|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:57 am
Wouldn't it be great if hereditary defects that interfered with normal life would cease being passed on and perpetuated? There's an easy solution to that.
The human race would be a lot better off if people who had things like bad eyesight, hereditary blindness or deafness, mental/psychological disorders, and other hereditary problems that cripple a person's ability to function in normal life were not allowed to reproduce. In my world, people like that would be given mandatory vasectomies or tube-tyings to make for a stronger human race.
Eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Imagine how much better off genetically people would be if such traits weren't passed on. Heck, I have autism and near-sightedness and feel I thus have no right to produce children. 3nodding
Discuss. Note how I included myself as a person who shouldn't reproduce.
EDIT: Apparently people really hate the idea. From a scientific viewpoint, doesn't it sound like a good idea? It's not like you can change a person's DNA once he or she can be conceived, and terminating the child would be murder, so why not prevent the creation of a child with those traits in the first place? At least that's my reasoning. I was hoping there would be more scientifically-minded people here. sweatdrop
EDITx2: I've been thinking that maybe such thinking is the result of my resentment of falling into that category myself. The idea that nobody deserves to be born with disabilities.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:00 am
Moon Rabbit Reisen You know how the Nazis would kill people who had obvious hereditary defects? While I don't think such people deserved to die, I do think the human race would be a lot better off if people who had things like bad eyesight, hereditary blindness or deafness, mental/psychological disorders, and other hereditary problems that cripple a person's ability to function in life were not allowed to reproduce. In my world, people like that would be given mandatory vasectomies or tube-tyings to make for a stronger human race. Eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing. Imagine how much better off genetically people would be if such traits weren't passed on. Heck, I have autism and near-sightedness and feel I thus have no right to sire children. 3nodding Discuss. Note how I included myself as a person who shouldn't reproduce. While I understand your point of view to an extent, I refuse to acknowledge Nazi hatred as anything but the very worst humans represent and I'd hate to think that someone who seems as sensible as you would not see what the Nazi's did as purely evil. I don't agree. Remember that to consider genetically superior traits for some people will involve race and possibly social status. I can't go for those as references. Remember that the Nazis were racists in the purest sense. Recall that for them the prefect traits existed in the "Aryan" races. I surely am not Aryan and trust me, I'm pretty special. Remember that without some forms of mental illness (like bipolar, which I have) we may not have seem the brilliance of people like Robin Williams or Kay Redfield Jamison. Of course, many of us would like to get rid of the sociopaths and rapists and if eugenics could help, it sounds tempting. I think it's frankly a presumptious and rather ignorant sentiment to believe that we could predict who will be "worthwhile" and who wouldn't be. I think that using factors like being predisposed to mental illness etc. to determine who should have reproduce is some of what is wrong with humanity. I'll take life and diversity anyday. And, I'm having babies, many if I can and they'll all add their significant, diverse and necessary parts to a world dying of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:14 am
I admit the Nazi reference wasn't the best thing to mention. Deleting it now. I just thought of it as a case of "good idea, terrible approach". Wouldn't it be great if nobody under the age of 60 needed glasses? If nobody needed behavior correction medication? If nobody under 60 needed hearing aids? If nobody needed cochlear implants? If nobody needed seeing eye dogs unless their eyes got damaged? Quote: Remember that without some forms of mental illness (like bipolar, which I have) we may not have seem the brilliance of people like Robin Williams or Kay Redfield Jamison. Robin Williams has a mental illness? eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:55 am
It might be worth pointing out that I wouldn't have the patience to deal with my autism-riddled children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:02 am
Then if you don't have the patience for it. Don't have children like you had previously mentioned.
Sorry if I come off as a bit rude but I'm with Postcard Girl on this. People with certain defects does not mean they shouldn't reproduce. My mother is an elementary teacher for special needs kids and yes there may be some very difficult cases she's had over the years but she's also had her fair share of wonderful students that she would go out of her way to inspire them and support them with their minds. Also most of my best friends have some small defect like bad eyesight or another and a majority of them can function just fine in the day to day life. Not only that but people with defects can make a person also re-think certain aspects of their life or the world in general to try and form the world to be better like many people I have met in my life have inspired me through my art. So personally myself I'm a bit offended that you would suggest something like this even if it is for conversation sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:52 am
Liada Trovaras Then if you don't have the patience for it. Don't have children like you had previously mentioned.
Sorry if I come off as a bit rude but I'm with Postcard Girl on this. People with certain defects does not mean they shouldn't reproduce. My mother is an elementary teacher for special needs kids and yes there may be some very difficult cases she's had over the years but she's also had her fair share of wonderful students that she would go out of her way to inspire them and support them with their minds. Also most of my best friends have some small defect like bad eyesight or another and a majority of them can function just fine in the day to day life. Not only that but people with defects can make a person also re-think certain aspects of their life or the world in general to try and form the world to be better like many people I have met in my life have inspired me through my art. So personally myself I'm a bit offended that you would suggest something like this even if it is for conversation sake. I meant more that I didn't plan on having children of my own since I would be incapable of producing normal children, but still plan on being a parent. I'm even willing to go so far as considering getting a preemptive vasectomy so I literally can't have children. As of now, there is no way to correct flaws in a person's genetics. Perhaps it is possible to filter out weaknesses in a person's DNA though, and have the genetic material treated so the resulting child will have as few weaknesses as possible. Are you saying the pursuit for genetic improvement and/or enhancement should wait until we have the technology to fix genetic flaws in a person who has already been born and/or turn the person into a genetic superman? Is applying selective breeding to humans really such a bad thing if it results in a stronger human race? eek I still have a hard time believing that being able to turn off my emotions long enough to look at things from a purely logical and/or scientific viewpoint is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:38 pm
Who says we need to fix genetic flaws? WHY do we need a stronger human race? From what your points sound like its like you're saying that we need to have perfect, emotionless, and indestructible drones wandering the planet.
And if its one thing everyone knows, one should not tamper with what has been created by nature. We were born the way we are for one reason or another and trying to manipulate that for the sake of a "stronger" race will only lead to ruin and destruction. History js what it is because everyone was trying to create a "stronger race" and no one has learned from it. If its the person's own choice to attempt to better their own lives by looking to technological advances or other means of aide then by all means let them do it because it is THEIR OWN PERSONAL CHOICE. But saying we need to pick a handful of certain people and form superior being is wrong and is basically denying that we should have no right or reason to be flawed. Humans are flawed for it is what makes us human. To say that we should be otherwise is like saying we should be gods or something remotely close to that. That is why I refuse your "ideals" of this world of yours. I'm done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:20 am
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend. It's just that I despise being "special" and having bad eyesight, and would gladly have my DNA rewritten to be rid of those things. I thought other people would feel the same way about their faults. sad
You think I think emotions are a weakness? I thought having real emotions separated us from animals. I just like being able to turn my emotions off, I wouldn't want to throw them away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:10 am
I accept apology and I apologize too for coming off so strongly. I can understand how one doesn't like their traits in one way or another. Myself included on that. But after most experiences in my life and from meeting so many others that have made me in some way shape or form who I am. I have learned to accept that this is who I am and that if I need or want to change anything about it its mostly up to me. Another main reason was when I first saw the movie Gattaca which if you haven't seen it I suggest you do because its an excellent example of this discussion. And like I said before, if someone wants to fix whatever fault of theirs that they truly don't like about themselves, then all the power to them to looking into whatever means they can to do that. Even technological advances. For example my own father, he had bad eyesight and wore glasses for most of my life until he decided to get lazer eye surgery. It worked out for him and he slowly built himself into a better healthier person from that point.
But it shouldn't be the choice of some outside source to dictate what is normal and what is flawed. History has shown that people who have tried to attempt that have failed miserably and the world has suffered much for it. And that's what a lot of your points were sounding like to me and so thus why I went into "rant mode" as I tend to call it. So again I apologize as well for going off the way I did, I speak in a view that I was raised and grown to understand for myself. I don't expect anyone to follow my thoughts nor do I force them to, its who I am. And its who that person is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:39 am
I have poor eyesight and have worn glasses since I was 6 years old. However, I also excelled at scholastics and was a peer tutor for many years. It seems that for many, glasses = higher IQ and as such, screening for poor eyesight is going to dumb down the population, rather than benefit it.
So, even with this tiny little evidence...No. Eugenics applied to humanity is not good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:16 am
You assume that everyone with disabilities has a hard time functioning in the real world or "contributing to society", but that just isn't the case. Remember, there are various degrees in which a person can be affected by their disability. Some people may show little to no signs of having a disability at all despite having one. Others, though theirs may affect them more, will strive to be seen as more than their disability and thus find ways to work around it and with it.
Sure it may be easier if they did not have it, but that does not mean they are not just as capable as a person without. At times, there are those who are actually -more- capable of handling certain situations because of their disability. The reason being that those born without disabilities take things for granted and feel they have no reason or need to work harder, whereas some find their disability as a motivational tool to help them become a better person to prove to others and themselves that their lives hold just as much worth as anyone else's.
Humans are intelligent and adaptable beings. Having some kind of "flaw" or "defect" will not necessarily hold them back from excelling. What seems to impair people the most, regardless of genetics, is self-confidence. When a person thinks that they are "crippled" in some way {be it genetically, emotionally, physically, psychologically, or what have you} and that there is no possible way to for them to excel because of it, this belief that they are not capable is what hinders their abilities more than anything else.
This actually kind of reminds me of the whole "mind over matter" concept, which I have seen in action. There was a game that some girls at my middle school liked to play in which they would have someone sit in a chair, then one girl put just a couple of fingers under one armpit, another girl on the other armpit, and then the other two girls under the knees. I don't remember what it was they would chant, but they would chant something a few times and then lift the person off the chair, each just using two fingers. Normally this would not seem physically possible, and it wasn't possible if they tried without chanting this phrase. However, because they had such a strong belief that this phrase held some kind of "magic", they were able to do what seemed impossible. They had even lifted me once... rather high too. I was completely surprised.
I find it interesting that you have disregarded all those who have disagreed as "non-scientific". To be "scientific", you have to account for all factors and variables in a situation before you reach a logical conclusion. In your reasoning, you are leaving out a very important variable to the situation: human ambition. As long as someone is determined they are fully capable of doing something, they will find a way to accomplish it.
That being the case, if you know full well that a person with disabilities can function just as well as a person without {obviously depending on the level of affliction}, do you still find it completely justifiable to strip these people of human rights for the sake of your idea of "the perfect world"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:07 am
ThisEmptySoul You assume that everyone with disabilities has a hard time functioning in the real world or "contributing to society", but that just isn't the case. Remember, there are various degrees in which a person can be affected by their disability. Some people may show little to no signs of having a disability at all despite having one. Others, though theirs may affect them more, will strive to be seen as more than their disability and thus find ways to work around it and with it.
Sure it may be easier if they did not have it, but that does not mean they are not just as capable as a person without. At times, there are those who are actually -more- capable of handling certain situations because of their disability. The reason being that those born without disabilities take things for granted and feel they have no reason or need to work harder, whereas some find their disability as a motivational tool to help them become a better person to prove to others and themselves that their lives hold just as much worth as anyone else's.
Humans are intelligent and adaptable beings. Having some kind of "flaw" or "defect" will not necessarily hold them back from excelling. What seems to impair people the most, regardless of genetics, is self-confidence. When a person thinks that they are "crippled" in some way {be it genetically, emotionally, physically, psychologically, or what have you} and that there is no possible way to for them to excel because of it, this belief that they are not capable is what hinders their abilities more than anything else.
This actually kind of reminds me of the whole "mind over matter" concept, which I have seen in action. There was a game that some girls at my middle school liked to play in which they would have someone sit in a chair, then one girl put just a couple of fingers under one armpit, another girl on the other armpit, and then the other two girls under the knees. I don't remember what it was they would chant, but they would chant something a few times and then lift the person off the chair, each just using two fingers. Normally this would not seem physically possible, and it wasn't possible if they tried without chanting this phrase. However, because they had such a strong belief that this phrase held some kind of "magic", they were able to do what seemed impossible. They had even lifted me once... rather high too. I was completely surprised.
I find it interesting that you have disregarded all those who have disagreed as "non-scientific". To be "scientific", you have to account for all factors and variables in a situation before you reach a logical conclusion. In your reasoning, you are leaving out a very important variable to the situation: human ambition. As long as someone is determined they are fully capable of doing something, they will find a way to accomplish it.
That being the case, if you know full well that a person with disabilities can function just as well as a person without {obviously depending on the level of affliction}, do you still find it completely justifiable to strip these people of human rights for the sake of your idea of "the perfect world"? So... people with hereditary disabilities work harder to outdo "normal" people? I see. I've been thinking that maybe such thinking is the result of my resentment of falling into that category myself. The idea that nobody deserves to be born with disabilities. I still wouldn't want to go to the work of raising a learning-disabled child though. Almost twice as much work as raising a "normal" child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:38 am
In your type of world(without flawed people) youwould not have this man. What a pity, for your world. I think he is amazing.
http://www.theeagle.com/local/Hawking-on-campus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:38 am
Not all, but there are those that do. It all depends on their outlook on life and their condition.
If you personally do not want to go through the work of raising a child with a learning disability, then don't. You have the freedom to decide whether or not you want to take the risk of having a learning-disabled child. Advocating that people be allowed to reproduce if they so choose to does not mean saying they need to reproduce. Forcing them to would be just as much of a violation of personal liberty as taking the ability away.
There are those who do not mind taking that kind of responsibility... even those who welcome it {hence why there are special education teachers and caretakers for those with special needs to begin with}. In some cases, being exposed to one with some kind of disability brings out the best in humanity. They learn a level of patience and compassion unlike what they would have if they had not come across such an experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:43 am
Pink Fregia In your type of world(without flawed people) youwould not have this man. What a pity, for your world. I think he is amazing.
http://www.theeagle.com/local/Hawking-on-campus He was born that way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
