three arguments why eugenics is wrong -

- a human life is a gift from god, humans depriving humans of that gift is unconditionally wrong.
- you may not have all the information needed and may be overlooking something that would be useful, the means of evaluating worthiness are too shaky to allow an absolutely effective eugenics program (basically chris' argument)
- an underclass is necessary to the running of society

1 is the best argument. 2 is probably the weakest because it kind of sanctions eugenics anyway. 3 is okay but needs 1 to be fully effective.

1 isnt a good argument ... at all. Its only a good argument if your religious or if you even believe in a god, that way we can all just say *god says were equal..and thus we are*

But were not, at all, we may share an equal right at birth, but we by no means share equal liberties in todays standard of living. Religion is one of the things that causes the issue on are we all equals...

Because of religions and different beliefs and moral ideals - different people side with different beliefs, now we can all have the equal right to believe what they want, but i know for a fact that christians, muslims and all the other religions preach and treat people differently if their from different or no religions.

Not every religious person does it, but when i was at college i had a muslim and a christian basically preach to me for an entire day, the muslim *no lie* wanted me to smoke weed and chill *his precise words*

and the christian called me a sinner and that i'd go to hell.

Because of these kind of people, people get treated differently, so i think using a religion as proof to answer ANYTHING is rubbish, since none of it can be proved anyway, at least genetic structures and differences between humans, especially psycological treatments..can be proved.

This isnt an anti-religion post either, i'm agnostic for any of those who wish to call me an athiest scumbag >.> i just think using god for this topic isn't a correct answer, if god made us all equal..why aren't we all equal :P

its proven in our daily lives that were not >.>

1 is the only argument that has any authority, so take it or leave it. moreover, i didn't say religion, as religion even is not enough. it takes god to stop eugenics. if in fact it is at all stoppable. probably, it is not.

I have a slightly different take on your reason number 1. I don't necessarily believe in God but I do believe in something like the sanctity of life. Fwancophile, am I to believe also that you think any killing is wrong? What about if you let someone die of natural causes?

Personally, I think that all killing of people is wrong so I do not approve of war or abortions. As for letting people die of natural causes, I'm on the fence. It is desirable to continue a life but I would not fault someone for letting a severely disabled person die naturally.

mainly i was just putting out the arguments against eugenics. interesting that you bring up whether a person should die of natural causes - twice. this is a scenario i don't think of all that often.

well, why don't u guys get rid of the religion talk first? fwancophile, please respect that not all people believe in religions/specifically christianity, so please post some more pratical reasons to support your iew, though i forgot what it is already ....

My view is that all people are born equal, it's just that some people look down to others and think they're better. Like some white people nowadays still look down at black people, that is not a good thing. Despite those people think they're superior, it's only their own view, but all people are still equal.

Hope you guys understand what I'm talking about, I'm typing this in a hurry :P

um, no.

People are not born equal. They all have different potentials -- for both good and evil. A newborn baby with the potential for great intelligence, or strength, or empathy, or beauty, may reach its full potential, or not, based on his or her environment.

This leads us to observe that even treating all people equally is wrong: why deny society the undoubted benefit from a child reaching its potential (say) intelligence, because we persist in treating each child as though he or she had the same potential as any other?

So, not only does the view that "all men are born equal" deny reality, but this delusion changes reality adversely.

Samael, should we act upon the inequality of people? Should we treat them accordingly unequally? How would we do this and what or who would be the arbiter? Can you give us some examples of the adverse change that "all men are born equal" has on society?

People are not born equal, but they each deserve the same minimum opportunities for education, nourishment, freedom to choose their religion, (or choose no religion)... hmm they've got international agreements on this.

Each person deserves to have the same opportunities to achieve their potential. Bussiness is self-selecting in some ways, the successful have more money, and reputation can get you a lot of backing if you. Politics seems to also self-select, it being the case that most politicians have similar traits. they all seem to be smarmy and only looking to get power for themselves...

As for eugenics. I believe you will find that the more diverse a genepool the higher it's chances of survival.

You never know when aliens with sonic weapons will attack and only the deaf amonsgt us will be able to fight them.

ok, crazy example, but disease, radiation, enviromental change, many thigns are unpredictable, and they more diverse our genpool the more prepared we are to face ANYTHING.

thus even if societies sacrifices something for those who appear weaker, they are stronger for it. (autism could have advantages for the mental abilities it creates.)

oh, and not equal does not mean someone is better or worse than anyone else.

you can measure one particular attribute, (such as the speed a person can run) and order people based on that.
But how to you order based on two attributes?
and which ones should be weighted more heavily?
...

good and evil are abstract concepts and do not really exist

The fact that something is abstract is not inconsistent with its existence.

i agree with Sicarius, to be blunt on good and evil - its only the morality that we as human beings make. In the olden days rape, pillage and plunder was an essence of war, it was a natural thing - although disliked by some, other war tribes or sections believed it was the price of winning.

The women were yours for the taking, the beer yours to drink and the money yours to steal - it was an everyday thing after a victory - to celebrate and bring chaos down on the people.

But now such things are *evil*, where as we killed in the olden days through petty reasons, though at the time was considered good is now considered bad and evil.

The one word everyone knows of *thou shall not kill* yet religions, people, barbarians even witches and commoners all killed, be it for profits, money, greed or to spread the name of their faith.

There is no right or wrong - the only thing there is, is the morality of good and bad from which we as humans dictate.

As for the equality of people, i'm still a little surprised at how this convo is continueing, its proven in day to day life that we treat others differently, that no man of one status is equal to anyone in a higher status, that things such as money and greed often dictate who is in power and who is left in the gutters.

I think i read somewhere that someone wishes it was the fault of the poor that their poor, if i read that wrong i apologise - but if that was said then whoever said it is as naive as it fucking gets.

No one chooses to be poor, we dont throw away cash and go 'oh lets live on the streets and beg for our faily nourishments'..that is a joke, people worked 10 or so hours more then the upper class and was on half of their damn wages, the education system is flawed since the high increase of our issues as a society are spread among foreigners and citizens.

Qualifications mean nothing in the eyes of experiance, and everything is generally becoming harder..a lot harder.

Most people who are poor will stay poor, since they don't have the means, nor are they given the equal oppertunity as other set families or people to be able to get credit for themselves, or to get a promotion or a better finacial job.

Everything about the world says people are not equal, and people here think that people are..

I wonder how many of you are sitting behind nice computers in nice big houses with their spoons sticking out of their mouths waiting for their mothers to pamper and feed them >.>

because some people obviously have no idea whats its like to be poor exactly, its something your stuck in for a LONG ASS TIME >.> unless 19 years is now considered a small amount of time that is.

Although it is a fantastic subject, whether "right and wrong" exist is not really the topic here, I think.

I disagree that people do not choose to be poor. I think that many of the poor people who live in a free and wealthy country (perhaps the majority) either chose it or are in some way incapacitated. I also disagree with the notion that poor people will stay poor because they aren't given equal opportunity. Yes, they may bring a disadvantage to the job application process but that disadvantage is more in their own minds than in the mind of the person who hires. There are definitely extreme cases where poor people are truly downtrodden from exterior forces, but I think they are relatively rare.

Orathaic's observation:

"People are not born equal, but they each deserve the same minimum opportunities for education, nourishment, freedom to choose their religion, (or choose no religion)... hmm they've got international agreements on this."

assumes Western culture as a "given". For most of human history, and (even today) for most people, these are not universal truths. As it happens, I believe that these are worthy goals, but I do not defend them on the basis of their inherent value. Because I believe that the best outcomes usually arise from the aggregate of individual decisions, made in full knowledge of the relevant facts, I also believe that greater freedom should maximise the welfare of society.

That is not to say that there should be no limits on human behavious, or that there is no role for government. Individuals form governments precisely to provide those things that cannot be provided efficiently on an individual basis (including collective tangible and intangible assets such as regulated markets). However, one's first questions in response to any discussion about "rights" should be "whose obligation is your right" and "how do they balance".

It's interesting that you seem to say that governments exist in order to give people rights and other things (you used markets as an example). I see it quite the opposite. In the absence of government, there would still be all of these things except it would be much more dangerous and less predictable. The government gives us nothing but some level of comfort. It's greater role is in slightly reducing our rights and regulating markets that would otherwise still exist. If you ask about the obligation to grant someone a right, I think it is entire up to the person in question to grant HIMSELF whatever rights he desires. Luckily for most of us, these rights do not infringe on the laws which represent the outer reaches of acceptable rights.

those who would trade liberty for security end up with neither

What would make it dangerous?

I would say the world is more dangerous with governments

I was afraid you'd latch on to this point, Sicarius. I'm not going to discuss this particular point with you. I've already read some of the writing that you tried to pass off as original on other anarcho-primitivist websites. Unless you are willing to type from your own honest brain, there is no reason for me to debate a copy-pasting dullard.

just because some one has already written down the ideas does not mean they are not my own. as far as I know you could be reading my writing anyway, I contribute to a couple zines. if I think someone has made a compelling argument and that it is appropriate, I have no qualms about posting it word for word here, as long as I agree with it.

but if you think it's wrong for some reason, start a new thread and I will be happy to debate this with you, from my own honest brain

In response to Jerkface (unfortunately, your alias makes it hard to address you directly without sounding like an ad hominem attack):

A right is meaningless unless it is recognised by others. I can go on all I like about my supposed "right" to a 50" plasma television and an XBox 360 games console, but this means nothing unless someone else agrees with me to the extent of taking steps to actually provide them.

Of course, the danger in government (especially large central government) is that it tends to conceal this connection. Too many people seem prepared to grant themselves spurious "rights", expecting that the government will satisfy them out of some central money pot. But that money comes from somewhere. And, because most governments raise their money by force, one can reasonably consider the question by focusing on the marginal contributor and beneficiary. Does my "right" to the TV and console justify forcing someone, struggling to feed their family on the minimum wage, to pay for them through their taxes?

Any answer other than "F*ck, no!" is dishonest.

The issue isn't so much the words as the fact that I understand now why you were unable or unwilling to converse with me and what I was saying. If you merely skim what I write and then copy-paste an answer that kinda sorta talks about the general issue that I am talking about, then we have no way of getting anywhere. The fact that you see no problem with copy-pasting content into a conversation tells me that you haven't got much experience communicating with people.

You talk about a compelling argument but if you are unwilling to grapple with anything that I throw at you, it will go nowhere.

Samael, sorry about my alias... I didn't put much thought into it when I made it.

Thanks for picking out the difference between a right and a right and its fulfillment. I definitely agree that there is a huge distinction. The fulfillment of a right cannot ever be guaranteed but the idea of a right as something that "should" be, can be guaranteed. I have the right to ride a real-live dinosaur. Now if I can somehow make my dinosaur come to life and not violate any property laws or what have you, then I will have fulfilled that right. But I still think it is important that I have the right, lacking in form as it might be.

And I think this is important because it's all a mental/attitude issue. If people feel like they have the right to earn all the money they want or the right to be happy, then they are more likely to work towards it. If they think the government or society is stepping on their right to be happy, then they will feel helpless and do nothing.

I just agreed a debate in which nothing is copied.

no I see no problem with it at all, a good idea should be available to everyone—should belong to everyone—if it really is a good idea. I cant see you not making dinner because using the recipes would be wrong, Someone already used them! That would be copying!

Jerkface (actually, this is kind of fun):

I could not agree more with your conclusion, but I don't think you need to maintain the argument about self-granted "rights" to get there. You only need to acknowledge the value of aspiration.

I think it is inherent in the whole concept of a "right", that someone (perhaps unspecified) should do something to fulfill, or at least recognise, it. If your ambition is to ride a real live dinosaur, then the first is impossible, and the second unlikely.

On the other hand, if one speaks in terms of aspiration, I can aspire to ride a dinosaur, without regard for whether it is possible or even widely accepted that I should. And, if you happen to think that dinosaurs are really expensive, or (sort of like unicorns) can only be ridden by the happy and well-adjusted, your pursuit of your aspiration may benefit you as well as society. But this does not oblige, for one moment, anyone else to help you on your way.

orathaic already mentioned the number one argument against Eugenics. God is a great argument for religious people, but it doesn't hold up in a scientific forum. The main argument against Eugenics is purely that a more diverse gene pool is significantly more robust than a selected one. This is the reason (likely) that most living things use sexual reproduction, rather than asexual reproduction, because it automatically installs genetic diversity into a species, so that an individual's weakness is not a species-wide weakness. This is why normally asexual bacteria have bacterial conjugation, and a species often benefits from genetic transformation and transduction.

How does evolution work? Through natural selection? How does natural selection work? By selecting the differences that are more favorable to the environment. If they're are more differences to be selected, then evolution works at a faster rate, just like if there is more selection pressure. It's been well documented that populations that have less selection pressures evolve a more diverse gene pool and when selection pressures do return, the population is much better equipped to handle and survive these pressures and they evolve much faster.

Artificially selecting our gene pool via eugenics uses our own selection pressures which narrows the gene pool and specializes our species for our current environment. But this is not preparation for the future, because the environment in which we live may change drastically, and the skills and traits we value now may expire past their shelf life. We would be far better equipped with a highly diverse gene pool. This is why mixed-race children generally have much stronger immune systems then say... inbred children...

We can't put all our genetic eggs into one basket.

that kind of argument still opens the door to population control and eugenics. it is an extremely weak argument against eugenics. for example, right now, in a scientific forum, there is overwhelming consensus that the world is overpopulated with humans.

Could you please define "scientific forum", "overwhelming consensus" and "overpopulated"? You seem to be using at least one of these phrases in an unfamiliar way.