Any totalitarian means or system which treats people as animals with no ability to choose for themselves is wrong. Eugenics is such a system, and thus it is wrong.

Now I do agree that some people are better than others. So what? That's just the nature of life. I wouldn't want only great people to exist... Just imagine a society formed of Alexander the Greats. That would result in chaos, as none of them would accept to be ruled. Not everyone can be Alexander, and there can only ever be one sun in the sky. Alexander is indeed great, but morally he is the equal of everyone else. There is only one equality in this world, and that is our moral equality.

The thing I hate about modern day progressives is precisely that they try to force people to be a certain way - and they seek to level everyone to the same standard. We should all be equal - and equally bad as well. No Alexanders. In your eugenics driven world, we should still all be equal - only that equally superior. I have distaste for both.

Any totalitarian means or system which treats people as animals with no ability to choose for themselves is wrong. Eugenics is such a system, and thus it is wrong. — Agustino

See my answer to b:

eugenics can just be from a common attitude in society — Ovaloid

Not an attitude of "I don't want to be with you because you are genetically inferior" but one of "I love you and want to be with you but I'm afraid we'll have to adopt or use IVF/artificial insemination".

I wouldn't want only great people to exist... Just imagine a society formed of Alexander the Greats. That would result in chaos, as none of them would accept to be ruled. — Agustino

It's not necessarily true that every one would be equally great. They would just be greater than before.

You can think of eugenics as extended care, for the future of humanity as well as for the afflicted. — Ovaloid

The only real cure for humanity's affliction is for it to die. Eugenics assumes that you can improve and in time fix the human condition, which is false.

What do we have that other species don't that means we should go extinct?

Not an attitude of "I don't want to be with you because you are genetically inferior" but one of "I love you and want to be with you but I'm afraid we'll have to adopt or use IVF/artificial insemination". — Ovaloid

That's unreal. I want my child to be mine, out of my own flesh and blood if possible, not out of another's. To have a wife who says she loves me, and yet feels that I'm not sufficient to make for a good child is insulting.

The only real cure for humanity's affliction is for it to die. — Heister Eggcart

What's stopping you then? :s If you really believe that, you can always start with yourself. I don't understand this position at all. If you really believe that the solution to man's problems is death, then you should stop advising others, and implement the solution yourself!

To have a wife who says she loves me, and yet feels that I'm not sufficient to make for a good child is insulting. — Agustino

I don't see this point. When your wife points out a fault which you have, which is truly, in her eyes a fault, in other words she truly believes that you have this characteristic, and that it is a fault, why should you be insulted by this? You need to face the reality of your deficiencies, and don't ignore them under the assumption that it is a deficiency of the one who discloses them to you.

I don't see this point. When your wife points out a fault which you have, which is truly, in her eyes a fault, in other words she truly believes that you have this characteristic, and that it is a fault, why should you be insulted by this? You need to face the reality of your deficiencies, and don't ignore them under the assumption that it is a deficiency of the one who discloses them to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure but what does that have to do with my response? She certainly isn't telling me that I have a character fault and therefore she won't have a child with me and we need to engage in artificial insemination or adoption instead, is she?

Here we go again. Progressives and their old friend eugenics.

Why don't you lay out a plan for eugenics. Its issues should be quite easily apparent.

We already practice eugenics with regard to sexual preference and mate selection. The reason we desire some traits in our sexual partner has something to do with the likelihood that the traits in our offspring will be beneficial to them at some level, even if what we have selected for is average and quite common.

Actually, we are practicing eugenics now, and it is a good thing in one particular way:

Individuals with known inheritable diseases are (or should be) counseled (not sterilized) on the advisability of their reproduction.

When forced eugenics was last national policy in the United States (and it was policy in many states) it was based on very crude assumptions -- not just crude by 21st century standards, but crude by early 20th century standards as well. If people seemed mentally dull and had inconvenienced the community by having children they couldn't support, they might be sterilized.

Mental retardation is a disability and unfortunate, of course, but it usually isn't a genetic disability. There are economic reasons to prevent the retarded from reproducing (by using vasectomy or birth control implants), and those are different than eugenic rationales.

If blue-eyed blond people want more blue-eyed blond people, or if darkest ebony people want more darkest ebony people, then they should breed with like kind. But there is nothing genetically superior about following such a course. One might merely like the aesthetics better. If we can't indulge in aesthetic flourishes, what does free will mean?

The reason we desire some traits in our sexual partner has something to do with the likelihood that the traits in our offspring will be beneficial to them at some level — Nils Loc

I doubt this honestly speaking. If you look at who most folks choose as their partners, it's people who are convenient for them - not for their kids.

If you look at who most folks choose as their partners, it's people who are convenient for them - not for their kids. — Agustino

Human values and properties are too complex and multivariate to construct a eugenic plan for either the species or one's children. Our rate of offspring production is fast enough (too fast, in some cases) but the term of maturation is very long. Waiting 25 years to see how the kid turned out is an impractically long period of time to wait if one wants to personally breed better children.

Human beings haven't displayed convincing evidence that they can maintain difficult enterprises over the long run. Supervising our genetic future is a very long-term project.

Fortunately for those who breed by convenience rather than futuristic goals, genetic regression to the mean saves us all. (Over the long run, we tend to be average.)

We already practice eugenics with regard to sexual preference and mate selection. — Nils Loc

I join with Agustino in disagreeing with this. Whatever it is that makes a breeding pair attractive to each other probably has nothing to do with non-obvious but serious genetic flaws.

And eugenics is a social plan, not personal preferences.

She certainly isn't telling me that I have a character fault and therefore she won't have a child with me and we need to engage in artificial insemination or adoption instead, is she? — Agustino

I think that's exactly what she'd be saying to you. How do you understand otherwise?

I think that's exactly what she'd be saying to you. How do you understand otherwise? — Metaphysician Undercover

If she's saying she won't have a child with me because of a character defect I have, then that is insulting. It's one thing that I have a character defect, and another to think that because I have a character fault, my child will inevitably have it, and furthermore she'd rather have someone else's child than mine for this reason. That smells of extreme pettiness to me and should be morally condemnable.

It's one thing that I have a character defect, and another to think that because I have a character fault, my child will inevitably have it, and furthermore she'd rather have someone else's child than mine for this reason. — Agustino

If the fault is hereditary then so be it, a fact is a fact. Face up to the facts instead of being insulted. You might be a good lay, and good at other things, but your lacking in genetic material. So she's going to get that somewhere else. So what?

If the fault is hereditary then so be it, a fact is a fact. Face up to the facts instead of being insulted. You might be a good lay, and good at other things, but your lacking in genetic material. So she's going to get that somewhere else. So what? — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O You ask some very strange questions my friend. I'd find it very peculiar indeed if your wife said that to you and you had no problem with it.

The issue is obviously that I presumably also want to reproduce and have a child which is my own, and so her doing that frustrates my natural desire, and this frustration of natural desire based on the motivation that my genes are "not good enough" is evil.

It's very clear to me, if I was a woman and I loved a man, then I would never say "Oh I'm not going to have a child with you because you have a penchant for laziness (say) and I don't want the child to have such genes"

If such genetic manipulation was the norm in our society, and something you and your spouse could choose as an option, it would just be one more thing which you would have to discuss and make a decision concerning. Right now, if you want children, and one member of the partnership is impotent, then you have to make decisions concerning that issue. Perhaps in the future, couples will be able to choose from a genetic bank, to decide what kind of child they will have. I don't see why the issue of your spouse wanting to choose genetic material, rather than having to accept what is forced upon her from you, or even from her own family, is something which should be insulting to you.

If such genetic manipulation was the norm in our society — Metaphysician Undercover

What difference does it make - as Hillary Clinton would ask you - if such is the norm or not?

I don't see why the issue of your spouse wanting to choose genetic material, rather than having to accept what is forced upon her from you, or even from her own family, is something which should be insulting to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O Okay, you go do that with your wife then. I think I prefer not to.

The whole idea of her having a child holding her genes, and me not having the option to have a child with my genes - because my genes are crooked and inferior - that whole ideology speaks of oppression and abuse. Moreover, it screams of rampant feminism of a kind I haven't yet seen - as in why would anyone create the asymmetry? Might as well get other people to give birth to the child, both of whom have great genes, and we just raise the child...

And I might as well add that if she wants to be my wife, then she better accept what is forced upon her from me (referring to the genes) - otherwise she can find another man. I don't see why I should bow down before anyone if they don't like me for who I am. What you think I'm a masochist? You think I will go around like that torturing myself on purpose? Like for real now... I actually thought you were joking >:O

But some folks I noticed, are willing to do anything for something of this world. Many do anything for sex for example. Humiliate themselves in the worst ways - you're never gonna see that from me. My life is for one thing only - never to humiliate myself before any of the powers and principalities of this world, but rather, against all the odds, to stand tall for what is true, just and righteous.

The whole idea of her having a child holding her genes, and me not having the option to have a child with my genes - because my genes are crooked and inferior - that whole ideology speaks of oppression and abuse. — Agustino

Why do you see a matter of choice as oppression and abuse?

And I might as well add that if she wants to be my wife, then she better accept what is forced upon her from me (referring to the genes) - otherwise she can find another man. I don't see why I should bow down before anyone if they don't like me for who I am. What you think I'm a masochist? You think I will go around like that torturing myself on purpose? Like for real now... I actually thought you were joking >:O — Agustino

Yeah, you go ahead and force your genes upon your wife in a non-consensual way, after all, she's your wife and it's her duty to allow you to do that. Do I sound like I'm joking? If so, I'm a pretty sick joker, and that might be why I mostly refrain from joking.

Why do you see a matter of choice as oppression and abuse? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why then don't I have that choice? Why does she have the choice to say I want a child with these genes, and I don't? And moreover she gets to put her genes in there, and I don't get to put mine. So she'll raise HER child, I will raise a different one. That's outrageous beyond belief - if only Aristotle for example was around here to listen to such debauchery! Really this is so oppressive and abusive it's so evident! It's so evident that in this relationship the woman is king and the man is slave. How can you not see that BASIC fact?

Yeah, you go ahead and force your genes upon your wife in a non-consensual way — Metaphysician Undercover

And where have I said non-consensual? I said if she doesn't accept me for who I am, she should find another man. I'm not a slave, and neither should you be one, regardless of the pressures of the world. Fuck the world, your integrity matters more! The world can be taken away from you, it's perishable and thus worth nothing, however, your own will, your own integrity, nothing can take it unless you give it. So don't give it.

Why then don't I have that choice? — Agustino

As I said, it would be something you discuss, and choose together, as husband and wife. It is not your choice, it is not her choice, that's how that type of union works, you choose these things together.

As I said, it would be something you discuss, and choose together, as husband and wife. It is not your choice, it is not her choice, that's how that type of union works, you choose these things together. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay so if I am opposed what happens? Because I can guarantee that I would be opposed. Furthermore, what happens if I want a child that another woman gives birth to (after being impregnated with my semen artificially), and I want me and my wife to raise it? I don't think she'd accept that either. I don't understand why you want to introduce these oppressive elements in a relationship.

It is not your choice, it is not her choice, that's how that type of union works, you choose these things together. — Metaphysician Undercover

In my experience - not in a marriage - but in a relationship - she chooses some things, I choose others, depending on what each of us is best at. But each is free to make his/her choices in the realms that belong to him/her and the other can ask questions, make suggestions, etc. but they will follow in the end.

Do you not think that the traits, physical or otherwise, that people find attractive were shaped by evolution to cause us to subconsciously choose mates that are healthy and fit enough to raise the next generation?

Do you not think that the traits, physical or otherwise, that people find attractive were shaped by evolution to cause us to subconsciously choose mates that are healthy and fit enough to raise the next generation? — aequilibrium

No - as far as I see most people aren't fit and capable to raise the next generation, and yet they still do. That's why we're organised in society and not otherwise.

I actually kind of agree with you here, but I was using the word fitness in somewhat of a different sense. I was using the word fitness in the way biologist use the term.

From an evolutionary perspective, we only need be fit enough to raise a generation until they are old enough to reproduce themselves. It seems obvious to me that our romantic preferences were shaped by evolution.

For example, the reason why most men find the hourglass shape and slightly curved back attractive in women, is because this is a healthy shape for women to have babies and live. If a womans pelvis shape is too narrow, then the likelihood of the baby's head fitting through the birth canal is much lower and the likelihood of the mother dying is much higher. Also, The reason why women are attracted to strong assertive men, is because this is the character trait that is the most likely to result in the baby having enough resources to maintain a healthy childhood.

What do we have that other species don't that means we should go extinct? — Ovaloid

Our consciousness.

I don't understand this position at all. — Agustino

I was gonna reply to something else, but I feared I might trigger you.

Whatever it is that makes a breeding pair attractive to each other probably has nothing to do with non-obvious but serious genetic flaws.

And eugenics is a social plan, not personal preferences. — Bitter Crank

We're not just talking about non-obvious genetic flaws with regard to eugenics, we're talking about the possibilities of shaping human features in a cosmetic or performative way out of personal preference. Though I know natural selection isn't a eugenics program of any sort, the same forces, cultural or instinctual, that help us pick our mates also help us to determine what we want our children to look and act like.

Why are so many South Koreans getting plastic surgery (and why do they have to attach a picture to their job resume)? I'm sure they would leap to any eugenics program that would make it easier on their children in such competitive atmosphere.

New Yorker: About Face