[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 71 KB, 720x540, vitruvian man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662758 No.4662758 [Reply] [Original]

Genetic scanning is becoming cheap, quick, and easy.

With these advancements we are beginning to see and understand the basic differences between humans.
We are able to track, on a genetic level, the basis of intelligence, of physical strength, of physical and mental health, whether you are susceptible to disease for not, and many other factors.

Humans are stupid, and reactionary. Given this new plethora of information, it will only be natural that they will begin to assign value to some factors over others.
Some people will be labeled as genetically "inferior," while others will be labeled as genetically "superior."
Although, unlike the Nazi's, we will have actual, testable, scientific evidence supporting these claims.

We may begin to see a caste system in the coming years, or mass killings with the excuse of "improving" the gene pool.
perhaps those deemed "inferior" won't be allowed to have children?
feel free to imagine other equally horrifying outcomes.

I see this as an eventuality.
Humanity has never gained experience peacefully, and I have no reason to believe that this won't be a great source of contention.

what are your thoughts on these coming years? I hope you are all labeled "superior," I for one have a nervous tic, and while my family is incredibly intelligent, they are also quite susceptible to mental illness.
The nazi's would have killed me for being "inferior"

I have no reason to believe I will survive the next great purge.

>> No.4662765

interesting theory OP, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Also, I am convinced your genitalia are sized quite above average, you are a god among men.
you stallion.

>> No.4662766

>>4662758
>>4662765

i'll keep samefagging. I'll do it too.

>> No.4662769

>>4662758

>applying Darwinian arbitrariness to a complex sociocultural merit-based and non dichotomized multicultural and progressive society.

Not gonna happen nignog.

>> No.4662781

>>4662769

>implying humans are "merit based" and "progressive"

I lol'd
what makes us different than the generations before us?
can you think of one thing?

no, we're still just as violent, just as stupid.

>> No.4662787

>>4662781

We condition ourselves from birth in social uprising to abide the law through training and a guise of sophistication under immaturity is lead to guide us to 'adulthood' at which we are legally responsible and are then 'allowed' (we were capable before) of making consequentially based decisions.

Also, society has changed mankind physically. Civilization = pseudo domestication. Lower aggression levels, higher obedience levels, smaller body size, less agressive body language + threat signals.

We're taught problem solving and coping methods in kindergarten dude. We aren't cro-magnons.

>> No.4662790

Yeah, because politicians with that on their agenda won't have their careers explode in their faces instantly.

This is a fantasy thread.

>> No.4662794

>>4662787

The romans were raised on luxury and society as well, but they still managed to kill a lot of people.

Our own leaders still make the same barbaric decisions, and whens the last time the school system has successfully "domesticated" anybody?

pacifism and a desire for peace have been apparent throughout human history, but what defines us is our brutality.

We haven't changed, things aren't magically better just because this is the time YOU happen to be in.
It's the same as always, and I very well expect humanity to behave as they always have.

>> No.4662803

>>4662790
>implying that the US is the whole world

get your head out your ass, politics isn't a part of humanity, its a part of society.

Not everyone everywhere is campaigning dumbass.

>> No.4662809

>>4662803
But the people who make laws are, dumbass.

>> No.4662828

>>4662809

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

LAWS ARENT THE WHOLE WORLD

THEY DONT FUCKING MAGICALLY CHANGE PEOPLES ACTIONS

so what if someone says "oh don't do that! its wrong!!"
people are STILL GOING TO FUCKING CREATE CASTE SYSTEMS
AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO FUCKING JUDGE PEOPLE BASED ON IT

TELLING THEM NOT TO WONT FUCKING DO ANYTHING

GET. IT. THROUGH. YOUR. THICK. FUCKING. SKULL.

>> No.4662847

>"people are stupid and violent, given information like this, they will act upon it"

>"uh no, we'll just make a law saying that they can't do that"

>"you'll make a law saying they can't act like humans have always acted"

>"yes"

>"well that wont do anything, you can't just tell someone to not be human"

>"YUH HUH CAN TOO!"

god, this thread.

>> No.4662850

>>4662828
Fun fact: If you want mass killings, you're probably going to have to modify the law!

>> No.4662856

>>4662850
>>4662850

Fun fact: mass killing have always been illegal.

Fun fact: they still happen all the fucking time.

how is it being retarded? hm?

>> No.4662868

>>4662856
When was the last mass killing in America? I can't believe I'm missing out on this great event that happens all the time!

Your stupid third world countries that no one gives half a shit about aren't indicative of the future of first world countries.

>> No.4662879

>>4662868
>>4662868

>implying that people aren't murdered, raped, tortured, and beaten EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA

Why do you think humanity is perfect?
why do you think that NOBODY will act upon information that says "this person is inferior"?
Are you just hopelessly optimistic?
or do you not see the real world?

grow the fuck up kiddie, this is fucking life. It's not all rainbows, Shit happens.

THERE ARE STUPID PEOPLE
THEY WILL BE STUPID

and it doesn't matter how loud you say "NUH UH ITS NOT TRUE IM NOT LISTENING LALALLALA"

people are fucking barbarians.

>> No.4662896

I agree there will be some people that act on this information, saying there will be mass killings everywhere is a little naive,

but saying that there will be NO killings and that this information will have NO effect because "we aren't like that anymore"
well thats just fucking RETARTED

>> No.4662904

>>4662879
You're talking about mass-murder of a specific group of people that can only be identified by their genes. It isn't going to happen unless it's systematic.
If what you said was going to happen, it would be happening today with the mentally/physically handicapped who are far more identifiable than someone with some "inferior" gene sequence that is only identifiable after genetic testing.

Also, stop capitalizing your words for emphasis and consider spending a few moments to think about your sentence structure.

>> No.4662918

>>4662904

>implying poor sentence structure invalidates the argument. stretching much?

also, the mentally and physically handicapped are killed in droves all over the world.
how do you not fucking know this?

Oh wait I get it, you think your sheltered little suburban life is REAL LIFE don't you?

oh you poor thing.
its gonna be real hard for you when you get out in the real world.
they're gonna eat you alive.
poor baby.

>> No.4662924

How has no one mentioned GATTACA yet?

>> No.4662931

>>4662924
>>4662924

people haven't seen it, although, my premise was based loosely on it.

you sir, are a pinnacle of culture in a sea of stupidity, remember that.

>> No.4662934
File: 611 KB, 960x1299, caveman science fiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662934

>>4662924
please...

>> No.4662935

>>4662918
Why do you feel the need to avoid my argument while claiming that I am avoiding yours?
I'm not sure if you're this alarmist all the time or if you're under the influence of something, but you need to calm down a bit.

The situation you are describing is one that requires the following:
1. Access to testing equipment
Something which the 3rd world countries that fit your "barbaric" description will not have.

2. Compliance among the general populace
Something that will not happen in 1st world countries, the media loves controversies and is always looking for victims to make new stories out of.

>> No.4662938

but then wait.... who will we be able to exploit for low wages?

>> No.4662950

>>4662938
YOU

>> No.4662954

>>4662935
>>4662935

first sentence of main post
>Genetic scanning is becoming cheap, quick, and easy.

also, you assume that these countries where mass killing take place are full of what? people that don't understand anything? that are less intelligent?
they have all the technology we have.
go look up Iran, that's CITIES, not goat people like you seem to think.

they will have this technology, they will use it quite easily.

and attacking directly which parts of your argument are stupid is not "avoiding" it.

>> No.4662956

>>4662950
That would imply I'm not German master race.

>> No.4662959

>>4662938
degenerates (de-jeen-er-its)

>> No.4662962

>>4662935
>>4662935

OH SHIT ALSO!
genetic scanning is ALREADY becoming the standard for medical screening.
these scans will be MANDATORY, for health reasons. and even if they're not, many people will still get them for the convenience they offer.

it's not hard to access a database.
and not everyone is intelligent enough to not make assumption based on that data.

>> No.4662966

.>>4662959
Ohhhh very /punny/

>> No.4662977

>>4662954
>>4662962
Sorry, you just seem to be suggesting a scenario where countries that are currently not mass-murdering people suddenly become countries that are committing mass-murder.

In countries where mass-murder is already occurring, it certainly is feasible that they use this new wave of genetic testing as a new criterion to justify what they do.
In countries where is is not occurring, I do not see this technology as changing that.

>> No.4662985

>>4662977

Okay, so you admit that this technology could be used to justify mass killings?

Then why can it not be used in what you call "the first world"?
If not for mass killings, then maybe a group of people, like the KKK, but with genetic information, that begin targeting those labeled "inferior"?
In the first world, a mass killing doesn't have to be hundreds, double digits is enough to warrant labeling as such.

>> No.4662999

>>4662985
Small reactionary groups with "double digit" kill counts can hardly form a caste system.

Additionally, the groups that would commit your definition of mass-murder already are doing it and probably have their hands full killing darkies and don't care about your potential mental illness or the slim chance your pass it on to your potential children.

>> No.4663000

by the time this is becoming a problem, we will be able to alter that stuff.

maybe it wont be mass killings, but forced sterilizations and mandatory genetic "repair" may become the norm

isn't that more "civilized?"

>> No.4663005

>>4662999

they target "darkies" because that is the information they use to label them as inferior.

with genetic information becoming the norm, there is no reason to believe that people wont use that information.

racism can be traced back to eugenics, after all.

>> No.4663012
File: 7 KB, 171x251, 1284817029608s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4663012

>>4663000
>>4663000

this actually may happen.

only, it will be wrapped up in propriety and society.
It will happen, but we wont know about it.

also, most german citizens didn't know about the death camps.
that kind of worries me.

>> No.4663017

>>4662999

also, its a little more than slim.
its quite ingrained in the structure of our brains. We have higher cognitive ability, at the cost of lasting mental health.

>> No.4663029

>>4663017
I called it a slim chance that you would pass it on for a different reason.
>>4663005
They target darkies because they look different, not because of their different gene structure.

>> No.4663038

>>4663029
>>4663029

again, eugenics.
The hate may be based in the differences, but they justify their claims with something.

If someone is labelled as "genetically superior," they may begin to blame those "inferiors" for their problems.
Its quite a familiar slope from there.

we've seen it every group of people ever.
European immigrants, jews, blacks, chinese. You name it, they've always come up with reasons to hate them.

The "inferiors" are going to have a hard time of it, that's for sure.

>> No.4663055

>>4663038
Regardless of it's prevalence of becoming a new excuse for mass murder, I seriously doubt anyone is going to start because of it.

I don't see any evidence supporting your claims, and seeing as you believe yourself to be a potential victim, you come off as very paranoid.

>> No.4663077

>>4663055

my point is that if this BECOMES an excuse, as things like this are prone to do, then we will see killings because of it.
I also said that if it DOES, then I fall well within the boundaries of "killable," not that i'm being paranoid, simply an observation.

>> No.4663079

>>4663055
>>4663055
>Regardless of it's prevalence of becoming a new excuse for mass murder, I seriously doubt anyone is going to start because of it.

>I don't see any evidence supporting your claims, and seeing as you believe yourself to be a potential victim, you come off as very paranoid


(this sounds exactly like what they said about eugenics before the nazi movement, just saying)

>> No.4663082

>>4663079
Regardless of what people were saying before the nazi movement, there is simply a lack of evidence to suggest that mass murders will become popular again due to easy genetics testing.

>> No.4663088

OP is quite wrong. The same technology that permits such identification will in a few short years allow genetic editing. You'll splice your own gametes the way you mix tracks on your PC now. In two generations there won't be any such thing as genetically 'superior' and 'inferior'.

How foolish.

>> No.4663090

>>4663088
see

>>4663000 and >>4663012

this point has been made.

>> No.4663091

Why do u have these crazy ideas about eugenics? U do know that we can already tell right now, without fancy genetic testing, who has good genes for intelligence, height, health, mental health, .... ? These things are all highly heritable... ergo.. those who have these abilities to a high degree, have good genes for these things.

There will be no such 'purging' or mass killings. However, there will be increased eugenic practices, and that is a very good thing.

>> No.4663095

>>4663082

you say "again" when they never stopped. That is confusing. Mass killings are commonplace, any excuse, any changes in knowledge, have been followed by mass amounts of death.

Genetic tracking is our printing press, it will be followed by death.

You may think there is no proof for this, I say look at humanity, and history, and there is no way there isn't proof for this.

>> No.4663100

>>4663091

we cannot tell these things as they are very intricate and ingrained into many areas of our genetic code.

we are just beginning to be able to tell where these things come from.

as in, there is proof now.
and with people like you who were already claiming these things, that proof is a very dangerous thing indeed.

>> No.4663105

>>4663100
>and with people like you who were already claiming these things, that proof is a very dangerous thing indeed.

We do have proof of these things i mentioned. The only thing is that we have to infer the facts from fenotype, which can be done but is more uncertain.
And we don't know which specific genes result in increased intelligence. We will know soon. It will be rather trivial sorting people for intelligence then. It already is rather easy. Just give them an IQ test they haven't seen before. When we can just test genes, just take a hair from them, or some spit, etc. There is no way to avoid this.

>> No.4663106

>>4663095
Sorry, I misspoke.
Mass killings in first world countries.

>I say look at humanity, and history, and there is no way there isn't proof for this.
If it's so commonplace, why don't you have anything to say besides NAZIS NAZIS NAZIS?
The holocaust was not directly preceded by any advances in the identification of genetics. It was preceded by a scapegoat taken too far.

>> No.4663109

>>4663105
exactly my point.
an unavoidable increase in knowledge, that shows obvious and distinct differences between people?

how is this not going to cause problems?

>> No.4663116

>>4663109
The average bumfuck isn't going to gain access to your genetic information and then want to kill you because you have a chance of becoming mentally ill.
Maybe after a world-wide economic collapse he'll go down to wal-mart and pick up a testing unit and force a sample out of you then decide you should be killed because the gene-thingies are different than his.

>> No.4663117

>>4663109
>an unavoidable increase in knowledge, that shows obvious and distinct differences between people?

>how is this not going to cause problems?

The information is already here. Society is already divided into genetic classes of people. This is rather trivial since the higher the education, the more intelligence required, and intelligence is mostly heritable.

Becus of that, one can infer genetic information from people's place in society with good certainty. This was one of the points of The Bell Curve...

TL;DR: the information is already mostly here. There are no problems becus of this.

>> No.4663122

>>4663106
>>4663106

I say nazis because they were the most recent cohesive structure based around "genetic purification"

would you rather I used the romans as an example? or maybe the spartans?
both were known to kill infants they deemed "unworthy"
how about in china, where they still label females as "inferior?"

An claim of superiority is always found and used to subjugate those who are deemed "inferior"

the fact that I have a specific example doesn't WEAKEN my argument you imbecile.

and it has been documented quite well that hitler based his decisions on race by research done right here in the US on genetics, stratified by race.

an increase in supposed knowledge, followed directly by bloodshed.

happened to the jews, the sumerians, the greeks, the persians, the byzantians, the mongols.

everyone.

ever.


why are you so convinced we are different?

>> No.4663140

>>4663122
>would you rather I used the romans as an example? or maybe the spartans?
Fine examples from ancient history, good thing human nature doesn't change and we still do this today, right?
China has a better reason to define females as inferior, as males earn more and they are only allowed so many children, so their definition is logical considering the situation they are in.
>the fact that I have a specific example doesn't WEAKEN my argument
I couldn't disagree more.
>you imbecile
Why do you need to insult me like this? Is it to further ingrain the idea that you are "incredibly intelligent" like the rest of your family? Why are you even arguing with me if I am what you say I am?
>happened to the jews, the sumerians, the greeks, the persians, the byzantians, the mongols
Fine examples, should you provide evidence of significant technological advancement before the slaughter of each of these peoples.
Even then, it still wouldn't be applicable because this technology isn't new, just cheaper.

>> No.4663145
File: 2 KB, 209x215, 1285039681620.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4663145

knowledge leads to change
change leads to violence
so... knowledge is violence?


but seriously, something as world changing as this can't possibly go perfectly smoothly.

I mean, even if nobody dies, we're going to see some really crazy shit toward those labeled inferior. That seems to make sense to me, I mean, i've lived among humanity for some time, I will never think they're perfect.

>> No.4663155

>>4663145
This isn't new technology, it's just cheaper and will probably save lives.

Hate groups don't care about your family's history of mental illness and they aren't going to steal medical information just to find you.

Also, you seem like you're samefagging a bit, might want to change your posting style if you're going to do that.

>> No.4663156

>>4663140
for one, ancient people were exactly, EXACTLY like us. only technology has changed.

TWO
china labeled women inferior, hence they make less, ITS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

THREE
i called you an imbecile because you're making imbecilic arguments.

FOUR
>specific examples weaken arguments
I just.. what? god your'e fucking dumb.

FIVE
I should't have to list out every fucking advance for you, if you knew anything about history you SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IM REFERRING TO

You see, the problem here isn't that I don't know what i'm talking about, it's that you're just not keeping up.

and you're right, if your'e this dumb, why do I even bother?

>> No.4663163

>>4663155

you have just missed the entire point. well done.
also nice try, but no.

>> No.4663170

>>4663156
Your only valid point was "FOUR" because I misread your previous post.
Your refusal to provide more than one piece of evidence to support your outlandish claim makes your argument weak. You call me dumb for not knowing details that support your argument? If they are so simple, please just provide them.

I cannot believe a person as intelligent as yourself is having a hard time convincing this dunce conversing with you that there is an impending wave of violence against people labeled as genetically inferior.

>> No.4663258

Any particular reason why u discuss this rather boring thing about past groups of people being considered inferior by some other groups of people?

It seems to me to be not very interesting. What is interesting, is how we make good use of eugenics in the near future and the present. Currently, we screen fetuses for known diseases. A better thing to do wud be to do a genome test for the fetus early on, and abort ones with bad genes. Even better wud be to select a good zygote and put that in.

>> No.4663272

>>4663258
Any reason why you bump dead threads about things you're not even interested in and not make threads about the subject you'd rather discuss?

>> No.4663441

>>4662758
>mass killings with the excuse of "improving" the gene pool
I have recently suggested benevolent eugenics be taken seriously as an idea and have gotten this argument. Hurr durr you want to kill children. But there is no reason whatsoever to kill people in order for gene selection or genetic quality control. In fact, it creates a huge costly and socially unsustainable mess.

What you want instead is something like embryo selection (especially if you already use IVF) and genetic counseling based on genome sequencing, with the most important genetically correlated diseases in mind.

>perhaps those deemed "inferior" won't be allowed to have children?
I personally reject the "right to reproduce" completely. Reproduction is a privilege, not a right. It creates a non-consensual externality on others, namely the children.

All existing persons should have extensive self-determination rights, bodily autonomy etc. But a free and democratic society should have the right to make reproduction conditional, with the aim to facilitate the child's welfare and protect society from externalities. And people who defect against these rules can be punished with various degrees of mildness or severity like any other criminal or child abuser.

As a general rule, if you create a child that will be suffering with a greater probability than necessary, you should be punished for child abuse. The children cannot defend themselves against the distress and unpleasantness of many diseases.

And then there are some desirable traits that we can cautiously explore as a society, e.g. slightly lower pain sensitivity, neuroticism etc.

>> No.4663478

Killing "inferior" people of forbidding them to have children is unlikely to happen in most first world countries. It is just too opposed to the current humanistic paradigma. What can happen, however, is that people with the means will start using embryo selection and eventually genetic modification to make their children "better". You can also eventually expect people to discriminate people on their genes, for instance on job aplications and promotions (which is legal under current laws, as you have clear, objective proof that one person is more suited for something than the other). Eventually, these groups will seperate socially, and humanity will return to a class based society, where your genes determine whther you are one of the haves orn have-not's.

>> No.4663483

>>4663478
>What can happen, however, is that people with the means will start using embryo selection and eventually genetic modification to make their children "better".
If these means healthier, I'm all for it.

>> No.4663490

>>4663441
>

As a general rule, if you create a child that will be suffering with a greater probability than necessary, you should be punished for child abuse. The children cannot defend themselves against the distress and unpleasantness of many diseases.

Ridiculous... Embryonic selection isn't about endowing your child with the best possible traits. It's about killing many tens of thousands of potential children to find the one that suits your vanity or whatever. Which is fine, life is an amoral process of regeneration &c. But you're not "abusing" a kid with a cleft palate by letting them come into existence... if a "future" person can be said to incur harm, certainly they are harmed to the utmost when you cease their existence. The objection to your claim is similar to the "better screwed than stewed" argument with respect to bestiality.

>> No.4663498

>>4663490
>It's about killing many tens of thousands of potential children to find the one that suits your vanity or whatever.
There are two false assumptions here. The first is that "potential children" are killed. But the truth is, when parents want one child, they will create one child. They will simply select which genes it will have, among the given possibilities. There is always a sheer infinite number of "potential children" that could come into existence, but won't. If you create one child, why not create the one with the most healthy biological starting conditions?

The second flawed assumption is that this is about vanity, when it really is about health - and probably the inevitable competition that life always ends up turning into.

>But you're not "abusing" a kid with a cleft palate by letting them come into existence... if a "future" person can be said to incur harm, certainly they are harmed to the utmost when you cease their existence.
When you create a child that predictably suffers 30% of the time, when you could instead have created a similar child that suffers only 5% of the time (arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point), then you have abused a child.

>> No.4663504

If we had this power when we were monkeys right now we would still be the same old monkeys.
Healthy and perfect as it may be, still monkies.

food for thought.

>> No.4663510

>>4663498
>>4663498

They're not the same entity! Cleft palate had different genes... would have liked cinnamon instead of chocolate flakes on their coffee... whatever it is. It's not like there's some deontological harmonizing veil over the cervix that magically converts the human that passes through it into the child "Amanda".

Also, "suffering" seems very pliable. I think a lot of pro-choicers could agree that certain totally disabling conditions probably merit abortion. But what about socially construed suffering? Many South Asians terminate girls because they're seen as inferior offspring due to societal expectations about dowry, patrilineal property transfer etc. Is the "suffering" that a girl endures in India sufficient cause to terminate her in favour of a boy?

>> No.4663513

>>4663478
>You can also eventually expect people to discriminate people on their genes, for instance on job aplications and promotions (which is legal under current laws, as you have clear, objective proof that one person is more suited for something than the other).

This is absolutely fucking irrelevant to whether you are suitable for a job and is almost certainly going to be made extremely illegal.

>> No.4663519

>Doesn't understand biology enough to understand actual genetics, and it's Epi effects.
This isn't accurate data. In fact it's counter productive to what we are actually learning OP.

>> No.4663523

>>4663510
>They're not the same entity!
I know this argument, but personal identity is always messy because it's based on illusions. Strictly speaking, your own self in 4 minutes is not the same entity as you are now. Most notably, a genome doesn't give you personal identity. If it did, genetically identical twins would count as one person. This is clearly nonsensical.

If you are planning on creating one life, create the life with the best possible starting conditions for well-being.

>Many South Asians terminate girls because they're seen as inferior offspring due to societal expectations about dowry, patrilineal property transfer etc. Is the "suffering" that a girl endures in India sufficient cause to terminate her in favour of a boy?
This choice is not made in order to reduce suffering. It is a selfish choice on the parents part. However, I don't think it's that big a problem since a shortage in girls will increase demand for girls, therefore putting social pressure on changing the customs.

Suffering does matter. It is an experience that can be so extreme that people wish they had never been born. Since we force children into existence without consent - there is no other way if you want to have humans living happy lives - we should select for the best possible starting conditions to reduce suffering.

And once the child has an individual brain, it should have legal rights and personhood. Once it has the cognitive ability to make choices for itself, it should have extensive autonomy rights (more than people do now imo).

>> No.4663525

>>4663513
It happens after a fashion at some firms in the States.

If you have a genetic predisposition to a disease...
and the disease manifests...
and you eat up your company's privately-purchased health insurance premiums...
there are consultants who will "fix the glitch" - that is, let the people doing the hiring and firing know who is running up the doctors' bills. This too is extremely illegal but quite common, especially in boutique tech firms.

>> No.4663562

>>4663523
>This choice is not made in order to reduce suffering. It is a selfish choice on the parents part. However, I don't think it's that big a problem since a shortage in girls will increase demand for girls, therefore putting social pressure on changing the customs.

Well, despite a 1.3:1 gender ratio in parts of India, the practice continues unabated. Ultrasound delivery in rural India continues to be a growth industry.

How about screening for melanin content? Many post-colonial societies place a premium on light skin.

What about pre-screening homosexuals? Certainly life for gays in demonstrably more difficult than that of straights.

How about kids with aspergers? Surely their social dysfunction is a kind of suffering for which the parents deserve judicial sanction.

Certainly handed-ness should be a screening criteria. Left handed people suffer a higher incidence of catastrophic cardiopulmonary events.

Also shortness should be a grounds for child abuse proceedings against parents, as height correlates to positive lifetime earnings outcomes.

Whole despised ethnicities with generally poor lifestyle prognosis (aboriginal groups, Roma) should also be barred from reproduction, as their ethnicized children would suffer when a member of the dominant, preferred race would go without their particular brand of suffering.

>> No.4663567

>>4663525
United states really are hell-like.
Not the fire part, the full of wicked people part.

>> No.4663576

If everybody was smart and proud and capable who would do all the shit jobs in the world?

You need the garbage man as much as you need the nobel winner scientists for society to function.

>> No.4663579

>>4663567
Nope, that's freedom in action, buddy. The market decides who lives and who dies, which brings us back nicely to the OP. Hopefully, in the future, we'll be able to filter out the "glitches".

>> No.4663581

>>4663576
There will still be stupid people reproducing, but they'll just be penalized under legal regimes proposed by eugenicists like >>4663441
>>4663498
>>4663523
such that they constitute a permanent underclass, in much the same way that the War on Drugs furnishes a similar underclass today!

>> No.4663585

>>4663562
>Well, despite a 1.3:1 gender ratio in parts of India, the practice continues unabated.
Well, apparently they like a gay India? I have no idea what they are thinking, but it's clear that the parents' choice of the child's gender is a legitimate one.

>What about pre-screening homosexuals? Certainly life for gays in demonstrably more difficult than that of straights.
Is homosexuality heritable? Not that I know of. But if so, it should be the parents' choice. And what if you had written "pedophile"? Would you still think they shouldn't be selected against?


>How about kids with aspergers? Surely their social dysfunction is a kind of suffering for which the parents deserve judicial sanction.
Yes. Clearly.

>Certainly handed-ness should be a screening criteria. Left handed people suffer a higher incidence of catastrophic cardiopulmonary events.
I'd say that the statistical incidents of catastrophic cardiopulmonary events should in itself matter. Your handedness correlation is just a smokescreen to misrepresent the underlying purpose of facilitating health.

>Also shortness should be a grounds for child abuse proceedings against parents, as height correlates to positive lifetime earnings outcomes.
That's a social zero-sum game, and it has limits. Beyond a certain height, health suffers.

>Whole despised ethnicities with generally poor lifestyle prognosis (aboriginal groups, Roma) should also be barred from reproduction
I don't think your racism has a scientific justification.

>> No.4663589

>>4663562
Almost none of those are valid, stop making absurd exaggerations to try and mask the fact he is correct, many parents would not want their child to be born with actual disabilities. And frankly with natural selection no longer preventing many people with genetic illnesses breeding the problem and by extension the cost to parents, the children and the taxpayer will only increase.

>> No.4663596

>>4663581
The 'war on drugs' does not cause an underclass, those people were idiotic enough to start using drugs in the first place, its entirely their fault if that fucks them over.

>> No.4663600
File: 6 KB, 407x152, r9k into science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4663600

Apropos of nothing, I'm loling so hard at having this thread open in one tab and /r9k/ in another. Check this shit out.

>> No.4663601

>>4663579
America must be a horrible place if anybody actually thinks 'the market' should have any role whatsoever in deciding who lives or gets access to healthcare.

>> No.4663608

>I don't think your racism has a scientific justification.

Of course it does. Standards of living on North American native reserves are comparable to those found in sub-Saharan Africa. Of course this is "social" science, but these statistics are culled from first-rate nonpartisan agencies using the best possible data sets. If we accept the premise that it constitutes harm to allow a child to be born with heritable harm-causing traits when another child could be conceived without those traits using a technological intervention, SURELY the eugenic thing to do is intervene.

>> No.4663614

>>4663596
Did you have a cup of coffee this morning?

>> No.4663618

>>4663589

The standard proposed by the eugenicist isn't "disability", it's "suffering". So where do you draw the line? Is it strictly parents' discretion all the way through? The eugenicist proposed legal sanctions for parents who don't adequately screen their embryos. Who writes the guidelines for the legal filters? What institution gets to construe suffering, using what criteria? Why wouldn't the Communist Party of China simply write Uighur and Tibetan genomes out of the range of permissible reproductive outcomes?

>> No.4663623

>>4663614
Not the same, because coffee is legal and crack isn't. QED

>> No.4663626

>>4663618
Your argument is rather flawed. Maybe instead of harping on about potential abuse you should try and state why using it for intended purpose of preventing severely disabled babies or those with severe genetic illnesses being born is bad. Or are you unable to give a compelling reason to allow children to continue to be subjected to these diseases and to allow their continued inheritance?

>> No.4663629

>>4663614
Even if I drank coffee that would be a very bad comparison. There is a huge difference between a rather benign thing like caffeine and the expensive, addictive, illegal and usually fairly harmful things idiots like to put into themselves.

>> No.4663635

>>4663618
>So where do you draw the line?
As in many areas of life, there is no clear line. There are fuzzy boundaries. This argument is like saying, since there is no objectively perfect speed limit, we abolish all speed limits. Or ban driving.

>The eugenicist proposed legal sanctions for parents who don't adequately screen their embryos.
Well, embryo screening is actually expensive. You could have mandatory genetic counseling based on the increasingly cheap genome sequencing, and only if there is sufficient risk of suffering, actual embryo selection is mandatory. In an ideal world, all children would have quality-controlled genes, but in an ideal world, no children would starve. Clearly they do, but that doesn't mean we can't demand that parents in wealthy countries give their children a baseline of care. Remember, no one forces them to have children in the first place.

>Who writes the guidelines for the legal filters?
Maybe a democratically elected governmental institution incorporating social feedback from the general public?

>What institution gets to construe suffering, using what criteria?
Ideally well-recognized scientific quality of life criteria.

>Why wouldn't the Communist Party of China simply write Uighur and Tibetan genomes out of the range of permissible reproductive outcomes?
Why wouldn't the Communist Party simply prohibit Tibetians from reproducing? I have no control over China's government. Do you?

>> No.4663638

>>4663626
Again, the standard wasn't "disability", it was "suffering" in the words of the eugenicist.
And as you saw in the response of the eugenicist, a surprising range of outcomes were deemed to be valid for intervention! Homosexuality! Skin tone! Gender!

>Your argument is rather flawed. Maybe instead of harping on about potential abuse you should try and state why using it for intended purpose of preventing severely disabled babies or those with severe genetic illnesses being born is bad. Or are you unable to give a compelling reason to allow children to continue to be subjected to these diseases and to allow their continued inheritance?

I think there's a solid standard in "non viable ex partum"... I would also accept "viable but vegetative". My guess is that the vast majority of such pregnancies are aborted, and so the externality issue is not really in play. But the moment you adopt a "suffering" standard you are on the slimy mother of all slippery slopes.

>> No.4663646

>>4663635
>Why wouldn't the Communist Party simply prohibit Tibetians from reproducing? I have no control over China's government. Do you?

These are not questions of "can" but "should"... We -can- do many things! We -can- cook up weaponized bird flu and end human suffering altogether! Should we?

Under the ethical standard you've developed, it seems one could make a good faith argument for controlling all sorts of reproductive outcomes that, while a far cry from disability that any rational person would recognize, could certainly be justified under a suffering standard.

>> No.4663647

>>4663638
>And as you saw in the response of the eugenicist, a surprising range of outcomes were deemed to be valid for intervention! Homosexuality! Skin tone! Gender!
Distinguish between "legitimate parent choice" and "creating children with these genes should count as abuse". All three examples above should be legitimate parent choice, i.e. their selection should NOT be ILLEGAL. Examples of disabilities and diseases should count as potential abuse, i.e. failing to prevent those SHOULD be illegal. Note the difference. Don't blur it for your personal misrepresentation.

Children are not born voluntarily. They are forced to. If they suffer, it is the parent's fault.

>> No.4663655

>>4663646
>Under the ethical standard you've developed, it seems one could make a good faith argument for controlling all sorts of reproductive outcomes that, while a far cry from disability that any rational person would recognize, could certainly be justified under a suffering standard.
Sure, there's abuse potential, assuming no social control over the process, or a society that wants to abuse the process. The question is, does it more harm than good? A society with fewer genetically correlated illnesses is clearly a better society.

So what's the downside? What, exactly, do you see as a likely result from an abuse potential?

The China eliminates Tibetians bullshit is such a straw man because you don't need to eliminate an ethnicity to prevent genetic ailments.

>> No.4663659

>>4663647
>Examples of disabilities and diseases should count as potential abuse, i.e. failing to prevent those SHOULD be illegal.

So, why shouldn't the democratically elected Jobbik party in Hungary deem that Roma status is a kind of disease, and that parents who knowingly bear children with genetic markers associated with the Roma are guilty of such-and-such a felony? If a board of Jobbik-appointed scientists makes a procedurally legitimate determination backed by reams of evidence suggesting that the deficit in life outcome incurred by being Roma is at least as great as that inflicted by some actual developmental disease, on what moral basis if any do you say that they're doing wrong?

>> No.4663665

>>4663655
>>4663655

The standard is a harm standard.
Harm is defined by a board of government-appointed scientists.
It is "harmful" for a child to be Tibetan because they will have fewer economic and educational opportunities, a lower lifespan, less inclusion in political institutions, restricted freedom of movement etc. If that same child had been born Han, they would incur none of those harms! Isn't it eugenic to abort the Tibetan child and only permit Tibetan mothers to bear Han embryos to term?

>> No.4663668

>>4663659
>So, why shouldn't the democratically elected Jobbik party in Hungary deem that Roma status is a kind of disease
Um... because an ethnicity is not a disease??

>backed by reams of evidence suggesting that the deficit in life outcome incurred by being Roma is at least as great as that inflicted by some actual developmental disease
Let us assume there is actual evidence. Surely then that evidence points to social factors, such as racial discrimination? Then address these social factors.

The hypothetical case of an ethnicity in which all members suffer considerably simply as a function of being of that ethnicity is a counterfactual. If it were actually true, replacing that ethnicity would indeed be the morally right thing to do, but it is unlikely that it would run smoothly in the political arena.

>> No.4663670

>>4663665
See >>4663668

>> No.4663680

>>4663668
>Let us assume there is actual evidence. Surely then that evidence points to social factors, such as racial discrimination? Then address these social factors.

Certainly the harm associated with having a cleft palate is a result of social factors. Also the harm associated with asperger's disorder. In fact, any disability's harm could conceivably be mitigated with enough social intervention. Haven't you just ended up in the place that you were trying to escape?

>> No.4663690

>>4663680
>In fact, any disability's harm could conceivably be mitigated with enough social intervention.
No. That is wishful thinking. It's like saying voluntary euthanasia should be illegal because all suffering can be mitigated with sufficient care. In practice, all it does is to force individuals to suffer involuntarily.

There is also the question how much social intervention you'd need, and how much that costs. It is clear that racial discrimination, especially backed by political institutions like in China, is itself harmful, and the abolishments of bad policies is a straightforwardly better way to eliminate such socially driven suffering.

There are legitimate applications of eugenics. You have not refuted them by pointing out harmful ones, such as those facilitating only racist motivations.

>> No.4663692

>>4663680
Having a fucking gap in your secondary palate does harm beyond social factors you twit.

>> No.4663718

>There is also the question how much social intervention you'd need, and how much that costs. It is clear that racial discrimination, especially backed by political institutions like in China, is itself harmful, and the abolishments of bad policies is a straightforwardly better way to eliminate such socially driven suffering.

Nonsense! War is expensive, and of course intrinsically ethnic! Imagine the MASSIVE savings from our defense budget if it was mandated that all new children must belong to the same ethnic formation!

Likewise, men are quite problematic! Their aggression, their morose isolation when confronted with rejection, their sexual deviancies tending to violent exploitation. It seems like we could save quite a bit of money if we set a quota for males keyed to a healthy genetic diversity threshhold, and replaced the rest of those problematic males with women!

>> No.4663739

>>4663718
>Imagine the MASSIVE savings from our defense budget if it was mandated that all new children must belong to the same ethnic formation!
*sigh*

And here I thought we were actually having a reasonable analysis. The mental quality of making such shit up does not even play in the ballpark of a refutation.

>Likewise, men are quite problematic!
Yes, in part. And if most parents decided to want female children, that would be fine. Quite ironic that you bring this up after you just bashed the Indian practice of gender selection. And as with the Indian example, the question is, will those future women be happy with lesbianism or relationship-freedom?

>> No.4663746

>>4663739
Could easily turn into a polygynous society if there is a shortage of men.

>> No.4663751

>>4663746
Also consider that females have to deal with the period and somewhat less reliable ability to orgasm.

>> No.4663944

Seriously, why are people not just talking about GATTACA