Would you support eugenics?

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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 is 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.

 

There is no known cure for autism, so I would say yes you would euthenize them, even if they grow up to be Einstein. 

 

Think of it as assisted evolution more than anything.

 

And humane is a subjective idea. Many people for sure think this is anything but humane, but it is in a sense. In fact this whole thing is subjective, there is no right and wrong.

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

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.

But you cannot opt-out of diseases can you?

Personally I would want to see this in combination with genetic selection. Both methods don't interfere with each other.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you only euthenize those who are so impaired they cannot provide a profit to the economy.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Euthanasia is the assisted death of someone who wants to die, but is unable to commit suicide because of his/her condition.

 

 

What you describe is Auschwitz. 

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

But you cannot opt-out of diseases can you?  <<<Why not?

Personally I would want to see this in combination with genetic selection. Both methods don't interfere with each other.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you only euthenize those who are so impaired they cannot provide a profit to the economy.

Wow, no.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Euthanasia is the assisted death of someone who wants to die, but is unable to commit suicide because of his/her condition.

 

 

What you describe is Auschwitz. 

Show me a definition anywhere saying that euthanasia is where the patient wants to die. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Show me a definition anywhere saying that euthanasia is where the patient wants to die. 

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

 

Quote

In the Netherlands and Flanders, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".

and

Quote

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder

 

"Involuntary euthanasia" is an euphemism for murder, if you ask me.

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Wow, no.

Why not? Because we do not have the technology to choose our babies not to get debilitating diseases. Decrease risks sure, but not completely remove it.

 

Unless I'm wrong, in which case it should be accelerated but its fine if its not. 

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

 

and

 

"Involuntary euthanasia" is an euphemism for murder, if you ask me.

It's like you purposely blocked out information.

 

Just because to you involuntary euthanasia is murder, doesn't mean it is to everyone. It's like the abortion debate. There are good arguments on both sides, but to say a subjective definition is somehow objective is foolish.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There is no known cure for autism, so I would say yes you would euthenize them, even if they grow up to be Einstein. 

 

Think of it as assisted evolution more than anything.

 

And humane is a subjective idea. Many people for sure think this is anything but humane, but it is in a sense. In fact this whole thing is subjective, there is no right and wrong.

How are you assisting evolution if Einstein was the epitome of it? We evolved a consciousness and higher intellectual capacities, that go far beyond our phyiscal ones because they let us compensate for them with machines, with medicine, with tons of advancements in technology.

 

Technology IS evolution is the ultimate expression of it, you should read a bit into post-humanism you'll find interesting concepts that offer a different point of view than the one you hold which hasn't been popular for a century now.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Why not? Because we do not have the technology to choose our babies not to get debilitating diseases. Decrease risks sure, but not completely remove it.

 

Unless I'm wrong, in which case it should be accelerated but its fine if its not. 

We don't yet, that does not mean we do something as stupid as start up a eugenics program.  The fact that you see fit as to determine who is worth being allowed to live makes this entire topic scary. 

 

The human genome was only mapped 16 years ago.  There is a lot of information in our DNA.  Give it some time.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

We don't yet, that does not mean we do something as stupid as start up a eugenics program.  The fact that you see fit as to determine who is worth being allowed to live makes this entire topic scary. 

 

The human genome was only mapped 16 years ago.  There is a lot of information in our DNA.  Give it some time.

Sure I'll give it time, but in the meantime unproductive members of society are dead weight. 

 

You guys think eugenics is all Nazism and killing jews, but its not. You aren't selecting certain traits of people. You are selecting people with a positive economic value.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Sure I'll give it time, but in the meantime unproductive members of society are dead weight. 

 

You guys think eugenics is all Nazism and killing jews, but its not. You aren't selecting certain traits of people. You are selecting people with a positive economic value.

Like I said, scary.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Sure I'll give it time, but in the meantime unproductive members of society are dead weight. 

 

You guys think eugenics is all Nazism and killing jews, but its not. You aren't selecting certain traits of people. You are selecting people with a positive economic value.

White collar criminals who make fortunes not through being productive but through bribes and scams are a far greater dead weight on society, why don't we kill them first, then we go for the Autistic kids?

 

I mean if money is all that matters, I think it's only fair to be consistent and start at the top with the worst burden on the economy right?

[Acorn Eyes]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

How are you assisting evolution if Einstein was the epitome of it? We evolved a consciousness and higher intellectual capacities, that go far beyond our phyiscal ones because they let us compensate for them with machines, with medicine, with tons of advancements in technology.

 

Technology IS evolution is the ultimate expression of it, you should read a bit into post-humanism you'll find interesting concepts that offer a different point of view than the one you hold which hasn't been popular for a century now.

Sure, Einstein was great. But he was a high functioning autist. Aspergers is very low on the spectrum.

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

White collar criminals who make fortunes not through being productive but through bribes and scams are a far greater dead weight on society, why don't we kill them first, then we go for the Autistic kids?

 

I mean if money is all that matters, I think it's only fair to be consistent and start at the top with the worst burden on the economy right?

Except that criminals provide a net profit to society, as wrong as it may seem. They are nowhere near the worst burden.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Sure, Einstein was great. But he was a high functioning autist. Aspergers is very low on the spectrum.

As I said Autism can be detected early but due to the nature of babies and toddlers is impossible to know how severe. You are basically advocating to kill pre-teens since it usually takes that much time to know for sure who will be functional and who will be "a burden" in your view.

 

Basically you're approaching minority report logic: you are suspected of "future" unproductiveness and henceforth you need to be killed...now before you become a burden to the economy.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Except that criminals provide a net profit to society, as wrong as it may seem. They are nowhere near the worst burden.

....How. Just how are criminals, that steal other people's money and fruit of their productive effort, a net profit to society? You realize that bribery and theft of goods is actually the opposite to society?

 

[Acorn Eyes]

5 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Like I said, scary.

It's a philosophy, you don't have to agree with it. But I do recommend you recognize it, if you don't allow yourself to move past "what's the most morally right thing to do" you'll never think of something new.

[Acorn Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

As I said Autism can be detected early but due to the nature of babies and toddlers is impossible to know how severe. You are basically advocating to kill pre-teens since it usually takes that much time to know for sure who will be functional and who will be "a burden" in your view.

 

Basically you're approaching minority report logic: you are suspected of "future" unproductiveness and henceforth you need to be killed...now before you become a burden to the economy.

Alright, then kill the preteens and not the babies. Do you really see a problem with that?

[Guest Kloaked]

Isn't the whole point of medical advancement the last 200 years or so was to allow people who have life-threatening problems to be able to live? I had no fucking idea there was this type of thing where we should allow near-perfect people to only be alive.

 

If you believe in the natural order of things as per evolution, should that not apply to human advancement in medical research to help people who have problems actually be able to live?

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Isn't the whole point of medical advancement the last 200 years or so was to allow people who have life-threatening problems to be able to live? I had no fucking idea there was this type of thing where we should allow near-perfect people to only be alive.

 

If you believe in the natural order of things as per evolution, should that not apply to human advancement in medical research to help people who have problems actually be able to live?

How much money have we spent on trying to cure cancer? What about Parkinsons? 

Have we ended up curing those diseases? No.

 

 

[stconquest]

8 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

It's a philosophy, you don't have to agree with it. But I do recommend you recognize it, if you don't allow yourself to move past "what's the most morally right thing to do" you'll never think of something new.

Morality has very little to do with my viewpoint of eugenics. 

 

See, we here on earth suffer at the hands of others that lie and commit to violence against innocent people already.  Eugenics is simply another way for someone to decide the rules and have innocent lives extinguished for no good reason.

 

Now with the way you are unable to see past your own nose, I'd assume any objective form of inferiority culling would start with people like you.  Bye Felicia.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, Acorn Eyes said:

How much money have we spent on trying to cure cancer? What about Parkinsons? 

Have we ended up curing those diseases? No.

Plenty of people have been able to live who had cancer thanks to treatments that they willingly went through.

 

But you're bringing up specific things we don't have a cure for yet. What about something as simple as pneumonia or the flu that could kill infants?

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Alright, then kill the preteens and not the babies. Do you really see a problem with that?

Yes: pre-teens, even the ones with severe autism do have higher cognitive capacities than babies so killing them is far more cruel. More over they've been enough of a burden to society and the economy at that point than killing them at that stage basically accomplishes nothing, cents in an ocean of gold in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Acorn Eyes]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Morality has very little to do with my viewpoint of eugenics. 

 

See, we here on earth suffer at the hands of others that lie, and commit to violence against innocent people already.  Eugenics is simply another way for someone to decide the rules and have innocent lives extinguished for no good reason.

 

Now with the way you are unable to see past your own nose, I'd assume any objective form of inferiority culling would start with people like you.  Bye Felicia.

Like I've said a hundred times. You're not selecting people based on traits. This isn't WWII. You're selecting based on economic value.