Print

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

[Helgoland]

Is Helgoland really our only German?

Naah, but I'm the most vocal one.
(This probably applies even if I'm in a room full of germans - I'm a bit of a loudmouth )

...Leave it to the one German on the forums to create a thread about eugenics.

Either this is a joke, that simply isn't funny or I'm speechless.

I guess (hope) it's a joke, but I believe scriver considers

...Leave it to the one German on the forums to create a thread about eugenics.

Either this is a joke, that simply isn't funny or I'm speechless.

me somewhat... authoritarian.
(Goddamn liberal communist punk hippies, once I rise to power I'll... oh, still typing. Sorry 'bout that )

What error, misko?

[Kadzar]

Heh, I started a thread about this a while back and it was locked in a few days.

Eugenics doesn't work in practice. Not being born is worse than inheriting a fatal genetic disorder. It's an interesting concept, but like the right to vote, everyone will insist that they're good enough for it.

Plus, people with disorders are often some of the best at what they do. Humans are probably some of the weakest animals in history - no claws, no poison, slow, babies take too long to become not helpless. But because of this weakness, they mastered tools.

Oh, yeah, definitely. In fact, just today I read an article about a man named Apollo Robins who was born with, among some other things, severely impaired fine motor skills. He underwent physical training to overcome this, and eventually grew up to be such a master pickpocket that he's been able to contribute to neuroscience some information on the nature of perception.

[Criptfeind]

Not being born is worse than inheriting a fatal genetic disorder.

Is it though? Seriously, that seems like a personal choice to be made on a case by case basis by the person in question. I will give you that sometimes it is true. But not always.

Humans are probably some of the weakest animals in history - no claws, no poison, slow, babies take too long to become not helpless. But because of this weakness, they mastered tools.

This seems like. Maybe not right. Humans didn't say to each other one day "Oh shit man! No claws? No teeth? No scales?! Better find out how to make some fucking spears." Humans are not actually weak in a number of areas, and even then we evolved our intellect and physical bodies in tandem.

I guess it does not really matter, but what you said really bothered me for some reason. But. Whatever.

[andrea]

say what you want about our "frail" bodies, but it seems we are one of the few species that can afford to chase prey until it collapses from exhaustion ( at least under the hot african sun. but I see no reason to negate home advantage).

[Leafsnail]

This seems like. Maybe not right. Humans didn't say to each other one day "Oh shit man! No claws? No teeth? No scales?! Better find out how to make some fucking spears." Humans are not actually weak in a number of areas, and even then we evolved our intellect and physical bodies in tandem.

I guess it does not really matter, but what you said really bothered me for some reason. But. Whatever.

Yeah this is true.  Firstly humans do have a few physical strengths:
- Being able to sweat all over the body allows us to be active in very hot weather where most other animals would have to give up
- Having two legs means we are actually one of the fastest animals over short distances
- Opposable thumbs (useful even without building tools - most animals can't withstand a barrage of rocks)

These three things would make humans very effective in their home ground of the savannah (probably mainly as scavengers/gatherers), and then the development of larger brains combined with tool use probably eventually allowed them to spread out.

[10ebbor10]

Also, the bipedal configuration helps reduce overheating (less solar energy incoming), and gives us a higher vantage point.

[miauw62]

Wow, I didn't think a single translated quote would start a thread...

[scriver]

Is Helgoland really our only German?

Naah, but I'm the most vocal one.
(This probably applies even if I'm in a room full of germans - I'm a bit of a loudmouth )

...Leave it to the one German on the forums to create a thread about eugenics.

Either this is a joke, that simply isn't funny or I'm speechless.

I guess (hope) it's a joke, but I believe scriver considers me somewhat... authoritarian.
(Goddamn liberal communist punk hippies, once I rise to power I'll... oh, still typing. Sorry 'bout that )

What error, misko?

Listen, Don't. Mention. The war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm 100% pro-eugenics-like-stuff, and 100% anti-actual-implementations-of-eugenics.

Really, classic Eugenics is the equivalent of saying "Lets create a chihuahua by neutering every Great Bernard we can find!"

It's... beyond stupid. It's worse than stupid, because you know it has to be willful stupidity, a lie to themselves, because of how stupid it is.

Regardless, I definitely support guided evolution of humans, but any attempt at guidance at a species-level is both highly immoral and laughably doomed to failure, in addition to being... poorly thought out. No one can be optimized for everything, after all.

Rather, work creating subpopulations specializing in certain things (both genetically and culturally - those things can not be taken separately, they reinforce each other!) would, I think, be highly beneficial, and hell, this is the sort of thing that happens anyways, we might as well try to put it towards good ends.

And as long as whatever organization pushes for it doesn't violate things like consent or has immoral end-goals in mind, I don't see how it would be even slightly immoral.

But yeah, that's not exactly Eugenics, just selective breeding. So anti-eugenics, pro-selective-breeding.

[Criptfeind]

So instead of trying to make the whole human race better. You want to make sub human slave races?

[Loud Whispers]

So instead of trying to make the whole human race better. You want to make sub human slave races?

I think he means genetic specialization towards tasks. Which could not be implemented in a morally sound way.

These three things would make humans very effective in their home ground of the savannah (probably mainly as scavengers/gatherers), and then the development of larger brains combined with tool use probably eventually allowed them to spread out.

*Larger brains =/= useful or even smarter animals. We also have rather effective brains.

[misko27]

Is Helgoland really our only German?

Naah, but I'm the most vocal one.
(This probably applies even if I'm in a room full of germans - I'm a bit of a loudmouth )

...Leave it to the one German on the forums to create a thread about eugenics.

Either this is a joke, that simply isn't funny or I'm speechless.

I guess (hope) it's a joke, but I believe scriver considers

...Leave it to the one German on the forums to create a thread about eugenics.

Either this is a joke, that simply isn't funny or I'm speechless.

me somewhat... authoritarian.
(Goddamn liberal communist punk hippies, once I rise to power I'll... oh, still typing. Sorry 'bout that )

What error, misko?

The error in not realizing that Perhaps opening a Eugenics thread, as a German of all things, open you up to, criticism.

[toomanysecrets]

Eugenics: in my view any level is unacceptable.

But to me, eugenics is the idea that certain people are "inferior" and should not breed, and alternatively that certain people are "superior" and should breed more.

This is entirely different from the idea of checking for genetic defects and trying to prevent them.  If your prevention method is sterilization, abortion, or removing incentives, then you are a eugenicist.  If you want to detect diseases and prevent them or treat them, well you are simply preserving human life and that has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics.

Once you get out of the realm of disease treatment and prevention and start talking about "improving" the human species, "guided evolution" and such things, this is genetic modification and I don't think this really falls under the category of eugenics at all, unless you expand the definition but who wants to re-define this old word, who in their right mind wants to re-introduce the concept of eugenics and try to make it trendy and modern??  It is an outdated, barbaric relic of the past.

[Eagleon]

1. I'll give you that, but 2. I'm willing to bet that most gay people who have conceived did so before they learned they were gay, or, at least, before they came out of the closet. Sterilizing such people is like cutting off the horse's balls after it's left the barn, or however that saying goes.

Sorry, I know it's on the last pagetwo pages back, but this bugged me. You've never heard of the concept of surrogates? Straight people use them, even, when one in the couple is infertile. Plenty of gay couples want kids.

It is an outdated, barbaric relic of the past.

Is it? Or are you being controlled through political correctness by the barbarians that have abused it? Control of reproduction is only one way to affect a population's hereditary traits, and eugenicists would have (and did, in their crude way) embraced what you do. Separating the racism from genuine improvements is why eugenics isn't acceptable yet. I don't think we're there yet. I don't know if we ever will be. But we shouldn't hash terms, because it's pretty important to remember that people did thoroughly abuse it when it was attempted before.

[javierpwn]

Really and truly, any ANimal breeding program is eugenics....
And many people still follow the practice of breeding animals for strange or helpful traits like:
Horses:Speed, endurance, rank
Dogs:Pure bred, Endurance, Hunting, Fighting
Cats:Fur, Lovability
Chickens: Size of certain cuts
Cows: ability to retain fat,size
Rats: Ability to withstand testing/disease

And many other random experiments with breeding frogs, chickens,bturkeys for strange results