•
•

[Discussion] Should we have eugenics? (self.unitedkingdom)

nazarkovnHertfordshire が 投稿

To begin my point I refer to primarily genetic diseases and the such.

For example; If a man with sickle cell anaemia choses to breed then even if his children do not have the condition they may have a recessive gene, thus potentially unknowingly passing them onto their children and then their children having a nasty surprise upon their own children's birth.

But if that man was paid to not have children (or otherwise sterilised) then this gene would not be passed on. should he want children people like him should be given priority when searching for foster parents (As long as he has a stable source of income and housing).

Anyways, i myself am a libertarian but i also wish to end this needless suffering and also save money in care costs for these people. I am open to your thoughts, please just keep it civil in the coments :)

全 35 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]shish-mishScottish Highlands 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, there is more value in a person than just their physical being look at Bach or Stephen Hawking

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I do not suggest that we kill them off you know.

But you do realise that there are many Millions with Genetic diseases in comparison to the few who manage to push on.

I do not suggest killing them, i propose that their conception could be prevented in the first place

[–]shish-mishScottish Highlands [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

but you might also prevent many geniuses to ever be born, for example, there seems to be a correlation between depression and certain types of creativity.Once you start trying to eliminate certain genes you might eliminate a lot more than just a disease.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Have a look at the number of geniuses, now compare with the number of disabled ones.

[–]norney [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

But a disabled person can be a genius, no? By your logic preventing the birth of one genius with a genetic disease or another 'imperfection' outweighs the supposed benefit of preventing the births of a large number of disabled people who are not geniuses.

The problem here, and with any notion of eugenics, is one is making a value judgement as to who is worthy of existence. You are arguing that a disabled non-genius has no value and is not worthy of existence.

Can you see why many would have an issue with that?

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

good point. but the point of all this is to eradicate genetic disease. sure it may take a few hundred years but in the end it will be worth it.

[–]norney [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why will it be worth it? For whom will it be worth it? Which diseases are worth eradicating? Based on what criteria? Who decides? What if the owner of a particular genetic disease disagrees? What if friends or relatives disagree? How would decisions be enforced? How can abuse of such a system be prevented? What would count as a abuse? Etc etc etc...

[–]sim667 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No.

/thread

[–]echo_foxtrotEdinburgh 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What made you choose sickle cell anaemia for your example? If you want to have a civil discussion you should probably avoid a disease that predominately affects people of African Origin. Indeed, one in 13 Black Men (in America) carry the sickle cell gene, so what you're suggesting is truly horrific.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

fair point, could you suggest another one? Perhaps Haemophilia

[–]Prettygame4Ausername 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

any particular reason?

[–]Prettygame4Ausername 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't read your full post. I assumed you meant kill them off. My mistake.

If you pay them and they agree, then yeah I guess so.

But if you force them, then absolutely not.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah, all I am suggesting are incentives which will hopefully reduce rates of genetic diseases over time

[–]notablackDerbyshire 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Any system like this would be very much open to abuse and has very easy to imagine dire consequences under a nefarious or tyrannical government... and as I wouldn't trust the government to make me a cup of tea right now this seems like a very very bad idea!

Libertarian = neolibralist right?... Yucky!

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Libertarians are on the right wing (Imagine the political compass, we are in the purple bit)

And i can agree with you there 100%!

However, this debate is just out of interest for me and thus i don't expect anything like it to occur again.

In other words, this is all theoretical (a government which is not somehow full of shit)

[–]physical_dude 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Go eugene yourself.

Ahem, sorry.

[–]Nefarious_P_I_G [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Take all the money you want to put in to the eugenics program and use it to fund gene therapy. Then relax ethics laws to allow genetic manipulation of unborn children and get rid of genetic diseases that way. Much more ethical and I would like to be able to give my children super strength and speed.

[–]BritishDeafManEuropean Union 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

How do you plan preventing people from reproducing? Paying people off won't work for various reasons.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I suppose that is true...

How about simply sterilising them for a hefty sum of money? oh, wait that's still money...

In all honestly you raise a valid point, there are methods but i am against that sort of authoritarianism. There should be incentives, not requirements for such a thing. Hopefully, it will work over time, even if somewhat slowly.

[–]BritishDeafManEuropean Union [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

You should think in practical terms.

You have a person who's predisposed to give a birth to disabled person.

How much do you think they will accept not to give a birth? I'd say we're talking about figures between £50k-£100k.

You will have other people who aren't predisposed to give a birth to disabled person getting all riled up just because they cannot get that free money.

Those who accepted the money, let's say they're sterilised. I'm not too knowledgable in sterilisation area but I think all forms of permanent sterilisation have nasty side effects, reduced sexual drive, libido, etc. Less invasive forms of sterilisation can be reversed. How do you make sure those people don't reverse the sterilisation?

How do you decide who needs a sterilisation and who doesn't? How do you identify those who may be eligible for sterilisation?

Most of times, disease, disability, etc is not guaranteed to be passed on to children. Sometimes person has 50% chance of passing on whatever s/he has to children. Maybe less. How do you decide who is worth asking for sterilisation? Going back to the previous point where I mentioned that there will be people who's angry because they didn't get chance to get free money.

The social effects of sterilisation is far too much for such little gain.

It's not even money that are being "wasted" on disabled people. We're employing people to support, look after, research, etc for disabled or those with diseases. It's a way to keep people employed especially now that number of jobs are declining due to automation.

All in, I still disagree with sterlisation. Every person has a life worth living. We don't need to be perfect.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Good argument.

Male sterilisation works by cutting the tube connecting the testicles to the penis (Note that the man can still ejaculate but without sperm)

I am less knowledgeable about the female version but i believe it involves the blocking of the fallopian tubes in some manner.

[–]BritishDeafManEuropean Union [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Male sterilisation works by cutting the tube connecting the testicles to the penis (Note that the man can still ejaculate but without sperm)

This can be reversed.

I am less knowledgeable about the female version but i believe it involves the blocking of the fallopian tubes in some manner.

Sounds like it's reversable as well.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

but it is a rather delicate surgery which probably requires an experienced doctor since you are sewing a tiny tube shut (or whatever the female equivalent is)

And in all honesty, i doubt some backstreet doctor would be able to do it properley

[–]ochresparrow [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But if that man was paid to not have children (or otherwise sterilised) then this gene would not be passed on.

That's a rather blunt instrument though. I could imagine a world where a Crispr-type procedure could remove genetic diseases from the important genes in such a way to make the disease impossible in future offspring. It's already being tested on mice with sickle cell

Assuming something like that is possible, and it's sufficiently scaled to be affordable it would seem irresponsible not to, but it's also a terrifiying thought. I think individual 'choice' (for the wealthy anyway) will make it a reality though, rather than a top-down government mandate.

Edit: Yuval Harari recently wrote a book about the possible future of humans which includes genetics. It's obviously very speculative but gripping stuff.

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If such a thing is coming i am more than happy for it.

Heck! we might not need this whole scheme after all!

[–]HPBDurham 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

chooses to breed

You silver tongued devil.

[–]metrize [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I dunno, if a bunch of Einsteins could be made it would push science ahead but who knows if it will even work and nature vs nurture comes into that too

[–]nazarkovnHertfordshire[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If it comes to the natural way then all those who are born (For example) paralysed or with other conditions which hinder their survival would simply die off and be unable to reproduce.

For the first time in history, these people have the ability to exist despite their 'issues' and potentially reproduce. spreading this mutation

[–]Gasmangasmangasman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

VHEMT