Eugenics

[littletimmy 71]

Well i watched a documentary about Nazi Germany the other day and Menegele's 'human clensing' and attempts to make a pure German race or the Aryan race under Hitlers orders using the twins gene. Well it got me thinking and i looked into it in a lot more detail on the interweb. It appears a lot of countrys inluding Britain, US, Japan and of course Germany as well as plenty of others in the first half of the 20th experimented with Eugenetics; or selective human breeding. For instance, the US sterilized over 70000 mentally ill patients to prevent it being passed on to others and it was only outlawed in 83 with the last being carried out in 78.

 

Now to me, although it may be in humaine and even cruel, its not something i would be against in theory. As we know genetics play a big part and this forum being saturated with dog lads whom breeding and genetics is everything to, i thought it might produce a good topic.

 

Things like this could work in theory to produce better athletes, better immunity systems and specialists in virtually every extreme.

 

Everybody has seen the anti-racism posters. Showing everyones brain the same size except the racists whose is tiny. But the fact is, studys show there is more differnce between races than simply skin colours when talking about the general population.

 

Do you think it could be benifical to the human race to continue with these breeding programs in humans? Is it morally right to do so? After all there is alot crueler things governments to to people. Is there any countrys still practicing such things officially or unofficially?

 

IMO there has to be, the super powers have got their fingers in every piece of cake so even if they do not admit it, they must be continuing study somehow, musn't they?

 

Hopefully this will be an interesting topic with plenty of opinions and not just the ramblings of a mad man.

[JohnGalway 1,043]

No it would not be beneficial.

No it is not morally right to do so.

I don't know.

 

These things are well and good until it is you, a loved one, or someone you know who are at the tender mercies of such a government and it's spineless population.

[RicW 67]

To put it simple terms it is a seriously dumb idea because apart from the ethical questions it doesn't bloody work. Sure you can breed a dog to have certain characteristics but the result will be a big dog with big teeth big balls and a little teeny weeny brain. Dogs have brains about one third smaller than wolves because they have been bred to have traits that have nothing to do with intelligence. Then factor in that human generation time is on the order of 12 years and you would spend a lot of time breeding idjits. They would resemble their breeders

 

That's just for starters. Could be a good thread.

 

Ric

[Ratreeper 441]

There are far too many humans already, why not limit the numbers being born in a beneficial way? that rewards to intelligent, fit, healthy...people that can improve the human race rather than supporting more kids who never learn to read or write, claim benefits then squeeze out more kids, (this might be a bit contraversial) who 90% of the time don't fall too far from the tree.

Also is it more morally right to prevent hereditary illness being passed on than to allow someone to be born into a horrible existence, of mostly suffering. Look how many people want to try and make suicide legal because they were born with such horrible afflictions.

 

However it should be voluntary, would you really trust the government with something so personal? As soon as it made manditory then its a fine line to genocide to speed up the process. Also who says who is better? Me? Brown? What happens when you have perfect humans built for each job, who still have choice and don't want to be an athlete etc. Also what happens when you get rid of all the stupid people and there's no-one left to clean the toilets or empty the bins?

 

Bit of a paradox

[skellyb 8]

Look at Crufts. Nuff said

[SHOTGUNSNIPER 47]

Well i watched a documentary about Nazi Germany the other day and Menegele's 'human clensing' and attempts to make a pure German race or the Aryan race under Hitlers orders using the twins gene. Well it got me thinking and i looked into it in a lot more detail on the interweb. It appears a lot of countrys inluding Britain, US, Japan and of course Germany as well as plenty of others in the first half of the 20th experimented with Eugenetics; or selective human breeding. For instance, the US sterilized over 70000 mentally ill patients to prevent it being passed on to others and it was only outlawed in 83 with the last being carried out in 78.

 

Now to me, although it may be in humaine and even cruel, its not something i would be against in theory. As we know genetics play a big part and this forum being saturated with dog lads whom breeding and genetics is everything to, i thought it might produce a good topic.

 

Things like this could work in theory to produce better athletes, better immunity systems and specialists in virtually every extreme.

 

Everybody has seen the anti-racism posters. Showing everyones brain the same size except the racists whose is tiny. But the fact is, studys show there is more differnce between races than simply skin colours when talking about the general population.

 

Do you think it could be benifical to the human race to continue with these breeding programs in humans? Is it morally right to do so? After all there is alot crueler things governments to to people. Is there any countrys still practicing such things officially or unofficially?

 

IMO there has to be, the super powers have got their fingers in every piece of cake so even if they do not admit it, they must be continuing study somehow, musn't they?

 

Hopefully this will be an interesting topic with plenty of opinions and not just the ramblings of a mad man.

The Vikings did plenty of selective breeding and population culling all over the world (including the Brittish Isles) this was way before the era you are referancing.

Edited March 22, 2010 by SHOTGUNSNIPER

[Born Hunter 17,960]

Personally i think i would work if approached correctly. Selective breeding is no different to evolution only humans decide whats 'fittest' not nature. Completely ignoring ethics by selectively breeding humans based on inteligence and physical performance would surely create a blood line of more inteligent, faster, stronger etc etc people??? However with any selctive breeding programme there appears unpredictable bad traits, for example the bloodline could loose alot of human interaction skills or adaptability. Basically, yes we could improve multiple human traits but at what loss?

[Tiddler66 3]

Eugenics was used in Sweden from the 40's up to the early 's......if a girl got pregnant out of wedlock....or the priest thought a girl was too flirty or wearing too much make up, they could be sterelized.......and whilst I agree with the theory of eugenics all the way untill its used against my family or friend....so IMO....it has to be a big NO But is it moral to allow people who the authorities know will fail to be able to raise a kid have children.......it happens every day and the kids often get abused and then grow up to abuse others......tough call..........but overall I think weare better off with the crappy system we have now.....rather than playing god

[Dosser 52]

I posted this once before on a previous thread, but i think it shows the powers that be have never stopped thinking about eugenics.

 

[littletimmy 71]

Read the comments and seems to be alot of mixed opinions. I think the idea of eugenics would bring a population down not increase it in practice?

 

But so do alot of things, the government control our lives day in day out. I think its got to still be happening somewhere in the world, maybe on a small scale. And those who say it doesn't work, have you any proof?

 

Ethically its wrong but scientifically it could be the thing that saved our speicies in one day to come, who knows.

 

Its been done by many societys over the years and its seems only political correctness stopped it.

 

Like said it sounds good until its happening to you. An example of this, we are programmed to view it as acceptable is jailing thieves. Any man who tells me, if put in the situation where his family would go hungry, would not steal to feed his family is not much of a man. So that in considoration, preventing someone who is mentally ill from producing mentally ill offspring is punishment and prevention in years to come all at the same time. Just an opinion, if this is right or wrong i don't know

[RicW 67]

Define superman. Brains? Brawn? Long life? Blond hair, square head, big dick? The genetics of human inheritance are far too complicated for any of these ideas to work. As I said, you can easily breed a dog for one trait, but you will lose a lot in the process. You could in principle breed a human trait in the same way, although it would take a VERY long time. And when you have achieved your aim, is what you have really human?

As for breeding out recessive traits, just go back to Gregor Mendel's research in the middle 19th C. It doesn't work!

 

Ric

[Nik_B 3,791]

depends whether you're talking about good breeding or good upbringing. This is what Psychologists call the nature versus nurture debate. While good breeding might be beneficial certainly physically (i.e. athletes) and possibly intellectually, good upbringing sure counts for a hell of a lot. That means that someone can come from 'bad' stock grow up to not be particularly clever nor a fantastic athlete but a GOOD person.

 

Now I've said my fluffy liberal bit, I do also think there are lots of people in this country tat should be sterilise but thats not due to genes rather their actions as a human being.

[littlefish 598]

Should blind/deaf people reproduce? Should those with learning difficulties or with 'special needs' be allowed to reproduce? Should people have 10 kids? It's a big question.

[Nik_B 3,791]

Problem is the human race is no longer subject to the laws other animals do namely survival of the fittest.

[RicW 67]

And you are right Nik about the Nature vs Nurture debate. How can we separate the two when "Nurture" plays such a big role in human society? If feral underclass parents produce feral underclass children is that "Nature", ie genetics, or is it "Nurture", upbringing? Bad dogs or bad owners?

 

This really is a very complex question. Well done the OP for raising it.

 

Ric