I've seen a trend here of people voicing their support for eugenics. Just wondering what the general consensus is.
-
Hey Guest,
If you want to donate, we have a thread with updated donation options here at this link: About Donations
sserafim
the darker the night, the brighter the stars
- Sep 13, 2023
- 7,682
Depends on what it's for but generally yes
druggedonsurvival
Student
- Feb 8, 2024
- 194
No. Nobody should reproduce, period. All life is eventual suffering.
EvisceratedJester
|| What Else Could I Be But a Jester ||
- Oct 21, 2023
- 1,102
Yeah, no. From the racism and ableism that is connected to it to it's potential ramifications, such as leading to a loss of genetic diversity, eugenics just all around sucks.
.
Malaria
If I can't be my own, I'd feel better dead
- Feb 24, 2024
- 1,022
I can't think about eugenics without thinking about Nazi Germany, so I'm inclined to think it's pretty evil.
sserafim
the darker the night, the brighter the stars
- Sep 13, 2023
- 7,682
I think that while eugenics is seen as evil, it could also be used to do good. Diseases could be eradicated, and disabilities could be eradicated so that no one is limited from reaching their full potential. Personally, I wish that autism had been bred out of the population so that I wouldn't have to have it. It's literally a curse with no cure. It's the main reason why I'm burnt out right now and want to ctb
Life itself is ableist and it's hard living as a disabled person (I have autism and ADHD). Life won't accommodate your needs. Society will never change to fit you. You're expected to change to fit into the world, and you'll always be at a disadvantage. The way to have a level playing field is to use eugenics to eradicate diseases so that everyone can have an equal chance to succeed in life, without being held back by disabilities
Last edited:
Malaria
If I can't be my own, I'd feel better dead
- Feb 24, 2024
- 1,022
I do wish there could be a cure for autism, but I guess what I want more is choice. Believe it or not, there are people who do actually like having autism. I don't relate to those people, but I wouldn't want whatever enjoyment they get out of it to be taken away from them.
There should be options. People who like having autism should be allowed to keep having it, and people who hate having autism should have science help them be neurotypical.
Adûnâi
Little Russian in-cel
- Apr 25, 2020
- 829
The awkward thing about eugenics is that the characteristics for breeding are chosen necessarily arbitrarily - nobody knows for sure which ones are conducive to the given collective's survival. What if by reducing the crime rate, aggressiveness, one will turn the citizens into clueless, timid eloi?
en.wikipedia.org
Still, I would subscribe to the general notions of eugenics such as killing off the deranged and the physically sick - it would be a win-win for everyone. They used to die anyway in pre-industrial ages, but the secular hyper-Christians are making them suffer, keeping them alive. I don't see any downsides. Choice is cringe anyway, free will is a Christian religious concept.
Eloi - Wikipedia
Still, I would subscribe to the general notions of eugenics such as killing off the deranged and the physically sick - it would be a win-win for everyone. They used to die anyway in pre-industrial ages, but the secular hyper-Christians are making them suffer, keeping them alive. I don't see any downsides. Choice is cringe anyway, free will is a Christian religious concept.
BeedyBee
Member
- Aug 30, 2022
- 12
BeedyBee
Member
- Aug 30, 2022
- 12
I think "eugenics" is gonna come back whether we like it or not. With CRISPR we're probably gonna learn how to find "bad" genes and remove them before birth or summ
sserafim
the darker the night, the brighter the stars
- Sep 13, 2023
- 7,682
There seems to be ethical and moral pushback though. I don't think that eugenics is likely to be implemented due to Nazi associations and the fact that "everyone deserves a chance at life" or something.
Ferdinand Bardamu
DO YOU WANT TOTAL WAR?
- Feb 22, 2024
- 180
We need to make Positive Eugenics state mandated for heritable illnesses.
MindFrog
:Professional Hypocrite:
- Nov 19, 2020
- 723
I don't trust us enough.. A lot of horrific inventions have been made with good intentions in mind like the nuclear bomb.
Eugenics is good on paper but in reality it'll be another thing that'll be suppressing our rights.
This is why I don't support the death penalty or requiring a license to have children either. We are too flawed not to weaponize it.
Eugenics is good on paper but in reality it'll be another thing that'll be suppressing our rights.
This is why I don't support the death penalty or requiring a license to have children either. We are too flawed not to weaponize it.
jar-baby
Specialist
- Jun 20, 2023
- 347
I think eugenics as it's been implemented in the past is morally quite different from genetic engineering— and embryonic selection within IVF— the latter two of which I perceive as positive things.
I like this poll idea because I have seen (sometimes vaguely) eugenicist sentiments being expressed on the forum, and also because a lot of members here are antinatalists, which I think can be perceived as adjacent to eugenics. That is, a eugenicist might argue that some potential people (those high at risk of having a bad life on account of some gene/group of polygenes) shouldn't come into existence for their own sake, while an antinatalist might argue further that no potential people should be brought into existence (because of the pain-pleasure asymmetry of life) for their own sake (though eugenics is obviously different in that it would, by definition, have to be implemented systematically, and because the focus is less on the individual and more on the population).
That said, I think the question as it's asked here is too vague. Eugenics on the basis of race is different from eugenics on the basis of IQ which is different from eugenics on the basis of neurodivergences which is different from eugenics on the basis of heritable disease. (Also, making the votes publicly visible maybe isn't a good idea— I might favour a form of eugenics that aims to eradicate highly harmful diseases but I certainly wouldn't want to label myself a eugenicist because of all the other implications it might have.)
Raven_Nevermore
Member
- Feb 18, 2024
- 51
In my case, I definitely believe in eugenics because I should never had been allowed to be born, not to mention conceived. It's like I accidentally slipped through the cracks and very unfortunately for all, I'm still fucking here. As hard as I have tried over the years, I never succeed in eliminating me. All the MORE REASON everyone, including myself, is far better withOUT me.
Agon321
I use google translate
- Aug 21, 2023
- 605
I totally support it.
I like it when the human species overcomes new barriers, and eugenics will help us overcome another one.
Thanks to eugenics, we can correct the "errors" of nature.
Ethical issues have no importance for me. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to such matters.
I probably sound radical, but I can't help it. That's who I am :)
I like it when the human species overcomes new barriers, and eugenics will help us overcome another one.
Thanks to eugenics, we can correct the "errors" of nature.
Ethical issues have no importance for me. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to such matters.
I probably sound radical, but I can't help it. That's who I am :)
theboy
Visionary
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,844
druggedonsurvival
Student
- Feb 8, 2024
- 194
Human consciousness is the only error of nature we should be concerned about when talking about whether or not to reproduce. Although if you're concerned about what is most pragmatic, that would probably be just letting whoever wants to reproduce free reign to do so, since it eliminates the problem of ethics, and one could say that "errors of nature" are gradually phased out through natural selection anyway.
Unfortunate, but you're probably right. Perhaps the elites of society will be the only ones left after long enough. It seems like the movie GATTACA was prophetic when you read into the news about gene editing and such.
sserafim
the darker the night, the brighter the stars
- Sep 13, 2023
- 7,682
One more step, you're immortal now, 'cause
Once you play God, once you play God
They're gonna crumble one by one
We already have eugenics. There are parents who give birth to children with mental disabilities who reject them and those kids spend rest of their lives in "special" institutions for mentally disabled. Same routine, same food, not seeing anything beyond your 4 walls and a backyard. Not even better than a prison and for the rest of your life, some get a chance to adapt to normal society and leave, most won't and just die there. So yes, what we have now is even worse than eugenics, not killing them before they are born essentially means giving them a life of torture. This may sound radical but this is what I have believe
Eliminate all the congenital problems. It's unacceptable that people like me have to be "collateral damage".
ColorlessTrees
Stuck
- Jan 4, 2022
- 215
The name itself has become a loaded term with a questionable history; people are always quick to jump on me, because on paper, I don't believe it's a bad thing. Yet I also don't believe humans could implement it in a moral way. Despite the illusion of high civilization, 'we' are still too primitive to fully free ourselves of bias.
In terms of eradicating disease and disability, physical and mental, it would be a net positive for society and its individuals. I know that sentiment is considered offensive by some, but being ''disabled'' myself, I think it's utterly idiotic to want to keep an objective limitation to one's quality of life. The upcoming prospect of gene editing makes me a little uneasy, but I know damn well if it could ever erase the illness and faulty genetics I have, I would jump right on it; I've exhausted all traditional treatments.
Whether I'd support the government getting their grubby hands all over it is another story.
In terms of eradicating disease and disability, physical and mental, it would be a net positive for society and its individuals. I know that sentiment is considered offensive by some, but being ''disabled'' myself, I think it's utterly idiotic to want to keep an objective limitation to one's quality of life. The upcoming prospect of gene editing makes me a little uneasy, but I know damn well if it could ever erase the illness and faulty genetics I have, I would jump right on it; I've exhausted all traditional treatments.
Whether I'd support the government getting their grubby hands all over it is another story.
LevUwU
I hate my life and the government
- Mar 16, 2024
- 181
To quote a line from a star trek interview with Patrick Stewart: "Surely by the 24th century, they would have found a cure for male pattern baldness." Gene Roddenberry responded "No, by the 24th century, no one will care."
Eugenics is just a bunch of racism and lack of tolerance and support. for people with issues that deviate from the norm. Anyone who supports eugenics can lick a pig's unwashed ass
Eugenics is just a bunch of racism and lack of tolerance and support. for people with issues that deviate from the norm. Anyone who supports eugenics can lick a pig's unwashed ass
ijustwishtodie
death will be my ultimate bliss
- Oct 29, 2023
- 2,463
Yes, I support it. All eugenics means is to filter out the bad genetics which is always a positive thing to do as long as we do it by not giving birth to those with faulty genetics. Sure, there are people who are disabled who still appreciate their life but eugenics only concerns new life, not existing life. I don't see how it is a bad thing to prevent some disabled people from being born... the quality of life argument doesn't even apply to those who haven't been born yet and there isn't a single non existent being who will complain about not bringing them to life due to their genetic makeup. The idea of "playing god" is moot when it comes to beings who haven't even been born yet as none of them can complain about not being born
Personally, I have autism and I wish it was filtered out of the gene pool. It makes no sense to keep it around especially when the world is neurotypical
Personally, I have autism and I wish it was filtered out of the gene pool. It makes no sense to keep it around especially when the world is neurotypical
Ambivalent1
🎵 Can this be the end? Is this the way I die?
- Apr 17, 2023
- 2,707
"man cannot remake himself without suffering for he is both the marble and the sculptor." Alexis Carrel eugenicist. Man refers to mankind
BrainShower
Tiny storm
- Nov 7, 2023
- 225
As far as bad ideas that go terribly wrong go, eugenics is high up on the list.
Just read some history. It's pretty clear how bad it would be in practice.
Just read some history. It's pretty clear how bad it would be in practice.
LevUwU
I hate my life and the government
- Mar 16, 2024
- 181
Everyone pro-eugenics here needs to realize that they are a a half-witted earwax eater,
Even IF it did filter out, quote, "Bad genes" you fail to realize mutations will happen either way, plus, if it were ever implemented, there would be little stopping it from becoming violently racist and homophobic etc
Even IF it did filter out, quote, "Bad genes" you fail to realize mutations will happen either way, plus, if it were ever implemented, there would be little stopping it from becoming violently racist and homophobic etc
Blurry_Buildings
Just Existing
- Sep 27, 2023
- 311
The issue too is that many of the minds that contributed the most to humanity's development were suspected of being mentally ill and would probably be well within the "undesirable" group. If we lost people like Isaac Newton (who gave lectures to empty classrooms when no one showed up) and Albert Einstein (who couldnt tie his shoes at 16), we would lose incredible amounts of progress (that impoves the lives of everyone today).
As much as I wish to prevent future suffering from mental illness, I wouldn't want to say that a mentally ill person could not find just as much or more happiness in their lives either. No one but the individual in question can be the judge of that, and I'm sure most people would rather love their child unconditionally, not only if they get to choose the child's brain structure and eye color.
Either way, people are already moving towards eugenics by choosing what embryos they use. Soon it may be hard to regulate genome editing if it starts becoming common place somewhere (or anywhere) in the world. No one wants a mentally ill child if they have the option between that and a normal one and the slope may be slippery.
As much as I wish to prevent future suffering from mental illness, I wouldn't want to say that a mentally ill person could not find just as much or more happiness in their lives either. No one but the individual in question can be the judge of that, and I'm sure most people would rather love their child unconditionally, not only if they get to choose the child's brain structure and eye color.
Either way, people are already moving towards eugenics by choosing what embryos they use. Soon it may be hard to regulate genome editing if it starts becoming common place somewhere (or anywhere) in the world. No one wants a mentally ill child if they have the option between that and a normal one and the slope may be slippery.
