Print

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

[Criptfeind]

What do you mean by financial incentives? There already is financial incentives in the forum of crushing medical bills for most things. Do you want to add to that? Or what? As for forced sterilization. Well. That's a pretty fucking slippery slope. And it seems like a pretty bad solution when you can just kick the ethical ball into the geneticist court. Or at least will be able to in a few generations.

I mean no tax benefits for having kids, possibly tax hikes, or even a tax break for not having children. And forced sterilization would be so repulsive to the public at large that you can be sure that at best sterilizing those with lethal illnesses would be barely tolerated at best. It would take a dictatorship to expand it to anything beyond that, and we're already screwed if that happens.

Piff. Yeah right. I bet about 40% of America right now would vote yes on sterilization of homosexuals. Just because we don't like something now or that we do like something now does not mean that in a generation or two the idea of right will be completely different. In the end we can do so very little to actually change what our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will actually do. The best we can truly hope for at this stage is to look for polices that will transcend the morality changes over time. And even then in the end we can't know that our actions now will not be reviled for all of history.

So what I am saying is that allowing things like that is pretty short sighted. Whenever you accept something as a "acceptable evil" you are making it easier to accept something even worse latter on, and you need to keep that in mind when you decide if the evil is really "acceptable"

Also man dude. People already are punished for having children. Especially children with 'issues'. I find it unfathomable why you want to add more to the hardships they already have. You have told me what you mean by it, but not why the natural punishments are not enough already.

[Eagle_eye]

Because, people do it anyway. Obviously the incentives not to have a child at risk of a fatal genetic disorder are not sufficient.

[inteuniso]

I see no genetic point in it, seeing as more mutation will only lead to a better chance at producing better humans.

I do think that there should be more of an emphasis on mixing of the ethnicities. It will lead to fewer genetic diseases, a more homogenous society that is attracted to each other physically and is physically attractive, and there shouldn't be any problems with intelligence.

You don't see as many health problems with mutts than you do with pure breeds is all I'm saying.

[kaenneth]

I wonder if the opposite affect is happening naturally.

If poor uneducated people have more children than wealthy educated people...

Does welfare literally breed failure?

[Criptfeind]

Because, people do it anyway. Obviously the incentives not to have a child at risk of a fatal genetic disorder are not sufficient.

Exactly that people do it anyway. That seems to indicate that punishments are not the best way to stop it, if it is even a thing to be stopped. Not to mention that punishing the adults in such a way will also punish the child.

How far are we from being able to fix these issues anyway? Because I can't see us being more then a generation or two until real alternatives to "punishing people for doing things I don't like in ways that may or may not actually stop them but will certainly make a hard life even worse". Like I said, it would be much better to punt the ethical concern down the line to fixing the issues rather then (ineffectively) punishing people for having them.

It's a pretty dark path you go down ether way, but at least we would only have to walk one.

Does welfare literally breed failure?

No. Not over the time scales we are talking about and not with our current set up that is based on what class you are born into way more then anything like what your abilities are.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I motion that if anybody mentions that movie from this point onwards that this thread should be immediately and permanently locked. Don't pretend you don't know the one I mean. It gets brought up as "evidence" in every thread about genetics, eugenics, or population growth.

[Criptfeind]

Why lock the thread? Punish the person, not the thread.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This thread is kind of on the edge to begin with, and if it delves into the utter absurdity that these kinds of threads usually do then it should be locked.

[Leafsnail]

I see no genetic point in it, seeing as more mutation will only lead to a better chance at producing better humans.

I do think that there should be more of an emphasis on mixing of the ethnicities. It will lead to fewer genetic diseases, a more homogenous society that is attracted to each other physically and is physically attractive, and there shouldn't be any problems with intelligence.

You don't see as many health problems with mutts than you do with pure breeds is all I'm saying.

I agree.  Selective breeding works great for getting an animal to perform a specific task well or look the way you want, but it doesn't make that animal happy, healthy or varied enough to take on new challenges.  The whole reason we have sex in the first place is to allow for variation and new things as a result of mixing.

[misko27]

I think this thread was a terrible idea, and Helgo should be hanged,
 
All in favor say Aye! Everyoen else just sit there, quietly.

[penguinofhonor]

I don't think people who talk about eugenics should be allowed to breed.

[PanH]

I don't think people who talk about eugenics should be allowed to breed.

There's probably a gene for that. Wait, I didn't say anything.

[Loud Whispers]

What about actual genetic modification of the embryo? Give them a higher IQ, or a certain hair color, or - as the inspiration for this thread was - strictly heterosexual.
I'm no comfortable with these things, but hard-pressed to find good counterarguments.

You are no longer creating life with their life in mind. You are creating their life to entirely serve and fit you. This is why we don't have human clones either.

[Frumple]

I'm... relatively certain that's not actually why we don't have human clones?

Last I checked we don't have them mostly because they're really cost inefficient (for now) and can't do much more than a good screw and some time would manage.

There's ethical concerns, too, such, but I'm pretty sure creation of, like, identical twin slaves isn't high on the list?

[Hiiri]

I see no genetic point in it, seeing as more mutation will only lead to a better chance at producing better humans.

Err, isn't the exact opposite true? Considering healthcare is able to keep many people alive, who would have been "selected out" otherwise.

Besides, aren't most mutations harmful?