Posted on 12/29/2008 4:45:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859."- Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, chapter 25.
Click here for more information about the pernicious effects of Darwnism on humanity.
Feeble-minded ping.
Just wow ping.
Feeble-minded describes some Obama voters.
Intelligence, like other human traits such as skin color or height, does have a strong genetic component. What if anything we do with that information is a political question, but I don’t think we should try to ignore reality.
A very interesting read: I don’t know much about Eugenics, haven’t seen much presented on it before.
Setting aside the obvious ethical issues (the over-riding morality of which being acknowledged), it would seem that eugenics would have some solid scientific support thru what we have learned from Animal Husbandry and Plant Propagation.
We can reliably produce an animal — say, a dog — to have very precise characteristics and few-or-no flaws. We can do the same with plants.
So why not Humans? Why is Eugenics discredited?
Because there is no gene for prostitution, "hereditary pauperism" or "feeble-mindedness". And the studies (e.g., Jukes) were fraudulent.
IIRC Sweden stopped involuntary sterilizations only relatively recently.
Would you like to come to the point?
Thanks for your response. You write:
> Because there is no gene for prostitution, “hereditary pauperism” or “feeble-mindedness”. And the studies (e.g., Jukes) were fraudulent.
Okay, but if it works for dogs, why not people? If I want a female German Shepherd who is good with children, overtly affectionate, agile, medium-sized, good around guns and loud noises, strong bite and obedient, I can go to a breeder and have that precise dog produced. I know that for a fact, because I did exactly that, and she’s licking my face right now...
There are no genes for any of those attributes that I know of. But a breeder can select a male with a bloodline that produces some of these characteristics, and a female whose bloodline supplies the rest, cross the two and bingo! There is the dog, custom-built to order.
So why not people? And why would that be undesirable?
I thought this was an analysis of Congress.
Liberal thinking at its finest, with the perfect tool for justifying the destruction of humankind.
1) If we design animals and develop a better horse, that has little ethical relevance for mankind. But if we manipulate human genes and develop "better people" then we have given ourselves the role of Creator (which we should not) and we would be making people, not in God's image, but in an image that seems pleasing to us. From a Christian standpoint, this is not good for us to do.
2) Historically, eugenics has tended to involve a lot of coercion. Retarded relative? Well, someone will grab her, drive her across town, sterilize her and bring her back home. Don't ask questions, unless you want trouble. Or, if some people (like the Jooooos) are classified as sub-human, then we load them on trains, take them to special camps, and kill them. Great way to improve overall genetic health of the human race.
No. I would say that from an ethical standpoint, this idea reduces us to the level of mere animals (better horses = better humans) and in addition, the implementation of the idea reduces us to the level of devils.
This is not for humans to do.
Intelligence has some genetic component but nurture plays a huge role in how that potential is developed.
There’s a book out called “Disrupting Class” which has a chapter in it about how young children learn that is fascinating. Very early childhood social interaction with the parents plays a key role. He provides references to the research done in that area. It was in chapter 6 IIRC.
It’s well worth reading.
Because people are not dogs.
If I want a female German Shepherd who is good with children, overtly affectionate, agile, medium-sized, good around guns and loud noises, strong bite and obedient, I can go to a breeder and have that precise dog produced. I know that for a fact, because I did exactly that, and she’s licking my face right now... So why not people? And why would that be undesirable?
To answer the question of why it would be undesirable, consider who would be the dog-people, and who would be the dog-people buyers who go to the dog-people breeder to get the precise dog-person they want. And who would be the dog-people breeders, in this scenario?
If someone wants to choose a mate on that criteria, in such an analytical way, that certainly is their choice.
It should NOT under any circumstances, be forced on us by the government or any other elitist, we-know-what’s-good-for-you-even-if-you-don’t group.
Because people are not animals nor a commodity.
Moral absolutes ping
Thanks for that.
So if I’ve interpreted correctly what you’ve written, from your viewpoint (and mine as well) Eugenics isn’t so much “false science” that has been proven wrong and discredited, so much as it is an “evil science” that mankind is best not to meddle with for a whole bunch of good ethical reasons, not least of which being that a) we don’t know what we’re doing, and b) even if we did we would misuse Eugenics to serve other-than-noble ends.
Would that be right?
I think that’s a good summation.
Thanks for your response. You write:
> Because people are not dogs.
(Grin!) Some people might say “more’s the pity”, but I take your point.
> To answer the question of why it would be undesirable, consider who would be the dog-people, and who would be the dog-people buyers who go to the dog-people breeder to get the precise dog-person they want. And who would be the dog-people breeders, in this scenario?
I suppose that might be a role taken up by those who do arranged marriages like they do in some cultures. One of which being muslims...
...ok, which I guess answers that question rather tidily.
I guess where I am getting to in my learning on this thread is that Eugenics isn’t “bad science” or “false science” that has been proven scientifically to be false, but rather that it is “unethical science” or “evil science” that we as humans oughtn’t to meddle with.
Just because we *can* technically do something doesn’t mean that we *have* to or *ought* to or *must* do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.