Eugenics is good, change my mind

Topic's author

#1

Alec

Debates: 42

Posts: 2,472

5

7

11

Alec

05.31.2019 12:55AM

5

7

11

05.31.2019 12:55AM

This is not a troll fourm.

If we get rid of all the poor, stupid people(no genocide, but we merely don't allow them to reproduce) then it decreases our population and that population would get replaced by affluent, intelligent people. This would be better for society.

#2

Stronn

Debates: 0

Posts: 511

2

4

Stronn

05.31.2019 01:39AM

2

4

05.31.2019 01:39AM

-->

@Alec

There are a number of problems with eugenics. One is this: who gets to decide? If you have standards that are applied to everyone, who makes the standards?

Another problem is, where does it stop? Do we keep breeding better and better people, until we end up with something that is no long even recognizably human?

I also have to ask, would your support for it be the same if you were one of those deemed unfit to reproduce?

Topic's author

#3

Alec

Debates: 42

Posts: 2,472

5

7

11

Alec

05.31.2019 01:46AM

5

7

11

05.31.2019 01:46AM

-->

@Stronn

One is this: who gets to decide? If you have standards that are applied to everyone, who makes the standards?

I personally would make the standards off of who can afford to pay the reproduction maintenance tax as well as castrating everyone with an IQ below 85 (all castrations for this would be painless and the person would be unconscious when it happens).

Another problem is, where does it stop? Do we keep breeding better and better people, until we end up with something that is no long even recognizably human?

What's wrong with that? If we create super humans after generations of Eugenics, it would be beneficial for the human race.

I also have to ask, would your support for it be the same if you were one of those deemed unfit to reproduce?

I would have to be one of those people for the question to be applied. I probably would still back the idea. I don't want to reproduce anyway, so eve if I'm unfit, it wouldn't matter much.

Topic's author

#4

Alec

Debates: 42

Posts: 2,472

5

7

11

Alec

05.31.2019 01:47AM

5

7

11

05.31.2019 01:47AM

If everyone who wanted to comment on this forum did so one at a time, then I could respond to all your claims easier.

#5

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

05.31.2019 09:25PM

3

4

7

05.31.2019 09:25PM

-->

@Alec

I thought you were against abortion?

If you are for eugenics, I would think you would be for abortion.

#6

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,988

3

4

10

Greyparrot

05.31.2019 09:32PM

3

4

10

05.31.2019 09:32PM

-->

@Mopac

Or at the very least, for euthanasia abortions for genetically unviable or barely viable fetuses.

#7

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

05.31.2019 10:01PM

4

9

11

05.31.2019 10:01PM

If we get rid of all the poor, stupid people(no genocide, but we merely don't allow them to reproduce) then it decreases our population and that population would get replaced by affluent, intelligent people. This would be better for society.

How poor? Do you have a number or something?

When you have one then you have to make a case for why they are not needed. Lower income households still provide a benefit to society. Who is going to clean the toilets take out the trash? Simply removing the poor doesn't mean those jobs won't need doing instead it would be passed on the next people who would fit in the category of poor. Would you remove them as well for being poor?

Topic's author

#8

Alec

Debates: 42

Posts: 2,472

5

7

11

Alec

05.31.2019 11:35PM

5

7

11

05.31.2019 11:35PM

-->

@Mopac

@TheRealNihilist

I said one at a time, but the load is small enough to where I can address both.

@Mopac

I thought you were against abortion?

If you are for eugenics, I would think you would be for abortion.

Eugenics is not the same as abortion. Abortion is removing a pregnancy and killing a fetus as a result. Eugenics merely prevents incompetent people from reproducing. Since poor people are more likely to have abortions then rich people, Eugenics (castrating all the unfit males) reduces abortions since unfit people breed more then the fit for some reason.

@omar 2345

How poor? Do you have a number or something?

I would say anyone unwilling to pay a Reproduction maintenance tax, whether they can afford it or got, gets a painless castration or becomes infertile permanently some other way.

Who is going to clean the toilets take out the trash?

Trash takers aren't super poor. Their hourly salary is $15.29 on average. People usually clan their own toilets. The poor people will be mainly those who are long term unemployed and minimum wage working adults.

Simply removing the poor doesn't mean those jobs won't need doing instead it would be passed on the next people who would fit in the category of poor.

They might get filled with automation. The government could give low interest loans to companies encouraging them to automate their workforce in minimum wage jobs. This way, the poor people would have to find a different job. The job that they would get would depend on their abilities and interests.

Would you remove them as well for being poor?

Eventually, but not right away. If humanity gets too much better too fast, it would result in a low population count. We need to gradually get better as a specie by infertilizing all the undesirables.

#9

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

05.31.2019 11:49PM

3

4

7

05.31.2019 11:49PM

-->

@Alec

I'm not willing to debate you on this, but I think what you are suggesting is unethical.

#10

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,988

3

4

10

Greyparrot

06.01.2019 12:38AM

3

4

10

06.01.2019 12:38AM

@Alec

I will debate you.

Topic's author

#11

Alec

Debates: 42

Posts: 2,472

5

7

11

Alec

06.01.2019 12:40AM

5

7

11

06.01.2019 12:40AM

-->

@Greyparrot

I'm worried I would lose since Eugenics isn't popular. I don't accept debates unless there is a good enough chance I would win. However, if you want to discuss it on the forum, I'm willing to engage with that.

#12

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

06.01.2019 12:59AM

4

9

11

06.01.2019 12:59AM

-->

@Alec

I would say anyone unwilling to pay a Reproduction maintenance tax, whether they can afford it or got, gets a painless castration or becomes infertile permanently some other way.

I said what do you class as poor not how to get rid or stop more poor people being born?

Trash takers aren't super poor. Their hourly salary is $15.29 on average. People usually clan their own toilets. The poor people will be mainly those who are long term unemployed and minimum wage working adults.

So trash takers are poor then? Your claim wasn't that you were going to apply eugenics to the super poor. Your claims was that you were going to apply eugenics to the poor.

They might get filled with automation. The government could give low interest loans to companies encouraging them to automate their workforce in minimum wage jobs. This way, the poor people would have to find a different job. The job that they would get would depend on their abilities and interests.

It hasn't happened yet so poor people are still required. Is this plan going to take over when automation is more apparent?

Eventually, but not right away. If humanity gets too much better too fast, it would result in a low population count. We need to gradually get better as a specie by infertilizing all the undesirables.

Define an undesirable. Being poor means you don't have money. It doesn't mean you can't be potentially a benefit to society. There are plenty of stupid rich people. So this undesirable doesn't link in with your gripe with poor people it would have to with something else. Just define undesirable.

Why do we need to gradually get better?

#13

blamonkey

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

blamonkey

06.01.2019 02:50AM

3

5

8

06.01.2019 02:50AM

-->

@Alec

Eugenics, regardless of the ethical qualms associated with genetically engineering humans, is not an effective manner of increasing productivity. Intelligence, (in all of its differing interpretations based off culture and societal expectations,) is only tenuously linked to the genetic makeup of a person. Multiple studies conclude that despite the common belief that genetics can influence intelligence to a great extent, this is not the case. Looking at DNA variants of nearly a quarter-of-a-million people, researchers concluded that only 7% of the difference in intelligence between people can be attributed to DNA (1). USC researcher Daniel Benjamin, using 100,000 samples, found that the correlation between DNA makeup and intelligence is about 11%. So, even if we could forcefully only allow "smart" people to reproduce, there is no guarantee of superior intelligence.

Additionally, your plan would simply prevent poor and "stupid" people from reproducing. I'm curious as to how you would define either. The poverty rate fluctuates from anywhere between 11 and 15% in the US, suggesting that some people are able to leave poverty and care for themselves (2). Under your plan, we would be eliminating potential workers in the US, limiting GDP and economic growth even if they have the skills to pull themselves out of poverty and simply fall into some hard times.

Let's talk about economic growth and GDP. If consumption is about 70% of our GDP, (which it is, (4)) then what would happen if we eliminate a good portion of the consumer base? The entire economy would collapse. Christopher Carroll of John Hopkins and his fellow authors found that the bottom half of the income-earners in the US, (but especially the destitute,) have a high propensity to consume. This means that when this group receives new income, they are going to spend more of it compared to their richer counterparts. So, tax windfalls, transfer programs, and other changes in income that affect the poor will increase consumption significantly. In fact, the study concluded that a stimulus affecting the bottom 50% of earners would increase spending by 2-3 fold more than if the stimulus plan affected the richer 50% of earners (5). An article published on NPR basically confirms that poor people spend a greater percent of their income on basic necessities as well and devote the least money to retirement (6). They are a reliable consumer base. Say all you want about automation being a magical fix to eliminating so many jobs in the future, but if we somehow eliminate all of the poor people in the US in 20, 30, or even 50 years, there would be economic chaos. Also, can all jobs be automated? I work at a cinema as a ticket seller, occasional usher, and any other job that management wants me to do. Can a robot be programmed to do all of that? If that were feasible, cinemas would have already laid me and the rest of the staff off. A machine needs occasional repairs, no time off, and are not paid. Technological progress is strong right now, but it is hardly sensible to bet on technological progress to nullify the worker shortage that you are creating.

How would we know which ones are good and which ones are bad? About 97% of our genetic makeup is so-called "junk DNA," that until recently we had no idea influenced the regulation of genes. In fact, we still do not know about what most of this non-coding DNA does (7). Depending on how you define "stupid," a good portion of people would be subject to involuntary sterilization which could result in unintended consequences. I mean, if we don't even understand what some of the genes do, what would the result of restricting certain people from passing on possibly important genetic information? Or are you claiming that there are no "good genes" that poor people possess?

If you want to improve the quality of life of the US, how about pushing economic and educational policy? How about raising teacher salaries (especially educators helping ESE students), eliminating Common Core and No Child Left Behind, and other mandated tests that only intrude into class time? How about fixing and increasing coverage of the EITC and CTC so that children do not grow up in poverty?

Much can be done before we resort to eugenics.

Sources

1. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

2. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

3. https://uproxx.com/life/science-genetics-educational-attainment/

4. https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015

5. http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/ccarroll/papers/cstwMPC.pdf

6. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money

7. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/?redirect=1

#14

CroixRennie

Debates: 1

Posts: 12

0

3

CroixRennie

06.01.2019 03:05AM

0

3

06.01.2019 03:05AM

This dude throws a tantrum over the government taking his guns...but thinks it’s reasonable for the government to determine who does and doesn’t get to reproduce. Conservatives have officially jumped the shark.

#15

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

3

6

zedvictor4

06.01.2019 07:55AM

3

6

06.01.2019 07:55AM

-->

@Alec

The evolutionary process demands intelligence and the process dictates that we currently require 7.7 billion human devices. How population levels might alter in the future will be relative to the future demands of the process.

Limited Earth resources and a time limited solar system will eventually dictate how the process will move forward. Though I would imagine that necessity would have exceeded our usefulness long before them.

One day we will all be redundant.

Of course; that is assuming that everything has purpose.

#16