What is your opinion on this

[Ironwill]

I have talked to a few of my communist friends and even seen some posts on here (that to me) seem to advocate a eugenics of sorts. They have said they think there needs to be one "race" and they also state that we should try to get rid of all conditions/illnesses.

Now to me this seems wrong for two reasons:

1. Your trying to control a person on the most personal level. In fact if your restricting who can marry who because there children might have a condition or because that person wants to marry someone of their ethnic group (if you want them to mix instead)....well how is that different than the flip side of the coin (facists/Nazis)?

2. Some conditions have a huge upside and it is often neurotic people that contribute the most to society (Tesla, Einstein, and do you think the guy that invented the wheel/first arrow was with the rest of the cave men around the fire itching themselves) so why get rid of them? Tampering with nature to me seems well....un-natural and facist.

So whats your opinion?

[Belisarius]

to be honest i agree with you. starting eugenetical breeding does sound like the fascist aryan race and i generally oppose it.

but we have to nuance it a bit, because we are on a slippery slope in the eugenics debate. most of us don't oppose abortion, but abortion is also a kind of eugenics in some cases. if you see your baby is going to have a handicap, you can choose to abort. the Spartans in ancient greece did the same (but after birth of course), but where is the difference? the problemis where to draw the line.

[Morgenstern]

Forcing a person to marry another or not marry another is no different than chaining them to a pole. You are saying what they can and can't do with their body and taking away their freedom. From a philosophical stand point eugenics in the sense of trying to breed a super human will be disastrous. You will bring a 'god among mortals' so to speak. If we achieve a society free of classes the last thing we need is a new class system: one of genetics. If anyone has seen the Star Trek: Enterprise episode with the eugenics, you will share my caution.

From a practical standpoint it leads to disaster in a classless society also. It will make the regular humans only second-rate, second class citizens. We would essentially become the inferior and repressed peoples and unlike the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s these eugenics can wreck us through violence.

[Spencer]

Well obviously there’s a difference between the kind of Eugenics a communist would support to those of the Nazi’s (and indeed many of the so called liberal democracies in the early part of the last century). The kind of eugenics normally pushed by ‘leftists’ is the sort that aims to create a sort of ‘superhuman’, whilst that of the Nazi’s (although not exclusively) was more in line with preventing the degeneration of the race through the sterilisation (and later extermination) of undesirables. Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder why it is that when leftists agree with right wing gits, they seem to do so with some of the latter’s nastier and more sinister ideas (eugenics, death penalty, gun ownership)

As I was trying to say in another thread, this kind of thing ought to be irrelevant, at best, to socialists. For socialists, the focus is our social institutions and how they need to be changed, rather than a change in our biology. In fact, this is one of the major divisions between ‘left’ and ‘right’ (to the extent that you can classify things in such a way). As the anthropologist Ashley Montagu observed in his introduction to ‘Sociobiology Examined’:


In this study Professor Pastore showed that the scientist’s political beliefs were highly correlated with what he believed about the roles played by nature and nurture in the development of the person. Those holding conservative political views strongly tended to believe in the power of genes over environment. Those subscribing to more liberal views tended to believe in the power of environment over genes. One distinguished scientist (who happened to be a teacher of mine) when young was a socialist and environmentalist but toward middle age he became politically conservative and a firm believer in the supremacy of genes!

Certainly I would be surprised to see anyone who calls themselves a socialist claiming that there was a genetic basis for alcoholism, unemployment or whatever.

Nevertheless, it has to be noted that both ‘positive’ eugenics (the Bertrand Russell’s of this world making regular deposits at a sperm bank) and the ‘negative’ eugenics of the Third Reich and elsewhere (US, Scandinavia etc.) are largely ineffective (at least in terms of it’s professed aims, the Nazi eugenic program proved hugely ‘effective’ in saving lots of money by exterminating handicapped people).

To the extend that abortions are carried out because the child may be handicapped in a socialist society, it would obviously depend on the nature of this 'handicap'. In some cases it may be decided that it is possible to live a worthwhile and happy life (certainly moreso than it would be today) and undoubtedly many of them would have much to offer society, but in other cases I don't expect many parent's to go ahead with it knowing that they'd spend the next few years waiting for their child to die.

[Invincible Summer]

I have talked to a few of my communist friends and even seen some posts on here (that to me) seem to advocate a eugenics of sorts. They have said they think there needs to be one "race" and they also state that we should try to get rid of all conditions/illnesses.

One "race?" Not sure what you're talking about. Elimination of illnesses, sure.


Now to me this seems wrong for two reasons:

1. Your trying to control a person on the most personal level. In fact if your restricting who can marry who because there children might have a condition or because that person wants to marry someone of their ethnic group (if you want them to mix instead)....well how is that different than the flip side of the coin (facists/Nazis)? I don't think that anyone here (or any leftist for that matter) should be/is advocating eugenics of that sort.

If we're talking about the elimination of conditions, then I think it's more ethical to use biotechnologies to treat/reduce/eliminate illnesses and disorders than to prevent people from having sex...



2. Some conditions have a huge upside and it is often neurotic people that contribute the most to society (Tesla, Einstein, and do you think the guy that invented the wheel/first arrow was with the rest of the cave men around the fire itching themselves) so why get rid of them? Tampering with nature to me seems well....un-natural and facist.

So whats your opinion?Being eccentric (you use the word "neurotic," but that refers to an actual psychological disorder which clearly Tesla and Einstein didn't have, so I'm sure you mean eccentric) isn't, IMO, a "condition." I don't see why anyone would want to modify the human population to an extent that no one has any personality. I've never even heard of that, so I don't know what you're basing your argument on.

And the "nature" argument is precarious. Humans have modified nature to suit their needs for a long time. If we didn't "tamper with nature," you'd probably die by the age of 20 or something.

If there was a way to give a person who was born blind sight (say, with bionic eyes or something), would you be against it, because it's "against nature?"

[Ironwill]

One "race?" Not sure what you're talking about. Elimination of illnesses, sure.

I don't think that anyone here (or any leftist for that matter) should be/is advocating eugenics of that sort.

If we're talking about the elimination of conditions, then I think it's more ethical to use biotechnologies to treat/reduce/eliminate illnesses and disorders than to prevent people from having sex...


Being eccentric (you use the word "neurotic," but that refers to an actual psychological disorder which clearly Tesla and Einstein didn't have, so I'm sure you mean eccentric) isn't, IMO, a "condition." I don't see why anyone would want to modify the human population to an extent that no one has any personality. I've never even heard of that, so I don't know what you're basing your argument on.

And the "nature" argument is precarious. Humans have modified nature to suit their needs for a long time. If we didn't "tamper with nature," you'd probably die by the age of 20 or something.

If there was a way to give a person who was born blind sight (say, with bionic eyes or something), would you be against it, because it's "against nature?"

I agree with you on this but it seems a few people I have talked to don't feel that way. I am basing this off of conversations I have had over time with communists (not general leftists). Although you will find that most of your eccentrics do have a certain condition.

I wouldn't be against them giving eye sight to a blind person but it seems to me once you start messing with these sort of things you greatly increase the possibility of negative usage. This goes with anything but this seems to me to be more dangerous.

[mikelepore]

I can't see any similarity between the potential of biotechnology and the Nazi programs. The Nazis were inspired by the stupid belief that people with blonde hair and blue eyes are descendents of godlike beings, compared to whom other races are vermin, or some such nonsense. There's no comparison to a technology that would ensure a mother that her baby won't be born with muscular dystrophy or a defective heart. The Nazis also imposed their ideas through murder and force, and they didn't know about the existence of DNA. Their actions don't reflect on new treatments that could be chosen by couples who are preparing to produce a child.

To assist clear commuication, I also emphasize that the "eu" in "eugenics" means "good." Only if you think the goals and methods are good you're supposed to call it eugenics. If you think someone's goals or methods are bad you're supposed to called it dysgenics.

[Sendo]

I can't see any similarity between the potential of biotechnology and the Nazi programs. The Nazis were inspired by the stupid belief that people with blonde hair and blue eyes are descendants of godlike beings, compared to whom other races are vermin, or some such nonsense. There's no comparison to a technology that would ensure a mother that her baby won't be born with muscular dystrophy or a defective heart. The Nazis also imposed their ideas through murder and force, and they didn't know about the existence of DNA. Their actions don't reflect on new treatments that could be chosen by couples who are preparing to produce a child.

To assist clear communication, I also emphasize that the "eu" in "eugenics" means "good." Only if you think the goals and methods are good you're supposed to call it eugenics. If you think someone's goals or methods are bad you're supposed to called it dysgenics.

I disagree whole-heartedly, but this is easily the most rational argument I've heard from "the other side" if you'll pardon the loaded language. Also, if you want to get on the grammar wagon, you should say "blond" since "blonde" is a loanword from French, a noun to describe blond-haired women.

[Ramon Mercador]

I get discriminated against constantly in school because i actually can defend the life and works of comrade Stalin.

[mikelepore]

Also, if you want to get on the grammar wagon, you should say "blond" since "blonde" is a loanword from French, a noun to describe blond-haired women.

Thanks. I'm adding that to my English list. I also learned last week that the past tense of dive is dived and not dove, and that the past tense of sneak is sneaked and not snuck. I'm also a native English speaker with a master's degree and a 4.00 GPA. Sometimes a fact can slip by a person.

[cska]

Thanks. I'm adding that to my English list. I also learned last week that the past tense of dive is dived and not dove, and that the past tense of sneak is sneaked and not snuck. I'm also a native English speaker with a master's degree and a 4.00 GPA. Sometimes a fact can slip by a person.

I can understand "blond" instead of "blonde", but "dived" instead "dove" and "sneaked" instead of "snuck" is just elitist grammar. Reminds me of the SAT, which tests wether you know the grammar and vocabulary that is usually spoken by white Americans.