Thwarting Darwin

[Rapscallion]

Darwin has been thwarted on many occasions. Someone once asked me why we do it.

I pointed out all the situations I could think of where we made sure that unhealthy and unfit people survive, and even enable it (sometimes unwittingly, sometimes in the aim of making money). By providing me with glasses, for example, we're breeding traits towards short-sightedness into the population, whereas without them I would have a lower chance of survival. I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples.

Rights - everyone has a right to eat. The thread about the fattest man around proves this, as he has carers who are feeding him. He wants more than is a reasonable amount for him to eat medically (and those takeaways are damned expensive, compared to more normal food). Should we allow him to eat himself to death as a cheap option (something that his brain chemistry sees as desireable), or should we take the painful and expensive option of trying to train him to eat less and exercise once in a while?

There are a depressing number of people born with mental handicaps - I neither know nor care what the current PC phrase is on this. While we're not breeding more people with this trait from the unfortunate few (I hope), I have to ask why we go to such lengths. Try googling for Steiner schools if you want to see what happens in some places.

The answer I gave at the time was that we do it because we're human. We parade this trait of ours around as something that defines us from the animals, and in the animal kingdom the lame or blind is another creature's lunch.

To what extent should we do this? Should we still keep feeding the reckless eater? Should we enforce a diet to aid all of society? Where do rights and personal responsibilities come into it?

For my part, when someone has grievously gone over the reasonable bounds of what is good for them, you have to start looking at enforcing things - partly as an example to the person and partly as an example to others. Education is certainly part of it, but eventually you cannot go past their rights to harm themselves slowly - this is more for the case of the dramatic overeaters who don't want treatment.

For the mentally handicapped, I have to admit that I like to believe that I'm more than a simple animal, and that I am happy for some of my taxes to go to support those less mentally fortunate - or the blind or whoever. Through this, I become more than I could be in a natural environment. Simply saying that we should look after the less able is because they're human is not enough for me - it's because we're human.

Where do the limits lie for you?

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The fourth sentence of your post conflicts with your signature

[Rapscallion]

I tried counting, and I can't work it out. I'll have to admit defeat on this :/

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

I tried counting, and I can't work it out. I'll have to admit defeat on this :/

Rapscallion

You are short-sighted, but you're not reproducing according to your signature. So, you're short-sightedness isn't necessarily being further bred into the population.

[Rapscallion]

Right - got it now, thanks.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a few animals take care of their own injured for as long as they can. We are just much better at creating societies with enough surplus of resources to handle the non-productive.

The largest T Rex discovered had to have been incapable of getting its own food. It had to have been cared for in her last years of life.

Neanderthals, non-humans, were the first hominids that showed indisputable evidence of caring for crippled children all the way until adulthood and old age.

I think it's nicer to know that we aren't alone in our desire to care for the weak and injured. It's those bastards that want to euthanize the non-perfect that are truly unnatural and alien.

[gremcint]

I don't have a problem with mental handicaps being helped, in fact a lot of really famous geniuses had mental issues of one type or another not to mention the existing idiot savants.

So if we were to breed these out we may in fact be elminating genes that could help us later on down the line.

However the area where we should stop supporting people are those who have made a decision to go against the betterment of the species and either out for their own personal gain or entertainment. We have proven that we function better as a group and can maintain ourselves as a group better do it is in the interest of the species to keep working as a group towards a common goal. However there are large portions of the population that are a detriment to our society instead.

If you came to me and gave me a choice to save one of these two people:
1. Mentally handicapped individual who holds a regular job (anything from delivery boy to secretary or whatever)
2. supergenius who sits in his parent's basement all day playing videogames never doing anything productive at all

Then I would choose number 1. switch number two with someone who is on welfare and keeps having kid after kid then I definitely choose number 1.

That mentally handicapped individual may drive himself to work everyday while a normal person gets 19 duis I still choose number 1.

I extend this out even further to criminals by saying when you have committed such heinous crimes that you are guaranteed no matter what to spend the rest of your life in prison on our dime then why shouldn't we just shoot you dead? It depends on the crime of course but I think rapists, murderers and child molesters should get the death penalty.


Now if you want to talk about those whose condition or handicap prevents them from ever contributing and require lifelong care, well these people have done nothing wrong and it's not their fault. In time new medications and treatments may become available and they can become contributing members to society. This part may earn me some flames but even if they are never cured we still have the opportunity to see if these treatments were ever effective at all and if they may be able to help others.

Now in regards to breeding small problems in our population such as glasses or deafness or blindness this is what places us above animals. The reason for that is we have evolved ways to deal with these using technology rather than with genes. Wearing glasses is not that big of a deal and if you were killed because of that then we'd lose out on whatever positive trait you may be able to breed. A lot of blind people not only develop excellent hearing but can learn to echo locate a little, now this blind person breeds with a seeing person and their child may be able to see but may also get the excellent hearing. Reading lips for deaf people can be a very useful skill (just watch sue thomas) and would increase your concentration as well.

Just like evolution is for adapting to our environment it is also for adapting to your own body and then we can pass these solutions on to the next generation.

If we hadn't studied eyes so much to help understand blindness would we be able to do eye transplants?

[Flyndaran]

...
Now if you want to talk about those whose condition or handicap prevents them from ever contributing and require lifelong care, well these people have done nothing wrong and it's not their fault. In time new medications and treatments may become available and they can become contributing members to society. This part may earn me some flames but even if they are never cured we still have the opportunity to see if these treatments were ever effective at all and if they may be able to help others.

...

That hope helps me get up in the morning. Even if I can't be productive to society, I like to think that I add to the happiness of a couple of people increasing their productivity.

[Nyoibo]

As a couple of scientists have said recently, The human race is the weakest it's ever been and is getting weaker, because we keep thwarting Darwin, food allergies is a good one, look at how many people are deathly allergic to some foods now, back when it couldn't be treated those people would die, more than likely early on in life and the genes wouldn't be passed on, but now they have children, pass on those genes and weaken the gene pool.

Yes, I am a believer in eugenics and think that it's getting to a point where it needs to start being practiced.

[violetyoshi]

It's very difficult to know where to stand on this. I don't think we should go for eugenics, mostly because you simply can't tell if someone is going to be a bad person or not before they're born. Furthermore, on the issue of using eugenics to eliminate the mentally disabled, I think is a bad idea. I find most people who are on the Autism spectrum, have more of a sense of morals than people not on the spectrum. Perhaps this is because we're not so easily corrupted by peer pressure.

I'm not saying this to say people on the Autism spectrum are superior, just that if you're going to consider eugenics who's going to be more of a burden. A person who might be limited in some ways, but who has a good moral compass? Or a "normal" person, who might end up going with the wrong crowd and ending up doing something not only self-destructive, but destructive to others.

I feel I'm sounding black and white here, but I have yet to hear of a person on the Autism spectrum going out of their way to do something immoral. Yet, people on the Autism spectrum are the first to be considered for eugenics, because they're not enough like those who have been declared normal.

So this is why I'm against eugenics. It will be used against people who are relatively harmless, simply because they don't speak or act weird, or whatever other random reason people can come up with to discriminate against the mentally disabled.

If it was able to be used, to say prevent murderers or rapists from being born, yeah who wouldn't want that. However, that tends to be more of a matter of a nurturing vs environment issue.

I think people over estimate what "normal" people are aware of, and under estimate what people on the Autism spectrum are capable of.

[Lace Neil Singer]

As a couple of scientists have said recently, The human race is the weakest it's ever been and is getting weaker, because we keep thwarting Darwin, food allergies is a good one, look at how many people are deathly allergic to some foods now, back when it couldn't be treated those people would die, more than likely early on in life and the genes wouldn't be passed on, but now they have children, pass on those genes and weaken the gene pool.

Yes, I am a believer in eugenics and think that it's getting to a point where it needs to start being practiced.

You could say the same thing about the stupid but genetically sound; for example, girls who pop out babies at a rate of knots and expect the government to give them constant handouts, or lazy arses who refuse to work and again wish to be subsidised by welfare. Back in ye olde days, the former would have gone into the workhouse and the latter into a Bridewell. The girl's babies wouldn't all have survived, either; most would have died before reaching the age of five. And the lazy layabout would have to work, either voluntarily or from being forced to.

[Nyoibo]

I'm not saying this to say people on the Autism spectrum are superior, just that if you're going to consider eugenics who's going to be more of a burden. A person who might be limited in some ways, but who has a good moral compass? Or a "normal" person, who might end up going with the wrong crowd and ending up doing something not only self-destructive, but destructive to others.

I feel I'm sounding black and white here, but I have yet to hear of a person on the Autism spectrum going out of their way to do something immoral. Yet, people on the Autism spectrum are the first to be considered for eugenics, because they're not enough like those who have been declared normal.

So this is why I'm against eugenics. It will be used against people who are relatively harmless, simply because they don't speak or act weird, or whatever other random reason people can come up with to discriminate against the mentally disabled.

If it was able to be used, to say prevent murderers or rapists from being born, yeah who wouldn't want that. However, that tends to be more of a matter of a nurturing vs environment issue.

Morality and ethics of a subject have nothing to do with darwinismwe're talking about survival of the fittest and at the moment the human race is weak and inferior to anything it's ever been. The eugenics I'm talking about is not the politically motivade eugenics that have been practised throughout history, I'm talking about selectively breeding for desirable traits and to eliminate undesirable ones.

You could say the same thing about the stupid but genetically sound; for example, girls who pop out babies at a rate of knots and expect the government to give them constant handouts, or lazy arses who refuse to work and again wish to be subsidised by welfare. Back in ye olde days, the former would have gone into the workhouse and the latter into a Bridewell. The girl's babies wouldn't all have survived, either; most would have died before reaching the age of five. And the lazy layabout would have to work, either voluntarily or from being forced to.

I have no problem with this, in fact I whole heartedly support it.

[violetyoshi]

Morality and ethics of a subject have nothing to do with darwinismwe're talking about survival of the fittest and at the moment the human race is weak and inferior to anything it's ever been. The eugenics I'm talking about is not the politically motivade eugenics that have been practised throughout history, I'm talking about selectively breeding for desirable traits and to eliminate undesirable ones.

So you mean then policing who can mate and who cannot?

[Nyoibo]

To an extent, more reproduce and then it's more the screening out of defects rather than something like forced sterilization.

[Flyndaran]

To an extent, more reproduce and then it's more the screening out of defects rather than something like forced sterilization.

You would need a perfect government and perfect leaders to ever use eugenics properly. If you had those, then you don't eugenics in the first place.