Why the common man is ignorant about the beneficial aspects of eugenics. All seems to equate it with Hitler?

Question

The effect of nurture is wellknown. But along with nurture the gene has an important role to play. But the fashion today is to oppose eugenics blindly. Eugenics can alleviate suffering. It does not create homzygosity. It is not against nature. Actually what is against nature is the present mode of reproduction.

Answer 1

eugenics would take away human rights! that is not for you or anybody else to decide.

let's sterilize you first, Kay?

You need to get right with God, not play God.

Suffering is normal, how can you say the present mode of reproduction is "UN-natural" ?

when you decide which people are "genetically superior"
how do you think the "genetically unusable" people will be treated? Haven't you learned anything from History?Who decides these factors?

nihilism is based off the thought that some people are better in some way or another then somebody else, so these "higher"
beings have the right to decide the fate of the "lesser" peoples....

How can you not see the connection?

Answer 2

The right to inheritance is an unspoken-about cancer on all civilizations. Besides, if the heirheads are so genetically superior, wouldn't they be successes without Daddy's help anyway?

Because of random mixing of inherited genes, the parents' combined intelligence is a poor indicator to use for eugenics. Second, the child may be a throwback to a superior or inferior ancient ancestor. It's best to develop the results we have under the present system. Only an inferior person demands the easiest starting material.

Answer 3

Eugenics is equated with Hitler because lots of white supremacist types are into the idea. "Undesirables" tend to be groups like Native Americans and blacks. I can easily see arguments nowadays being made against illegal immigrants- but only the Hispanic ones.

Eugenics is bad because people are complicated, and we just don't understand much about them right now. Okay, so it seems logical that poor people with criminal records shouldn't have kids. But the poverty and the criminal records don't mean they aren't intelligent, lovely people. And wealth doesn't equal good parenting. I won't even go into racial questions, because anyone thinking one race is better than another really needs to open their eyes. People are complicated and can constantly surprise. Look at all the great minds who've come out of humble backgrounds- Shakespeare, any of the robber barons really, Lincoln...

And then there's the fact that we're not so hot at breeding that we should be doing it to people. Purebred dogs tend to have more health problems. Overbreeding weakens the stock somehow. Sometimes we even manage to breed out one desirable trait while trying to achieve another. Practising eugenics on humans and putting aside questions of basic human rights and dignity, we may very well end up with smart people who get cancer in their thirties or disease-resistant folks who can't add one and one.

And then, ew, talk about your scary fascist states, with their mittens in everyone's business.

Answer 4

You're very adept at double talk and bullshit, but its obvious you don't know a thing a bout genetics. It has been scientifically prov-en, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that every human being on the planet today, black, white, red or yellow, can be traced back to a single mother living about 150,000 years ago. WE'RE ALL RELATED!! Tribal upliftment? Who says they want to be anything more than they are? And just who is it that makes the determination of who needs "uplifting" and who doesn't? You? God, I hope not.

Answer 5

I think the problems we are facing with eugenics and communism as well as other social "taboos" are that humans have tried to apply them at a federal level instead of a state or local level first.

Answer 6

The same thing could be said about a lot of topics. Communism, for example, is supposed to be about each person giving what he or she is able and always having whatever he or she needs. But we think of the failed Soviet Union, the tyrrany of Stalin, and so on, instead. What happened? When ideas are put into practice, they change. The power that comes from ideas - all ideas, even good ones - can corrupt people - all people, even good people. Communism required a centralization of power; instead of creating equality, the wielders of that power did other things.

Eugenics was a popular topic of discussion in the United States before World War II. Though there were no breeding programs, there were programs of sterilization for people suffering from mental retardation and other conditions. It's still something people talk about, though the word is no longer in favor -- it's simpler to refer to genetics more broadly. You can go to a geneticist to discuss what your children may be like. He or she will be able to tell you about the likelihood of certain diseases or traits based on your family history.

Applied eugenics as proposed by Hitler, among others, took it a step further. The goal was centralized authority over reproduction, the creation of breeding programs for human beings. It is true that certain traits could be bred for, the same thing we do with dogs or cattle. It is true that certain diseases could be avoided if we were only allowed to have children with people who met a compatible genetic profile. Such programs would allow some people to reproduce a lot, while others would not be allowed to reproduce at all, because their offspring might have "defects."

Yes, this is what nature does, at least in part. We don't entirely understand what all animals are doing, but we know that animals choose the strongest, or the best looking, or the one that can provide most food, always attempting to have strong, viable offspring.

The problem with creating such a program for human beings is really the centralization of power it would require. Who gets to decide who should have children, and with whom? A government agency? Are you comfortable with that?

Although it results in some imperfect decisions, I prefer to see this power left in the hands of individuals. You are free to choose a partner based on whatever criteria you select. You'll need to convince whomever you choose that it's meant to be, and, if you can't, you'll have to choose again, but you're free to pursue whatever vision of perfection your heart desires. You are free to consult a geneticist in the process. You are free to avoid having children if you discover they will be likely to suffer from a condition or trait you despise. You are free to make choices that will give you an optimal chance of healthy offspring. You and your partner will make these choices together. If you give up this power to someone else, they may not always make choices that are truly in your interest.

Even when every possible measure is taken, it might not work. Among AKC breeds -- purebread dogs -- there are many problems. These animals are bread for appearances or specific traits rather than for overall health, and they suffer as a result. In the wild, they would choose based on different criteria and eventually all look more or less the same, like the wild dogs of Africa. Creating a breed requires numerous generations, and animals who fall short of the required standards must be sterilized or discarded. What would we do with the children who fall short of our genetic hopes?

In the end, though I applaud your willingness to reconsider this idea based on its own merits and apart from the taint attached to it by association, I don't think it's for me. I would not personally support a program that took away individual choice, however well intentioned. I hope people can learn to use the power of their choices wisely. We create a better world not by giving the power of the masses to one authority, but by waking each individual to his or her responsibility.

Answer 7

They haven't figured out how to best market the concept yet, so they keep it under wraps. It's all a matter of time..

Answer 8

we have to be very carefull here this could be exploited by politicians