www.ditl.org

That very vagueness is the top of the slippery slope that eugenics sits on.

Hell, I'm decently intelligent, I have diabetes but it's controlled and non-transmissible, but I would have been killed.

I think we need to clarify just what type of eugenics program we're talking about.
Is it the Nazi version, where undesirables were killed?
Or the one that was going on in the US for a short while, where people were sterilised?

That would be up to monroe, he came up with the idea first in this topic.

If it was up to me, downright sterilizing would be a bridge too far for me.
Instead, I'd heavily disencourage the 'unwanted' ones to procreate, by taxes and lowering their social status by advertising campaigns, as well as 'education' about the right way of living.

shran wrote:That would be up to monroe, he came up with the idea first in this topic.

If it was up to me, downright sterilizing would be a bridge too far for me.
Instead, I'd heavily disencourage the 'unwanted' ones to procreate, by taxes and lowering their social status by advertising campaigns, as well as 'education' about the right way of living.

You seriously think that would work? We pride ourselves with personal freedom, that is just a huge violation of that freedom. How the hell would you tax someone to breed, would it apply to everyone or just those deemed inept? If thats the case what would be considered inept? I think that idiocy is just a byproduct of humanity, nothing will rid us of it, but tying to will destroy us.

USSEnterprise wrote:

shran wrote:That would be up to monroe, he came up with the idea first in this topic.

If it was up to me, downright sterilizing would be a bridge too far for me.
Instead, I'd heavily disencourage the 'unwanted' ones to procreate, by taxes and lowering their social status by advertising campaigns, as well as 'education' about the right way of living.

You seriously think that would work? We pride ourselves with personal freedom, that is just a huge violation of that freedom. How the hell would you tax someone to breed, would it apply to everyone or just those deemed inept? If thats the case what would be considered inept? I think that idiocy is just a byproduct of humanity, nothing will rid us of it, but tying to will destroy us.

At the very least, I'd have everyone with an IQ under 110 riding bicycles. Morons shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a 3-ton vehicle.

Sadly, there are plenty of moronic 120 IQ drivers.

I wouldn't institute eugenics on any level, cause I just feel wrong thinking about it.

USSEnterprise wrote: You seriously think that would work? We pride ourselves with personal freedom, that is just a huge violation of that freedom. How the hell would you tax someone to breed, would it apply to everyone or just those deemed inept? If thats the case what would be considered inept? I think that idiocy is just a byproduct of humanity, nothing will rid us of it, but tying to will destroy us.

Knowing that I'd never be able to enact a eugenics policy, I don't take this concept really serious. I am not in favour of it either, but if I were to enact it, I would do it that way.
I think it can work, even in a rather warped way (how can eugenics be not mind-warping concerning ethics and morals), just take a look at China. They have had a one-child policy for a rather long time, and it seems to work, I guess. The entire concept of one-child-policy is inherently flawed, but that aside.
The criteria for those who would be taxed would in my scenario be only those who I would not wish to breed, in this case, people who act like Blackstar.

And USSEnterprise, I share your opinion that stupidity is something inherent to humanity, but if I can help it, i will do everything in my power deemed acceptable by me to prevent my offspring to be 'stupid'.

I definitely think that making prospective parents take a test to see if they would be decent parents would be a good idea. Also requiring a permit or something similar to have more than lets say 3 children. Those would seem reasonable to me, but I just wouldn't like the idea of alienating a group of people and trying to put them in a negative light. As for eugenics, that idea just sounds wrong on SO many levels.

I agree with the three child limit. Though I could live with a four child limit.

Far as Eugenics I'd be in favor of one a little more relaxed than what the US had going. The US sterilized rape victims which is plain wrong. But criminals, mentally retarded, people with a below say 80 IQ should be gone away with from the gene pool. Things that are related to genetics but not that bad such as diabetes, dwarfs, heart problems, and what not should not be cause for sterilization. Food stamps or other government assisted living should cause the person on them to be put on birth control until they can get off government assisted living.

shran wrote:If it was up to me, downright sterilizing would be a bridge too far for me.
Instead, I'd heavily disencourage the 'unwanted' ones to procreate, by taxes and lowering their social status by advertising campaigns, as well as 'education' about the right way of living.

Birth control in city water supplies with counter agents after you pass the necessary marriage licenses/drug/disease tests?

Extra birth control in the water supplies at sports stadiums? (Tranquilizers in European soccer stadiums)

Of course this doesn't limit people who depend on well water, so you'd have to set up a vitamin filter. Basically it adds daily doses of vitamins to well water through a trickle attachment, along with the necessary birth control. Make it last a long time (the length of the water filter) so when people notice a weird taste (their filter is full) they realize they have to change the vitamins as well. A more effective solution would be to build the birth control chemicals into the filter, so they only have to replace one thing at a time.

The next step would be 'proper' sex ed, saying that this is what to look for if you don't want this disease, this is how to avoid pregnancy, etc. Or go with the old matron with the nasally voice who talks about different positinos, so whenever they think of sex, they think of Pat, and all the desire vanishes.

Monroe wrote:I agree with the three child limit. Though I could live with a four child limit.

What happens to people who get pregnant a fifth time? Forced abortion?

I have a big problem with governments meddling in Eugenics. Certainly I'm against the Nazi style killing undesirables type to the point where I would do anything to oppose such a policy, and I do mean anything whatsoever.

Forced sterilisation is only half a step behind, IMHO.

It's no job of the government to try and "improve" the genetics of the population.

But criminals, mentally retarded, people with a below say 80 IQ should be gone away with from the gene pool.

Which no amount of genetic manipulation could garuntee. Esp. the criminal part.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Monroe wrote:I agree with the three child limit. Though I could live with a four child limit.

What happens to people who get pregnant a fifth time? Forced abortion?

Well that would qualify them for forced sterilization wouldn't it?

As far as genetics predicting criminals it is true that males with the XYY chromosomes are more likely to be in prison.

Monroe wrote:As far as genetics predicting criminals it is true that males with the XYY chromosomes are more likely to be in prison.

I don't know about that particular case, but I suppose there is an increasing trend toward a kind of genetic determinism, which can be hard to reconcile with societal systems that are rooted in a concept of free will.