Thread: Why have Eugenics Studies and Policies fallen out of favor?

Originally Posted by montra

So if genetic diversity is all that important, then why are animals not treated the same? Are they not bred to create a desired effect?

Because the owners of these animals do not care about the long term impact on survivability that these manipulations cause. They are willing to sacrifice the rest of the set of features in order to accentuate the subset of features that provide an economic benefit. The owner simply does not care about the long-term prospects of survival for that species, because he'll be dead by the time it's a problem.

Again, it works on animals so why not people?

It only "works" on animals because the sum total of that animal's being is tied up in its economic utility. Who care if a chicken is selectively bred to much it can't stand up on its own two legs? Who cares if a bulldog is so inbred that they can only get pregnant artificially? These are acceptable consequences for animal breeders because those are not economically important factors in that animal's life.

Humans, on the other hand, have an existence outside their economic purpose. That's why it doesn't work for humans. We're more than our economic utility, but farm animals and pets are not.

Originally Posted by montra

What if the said baby was born? Should the doctor be allowed to snuff the life out of the little trouble maker?

Obviously not, that would be murder, not abortion.

Originally Posted by montra

How about the pain of a poor mother who has a perfectly healthy unborn child? Should she be forced to watch them grow up "without"?

She, of course, has the option to abort. It is simply unethical to do so. The choice remains however. She is free to be unethical if she feels it worthwhile.

Of course, what if the said child was born? Should infanticide be allowed? If not, what is the difference between infanticide and abortion?

Infanticide is murder (the killing of a separate life), and abortion is not (because the life is not yet separately viable).

Originally Posted by Someone

Obviously not, that would be murder, not abortion.

So at what point is abortion murder? Do you think it OK to abort them right before coming out of the womb or at some magical time before that?

Originally Posted by Someone

Because the owners of these animals do not care about the long term impact on survivability that these manipulations cause. They are willing to sacrifice the rest of the set of features in order to accentuate the subset of features that provide an economic benefit. The owner simply does not care about the long-term prospects of survival for that species, because he'll be dead by the time it's a problem.



It only "works" on animals because the sum total of that animal's being is tied up in its economic utility. Who care if a chicken is selectively bred to much it can't stand up on its own two legs? Who cares if a bulldog is so inbred that they can only get pregnant artificially? These are acceptable consequences for animal breeders because those are not economically important factors in that animal's life.

Humans, on the other hand, have an existence outside their economic purpose. That's why it doesn't work for humans. We're more than our economic utility, but farm animals and pets are not.

Why is it OK to use animals for economic utility and not humans?

Again, what is the difference between the two in your opinion?

Originally Posted by rsay32

Some individuals are blinded by self-delusion, irrational prejudice, and unreasoning hatred. These individuals have hindered the advancement of society and wish to continue to do so, though their influence is waning. They are ill equipped to thrive in a 21st century KNOWLEDGE-based economy.

Oh yea, all groups are EQUAL because YOU SAY SO.... Hahaha.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Oh yea, all groups are EQUAL because YOU SAY SO.... Hahaha.

]

Where's your montage from the ethnic cleansings a few years ago in the former Yugoslavia? I could have sworn they were European caucasians (even if some are Muslim).

http://www.haaretz.com/news/police-c...nduct-1.213276
ttp://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/bosnia-fighting-goes-to-bihac/
http://genocideinbosnia.wordpress.co...stematic-rape/

Originally Posted by skeptic-f

Where's your montage from the ethnic cleansings a few years ago in the former Yugoslavia? I could have sworn they were European caucasians (even if some are Muslim).

http://www.haaretz.com/news/police-c...nduct-1.213276
ttp://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/bosnia-fighting-goes-to-bihac/
http://genocideinbosnia.wordpress.co...stematic-rape/

"Yugoslavia" is the most compelling bit of evidence that multi-cultural and multi-racial democracies are bound to fail eventually.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

"Yugoslavia" is the most compelling bit of evidence that multi-cultural and multi-racial democracies are bound to fail eventually.

All the "races" (ethnic groups) in Yugoslavia were European (white). I will give you the multi-cultural society, but Yugoslavia was hardly a model democracy prior to its breakup. What Western multi-cultural democracy has failed, historically? Oh yeah, the Weimar Republic.

Originally Posted by skeptic-f

All the "races" (ethnic groups) in Yugoslavia were European (white). I will give you the multi-cultural society, but Yugoslavia was hardly a model democracy prior to its breakup. What Western multi-cultural democracy has failed, historically? Oh yeah, the Weimar Republic.

I don't think any Germans liked living under Weimar conditions. Funny how Weimar Germany's casino-style economy, corrupt central banking system and commodity boom and bust cycles are all being repeated today.