EPTAs mentioned above, population control should be independent issue of genetic control. As for genetic control, so far it seems genes (at birth) would end up just not as important as initially thought, so why even bother.
Eugenics and the Human Population - Page 3
| Blogs > micronesia |
|
figq
12519 Posts
As mentioned above, population control should be independent issue of genetic control. As for genetic control, so far it seems genes (at birth) would end up just not as important as initially thought, so why even bother. | ||
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
On May 07 2012 08:40 hypercube wrote: Are you worried about overpopulation first and see eugenics as the best way to prevent it, or would you like to see eugenics to improve the overall gene pool and want to use overpopulation as an argument to get people to consider it? Because if overpopulation is your main concern there are better ways to tackle the issue. There's a reason why eugenics is taboo. It's inherently risky, it creates social tension and it weakens social forces that keep our societies relatively peaceful. They aren't unrelated, but one doesn't imply the other. The two issues just have some similarities. | ||
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 07 2012 10:24 micronesia wrote: They aren't unrelated, but one doesn't imply the other. The two issues just have some similarities. You'll need to be much clearer than that. TBH, I'm still not sure if you are advocating eugenics as a means of population control. Some posters certainly thought you were. You're saying "we shouldn't avoid discussing eugenics". Fine. Just don't ask for some sort of blank slate. People are still responsible for whatever solution they suggest, even if discussing the issue in general is ok. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
On May 07 2012 11:18 hypercube wrote: At no point did I say or imply that eugenics is how we should combat overpopulation. The OP is fairly clear if it is read carefully.You'll need to be much clearer than that. TBH, I'm still not sure if you are advocating eugenics as a means of population control. Some posters certainly thought you were. You're saying "we shouldn't avoid discussing eugenics". Fine. Just don't ask for some sort of blank slate. People are still responsible for whatever solution they suggest, even if discussing the issue in general is ok. I don't understand what you are saying here. | ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
On May 07 2012 13:23 micronesia wrote: At no point did I say or imply that eugenics is how we should combat overpopulation. The OP is fairly clear if it is read carefully. I think you need to do some rewriting or clarification. You discuss overpopulation. -> Discuss a 'solution' currently in place (China's one-child policy). -> State you don't find this to be the best solution. -> State that the problem is too big to be ignored. -> State that issues like eugenics need to start being discussed again. Your sequence of thoughts runs together, and is easily interpreted to mean you feel eugenics could be a solution if someone is not paying very careful attention to a few small word choices. The way you transition from one topic to another is deceptively connected. If you don't want people to confuse this you need to make a clear division. Clarity will hopefully lead to better discussion. EDIT: And your title of course can be interpreted to connect those two as problem and solution rather than two problems. That could lead people to read your blog that way. | ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
I think you are in a little bit of a leftist mindset here. If there are no social secutity services, aid organisations, wealth redistribution schemes and the like there would be no overpopulation, since most overgrowth is generated by the poor. Basically they would just die if there are too many people living in a particular area. If you remove life support from unviable people there is no need for social engineering, population control, eugenics(you know what I mean, in the Idiocracy movie sense...) The other issue is maintaining peace and social cohesion in societies with high income disparity. This is why all these leftist policies we have in place today have emerged. You would need to find a way to keep cohesion while abandoning redistribution schemes. Will this lead to class warfare? Maybe but is it for the better? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 07 2012 13:23 micronesia wrote: At no point did I say or imply that eugenics is how we should combat overpopulation. The OP is fairly clear if it is read carefully. I never said you did. I just said I wasn't sure. I could have been more clear to avoid confusion. That's my whole point. You're saying "we shouldn't avoid discussing eugenics". Fine. Just don't ask for some sort of blank slate. People are still responsible for whatever solution they suggest, even if discussing the issue in general is ok. I don't understand what you are saying here.[/QUOTE] I'm saying if you're going to suggest that certain people shouldn't reproduce, without giving a very strong argument why it's absolutely necessary, you WILL be condemned. | ||
|
Aelonius
Netherlands432 Posts
On May 07 2012 16:26 50bani wrote: since most overgrowth is generated by the poor. This part made me want to reply. It is true that the poor have a bigger impact on the growth, however other things also affect it. As a lot of you may know, the Church isn't too keen on contraception. Part of this taboo, results that religious families in the past used to have a lot more children as the protection of a condom etc wasn't "allowed". Now that the trends are changing and people become less attached this slowly shifts towards two children per family. I see this with my own family aswell. My greatgrandfather had like 13 children, my grandma had five children and I have one brother. This trend is changing that growth in the long run, as we'd run out of space if this wouldn't have happened in the last years. Do not dismiss a major portion of the growth in the world by only pointing at the less wealthy. =) | ||
|
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
On May 07 2012 22:34 Aelonius wrote: This part made me want to reply. It is true that the poor have a bigger impact on the growth, however other things also affect it. As a lot of you may know, the Church isn't too keen on contraception. Part of this taboo, results that religious families in the past used to have a lot more children as the protection of a condom etc wasn't "allowed". Now that the trends are changing and people become less attached this slowly shifts towards two children per family. I see this with my own family aswell. My greatgrandfather had like 13 children, my grandma had five children and I have one brother. This trend is changing that growth in the long run, as we'd run out of space if this wouldn't have happened in the last years. Do not dismiss a major portion of the growth in the world by only pointing at the less wealthy. =) People also have less children because the survival rate is higher. The change over time is probably part planned AND part unplanned. | ||
|
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
How tall are you? Hows your teeth? You can't even construct a proper graph, what's your IQ? Should white people even be allowed to exist since their IQ averages are often well below Asian? I don't know, maybe you shouldn't sign your own death warrant. I'm pretty sure China is expected to experience a negative population growth in the near future. I don't think overpopulation is as much of a problem as you think it is. Resource management is far more important. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
On May 08 2012 01:20 ecstatica wrote: I don't think you should be allowed to have any input in our future genepool since astigmatism is considered to be hereditary to a high extent. So people like you should be left out of our evolution process, prohibited to procreate and further pollute the DNA. How tall are you? Hows your teeth? You can't even construct a proper graph, what's your IQ? Should white people even be allowed to exist since their IQ averages are often well below Asian? I don't know, maybe you shouldn't sign your own death warrant. I'm pretty sure China is expected to experience a negative population growth in the near future. I don't think overpopulation is as much of a problem as you think it is. Resource management is far more important. Regarding how much of a problem overpopulation is, you are certainly entitled to disagree with me (I even said it's more of an opinion on my part than anything else). Most of the questions you are asking, I assume to imply that eugenics is a horrible thing to even consider, are much more extreme than anything I personally would want to consider. It's certainly not "all or nothing." I also have no plans to procreate right now so this type of shock tactic isn't going to work on me :p | ||
| ||
