In defence of eugenics (1 Viewer)

[Craven]

I'm wondering what the notion of 'self-awareness' has to do with genetic cloning and screening of certain genetic traits - which is mostly where the concept of eugenics is leading in the 21st cenutry? Shouldn't we be more concerned with discrimination between 'superior' human beings and 'us'? It's like, why do we want to inflict this kind of division on ourselves after we all have all seemed to work constantly to eradicate division, in the sense that while we are all different, we are all human? Breeding super-humans pretty much goes against that notion. It removes the only common trait we all have with each other - that we are all arbitrarily unique.

P.S. LOL @ Iron

 

[Graney]

Superior humans would be useful in as much as they would be superior. They would get more shit done, better. The world would be a better place with them working amongst us.

People are in no way born equal currently anyway. There are huge divisions and they are widening, between the first world nations and the rest of the world, and even within first world nations. Equality is a myth, there's no such thing, it does not exist and we are not headed for it. Discrimination exists everywhere and always will.

Among certain essential human rights, we should aim for equality, but that doesn't mean we can't make the people of the first world better, healthier, smarter, stronger.

 

[Craven]

Would not making the people of the third world better healthier smarter and stronger be more effective towards 'equality'? Ah, but we couldn't do that... imagine what people would think! There's nothing wrong with people the way they are born. If people did what they were best suited to then the world would run quite smoothly. Why make people smarter or stronger when we can just get robots and computers to do that for us?

 

[Graney]

It's quite possible in my opinion that apes, dolphins etc etc have this quality, but this is yet to be proven and will probably require a greater neurological understanding of our own brains.

Should the precautionary principle be applied to animals? Why not "self-aware until proven otherwise" rather than the contrary proposition you're accepting out of convenience?

Capacity for suffering is more important than self-awareness imo anyway.

 

[Graney]

Would not making the people of the third world better healthier smarter and stronger be more effective towards 'equality'?

Sure, that's a great idea, and we should do that too, and that doesn't rule out making high level genetic enhancements available to the first world.

There's nothing wrong with people the way they are born.

There are things wrong with plenty of people...

We could make existing strengths better, and positive traits more common. A high level of intelligence could be more common.

Why make people smarter or stronger when we can just get robots and computers to do that for us?

No machine can think or physically perform to the same capacity as a human being a present. There is a weight of evidence to say they will never be capable of this.
It may be impossible to program a computer to achieve anything like human thoughts and reasoning. For physical tasks, machines offer a far lower power-to-weight ratio compared to any biological organism. Simply put, a mechanical machine has to be far heavier to be as strong as a man, this is a major limit on design. Machines also will never be as flexible and adaptive as a man.

Biological life will always be more efficient for most jobs.

 

[Graney]

Why is it acceptable for rich westerners to be given better education than everyone else, but not better breeding?

What is the moral difference between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons?

 

[Craven]

But what can you possibly need a human with more strength for? Do I wonder?

It all seems a bit pointless to me. Making everyone smarter/stronger for no real purpose except to make us all the same. There's no need to try anymore, because you don't have to try.. you're already smart enough/strong enough/talented enough. There is no motivation to excel, no motivation to live beyond your current existence. The key to apathetic society. You argue why make kids learn an instrument when they can just be programmed with that knowledge from birth... utterly ridiculous. Learning an instrument, for example, should be done because one is interested in it. Just like dancing or a sport or anything.

You argue that equality does not exist nor will ever exist but your very notion of eugenics is to create equality... to eliminate all traits which differentiate ourselves - surely this demonstrates that eugenics is an impossible science. Perhaps I'm being extreme, but there's no doubting that to stray towards this course would inevitably bring the human race to this point.

 

[Craven]

Why is it acceptable for rich westerners to be given better education than everyone else, but not better breeding?

Is it acceptable? That's the question.

 

[Graney]

Alright, I thought of a simple and conclusive argument against what you're saying about equality.

If the aim is to make all global people's equal, it would be far easier to bring the people of the first world down to the standard of the third world, rather than the reverse, which we're trying to do.

Why don't we do this?

Because we're trying to make the world the best it can be, for everyone. We might be trying to bring up the standard of the third world, but this has never stopped us from trying to improve the standard of the first world at the same time.

Just because the west has much better education and access to resources never made us go "omg, stop improving the wests better educational systems, you're reinforcing inequality".

Introducing eugenic enhancements to the first world does nothing to stop the third world from improving, and may in fact help them. Populations of individuals with greater collective intelligence may help work towards alleviating poverty globally.

 

[Graney]

Is it acceptable? That's the question.

Sure we should aim for the rest of the world to recieve equal education, but it's practically impossible, due to demographic and sociological problems.

We can improve the Wests education and other resources, while constantly striving for the third world to catch up.

We don't need to halt the Wests development, just because everyone can't have a slice, at least not where we're not being directly detrimental and exploitative of the developing world.

 

[Graney]

Frankly, the developed world has a moral responsibility to not be exploitative of the third world and that's it. That is all our responsibilities

We have no responsibility to force developing nations, kicking and screaming into the modern developed world.

They need to look after their own shit.

The West should develop to the benefit of their people as much and as far as they like, while acting in a globally sustainable fashion. This is moral. Anything else is charity. Charity that acts to the detriment of the people you took on a duty of care to look after, is immoral. Our government not doing everything they can to further our standard of living is immoral.

 

[Craven]

Just because the west has much better education and access to resources never made us go "omg, stop improving the wests better educational systems, you're reinforcing inequality".

Introducing eugenic enhancements to the first world does nothing to stop the third world from improving, and may in fact help them. Populations of individuals with greater collective intelligence may help work towards alleviating poverty globally.

I guess that means we aren't self-aware after all, eh?

Intelligence has nothing to do with third world hunger - it's all about money and I don't think making Western fat cats biologically superior as well as economically superior is going to do a fat lot of good for the third world. No way. In fact, I think it will pretty much destroy any chance of the third world surviving. We don't need famished, weakling third world humans now that we've got super humans. Let them die... why feed them? It's our money hard-earned money (from exploiting them, mind you).

Sure we should aim for the rest of the world to recieve equal education, but it's practically impossible, due to demographic and sociological problems.

i.e. Western (economic) greed and the downright fact we don't give a shit.

We can improve the Wests education and other resources, while constantly striving for the third world to catch up.

We don't need to halt the Wests development, just because everyone can't have a slice, at least not where we're not being directly detrimental and exploitative of the developing world.

Perhaps we are self-aware after all.. that we are absolute total assholes and can just continue to exploit other humans for our own personal gain. It is, after all, humanity.

 

[Craven]

Frankly, the developed world has a moral responsibility to not be exploitative of the third world and that's it. That is all our responsibilities

We have no responsibility to force developing nations, kicking and screaming into the modern developed world.

They need to look after their own shit.

The West should develop to the benefit of their people as much and as far as they like, while acting in a globally sustainable fashion. This is moral. Anything else is charity. Charity that acts to the detriment of the people you took on a duty of care to look after, is immoral. Our government not doing everything they can to further our standard of living is immoral.

This is an oxymoron. We take from them, we destroy their natural resources for our own advancement. And we are looking after our own shit? They can't possibly look after themselves when they are crushing under our imperialist toes....

 

[Graney]

I guess that means we aren't self-aware after all, eh?

Intelligence has nothing to do with third world hunger - it's all about money and I don't think making Western fat cats biologically superior as well as economically superior is going to do a fat lot of good for the third world. No way. In fact, I think it will pretty much destroy any chance of the third world surviving. We don't need famished, weakling third world humans now that we've got super humans. Let them die... why feed them? It's our money hard-earned money (from exploiting them, mind you).

What do you propose then? A global socialist totalitarian government freely and equally distributing all the worlds wealth?

How do you achieve the greatest equality, other than being angsty and wingeing about greedy western fatcats?

Harping about what morality you think people should hold does nothing.

i.e. Western (economic) greed and the downright fact we don't give a shit.

Why don't african nations that are hugely corrupt and constantly at war, both civil and international, and constantly fuck the shit out their own development, have education systems as good as the west?
Why don't women in muslim nations receive the same standard of education as Westerners?
Must be those evil westerners.

Perhaps we are self-aware after all.. that we are absolute total assholes and can just continue to exploit other humans for our own personal gain. It is, after all, humanity.

I'm trying to stress that all western development is not, and need not be contrary to third world development. Our education systems being great has nothing to do with why third world education sucks.

 

[Graney]

This is an oxymoron.

What is an oxymoron?

We take from them, we destroy their natural resources for our own advancement. And we are looking after our own shit? They can't possibly look after themselves when they are crushing under our imperialist toes....

Not all development needs to be unsustainable. I'm not defending all western development and a lot of it shouldn't happen.

The West has improved a lot in it's relations with the developing world, but has more to do.

I don't think sustainable development and eugenics have much to do with each other.

 

[Graney]

No way. In fact, I think it will pretty much destroy any chance of the third world surviving. We don't need famished, weakling third world humans now that we've got super humans. Let them die... why feed them? It's our money hard-earned money (from exploiting them, mind you).

We can hold onto existing morality and there are many reasons why we should and would.

Proposition X (we have superior humans) does not mean we must validate proposition Y (all humans are entitled to basic rights).

We can hold that all human rights are inviolable and absolute, all men should be entitled to equal opportunity, even if their born abilities are scientifically proven not equal.

 

[tommykins]

oxymoron is a statement which contradicts itself (often comes in 2 words) ie. pretty ugly, bitter sweet

 

[cxlxoxk]

Applying eugenics would be similar to going back to middle ages...when the royalty only wedded with other royalty, and were not seeking commoners/peasants...

Noone should be created with superior abilities through scientific research/technology (selecting "good genes" and eliminating "bad ones") it should all come naturally...because it just creates and encourages a seperation between "superior" people and "normal" people, when in fact they are all the same in that they are people (human).

What if eugenics went to far and created something like the difference between Kryptonians (fictional) and Humans...???

What if some of these humans with with enhanced abilities, used their superior abilities, to do evil?

 

[KFunk]

Sooo, I have human rights because I understand that I have human rights?

I'm inclined to say that you have human rights if society collectively agrees to grant you human rights (moral nihilism, social construction, etc). There may be criteria attached, e.g. that it is a prerequisite that you possess a certain degree of self-awareness and conscious experience (such that a bee or a brainless fetus do not qualify), though they are bound to be ill-defined.

 

[KFunk]

Intelligence has nothing to do with third world hunger - it's all about money and I don't think making Western fat cats biologically superior as well as economically superior is going to do a fat lot of good for the third world. No way. In fact, I think it will pretty much destroy any chance of the third world surviving. We don't need famished, weakling third world humans now that we've got super humans. Let them die... why feed them? It's our money hard-earned money (from exploiting them, mind you).

We could engineer a 'global' moral conscience.