Compulsory eugenics

This argument is another supporter of the idea that ignorance is bliss: Science is soon going to reach the point where we can determine what a child will be like later in life. There is no stopping it, just like there was no stopping the building of the atomic bomb; science will march forward. Sadly, we can't stop it.

What we can stop, however, is the idea that kids should be killed because of something wrong with them. In movies, the hero is the one who protects the autistic kid, or saves the guy even though he knows the guy will die in a couple of days. The villian is the one who wants to kill these people to "Further Humanity".

There is a reason one is always used as the villian, and one is always used as the hero, people.

Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.

I don't know if it's their right. Certainily parents want what is best for their children, and genetically screening/engineering their children is an almost logical outgrowth of that. But at the same time, it implies that parents are as gods to their children, and it also leads to a genetic arms race where those who can afford the best genes set their children far enough apart they might not be considered human anymore. You'd probably also start getting into cloned super-soldier ground there.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Putting the ability to "prevent life" (AKA Abort) in my opinion, shouldn't exist. However, that is a discussion for another thread.

Putting the ability to "prevent life" based on what you think they will someday become? That is evil. In fact, it may be the most evil thing I have thought of today.

Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.

Cloned super soldiers are a very stupid mistakes: soldiers must come from the civilain society, otherwise how will they understand why they are not to rebel against it.

No, I fear that economical inequality will force a rift between the genetic and cybernet transhumans and the baselines. The sheer difference in competence and ability will mean it will make sense that the Gattaca Babies lead the baselines. Until the government steps in and some sort of equalizing factor is enforced.

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

GGG said:

What's bad about the population becoming smarter, stronger and more beautiful? That sounds like a good thing. I'd rather live in that kind of world, so anything that makes our world (or our future) more like that sounds good.

edited 23rd Aug '11 11:46:50 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

There's nothing wrong with the being better aspect. It's the "what happens if the baby isn't up to snuff" part. Not worth it.

I am now known as Flyboy.

.If you think of this as a zero-sum game, then it doesn't matter how smart strong and healthy you are, only that you are more so than the rest.

On the other hand, it seems like enough intelligence does trigger qualitative changes in the way one thinks, in particular in the ability to overcome the conventional stage of moral development and go into the postconventional stage, at least unless you've had specificl outside guidance. If all humans became saner as a side-result of being smarter, I'd be totally for it.

However, thinking in Brand New World temrs, I think before that enough technological davancement should be reached that humans don't need to do stupid demeaning mechanical tasks anymore, because anyone smart enough would suffer horribly through them. Argh, now I imagine a society stratified by design, with the lower classes deliberately designed to be stupid enough to enjoy it and to be dependant on the smart upper classes. Except you couldn't even call them that, because you aren't born to a class, in Brave New World you are born into a class, and only sheer luck will determine whether you'll be one among thirty-two retarded identical twins/clones or one single individual among the smarties and toughies. Either way, you'll make it square.

edited 23rd Aug '11 11:52:58 AM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

The real problem would come when we determined what qualifies as stronger, smarter, faster, better. Eventually, we might start killing off normal kids who just aren't as good as the rare child progidies, because they are "disabled".

Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.

The rare child prodigies wouldn't be rare anymore, but the norm, kinda by definition.

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

If in such a society everybody was happier than everybody today (i.e. the upper classes happier and the lower classes happier), would you bite the bullet and say it's an improvement?

Not that I think we should aim for such a society; I just think it'd be neat if we could get rid of genetic diseases (though for those), including things like Down Syndrome. State intervention and compulsion are probably not even required, once the genetic screening is good enough, enough parents may want to do that spontaneously.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Yeah but this poses the question: Is happiness all that counts?

What about fun?

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Well, I guess I mean happiness in the broad sense - fun, satisfaction, love, self-actualization and all that.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

You're talking about things so far into science fiction that it's sort of scary.

Now back on planet earth.

The problem being that you're removing choice, and when that is done about living that is a very bad idea. As an atheist, I know that there is nothing after this. I couldn't abort someone because they'd be born blind, or deaf, or with down since they can still live and have fun in this life. Not to mention you'd look pretty stupid if they found a way to cure disease X in your child's life time.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I'm fine with aborting someone for those reasons (though I'd prefer it was done as early as possible), I'm less fine with the state imposing it. I would prefer if my grandchildren lived in a world where nobody had Down Syndrome, or any other debilitating genetic disease.

(And yeah, the scenario GGG was describing is sci-fi, but genetic engineering is making big progress recently, the days where we can pick our children's hair and eye colors for a fee may not be that far)

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:33:03 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Of all places I didn't expect TV TROPES to have a prejudice against SPECULATION as a way of EXAMINING SLIPPERY SLOPES. Speculative Fiction is the genre devoted to this sort of reflexion, with some heavily researched works on many hypotheticals of interest, so OF COURSE science-fiction would come up every now and then, especially when it's as well done as Brave New World, a book that seems to get more accurate as time advances (while keeping some Zeerust and Science Marches On, but amazingly little).

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

I haven't even read Brave New World, I guess I should.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

@Doc: I'm not okay with it for several reasons but what kind of libertarian would I Be if I said you couldn't?

@GGG: Speculation as to where screening will directly lead isn't so bad but you;re talking about science fiction. You can't engineer intelligence, you can't engineer what makes people happy before they're born, it's just not possible with our current level of science or the foreseeable future.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Can't engineer intelligence? Some people are trying as we speak.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Can't be verified, and trying and doing are very, very different things in science.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

You mean "can't be falsified", right?

But yeah, we're working on it. Bwa ha ha.

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

no, the link is dead, so it can't be verified.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Isn't there a person with Cystic Fibrosis on these very forums? Why don't you go ask him if he'd rather have been aborted.

Be not afraid...

I DON'T WANNA DIE! SOMETIMES I WISH I NEVER WAS BORN AT ALL! CARRY ON, CARRY ON, AS NOTHING REALLY MATTERS, TO ME!

edited 23rd Aug '11 4:26:41 PM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

You should. Even if you don't agree with Huxley, it's still pretty interesting.

By the way, if you start requiring eugenics, there are inevitably going to be people who start having their babies in secret. So it's not just abortion. If the government wants people to take the law seriously, they're going to have to kill the illegal inferior babies (and probably young children)—and considering what kind of government you'd need to force eugenics on people, expect the whole situation to evolve into outright extermination.

edited 23rd Aug '11 4:47:20 PM by Vellup

They never travel alone.

KILL THE BAAABES, KILL THE BAAABES, KIIIIIL THE BAAAAABIES!

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.