Epicmafia

Eugenics

over 8 years

I think it is time Sandbox had a discussion about eugenics, the improvement of the human population by controlled breeding to increase desirable characteristics. Personally I don't think anyone should dictate what others do with their children as well as with their countrymen so if you don't like da eugenic rules in your country MOVE!

I hereby

10 signed

vow to not genetically modify my children.

deletedover 8 years

i wear glasses that means i desserved to be eugenicsed please fuckieng kill me

Eddyward

over 8 years

Policy is a form of eugenics

TheWitch

over 8 years

I support eugenics

cub

over 8 years

also i have dark brown eyes and my vision is totally shot

cub

over 8 years

people can have white eyes and not lose eyesight, eye color is just a symptom in that case

i imagine at first improving vision would also lead to darker eye pigmentation though just as a side effect of more development

deletedover 8 years

People with lighter eyes are at greater risk of macular degeneration and other eye problems.

cub

over 8 years

eye and hair color are objectively neutral

skin color is actually regional and humans will naturally migrate to a climate suitable to their pigmentation; there are more white people in cold places and more black people in hot places. eugenics doesnt even have to bother with this, comfort alone manages this

figure has no real effect on function, so body type is neutral

breast and size are also neutral and despite what you might think have no practical bearing, so that's neutral

basically everything that isn't a disease or obvious health problem is clearly excluded

what's not excluded is cancer, diabetes, malformation, hearing and vision impairment, etc.

deletedover 8 years

BaneofMafia says

2. No one knows what a genetically ideal humanity would look like.

cub

over 8 years

BaneofMafia says

cub says

i think everyone can agree heritable cancer and diabetes are good to get rid of

usually things like this would be decided by a governing body of experts, you know like how you can't trust donald trump to run the united states which is why we have congress that basically does it instead

I disagree.

1. Disease serves a fundamental purpose in decreasing our population. Eliminating disease opens us to the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to very limited resources. Limited resources leads to competition for those resources, namely war, and the horrors that accompany it. This falls under my second point.

2. Trying to fix things sometimes cause more problems. Genetically improved humans might feel superior to non-improveds and cause conflicts. Improved humans may have an advantage in war and may serve as soldiers for the wrong authoritarian dictator or even democratic idealists.

2. No one knows what a genetically ideal humanity would look like. I for one do not trust politicians or even scientists to make such decisions. Editing our genetic makeup has huge implications for science, philosophy, government, everything. No one on this planet is versed in all fields so as to confidently discern which traits we should keep and which we should get rid of to better reduce the suffering of all beings.

1. i suppose you think war is wonderful for stagnating population growth as well? eugenics necessarily results in fewer births, so this argument aside from being contrary to modern medicine is self-defeating

2. are you telling me crippleds and diabetics are viewed the same as models and actors right now? eugenics would elevate everyone to a higher level, it would by virtue solve this problem which already exists

3. again, tell me who thinks cancer is good.

cub

over 8 years

eugenics based on looks is gross and makes everyone think eugenics is bad

it's for diseases and at most healthier genetics

tigermom

over 8 years

sweetnkind says

tigermom says

I'm a foreign speaker so I guess sorry? What I meant to say was that: disease is not an effective method of diminishing population size (which BaneOfMafia saw as the most important thing) in Western societies because of how advanced medicine here is. However, eugenics and government-controlled birthrates (like the one child policy in China) CAN control the population size and not let it reach the carrying capacity.

i liked the post before the edit, please put back"Your ignorance to the fact that I am a foreign English language speaker would normally deem you not worthy of another sentence in my eyes, but since it is Advent and I am supposed to act good (supposedly)

Do it if you feel there was anything of value said in it (I assume you have it saved?), I don't personally.

deletedover 8 years

its all gone now its been erased put it back put it back reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

deletedover 8 years

tigermom says

I'm a foreign speaker so I guess sorry? What I meant to say was that: disease is not an effective method of diminishing population size (which BaneOfMafia saw as the most important thing) in Western societies because of how advanced medicine here is. However, eugenics and government-controlled birthrates (like the one child policy in China) CAN control the population size and not let it reach the carrying capacity.

i liked the post before the edit, please put back"Your ignorance to the fact that I am a foreign English language speaker would normally deem you not worthy of another sentence in my eyes, but since it is Advent and I am supposed to act good (supposedly)

deletedover 8 years

tigermom says

Actually, eugenics would work way better at fighting overpopulation in western society where medicine prevents less healthier people to survive.

your eloquence is unparalleled

deletedover 8 years

tigermom says

3. Eugenics is not necessarily about genetically modifying people.

I didn't say individual people. I understand what eugenics is. You are still genetically modifying populations. Populations which can feel superior to non-modified populations.

deletedover 8 years

dahoaf says

BaneofMafia says

1. Disease serves a fundamental purpose in decreasing our population. Eliminating disease opens us to the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to very limited resources. Limited resources leads to competition for those resources, namely war, and the horrors that accompany it. This falls under my second point.

after an entire history of human civilization of improving public health and eradicating disease, we're expected to embrace it as the only method to lower population to acceptable levels? i can't think of a politically feasible way for world leaders to say "f*ck it, let the blood flow" and let disease run rampant. malthus would be proud of us using economics rather than ebola to bring population back to carrying capacity

I didn't say it was the only method. We're not even using disease to control population like a tool. Its simply an aspect of nature outside of our control. We can try to control it by coming up with cures. But it leads to overpopulation which may destroy us. This is Malthus' thesis. I'm not sure where or how he argues economics as a tool for population control.

deletedover 8 years

tigermom says

BaneofMafia says

2. Eugenics is not necessarily about genetically modifying people, it is about not allowing people who possess genetic disorders to reproduce. Healthy and hot people (this is just an example of someone who is "perfect" or "superior") have existed since the dawn of time and I know of no instances where they themselves suddenly decided they were superior to others, "inferior" people and deemed themselves fit to rule them.

tigermom

over 8 years

BaneofMafia says

1. Actually, eugenics would work way better at fighting overpopulation in western society where medicine prevents less healthier people to survive.

2. Eugenics is not necessarily about genetically modifying people, it is about not allowing people who possess genetic disorders to reproduce. Healthy and hot people (this is just an example of someone who is "perfect" or "superior") have existed since the dawn of time and I know of no instances where they themselves suddenly decided they were superior to others, "inferior" people and deemed themselves fit to rule them.

3. Eugenics is not necessarily about genetically modifying people.

deletedover 8 years

People in more developed counties on average have less kids, solutions to overpopulation is supporting other countries, as well as promoting forms of birth control.

deletedover 8 years

BaneofMafia says

1. Disease serves a fundamental purpose in decreasing our population. Eliminating disease opens us to the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to very limited resources. Limited resources leads to competition for those resources, namely war, and the horrors that accompany it. This falls under my second point.

after an entire history of human civilization of improving public health and eradicating disease, we're expected to embrace it as the only method to lower population to acceptable levels? i can't think of a politically feasible way for world leaders to say "f*ck it, let the blood flow" and let disease run rampant. malthus would be proud of us using economics rather than ebola to bring population back to carrying capacity

deletedover 8 years

cub says

i think everyone can agree heritable cancer and diabetes are good to get rid of

usually things like this would be decided by a governing body of experts, you know like how you can't trust donald trump to run the united states which is why we have congress that basically does it instead

I disagree.

1. Disease serves a fundamental purpose in decreasing our population. Eliminating disease opens us to the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to very limited resources. Limited resources leads to competition for those resources, namely war, and the horrors that accompany it. This falls under my second point.

2. Trying to fix things sometimes cause more problems. Genetically improved humans might feel superior to non-improveds and cause conflicts. Improved humans may have an advantage in war and may serve as soldiers for the wrong authoritarian dictator or even democratic idealists.

2. No one knows what a genetically ideal humanity would look like. I for one do not trust politicians or even scientists to make such decisions. Editing our genetic makeup has huge implications for science, philosophy, government, everything. No one on this planet is versed in all fields so as to confidently discern which traits we should keep and which we should get rid of to better reduce the suffering of all beings.

deletedover 8 years

dahoaf says

what kind of economic incentives and discincentives do you think would work to get parents with heritable diseases to stop breeding?

clockwork orange style forced viewings of their childs epicmafia posts

deletedover 8 years

it's already been shown that parents are actually very responsive to tax benefits related to timing of birth, and will induce or delay labor based on these incentives:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/BabyBonus.pdf

but will this responsiveness translate to the decision to conceive a child in the first place? how effective was one-child in china?

deletedover 8 years

breeding is a human right that ought not be severely restricted. a USA that doesn't respect the sanctity of that is unimaginable, at least in this lifetime. we place great value on individualism, and the desire (instinctual urge!) to bring one's very own child into this world seems an ultimate expression of that.

what kind of economic incentives and discincentives do you think would work to get parents with heritable diseases to stop breeding? i would suppose that taxation is the least invasive way for government to implement a "eugenics" program