The biohack.me forums were originally run on Vanilla and ran from January 2011 to July 2024. They are preserved here as a read-only archive. If you had an account on the forums and are in the archive and wish to have either your posts anonymized or removed entirely, email us and let us know.
While we are no longer running Vanilla, Patreon badges are still being awarded, and shoutout forum posts are being created, because this is done directly in the database via an automated task.
Opinions on eugenics? (new user, hi)
How do you guys feel about the topic of eugenics and its role in the advancement of the human species?
FTR I'm not talking about involuntary sterilization, mass murder, forced abortions or castrating people, I'm talking about the selective genetic removal of disabilities and diseases in children and the voluntary sterilization of those who realize their genetics aren't good for the gene pool (something akin to the ethical boundaries of the voluntary human extinction movement, except we, presumably, don't want humans to go extinct). By "genetics aren't good for the gene pool", I'm referring to those with low IQ and/or disabilities and/or heritable diseases or those that increase the chances of the children having it but aren't strictly heritable. I do not mean under any circumstances, those of religion or certain religion or lack thereof, or those of any sexuality or character. FTR I'm not a Nazi XD
Feel free to correct me on any of this, I'm not even sure if eugenics is the right phrase for what I discuss.
Feel free to correct me on any of this, I'm not even sure if eugenics is the right phrase for what I discuss.
Comments
Displaying all 26 comments
-
I'm just going to say yes simply because I don't really know how to answer you any other way. My only gripe is with the low iq because I don't generally agree with the whole iq measure because and iq test doesn't measure knowledge in the manner people think.
-
I agree that an IQ is an overly simplistic form of 'mental units', but it's easiest and more accurate to express the concept that way. 'Low mental capability' or 'sub-standard mental capacity' are a bit more vague and don't have strict units of measurement. If I could explain it in a better way than the word IQ, I'd probably say: "I'm referring to those with (edit starts here) stunted abilities to learn and process complex concepts, after a reasonable period of education in said concepts of course, that to the knowledge of any proficient medical practitioner, their medical documentation, and/or their relevant family members, have not been diagnosed with any official disability but still possess these traits (edit stops here) and/or those with disabilities and/or heritable diseases........et cetera."; but that's rather long-winded.
-
That's also utter bullshit. I'ma go ahead and cut this down at the knees. Would it be great if more of the population weren't dumb? yes. But is this a faliure of genetics or is it a failure of our education systems? Maybe both, but probably education. I know tons of people who according to the school system, were poor learners and were destined for nothing, and now are very succesful. Hell, I would have been on that list. I did horribly in school, simply because I didn't give a shit and regurgitating information is dumb. Not being good at learning in a classroom setting shouldn't make you eligible for sterilization. Also the whole concept is never going to work. The people most likely to have kids, are those who drop out of highschool. You will never get them to sign up. ALSO, we have genetic engineering now. If you're gonna have a kid with a genetic disease, you could fairly easily have that shit edited out. But then we get into the weird area of designer babies (which, frankly, I'm all for, but I digress). Point is, this idea won't work, stop trying to sterilize people.
-
This is going to be a bad thread, I can tell."selective genetic removal"?That can be taken a few ways. I'm hoping you mean something like theraputic editing of parkinson's and not something like... well, removal.For most of your items, no. It's just to easy to have those built in blinders where you set a metric to define what has value and not based on your notions of value, thus reducing play in the system. Like when you are talking about intelligence, you are talking about your perceptions of what has important. And your long winded explanation totally sounds like "my family got together and decided my little brother needs to be sterilized cause he's dumb".Also, if you need to put an I'm not a Nazi disclaimer in your post.... -_-
-
@chironex "Not being good at learning in a classroom setting shouldn't make you eligible for sterilization." I agree, I should've emphasized the >>>voluntary<<< part, not that I'd be able to stop anyone with a higher 'level of intelligence'.
I also advocate for education reform. The way most things are taught in most places is borderline negligent. Personally, if any more than 1% of the students aren't getting the best they can out of the school I think the school system is still failing, maybe that's just me.I'm not trying to sterilize anyone. Even if I wanted to, which I don't because I'm not a licensed medical practitioner or someone who has experience operating on the pubic region, I don't have the equipment or know anyone who has told me that they want to do so.The "selective genetic removal" part was referencing the whole 'designer baby' concept and genetic engineering. I think that genetic engineering is the way to go and things like temporary sterilization is way to go until we can fix these things. Eugenics clearing the way with genetic engineering making the path look pretty. Obviously there's no cure for "low IQ" other than further and better education and it'd all be voluntary anyway, but I'd like it to exist as an option, as it isn't an option we have today.
@glims If you are suggesting that I'm going to 'remove' them in the style of Breaking Bad or any mafia ever, no, I'm not proposing we do a holocaust-esque voluntary euthanasia of lots of, for lack of a better phrase, stupid people. "selective genetic removal" means genetic engineering of 'babies' (I am fully aware that they aren't babies, I've forgotten the term) in utero, I couldn't think of the term at the time (much like the 'babies' thing that just happened).
How is it "what has value and not based on my notions of value" [sic]? Surely we can all agree that diseases, stupid people and disabilities are all things we'd rather not have. Issues come when you attempt to define intelligence, but since it's voluntary, and I've asserted above that it would be temporary if it could be since genetic engineering is ultimately the way forward; it would be a voluntary and (preferably) reversible.
Well no, the family wouldn't decide anything. Emphasis on the voluntary part yet again.
I have to put a Nazi disclaimer because, as with anything related to the Nazis and as per Godwins law, as they did this (in a very idiotic manner that served no genetic benefit to anyone because of the politicized and racial nature of it), they will inevitably be brought up. I was stopping the "you're a Nazi" argument before it started.Also, what's with you being down about the thread, I think it facilitates much needed discussion on the subject, I did a search using the forum search tool and it only came up with 3 mentions of the word eugenics. Most other places discussing it are full of neo-nazis and racists, so I figured you guys would be better to talk to than a bunch of racist yes men who only agree so they can fantasize about wiping out 'the blacks' or the 'the jews' even thought that's nowhere near what I intend. Then again this is a biohacking forum so maybe it isn't strictly on-topic, I'll grant you that. -
Yeah.. talking about eugenics is like watching a fat guy drink gatorade to enhance athletic ability. There are so many other methods that would likely be more effective. As Chironex pointed out our education system is terrible. Prenatal vitamins and proper nutrition during childhood. . Enrichment of environment during childhood. . a culture system that values education.. Also, I wonder what traits eugenics would alter unintentionally. Perhaps the same factors that predispose someone towards being a felon also leads to something beneficial under the right environmental influence. Finally, is a persons value determined by characteristics? Im a relatively intelligent person but if I suffered anoxic brain injury resulting in decreased ability I'd still want to live. Sex is great. Food tastes fantastic. Swimming in the ocean is fun. Being stupid doesn't change this. I agree that we should strive towards bettering but I think we need to define what better is first. I mean do you think greater intelligence and happiness go together? I don't. Down syndrome folks tend to be pretty damn happy.
-
I don't agree that stupid people are something that needs elimination. They can still live lives that benefit others and which they value. Perhaps the issue is that if a person isn't a celebrity, athlete, or physician we look down on them.
-
I'm gonna go ahead and say this ISN'T a discussion that needs being had. It's a shit idea, from a shitty point in history. Just let it die and that's the end of it. There's a reason only nazis are on board with this, especially in their pursuit of the "perfect" race. You can say your criteria are better then their criteria all you want, but it's still your opinion of what's best. Nature doesn't work with perfection. Natural is messy and a varied gene pool is important. If you start sterilizing people you have no idea what genes you're silencing.Your temporary sterilization bs is what's known as chemical or medical castration. Do you have any idea what that shit does to you? Here's a better idea. If you don't want to pass on your genes, use protection and don't have a kid. No need to cut you open to have safe sex. ffs.You can clarify all you want, it's not gonna sound any better.
-
Well, The problem with eugenics as I see it is implementing it? How do you muck about with the genes of millions or billions of people without violating their rights? When you start throwing around things like "voluntary sterilization" in the same sentence as "for the greater good of mankind", you come to the peak of a very slippery slope. Whether or not you're doing eugenics targeting intelligence, or some disease that isn't based on a subjective standard, if the entire community is on board with it, but some people don't want to take part, then eventually they will "willingly" consent, because of the enormous pressure to conform placed on them by society. Voluntary consent for a massive project like this is just a convenient way of making sure the people who want to implement it don't feel guilty about forcing people into participating.I do like the idea of therapeutic genetic editting, though. And genetic engineering in general.
-
@Cassox "talking about eugenics is like watching a fat guy drink gatorade to enhance athletic ability" - Cassox 2k16Seriously though, do you mind if I use that in future, it's hilarious.
I agree that it's worse that lots of other things, I just think it should happen up until the point we've fixed the issue they were sterilized for (if that's even possible, like getting and reversing 'the snip' sterilization not 'I'm going to remove your ballsack and leave it in a ditch' sterilization).Being a criminal wouldn't mean you'd be sterilized(I agree though that any unintentional effects would definitely be interesting to document), it'd mean you'd need either the relative level of punishment or mental help. It doesn't make you unable to benefit society, it makes you slightly more unwilling usually due the circumstances you're placed in throughout your life.Whether a persons value is determined by their characteristics is something to ask someone who is better at philosophy than I am XDIf you're already alive, I do not propose killing you, removing your genitals, taste buds or ability to swim. If you read the original post, I said nothing and will say nothing about killing living people. Voluntary sterilizing, alrighty. Incentivised voluntary sterilizing, a little dodgy since they could be poor and doing it for the money or other incentive but ok. Genetic engineering and designer babies, go the hell ahead. Killing people? No. -
@Cassox "I don't agree that stupid people are something that needs elimination" Not stupid people. Stupidity. Not elimination either, I'm not pro-death.
-
just chippin in my 2cents here. Stupidity is (for the biggest part based on my own observation) lack of appropriate, good education including motivation and furtherance of talents.So if you want to better the world, start an educative revolution.No need to leave behind or kill anyone.
-
@Chironex "Do you have any idea what that shit does to you?" Not first hand or second hand, it's a suggestion for what could happen, not something I'm doing. If you'd like to tell me the side effects (or intentional effects), which I'm sure you would, I like learning things so please do."You can clarify all you want, it's not gonna sound any better." - This kind of response is exactly why I'm clarifying myself.
-
@TheGreyKnight
"eventually they will "willingly" consent, because of the enormous pressure to conform placed on them by society" I'll give you that, but I don't think you can make voluntary any more voluntary, this applies to anything even mildly controversial that is voluntary. Unless you have any suggestions?
"Voluntary consent for a massive project like this is just a convenient way of making sure the people who want to implement it don't feel guilty about forcing people into participating." So I take it you disapprove? -
@ThomasEgi "No need to leave behind or kill anyone" Nobody is leaving behind or killing anyone, I never even suggested that.
-
And everyone else's responses are why the clarification isn't helping the point.Defining finer and finer minutiae while backpedaling but still coming up with these gems "I just think it should happen up until the point we've fixed the issue they were sterilized for", is not helping. You can't deal with humans the way that you deal with weird posts on the board, ie banning them.You're proposing a blunt tool solution to a collection of complex societal and genetic items. It's the "let's use the strongest antibacterial" of human social policyps, you did not stop the you sound like a nazi commentary, because it still sounds like a "let's get rid of the people I don't think have value" kind of post. It's like when someone says, well i don't want to sound racist but....
-
And it still doesn't sound any better. Your whole argument can be boiled down to, use protection and fix education. No sterilization required. So then what are we still talking about? nothing? nothing. If you wanna see the side effects, LINKBasically the drugs fuck with your hormone levels, which causes all sort of shit, not the least of which is loss of bone density and muscle mass. There's a reason it's reserved for the worst child molesters and the like.
-
I want to clarify my yes from the start. I'm mean yes in the way tesla handled it with the not having kids due to his disease which HE chose to do not having some other body telling him. The moment you try and popularize something like this it will be abused. It can't work that way ever. This would be an individual choice. And for criminals I hesitate on that because it is still a debate on whether they are born like that or raised to be. That said I know there is some evidence pointing to certain parts of the brain. So that's all I would put into this.
-
@glims I feel like I can summarise that entire comment with the sentence "shut up before you're going to say something awful". I will take that advice, but first, more clarification XD
In a sense, I'm clarifying my original opinion as we discuss to adapt to the downsides that you raise. Even though that isn't what I was originally thinking (because my original though had little nuance or detail), because I agree with it I add it to the opinion. That's not backpedalling to me because backpedalling is usually a situation where you say something terrible and are trying to convince someone you don't think the terrible thing even though you do because it sounds terrible. I'm adding more detail to the original thought, not going away from the original thought because I think it sounds bad."You're proposing a blunt tool solution to a collection of complex societal and genetic items. It's the "let's use the strongest antibacterial" of human social policy" - Touche but I think the tool is necessary until sharper and more complex tools can be created and used. Unless you think the side effects of the blunt tool make the issue worse, like trying to fix a watch with a hammer.
"you did not stop the you sound like a nazi commentary" - Well, I can't do much about that considering I'm advocating eugenics and clarification doesn't seem to be helping. -
@chironex lmgtfy very funny, but seriously? Bone density and muscle mass is the best you've got. Drink milk and eat protein, take vitamins and work out and you should be fine as far as I know. It's literally just anti-androgens. Maybe it being applied to someone in puberty would be a bit morally dubious but I don't see how that's so bad, oh and it's voluntary.
-
The problem with voluntary sterilization is that history has shown it becomes involuntary almost immediately. It's too easy for those in power to justify their actions. Mental patients forcibly committed for life? Well, they're never getting out, might as well. Prisoners? Well, they lost their right to freedom as soon as they committed a crime. The poor? We're just helping them so they don't have kids they can't afford. Etcetera. This has happened too many times in history to be considered. Besides, I have no problem with "stupid" or people who are clinically mentally retarded having kids if they want to. I'd rather a kid grow up with "stupid" parents who love and support them than intelligent and genetically "desirable" parents who don't. I've seen what happens in the case of the latter and it rarely ends well.
-
"Unless you think the side effects of the blunt tool make the issue worse, like trying to fix a watch with a hammer."That about sums it up
-
@Meanderpaul "The moment you try and popularize something like this it will be abused." That could be applied to literally anything popular in existence.
"And for criminals I hesitate on that because it is still a debate" Well I'd like to see how the debate turns out but at this point the criminal thing isn't really relevant since no-one other than us 2 are addressing that, and it's not relevant to the point about eugenics that I'm trying to make. -
@katzenvonstich
"The problem with voluntary sterilization is that history has shown it becomes involuntary almost immediately" Well, this'll be fun
"It's too easy for those in power to justify their actions." Power abuse is a whole other topic but I get where you're going with this.
"Mental patients forcibly committed for life? Well, they're never getting out, might as well." There wouldn't be any point. That's just a waste of resources. Provided we aren't letting mental patients screw each other in the mental institutions they've been admitted to, when would this ever be necessary under the conditions you've provided.
"Prisoners? Well, they lost their right to freedom as soon as they committed a crime." That is not how committing crime works, or at least it shouldn't be."The poor? We're just helping them so they don't have kids they can't afford." Yeah, I'm fairly sure that doesn't fit the definition of voluntary but does fit a description of a dictator. The west is a large group of democracies (mostly). I am from a democracy. If people were mass sterilizing the poor, I think the general population would have a bit of a problem with that. Maybe North Korea would be up for it but I don't plan on going there let alone making a dystopian form of eugenics popular there.
"Besides, I have no problem with "stupid" or people who are clinically mentally retarded having kids if they want to. I'd rather a kid grow up with "stupid" parents who love and support them than intelligent and genetically "desirable" parents who don't." So people can't even have the choice to be voluntarily chemically sterilised by their doctors because you think that stupid people make better parents? That makes sense. /sarcasmI get where you're coming from though, for you it's a matter of "if you can't justify the worst usage of the thing don't have the thing in the first place" but that just doesn't work. Guns, knives and weapons in general, useful for protecting yourself, worst usage: murder. Knives, useful for cutting, worst usage: perpetual torture until death via blood loss. Cars, useful for moving quickly, worst usage: running someone over. Laptop, accesses the glorious interwebs and can be used for work & school & fun, worst usage: bashing someone over the head until their skull is in tiny tiny pieces. Pogo stick, fun, worst usage: someone trips, you land and stick the pogo spring right through the middle of their neck. Everything is a risk and a weapon, learn that. -
There's a pretty big difference between "literally anything popular in existence" and eugenics. Eugenics is much more than Dr Oz's latest bullshit diet craze. I'm sure someone out there is abusing the Twilight franchise in a pretty serious way, but at least it's not eugenics.
-
the conversation has been closed for obvious reasons. The thread will be preserved for educational purposes
Displaying all 26 comments