After initial angst, would society benefit if the weak were not supported?

[Conrod]

Do you think they should be sterilized to prevent them having children?

You raise an interesting point - would that be of benefit for people who have a high chance of congenital defect, or if they are persistent criminals?

 

Perhaps it could be argued that nobody should be allowed to have children unless they are reasonably healthy, show aptitude for parenting and are in a position to provide for their own family.

[mikem8634]

You raise an interesting point - would that be of benefit for people who have a high chance of congenital defect, or if they are persistent criminals?

 

Perhaps it could be argued that nobody should be allowed to have children unless they are reasonably healthy, show aptitude for parenting and are in a position to provide for their own family.

 

You raise an interesting point - would that be of benefit for people who have a high chance of congenital trolling, or if they are persistent trolls?

 

Perhaps it could be argued that nobody should be allowed to have children unless they are reasonable, psychologically healthy, show aptitude for discussion and are in a position to debate.

[Conrod]

. . . . . . .

 

Which are you Conrod troll or neo-Nazi?

 

What is is about doing this that satisfies you so much?

 

Is it the effort others put into research to attack your point of you that you enjoy?

 

Or do other posters have to get angry before you get your thrill?

 

Or is it, as I suspect, just about attention?

Wow, does it have to be any of these?

 

Rather than make such far-stretched inferences, can you not accept that there's a genuine issue here? There have been concerns over falling fertility for some time, and like it or not we've taken away advantages that the 'fittest' would have had over the less fit to survive and pass on their genes.

 

I find the issue interesting - as a result you shout Nazi. I guess we're different.

[I1L2T3]

You raise an interesting point - would that be of benefit for people who have a high chance of congenital defect, or if they are persistent criminals?

 

Perhaps it could be argued that nobody should be allowed to have children unless they are reasonably healthy, show aptitude for parenting and are in a position to provide for their own family.

 

It was an extreme question I know but I asked it because eugenics is already practiced to a limited degree here in the UK. All prospective parents are offered diagnostic tests for unborn children, e.g. blood tests and maybe even amniocentesis in some cases. Unborn children with genetic problems are aborted all the time. Other examples are people with Downs syndrome who while they have the same right as anybody else to marry and have sexual relationships, do receive specific guidance and education to help them understand that their own children would be likely to have the same condition.

 

So it already happens. Whether you agree with this medical form of eugenics or not it is real and it is real application of science - for example we know that if one parent of a child has Downs there is a 30-50% chance of their child having Downs too.

 

When you start talking about people on welfare you are into the realms of pseudo-science. You can't take the factors you describe and know that by focusing some kind of eugenic activity based on them, that you will actually improve the genetic pool. Happy to discuss.

[Conrod]

You raise an interesting point - would that be of benefit for people who have a high chance of congenital trolling, or if they are persistent trolls?

 

Perhaps it could be argued that nobody should be allowed to have children unless they are reasonable, psychologically healthy, show aptitude for discussion and are in a position to debate.

Do you mean rather than people who fail to discuss the topic and instead just jab at another poster?

 

If you don't like the topic, pick another thread to post on - there's no need to get all worked up and personal on this one.

[Conrod]

It was an extreme question I know but I asked it because eugenics is already practiced to a limited degree here in the UK. All prospective parents are offered diagnostic tests for unborn children, e.g. blood tests and maybe even amniocentesis in some cases. Unborn children with genetic problems are aborted all the time. Other examples are people with Downs syndrome who while they have the same right as anybody else to marry and have sexual relationships, do receive specific guidance and eduction to help them understand that their own children would be likely to have the same condition.

 

So it already happens. Whether you agree with this medical form of eugenics or not it is real and it is real application of science - for example we know that if one parent of a child has Downs there is a 30-50% chance of their child having Downs too.

 

When you start taking about people on welfare you are into the realms of pseudo-science. You can't take the factors you describe and know that by focusing some kind of eugenic activity based on them, that you will actually improve the genetic pool. Happy to discuss.

Thanks for the considered post.

 

Of course the 'weak/poor/'welfare' is a very loose generalisation (but there is always an element of truth in stereotyping).

 

The subject could become less controversial if we remove the social/welfare factor and just consider the medical contribution to individual survival and reproduction - the 'weaker' individuals whose immune systems might othewise not have kept them alive a hundred years ago will largely survive to reproduce now. That can hardly contribute to improved disease resistance for future generations.

 

Individuals too dim to tie their own laces let alone plan to get their family through winter wouldn't have survived, but they'll be nannied through by the system now - will that help future generations become more intelligent?

 

It may normally take thousands of generations to bring about tiny iterative changes, but the sudden and profound changes in surviveability and selection criteria we've seen within a handful of generations will have a huge effect on our species - it's impossible for them not to.

[mikem8634]

Wow, does it have to be any of these?

 

Rather than make such far-stretched inferences, can you not accept that there's a genuine issue here? There have been concerns over falling fertility for some time, and like it or not we've taken away advantages that the 'fittest' would have had over the less fit to survive and pass on their genes.

 

I find the issue interesting - as a result you shout Nazi. I guess we're different.

 

No.

 

I noticed you ignored the quoted comparison between your view and the eugenics policy adopted by the Nazi Party in the 1920s.

 

Do you mean rather than people who fail to discuss the topic and instead just jab at another poster?

 

No, I think we all know what trolling is.

 

I just hope a few more people can see it for what it is now.

[ronthenekred]

To the op. Is your interest in eliminating weakness for the good of man/planet?

[Obelix]

You're missing the point.

 

Our ability to survive ilness, to heal from injury, to plan to survive, even our fertility is the result of so many generations of successful breeding couples keeping their children alive while less successful, weaker (in whatever way) individuals either fail to breed or fail to bring their kids to breeding age.

 

As medical advancement and welfare systems have pretty much eliminated the natural attrition of those who centuries (or even decades) ago would not have survived, we've probably stopped ourselves from getting 'stronger'.

 

But, with welfare systems that reward the less able for having more kids, could we actually end up with a weaker species further down the line? Less able to resist disease without medical intervention; less fertile; less intelligent; more prone to abnormalities?

 

Your missing the point about evolution. Evolution isn't about individuals succeding, it's about genes. Until you have a mutation that is more successful in the current niche then the rest of what happens doesnt really matter over much. Being that the niche that humans occupy is so large now, and that there is no competition from another species to speak of for out niche as top more or less everything on the planet this argument isnt really one that makes any sense.

[AWOL]

This thread is confusing survival of the richest and survival of the fittest. Darwin's "Origin of the Species" did not concern itself with wealth, but with bigger stronger and more adapted members of any species who would survive to breed due to their strength and ability to adapt.

I would strongly suggest that if evolution was allowed to take it's course in England the ones who would quickly die out would be the idle rich as they are only being kept alive by the efforts of others. Middle class retired would soon die off too. People living on the streets would survive longer than they would.