I found it ironic

[tr8er]

With reduced population or having it under control there would be lots of money for medical research to cure many diseases including genetic. Naturally religion would have to get on board or be outlawed as a threat to humanity. (Time we grew up anyway)

Pastafarians are so close to getting recognized, and your going to take it away from them?  

[Tristin]

Pastafarians are so close to getting recognized, and your going to take it away from them?  

 

It was only a matter of time... if Scientologists can become a religion then Pastafarians can. Both based off the same principles. 

[Z-train]

Pastafarians

[Dguy210]

None of these arguments are new and they all suffer from the application of very bad logic and crappy morals/ethics.

Who gets to choose what is "bad" or who is "suitable" to breed? What is the end "goal" we are striving for? Is being poor a defect? Gay? Black? Ugly? An asshole?

Do YOU really  trust the government to competently run such a program without massive corruption?

Eugenics was legal in the US in the early 20th century. It wasn't just "defective" people that where sterilized it was anyone the government decided was "unsuitable", this obviously translated into the poor and uneducated or anyone otherwise unable to adequately defend themselves.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html

Do I think people that know they are carriers of some horrible genetic disease they will pass on to their offspring should not breed? Yes, but you can NOT ethically apply coercion to force this!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129063/

Industrialized countries are not suffering from a overpopulation of people. Even taking into account immigration most industrialized nations are at a replacement rate of ~2.0 children per women or less. The US is currently at a rate of 2.06 children per women some of this is due to immigration with the real rate slightly lower than replacement. Many European countries are experiencing sub-replacement fertility (rate of ~1.56). While there is a population momentum effect, much of this due to increasing lifespans, the total worldwide birthrate is predicted to drop to a sub-replacement rate by 2050. The population will top out at ~9.5 billion and then begin to decrease.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/1307011-population-census-united-nations-un-demographics-world-population-day-birthrate/

TL;DR version education and better quality of life reduce overpopulation. Forced eugenics is NEVER ethically acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

All this will pass and the "cure" proposed by forced eugenics is more serious than the "disease".

[Dguy210]

With reduced population or having it under control there would be lots of money for medical research to cure many diseases including genetic. Naturally religion would have to get on board or be outlawed as a threat to humanity. (Time we grew up anyway)

Actually there would be less money for medical research for anything except the most common diseases. Think of it this way: If there are 100 million people and 1 percent get a disease that means 1 million people with the disease and an interest in curing it etc.... If there are 100 thousand people and 1 percent get a disease that means 1000 people with the disease. This is likely too small a market to make it justified to spend resources looking for a cure. This actually happens today with certain rare diseases, if the market is just too small it will be ignored.

 

This is actually a very real problem today for many rare diseases (>200,000 patients) or even the production of drugs that already exist to treat these diseases, where the economics of producing the treatment do not make sense.

 

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11418

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-investment-and-incentives-drive-rare-disease-research-051413

[datzenmike]

I didn't say sterilization, I said not allowed to breed.

 

 

Actually there would be less money for medical research for anything except the most common diseases. Think of it this way: If there are 100 million people and 1 percent get a disease that means 1 million people with the disease and an interest in curing it etc.... If there are 100 thousand people and 1 percent get a disease that means 1000 people with the disease. This is likely too small a market to make it justified to spend resources looking for a cure. This actually happens today with certain rare diseases, if the market is just too small it will be ignored.

This is actually a very real problem today for many rare diseases (>200,000 patients) or even the production of drugs that already exist to treat these diseases, where the economics of producing the treatment do not make sense.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11418
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-investment-and-incentives-drive-rare-disease-research-051413

.

 

Well the way I see it 1% is still 1%. With reduced spending on the military and less on welfare poverty and crime there would be lots for medical research for the fewer people.

[HRH]

It's a man's obligation,

to stick his boneration,

in a woman's separation,

to increase the population,

for the future generations.

 

-Cartman :D

[bananahamuck]

I think it all boils down to this.......

 

 

 

Arizonians,,  just can`t handle their buzz..

[Tristin]

None of these arguments are new and they all suffer from the application of very bad logic and crappy morals/ethics.

Eugenics itself is a fantastic idea... its also impossible to do. Having a World free of disease is not ethically wrong, but the application of the program will inevitably be corrupted.

 

Do really YOU trust the government to competently run such a program without massive corruption?

Nope

 

TL;DR version education and better quality of life reduce overpopulation. Forced eugenics is NEVER ethically acceptable.

Not true at all... thats the thing with ethics, they arent concrete.

 

Look at how it was "ethically" acceptable to treat blacks, and then women, and now gays. Shit changes and things become ethically acceptable all the time. Im not saying its the only answer to the Worlds problems and its a process going to be impossible to keep on the right path, but you cant call wanting legitimate scientific diseases eradicated unethical or immoral. In addition to increased education and medical research eugenics can knock out some of the huge problems in the World:

 

Less parental hardships based on unexpected births; which in turn brings less hardship on kids who are unwanted; less people on Welfare because their parents cant afford it; fewer abortions; fewer orphans; smaller population to control overcrowding, trash, and pollutants.

 

Eugenics isnt the solution... just part of it. 

[Dguy210]

I didn't say sterilization, I said not allowed to breed.

 

  

Well the way I see it 1% is still 1%. With reduced spending on the military and less on welfare poverty and crime there would be lots for medical research for the fewer people.

And what is the functional difference between being sterilized and not allowed to breed? If you are not allowed to breed you are merely being sterilized by the force of law not by some factor of biology. There is no practical difference. If you are arguing not being allowed to breed is reversible, well so are many types of sterilization.

 

Medical research just does not work that way. Less people means less medical researchers. If you want a quite in-depth treatise on how medical research, funding and science actually works I can go on about it for hours. I've worked in this field for many years.

[HRH]

 

It already started! (It can start in New Jersey!) 

[Dguy210]

Eugenics itself is a fantastic idea... its also impossible to do. Having a World free of disease is not ethically wrong, but the application of the program will inevitably be corrupted.

 

 

Nope

 

 

Not true at all... thats the thing with ethics, they arent concrete.

 

Look at how it was "ethically" acceptable to treat blacks, and then women, and now gays. Shit changes and things become ethically acceptable all the time. Im not saying its the only answer to the Worlds problems and its a process going to be impossible to keep on the right path, but you cant call wanting legitimate scientific diseases eradicated unethical or immoral. In addition to increased education and medical research eugenics can knock out some of the huge problems in the World:

 

 

 

Eugenics isnt the solution... just part of it.

Ethics are of course socially context dependent. I never said they were concrete. However, certain issues within ethics are pretty close to concrete, especially those involving eugenics.

 

Also the example of changes in ethics you cite are all instances in which things that were once thought to be ethical are no longer recognized as such. Are you stating this ethical fluidity should go both ways? That things we now define as non-ethical will be seen as ethical? Can you provide a defensible example of something ethical now that shouldn't be? If you can I would argue it was never ethical in the first place.

 

Wanting legitimate scientific diseases eradicated is not unethical or immoral. How you go about doing that can be. This is akin to a "deal with the devil".

 

Moreover eugenics does not solve those problems, and you are absolutely right it is an impossible thing to do and will always be corrupted. It has been tried and failed, multiple times even.

 

 

http://www.all.org/abac/eugen02.htm

 

 

I'll leave you with this quote by Hans Jonas “progress is an optional goal, not an unconditional commitment, and...its tempo... compulsive as it may become, has nothing sacred about it” (Jonas 1969, 245).

[Tristin]

Also the example of changes in ethics you cite are all instances in which things that were once thought to be ethical are no longer recognized as such. Are you stating this ethical fluidity should go both ways? That things we now define as non-ethical will be seen as ethical? Can you provide a defensible example of something ethical now that shouldn't be? If you can I would argue it was never ethical in the first place.

Hindsite is 20/20. Although what we know now to be unethical was once ethical... You cant say that if either of us were born 20 or 30 or 40 years before we actually were that our views on whats ethical would be the same.

 

Moreover eugenics does not solve those problems.

 

I didnt say its the solution, but it should be part of it.

 

It has been tried and failed, multiple times even.

 

Agree. And it will keep failing because as I said its impractical. Just like communism its great on paper but has not viable way to work in the real world.

 

 

 

 

Edit: A point I would like to edit in, is what about marrying into your own family? Its currently illegal here in the US to marry relatives as the lineage created has been proven to cause deformities. Are you saying that that shouldnt be illegal? Is it inhumane to limit who a person can marry because it may cause birth defects? Why cant it be the same for the people that have proven genetic markers for serious illness? Its proven that the people that have those carriers will create a child with [serious illness] so why not stop it now? Minimizes suffering of the parents, the child, the medical community...

 

No one is saying you have to be locked up or castrated because youre a carrier, just that you cant have blood children. Adopt.

[MicroMachinery]

Simple, enact laws that enforce mandatory birth control and only allow you to have children only when you have demonstrated parenting ability, (special schools or courses) financial security, a home and or a successful career, plus a $250,000. bond to cover raising each child should something go wrong. This would eventually eliminate ghetto human puppy mills and the welfare state. The cream would rise to the top and be allowed to breed. The present trash would live out their lives and an increasingly brave new world.

 

This is a bit exaggerated but were running out of resources and room... and don't for a minute thing we aren't. With lowered population pressures there would be less crime and political turmoil between countries. 

 

Been saying this for years. Make it so.

 

[bananahamuck]

Not all children born with extreme mental and physical problems have parents that carry any genetic markers whatsoever,,OR carry any noticable mutated genes ( 3 different scans of whole family in 2 different university gene studies over the course of 8+ years now)) ,  so what happens when those children are born into your fantastic idea..  world??

[Guest 510kamikazifreak]

We are all fucking doomed...

 

Who cares...

 

Enjoy today for what it is...

 

 

back to lurker mode

[Tristin]

Not all children born with extreme mental and physical problems have parents that carry any genetic markers whatsoever,, so what happens when those children are born into your fantastic idea.. world??

You're right. I grew up with a mentally handicapped aunt who lived with us my whole life (until I moved out). When she was 9 she had an extreme fever that left her mentally 4 for the rest of her life. That was unexpected.

 

There will probably always be abnormalities like that.

[Dguy210]

Hindsite is 20/20. Although what we know now to be unethical was once ethical... You cant say that if either of us were born 20 or 30 or 40 years before we actually were that our views on whats ethical would be the same.

 

 

I didnt say its the solution, but it should be part of it.

 

 

Agree. And it will keep failing because as I said its impractical. Just like communism its great on paper but has not viable way to work in the real world.

 

 

 

 

Edit: A point I would like to edit in, is what about marrying into your own family? Its currently illegal here in the US to marry relatives as the lineage created has been proven to cause deformities. Are you saying that that shouldnt be illegal? Is it inhumane to limit who a person can marry because it may cause birth defects? Why cant it be the same for the people that have proven genetic markers for serious illness? Its proven that the people that have those carriers will create a child with [serious illness] so why not stop it now? Minimizes suffering of the parents, the child, the medical community...

 

No one is saying you have to be locked up or castrated because youre a carrier, just that you cant have blood children. Adopt.

So are you arguing it should be legal to marry close blood relatives just not have biological children? The problem is you are intermingling marriage and reproduction in your argument.  Yes it is inhumane to limit who a person can marry because it may cause birth defects. Note: I'm being very careful NOT to apply the "slippery slope" argument to that statement also due to the poor logic involved. Should people reproduce with others when there is the high possibility of a birth defect from that coupling? Probably not, and doing so is very poor judgment all the way around. However, when you force the choice of reproduction on people it is a worse evil. They should be strongly encouraged and supported to find other mates (sperm donor/egg donor/adoption) for these couplings but you can not force it.

 

Marrying relatives in the US is not illegal because the "lineage created has been proven to cause deformities" it is illegal due to a combination of social and cultural values. There does exist a very real problem of increased genetic defects in offspring from closely related parents. But there are many other reasons that it is illegal, not just an increase in genetic defects and this prohibition is very old and with some exceptions nearly universal across cultures. Part of this is also some very basic biology involved in mate selection outside of close relationships. Non-biological opposite-sex sibling raised together from a very young age will tend to seek out mates different from that of those they were raised with, even if there is no biological relationship.

 

Also, by the very definition of how eugenics is applied you would actually in some cases seek to mate closely related parents to strengthen certain traits. This is extremely common in animal husbandry but they also allow culling of defective offspring too from large numbers of offspring. It should be noted when this is applied it is not uncommon to have genetic problems appear later anyways.

[Guest 510kamikazifreak]

 

 

fuck..another post

[bananahamuck]

We are all fucking doomed...

 

Who cares...

 

Enjoy today for what it is...

 

 

back to lurker mode

 

 

 

[Guest 510kamikazifreak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKiMbC6s2k

[Dguy210]

fuck..another post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mrbigtanker]

All this talk makes want to smoke a fat joint right now. B)

[Guest 510kamikazifreak]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:rofl: :rofl:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqXdPaUlWyg

 

 

this song was done the same  year as Claptons, but before... OG

 

:rofl:

[Ranman72]

here we go again 

IBTL

carry on