Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


View Poll Results: Should eugenics be allowed?
Yes. 4 40.00%
No. 2 20.00%
Maybe. (Please elaborate in the thread below.) 4 40.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 08-24-2008, 07:20 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Evolution of all races and animals are continuously on going, that is a scientific fact. And it always will be in some degree. To suggest other wise is a sign of ignorance.

There is a debate to be had when it comes to forming the predisposition of such things as intelligence, athleticism, good health and other things. It's a fact that when some aspects of an animal such as humans is hindered that other abilities become enhanced. Einstein was not the most intelligent child scholastically. And a multitude of other great and famous people that you would propose to have been changed in the name of bettering them.

I'm not a literal bible thinking christian, although I am a christian, nor am I a ritual scientifically minded individual. But a little common sense would tell you that changing certain genetics in fetus's in the past would have robbed our world of some of the most brilliant scientists, musicians, and philosophers our world has ever known. And if you start doing it now, who knows what we will miss out on in our future. And who knows what types of catastrophes could be spawned by what we deem to be betterment of the species.

Your views on this subject as with so many of your others are very short sighted and arrogant.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 08-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Gamerslink: Pot to kettle, you are black, repeat, BLACK! Over.

"what if" as an argument means you have no real arguments.
Why? Because it works equally as well on the otherside.

"What if, through a eugenics program, we manage to eradicate diseases, increase intelligence and do away with psychological problems, ushering in a new age of peace, prosperity and intellectual advancement?"
See? I can do it too... And you can't effectively argue against it either, because both are arguments without any real basis.

However, to say that reducing disease is a good thing is something most people will agree with.
Increasing propensity for intelligence is something most people will say is a good thing.
Increasing propensity for being physically healthy is something most will say is a good thing.
Now, argue argue against those, without resorting to "what if?", and maybe I'll stop using absurd logic (which is actually what you're doing, whether you realise it or not).

As for evolution, no, it doesn't happen continuously. It happens when an environmental stress is placed on a species, and they have to adapt to it, or suffer and potentially die out.
Homo sapiens effectively control their own environment to suite them. Thus, there are no stress factors on the species as a whole that force adaption. Any evolution that continues to happen will either be an introduced mutation (genetic engineering... which IS eugenics anyway) or so minor that it is not in any way detectable.
But as it is, Darwinian evolution (aka natural selection) has stopped for us. We take care of our sick and elderly when they would have been picked off by disease or predators (when was the last time wolves got into an old folks home?). We take care of those who are so crippled, either by birth or deformation, that they continue to be a functioning part of our gene-pool.
There is nothing that is forcing us to evolve or die, except the possibility of climate change (which we're not going to go into because it's got its own thread already. Just mentioning it as a stress factor), until we leave the planet and start having to deal with non Earth standard gravities.

m42: You mean the bacteria discovered by Dr Warren?
Sorry, but what positive effects? In so far as I know, it's a major cause of peptic ulcer and stomach cancers... I have never heard of any positive roles it has.
Got anything from an academic or medical journal you can link me to?

Anyway, you seem to be implying that there is somehow a negative to being able to advantage people genetically. I fail to see how there is a negative side to being blessed with predisposition to superior health and intellect.
And if there are no negatives, I fail to see how it's a bad thing.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-25-2008, 09:50 PM
m42 m42 is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 03-23-08
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
m42: You mean the bacteria discovered by Dr Warren?
Sorry, but what positive effects? In so far as I know, it's a major cause of peptic ulcer and stomach cancers... I have never heard of any positive roles it has.
Got anything from an academic or medical journal you can link me to?

Anyway, you seem to be implying that there is somehow a negative to being able to advantage people genetically. I fail to see how there is a negative side to being blessed with predisposition to superior health and intellect.
And if there are no negatives, I fail to see how it's a bad thing.
I'm not knocking a predisposition to superior health and intellect. I'm knocking the decisions we make to get there.

Here's the latest article I've seen on H. Pylori:

http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ry_id=11959214
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-25-2008, 10:13 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
The article that M42 has given also supports what I was going to post in response to harveyj.

While it may seem like a great thing to eliminate disease, control intelligence level, strength etc. We must remember even and especially in genetics for every action there is an equal reaction.

We don't have 100% knowledge of human biology, neurology, or psychiatry. So to start poking and prodding how does one know that the good they are doing isn't in fact causing more harm?

And then there is the "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" clause. Superior intelligence is sure to foster superior and possibly dangerous ambitions.

Just take for example a science fiction show "Star Trek" Original series season 1 "Space Seed" and then the movie "The Wrath of Kahn" both dealing with this very subject. An excellent illustration while only science fiction of the possibilities associated to Eugenics.
And before you make comment of my using a science fiction show as reference, that particular series under the guidance of Gene Roddenberry spawned numerous sociological and scientific breakthroughs in the real world.


Again you are looking through a short sighted pair of glasses.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-25-2008, 10:37 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
Gamerslink: Pot to kettle, you are black, repeat, BLACK! Over.

"what if" as an argument means you have no real arguments.
Why? Because it works equally as well on the otherside.
When you are debating over a subject with non-existent factors how do you propose avoiding the use of "what if's" and opinion?

You are debating on a subject that does not fully exist is not practiced with variables that are impossible to verify one way or the other.
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-25-2008, 11:04 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Here are some links by the way you may find interesting involving human biological evolution.

Quote:
"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Pritchard.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Are-H...ng-19353.shtml

Quote:
That's not quite the "zero" natural selection that some reports of Jones's views have suggested. Even he accepts that genes can still make a difference to survival and reproduction. One obvious example is genes that confer resistance to emerging diseases. Some parts of Africa, for example, have seen an increase in the frequency of a gene called CCR5-32, which offers some protection against infection with HIV-1.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-evolving.html

Quote:
For much of nature, 'survival of the fittest', the mantra of evolution, holds sway. A few thousand, even a few hundred years ago, the same was true for humans: only the 'fittest' – the best adapted – survived to reproduce. But today, in many parts of the world, improved hygiene and healthcare, food production, and heating and cooling systems have minimised the dangers in human lives. So if selective pressures have been taken away, is evolution over for humans?

It appears not: natural selection is known to be at work on some genetic variants, involved in some of the most fundamental influences on life: food, reproduction and infection. However, these variants are probably just the tip of the iceberg: "We only know about them because they are extreme," points out Dr Gil McVean, a biological statistician at the University of Oxford.
http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX034686.html
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-26-2008, 05:11 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by m42 View Post
I'm not knocking a predisposition to superior health and intellect. I'm knocking the decisions we make to get there.

Here's the latest article I've seen on H. Pylori:

http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ry_id=11959214
Good article. Point conceded.
I have misgivings about Blaser's findings, in that many of those things could be caused by current lifestyle trends, and that from what I can find on the study results were not from blind or double-blind data. But Blaser's not in the employ of any particular lobby group I'm aware of, so there seems to be no reason to skew results.

As far as the advancement of science goes, I see where you're arguing from.
Here's where I'm coming from:
Most major medical advancements have come about due to science that many would consider morally repugnant, yet they still use the end results of those advancements, often without question or second thought.
Hundreds of people died for Florey to figure out how to get Fleming's penicillin to work as a medication. Neurosurgery would not be at all possible without the barbarous mutilations of psych patients during the industrial era. Hell, even the Nazis made amazing medical breakthroughs (sorry, it's a rule, all arguments online must involve Nazis somehow) although they were thoroughly discounted until recently for no other reason than the moral issues surrounding them.
The only way to advance medical science in a meaningful way is to experiment, and the only meaningful experiments unfortunately require live subjects.
Would I want it to happen to me? No. I'd be horrified.
But I'm also aware that, morally speaking, if I'm going to use any medical advancement from the last hundred years or so, I don't really have a leg to stand on, so I may as well go with what will cause a greater good for everyone, rather than quibble over individuals.
I would rather that the knowledge was there AND available for use, if it had a net positive effect, rather than not explore it at all because some find it distasteful. If we lived by the second credo, we'd still be in the middle ages.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-26-2008, 09:24 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Superior intelligence is sure to foster superior and possibly dangerous ambitions.
Was this the one you referring to that if we followed this we would still be in the dark ages?
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC