap shoot regardless of how much you screen against something.  Thanks to advancements in modern civilization, people with poor vision such as myself can be productive members of society thanks to corrective lenses.  People with chronic depression can get medication, those without usage of limbs have other ways of adapting.  Technology no longer requires something as barbaric as eugenics. 

 

And at which point do we say a person is useless to society?  This could full well mean death to a person who ended up in a wheelchair thanks to an accident.  Or someone who just retired.  That's totally ignoring the fact people writing the guidelines tend to have some fairly rubbish views of humanity, and over-inflate their own value to civilization. The rules all to often prove to be totally arbitrary and frankly bullshit.  And what defines "useful" and "productive?"  Does science count as productive, or are we looking at his from a purely economic stand point?  What about the humanities?  Do philosophers have a place in this poll? 

 

 

[Dash Lambda]

Euthanasia?

We don't even execute mass-murderers anymore, if we do that we may as well go back to Hammurabi's code and break people's legs as a standard punishment.

Not to mention that one of the things you mentioned was autism. That's almost as over-diagnosed as ADD, and it's such a vague spectrum, you'd basically be killing off most of the population, including some of the most 'productive' people in history.

[LAwLz]

I like how you are implying that rich = productive and not rich = not productive.

Because we all know how true that is...

[Murdoch]

It seems like a good idea in theory, then you have to decide how it is implemented.

 

Then you realise, that a government having the ability to decide who gets to procreate and who doesn't and all the systems that would need to be in place to police it... well we know how that ends, not well.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I like how you are implying that rich = productive and not rich = not productive.

Because we all know how true that is...

Not at all what I'm implying. Even the most poor of the poor, if they have an income, are productive.

 

Those with irreversible debilitating disease like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's cannot and will never be productive, and are only a burden on the economy.

[Acorn Eyes]

5 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

No, thats a fucking slippery slope, that ends up with either mass culling or complete civil collapse and/or another world war. The logical end result of eugenics is bombing entire villages of "unpoductive citizens," state tests that if you fail you get executed, arbitrary lines where officials can simply choose if they want all *ethnic group, political group, etc* executed for their unproductivity.

There's a Utopic and Dystopic side to everything.

 

I don't see any problem in euthenizing only those with irreversible diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

Euthanasia?

We don't even execute mass-murderers anymore, if we do that we may as well go back to Hammurabi's code and break people's legs as a standard punishment.

Not to mention that one of the things you mentioned was autism. That's almost as over-diagnosed as ADD, and it's such a vague spectrum, you'd basically be killing off most of the population, including some of the most 'productive' people in history.

There is a certain point in the autism spectrum where you become entirely unproductive. That's where I draw the line and say euthenize them.

[straight_stewie]

I'm really getting tired of seeing posts like this on the forum. Everybody's always like "I'm not trying to start any arguments" and then goes on go argue.

Look up Dr. Kevorkian, you'll find out just how the country feels about euthanasia.
http://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141#illness-and-death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

[Mug]

I think for genetic diseases like Huntington's disease or Cystic Fibrosis genetic screening is ok because they're easily preventable via an abortion.

 

Genetic modification of humans though... I don't think it's right for that to happen at the moment, at least until we're all in agreement that it's not something that's useful.

 

14 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There is a certain point in the autism spectrum where you become entirely unproductive. That's where I draw the line and say euthenize them.

There is a certain point in old age where you become entirely unproductive. Do you think we should euthanise old people?

Autistic people can have a perfectly good life irrespective of how severe the condition is.

 

17 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There's a Utopic and Dystopic side to everything.

 

I don't see any problem in euthenizing only those with irreversible diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

Only when their ife isn't worth living any more, it should be a choice of the individual, family and doctors.

 

 

[Acorn Eyes]

1 minute ago, Mug said:

There is a certain point in old age where you become entirely unproductive. Do you think we should euthanise old people?

Autistic people can have a perfectly good life irrespective of how severe the condition is.

 

Only when their ife isn't worth living any more, it should be a choice of the individual, family and doctors.

 

 

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

 

And just because you can lead a good life doesn't mean its positively productive.

 

I think you're sort of thinking in the same way. except rather "not worth living anymore" I believe its "life not beneficial for the economy". And I don't believe it should be a choice.

[Unhelpful]

5 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

 

And just because you can lead a good life doesn't mean its positively productive.

 

I think you're sort of thinking in the same way. except rather "not worth living anymore" I believe its "life not beneficial for the economy". And I don't believe it should be a choice.

Go ahead and kill yourself.

[Acorn Eyes]

19 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I'm really getting tired of seeing posts like this on the forum. Everybody's always like "I'm not trying to start any arguments" and then goes on go argue.

Look up Dr. Kevorkian, you'll find out just how the country feels about euthanasia.
http://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141#illness-and-death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

I never said that I'm not trying to start any arguments. In fact I want to gather the forum's opinion on the subject matter.

 

And I already know how the country is opposed to euthanasia, I want to see how many on the forums are supportive of it.

[Mug]

8 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

 

And just because you can lead a good life doesn't mean its positively productive.

 

I think you're sort of thinking in the same way. except rather "not worth living anymore" I believe its "life not beneficial for the economy". And I don't believe it should be a choice.

I feel like you're plucking this directly out of a hitler speech.

 

Not everyone has a positive impact on society. Poor people have a much lower economic impact on society (sometimes a negative impact), does that meen that we should sterilise poor people and encourage the rich to have more children?

 

I think what you're not understanding is that life isn't all about money and value, life is for living.

[Dash Lambda]

24 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There is a certain point in the autism spectrum where you become entirely unproductive. That's where I draw the line and say euthenize them.

I remember a story (true story) I read about a girl who was severely autistic. Not 'socially awkward' autistic, she was the sort of person that couldn't look at people's faces, ran around screaming for no reason, threw up behind the couch all the time, could only speak in grunts and moans, that kind of autistic.

They thought she was intellectually crippled, wasn't aware of her environment, so-on, because she would never communicate and didn't show the ability to respond to her environment. But then she sat at her father's laptop and started typing, and they found out that she was very aware and intelligent, just unable to control herself physically. She said she ran around and convulsed because there was constant pain like a colony of fire ants trying to eat her, and she couldn't look at people's faces because it was like her mind was taking a million pictures a second, it physically hurt to pay such close attention to every single detail the way she was compelled to do. She looked like a mindless lunatic, but she really wasn't.

 

That's the difficulty in judging people, especially when it comes to disabilities.

 

18 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

 

And just because you can lead a good life doesn't mean it's positively productive.

 

I think you're sort of thinking in the same way, except rather than "not worth living anymore" I believe it's "not beneficial for the economy". And I don't believe it should be a choice.

What you're saying you want is a society where human life is considered worthless, the only purpose in a person's life is to join the work force, and an ultimate ruler has the authority to decide you don't deserve to live. No emergency or exceptional circumstances, no call for triage ethics, just the state of the world. That's textbook dystopian.

Forget whether you're 'productive', forget your health or your intelligence, your education, your wealth, everything that you would use to argue, and imagine being told that you have to die because you're not useful.

[straight_stewie]

27 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

Well, I tell you what, my grandparents came out of retirement to take care of me when my parents gave up. They worked themselves until it literally hospitalized them, and even then they practically spent their entire lifesavings on me. What do they do these days? Sit in their new chairs that I bought them in a house I'm paying for and watch Dr. Phil and the news that I pay for. Are they productive by your definition? Nope, not in the slightest. Am I going to do everything within my power, and maybe even a little further to protect them and provide them with an easy enjoyable life that they've earned? You best believe it.

But if you think they should be euthanized, then you've got another thing coming. You should really read those links I gave you about Jack Kevorkian. Even supporters of assisted suicide believe that about 90% of his patients where euthanized when they shouldn't have been (ie because of depression or being forced to undergo the procedure by a spouse).

I would assume that, because the forums constituents are mostly American and Canadian, the forums opinion on the subject would probably be pretty representative of that.

[Misanthrope]

Funny you mention Autism because you basically disprove Eugenics right there: People on the spectrum can be from weird socially to completely non-functional but some of them are the best engineers you can find.

[Acorn Eyes]

5 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

Go ahead and kill yourself.

If I was considered unproductive, I would be okay with euthenization (if that was the point you were trying to make.)

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Yes I think we should euthanize old (as long as their net productivity isn't positive) people. 

 

And just because you can lead a good life doesn't mean its positively productive.

 

I think you're sort of thinking in the same way. except rather "not worth living anymore" I believe its "life not beneficial for the economy". And I don't believe it should be a choice.

Dude, fuck you. 

[Unexas.]

1 hour ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There's a Utopic and Dystopic side to everything.

 

I don't see any problem in euthenizing only those with irreversible diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

what the fuck

[Acorn Eyes]

37 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I remember a story (true story) I read about a girl who was severely autistic. Not 'socially awkward' autistic, she was the sort of person that couldn't look at people's faces, ran around screaming for no reason, threw up behind the couch all the time, could only speak in grunts and moans, that kind of autistic.

They thought she was intellectually crippled, wasn't aware of her environment, so-on, because she would never communicate and didn't show the ability to respond to her environment. But then she sat at her father's laptop and started typing, and they found out that she was very aware and intelligent, just unable to control herself physically. She said she ran around and convulsed because there was constant pain like a colony of fire ants trying to eat her, and she couldn't look at people's faces because it was like her mind was taking a million pictures a second, it physically hurt to pay such close attention to every single detail the way she was compelled to do. She looked like a mindless lunatic, but she really wasn't.

 

That's the difficulty in judging people, especially when it comes to disabilities.

 

What you're saying you want is a society where human life is considered worthless, the only purpose in a person's life is to join the work force, and an ultimate ruler has the authority to decide you don't deserve to live. No emergency or exceptional circumstances, no call for triage ethics, just the state of the world. That's textbook dystopian.

Forget whether you're 'productive', forget your health or your intelligence, your education, your wealth, everything that you would use to argue, and imagine being told that you have to die because you're not useful.

Well if she was productive in her life and produced a net profit, she shouldn't be euthenized. The thing with something like Parkinson's is that its pretty much impossible to achieve a net profit, which is why in general everyone with it should be euthenized. 

 

It's not judging people, its keeping productive members of society.

 

There is no "ultimate ruler", no one is judged on whether or not they upset someone or messed with the wrong people. 

 

And it doesn't even have to be "JOIN THE WORKFORCE!" its rather you make a profit for society. Where your life is determined by the economy.

[Acorn Eyes]

36 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Well, I tell you what, my grandparents came out of retirement to take care of me when my parents gave up. They worked themselves until it literally hospitalized them, and even then they practically spent their entire lifesavings on me. What do they do these days? Sit in their new chairs that I bought them in a house I'm paying for and watch Dr. Phil and the news that I pay for. Are they productive by your definition? Nope, not in the slightest. Am I going to do everything within my power, and maybe even a little further to protect them and provide them with an easy enjoyable life that they've earned? You best believe it.

But if you think they should be euthanized, then you've got another thing coming. You should really read those links I gave you about Jack Kevorkian. Even supporters of assisted suicide believe that about 90% of his patients where euthanized when they shouldn't have been (ie because of depression or being forced to undergo the procedure by a spouse).

I would assume that, because the forums constituents are mostly American and Canadian, the forums opinion on the subject would probably be pretty representative of that.

If they produced a profit, and continue to provide a profit (as in they're not in debt.) then they don't need to choose euthenization.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

If they produced a profit, and continue to provide a profit (as in they're not in debt.) then they don't need to choose euthenization.

What about my example? Some people on the Autism spectrum can be extremely productive members of society and while we can detect Autism early on there's no way of knowing how severe at any point during the gestation period so you're basically talking about killing human beings in the odd chance they might not grow to be productive while it's unknown if they will or not at such stage.

 

Nobody wants to deal with medical and mental issues but just killing any and all people this not a humane solution. The market should be able to bear some research to help this people and if you're talking absolute market freedom well, this is an exemplary case of why we need a social safety net and some goverment intervention and certain areas not to be determined by market forces.

 

[stconquest]

We are embarking on a path to preconceived genetic selection, why are you so backward?

 

We will eventually be able to select the best of our genes before pregnancy.  This is a non-topic.