Darwinism and You

[spittledip]

Who gets to decide? And if you cant put a value on a human life, then how can you still proceed with this idea? Even if there are other factors, how does adding another factor make it any better?

Also, Hitler is not an extreme example for shock value- he is a living example of what happens when people follow certain ideas to their logical conclusion. The people that he killed is irrelevant- the fact that he thought there was nothing moral to stop him from creating a superior race is what you have in common. And whether or not Hitler invented eugenics is completely irrelevant.

As far as survival of the fittest, I was not arguing for or against control population. I was stating that survival of the fittest is not a concept that involves morality until you introduce humans into the equation b/c humans have a sense of right and wrong. I was also saying that b/c it is an actual phenomena does not mean we should embrace it: you cannot justify population control using survival of the fittest.

Ever read Brave New World?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: mect
My concern is we currently have the opposite of what most people want. Survival of the fittest does not mean strongest, best able to adapt, smartest, or any other positive attribute that is usually suggested, but rather, ability to procreate. So ask yourselves, who's having all the kids? What hoses are filling up your gene pool?

Same ones as always, i.e the greatest genetic diversity available.

It's pretty obvious where you and others are trying to go with this, but sorry to disappoint you, having a larger paycheck or a cooler car doesn't bestow "better" genes upon you.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: mect
My concern is we currently have the opposite of what most people want. Survival of the fittest does not mean strongest, best able to adapt, smartest, or any other positive attribute that is usually suggested, but rather, ability to procreate. So ask yourselves, who's having all the kids? What hoses are filling up your gene pool?

Same ones as always, i.e the greatest genetic diversity available.

It's pretty obvious where you and others are trying to go with this, but sorry to disappoint you, having a larger paycheck or a cooler car doesn't bestow "better" genes upon you.

To an extent, you are correct, and there is certainly a large enough population that the gene pool is staying healthy, but I would argue that the educated can result from two factors: better nurture or better genes. Certainly, better nurture is probably the dominating factor, however I think a lot of the extremely gifted are taken out of the population, so the population is rather unique in that many the exceptional are removed from it (and no, I'm not counting myself as one of the exceptional). In other words, better genes don't bestow a better car and larger paycheck (I drive a 2000 corolla, so I'm not bragging about myself), but rather lead to such. I agree, nurture is probably the dominating factor here. However, that isn't any more comforting, as the nurture pool isn't much better. No, I'm not trying to put myself up on a pedestal. If anything, this line of thinking has lead me to believe that it is in the best interest of society to place more emphasis on supplementing those who aren't born into the nurturing support that they deserve. I just don't know how to do this.

Edit for accuracy

 

[chcarnage]

Arcex, you have a wrong understanding of Darwinism. You think there's one specific goal of Evolution (the super-human). Also Darwinism isn't a theory about the origin of life, but about the origin of species, hence the title of Darwin's book.

But there is no goal to evolution. Survival of the fittest means the individuals that best match the requirements of their environment. And we can't tell how these conditions will change. Maybe the person who annoyed you with his driving skills would be an optimal survivalist hundred years in the future, because the earth then is covered entirely with forests, and he's a good climber because he doesn't invest much energy to maintain his brain.

So we can't "accelerate" evolution, because there is no goal. You still can wish for a specific environment and somehow reduce the variety in the gene pool (although there are so many genes and so many mutations happen every second) - but if you succeed and the environment develops not in the way we thought (e.g. a virus targets a characteristic you thought was beneficial - or: The climate shifts) humanity risks to get extinct as a whole.

Sorry, but neither is this idea thought through, nor can one claim that it's based on Darwinism.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: mect
My concern is we currently have the opposite of what most people want. Survival of the fittest does not mean strongest, best able to adapt, smartest, or any other positive attribute that is usually suggested, but rather, ability to procreate. So ask yourselves, who's having all the kids? What hoses are filling up your gene pool?

Same ones as always, i.e the greatest genetic diversity available.

It's pretty obvious where you and others are trying to go with this, but sorry to disappoint you, having a larger paycheck or a cooler car doesn't bestow "better" genes upon you.

To an extent, you are correct, and there is certainly a large enough population that the gene pool is staying healthy, but I would argue that the educated can result from two factors: better nurture or better genes. Certainly, better nurture is probably the dominating factor, however I think a lot of the extremely gifted are taken out of the population, so the population is rather unique in that many the exceptional are removed from it (and no, I'm not counting myself as one of the exceptional). In other words, better genes don't bestow a better car and larger paycheck (I drive a 2000 corolla, so I'm not bragging about myself), but rather lead to such. I agree, nurture is probably the dominating factor here. However, that isn't any more comforting, as the nurture pool isn't much better. No, I'm not trying to put myself up on a pedestal. If anything, this line of thinking has lead me to believe that it is in the best interest of society to place more emphasis on supplementing those who aren't born into the nurturing support that they deserve. I just don't know how to do this.

Edit for accuracy

I guess you weren't going in the direction I thought...sorry, and...thanks.

I think you hit it on the nose when you mentioned Education. People can have all sorts of natural talents, but if they aren't nurtured, it does no one any good.

 

[Genx87]

It is interesting to discuss this topic. Hitler and his nazi regime believed in social darwinism. The strongest culture survives and removes the weaker ones from the planet.

One thing I find interesting in the human species is what the species considers the dumbest of the herd reproduce at much higher rates. It is almost an opposite effect of what would happen if we were truely wild animals. The dumbest of the herd would be eaten by other wild animals and not reproduce that much.

Going on that topic are the stupid in our society truely the weakest of the herd? It would seem to me quite the opposite as they are able and willing to reproduce and spread their seed at a much higher rate.

btw there was a short story written in I believe 1957-58 called Morons Marching and it address's this phenomina of the human race to have the considered stupid people reproduce at a much higher rate. Interesting read if you manage to find it.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.


Um, no, because what Darwin is saying in no way resembles the crap being spewed by Arcex.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

He states that the most able should not be prevented from having as many offspring as desired, NOT that some people whom twisted minds like Arcex deem inferior, should be euthanized, sterilized or marginalized.


There's quite a difference between what Darwin wrote and what most eugenicists promote.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

Yeah, except they aren't saying the same thing at all.

They aren't even talking about 'related concepts'.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

The depth and sophistication of my methodology in deciding on that are far beyond your comprehension. Suffice it to say, however, they are most scientific and objective and are part of the enormous cross people of tough love like me are only too glad, for the sake of humanity, are willing to bear.

 

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically you want to play God?

Well God is doing such a bang up job right now, perhaps a stand-in might improve things.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Arcex
I really wasn't looking at this from a population control standpoint but I do see the benefits such a plan would have on the overbreeding problem.

Then again, I'm not saying kill the stupid people outright, just prevent them from breeding, so it wouldn't decrease the current population so much as it would decrease the rate at which the population is growing, whether the death rate in addition to that would be enough to actually decrease the population would certainly have to be taken into account when deciding who and how many people to sterilize.

Another group that should be added to the list are the women who give birth year after year to premature babies that are addicted to crack, coke, heroin etc. from the day they are born. Anyone who has worked anywhere near a maternity ward knows how many babies like that there are at any given time.

And Moonbeam, do you consider me to be among the stupid for advancing the idea or just based on whatever level you would prefer to set?

that would most likely have the opposite effect. By selecting for more "desireous" genes and/or characteristics, you would likely be selecting a population that is more vigorous, and more able to adapt to changing situations. (unless of course you isolate one non-immunity among the entire population, thus creating a catastrophe in which the entire human species is wiped out because of one disease....)

This population would have less selective limits imposed on successful breeding (no crack babies being born, to use your example). Thus, far MORE humans would be born, leading to greater overpopulation problems.

You see the same thing happen with bear and deer populations and controlled hunting. Hunting limits actually help to increase the population of these species by reducing resource competition, among other factors.

This is a good point, the possible effects of any form of breeding control would be difficult to determine, it would be a massive undertaking (if it could be accomplished at all) to figure out all the nuances such a plan would entail. No doubt it's a tough thing to accomplish, but I think it bears looking into.

My point is that it doesn't "bear looking into," as it pertains to human populations. We have several models already that give reliable predictions towrds the outcomes of such an ill-conceived, irresponsible endeavor as that which you pose. These reliable models suggest that this is a very, very bad idea, not to mention the fact that it is incomparably in-human to attempt such a study.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: mect
My concern is we currently have the opposite of what most people want. Survival of the fittest does not mean strongest, best able to adapt, smartest, or any other positive attribute that is usually suggested, but rather, ability to procreate. So ask yourselves, who's having all the kids? What hoses are filling up your gene pool?

Same ones as always, i.e the greatest genetic diversity available.

It's pretty obvious where you and others are trying to go with this, but sorry to disappoint you, having a larger paycheck or a cooler car doesn't bestow "better" genes upon you.

actually, the highly educated produce far more children than do the impoverished. Those that spend many years in college and post-grad school push off family life for a much later time in their lives than do the less educated, on average. Starting children late in life means you will have less opportunity to have more, compared to those who have their first 10 years earlier.

There are several economic studies that address this, but it isn't so much a genetic thing as it is those that are educated tend to raise kids in houses that have, well, more books. Strangely enough, the presence of books in a house where a child is raised has a stronger correlation to intellligence than does genetics. Weird....

But yeah...financial success has nothing to do with genetics, although mect is correct in pointing out that fittness only concerns ability to procreate (meaning, the success of your offspring in passing on your genetic info), and not to compete with your current rivals (whether that be through feats of strength (i.e. Festivus), social maneuvering, or financial saavy). This thinking, of course...leads to Social Darwinism, which is a crock of ******

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically you want to play God?

Well God is doing such a bang up job right now, perhaps a stand-in might improve things.

No, the true believers already tried that 2x with Bush.

 

[Siddhartha]

The OP looks around while he is traffic and decides that some people should not be allowed to reproduced.

This could be a joke if not:

OP,

Please do not vote until you learn what genetics is, read a book on it, and think this one through.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

what? wake the fvck up mouth breather!

A diverse gene pool is our best defense. While "helping" humanity to evolve is a good idea, there is no reason to do what you propose.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Well I will say that Natural Selection or survival of the fittest may be occurring to some extent.

Natural selection is when some members of species die off because they are not able to cope with their environment. Then what you have left is the survivors, which have the right to pass on their genetic makeup to the next generation. This does not mean they are better or worse, it only means they survived.

However, Mankind does his best to overcome this struggle for survival. We strive through social programs and superior medical treatment to keep alive everyone we can. So we are in effect thwarting this natural selection process to a very large extent. We can still commit genocide and wipe out certain races or goups of people or animals, or make it significantly harder for some people to survive. Even all of these efforts did not stop the Jews from surviving the Nazi's and oppression by different groups on our planet. The will to survive is strong among humans.

One other example might be the Jimmy Jones mass suicide. Jimmy Jones was a religious leader responsible for the death of many people he was responsible for moving from the us to South America.

I think our brains had more to do with this than any "social programs". Yeah those guys way back when who invented farming ... they have nothing to do with out current situation.

Oh yeah and empathy.... Helping your crippled or retarded family memebers.. its bad for the gene pool, better off to feed em to the fvvvcking pigs...

i swear i used a V

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ayabe
While the idea isn't all that shocking or irresponsible the problem is that no matter who is put in charge of such a program it will unfair in one form or another and could be completely subjective.

Say for instance if radical Christians were put in charge, probably the first thing they would want to eliminate would be 'teh ghey gene'.

The only genes I would be in favor of eliminating if they do in fact exist would be -

1. The welfare mom, "government owes me gene" that predisposes certain women to believe that having 4 children from different fathers, none of whom are around and continuing to produce children all the while living on government assistance is not only OK, but is her right.

The real problem with this is that of those 4 children, 3 of them are likely going to be the same as their mom or worse. So we take one idiot and create three to replace her. Growing up in poverty is intimately linked with criminal behavior.

2. The child molester gene.

No explanation needed on this one, hopefully.

You seem to have confused nurture with genetics. Examples #1 &#2 usually have to be carefully brought up that way.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Republican party spends billions of dollars on lies and propaganda to create our millions of morons. It would sort of be a waste of money just to wipe them out.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

OP is good evidence that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, heh.

 

[Arcex]

Hmm, where to begin...

Ok, first, my title was admittedly not accurate, technically speaking my topic isn't exactly Darwinism.

I'm not advocating a master race with blond hair, blue eyes, the right height, weight, etc. I wish people would stop telling me I'm wrong to want that when I never said I wanted that. I don't. I'd go for redheads, but then the allure would be lost once we flooded the market...

And I know I state numerous times I want to cull stupidity, and I do, but I understand as a personality trait it can't be removed through genetics, what I mean by that is certain people who act stupidly and make bad decisions which cause pain and suffering to others should not be allowed to reproduce. The example I gave before of welfare mothers who constantly give birth to premature meth-addicted babies, those are the kinds of people I'd like to target.

And in regards to more nurturing, yes, that is a great idea. Children with parents who are criminals grow up to be criminals, not all of them of course but it's an established cycle. But even though a child can be removed from a diseased environment and raised in a nurturing one doesn't neccesarily mean the parents should be allowed to continue breeding, it would be great if we had a system that allowed all children to be raised in the best possible environment but hey, guess what? We don't. That's something else we should work on.

I never said having a larger paycheck or driving a better car gives you better genes, that's purely rediculous and I don't think I need to say anything else about it.

chcarnage, no I don't think there is one specific goal of evolution. I think if we try hard enough we can encourage good traits and discourage bad ones. Arrogant? Yes. Medically impossible? No. And I understand the arguement that if we form humanity into a specific ideal we could wipe out the entire species due to some unforseen anomaly, I'm not trying to do that either. In the beginning of this topic I said there were a couple things I'd like it if we were able to do but I acknowledged that we cannot. I just want to remove certain bad elements from the system.

Genx87, good point about which is considerede the weakest, etc. That was the point I was trying to make earlier when I said stupid people are propped up by our society and elected to public office. I was being humorous but the underlying point is still there. IMO the strongest aren't the ones who breed more, our species is hardly on the brink of extinction, we need to focus more on how much we are expanding, and if our environment can support our continued advance unchecked.

Moonbeam, I think I love you.

Siddhartha, don't lecture me on voting, I voted with the majority.
Twice.

Oceandevi, please explain to me how having a diverse gene pool is our best defense against stupidity, that doesn't really make sense in the context of what I was discussing. And yeah, I don't remember saying we should feed crippled or retarded people to pigs, I think I'd remember that. I assume you were being ironic but I never said anything even remotely along those lines.

Gigantopithecus, on that I agree with you completely.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Arcex
Putting aside the one issue regarding where our species came from, to a certain extent Darwinism seems to exist. Animals evolve over time, clearly, and either become able to cope with their environments better or worse. Clearly this is a process that can be shaped, that's what study in genetics is all about.

So why can't we start applying that to our species? I like to think of it as forced Darwinism. Putting aside the moral and ethical questions, over time we would be able to at the very least lessen certain undisirable traits from our species.

And I don't just mean physical problems, what originally started me thinking about this was my car ride to work this morning. There I am, driving down US 19 in Florida and I look at the stupid people driving alongside me (anyone in Tampa Bay knows how many of them travel that road daily) and I think to myself "Some of these idiots should not be allowed to breed." Well lets apply that, lets work harder to cull stupidity from our gene pool.

I know it's been discussed before, and even attempted before, I've heard at least a couple stories of people paying homeless people, drug addicts and the like to have themselves sterilized, lets expand programs like these on a global scale. Some may call it cruel and unusual, and I think that's half right, it's certainly cruel for the people on the receiving end. There really is no nice way to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to pass their genetics on, that's a given, but I call it tough love.

As for unusual, Darwinism is hardly the exception, it's the norm. Forced Darwinism may be a bit more extreme but ya know what, in pretty much every species I can think of other than humans the stupid would get killed off faster, thus cleaning the gene pool naturally. But in our species we coddle the stupid and incompetent and elect them to public office, and if that isn't a move in the wrong direction then I don't know what is.

Quite disturbing isn't it that you are being ridiculed by some of the same people that praise this great thinker because you state bluntly what he states eloquently.


Um, no, because what Darwin is saying in no way resembles the crap being spewed by Arcex.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [/b]There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

The Descent of Man
Charles Darwin

He states that the most able should not be prevented from having as many offspring as desired, NOT that some people whom twisted minds like Arcex deem inferior, should be euthanized, sterilized or marginalized.


There's quite a difference between what Darwin wrote and what most eugenicists promote.

Unfortunately most did not see it as you do not even his own cousin.

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, proposed that an interpretation of Darwin's theory was the need for eugenics to save society from "inferior" minds.

While Darwin himself did not call for eugenics (though he did consider women to be mentally inferior to men) he certainly laid the foundation for those that wished to use his ideology to promote their eugenics ideology.

Since the publication of Origin, a wide variety of opinions had been put forward on whether the theory had implications towards human society. One of these which would later be known as Social Darwinism, had been put forward by Herbert Spencer before publication of Origin, and argued that society would naturally sort itself out, and that the more "fit" individuals would rise to positions of higher prominence, while the less "fit" would succumb to poverty and disease. He alleged that government run social programmes and charity would merely hinder the "natural" stratification of the populace, and first introduced the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1864.

Another of these interpretations, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, in order to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those which would be undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions.

Notice the part I bolded, how they are against the results but not the ideologies that led to those results.

Let us sterilize that welfare mom before she pops out any more kids we have to support and usually are a detriment to society, etc.

Sound familiar? You do notice the original poster uses the term forced Darwinism?

 

[Arcex]

Well if I thought the elements of our society were capable of making the decision not to pass on their genes by choice I'd be all for that but some people simply will not learn. How many abandoned baby stories have been in the papers recently? They should sterilize each and every mother they find who abandoned a child like that.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm surprised no one (except possibly Moonbeam, although it's always hard to tell) brought this up before. Even if we put aside the moral and ethical concerns here (which I would argue are fundamental to the issue), as Arcex suggested, there is still a pretty major flaw in the idea. Namely, that there exists a human, or a group of humans, that could intelligently make this decision in a way that would benefit the species as a whole

The progress of a species through genetic variation and the evolutionary process is an extraordinarily complex thing, and the person suggesting human beings could improve on it is using "culling" people who's driving he doesn't like as a prime example. No offense, but if that alone doesn't convince you that we lack the intelligence to make good decisions about something like this, I think you must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm surprised no one (except possibly Moonbeam, although it's always hard to tell) brought this up before. Even if we put aside the moral and ethical concerns here (which I would argue are fundamental to the issue), as Arcex suggested, there is still a pretty major flaw in the idea. Namely, that there exists a human, or a group of humans, that could intelligently make this decision in a way that would benefit the species as a whole

The progress of a species through genetic variation and the evolutionary process is an extraordinarily complex thing, and the person suggesting human beings could improve on it is using "culling" people who's driving he doesn't like as a prime example. No offense, but if that alone doesn't convince you that we lack the intelligence to make good decisions about something like this, I think you must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Granted, but you are taking me too literally. I said that was how the idea first popped into my head, I didn't say I wanted to sterilize people who drive badly. Burn their licenses, sure, but not their gonads.

You, Moonbeam, and the couple other people who mentioned it do have a good point, who makes the decision? It's a valid question, but that's why I wanted to focus more on the extreme element that causes the most problems, or in my admittedly biased view demonstrates the most flawed decision-making capabilities.