user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The had a word for that, it was called Eugenics.
Can you guess who was a big fan of this psuedo science?
I'll give you a clue. he had a small moustache
Er... was it Charlie Chaplin? :)
Ooooh strike one!
Charlie Chaplin's son?
The guy with the moustache may have been a crazy nutcase but he was a very smart man. But that's all I'm giving him credit for.
Eugenics isn't a pseudo science. The way it has been practiced over the years has been, but the general idea that people can be selectively bred to improve various qualities has a solid scientific base. If it works with dogs, and cows and every other animal on the planet, why not people?
I think there are definately some people who shouldn't be encouraged to reproduce. And to preempt all you nay sayers out there: I'm not calling for genocide, no specific race or ethnicity should be singled out. But stupid or severly defective people would be better off not having kids.
I don't believe we are, since we can't Select against unknown diseases and conditions. Further, a natural genetic resistance/ immunity is only one way to deal with an ailment; we also have an array of medical and scientific possibilities to explore.
Plus, in our ignorance, who knows what desirable traits we'd unknowingly select *against*, even if we had the best of intentions?
And finally, until we can be certain that humans in power *would* have the best of intentions, the capacity to do Evil -- intentionally or out of ignorance -- makes this too dangerous an area.
The argument that we selectively breed dogs etc, is a flawed one.
A pedigree dog for instance, is significantly less intelligent than a mongrel due to the gene base being less diverse.
The same thing would happen in humans, sure we may breed 'beautiful' people, but they would be no smarter than the average weather girl.
You only have to look atthe old European monarchies to see what inter breeding can do to the so called 'elite'.
All sorts of ailments and mental illness were prevelant.
The wider the gene pool, the more resistant to disease and the more intelligent the offspring would be.
'A pedigree dog for instance, is significantly less intelligent than a mongrel due to the gene base being less diverse.'
Pedigrees are less intelligent because they were bred for some specific physical characteristic, not intelligence.
Working dogs, such as german shepards and border collies, which were bred for intelligence are far more intelligent than the average dog. It's not rocket science here, it's more or less common sense. If you let dumb people breed they'll tend to have dumb children. If you only let smart people breed they'll tend to have smart children. Not all of them, einstein could have spawned a complete idiot and anna nicol smith could have a genius. But that's not the way it works in general, with large populations.
And defects come from inbreeding, I don't recall ever suggesting that, perhaps you could find a quote where I did?
|
|
