That reminds me of the joke... Plastic surgeon to patient: "I can't make you look any younger, but I can make you look like you've had a lot of expensive plastic surgery."

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

It's gene-worship, basically.

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

Again, see this is what I was telling you in the other thread. Every time you come up with something like this as a way to avoid discussion and explaining your beliefs/positions. So it's getting annoying to interact with you because you simply never engage in discussion.

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. — aequilibrium

I don't know - most men from what I see are attracted to women who are perceived, by society, to be worth being with. It's not really a rational affair. If that type of body is perceived as worth having, then they will be attracted by that. If you look through history, physical features that were found to be attractive have changed, many many times, and it's mostly a function of the prevailing culture. Now the prevailing culture is materialism - hence our society may be telling us that the best bodies are those that give the best children.

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. — aequilibrium

I very much doubt that women are - in their majority - attracted to strong assertive men. If that was true, Vladimir Putin would have all the women in the world head and heels over him. Young girls would be day-dreaming about being in bed with Putin. He's quite possibly the most assertive, and strongest leader there is in the world at the moment. And yet this is very very far from the truth. Most women would hate being with a man like Vladimir Putin - that's why he doesn't have a wife. In fact, I have noticed quite the opposite. Most women - there are exceptions of course - tend to prefer average men or if not, people like rock stars, musicians, artists, and so forth rather than the strong, bold, assertive leader. Instead look at Brad Pitt - fucking Brad Pitt - is that guy the strong, assertive man? >:O No, he's just a joker who plays pretend for a living. And yet most women day-dream to be in bed with him. Putin could probably order Brad Pitt arrested and thrown in the river - he can ensure the survival of his children over Pitt's. And yet Pitt gets the women >:O

Both men and women generally tend to have an aversion to greatness of any kind. If you look at the lives of strong and powerful men for example, many of them may have had many women over their lives, but no woman generally wants to remain with them - in the end they are always alone. It's lonely at the top.

Your objections apply to forced eugenics, but are you allowing for the right to personally choose the characteristics of your own designer baby?

Your objections apply to forced eugenics, but are you allowing for the right to personally choose the characteristics of your own designer baby? — Hanover

What do you mean? "Designer baby"?

You pick the design, from hair color, to sexual preference, to intelligence level, to shoe size.

But then life wouldn't be like a box of chocolates anymore... ;)

No, I would want him/her to be the baby of me and my wife. Part of the joy of having a child is knowing, that despite all the bad traits he or she may have, he or she is the child of you and the woman you love.

I should add that I want the child I deserve, I don't want to pick.

As for whether I'm allowing for such a right... I'd say no, because I don't see why anyone would have the intelligence to make the right choices... better to let nature do her thing.

I should add that I want the child I deserve, I don't want to pick. — Agustino

But you would want to avoid severe genetic defects that might upend your family's future well being, right? So you don't really mean what you just said.

Just to keep people on track here... Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. Eugenics is a plan for improvement which has nothing to do with your personal preferences. Of necessity, it has been, is, or would be decreed and enforced by centralized authority with enough power to coerce "you" into breeding or not breeding as directed.

The difference between genetic counseling and eugenics is that in the former case, individuals are informed of the genetic problems that may or will come with reproduction, but are left to finally decide what to do. In the latter case, individuals are ordered and/or coerced into breeding or not, according to the dictates of the state.

We are not close to being able to facilitate personal preferences, except to abort children who lack features we want -- like either male or female, for instance. Intelligence, shoe size, and so on can't be selected for at this point.

Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. Eugenics is a plan for improvement which has nothing to do with your personal preferences. Of necessity, it has been, is, or would be decreed and enforced by centralized authority with enough power to coerce "you" into breeding or not breeding as directed. — Bitter Crank

You know what BC...

But you would want to avoid severe genetic defects that might upend your family's future well being, right? So you don't really mean what you just said. — Nils Loc

If I know the severe genetic defect is certain, then yes I will want to avoid it. But if it's just a possibility with nothing to suggest it's actually going to happen, then I would leave it up to fate, not for me to decide.

not for me to decide. — Agustino

But you would in fact be deciding, because you don't need to have a child.

But you would in fact be deciding, but you don't need to have a child. — Heister Eggcart

What does the fact that I would be deciding have to do with whether or not I need to have a child?

Because that's not "fate" then, it's you choosing to gamble.

Oh I see your point. I misunderstood. It's choosing to gamble only if I have any reason to think that a genetic defect is a realistic possibility in the specific case. If I don't, then it's just life. Life is full of suffering which can occur gratuitously, and I accept that - that's up to God to decide on.

If you don't have a child, then they won't suffer. If you choose to procreate, and the child wonders why it is suffering, are you blameless? Is it merely God's will that the child exists to suffer because you didn't need to have the child in the first place?

If you don't have a child, then they won't suffer. If you choose to procreate, and the child wonders why it is suffering, are you blameless? Is it merely God's will that the child exists to suffer because you didn't need to have the child in the first place? — Heister Eggcart

What's so bad about suffering? It's part of life, I fully acknowledge that the child will suffer, that's unavoidable. But life is worth living, at least for me, despite the possibility - certainty - of suffering. Sure there is suffering in life, but why get fixated on it? Why not focus on the undying spirit in man? Man learns from his suffering about his own greatness - about his own spirit. The fires of the world can burn the flesh, but not the spirit.

What's so bad about suffering? — Agustino

Did you just ask me this? Really?

It's part of life, I fully acknowledge that the child will suffer — Agustino

Okay...

that's unavoidable. — Agustino

No, it's not unavoidable. Guess what, Agustino? If you don't have the child, the child won't suffer, thus it's avoided suffering, :o

But life is worth living, at least for me, despite the possibility - certainty - of suffering. — Agustino

So, because you think life is worth living, your child will also agree, amirite?

The fires of the world can burn the flesh, but not the spirit. — Agustino

None of this matters were you and I and your potential child not to exist.

Did you just ask me this? Really? — Heister Eggcart

I mean, what's so bad about suffering that makes all of life not worth having? Would you choose not to attend a great dinner just because you'll have a headache if you attend?

No, it's not unavoidable. Guess what, Agustino? If you don't have the child, the child won't suffer, thus it's avoided suffering, :o — Heister Eggcart

So... that's like preventing a village from the uncertain possibility of getting flooded by not building it in the first place. But this is a trick of language - you say "the suffering is avoided" - and I ask you, who is avoiding the suffering? The child can't be avoiding anything, because only beings who are alive can avoid. So the whole assertion that "X is avoiding suffering" in the circumstance where "X doesn't exist" is nonsense.

So, because you think life is worth living, your child will also agree, amirite? — Heister Eggcart

Not necessarily, but he should at least have the chance of agreeing. Why are you so sure he won't agree?

None of this matters were you and I and your potential child not to exist. — Heister Eggcart

But that's purely hypothetical.

I mean, what's so bad about suffering that makes all of life not worth having? Would you choose not to attend a great dinner just because you'll have a headache if you attend? — Agustino

Suffering only exists because life does. No life, no suffering. This also means no love, but love also only is because of the world. And no, your dinner analogy falls short to adequately describe life.

So... that's like preventing a village from the uncertain possibility of getting flooded by not building it in the first place. But this is a trick of language — Agustino

Suffering is a necessity, you've already admitted this truth. A village flooding is not.

The child can't be avoiding anything, because only beings who are alive can avoid. So the whole assertion that "X is avoiding suffering" in the circumstance where "X doesn't exist" is nonsense. — Agustino

X is avoiding everything, which necessarily includes suffering. Nonexistence is passive avoidance, not active.

Not necessarily, but he should at least have the chance of agreeing. Why are you so sure he won't agree? — Agustino

Why should he? Who decides that he should? Oh yeah, you, not him. Your potential child also has to decide whether he wants the choice of choosing whether to be or not to be, so how might it do that, logically?

But that's purely hypothetical. — Agustino

And this is purely a cop-out.

X is avoiding everything, which necessarily includes suffering. Nonexistence is passive avoidance, not active. — Heister Eggcart

Our disagreement revolves around this. How is it possible for something that doesn't exist to avoid, passively? Do you say non-existent pink elephants are avoiding the hungry lions? Do you say nonexistant thiefs are avoiding jail? To me, because I'm a follower of the Great Ludwig Wittgenstein (who is listed up there as my favorite philosopher, just as I am listed as your favorite :P ) - meaning always occurs in a context. In this case, for the word avoid to have any meaning, it must occur in the context of existence. If I tell you that non-existent doors avoid being closed, you'll tell me I'm fucking nuts, and I need to see the shrink. And this says something about the meaning of my words - namely that you'll treat my sentence as having no meaning, because it doesn't!

Why should he? Who decides that he should? Oh yeah, you, not him. Your potential child also has to decide whether he wants the choice of choosing whether to be or not to be, so how might it do that, logically? — Heister Eggcart

But who decides that he shouldn't? Isn't THAT also me? There's no sitting on the fence. One has to risk, one has to make the jump. Both positions entail risks. One the one hand you decide for the child that he shouldn't have the choice - you never ask him. On the other hand I decide he should have the choice - I haven't asked him either. That's the nature of life - this is inescapable.

How is it possible for something that doesn't exist to avoid, passively? — Agustino

It is in the nature of opposites to passively avoid their antitheses. Because nonexistence does not exist, nonexistence passively avoids being what it isn't.

But who decides that he shouldn't? Isn't THAT also me? — Agustino

Your unborn child already doesn't exist. It doesn't need to choose whether it wants to exist because it only knows nonexistence. You're not choosing it's nonexistence, you only choose whether to keep it there.

Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. — Bitter Crank

I think we can use the term to apply to designer babies in a Capitalist setting, even though as you say it is speculative sci-fi at the moment. The term is possibly too shadowed by its history and should maybe be abandoned to your definition.

You've seen the film, GATTACA, I'm sure, where citizens are discriminated against on the basis of whether they've undergone pre-birth genetic enhancement.

"Eugenics" as a term has been used to describe societally enforced gene pools as well as things as simple as prenatal care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics . I think if we work with your definition (forced breeding practices and the like), this is a simple question, with NAZI Germany offering sufficient empirical evidence of its horrors.

I think if we work with your definition (forced breeding practices and the like), this is a simple question, with NAZI Germany offering sufficient empirical evidence of its horrors. — Hanover

In other words, we should all listen to the black people's music, they got the shit right. Fuck the police (and the Nazis)! >:O

we should all listen to the black people's music, they got the shit right — Agustino

Have you read the signs, Agustino?

It is in the nature of opposites to passively avoid their antitheses. Because nonexistence does not exist, nonexistence passively avoids being what it isn't. — Heister Eggcart

This is a tautology. Tautologies are empty of meaning, they don't say anything about their subject matter, except that they don't say anything. What you're saying is like me telling you
"A hand is a hand". Nonexistence doesn't exist. Non-existence avoids existence... dsdjasdh is dsdjasdh

Your unborn child already doesn't exist. It doesn't need to choose whether it wants to exist because it only knows nonexistence. You're not choosing it's nonexistence, you only choose whether to keep it there. — Heister Eggcart

It doesn't need to choose existence - but maybe it should have the option to exist. Who is it to say that I should choose not to have a child instead of choose to have one? Both are risks. Maybe I am depriving the child of something great. Maybe I'm sending him to suffer. Who knows? None of us - thus we live in fear and trembling.

Have you read the signs, Agustino? — Heister Eggcart

Interesting black folk music! I like it!

This is a tautology. — Agustino

No, it's just a fact of the matter.

It doesn't need to choose existence - but maybe it should have the option to exist. — Agustino

Maybe, perhaps, idunnowhynotsure? Really?

Who is it to say that I should choose not to have a child instead of choose to have one? — Agustino

Well, I am, in this discussion. And you should, too.

Both are risks — Agustino

How is not having a child a risk? The child doesn't exist. It cares not for whether it may exist or not because it necessarily can't care.

Maybe I am depriving the child of something great. — Agustino

This is completely secondary. Greatness, love, happiness, whatever else doesn't warrant one to will another into existence through procreation.

Maybe I'm sending him to suffer. — Agustino

Maybe? Why are you backing down? You acknowledged that suffering is a truth, there's no ands, ifs, or buts about it. If you procreate, your child will suffer. Period. End of story.

Who knows? None of us — Agustino

You do know, you're just trying to wriggle your way out of my grasp.

thus we live in fear and trembling.

So, fuck a woman and make a child? You've not shown me why I'm wrong, so c'mon, Agustino. Let's go, bro.

No, it's just a fact of the matter. — Heister Eggcart

No, facts are not tautologies, simply because facts represent things which could be otherwise. Nonexistence couldn't possibly be existence, and thus it can't be a fact.

Maybe, perhaps, idunnowhynotsure? Really? — Heister Eggcart

Possibly.

Well, I am, in this discussion. And you should, too. — Heister Eggcart

Yes I can see that much, but I don't understand why you consider your option superior. I for one don't consider your option inferior, but I simply think you don't have anymore justification than I do.

How is not having a child a risk? The child doesn't exist. It cares not for whether it may exist or not because it necessarily can't care. — Heister Eggcart

Because who knows whether the child should or shouldn't exist?

This is completely secondary. Greatness, love, happiness, whatever else doesn't warrant one to will another into existence through procreation. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think it doesn't warrant one to will another into existence?

Maybe? Why are you backing down? You acknowledged that suffering is a truth, there's no ands, ifs, or buts about it. If you procreate, your child will suffer. Period. End of story. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not backing down, I'm acknowledging your position as possible, but not justified.

So, fuck a woman and make a child? You've not shown me why I'm wrong, so c'mon, Agustino. Let's go, bro. — Heister Eggcart

Yes I actually believe I have. I've explained to you that in no way can you say the child will avoid suffering if you don't have him. And thus the whole justification you had to say that your position is superior to mine is gone. I'm not trying to say my position is justified and yours isn't - I'm saying that NEITHER yours nor mine is justified.