Eugenics

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

No - more that only rich parents would be able to afford to genetically engineer their babies, who would then gain advantages which go far beyond growing up in a wealthy family.

Well, really, what possible benefit could rich people have with genetically engineered babies except that they could be potentially handsome?
There's the possibility you mean superhuman intelligence, but that intellect would probably not work to the benefit of their conservative parents.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

There's the possibility you mean superhuman intelligence, but that intellect would probably not work to the benefit of their conservative parents.

Wait, wealthy = conservative?
I don't know exactly what income bracket you imagine will be able to afford this hypothetical procedure, but the wealthiest people tend to be liberal, because they've got enough cash to give away. Look at celebrities.
Everyone is motivated by greed-- poor people are generally liberal because their pockets suffer under conservatism, those of the middle class are generally conservative because their pockets suffer under liberalism, and the extremely wealthy are generally liberal because their consciences suffer under conservatism.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Definitely it was a big generalization to imply rich people are conservative, although it statistically is true. But my point is that rich people wouldn't have much to win from genetically engineering their children.

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But my point is that rich people wouldn't have much to win from genetically engineering their children.

Even now people who use sperm donors for artificial insemination can review the donor's IQ, attractiveness, personality traits, health history, etc. The technology as it currently exists is already being used to induce certain physical features such as eye color, hair color, and sex.

Rich people would have something to win from genetically engineering their children. They could buy genetics that would make their children have certain physical features, make them less likely to get sick, make them more likely to be intelligent, and more likely to have certain personality characteristics. I say "more likely" because some things like personality and intelligence are at least somewhat influenced by environment as well as genetics.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Yeah but all that is overall inconsequential.
Who wouldn't wan their daughters and sons to be as well as possible?

But how would this genetic engineering of rich people's children somehow create a caste system dividing people into the economic and genetic elite, and the socially and genetically disadvantaged proletariat?

[Despanan]

You seriously don't see how a genetically altered race of supra-healthy, supra-intelligent, supra beautiful, wealthy Ubermensch wouldn't create some sort of caste system?

I mean hell, watch Hotel Rawanda. That situation came about partially because they just TOLD the Tutsi's they were more beautiful/intelligent. How soon till we're all fighting in the streets when something like that is actually true?

[Godslayer Jillian]

And you seriously think that that cleavage is going to happen among socioeconomic lines? I mean, come on, I'm the marxist and even I understand that's just a ridiculous fear!

[mindless1]

It will ruin diversity, although we'll have a stronger elite.

[Despanan]

Ya know Jill, Reducing an issue to ridicule isn't the same as making an actual argument. (Though your implication that Eugenics wouldn't be "desirable to rich people" because "intelligence" would ruin their "conservative politics" is outright laughable.)

As I previously stated we've already seen an arbitrary upper and lower class break out into genocide over the suggestion that one was better than the other. If you actually managed to create a super-race limited only to the wealthy, it's going to lead to a caste system. It may be spoken, it may be unspoken but there will be an even greater gap between the wealthy and the poor than what we see now. This is undeniable dude.

[Godslayer Jillian]

How is it undeniable? You don't see a pervasive belief in the purity of a race in a society advanced enough to actually have the technology to genetically modify its people.
So how is my claim ridiculous? Sounds like you guys have been watching too much sci-fi.

[Mir]

That is a good point.

I have a question for you. Do you think that at some point in time, when we are advanced enough to have this hypothetical technology, that humans will have outgrown committing acts of murder, theft, torture, etc.?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

How is it undeniable? You don't see a pervasive belief in the purity of a race in a society advanced enough to actually have the technology to genetically modify its people.
So how is my claim ridiculous? Sounds like you guys have been watching too much sci-fi.

You don't see any societies that are advanced enough to do that now for one thing, so basically you're just assuming that a society that had such technology readily available would not be racist. None the less this is a red herring anyway. Going back to the Rawanda example, there wasn't even anything racial about it. The Europeans divided the people of Rawanda into two distinct and arbitrary groups and said one was better than the other. This lead to hostility and eventually outwright "ethnic" cleansing between the Rawandans.

You're holding up the fact that multiculturalism and racial tolerance is widely accepted in the western world as evidence that a class/race of genetic and economic supermen wouldn't lead to the creation/worsening of a western underclass. What you're forgetting, is that multiculturalism is heavily based upon the idea that everyone is equal and deserves the same opportunities. With the formation of a Super-Rich, Super-healthy, Super-Intelligent class, you pretty much have proof positive that people aren't equal, and the upper class is better than the lower class. Thus they logically deserve their position as overlords, and who cares if a bunch of ugly retards don't like it?

As for ridiculous claims, which one do you mean? Your claim that rich people wouldn't want to modify their children? Or your claim that "intelligence = liberal"? Or the implication that "Rich = Conservative"? all three of those suppositions are pretty retarded dude.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You're making so many assumptions and faulty conclusions, that I don't even know where to begin.
But one thing, your constant example of Rwanda, an artificial social cleavage, is almost a dictionary definition of a red herring.

[KontanKarite]

If you guys actually think eugenics is a good thing, remember, NONE of you will be one among the genetically elite. NONE of you.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by mindless1

It will ruin diversity, although we'll have a stronger elite.

How would it ruin diversity?

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

If you guys actually think eugenics is a good thing, remember, NONE of you will be one among the genetically elite. NONE of you.

I'm sure we all know that. What's your point?

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You're making so many assumptions and faulty conclusions, that I don't even know where to begin.

Then eeny-meeny-miney-mo a spot and start so your response doesn't look completely dismissive. Yes he made some assumptions but you haven't said anything to prove those assumptions and conclusions wrong. If you have the means to counteract his argument then do so, Chop-chop!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You don't see any societies that are advanced enough to do that now for one thing, so basically you're just assuming that a society that had such technology readily available would not be racist.

And you're assuming that it will. You're the one making a positive claim (and an absurd and unbased one at that) so your dismissal of my skepticism of such a Huxley-like world is terrible.

Going back to the Rawanda example, there wasn't even anything racial about it. The Europeans divided the people of Rawanda into two distinct and arbitrary groups and said one was better than the other.

I mentioned that above so yeah.

You're holding up the fact that multiculturalism and racial tolerance is widely accepted in the western world as evidence that a class/race of genetic and economic supermen wouldn't lead to the creation/worsening of a western underclass.

I say "your dystopian fear is ridiculous" so you believe that my being actually reasonable is ridiculous?
"You can't know that! maybe we will become racist! maybe they will rule over us!" yeah, prove it; don't just feel morally superior for reading too much sci-fi. Would you make an argument of similar magnitude regarding private education?

What you're forgetting, is that multiculturalism is heavily based upon the idea that everyone is equal and deserves the same opportunities. With the formation of a Super-Rich, Super-healthy, Super-Intelligent class, you pretty much have proof positive that people aren't equal, and the upper class is better than the lower class.

That's actually a lie. Since when are better physical traits proof of inequality among people?
There's already genetic inequality. We're not all the same, are we?
So what makes future genetic manipulation any different than today? Either people are equal or they are not. I really don't get where your conclusion derived from.

Thus they logically deserve their position as overlords, and who cares if a bunch of ugly retards don't like it?

So what about those that are genetically 'superior' now? Do people with higher IQ logically deserve position of overlords?
I mean, there ARE smart people already, you know. And some of these smart people are also good looking. And some of these smart good-looking people area also physically fit. And this number of intelligent, good-looking, healthy individuals in the real world is probably larger than the number of smart, good-looking, healthy 'supermen' that would be genetically engineered in that hyperbolic caste world.

As for ridiculous claims, which one do you mean? Your claim that rich people wouldn't want to modify their children? Or your claim that "intelligence = liberal"? Or the implication that "Rich = Conservative"? all three of those suppositions are pretty retarded dude.

The belief of social stratification and hierarchies is by definition a conservative/far-right belief. So how am I wrong?

Is that better now?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

I'm sure we all know that. What's your point?

If I'm superior to you in every way, would you gamble that I would even have the slightest bit of compassion for you in the least?

You can't genetically engineer a capacity for love and benevolence.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I am and yet I'm not about to command thee to obey me.
I don't think you guys understand eugenics beyond hollywood movies.
IT IS ONTOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SUCH A BULLSHIT ARBITRARY TERM AS "PERFECT"

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

How would it ruin diversity?

Tampering with genetics, choosing certain genetics over other genetics on a consistent basis, would limit genetic diversity. A generation of genetically modified children would have the genes the geneticists and parents decided were better than others.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

There's already genetic inequality. We're not all the same, are we?
So what makes future genetic manipulation any different than today? Either people are equal or they are not. I really don't get where your conclusion derived from.
So what about those that are genetically 'superior' now? Do people with higher IQ logically deserve position of overlords?
I mean, there ARE smart people already, you know. And some of these smart people are also good looking. And some of these smart good-looking people area also physically fit. And this number of intelligent, good-looking, healthy individuals in the real world is probably larger than the number of smart, good-looking, healthy 'supermen' that would be genetically engineered in that hyperbolic caste world.
The belief of social stratification and hierarchies is by definition a conservative/far-right belief. So how am I wrong?

The idea is that genetic manipulation would not be done for free. Someone has to pay for it. In a commercially-driven economy, it is likely the parents that will foot the bill to have genetically superior children. The whole point of genetic manipulation in this sense is to choose genes that are perceived either by the general populace or by the scientific community as superior to other genes. Even in our modern-day society, people who are better looking, more intelligent, and/or healthier tend to do better than other people. The catch is that if genetic manipulation is the norm, it will likely open the door for genetic screening.

As an example, let's say person A and person B are applying for a job in this world where eugenics of this nature exists. Who is the employer going to choose for the job? Person A who has a medical record showing that their altered genetics make them less likely to get sick (meaning fewer sick days), stronger (meaning they won't have a problem with heavy lifting as required by the position), and more intelligent, or person B who was born naturally, has genes that signify an increased likelihood for heart disease and allergies, and though he could likely do the job, doesn't have as much physical strength as candidate A?

[KontanKarite]

You know, if I remember correctly, the Nazis tried this.

If you guys really think Eugenics is a great idea, by all means, knock yourselves out. Go for it. Take the steps to ensure a genetically superior person exists. Good luck. So forgive me, I have... I don't know, REAL shit to worry about I suppose.

Silly conversation...

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Mealla

Tampering with genetics, choosing certain genetics over other genetics on a consistent basis, would limit genetic diversity. A generation of genetically modified children would have the genes the geneticists and parents decided were better than others.

The only genes that would be removed would be those that are actually detrimental, like those that lead to mental disorders. If we get rid of all the crazies, then yeah, I suppose we'll be a bit less diverse, but in that case, that's not a bad thing.

However, when I think of humans and diversity, I think more along the lines of ethnicity, religions, and personal taste in fashion and music. That kind of thing. Eugenics could be used to eliminate certain ethnic-related genes, but that doesn't mean that that will happen.

[KontanKarite]

Once again I say... have at it.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You know, if I remember correctly, the Nazis tried this.

If you guys really think Eugenics is a great idea, by all means, knock yourselves out. Go for it. Take the steps to ensure a genetically superior person exists. Good luck. So forgive me, I have... I don't know, REAL shit to worry about I suppose.

Silly conversation...

I remember a Nazi march here in Chicago that got hammered with protests. All the Nazis were going on about their "superior" race, but it looked like most of the marchers' gene pools could use a little more chlorine. Or less incest.

[KontanKarite]

Is there anyway we can just put it in this thread's proverbial butt? Really...