The problem with eugenics is that the objective is achieved long into the future. So even if we all decide to be eugenicists, our children might decide otherwise. And in all likelyhood, that's exactly what would happen.
@LatumWay You made a sort-of pun at the end playing on the sounds "bi" and "bye", I was half-asking whether that was a sneaky way of stating your sexual identity.
You have to admit, spreading the word has improved since the internet. wow. you have graphics. cool. However, we also know just how diverse humanity is. 2:55 !! oh, we manage. lol... nerdily ... <3. You strike me as someone who SHOULD, someday, reproduce, if you choose, you know..... Keep on spreading the word.
I've always opposed eugenics because of our inability to predict environmental changes. An unpredicted change in the environment can make a previously "undesirable" trait suddenly very desirable. We have no way of predicting which traits might aid survival in the future.
Diversity is important to survivability because it gives the species the greatest number of survival strategies for an unpredictable future.
I didn't think of that one. Cuz SOME people say "bigger is better", but when that huge comet hit 65,000,000 years ago, the dinosaurs were the ones to die out because, for one, the force of the comet that flung the dinosaurs when it hit killed them on impact under their own body weight, whereas smaller animals, like rodents can survive being tossed a few feet.
Also the plants stopped growing because the ash from the huge comet blotted out the sunlight for a couple of months. (cont.)
(cont.) but the few plants that WERE left close to the ground were enough to feed the more "humble" small animals who didn't need much to survive, whereas the huge animals were much more "needy" and the little bit of plant that survived the impact wasn't enough for them.
That system could have a much stronger effect if it didn't judge overall survivability. It could instead have a very rigid criteria for for disqualification.(ie. any birth defects of the heart)
you're going to "fix" this, you're going to have to go for genetic engineering to iron out any kinks and to add any enhancements before a baby is born, but there will always be those who will prefer the natural methods, but then again with current advances we could "fix" things without tampering much with the genetics.....Ahh but just now I thought of those who would reject "fixing" any defects.
When I mean fixing, I mean "fixing" of things such as Cystic fibrosis, Diabetes.
The only type of eugenics that I might support would be individually selecting foetuses which would be less likely to be morbidly obese, psychologically ill or impaired or be victim of another disorder which would both reduce the happiness of the person and the health of the society as a whole. This would, of course, be done in the earliest stages (just like abortion) when the foetus is unable to feel either physical or psychological distress (even though it may have fingernails).
Eugenics is a good thing. Why not upgrade based on what humans deem as desirable traits? Why not actively wash away the negative physical and mental traits?
Forced eugenic programs are not equal to natural eugenics (ie: planned parenthood, selective breeding etc.)
What do you mean by eugenics? Are you talking about enhancing what we have on everyone, or are you talking about the eugenics where the "weak" are killed off?
Because 'negative physical and mental traits' are taken subjectively and tend to either encroach on positive traits (remove anger and you would very likely cut out ambition, drive, and indignation), or are based on 'kill the poor lol' as LW's diagram showed.
There's also that morally repugnant system of killing people off for any reason other than self-defence.
@scepticalagnostic... exactly! There have been studies that show some of the "negative mental traits" that we see today, actually served us well in our evolution as a species. I see a problem with eugenics because I have little "faith" in humanity. I don't want to see designer babies or cutting out what we see as a negative characteristic. The possibilities are both terrific and horrific... mostly horrific.
The problem with eugenics is that the objective is achieved long into the future. So even if we all decide to be eugenicists, our children might decide otherwise. And in all likelyhood, that's exactly what would happen.
superhamzah85 6 months ago
Was this your coming out video?
jimbob3332 1 year ago
@jimbob3332 Pardon?
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay You made a sort-of pun at the end playing on the sounds "bi" and "bye", I was half-asking whether that was a sneaky way of stating your sexual identity.
jimbob3332 1 year ago
@jimbob3332 Hahaha no... its just something me and a friend of mine say to each other. Its good fun.
LatumWay 1 year ago
Hippies have literature? I thought they were too high too read.
Scoforever 1 year ago
You have to admit, spreading the word has improved since the internet. wow. you have graphics. cool. However, we also know just how diverse humanity is. 2:55 !! oh, we manage. lol... nerdily ... <3. You strike me as someone who SHOULD, someday, reproduce, if you choose, you know..... Keep on spreading the word.
wiscsuzski 2 years ago
Swish. Good video.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
Air quotes overdose!
BuddahUK 2 years ago
Everyone that belives in eugenics should be rounded up and put in camps, with gas chambers......... hey wait a minute.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
Good video and you just demolished the discredited ideas of eugenics and Francis Galton very well.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
As I said in your other video.
Passive Eugenics only stays Passive for a while.
TheLifthrasir 2 years ago
This is a good response.
I've always opposed eugenics because of our inability to predict environmental changes. An unpredicted change in the environment can make a previously "undesirable" trait suddenly very desirable. We have no way of predicting which traits might aid survival in the future.
Diversity is important to survivability because it gives the species the greatest number of survival strategies for an unpredictable future.
grindstonejournal 2 years ago
Exactly. I my first video I addressed 'new and unknown' threats.
LatumWay 2 years ago
I'll go back and watch that one. :)
grindstonejournal 2 years ago
I didn't think of that one. Cuz SOME people say "bigger is better", but when that huge comet hit 65,000,000 years ago, the dinosaurs were the ones to die out because, for one, the force of the comet that flung the dinosaurs when it hit killed them on impact under their own body weight, whereas smaller animals, like rodents can survive being tossed a few feet.
Also the plants stopped growing because the ash from the huge comet blotted out the sunlight for a couple of months. (cont.)
KingRadbadical1988 2 years ago
(cont.) but the few plants that WERE left close to the ground were enough to feed the more "humble" small animals who didn't need much to survive, whereas the huge animals were much more "needy" and the little bit of plant that survived the impact wasn't enough for them.
KingRadbadical1988 2 years ago
Crocodiles laugh at you. As do many large aquatic organisms.
TehBlackBaron 2 years ago
Crocodiles fear me. Aligators want to be like me.
KingRadbadical1988 2 years ago
wat
TehBlackBaron 2 years ago
huh
KingRadbadical1988 2 years ago
The last bit was freaky.
QuarkyGideon 2 years ago
That system could have a much stronger effect if it didn't judge overall survivability. It could instead have a very rigid criteria for for disqualification.(ie. any birth defects of the heart)
Oathaniel 2 years ago
sehr gut
smrne 2 years ago
Eugenics=junk
If
you're going to "fix" this, you're going to have to go for genetic engineering to iron out any kinks and to add any enhancements before a baby is born, but there will always be those who will prefer the natural methods, but then again with current advances we could "fix" things without tampering much with the genetics.....Ahh but just now I thought of those who would reject "fixing" any defects.
When I mean fixing, I mean "fixing" of things such as Cystic fibrosis, Diabetes.
TurboDally 2 years ago
The only type of eugenics that I might support would be individually selecting foetuses which would be less likely to be morbidly obese, psychologically ill or impaired or be victim of another disorder which would both reduce the happiness of the person and the health of the society as a whole. This would, of course, be done in the earliest stages (just like abortion) when the foetus is unable to feel either physical or psychological distress (even though it may have fingernails).
vandbg 2 years ago
Never really thought it out this much but sounds like you're spot on.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
Oh I am. I fucking am danny.
LatumWay 2 years ago
Eugenics is a good thing. Why not upgrade based on what humans deem as desirable traits? Why not actively wash away the negative physical and mental traits?
Forced eugenic programs are not equal to natural eugenics (ie: planned parenthood, selective breeding etc.)
baeritukaez 2 years ago
What do you mean by eugenics? Are you talking about enhancing what we have on everyone, or are you talking about the eugenics where the "weak" are killed off?
TurboDally 2 years ago
@baeritukaez
Because 'negative physical and mental traits' are taken subjectively and tend to either encroach on positive traits (remove anger and you would very likely cut out ambition, drive, and indignation), or are based on 'kill the poor lol' as LW's diagram showed.
There's also that morally repugnant system of killing people off for any reason other than self-defence.
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
@scepticalagnostic... exactly! There have been studies that show some of the "negative mental traits" that we see today, actually served us well in our evolution as a species. I see a problem with eugenics because I have little "faith" in humanity. I don't want to see designer babies or cutting out what we see as a negative characteristic. The possibilities are both terrific and horrific... mostly horrific.
tattooskin72 2 years ago