What is immoral about eugenics?

[JBeukema]

[voluntary measures] would constitute euthenics, not eugenics.

see: liberal eugenics

the two approaches lay on either side of the dichotomyevil

Eugenics is a science, not an approach or set of policies, and only with a somewhat liberal usage of the term does it apply to any application of the science.

nazis were eugenicists

They were also germans, largely male, and to a large extent various shades of Christian. Some claim Hitler was also a vegetarian.

so you come into this argument with a bad rap.

Then, too, do all Christians. After all, the people who burned the women in Salem, the guys who run Blackwater, and the Hutaree were all Christians... Except that Christianity is a set of beliefs and eugenics is nothing more than a broad field of study. Now tell me who really enters the conversation covered in filth if we're going to use your criteria?

what do you propose as a eugenic policy which you'd advocate a country like the US should adopt?

see: liberal eugenics. I've gone over this many times.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with eugenics is the reductionism inherent in hyper-focus on pure physicality, ignoring the other two aspects of human life.

Eugenics is broad by definition (see Galton's definition, cited earlier) and includes such sciences as epigenetics and nutrition and disease, especially when the germ line can be effected.

The issue with abortion is the question of exactly when the body acquires the other two aspects central to being "human"

Why do i care if something is 'human'? I care whether it is a person. Why should DNA mean anything to me? Do I not have more in common with a sentient machine or intelligent alien race than I have with a corpse that happens to share ~99% of my DNA?

Religiously speaking, two things in Torah must be present for life to exist -- blood and breath -- one without the other is NOT life.

Appealing to religious texts is going to do nothing to bolster any argument you intend to make, unless it the argument is regarding what is or is not contained within the text itself.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I also enjoy the way you tried to make yourself sound qualified to discuss this subject by claiming you are working to promote eugenics. Until you can point to a college that teaches it as a science, which you cannot, you are doing nothing more than pissing into the wind. All that does is get you covered with piss, and teaches non fools to avoid the activity. Please continue to piss as much as you want, I will be watching from upwind.

This tends to be his MO. He generally makes threads pushing some useless or trivial matter in hopes it is controversial enough with the rest of the world and modern scientific reasoning to get someone to actually respond to the claim, as if it weren't completely ridiculous in the first place. He then pulls out obscure or irrelevant references, and claims they are equivalent to the total compilation of evidence to the contrary, and that the other person can't completely prove him wrong, so therefore he's right.

He has proven himself on multiple occasions to be devoid of any practical scientific reasoning or logical interpretation, to instead pursue an immature debate.

 

[JBeukema]

Windbag's the one who claims to have debunked several scientific fields- every time he's asked to show where he's done so, he leaves the thread.

Of course, you're free to back up your slander and show how I've made any factually inaccurate claims in this thread, but all you have been able to do is slander Mr. Wilson and rage against straw men.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I think I'm going to file this behind your claim that all of known modern physics is incorrect, and not actually respond to your little ideas.

 

[JBeukema]

I think I'm going to file this behind your claim that all of known modern physics is incorrect

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As opposed to supernatural improvements?

Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books

what are you on commission for this book?

social improvements, dummy.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia

Do you even know what that means?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I also enjoy the way you tried to make yourself sound qualified to discuss this subject by claiming you are working to promote eugenics. Until you can point to a college that teaches it as a science, which you cannot, you are doing nothing more than pissing into the wind. All that does is get you covered with piss, and teaches non fools to avoid the activity. Please continue to piss as much as you want, I will be watching from upwind.

This tends to be his MO. He generally makes threads pushing some useless or trivial matter in hopes it is controversial enough with the rest of the world and modern scientific reasoning to get someone to actually respond to the claim, as if it weren't completely ridiculous in the first place. He then pulls out obscure or irrelevant references, and claims they are equivalent to the total compilation of evidence to the contrary, and that the other person can't completely prove him wrong, so therefore he's right.

He has proven himself on multiple occasions to be devoid of any practical scientific reasoning or logical interpretation, to instead pursue an immature debate.

I think you give him to much credit. What you are describing would require him being able to do more than regurgitate an opinion without understanding it. He proved he is not above that level when he desperately tried to use both enhanced communication and telepathy to defend his position that brain dead people think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag's the one who claims to have debunked several scientific fields- every time he's asked to show where he's done so, he leaves the thread.

Of course, you're free to back up your slander and show how I've made any factually inaccurate claims in this thread, but all you have been able to do is slander Mr. Wilson and rage against straw men.

I never claimed to debunk anything. You keep posting things that are not science, and claim they are. You are the one that is trying to prove something, so the burden is upon you. All I have to do is mock your pathetic claims that you have proved anything.

 

[JBeukema]

I also enjoy the way you tried to make yourself sound qualified to discuss this subject by claiming you are working to promote eugenics. Until you can point to a college that teaches it as a science, which you cannot, you are doing nothing more than pissing into the wind. All that does is get you covered with piss, and teaches non fools to avoid the activity. Please continue to piss as much as you want, I will be watching from upwind.

This tends to be his MO. He generally makes threads pushing some useless or trivial matter in hopes it is controversial enough with the rest of the world and modern scientific reasoning to get someone to actually respond to the claim, as if it weren't completely ridiculous in the first place. He then pulls out obscure or irrelevant references, and claims they are equivalent to the total compilation of evidence to the contrary, and that the other person can't completely prove him wrong, so therefore he's right.

He has proven himself on multiple occasions to be devoid of any practical scientific reasoning or logical interpretation, to instead pursue an immature debate.

I think you give him to much credit. What you are describing would require him being able to do more than regurgitate an opinion without understanding it. He proved he is not above that level when he desperately tried to use both enhanced communication and telepathy to defend his position that brain dead people think.

What is your obsession with telepathy? Try watching something other than the scifi channel.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is your obsession with telepathy? Try watching something other than the scifi channel.

You posted the link.

 

[antagon]

As opposed to supernatural improvements?

Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books

what are you on commission for this book?

social improvements, dummy.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia

but like i said earlier, this is bullshit. the extent which this accounts for human social evolution pales to the role that language, tradition, technology and social/political science play.

 

[antagon]

an association between genetics and the variations of this evolution across different societies is not plausible. .

If you think you can disprove evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and ethology, feel free to write a book about it and see how the scientific community response to your discomfort with reality.

The conscious mind is an accident. The somatic body exists only as DNA's tool for procreating itself.

psychology and ethology certainly don't maintain that human social evolution is reducible exclusively or dominantly to genetics or nature. there's no credible accounting on these lines for differences between societies and the role of genetics either. the extent which sociobiology is not redundant to ethology, evolution (its many disciplines) and sociology is the extent that it too is not credible.

typical of your arguments, you defer the onus of the defense of your claims to what you perceive to be some state of the art of science, but failing again, you've planted those foundations on some sort of biodeterminism -- pretty much relegated to pseudoscience along with eugenics.

accident or not, the presence of the conscious mind capable of conceiving and executing measures which support human resilience dominates those naturally occurring elements independent of it to this same end. this is what makes eugenics pointless.

of course, in making an argument that a genetic deficiency in a race or population within our species is so grave that it can impact our capacity to survive

Like vitamin D deficiency in blacks in Sweden?

You seem to be once again arguing against some vague concept of an argument I never made. Please quote the post in which I claimed any race is incapable of reproducing.

evolution is not facilitated by 'capability to reproduce'. i've referred to capacity for survival didn't you claim that eugenics is the scientific assumption of the natural role of evolution?

whether its blacks in sweden or swedes in zaire, vitamins and sunscreen -- among nuture's other provisions of technology -- are the elements of our society which accommodate for these genetic predispositions. eugenics has nothing to contribute, whatsoever.

if you want to characterize nurture as part of environment, then it is a synthetic part.

You're synthetic? You're not a part of the natural universe? You're not made of matter like everything else and subject to the very same laws of physics?

no. the statement says that nurture is synthesized by humanity. even if your paperback collection had some valuable points to make, the your reading comprehension would fail to capture them.

Wilson launched an entire scientific field.

sociobiologoy is not a science independent of evolutionary psychology, ethology, evolution, biology, etc. it is certainly not an 'entire field', but rather an obscure one.

 

[antagon]

[voluntary measures] would constitute euthenics, not eugenics.

see: liberal eugenics

so this is the same as euthenics?

the two approaches lay on either side of the dichotomyevil

Eugenics is a science, not an approach or set of policies, and only with a somewhat liberal usage of the term does it apply to any application of the science.

eugenics is not science. those such as yourself looking to elevate it to science merely elevate it to pseudoscience.

i would argue eugenics is (mad) engineering, and as such an 'approach'. indeed eugenics can be a set of policies, too.

 

[JBeukema]

what are you on commission for this book?

social improvements, dummy.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia

but like i said earlier, this is bullshit. the extent which this accounts for human social evolution pales to the role that language, tradition, technology and social/political science play.

Language is made possible by our physical evolution. Tradition, technology, and social norms are ultimately products of our evolution as well. Recall that the mind emerges from the brain, which is itself 'designed' by evolutionary forces.

see: evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary Psychology

 

[JBeukema]

For antagon:

Max Planck Society - Press Release

evolution is not facilitated by 'capability to reproduce'.

i've referred to capacity for survival

The survival of the somatic body is not only unimportant, but actually a bad thing after it's done its job. The body is a germ cell's way of creating another germ cell.

Oxford University Press: Sex and the Origins of Death: William R. Clark

 

[JBeukema]

You love to redefine things to fit your own ends, don't you?

You probably think Maxine Waters is a Liberal

 

[antagon]

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia

but like i said earlier, this is bullshit. the extent which this accounts for human social evolution pales to the role that language, tradition, technology and social/political science play.

Language is made possible by our physical evolution. Tradition, technology, and social norms are ultimately products of our evolution as well. Recall that the mind emerges from the brain, which is itself 'designed' by evolutionary forces.

see: evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary Psychology

All of this you've pointed out is obvious, however, when it comes to our ability to survive in nature, our societies are responsible. our feet are natural, they facilitate our walking. walking, however, pales in comparison to riding in a bullet train for its efficiency and speed. in this same way your frail allusions to the natural origins of our intelligence pale in comparison to the contributions which nurture-factors like technology, language and history make with regard to their value to social evolution.

biodeterminism is a fallacy. your arguments dragging credible science to conclusions which support it are severally retarded. they aren't reciprocally supported by the disciplines which you pretend to defend or which you contend to defend your stance. only eugenics itself supposes on the basis of biodeterminism and reductionist fallacy that our genes constitute a worthwhile pursuit to affect the improvement of humanity, and like i said ealier, that is bullshit.

 

[antagon]

For antagon:

Max Planck Society - Press Release

non sequitur. what does this jaded obsession of yours have to do with anything?

evolution is not facilitated by 'capability to reproduce'.

ignorant. opportunity, inclination and preferential selection have little to do with capability, but nearly everything to do with evolution.

i've referred to capacity for survival

The survival of the somatic body is not only unimportant, but actually a bad thing after it's done its job. The body is a germ cell's way of creating another germ cell.

Oxford University Press: Sex and the Origins of Death: William R. Clark

[/quote] retarded. survival to fertility and thereafter is crucial. unlike mice, humans aren't resilient in two weeks time. ya got the wits to track the implications? hint: its got nothing to do with germs.

 

[JBeukema]

All of this you've pointed out is obvious

Yet you keep denying it.

however, when it comes to our ability to survive in nature, our societies are responsible. our feet are natural, they facilitate our walking. walking, however, pales in comparison to riding in a bullet train for its efficiency and speed

And how can we make that train?

See: proximate versus ultimate cause

biodeterminism is a fallacy

Who advocated 'biodeterminism'? Only you've spoken of any such thing. Try reading what I've actually said instead of raging against straw men.