What do you think about EugenicsCrusade.com

What is http://www.eugenicscrusade.com you ask?

May the memes inform you:

Comments

[BoredAuthor817]

At least make the link go to the actual site instead of having it loop back to you.

These memes are pretty good, though

[Bad Dragon]

5125766 Thanks! I fixed it now that you told me about it. I don't know what happened.
i.imgflip.com/3bccqq.jpg

[Trick Question]

At first glance I suspect this is a White Supremacist website attempting to race-match. The FAQ tries to suggest this isn't the case by saying things like "skin color is irrelevant" and "From the perspective of preserving the size of the genetic pool, children from mixed races are a good thing," but both of these are carefully selected phrases: racists believe the deficits of race are about intelligence and temperament rather than skin color itself, and their stated goal is not "preserving the size of the genetic pool" so that isn't actually the perspective they're working from.

I mean, use a little logic here. The website is run by people who believe there are specific people with superior genetics, so how could they possibly match every applicant to superior genetics? It's impossible. Either they're intentionally matching "inferiors" together, or they're discarding applicants who aren't "good enough".

Even in the unlikely chance that this isn't a front for a racist organization, would you supply personal medical data to a website with no terms of service, no physical address, no provided privacy and data policy, no organizational records, and most importantly no filter to prevent children from supplying their personal data (which is illegal pretty much everywhere)? This is shady as fuck. I hope nopony here falls for it.

I don't think it's responsible to leave a link up to this website.

[Bad Dragon]

5125839

At first glance I suspect this is a White Supremacist website attempting to race-match.

Race isn't even one of the available metrics by which the matches are made.

The FAQ tries to suggest this isn't the case by saying things like "skin color is irrelevant"

Sounds pretty definite.

and "From the perspective of preserving the size of the genetic pool, children from mixed races are a good thing,"

their stated goal is not "preserving the size of the genetic pool"

How do you know? They consider mixed race a good thing, no?

racists believe the deficits of race are about intelligence and temperament

I actually would consider intelligence in a would-be mate. Am I racist because I don't want to procreate with a retard who has 50 IQ?

I mean, use a little logic here. The website is run by people who believe there are specific people with superior genetics, so how could they possibly match every applicant to superior genetics? It's impossible. Either they're intentionally matching "inferiors" together, or they're discarding applicants who aren't "good enough".

This meme
camo.fimfiction.net/sCPwLFLGHv9MJn31TUTBWyL6wnD0bPTVY5tLIAZ8Lf4?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F33jhof.jpg
suggests that they only want those who are good enough to produce children.

And if I think about it, if I saw two genetic retarded mutants deciding to have children, I'd think about the problems that the child would have if they went through with it. If I had a choice, I'd rather not have them for my parents. The genes those two would pass on me would be horrible. And if I were to procreate, my children would be horrible as well.

I mean, what if the site is right? What if we really should start thinking of the children instead of screwing with whoever?

Even in the unlikely chance that this isn't a front for a racist organization, would you supply personal medical data to a website with no terms of service,

no provided privacy and data policy

The site does seem to have those:

and most importantly no filter to prevent children from supplying their personal data (which is illegal pretty much everywhere)?

It requires you to have a Google account.

This is shady as fuck. I hope nopony here falls for it.

The site may be crap, but what do you think about the idea behind it? I wouldn't want to burn the message because I don't like the messenger.

I don't think it's responsible to leave a link up to this website.

I removed the full adress from the title.

[Huk]

Memes are awesome, but the site seems to be a joke

That said, I stand by what I said some time ago, that I don't see anything wrong with eugenics. Frankly, I think it could help us eliminate some nasty stuff.

Sadly, people are so closed-minded that they don't want to even discuss the topic - usually, their 'argument' is 'because Hitler!' so... yeah...

[BoredAuthor817]

5125948
Hitler ruined many things for the rest of us.

There's nothing inherently wrong with eugenics. The problem often lies in the ethical situation of what happens to an "undesirable".

Gene therapy is a fast-growing field. What it can not prevent, it helps alleviate.

[BoredAuthor817]

5125861

And if I think about it, if I saw two genetic retarded mutants deciding to have children, I'd think about the problems that the child would have if they went through with it. If I had a choice, I'd rather not have them for my parents. The genes those two would pass on me would be horrible. And if I were to procreate, my children would be horrible as well.

Depending, it could be a crapshoot and some kids have the same deformity, while others are normal. You see this particularly in dwarfism couples.

Some people's disabilities are so severe that, either by birth or later surgery, they're sterile.

Still, this site seems to be largely focused on the individual's presented genes. A full test of the genome would have to be done to get a full scope. All you need is two people who have been carrying an unknown "bad" recessive gene.

I mean, what if the site is right? What if we really should start thinking of the children instead of screwing with whoever?

Certainly from a social/economical standpoint we need to be conscious of our partners.

Genetics aside, children in stable environments fair better than those who don't.

Studies have been conducted and found that, on average, children in foster care have a lower IQ and are more prone to mental illness. Children in stable single-family homes do better, and do best when they're with both their parents.

Messing with your genes can only go so far. What happens after the kid pops out depends on its environment.

[Trick Question]

Just as an FYI, the IP address for the website is hosted in Slovenia, which has had a huge burst of neo-Nazism recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Slovenia

That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but thought I'd share the trivia. (Also, apparently Melania Trump comes from there.)

[Bad Dragon]

5125948 If you think eugenics can be a good thing, how would you go about it?

5125996

Gene therapy is a fast-growing field. What it can not prevent, it helps alleviate.

Do you think genetic manipulation is less morally contemptuous than eugenics?

Depending, it could be a crapshoot and some kids have the same deformity, while others are normal. You see this particularly in dwarfism couples.

I don't think a few exceptions change anything. You can survive crossing a highway but it doesn't mean it's safe to do it. If the chances of defects in a child are higher if the parents are defective, then I see a moral issue in those defective parents procreating, even if there's a chance that it will all turn out okay. It's like playing Russian roulette with a child. There's a chance that everything will be fine. That doesn't make it moral, though.

Some people's disabilities are so severe that, either by birth or later surgery, they're sterile.

And some are not sterile and may curse their offspring as well.

Still, this site seems to be largely focused on the individual's presented genes. A full test of the genome would have to be done to get a full scope. All you need is two people who have been carrying an unknown "bad" recessive gene.

Is it really all or nothing, though? When you get a shot, do you really have to protect yourself from all diseases in the world or none at all? Can't you just get a shot against measles?

Certainly from a social/economical standpoint we need to be conscious of our partners.

Genetics aside, children in stable environments fair better than those who don't.

Just because drinking liquids is more important than eating, doesn't mean we should stop eating. We'd all die off with that mindset.

Though, I'm not sure if 1 generation problems outweighs multiple-generation ones. socio-economical situation can change, but genes stay the same and they affect future generations as well.

Studies have been conducted and found that, on average, children in foster care have a lower IQ and are more prone to mental illness. Children in stable single-family homes do better, and do best when they're with both their parents.

But children of low IQ parents also tend to have a lower IQ. If IQ is our measurement, perhaps we should consider genetics as well.

Messing with your genes can only go so far. What happens after the kid pops out depends on its environment.

The effects of the environment can only go so far. You can't turn a 50 IQ retard into a world-leading quantum physicist. The genes just aren't there.

[Huk]

5125996

I would argue that it's not Hitler's fault, but rather a failure of the people that prefer to go with the flow and repeat what 'experts' say, instead of using their own brains.

As for the problems you mentioned, yes, the question what to do with people that were born with defects with no fault of their own, exists. However, we don't need to have eugenics for that question, it's already here right now, and our society has no good solution. Even living with a mild disability can reduce your chances of success a lot (please, no Stephen Hawking argument - he was an exception, not the rule). Having something more severe pretty much leaves you without a job, and locked at home.

Eugenics would not try to solve that because there is no solution (or rather, no morally acceptable one), however, it could help, alleviate the problem by reducing the number of people that are born with disabilities. Fewer people = more resources to go around for those that were not so lucky. The way I see it, it's a win-win for everyone.

And while gene therapy/nano-technology/stem cells therapy may be able to do wonders one day, and maybe even cure some of those people. I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Frankly, I always found it weird that people screaming that eugenics is immoral, have no problem with creating a new life that will be on a disadvantage from day one. I mean, people scream it's unethical to abort, but they think it's moral to born a child that will have to go through a life of pain because it had the 'luck' to receive messed up genes? I don't buy it.

5126128

A few ideas come to mind:

1. Everyone would go genetic screening at some age (maybe even at the infant stage if possible) and would get a chart identifying how good or bad his genes are. Based on that, he would then have to decide whether to procreate or not. His profile would be continuously updated based on the ongoing research so that if a cure would get available he would know about it.

2. His partner could ask the system to cross-check her chart with his, to produce a report on possible complications their baby may have, if they decide to procreate. That process could be made MANDATORY if they would want to marry - they would get the chart to know what they're getting themselves into. I think what would be fair for both partners.

3. If your genes would really suck, the government could pay you to get voluntary sterilized in a non-disruptive manner (vasectomy for men, don't know about woman, but I'm sure there is a similar procedure). You could even receive a small, life-long disability living allowance for your sacrifice (still a hell of a lot cheaper than caring for your deformed offspring).

That's just a few ideas that comes to mind, BUT one crucial caveat - all of the above are voluntary. I don't see, nor would I support forcing people into something 'for the greater good' - our societies are already doing that on too many fronts, and it fails miserably. Give people enough incentives instead, so that they will want to do it themselves.

Of course, I can already hear people screaming how immoral those ideas are because 'they will drive the poor to get sterile just so that they would get those few extra bucks per month!' and this is true, but such is life. And whether we like it or not, Earth is already overpopulated, reducing the number of born human children would be a good thing for all of us.

[Bad Dragon]

5126239

1. Everyone would go genetic screening at some age (maybe even at the infant stage if possible) and would get a chart identifying how good or bad his genes are. Based on that, he would then have to decide whether to procreate or not. His profile would be continuously updated based on the ongoing research so that if a cure would get available he would know about it.

That's a good idea. Something similar already exists. It costs about $1000. Come to think of it, it's a once in a lifetime expense for a human. I think a country could afford to pay for this.

2. His partner could ask the system to cross-check her chart with his, to produce a report on possible complications their baby may have, if they decide to procreate.

I can see sharing personal data could become problematic. Then again, a lot of the personal data is available just by looking at somebody, so this wouldn't be much different, just more of it.

That process could be made MANDATORY if they would want to marry - they would get the chart to know what they're getting themselves into. I think what would be fair for both partners.

Marriage is kind of becoming obsolete. Personally, I wouldn't bind future systems onto it.

3. If your genes would really suck, the government could pay you to get voluntary sterilized in a non-disruptive manner (vasectomy for men, don't know about woman, but I'm sure there is a similar procedure). You could even receive a small, life-long disability living allowance for your sacrifice (still a hell of a lot cheaper than caring for your deformed offspring).

I have a bit of a problem with rewarding people for being bad. This could go wrong very fast. There could be a black market for bad genes and people would make retards in order to profit from sterilizing them.

I'd rather do it in reverse. Reward people with good genes if they procreate. Then, there might be a market for good genes, instead of bad.

That's just a few ideas that comes to mind, BUT one crucial caveat - all of the above are voluntary. I don't see, nor would I support forcing people into something 'for the greater good' - our societies are already doing that on too many fronts, and it fails miserably. Give people enough incentives instead, so that they will want to do it themselves.

Taking shots is obligatory and humanity profits from it. On the short term, at least. One could argue this is just another nail in the coffin of human evolution.

Of course, I can already hear people screaming how immoral those ideas are because 'they will drive the poor to get sterile just so that they would get those few extra bucks per month!' and this is true, but such is life. And whether we like it or not, Earth is already overpopulated, reducing the number of born human children would be a good thing for all of us.

China already had a system that prevented people from procreating (after having a child). It worked. Too bad they didn't tweak the system so that they'd have a population of 'Einsteins' by now.

[Huk]

5126304

That's a good idea. Something similar already exists. It costs about $1000. Come to think of it, it's a once in a lifetime expense for a human. I think a country could afford to pay for this.

The price would drop significantly if it were mandatory (or rather, it would drop everywhere with universal healthcare).

I can see sharing personal data could become problematic. Then again, a lot of the personal data is available just by looking at somebody, so this wouldn't be much different, just more of it.

It can be done so that you wouldn't have to share much:

- Person A logs into his account and generate a one-time code and sends that to person B (the code only works for B, if B sends it to C it won't work)
- Person B logs into his account and using that code asks the system to cross-check his profile with A's profile
- The result contains only the possible risks of procreation, without any personal data
- The code that A sent to B is no longer valid

Of course, both people would have to be OK with that, but if anyone would be opposed that would be a red light.

Marriage is kind of becoming obsolete. Personally, I wouldn't bind future systems onto it.

What? Where? That's the first time I hear of that. Unless you mean traditional marriage? By marriage, I meant both traditional as well as partnership.

I have a bit of a problem with rewarding people for being bad. This could go wrong very fast. There could be a black market for bad genes and people would make retards in order to profit from sterilizing them.

I see two flaws here. One, only the 'retard' could collect the money, not their parent, and two, if someone would be crazy enough to actually breed stupid children for cash, he could be easily found out.

Theoretically, the scenario you mentioned is possible, but I doubt it would be realistic (there are easier ways to make cash).

I'd rather do it in reverse. Reward people with good genes if they procreate. Then, there might be a market for good genes, instead of bad.

IMHO that is a separate issue. And, yes, it could work, but... only for an invitro, I guess? I doubt people would pair with someone just because they're a genetic match. They still need to like each other and stuff

Taking shots is obligatory and humanity profits from it. On the short term, at least. One could argue this is just another nail in the coffin of human evolution.

OK, let me rephrase that. I don't see, nor would I support forcing people into something 'for the greater good' unless the public health is an issue. I'm 100% pro-vaxxer and believe they should be mandatory, BUT I also belive that society has no right to tell people they can't use heroin, because of 'the greater good!' As long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself, you should have the right to do what you please.

I can see a potential argument here, that this is closer to vaccination (because if you have sex with a wrong partner, it's not you, but your child that will be hit the most). However, this is a VERY delicate issue, and some would argue it's one of the fundamental human rights. I can tell you that any forced option here simply won't fly with the society.

And it could lead to a slippery slope where groups of people with bad genes would be forced into sterilization, even if the chances of their kids being affected would be relatively low.

That's another other issue, what does 'bad genes' stands for? If you have a 1% chance of creating a baby with Down's syndrome, are your genes good or bad? How about 3%? 5%? 10%? Where is the borderline, and how do we define it? I don't think we can. At best, we can give people the information that there is an X% chance of your child having disease Y if you procreate, and let them decide.

China already had a system that prevented people from procreating (after having a child). It worked. Too bad they didn't tweak the system so that they'd have a population of 'Einsteins' by now.

I believe that sooner or later, something similar will be needed all over the world or the Earth will chock to death.

However, China's system had a few major flaws. For once, it led to gender discrepancy (parents preferred boys over girls, and now there is like 3 guys for every woman), and two, they'll have an aging population problem soon like the western countries, because they didn't lift the restrictions when they should.

As for breeding 'Einsteins' I don't think the technology was there, but who knows, maybe Chin's government will actually try something like that. Even without eugenics, they're investing heavily in STEM fields, right now.

[Bad Dragon]

5127981

The price would drop significantly if it were mandatory (or rather, it would drop everywhere with universal healthcare).

You're right. It would probably cost just a 100%. It would be a routine procedure at birth.

It can be done so that you wouldn't have to share much:

- Person A logs into his account and generate a one-time code and sends that to person B (the code only works for B, if B sends it to C it won't work)
- Person B logs into his account and using that code asks the system to cross-check his profile with A's profile
- The result contains only the possible risks of procreation, without any personal data
- The code that A sent to B is no longer valid

That's a good strategy. Still, I think it's not just a matter of recessive genes. Even if you could fix all the issues coming from bad recessive genes matches, there is still a matter of the quality of the child. I think it could be calculated statistically. Both partners could get a sum score of the potential child upon which they could decide whether to go through with it or not.

What? Where? That's the first time I hear of that. Unless you mean traditional marriage? By marriage, I meant both traditional as well as partnership.

There are community upbringing, multiple parents upbringing, and other forms of parenting nowadays. The laws that predict 2 parents are too restrictive and don't necessarily reflect reality.

I see two flaws here. One, only the 'retard' could collect the money, not their parent, and two, if someone would be crazy enough to actually breed stupid children for cash, he could be easily found out.

Trust me, people are crazy. There was recently a case where a family convinced their life ensured daughter to cut her own hand. And she did it, claiming it was an accident.

I doubt people would pair with someone just because they're a genetic match. They still need to like each other and stuff

Perhaps we could separate these issues. Making babies is one thing, parenting is another. One does not have to be connected to the other. That way, geniuses would procreate, and the rest would fall in love and raise adopted young geniouses.

OK, let me rephrase that. I don't see, nor would I support forcing people into something 'for the greater good' unless the public health is an issue. I'm 100% pro-vaxxer and believe they should be mandatory, BUT I also belive that society has no right to tell people they can't use heroin, because of 'the greater good!' As long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself, you should have the right to do what you please.

I can see a potential argument here, that this is closer to vaccination (because if you have sex with a wrong partner, it's not you, but your child that will be hit the most). However, this is a VERY delicate issue, and some would argue it's one of the fundamental human rights. I can tell you that any forced option here simply won't fly with the society.

If a fundamental right is to hurt children, then I think we should reevaluate fundamental rights.

And it could lead to a slippery slope where groups of people with bad genes would be forced into sterilization, even if the chances of their kids being affected would be relatively low.

Looking at it objectively, the future generations would profit from such arrangements.

That's another other issue, what does 'bad genes' stands for? If you have a 1% chance of creating a baby with Down's syndrome, are your genes good or bad? How about 3%? 5%? 10%? Where is the borderline, and how do we define it? I don't think we can.

We could score it just as we score everything else. It's just a matter of writing the correct algorithm for scoring.

The site:
https://www.beautifulpeople.com
scores people by their beauty. If beauty can be scored, then scoring genetics should be a piece of cake.

I believe that sooner or later, something similar will be needed all over the world or the Earth will chock to death.

I actually think we can choke the Earth further.

However, China's system had a few major flaws. For once, it led to gender discrepancy (parents preferred boys over girls, and now there is like 3 guys for every woman), and two, they'll have an aging population problem soon like the western countries, because they didn't lift the restrictions when they should.

Imagine if this problem would be a genetic discrepancy and they would be running out of stupid people. Now there's a good problem to have.

As for breeding 'Einsteins' I don't think the technology was there,

Even Spartans had 'the technology' for it and used it to a great effect.

Chin's government will actually try something like that. Even without eugenics, they're investing heavily in STEM fields, right now.

Other fields hold promises. Still, I wouldn't rest on hopes alone.

Just because the future may hold a cure for cancer doesn't mean we should just stop treating cancer patients.

Sure, if a better technology comes along, we can start using that. But until then, we should work with what we do have.