| Page 1 of 2 |
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
 Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 16:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Overall I agree with your opinion. But we can't kill them, that would be Nazi. Sterilizing is like it was in the link, unethical, but something has to be done.
Another more important question is, how do we decide someone is "unfit"? Who is to say? How do we prevent corruption of such system?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14362
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 16:38 Post subject: Re: Being banned for having a controversial opinion. |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | 
My ideas evolve around the following: Should a welfare state allow unsuccessful people to produce offspring, knowingly that these people will most likely be bad parents and their offspring will most likely be unsuccessful as well. Also without the welfare state these people would have died most likely or be in prison.
|
I wont comment on the "gene" thing (EDIT: But I did nonetheless  ), because I am, for philosophical reasons, sure that this idea is flawed in many ways. Not even counting in the fact that we consider all humans to be equal in right, which should be the very foundation of a free democratic society.
1. As you say yourself "most likely". Well who decides who is fit and who isnt? (Minority report?)
2. In any society based on competition you always have those who, for certain reasons (social, coincidences, ethnic, language barriers, xenophobia, not belonging to the ruling party, lack of intelligence, lack of social skills etc. etc.) wont succeed as well as others. So even a society of, lets say 100 of the most intelligent persons, will have those who outsmart others, those who win and those who fail. It is, by essence of such a society, impossible for everyone to succeed equally. Therefor you cannot simply discard those who dont succeed, or else you get the Highlander effect (there can only be one).
I am not sure your ban was justified though, but I was kind of shocked that you easily accept the idea that social status is bound to genetics. I believe that most people share a more or less equal amount of potential that only needs to be motivated. I know from experience that the majority of children who do not succeed in school do so, not because they are incapable, but because they are made incapably by their sourroundings, most of the time their own family, which cannot give them proper education as they themselves did not recieve one.
In fact you remind me of the German economist Sarrazin who brought up similar ideas about lower classes and muslims. You are most certainly not a nazi, because the idea of eugenics is not per se a nazi idea. In fact this idea is still pretty common. Though, in my opinion quite flawed, due, mainly to epistemologic implications, such as our crude idea of intelligence and our lack of understanding how genomes really affect personality and caracter, as well as an ethnocentric view of things.
I would not have banned you for it. It is an opinion like others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 16:58 Post subject: |
|
|
To answer both garus and couleur, I really don't know how to implement such ideas. I do know though that it is kinda unethical to have and raise kids if you already can be sure they will inherit some of your bad genes. It takes intelligence to realise this however. Some of my more recent attempts to find a partner I was looking for a woman with a child so I wouldn't have to pass on my own genes.
But to take myself as example. I was born with most likely ADHD, dyspraxia and hypersensitivity perhaps some autism as well. My biological mother couldn't raise me so she put me up for adoption. At 22 months I was adopted and I guess I wasn't to lucky with my adoption parents. This is horrible to say I realise. Thanks to 3 years of psychotherapy I know realise that my adoption mother was most likely a borderliner. So here I am 42 years old, haven't got a job since 2006 and have traits of 8 different personality disorders and DID can't be excluded either at this moment. I should have been aborted. I rest my case.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 17:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Well iconized, i know where you got banned. Having quite some troubles getting my points across the very deep river as well...
The point you are having is invalid because of this.
The biggest reason why people are wanting to take risks (relational, enterpreneurial, whatever) is because they know there is backup plan to keep them afloat in case they fail.
People are hesitating to take risks because there is something called declining returns. In a certain status quo, losing 10 dollars is worse than the increased joy you get by gaining another 10 dollars. If 10 doesn't do the trick, think about it in 100,000. If you lose 100k, you live on the street and have no food, if you get 100k, you can buy a nice car. So there is more downside risk than upside potential.
So if there is no backup plan, nobody will take risks and your society just becomes very stagnant (that's why there is such unequality in the USA; only the rich can take risks and become more wealthy because there are only limited backup plans).
I partially agree on the fact that there are really stupid 'redneck' families who contribute 0,0 to society but that does not give you the right to take the right to live away from their children. Human genetics are very versatile, it takes only 3 generations to breed a sherpa from european caucasian white genetics.
The problem in your logic is that you assume that crappy parents will make crappy kids because that is their genetics. Well that one is flawed. Successful people can make crappy kids and crappy parents can make good kids.
You don't have to sterilize them, just take the 'kid producing incentives' away (such as lower taxes when you have 10 kids etc), and take the kids away, give them equal opportunities as the rest of the kids.
And whether you like it or not, there is a need for suckers. If you kill the bottom 10%, there will be a new 10% bottom. Where do you stop? Not everybody can be a doctor, not everybody can be an astronaut. There is competition and some sort of ranking, always.
I would not have banned you either, as we were having a jolly good discussion, which unfortunately went crap again, as i described in my last post there. Getting bashed because you bring stated facts and you get no decent alternative as a reply. just 'boooo, bad society, let's get rid off it (but not my iphone plz)'
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 17:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | To answer both garus and couleur, I really don't know how to implement such ideas. I do know though that it is kinda unethical to have and raise kids if you already can be sure they will inherit some of your bad genes. It takes intelligence to realise this however. Some of my more recent attempts to find a partner I was looking for a woman with a child so I wouldn't have to pass on my own genes.
But to take myself as example. I was born with most likely ADHD, dyspraxia and hypersensitivity perhaps some autism as well. My biological mother couldn't raise me so she put me up for adoption. At 22 months I was adopted and I guess I wasn't to lucky with my adoption parents. This is horrible to say I realise. Thanks to 3 years of psychotherapy I know realise that my adoption mother was most likely a borderliner. So here I am 42 years old, haven't got a job since 2006 and have traits of 8 different personality disorders and DID can't be excluded either at this moment. I should have been aborted. I rest my case. |
No you are fucked up because of your raising, not because of your genetics. There are no genes causing serious mental problems! The biggest genetic confounder is breast cancer for women and even that is only 70-80% chance of breast cancer when both genes are fuckedup. There are confounders for ADHD etc, but those increase your risk by 10-20-30%. Which means you can be highly functional.
There is no big book with 'the perfect genome'. You just have ACTGACTGACT, 3billion letters. For example 70% have genetic variant A, 30% have genetic variant B. Who decides what is aberrant? Sickel cell for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease), a disease in the USA, a benefit in the Sahara (ooch, i am being rascist now...). Most of the mental states are described as diseases, which is bullshit. Just adapt to your genetics, everybody can be good at something.
You have the ADHD variant, become a programmer
You have the 'huge dick' variant, become a porn star
You are ginger, you become a whiskey distiller
You are big, become a basket player
etc...
Little disclaimer, real fuckups such as obvious genetics abnormalities such as very bad trisomy 21 should be aborted as soon as possible. We have the means, we can detect it very very very early, it is cheap, it causes no harm to the mother, the aborted subject has no conscience and still looks like a frog. It is in the benefit of everybody to abort it. I know, going on a slippery surface here, but when the person has no quality of life, and it costs the society soooo much, why u inflict the pain on yourself? 90% of fetus are aborted by nature after some days/week without anyone knowing it ever, so another one wont make that much of a difference.
In Belgium there is a list of such conditions where you can say 'no, let's get rid of it' which is a good thing and which is supported by almost all of the doctors, geneticists, politicians etc. Too bad the parents have the final saying in all of this and for some reason they still like to punish themselves by having the baby.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 17:41 Post subject: |
|
|
And what of those that are successful in spite of their unsuccesful parents? Who are you to deny them existence?
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:43; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 17:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:43; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 18:46 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 20:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Is that your example? It's a predictive approach, a genomics study. Do you know how many genetic markers there are for a lot of diseases? Half the human population fits your "bad gene" story. You have no clue about the subject.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 21:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Right, well for starters I know that the human genome is much more complicated than initially was anticipated. Comments like, "You have no clue about the subject.", are not very helpful. You do realise that in prehistoric times people with bad characteristics would have died before they could reproduce. Modern medicine keeps everyone alive and switched off a part of evolution. This will have to be compensated.
But I think (also thanks to spankie's posts) that I mixed up two different stories, one bad genes (or perhaps less favourable genes, not in regard of certain physical attributes like blue eyes or so) and the other one bad parenting.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 21:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 21:59 Post subject: |
|
|
You're giving as an example a study which is, simply said, a statistical analysis of a tiny piece of genome. The researchers speculate these genes will induce shizophrenia by some percentage. It is a predicitive result, it's unconfirmed and it's a statistical chance of potentially developing a mental illness sometime during human life. The example you give shows you have no clue about the subject. Do you realize how many genetic markers for severe diseases a normal human has? Do you know how many silent diseases are being carried by normal humans?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:02 Post subject: |
|
|
I think steralization is very fitting if based off the ability to raise a child rather than genetic markers. If someone is a repeated child molester or a murderer I find steralization to be only fitting. How can people this fucked up every raise a child properly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:03 Post subject: |
|
|
@Mister_s: I gave an example that honed in on certain genes that give people a higher chance of developing schizophrenia. Saying that I have no clue about the subject is like admitting you have no clue what I am talking about.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | @Mister_s: I gave an example that honed in on certain genes that give people a higher chance of developing schizophrenia. Saying that I have no clue about the subject is like admitting you have no clue what I am talking about. |
So what exactly is your "bad genes" criteria then? Would a man who has the genes in your example be unfit to reproduce?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:13 Post subject: |
|
|
I have no criteria. I am not knowledgeable enough to even try to formulate certain ideas. But can you agree with me that modern society switched off a part of evolution?
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't our biological knowledge a result of our evolution? Nothing is switched off, it has changed. We are no longer animals living under the "survival of the fittest" rule. I could make a pagelong list if you'd like with famous minds, which should've been aborted in the situation you describe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:21 Post subject: |
|
|
I have only said that I should have been aborted. Thank you for careful reading. And as usual you don't answer the question. You studied biology right?
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:22 Post subject: |
|
|
In the topic you were banned for you stated that people with bad genes should be taken care of. You implied it very clearly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I studied the US for quite some time. Republicans: Let them die and rot those suckers.
Democrats: We should take care of them.
My opinion we should take care of them but not allow them to reproduce.
Edit: Is answering a question so difficult Mister_s?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:30 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Two:
| iconized wrote: | | But can you agree with me that modern society switched off a part of evolution? |
| iconized wrote: | | You studied biology right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2011 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
As I said nothing is switched off, just changed. I study "geneeskunde".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
