Socialism and Eugenics

[bleedingheart]

Hi Comrades!:)

What's the socialist view on eugenics? Is it acceptable to utilize science for the improvement of the human species? Not in the Nazi way, but in a more humane way:)...

p.s.
Why am I restricted? I am as red as they come.:confused:

[Sentinel]

What's the socialist view on eugenics? Is it acceptable to utilize science for the improvement of the human species?There are differing views on the subject, personally I am positive towards it -- as long as we are talking about engineering of the human genome and not sterilisations, and the intended improvements indeed are truly scientific and not pseudo-so (racist, etc).

Most recent debate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/eugenics-t86792/index.html)


Why am I restricted? I am as red as they come.For anti-immigrant sentiments in your 'reverse racism' -thread in Discrimination. If you feel that you have been unfairly restricted, bring it up in the sticky designated for that purpose in this forum. You aren't allowed to create threads about your restriction on the forum proper.

[Bud Struggle]

There are differing views on the subject, personally I am positive towards it -- as long as we are talking about engineering of the human genome and not sterilisations, and the intended improvements indeed are truly scientific and not pseudo-so (racist, etc).

Most recent debate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/eugenics-t86792/index.html)


My guess is that doing such thing's for the "proper motives" might be pretty difficult to do.

[Sentinel]

My guess is that doing such thing's for the "proper motives" might be pretty difficult to do.Not really, what do you mean? If you read the thread you'll see that I'm talking about eliminating inheritary diseases and ailments, increasing physical and mental abilities, increasing the lifespan etc.

Genetic angineering a continuation of where traditional medical science left off, nothing more.

Once you are a communist and reject abstract notions like 'naturality' and various stripes of 'morality' originating in religious traditions, it's the logical next step, while bioconservatism is an approach of reaction.

[Coggeh]

Medically we can and should , to get rid of heriditary dieseases etc but the rest can go fuck itself tbh . If Darwin is right it will naturally happen anyway so just sit back and enjoy teh ride ... of cancer... cause thats not cured yet.... damnit ...

[Bud Struggle]

Not really, what do you mean? If you read the thread you'll see that I'm talking about eliminating inheritary diseases and ailments, increasing physical and mental abilities, increasing the lifespan etc.

Genetic angineering a continuation of where traditional medical science left off, nothing more.

Once you are a communist and reject abstract notions like 'naturality' and various stripes of 'morality' originating in religious traditions, it's the logical next step, while bioconservatism is an approach of reaction.

I have no problem with it being logical--it's just people alway have a bit of "english' they put on every everything they do. Maybe make "us guys" a little bit better than "you guys".

Next thing you know:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Del_Usion/wrath-of-Kahn-2.jpg

[turquino]

Historically eugenics has been a horrible tool and the Soviet Union was ahead of its time when it banned eugenics in 1930.

i am opposed to the modern eugenics advocated by Sentinel. i think it could be discriminatory against the disabled. After all, who chooses which children have their genes engineered? ':ohmy: Genetically unfit' individuals shouldn't have to worry about the "improvement of the human species" in a socialist society that provides for all the people.

[Sentinel]

i think it could be discriminatory against the disabled.Howso? Are you saying that it's discriminatory against those with crippling inheritary diseases to make sure that children won't get them? Discriminatory against the nearsighted to grant the next generations good vision? Discriminatory to those whose genes will grant them an early grave to save their kids from the same fate?


After all, who chooses which children have their genes engineered?Society should decide as a popular measure, in accordance with the thorough research by experts, which improvements all children should have. Those should of course only deal with actual health issues (and yep, premature, unnecessary death is a health issue too).


Genetically unfit' individuals shouldn't have to worry about the "improvement of the human species" in a socialist society that provides for all the people.I'm not sure if that's meant to be quotation marks around the word 'unfit'. If so definitely no, I am opposed to all kinds of pseudo-science.

And even if not, of course nobody should have to worry about anything, except the bioconservatives about not having the opportunity to pass their 'natural' disablements, short lifespans etc, on to the next generation. That shouldn't be up for them to decide, as long as the population is enlightened enough about the facts of genetic engineering.

Sickness and death aren't a fucking family heirloom, and parents don't own their children so that they'd have the right to condemn them to have them just because they do or because of their backwards 'moral' issues with 21st century medicine.

[mikelepore]

As I tried in vain in the other thread to get people to realize, "eugenics" itself is a term of approval. To call it eugenics is to say the speaker believes that doing it is beneficial, just as to call it dysgenics is to say that the speaker believes that doing this harmful. For example, since we know that it isn't an improvement to increase the percentage of people who have blonde hair and blue eyes, the correct grammar isn't to call the program eugenics and then to denounce it, but to say that it isn't really eugenics.

[Tungsten]

i am opposed to the modern eugenics advocated by Sentinel. i think it could be discriminatory against the disabled. After all, who chooses which children have their genes engineered?
Uh, their parents?


':ohmy: Genetically unfit' individuals shouldn't have to worry about the "improvement of the human species" in a socialist society that provides for all the people.
That's a poor excuse for allowing people to suffer from genetic diseases.

I've always found the "master race" argument against genetic engineering to be a pile of shit. Who cares if someone is more intelligent than someone else? We've always had to contend with that issue. I don't see 200+ IQ college professors strutting around sneering at the rest of us as "inferior beings to be exterminated/ruled", so why should the genetically improved suddenly feel the need to do it? If anything, they'll be above such idiotic behaviour.

[turquino]

Sentinel clearly doesn't think parents should have a choice in how their children are genetically altered. That means he believes in society-wide eugenics and not personal choice.

[Sentinel]

Sentinel clearly doesn't think parents should have a choice in how their children are genetically altered. That means he believes in society-wide eugenics and not personal choice.

As a communist I indeed believe in the abolition of the traditional family, and that applies in this case too -- especially in this case as a matter of fact.

As I said, parents do not own their children, they are not property, and I see really no justification for allowing private individuals to make decisions of this magnitude for others in any case.

If for instance the parents get to decide that their children aren't to be spared of a disease which causes mental disability, why not let them hit them in the head with a hammer as well? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

As a communist I indeed believe in the abolition of the traditional family, :rolleyes:

Is that indeed a "Communist" viewpoint? Is it Marxist, or something otherwise?

(Not being a snot, just would like to know.)

[Sentinel]

Is that indeed a "Communist" viewpoint? Is it Marxist, or something otherwise?

Well, I'm generally not fond of 'quoting scripture' to prove that my views are 'really communist'. I'm an autonomist marxist (and anarchist) anyway, and certainly don't consider the writings of Marx, Engels, etc law.

Besides, that kind of behavior is really annoying. :lol:

This one piece by Engels, from Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) I find really makes sense to the degree, that I actually quote it relatively often, though. So here we go:



What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.


This view is generally shared by anarchists as well.