Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Svarte Troner]

To be honest, that's the only thing getting in the way of me supporting eugenics. Well, not killing people, but either genetically uplifting them and their children, or sterilization. But all I would really need is an objective indicator of who is "unworthy" for me to support it.

Yeah, I'm a terrible person. Y'all can hate me now.

PTW.

Slow down there Adolf  , I think we left forced sterilization and eugenics back in the 30's where they belong. Actually, I think I remember something about eugenics being used in the US up until the 70's or later and that many Americans would still support it if not for some reason I'm forgetting.

[Descan]

Well, I'm safe in that by the time we HAVE an objective method of discerning, I.E. AI, we'll either all be dead or all be machines.

;P

[Frumple]

Yeah... it's a pretty messed up thing to say, and I definitely realize it, but I do actually support sterilizing people that have a high chance of passing on certain genetic diseases, at least until we can gene-engineer them away. Frankly, there's some shit that if you're willing to risk passing it on to your kid, you need parenting privilege revoked, flat out. I'm not quite sure if it's something I'd criminalize (breeding when you've got over X percent -- 15, 20? Odds need to be a damn sight lower than one in ten or one in five before it's an acceptable risk), but I'd be pretty close to accepting that, too. There are levels of risk to reproduction that, if a person is willing to give it a go anyway, immoral is the kindest of words of them. And not knowing the risk beforehand...? In some ways, that's even worse.

It'd not something I'd have on the "the list", so to speak, but on a personal level one of the major reasons I'm not going to have children is because my family has a very strong history of depression and related mental illness. I'd consider myself a monster if I risked inflicting that on another human being Now, adoption? That's a possibility, but I'm getting m'self physically sterilized as soon as I have the income to afford the operation.

It would be nice if we had an easier and more reliable on/off switch for that, though, for both genders. We're probably working on it, somewhere or another.

Helluva' derail, though.

[kaijyuu]

I'm confident we'll cure a good chunk of the genetic diseases in the next century or so, so I don't think sterilization is necessary for anything like that.

Yeah, I'm a terrible person. Y'all can hate me now.

Pfft. I could never hate you. You're too awesome and cute

[Kedly]

I haven't been talking long on these forums, so this may paint a bad picture of who I am as a person, but I actually like the idea behind eugenics (trying to better our species), even if I am wary about how it can easily be abused and misused.

Edit: Tomorrow when I read the responces to that I am going to regret saying anything O.o

[kaijyuu]

Define "better." Because the only things I think possibly worth modifying through eugenics would be the elimination of genetic diseases, and even that I don't think worth it since alternatives will almost certainly be available relatively soon through things like genetic engineering. Save those diseases, there's nothing in our species' genes that needs to be culled, so there's no need for eugenics.


Personally I think we're doing just fine on the betterment front through our technology and ever expanding knowledge.

[Kedly]

Thats why I'm wary of it's exploitability. What is better is subjective, I am aware of that. But I like the idea of humanity being able to take control over control of it's evolution.

Edit: For the record, I am NOT for the sterilization of those who "have nothing to contribute" I just think the idea of breeding a smarter and more capable humanity is an interesting one. Although one that is bound to be exploited and used incorrectly.

Edit #2: Im for the breeding traits in part, not at all for the culling traits out part

[scriver]

I don't care how much of a contribution you make, noone has the right to put their own comfort over another's survival.

I assume you're posting this from a public library, having sold your PC and donated the money to a worthy charity?

So I'm a hypocrite.

No. There is one hell of a difference between owning your own computer and owning several mansions, giant yachts, or luxury cars or private planes, or just filling your home with unnecessarily expensive furniture, or only wearing the most expensive designer clothes, and wasting money on overpriced "status" food and drink. Just change the "comfort" above to "luxury", since that obviously (or well, at least I think so) was the spirit of your post to begin with.

[ed boy]

I don't care how much of a contribution you make, noone has the right to put their own comfort over another's survival.

I assume you're posting this from a public library, having sold your PC and donated the money to a worthy charity?

So I'm a hypocrite.

No. There is one hell of a difference between owning your own computer and owning several mansions, giant yachts, or luxury cars or private planes, or just filling your home with unnecessarily expensive furniture, or only wearing the most expensive designer clothes, and wasting money on overpriced "status" food and drink. Just change the "comfort" above to "luxury", since that obviously (or well, at least I think so) was the spirit of your post to begin with.

But that gap between wealthy and average here is pretty equivalent to the gap between average here and average in other places. You have just as much ability, if not more, to help the less fortunate in other places as the rich here do to help the poor here. If differences in wealth are what's important, then you should be giving a hell of a lot.

[scriver]

The difference is that you need a computer to function in modern society. It's not "the difference in wealth", wherever you got that from, it's the spending more money than what you need to live a good life in the society you live in. Want a tv? Sure, but you don't need more than one. Computer? Of course, but you don't have to buy a new one every few years. Car? Fine, but there's no need to buy an expensive one just because it has higher status. As I said above, it's not the wealth itself which makes you a bad or immoral person in my eyes, it's what you spend it on. If you like sailing or the sea and a boat will bring you great joy, there's no shame in buying one. The shame is in buying the most expensive one, or one of those ridiculously large yachts, when something smaller and cheaper would have done just as well.

[Ultimuh]

The difference is that you need a computer to function in modern society. It's not "the difference in wealth", wherever you got that from, it's the spending more money than what you need to live a good life in the society you live in. Want a tv? Sure, but you don't need more than one. Computer? Of course, but you don't have to buy a new one every few years. Car? Fine, but there's no need to buy an expensive one just because it has higher status. As I said above, it's not the wealth itself which makes you a bad or immoral person in my eyes, it's what you spend it on. If you like sailing or the sea and a boat will bring you great joy, there's no shame in buying one. The shame is in buying the most expensive one, or one of those ridiculously large yachts, when something smaller and cheaper would have done just as well.

Your view is kind of similar to mine.

Then again, if you own a lot of money, why not buy the best?
Ofcourse, the richer you are the bigger responsibilities you have and should not be a jerk to the less fortunate.

[ed boy]

The difference is that you need a computer to function in modern society. It's not "the difference in wealth", wherever you got that from, it's the spending more money than what you need to live a good life in the society you live in. Want a tv? Sure, but you don't need more than one. Computer? Of course, but you don't have to buy a new one every few years. Car? Fine, but there's no need to buy an expensive one just because it has higher status. As I said above, it's not the wealth itself which makes you a bad or immoral person in my eyes, it's what you spend it on. If you like sailing or the sea and a boat will bring you great joy, there's no shame in buying one. The shame is in buying the most expensive one, or one of those ridiculously large yachts, when something smaller and cheaper would have done just as well.

In that case, you've got to clarify what you mean by 'function in modern society'. Evidently you don't mean just biological survival, otherwise you wouldn't have included things like television. But some things that might seem unnecessary are in fact quite important. For example, if you're a lawyer, then a flashy car and a designer suit can be important, because you want people to think that you're rich and therefore think you're successful.

When you say that it's bad to spend money on something big because something smaller and cheaper will do just as well, it is very much a case of why someone buys something, and what qualifies that something working as desired. It's very easy to say that cheap cars are better than expensive ones if you only consider moving from a to b, but when you consider appearances it becomes a lot more complicated. Similarly, a living in a large, fancy house is different to living in a small one, so you'd have to be using a pretty crude metric to say that they're just as good.

[Eagle_eye]

I would say that you can spend your income however you like, up to a point. The average income, as far as I'm aware, is around 50k a year. Very few people are going to be perfect and donate everything they possibly can, but if you make more than 50k or so, that income should be going either to absolute essentials like healthcare if you're unfortunate enough to be sick without insurance, or else to charity.

[sneakey pete]

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the people saying that people should only buy the minimum to survive etc actually support themselves with full time jobs, and how many people advocating eugenics have kids...

[Darvi]

and how many people advocating eugenics have kids...

I don't :V