Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Spoiler alert for people who haven't watched Utopia yet.

So, while watching one episode of Utopia, probably about halfway through the series, we find out that this government group intended to randomly sterilise approximately 95% of the world. My question to you, is how would you feel about this?

Personally I would not be too much against it. Ideally I would wish for a selection process, such as IQ to determine who is and is not sterilised, or perhaps violent crimes could factor into it? Your thoughts on that?

fuck until the world ends

I don't necessarily think this is a wrong or bad idea, but I can't support it for a number of reasons.

My biggest beef here would be that sterilization of women is considerably more invasive and risky than with men. Castration is actually a very simple procedure, but a hysterectomy is far from it. Until an alternative to that can be found, I don't think the benefits are worth the risks.

There are also morality issues regarding IQ and mental illness as a factor in determination; many cases of retardation are not genetic, and very few mental illness are exclusively genetic. In fact, there are quite a few that have little to no genetic cause. This is really a gray area to me--I would personally have no problem undergoing sterilization since my family history shows a clear genetic source for my illness, but I don't think it can be determined easily enough for the majority of the public. Without concrete evidence that the cause is genetic it's really just a form of discrimination that holds no real benefit to society. IQ is also not the set-in-stone number people think it is--lack of mental exercises can drop one's IQ significantly, and one can easily improve their own IQ simply with mental exercises.

A random selection is considerably more fair, but I doubt any government would actually approve such a measure simply because they themselves don't want to fall victim to it.

This post has been edited by Carcharocles: 20 February 2013 - 06:16 PM

I'd rather have forced abortions than random sterilization. As in, people should determine if the child would be able to live a decent life, and then decide if the parents were allowed to keep it.
That just seems like a better alternative to me. That said, I'd be against both.

Pretty sure a large chunk of the population would willingly get themselves fixed. I'd be in line for it. They can take my ovaries.

But at the same time, what happens to those who DO want kids and are mentally capable and financially stable enough to have kids? What about those who want kids, but have a past of generic illnesses or defects? Would they be wiped out of the "breeding pool" even though they have a desire to have kids?

I can't really place my answer in just yes or no, I think a wide spectrum of considerations and debates would have to be addressed before I could simply say "Yes! No kids for you!" or "No! Kids only for the select few!"

This post has been edited by Someone: 20 February 2013 - 10:05 PM

The sad truth is there are just to many people. This is a better ideal then segregation of certain groups of people.

bluefox, on 20 February 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

You have to think though - what happens if we do random sterilization instead of pre-planned? If someone has a higher chance of having children with Down's Syndrome vs a healthy adult with no prior history of genetic illness in their family, who would you want to produce kids especially if you're going to sterilize 95% of the population?

Carcharocles, on 20 February 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Well, i've never looked in depth into sterilisation before, and after a few minutes looking around google, (admittedly not the most in-depth research) I am rather surprised to see that there does not seem to be a method of chemical castration to cause infertility available. Simply in terms of resources, I would assume mass sterilisation via surgery would be pretty much impossible.

Carcharocles, on 20 February 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

I'll have to take your word on this one, since I know only a few inheritance based mental illnesses, and not many others that are unlinked, though I can see how behaviours such as drinking and smoking during a pregnancy could cause mental damage to an unborn child.

mAceOfHearts, on 20 February 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

Aye, i've thought about this in the past, have a couple inspected before they can be allowed to have a child, stopping people who feature on the Jeremy Kyle show from breeding more sprogs. Though i'd imagine this would cause even more backlash than the sterilisation would. Otherwise one could state they will receive no monetary support for the child, though I assume that would be cruelty to the child.

Someone, on 20 February 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

A good point, the question comes as to what is financially stable? What we consider enough currency at this point in time for a majority of people would not be enough to raise a child once the over population causes resources such as food and water to have increased in value, to the point that only the worlds wealthiest can afford to eat.

A solution to this would be to live off the grid as it were, if you are able to sustain your own existence without using non-renewable resources, growing your own food, heating your homes with firewood from your land ect, then there would be no reason for you to have to be sterilised, as your not contributing to the competition for energy.


Personally, and call me a hypocrite, I believe my genes are valuable to the world. No serious genetic disabilities and intelligence which appears to be inherited, however if everyone who contributes less to society than I were sterilised, then I would accept it for the greater good of the world. As long as everyone is making a net positive on the world i'm cool with that.

Anialator, on 21 February 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

This excerpt here perfectly sums up why this would never succeed; most everyone views their genes as valuable. With the very minor exception of the very few people whom have undergone tests and found out that they would pass on debilitating diseases to their children, we all view ourselves as genetically capable - and ultimately, genetically deserving - of having children. The percentage of people who would willingly submit to invasive or non-invasive surgeries which would prevent them from reproducing - under command of the government, no less - is relatively nonexistent. Even the ones who were personally unaffected may not accept it; if a husband is deemed viable but not his wife, or vice-versa, the odds of one agreeing to their spouse's ligation/vasectomy are astronomically low. Putting all ethical and personal concerns on the metaphorical back burner, it would invariably turn into all-encompassing chaos if any government attempted to herd the populace into mass surgery tents against their will, which is the only way a 95% sterilization would ever occur successfully.

Furthermore, to be entirely frank, there is not a government in existence that would even be capable of such an undertaking - but assuming there was, the only fallout would be widespread and uncontrollable violence, conflict, and rebellion. In all due fairness, though, that violence could very well fix the overpopulation issue anyway; if that is the only thing in question here, then by all means, sterilizing a country is a brilliant idea - just be prepared to enjoy the ensuing World War III as the populace is significantly and forcibly reduced by weapons rather than preemptive abortions.

The government will never defeat my seed.

Wow.

No way.

You're talking about eugenics.

Quote

If you're living under a government that WOULD approve it, get the hell out of dodge.

Quote

Holy effin' cow. My mind just cracked.

I love this forum. Are we really seriously considering this or is this an elaborate troll?

This post has been edited by TomTomBBQ: 21 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

I hardly think mass sterilization would be necessary. It may take a while (perhaps 75 years or so), but world population will stabilize as the standard of living improves in developing countries, and there is greater access to education and birth control (especially for females). So there's an incentive for progress! And in fact, world population growth rates have been steadily on the decline since 1980.

Not talking about sterilization in general, but I feel it worth pointing out that sterilizing 95% of the world's population would be a terrible idea if only for the massive genetic bottleneck that would result from it.

This post has been edited by MiwAuturu: 21 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

Tom, did you skip the ´´That said, I'd be against both.`` part? 'Course I'm not ´´Seriously considering`` it, that'd be f**king ridiculous. Even if I did, it's not like I'd be able to do anything about it.
How're forced abortion worse than random sterilization anyway? Seems like the better option.

´´Sorry ma'am, we've decided that you, in your current situation, would be unable to support a child. We'll have to abort it.``

Versus:

´´Sorry, random.org says you don't get to have kids. Sucks to be you.``

HEY TOM U MAD BRO!!

I am curious about the pro's or con's of such an event taking place. To suggest that a discussion is "an elaborate troll" because you disagree with the subject matter is pretty ignorant. Maybe I think that fox hunting IS A MONSTROSITY AND PEOPLE WHO DO IT SHOULD DIE, some people will agree and some will disagree, but it's just opinions.

If there was one policy I could change or introduce into the world, organised sterilisation isn't exactly high up on the list. Though I just had a thought for a super power, where I could just walk along and see some real scummy looking people, blink at them, and then BAM infertile for 10 years! (Since who knows maybe they'd clean up their act later)

Look at this guy eww do you really want people like this to breed.

wacko, on 21 February 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Interesting point Wacko, just had a look around and was rather surprised by that fact. I've often see the exponentially growing population graphs and assume an increasing rate of growth. Including the last 10000 years kinda skews the graph a bit eh? As to the providing of easier access contraception in developing countries, fully agree there, though I believe people got all emotional about it recently. Just googled about and found a post about Bill Gates wife giving out a few billion to provide contraceptives (while also being Catholic apparently so props to her) and for anti-contraceptive activists claiming the rich countries are using it as a form imperialistic control. Kinda sounds like they are grasping at straws there but there ya go.

As to bottle necking, assuming that sterilisation occurred in all countries, i'm not sure if the population number would drop low enough for the bottlenecking of the available genes to become a noticeable issue. (Being as there is still 350 million members in the population) I'll have to look further into that.

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot to mention

apocryphalValidity, on 21 February 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

When I discuss sterilisation here I include the assumption that chemical sterilisation is possible, otherwise this would simply not be feasible. In the series it is done by disguising it as a vaccine to be used world wide. It is suggested that when the population finds out what has happened it will cause massive riots and destruction in the series too, but that such an event would be less cruel than to allow humanity to fuck itself to death. So to speak.

This post has been edited by Anialator: 22 February 2013 - 12:00 AM

Mass sterilization wouldn't be so bad. I wouldn't have to use a condom in the ICU where they keep those chicks that wrap their cars around trees trying to reply to a text. "LOL" indeed.

We've had this discussion before. "Random" sterilization is retarded. The socially responsible thing to do would be to single out the people capable of creating socially dependent genetic anomalies and sterilize them. Conversely, we could just make abortion mandatory for every baby that would create the same social deficit.

(The test for Asperger's would be playing an episode of My Little Pony next to the womb followed by beating the pregnant woman like a pinata if the fetus shows affinity.)

This post has been edited by Jerk: 22 February 2013 - 02:39 AM

Jerk, on 22 February 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Fucking brilliant response. 10/10, would read again.

Jerk, on 22 February 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

REMOVE THE ANOMALIES for a better world. Prison whould be a good place to start.

Prison is a terrible example for so many reasons I'd hardly know where to start. The fact they fill them with petty offenders to profit the private prison industry, falsely accused, judge was an asshole, the jury fucked up, and the list goes on and on and on. I know what you're getting at, but as a general rule it's not a good marker. My idea would involved testing it after it's conceived and, born with, say, severe autism, euthanized. Anyone with cognitive function is useful to a point until their needs outweigh their usefulness. Even serial killers can be useful while they're still alive. People are too uptight about euthanasia. Africans euthanize each other every God damned day and you don't hear them bitch about it.

Jerk, on 22 February 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

They should treat adoption centers for kids like animal shelters. If the kids have ben there to long EUTHANASIA them.

No no no. They should do it Starship Troopers style. You have to be a Citizen to be allowed to have kids. If you haven't 1: completed a year of national service or 2: spent ten years in a primary or secondary industry job, you're not allowed to breed. Under these rules, I'm not allowed to have kids, but my wife is...do I get a free pass, or does my wife get to have legalised affairs?

If you do worldwide sterilization for 95% or even 25% of the population, there will be a lot less people in the next generation, and that's not enough people to handle the jobs that are needed to run the world.

Sky_Paladin, on 22 February 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

She could use her egg to procreate but your sperm would be an ineligible candidate until you finish mopping the floors of the USS Sea-Fucking Whale Grinder.

whales

falconboy99, on 23 February 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

Yes it is.

What's six billion divided by one hundred, FB? YOU CAN DO THIS, FALCONBAIT, YOU ARE ASIAN! USE YOUR ASIAN POWERS!

it can't be completely random. what if the only people who don't get sterilized are total losers?

In this thread: eugenics.

Now if you want to get sterilized that's cool with me, but when you think you should be able to decide who should be sterilized you're crossing a line.

I feel like it would possible work to prevent the passing down of genetic diseases, but honestly it's pretty morally messed up when you go beyond that.

Can you imagine a society in which everyone is super intelligent? Who's going to want to be a farmer, or a factory worker, or some other "lower level" job? No one. Imagine, you're in this society and very capable of doing an intellectually challenging job and you would enjoy this job. Too bad all the positions are filled with qualified people who are unlikely to be fired. Guess you get to go work in the mines and hate your life. You and your mining buddies are miserable and pissed that you're trapped in a back-breaking, low paying job so somehow you start this big old revolution. Good for you, but problematic and messy in general and it's possible that many will be hurt in the process.

I'm sure this perfect world will need armies and such, who is going to join the infantry? All these super intelligent folks? I don't think so. (Not to say that infantrymen are dumb, but I doubt a rocket scientist wants to be in the infantry if they join military.

Who is going to pick who gets sterilized and who doesn't? Humans are corrupt and the smarter ones are often stuck up. "Oh ho ho, your IQ is two points below mine, you're inferior, sorry but even though you're perfectly capable to raise a nice family, you can't have kids sorry."

Also, eugenics? I mean, perhaps you could say that certain races produce fewer intelligent people, lets sterilize X race to avoid that all together hmm? It would get ugly and corrupt.

(Also random sterilization is totally ridiculous and would solve the population problem, but wouldn't fix anything else.)

That is a great leap of an assumption that Intelligent people always want to work within those types of roles, a better way to think of it in that standpoint would be this:

If only intellectuals worked with what you are calling mundane work the quality and efficiency of these roles would increase due to the thought and process of the work being completed, smart people can be attracted to more mundane work if it does have something to stimulate them or even if they just realise it is something that has to be done

Also yes you get stuck up smart people but it is much more common to have idiots not only insult but attack those they disagree with or don't like and they teach their kids to be like that

At the current rate sterilisation may be the only viable option as anything else would take time and also commitment from people that have been seem to have no consideration for anyone but themselves

Marking the genetically deficient may seem cruel but it may also be safer in the long run to try and prevent genetic abnormalities into society in the first place

I suppose it is true that they can make the mundane work better, but in the end there is really only so much that you can do in a coal mine, or something similar.

Another concern of mine, is that intelligence isn't black and white. Everyone isn't just smart or dumb. There are a lot of levels in between. I'd say there are plenty of well read intelligent people on the BCB forum, but probably not anyone qualified for Mensa. Now if the people who decide who's smart enough to be sterilized are all Mensa level folks, how stupid do people like us look to them? We're smart and quick thinking sure, but we aren't geniuses. They might decide that we aren't worthy of passing down our genes.

Consider the government systems we have now (for any country really) they're all corrupt, and smart people can be just as corrupt. It seems like it'd be a very difficult program to put into practice without issues with corruption and morality.

I agree with that, it isn't black and white, however if we were going to put sterilisation into effect the main basis they would use would be "is that person intelligent enough to care for their offspring" or "do they have any genetic disposition that would potentially cripple future generations" if either of these were yes then that person would in all likelihood be sterilised

Saying the government is corrupt and wouldn't be able to make the choice is a cop out because most of them are idiots but they wouldn't be the ones actually doing the deed just setting the guidelines which would have to be agreed by the majority of the population since they are the ones being affected by the decision. Something this large would take years of deliberation before an agreement of terms would be decided

I agree that they would put a lot of consideration into such a problem. Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, it's probably never going to happen. Not any time soon anyway. Things will need to get real bad before it is even talked about in the casual sense.

Ellie, on 23 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

While some races actually do produce fewer intellectuals, so do certain cultures. You have a lot of misconceptions about eugenics. For one thing, racial biodiversity is our strongest defense against bacterial / viral outbreaks. Uniformity is just one misconception about it as uniformity is not in our best interest. The only difference would be that the machine efficiently bagging your groceries won't mutter to itself with a lisp and desperately avoid eye contact as it does so.

I agree about uniformity, but it seems like the terms of sterilization would eventually strive for some kind of uniformity, can't be too sure though.

And yes, I'm not very well versed in eugenics, I mentioned it in a paper once, that's about it. Haha.

wait so in this film(I must admit i haven't seen it, is it any good?) the government plan to sterilize 95% percent of the population to keep the population under control, this rings a bell... I know Hitler tried something like this, he wasn't trying to lower the population and he went about it by killing thousands upon thousands of people in the end the two are basically the same (more so if we applied Anialator's IQ idea) . Both the government in Utopia and Hitler tried to edit the gene pool.

personally I disagree with the idea, not just because of Hitler, I think that editing the gene pool is a bad idea natural selection will work out the true chinks in all animals us included, while editing the gene pool by hand is quicker it only takes one guys to push the wrong button and the whole race is doomed also 95% is way to much if i had to sterilize X% of the population I would call 30% - 40%

Jack Of Time, on 24 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

oh dear

@ Ellie: The uniformity would only be in birth defects. That way we don't have to kill off the aspies by hurting their feelings until they an hero themselves. Which would be less fun, admittedly.

It's kinda shocking to me that half the people in the community are totally OK with eugenics. I think the question that has to be asked is "do you have the right to force life altering surgery/chemical treatments on another human being." to me, the answer is a pretty clear no. In the early twentieth century, this was a pretty major topic of debate, and the U.S. supreme court made several rulings on the subject (Most famously, forced sterilization of mentally retarded persons (Buck V Bell))In the end though, the courts ruled against it.

Quote

"I am ok with forcing painful surgery on 90% of the population, so long as I don't have to have it, because I am genetically and intellectually superior"

Quote

abortion can sometimes be dangerous to the mother depending on how long into pregnancy the woman is, and often takes a huge psychological toll on the mother. I am 100% in favor of the choice to abort, but no one should be forced into it.

DLancer, on 23 February 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

China is predicted to have major issues in coming years due to the issues of having an aging population thanks to the one child plan, such as having to care for the older generation that will outnumber the younger one for many years, putting possible undue stress on the younger generation.

Another issue is different cultural views on children, and how forced sterilisations could have implications in communities that differ from ours. China is another good example of this, where the one child program induced a massive string of infanticide and abandonment of children as parents in china fought to have a boy as their one child, as women are seen as unequal.

"Critics point to the measures taken to ensure its implementation, including forced abortions, sterilisations and sex-selective abortions, which have skewed China's sex ratios; the latest census figures suggested nearly six boys were born to every five girls."

Quote

funfact, the american eugenics efforts in the roaring twenties inspired much of the Nazi eugenics doctrine.

Quote

get the fuck off of that high horse

it also seems that a lot of people seem to think it's justified by the fact that people who are in low income situations may have children that are unable to properly care for, and that those with low IQ should not be allowed to have children. perhaps it's just me, but I'd prefer to try to fix the underlying social issues based around those instead of lopping parts off of 95% of the population. perhaps we could focus on philanthropy and community playing a bigger role in society, perhaps we could provide accurate and comprehensive sex education instead of dancing around the topic every time it comes up.

Jerk, on 25 February 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

may i ask why my statement worries you?

Natural selection works where environmental factors on a species force only the most genetically adaptive to survive thus breed their genetic structure into new generations

In humans we have the ability to manipulate our environment to suit us, thus negating most of the natural selection process, we still adapt to changes we make ourselves but not in the same case that creatures in the wild would

Jerk may have a different reason but that is the main problem I have with your idea

Insanity Streak, on 25 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

the idea is that even though society makes life easier and denies more complex natural selection it has a useful side effect, that is even though we support the weak there are still people to weak to be helped this is how natural selection has adapted, those society cant help die/don't have kids and thus the genes/mindsets that society cant help disappear as well (the mind sets are effected because are views are effected a lot by those we where subjected to as young kids). im not saying this is nice or right but it's how it works (in my opinion). so while natural selection works different with people it still works just with a bigger chance of error.

I hope that makes sense

note: when i said true chinks i was referring to problems that would truly pose a threat to us a a species without any ones ideas clouding the decision

This post has been edited by Jack Of Time: 25 February 2013 - 12:41 PM

Jack Of Time, on 25 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

think long and hard

edit: oh so now they're a problem?

This post has been edited by Kaxbe: 25 February 2013 - 12:50 PM

Kaxbe, on 25 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I still don't get what i said wrong, if im offending or implying offense to a person or a group of people please tell me so i can correct my statement as i didn't mean to cause offense to anyone, I think that it may be the way i worded it that's causing a misunderstanding.

See when people think of natural selection, they think of selection of genes caused by competition for resources, may it be food or shelter, and genetic advantages against illness, parasites, predators ect. If you look at it from a first world perspective, none of these things are regularly life threatening any more, and hence natural selection which produces more advantageous offspring does not occur. In fact, the ease of life allows those for example with genetic abnormalities that would no doubt die without medical care to live a reasonably normal life, and thus they get into relationships, get jiggy, and create more offspring with the less than advantageous genotype.

Jack Of Time, on 24 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

First off, comparing sterilisation to murder and genocide is a bit of a stretch. I believe you most likely threw Hitler into your post to try and make it more dramatic. Hitler targeted specific groups of people to be wiped out, while the sterilisation in it's original format was to be random, though I decided to throw in a selection process of intelligence and aggressive behaviour and see how the forum responded to that. Intelligence and aggressive behaviour is not specific to any one race.

Also, what do you mean when you say:

Jack Of Time, on 24 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Chris, on 25 February 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Ok, I assume your quite angry with my view and so replied rather hastily, but that's the opposite of what I just said. I said i'd be fine with being sterilised assuming it was done "for the greater good of the world". (as in those that contribute less are also sterilised) I assumed it would be common sense that anyone who was in favour of it would be willing to be sterilised if they were a part of that bottom 95%.

As to your post about the strain on the new generation to care for the older generation, that's a very good point. Interesting to see some true to life statistics on that.

Jack Of Time, on 24 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Hitler also tried to ban smoking and promote vegetarianism. I assume those are also bad by association?

Sterilization and genocide are two different concepts. One involves killing, the other doesn't. Genocide also targets people based on race, religion or creed, whereas eugenics would target individuals who are genetically weak, and even then those people would be able to live a normal life, just without the ability to reproduce. Genocide doesn't allow the targeted groups to live at all.

First off, comparing sterilisation to murder and genocide is a bit of a stretch. I believe you most likely threw Hitler into your post to try and make it more dramatic. Hitler targeted specific groups of people to be wiped out, while the sterilisation in it's original format was to be random, though I decided to throw in a selection process of intelligence and aggressive behaviour and see how the forum responded to that. Intelligence and aggressive behaviour is not specific to any one race.

actuality what meant was when Hitler killed thousands of people he was trying make a better human race by editing the gene pool just like sterilizing selectively there are better examples but Hitler was the only one that came to mind at the time


Also, what do you mean when you say:
it only takes one guys to push the wrong button and the whole race is doomed

what i mean is that if a gene was deemed useless and removed from circulation and it turns out they cure cancer we have a problem

note: i couldn't get the quote tags to work

Carcharocles, on 25 February 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I was referring to the basic effects of both the concepts, they both edit the gene pool and it can efect the next generations views (due to their parents views) and while Hitler did things wrong he did have some good ideas like the smoking and the vegetarianism and he thought that with one ruler there would be no war. so good idea poor execution

Jack Of Time: allow me to explain your unintentional joke from earlier in this thread.

As to the topic at hand, I would disagree with mass sterilization. As I said earlier, I doubt it would be necessary to resort to such means to control population growth. I think the human population will stabilize to around 10 billion or so in the medium term. And as the standard of living rises in developing countries, people will naturally choose to have fewer children. Widespread availability of free education for all children, and especially for girls, is critical in this regard. Hence why even consider mass sterilization, if we can avoid going down that route in the first place?

Of course, a related question would be whether the earth can support that many people, especially since more resources are consumed as the standard of living rises. I'd like to think that our many recent technological advances can and will provide for these people to some extent. For example, improved crop growing methods have made it such that the share of malnourished people in the developing world has been more than halved compared to 40 years ago. In fact, we're now growing more than enough food to feed the world's population; the problem now is one of distribution.

Some may argue that people with obvious defects and/or who are a burden to society ought to be eliminated. I recognize that in both prehistorical and historical times, many cultures discarded individuals (both children and adults) who would have required far more expenditure from society than they could contribute back. For example, babies with obvious deformities were often left to die. Another example would be terminating the very young, the very old, or the very sick when resources became scarce, so that these resources could be allocated to healthy, productive individuals. However, we are not living in past times anymore; today, we're approaching a point where it's possible to provide for everyone, regardless of their age or health status. I think nowadays we can afford enough compassion such that everyone who wants to live can be given a chance to do so. (Of course, there is the other side of the coin as well: what if death and suffering are merely being prolonged?)

In any case, many disorders (e.g. autism) stem from complex causes, both genetic and environmental. For example, studies have confirmed that if a family has an autistic child, the likelihood of other siblings having autism is considerably higher. Yet even among identical twins, one may be on the autism spectrum, while the other isn't. Hence without 100% correlation between genetic heredity and disorder incidence, one cannot say that a person should not be allowed to procreate. As a matter of fact, genes are not static and immutable once you're born; they can be turned on or off by a number of different factors. Hence even 'genetic tuning' does not guarantee that an individual won't develop (and pass on) a disorder caused by certain genes being turned on or off by any of a wide variety of environmental factors (sunlight, X-rays, chemicals, etc.)

Jack Of Time, on 25 February 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

wacko, on 25 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

wacko, on 25 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

I agree with all of this natural selection works other thousands of years in till all possible forms (or causes) of a problem are wiped out this won't happen in one persons life, nor will it happen in the life of a empire, even if we ignore all the moral wrongs of genetic tuning in any way(other then change in a fetuses genes (would need to be tested on another entity first (only my opinion (ok this is to many brackets and way off topic)))) it would still not be carried out fully on the other hand unless something goes really really wrong natural selection won't die.

however like you said many things can cause genetic mutations this is a problem as controlling what genes get passed down into generation Y won't help however natural selection has a answer to this (not as defective as the other one but it works), if someone has a gene mutation that stops other genes from mutating (IE: a gene that makes him/her immune to a form of cancer) they are less likely to die and they can pass on the gene also if a mutation happens once it can always happen twice. natural selection is not the most effective method but its less likely to go wrong.

also thanks for explaining my goof

Look:

1) We don't have robots to replace all the manual laborers with yet, and they're the people we should replace.

2) If you voluntarily sterilize yourself in order to help humanity, you are allowing the genes of those who DON'T do so to help humanity to proliferate in the gene pool, with predictable deleterious effects.

3) Really, the world isn't overpopulated as-is. Its just that if everyone was at American living standards it would be. Fortunately, most of them aren't. Once we're all at that level, we can be more concerned.

1. IQ doesn't show a person's exact intelligence, but only provides an estimation. Data =/= Results.

2. Freedom of choice includes choosing to abstain from sex or procreate. Taking away a person's right to procreate nullifies this idea.

3. I would be paying for it, so fuck that.

This post has been edited by Giygas: 08 April 2013 - 03:22 AM