Eugenics, Again

[Fade the Butcher]

I can't have anything against conscious evolution, or that it may go by the name eugenics.

It pleases me to hear that.

I have no idea how a state program could ever be enforced, nor do I think it necessary.

The state already regulates marriages. The state could be used to advance both positive and negative eugenic measures: tax breaks, subsidies, laws against dysgenic marriages etc.

Conception has proved itself worthy of the whole of production regarding childbirth. The will to higher selves does not require we implement any kind of scientific process beyond sexual reproduction.

This is vague. Elaborate.

I believe I am responsible for bringing up eugenics in this thread. It's more interesting to discuss than euthanasia...isn't it?

I have never been interested in euthanasia.

[Kodos]

Getting rid of horrible hereditary traits would have an immediate effect, positive eugenics would take 5+ generations to have a noticable effect when we will likely be able to just enhance the genetic code by then there isn't much of a point.

What is with the fundi nutcase sand nigger( he may be persian but he looks pretty Arab) avaturd...

[Pablo Escobar]

The full ammount of knowledge on genetics says this:

"we know that we don't know".

The fact that one owns a screwdriver doesn't make one a mechanic.

[Kodos]

The full ammount of knowledge on genetics says this:

We know plenty about genetics, what we can't do is solve protein folding problems( no computer in the world can crunch the numbers)...

[Pablo Escobar]

We know plenty about genetics, what we can't do is solve protein folding problems( no computer in the world can crunch the numbers)...

We have a lot of info about the genome, perhaps even the ability to meddle with it ( with some success ). This in no way means we have a clue about the results.

I have no problem with 'playing god', but not with a science which is in it's infancy.
A lot of the problems humanity has were/are the result
of arrogance and ignorance, not genetic defects.
It would be both arrogant and ignorant to think we have some final solution on genetics, and that it needs to be implemented worldwide.

( now, I know Fade is going to say something stupid and unrelated to this,
so I beg him to read this post a few times before posting, then think, then read again, then think again ).

[sugartits]

We have a lot of info about the genome, perhaps even the ability to meddle with it ( with some success ). This in no way means we have a clue about the results.

I have no problem with 'playing god', but not with a science which is in it's infancy.
A lot of the problems humanity has were/are the result
of arrogance and ignorance, not genetic defects.


What do you think could be the consequences? Genetic engineering resulting in what it seeks to prevent (defective humans, 'mutants')? Social and/or environmental disorder? Prometheism creating 'Frankenstein's monsters'?


Is eugenics synonymous with conscious evolution, or does it lead to it?

Our Promethean Species embraces Conscious Evolution

Our immediate aim is to create a neo-eugenically enhanced race that will eventually become a new, superior species with whatever scientific means are available at the present time. In the short-term, this will be achieved via neo-eugenics, ie. voluntary positive eugenics, human cloning, germ-line engineering, gene therapy and genetic engineering.

In the long-term, when the science becomes available we intend to utilize transhuman technologies: nanotechnology, mind uploading, A/I and other variations of ultra exo-tech.

Our goal is to enable total and unlimited self-transformation, consciousness and expansion across the universe of our species.

http://www.prometheism.net/principles.htm

"We in the Eugenics movement are not interested in competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little 1,000 year Reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man."

Favored Races Manifesto by James L. Hart

[Pablo Escobar]

Meddling with DNA and creating 'frankensteins' is probably possible and done even as we speak.

The problem is with the fact we have no CLEAR clue on certain crucial things,
neither to we have clues on future circumstances and the outcome.

Genes/traits have a nasty tendencey to be interconnected.
So, as I said in another thread, if you breed people with the goal
of having high IQ, you might end-up with entire generations of high-IQ
kids who have heart-problems.

If you then try to breed high-IQ people without heart problems,
you might end-up with a lot of healthy-hearted, high-IQ kids which are born blind.

Then again, all this might be proven to be untrue,
but, if it's true, what to do with all those millions of kids whose lives were ruined just because someone wanted them to fit someone's idea of what's 'desirable'.

[Kodos]

We have a lot of info about the genome, perhaps even the ability to meddle with it ( with some success ). This in no way means we have a clue about the results.

I have no problem with 'playing god', but not with a science which is in it's infancy.
A lot of the problems humanity has were/are the result
of arrogance and ignorance, not genetic defects.
It would be both arrogant and ignorant to think we have some final solution on genetics, and that it needs to be implemented worldwide.


I would agree, but time will eventually allow for the creation of homo superior... and you should allow genetic tampering with those willing to volunteer.

Meddling with DNA and creating 'frankensteins' is probably possible and done even as we speak.

The problem is with the fact we have no CLEAR clue on certain crucial things,
neither to we have clues on future circumstances and the outcome.

Genes/traits have a nasty tendencey to be interconnected.
So, as I said in another thread, if you breed people with the goal
of having high IQ, you might end-up with entire generations of high-IQ
kids who have heart-problems.

If you then try to breed high-IQ people without heart problems,
you might end-up with a lot of healthy-hearted, high-IQ kids which are born blind.

Then again, all this might be proven to be untrue,
but, if it's true, what to do with all those millions of kids whose lives were ruined just because someone wanted them to fit someone's idea of what's 'desirable'.

If we don't humanity will blow itself up eventually...

[sugartits]

I agree that those problems are very possible. Though it is just saying that eugenics applied through genetic engineering could create contradictory results, as there are already people existing who may have those combinations of traits. It does not really serve well as a case against eugenics, unless it is believed that defects which occur as a result of human tampering are 'worse' than those that occur naturally (or that the surfacing of indesirable traits with the desirable ones implies complete failure in the system, or is it just in methods?)

With people and the use of science being involved responsibility is sought. Basically the difference between "I am blind, nature made me that way" and dealing with it, to believing "I am blind, science made me this way. Someone is responsible". Many moral issues are similiar in that sense anyway (seeking out, creating, projecting responsibility).

It is hard to speculate without getting too sci-fi, but possible problems related to the specific subject:
-Genetic engineering creating more defects than natural method
-'Bizarre' defects not before seen
-Many ethical questions of course, that have already been discussed here (also genetic engineering would mean using humans as test subjects)



but, if it's true, what to do with all those millions of kids whose lives were ruined just because someone wanted them to fit someone's idea of what's 'desirable'.

People do not choose to be born. Nor do we choose where, by whom, or when. Children's lives are 'ruined' because of this all the time. And it's always a problem what to do with them. Eugenics also proposes solutions to those kinds of problems by promoting 'responsible breeding'.

Overall I don't see much appeal in making 'better' (more efficient, more intelligent, desirable, whatever) humans.

[Fade the Butcher]

This looks interesting.

Genetic Based Democracy: Rising Out of the Dark Age of Egalitariat America (1998)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560725443/102-2950411-5312126?v=glance&n=283155

In the Name of Eugenics : Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1998)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674445570/sr=8-2/qid=1141677225/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2950411-5312126?%5Fencoding=UTF8

The Eugenics Movement : An Encyclopedia (2005)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0313327912/qid=1141676930/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2950411-5312126?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Preaching Eugenics : Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019515679X/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/102-2950411-5312126?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Extreme Measures : The Dark Visions and Bright Ideas of Francis Galton

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1582344817/qid=1141677358/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2950411-5312126?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[sugartits]

That first one sounds really interesting. Check this out:

Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061806026X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-7569610-0588926?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

[Pablo Escobar]

I would agree, but time will eventually allow for the creation of homo superior... and you should allow genetic tampering with those willing to volunteer.

Yes. Today we're only in the position to begin building a basis for some future eugenic society. This means ackonwledging that we still don't know much about genetics.


If we don't humanity will blow itself up eventually...

This is based on a wrong assumption that people are today of 'lower quality'.

[Kodos]

This is based on a wrong assumption that people are today of 'lower quality'.


More based on the observation that a lot more people( some of lower quality) will have nukes soon...

[Pablo Escobar]

More based on the observation that a lot more people( some of lower quality) will have nukes soon...

Again, that's a silly racist idea based on two wrong assumptions:

1. That some peoples are inherently of lower quality.
2. That masses of people will get to control nuclear weapons.

[Kodos]

Again, that's a silly racist idea based on two wrong assumptions:

1. That some peoples are inherently of lower quality.
2. That masses of people will get to control nuclear weapons.

Pakistan having nukes is scary enough... you don't want any more muslim( or african & latin american countries... or Burma or North Korea for that matter) states to get them... that would make for a very dangerous world...

[Pablo Escobar]

Pakistan having nukes is scary enough... you don't want any more muslim( or african & latin american countries... or Burma or North Korea for that matter) states to get them... that would make for a very dangerous world...

Nevertheless, you have to think of two things:

1. The elites who rule those countries are not stupid ( and probably not very religious either ).

2. The elites who rule those countries are probably just puppets of USA.

[Kodos]

Most of the time true... but some nut comes to power who really believes in stuff sometimes( and I daresay there is a very dangerous possibility of that happening in Pakistan after Mush dies, don't get me started on North Korea).

Why hasn't whatisname Khan been whacked yet btw?

[Fade the Butcher]

Again, that's a silly racist idea based on two wrong assumptions 1. That some peoples are inherently of lower quality.

Are you suggesting that all people are equal?

[WFHermans]

It is most scary that a complete moron like George W.Bush can use nuclear weapons, although he can't pronounce the word "nuclear".

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes. Today we're only in the position to begin building a basis for some future eugenic society. This means ackonwledging that we still don't know much about genetics.

We know quite a lot about genetics. This field has made rapid progress in the last fifteen years.

This is based on a wrong assumption that people are today of 'lower quality'.

Are all people inherently equal?

[Fade the Butcher]

The full ammount of knowledge on genetics says this:"we know that we don't know".The fact that one owns a screwdriver doesn't make one a mechanic.

AWAR is saying that.

[Fade the Butcher]

Meddling with DNA and creating 'frankensteins' is probably possible and done even as we speak.

Humans have been meddling with the DNA of plant and animal species for thousands of years.

The problem is with the fact we have no CLEAR clue on certain crucial things, neither to we have clues on future circumstances and the outcome.

This is false.

Genes/traits have a nasty tendencey to be interconnected.

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise.

Then again, all this might be proven to be untrue,
but, if it's true, what to do with all those millions of kids whose lives were ruined just because someone wanted them to fit someone's idea of what's 'desirable'.

This isn't an argument against eugenics. The fact of the matter is that people are going to breed no matter what. The only question is what factors should be selected for.

[Pablo Escobar]

AWAR is saying that.

Are you saying that scientists have enough knowledge on the genome
that they can already start modifying DNA on all the 6 billion people who populate the earth, and know the exact outcome in 10,100,1000 and 10.000 years?

[Kodos]

The problem with haxx0ring the genetic code are are as of now( to the best of my understanding as this is not my field) as explained by my best friend( evil j00)

1. Protein folding... no computer on earth can crunch the numbers right now. You'd need fundamental advances in this technology ala something like a quantum computer( which may be a while).

2. Genes only directly control the molecular structure of proteins, so using them to influence complex traits such as intelligence would be difficult as it would involve many genes

3. Gene expression is as Kamandi stated a poorly understood subject.

[Pablo Escobar]

Humans have been meddling with the DNA of plant and animal species for thousands of years.

Plants and animals didn't create all the civilizations we know of.



This is false.

You are obivously ignorant.



I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise.

You're suggesting that the implications of this are irrelevant.

[Fade the Butcher]

Are you saying that scientists have enough knowledge on the genome that they can already start modifying DNA on all the 6 billion people who populate the earth, and know the exact outcome in 10,100,1000 and 10.000 years?

1.) Eugenics would not affect six billion people on earth.
2.) The genetic composition of our population changes every time two people have a child.
3.) People are going to have children no matter what.
4.) And yes, we do have enough knowledge to select human beings for certain traits.

[Pablo Escobar]

1. Protein folding... no computer on earth can crunch the numbers right now. You'd need fundamental advances in this technology ala something like a quantum computer( which may be a while).

The tech will come with time and funding.


2. Genes only directly control the molecular structure of proteins, so using them to influence complex traits such as intelligence would be difficult as it would involve many genes

There are huge discoveries being made every day.
Until a few years ago, scientists thought that RNA is some crap that
does nothing. Today they know better.

Basically, a lot of stuff which is considered to be true today
can become totally ridiculous tomorrow.


3. Gene expression is as Kamandi stated a poorly understood subject.

Exactly.

[Fade the Butcher]

Plants and animals didn't create all the civilizations we know of.

Eugenics is the foundation of civilization. Human beings domesticated plant and animal species by selecting them for desirable traits.

You are obivously ignorant.

This is nonresponsive.

You're suggesting that the implications of this are irrelevant.

It's irrelevant. I pointed out in my last response that people are going to breed and produce offspring no matter what. The only question is what traits should be selected for and whether emotion or reason should determine the genetic character of future generations.

[Pablo Escobar]

You seem so desperate to 'win' some argument using some
silly and ineffective forum-discussion-tactic.
I'd advise you to sit down, shut up and learn something.


4.) And yes, we do have enough knowledge to select human beings for certain traits.

We don't know what other ( both "positive" and "negative" ) traits come
in combination with the trait we're looking for.

[Pablo Escobar]

Eugenics is the foundation of civilization. Human beings domesticated plant and animal species by selecting them for desirable traits.

Eugenics of plants and animals we'll have to spend the rest of eternity
caring for them.

Does this mean you'd want humans which would be genetically disabled from having independence?



It's irrelevant. I pointed out in my last response that people are going to breed and produce offspring no matter what. The only question is what traits should be selected for and whether emotion or reason should determine the genetic character of future generations.

Why do you think so?

[Die]

The state already regulates marriages. The state could be used to advance both positive and negative eugenic measures: tax breaks, subsidies, laws against dysgenic marriages etc.

Negative eugenic measures? What's the point?

I pointed out in my last response that people are going to breed and produce offspring no matter what. The only question is what traits should be selected for and whether emotion or reason should determine the genetic character of future generations.
Today 08:35 AM

Reason or emotion? You honestly imagine you can split them?


Regarding your wanting me to elaborate on what I made plain in words already, that conception and sexual reproduction were all that is needed as eugenical method, you may like to think this over and get back to me about it.

[Gleb]

Eugenics of plants and animals we'll have to spend the rest of eternity
caring for them.


I agree, there is some truth to this.

We might have made certain fruits sweeter and certain breeds of cattle milkier, but none of those breeds would survive if taken back to the wild, the way a doberman would not survive in the woods, not talking about being any kind of competition to the wolves.

However, I am not sure if such an analogy is valid when talking about humans.

[Pablo Escobar]

I agree, there is some truth to this.

We might have made certain fruits sweeter and certain breeds of cattle milkier, but none of those breeds would survive if taken back to the wild, the way a doberman would not survive in the woods, not talking about being any kind of competition to the wolves.

However, I am not sure if such an analogy is valid when talking about humans.

Well, that was my response to Fade/Deconstructionist's futile attempt to
compare domesticated plant/animal species with humans.

There is no comparison really.

Humans domesticated plants/animals for their use,
then, some humans got the idea they can domesticate humans for the use of society. But society is NOT an organism separate from humanity.

Humans have achieved all this, everything you see... and they did it the way they are, versatile. If we chose to design humans according to the most prevalent societal trend, we'd have to make several species of people
who are domesticated into submission-to-civilization.

I guess Fade's ideal would be a humanity consisting of several species of man. All designed to meet what civilization needs, rather than designing a civilization which meets the needs of man.

But, if you look even further from this disgusting ideal.
History teaches us that EVERYTHING changes. Circumstances change.
A 23rd century species of office-dwellers might encounter some different trends,
when some other traits become desirable... and then what? Design a new kind which meets the new trends?

Or just make a versatile kind?

Oh wait! Humans already are versatile and capable to fit into
circumstances which would've annihilated any specialized kind.

[Gleb]

You almost have me convinced.
However, do you not believe that there are universal good traits, not necessarily suiting current needs of society and civilization, such as intelligence, will, kindness, strength etc.? Or you simply don't believe that such traits are achievable by means of eugenic engineering?

[Kodos]

I agree, there is some truth to this.

We might have made certain fruits sweeter and certain breeds of cattle milkier, but none of those breeds would survive if taken back to the wild

If you took all the doberman's in the world back to the wild a small % would survive... don't know about plants.

[Pablo Escobar]

You almost have me convinced.
However, do you not believe that there are universal good traits, not necessarily suiting current needs of society and civilization, such as intelligence, will, kindness, strength etc.? Or you simply don't believe that such traits are achievable by means of eugenic engineering?

I believe only that the desirable traits are those which survive/survived.

btw. I doubt will and kindness are genetic traits.

It has already been discovered that
there's a gene for explosive strength comes together with
a shorter life of the heart. The other type of gene means gives a weaker type of human, with more endurance and a longer average life.




If you took all the doberman's in the world back to the wild a small % would survive... don't know about plants.

True, but then they wouldn't be Dobermans any more.

They'd breed with other kinds, breed for the traits which are hardcoded into their DNA, and they'd end-up being wolves again.

[Kodos]

Why are my humpateen now? I always thought we got along well enough to avoid the deragatory nics...

[Péter]

The coolest eugenic measure would be to clone dinosaurs which would run the earth rampant. Now that, my friends, would be some kickass natural selection.

In fact, the greatest problem with the human species is that it sits above its habitat, that is, it no longer has any stressors which encourage evolutionary adaptation to occur.

Large predators became extinct. Agriculture exploded upon the isolation of nitrogen, which enabled the cheap production of fertilizer, forestalling a Malthusian catastrophe at the time (early 20th c.). (This, however, meant that the devastation to come would only be greater.) Vaccinations destroyed yet another selective agent. After destroying all of our naturally selective measures around us, we've got to be fucking kidding if we say that we're surprised that our evolution is now retrogressive. In the midst of all of this came along the idea of eugenics: a fascimilie of nature--good idea, or bad?

The problem with much of eugenics, like most technology, is that it often conflicts with what would be occurring under the process of natural selection. Take the case of the heterozygote advantage, for example, in the case of sickle cell anemia for various Mediterranean and African races. (More about this example can be read here (http://www.anus.com/zine/db/race/biology_of_race.html) in the context of why miscegenation is diasadvantageous.) A eugenic measure would seek to eliminate the sickle cell allele, and if this succeded, it would be fine as long as the medicinal technology would be available to prevent the spread of malaria. However, in the event that the technology to control malaria become unavailable, generations of evolutionary adaptation would have been destroyed, leading ultimately to the type of extinction that occurs when a population encounters a change it environment from which it cannot recover--as occurred with the Amerindian races.

I'll have more on this later...

[Fade the Butcher]

An interesting historical tidbit. I'm posting it here for the record.

My dear Mr. Davenport:

I am greatly interested in the two memoirs you have sent me. They are very instructive, and from the standpoint of our country, very ominous. You say that these people are not responsible themselves, that it is society that is responsible. I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women who ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates [sic] or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.

Faithfully yours,
Theodore Roosevelt

[Pablo Escobar]

Why are my humpateen now? I always thought we got along well enough to avoid the deragatory nics...

Just kidding.

[Gleb]

An interesting historical tidbit. I'm posting it here for the record.



As Pablo has illustrated such an analogy is wrong, because traits being chosen by farmers are subjective and desirable by farmers only (such as the amount of meat or milk they can gain). This doesn't make less meaty cows or smaller horses objectively inferior to the ones that are desirable for farming needs. In farmers' eyes they are inferior, but it doesn't make them inferior in the eyes of someone who uses those horses in races, for example.

[sugartits]

Genetically engineered plants are not perfect. There is a lot of controversy about that, and this is "just plants", not people.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#ESSAYS%20ON%20GENETICALLY%20ENGINEERED%20FOOD

I'll mention the 'terminator seed' (engineered plants that produce sterile seeds). It is advantageous to companies selling them because it forces farmers to buy more seeds, rather than save some for next harvest.

Sterile seed sows corporate control (http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0602175/cg175_marya.shtml)

I know plants cannot be compared to people but I find allegorical content in this. My imagination leads me to ponder the possibility of humans purposefully being created infertile being forced to 'buy' children. "How much are you willing to pay for that trait/the absence of it?"

[Fade the Butcher]

As Pablo has illustrated such an analogy is wrong, because traits being chosen by farmers are subjective and desirable by farmers only (such as the amount of meat or milk they can gain).

AWAR's argument rest upon all sorts of fallacies; a total misunderstanding of rationality (goal directed activity), for starters. A farmer can breed livestock by selecting his stock for traits that are objectively superior to others relative to his aims. You could replace this farmer with any other farmer: Jacques with Pierre, John with James, Michael with Martin. It wouldn't make any difference.

This doesn't make less meaty cows or smaller horses objectively inferior to the ones that are desirable for farming needs.

This doesn't follow.

In farmers' eyes they are inferior, but it doesn't make them inferior in the eyes of someone who uses those horses in races, for example.

What AWAR is saying amounts to this: stone age cannibals in New Guinea are better at certain tasks than civilized Westerners (say, preparing human flesh for consumption), ergo, one cannot conclude that civilized Westerners are superior to the stone age inhabitants of New Guinea.

[Pablo Escobar]

AWAR's argument rest upon all sorts of fallacies; a total misunderstanding of rationality (goal directed activity), for starters.

Would you please stop applying ridiculous analogies and formulae designed for completely different, unrelated problems. Thank you.


A farmer can breed livestock by selecting his stock for traits that are objectively superior to others relative to his aims. You could replace this farmer with any other farmer: Jacques with Pierre, John with James, Michael with Martin. It wouldn't make any difference.

...and cattle. Thanks.


This doesn't follow.

...and robotic replies. Thanks in advance.



What AWAR is saying amounts to this: stone age cannibals in New Guinea are better at certain tasks than civilized Westerners (say, preparing human flesh for consumption), ergo, one cannot conclude that civilized Westerners are superior to the stone age inhabitants of New Guinea.

...and the overall stupidity. Thanks again.

[Fade the Butcher]

You seem so desperate to 'win' some argument using some silly and ineffective forum-discussion-tactic. I'd advise you to sit down, shut up and learn something.

I'm haven't even taken this discussion half seriously, AWAR. If I was truly enthusiastic about this debate, then I could make my point far more effectively than I have done so.

We don't know what other ( both "positive" and "negative" ) traits come in combination with the trait we're looking for.

I have already pointed out to you several times why this argument is irrelevant. The same holds every single time any two people have a child. This is not an argument against eugenics.

[Fade the Butcher]

Would you please stop applying ridiculous analogies and formulae designed for completely different, unrelated problems. Thank you.

I don't think you understand what rationality is, AWAR. I will try to break this down even further for you in the hope that you will finally understand your error. What you are saying is this: rational actions have unintended consequences which we cannot know. It is thus makes sense to be irrational. I hope you can finally appreciate now just how silly and ridiculous this argument is. You seem to think this is some great insight. You are ignoring the fact that irrational actions also have the same unintended consequences.

[Pablo Escobar]

I'm haven't even taken this discussion half seriously, AWAR. If I was truly enthusiastic about this debate, then I could make my point far more effectively than I have done so.

Yeah, I noticed that you don't know anything on the subject,
and are making a complete fool out of yourself.

Great tactic!


I have already pointed out to you several times why this argument is irrelevant. The same holds every single time any two people have a child. This is not an argument against eugenics.

One way is a result of 'natural' attraction between a man and a woman.

The other is a 'civilized' attempt to breed domesticated humans with traits which are currently trendy.

Of course, you wouldn't notice a difference, since you're a robot
designed to spam threads about eugenics.

[Pablo Escobar]

I don't think you understand what rationality is, AWAR. I will try to break this down even further for you in the hope that you will finally understand your error. What you are saying is this: rational actions have unintended consequences which we cannot know. It is thus makes sense to be irrational. I hope you can finally appreciate now just how silly and ridiculous this argument is. You seem to think this is some great insight. You are ignoring the fact that irrational actions also have the same unintended consequences.

Your ideals and desires for breeding of specialized humans are completely irrational.

You want Eugenics to work, but there's no proof it would work for the best.
There is no assurance it wouldn't go corrupt and politicized,
which is an important part, because it's consequences have a special magnitude.

[Gleb]

A farmer can breed livestock by selecting his stock for traits that are objectively superior to others relative to his aims.

Exactly what I was saying. Farmers don't select absolutely superior stock, they only select stock that is superior in their particular field. That doesn't make their selection absolutely superior. Therefore Roosevelt's analogy is wrong.


You could replace this farmer with any other farmer: Jacques with Pierre, John with James, Michael with Martin. It wouldn't make any difference.


Ehh, what's that about?


This doesn't follow.


Why doesn't it follow?

A skinny race horse would be considered a bad breed by a farmer, but a superior breed by a professional racer.


What AWAR is saying amounts to this: stone age cannibals in New Guinea are better at certain tasks than civilized Westerners (say, preparing human flesh for consumption), ergo, one cannot conclude that civilized Westerners are superior to the stone age inhabitants of New Guinea.

Westerners would not be absolutely superior, correct.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yeah, I noticed that you don't know anything on the subject, and are making a complete fool out of yourself. Great tactic!

This isn't worthy of a response.

One way is a result of 'natural' attraction between a man and a woman.

AWAR demonstrates his irrationality once again. He is drawing a bogus distinction between 'natural attraction' and 'artificial selection'. For example, I was attracted to my wife because she is extraordinarily bright (in addition to having many other positive qualities, such as tolerating my participation on these forums). We are having a child. I'm assuming this is 'unnatural attraction'. OTOH, I will point to the example of the prostitute who gets pregnant having sex in exchange for money. This is a case of 'natural attraction', right?

The other is a 'civilized' attempt to breed domesticated humans with traits which are currently trendy.

Interesting. If two gifted people are attracted to each other and have a child, then this is natural attraction. If the state arranges a marriage between two gifted people, then this is a "civilized attempt to breed domesticated humans with traits which are currently trendy."

Of course, you wouldn't notice a difference, since you're a robot
designed to spam threads about eugenics.

Point Deconstructionist.

[Fade the Butcher]

Your ideals and desires for breeding of specialized humans are completely irrational.

My ideal of race betterment is entirely rational. The state has an urgent needs to improve its human capital.

You want Eugenics to work, but there's no proof it would work for the best.

Eugenics does work. Mankind is no different from any other species.

There is no assurance it wouldn't go corrupt and politicized, which is an important part, because it's consequences have a special magnitude.

Corruption is more a problem in primitive developing nations than civilized ones.

[Micaelis]

I do not value eugenics. There is no other 'reason' for eugenics than value itself, for rationality is not an objective measurement: rationality operates within an ethnos, and ethnos can be breached by language, thus proving rationality's psychical [subjective] primacy. The truth-value of rationality depends on a closed language form, much like logic itself. However, language is not a closed form. It is a circular broaching-breach that opens the way to openness.

PS. There is no such thing as 'deconstructionism'. It is a popular label that ignores the operation of deconstruction as such. :P

[Fade the Butcher]

I will just sit on this one and wait until Mike changes his mind. :)

[Micaelis]

Ad hominem is poor logical proof.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ad hominem is poor logical proof.

Are you stepping back into the light so soon? :p

[Micaelis]

What is 'the light'? :/

[Fade the Butcher]

What is 'the light'? :/

Rationality.

[Micaelis]

Are there no shades that permit it to be ~rationality . ~irrationality?