28 Jun, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 161st comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Who?

Hmm… is there no "view single post" option?

<back on thread to.. er.. whatever>

Yep, back on thread, Mr. "Who, Me?"
29 Jun, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 162nd comment:
Votes: 0
Damn… I had a cool number a moment ago. :)
29 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 163rd comment:
Votes: 0
* eats a banana because she can't read post numbers *
29 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 164th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
Besides, people clearly don't need eugenics to think themselves superior to someone of another race/nationality/religion. I seriously don't think eugenics would ever have the slightest impact on that. If we're going to destroy ourselves, we'd do it regardless.

Eugenics would as a matter of fact get rid of racism if racial traits that are the root cause of racism are bred out, the main one being criminality. East asians are 4 times less criminal than whites who in turn are roughly 4 times less criminal than blacks. This boils down to east asians being 16 times less criminal than blacks, which is difficult to explain with the environmental model alone.

Criminals have an above average fertility, which a solid eugenics program would prevent. Not good for the criminals, but very good for future generations who have a lower chance of getting raped, murdered, assaulted, etc. The current prison system isn't bad, especially combined with 3 strikes out, but it's not very effective in stopping criminals from procreating.
29 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 165th comment:
Votes: 0
If only life in the real world were as simple as it is in Scandum's world! There'd be no trouble left on the whole planet.
29 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 166th comment:
Votes: 0
I was very amused by the coincidental relevance of this XKCD comic.
29 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 167th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I was very amused by the coincidental relevance of this XKCD comic.


amen
29 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 168th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
If only life in the real world were as simple as it is in Scandum's world! There'd be no trouble left on the whole planet.

Tell me about, it's very complicated and intellectual to blame it all on white racism. And while that technically is a form of racism against whites, it's a just one, though the exact reason why is so complicated that no one really knows.
29 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 169th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
David Haley said:
If only life in the real world were as simple as it is in Scandum's world! There'd be no trouble left on the whole planet.

Tell me about, it's very complicated and intellectual to blame it all on white racism. And while that technically is a form of racism against whites, it's a just one, though the exact reason why is so complicated that no one really knows.


That sentence was far too complex. I'm off to top myself before I infect the rest of society with my stupidity.
29 Jun, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 170th comment:
Votes: 0
Soylent green rears its nutritious head once moar! :alien:
29 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 171st comment:
Votes: 0
…what?
29 Jun, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 172nd comment:
Votes: 0
The 172 is cool.
29 Jun, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 173rd comment:
Votes: 0
aidil said:
No, I worry about those that are actually there, not those that could have been but aren't.

People who actually exist have nothing to fear from a sensible eugenics programme, regardless of their status. Eugenics has a bad press, because many people who have historically espoused the idea have gone well beyond the actual eugenic aspect and advocated active discrimination against people who are viewed as genetically undesirable. But this is not actually what eugenics is about. It's about making people healthy and happy, it's not about treating unhealthy people badly. If I get just one point across in this thread, let it be that: eugenics has nothing to do with discriminating against any actual, living person (with the exception of discouraging certain types of uncontrolled reproduction).

aidil said:
At any rate, I think you are totally off with your idea that blind, or deaf or whatever disabled people are on average less happy then those who don't have such a disabillity.

Mm. And, I suppose, given the chance to become healthy and able-bodied again, every single disabled person would ignore it and voluntarily choose to remain disabled? (shakes head) I don't think so. Plenty of disabled people may be happy, but they would be happier if they were not disabled.

Of course, some disabled people do get into a bizarre kind of delusional state about it - witness those Deaf people who argue that deaf children should not have the opportunity to be fitted with a cochleal implant on the grounds that this will somehow rob them of their birthright as a Deaf person. Quite bizarre. But the fact that some people have views as damaging as that doesn't mean that those views should be tolerated.

aidil said:
We should instead use eugenics to end up with people incapable of being unhappy, much more efficient solution to the problem.

That would require actual genetic engineering rather than mere eugenics, I think.
29 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 174th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
aidil said:
We should instead use eugenics to end up with people incapable of being unhappy, much more efficient solution to the problem.

That would require actual genetic engineering rather than mere eugenics, I think.

I think that genetic engineering is the 'mere' logical consequence of everything you've been advocating.
29 Jun, 2009, aidil wrote in the 175th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
aidil said:
No, I worry about those that are actually there, not those that could have been but aren't.

People who actually exist have nothing to fear from a sensible eugenics programme, regardless of their status.


I have this strange habbit of judging things in part by looking at what effect they would have on my environment.

Had eugenics been common practise in the last half century, then I'd likely not be there, and neither would some people I know.

shasarak said:
Eugenics has a bad press, because many people who have historically espoused the idea have gone well beyond the actual eugenic aspect and advocated active discrimination against people who are viewed as genetically undesirable.


No, it has a bad press because there are vocal people who are not naive about human nature. Regardless of whom claimed eugenics in the past, it is clear that ideas based around superiority are not uncommon to humans, and many consider it a rather bad idea to give such people yet another tool to foolishly claim that. That superiority ideologies often result in discrimination also has a lot of historical precedence, and wether the people involved claimed to be practising eugenics or not is rather irrelevant for that.

shasarak said:
But this is not actually what eugenics is about. It's about making people healthy and happy,


That is in theory also roughly what communism is about, but it doesn't work that way.
Having good goals doesn't compensate for bad assumptions.

shasarak said:
it's not about treating unhealthy people badly. If I get just one point across in this thread, let it be that: eugenics has nothing to do with discriminating against any actual, living person (with the exception of discouraging certain types of uncontrolled reproduction).

aidil said:
At any rate, I think you are totally off with your idea that blind, or deaf or whatever disabled people are on average less happy then those who don't have such a disabillity.

Mm. And, I suppose, given the chance to become healthy and able-bodied again, every single disabled person would ignore it and voluntarily choose to remain disabled? (shakes head) I don't think so. Plenty of disabled people may be happy, but they would be happier if they were not disabled.


Would you refuse an improvement?

Question is, are they as happy as someone else born without a dissability. What improvements during their life would do for their happyness is not related to that question

shasarak said:
Of course, some disabled people do get into a bizarre kind of delusional state about it - witness those Deaf people who argue that deaf children should not have the opportunity to be fitted with a cochleal implant on the grounds that this will somehow rob them of their birthright as a Deaf person. Quite bizarre. But the fact that some people have views as damaging as that doesn't mean that those views should be tolerated.


And is completely unrelated to this discussion.

shasarak said:
aidil said:
We should instead use eugenics to end up with people incapable of being unhappy, much more efficient solution to the problem.

That would require actual genetic engineering rather than mere eugenics, I think.


I think you need a sarcasm detector, or fix the one you have.
29 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 176th comment:
Votes: 0
This is awesome. I'm gunna stand back and let you euros suss it out.

Word of caution, though. I hope Aidil doesn't engage Scandum directly. They're
each other's antiparticle :(

-Crat
29 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 177th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I think that genetic engineering is the 'mere' logical consequence of everything you've been advocating.

Indeed, restricting breeding is difficult, though fairly easy in the case of locking up criminals. I'm not sure if the population would be favorable toward the sterilization of heavy criminals, though attitudes might change once we can establish if a criminal is a criminal by nature or nurture.

Genetic engineering and embryo selection are much more viable options that provide choice, rather than restricting it. Embryo selection would allow people like Shasarak to have children without having to worry about passing on crippling genetic diseases, or having to make the moral decision not to have any children at all. Your average eugenicist isn't all that interested in oppressing the genetically weak, and would rather support a genius sperm bank.
29 Jun, 2009, aidil wrote in the 178th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
This is awesome. I'm gunna stand back and let you euros suss it out.

Word of caution, though. I hope Aidil doesn't engage Scandum directly. They're
each other's antiparticle :(

-Crat


Don't be so sure..

Scandum said:
David Haley said:
I think that genetic engineering is the 'mere' logical consequence of everything you've been advocating.

Indeed, restricting breeding is difficult, though fairly easy in the case of locking up criminals. I'm not sure if the population would be favorable toward the sterilization of heavy criminals, though attitudes might change once we can establish if a criminal is a criminal by nature or nurture.

Genetic engineering and embryo selection are much more viable options that provide choice, rather than restricting it. Embryo selection would allow people like Shasarak to have children without having to worry about passing on crippling genetic diseases, or having to make the moral decision not to have any children at all. Your average eugenicist isn't all that interested in oppressing the genetically weak, and would rather support a genius sperm bank.


Indeed. While I don't think we are anywhere near being able to make useful predictions on the long term effect of genetic manipulation yet, it is a much more viable, and in the end also socially much more acceptable solution.
29 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 179th comment:
Votes: 0
Eugenics is widespread, perfectly natural, and some might argue, instinctual. The problem is the practice of guys getting girls drunk….
29 Jun, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 180th comment:
Votes: 0
Behold, I found an article today that counters one of the implied points in the content of my original argument. I'm not sure anyone cares anymore, since the argument has changed direction. Also, there's not a lot of content to the article. Nevertheless, here it is: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20...
160.0/332