Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Scientific Racism & Eugenics News and Discussion

Racism News Science Discussion Eugenics Darwinism Racial Superiority Racial Inferiority

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#21
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

I want to ask the people on this forum, do you think it would be a good idea to bring disabled people to Mars if we colonise it? Do you really think a colony such as Mars could support a disabled person? If during a prenatal screening on Mars, the parents found out their child will have down-syndrome, they'd have to abort it. A upstart colony wouldn't be able to support a disabled person, neither would it be in its' interests to do so. 



#22
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts
  • LocationGeorgia
OK. You sound like a great guy. An intelligent young man. Sorry for insulting you and I hope you further develop your bright ideas and bring them to fruition. Sorry for doubting you.

I'm sure your parents must be proud. They must have instilled the best values in your heart of hearts. You would never resort to personal insults like me. How could you? A man of such decency and of such respect? How could you, a man who would forcibly sterilize dwarfs, call someone a dull knife? It's unthinkable. A man who would deprive people of their rights, firstly because they are not full people but something less as evidenced by their mental and physical properties, and secondly because these same people obviously drain resources and are an existential risk to the nation.

I do find one flaw though. Why simply deprive them of their right to reproduce? Obviously if these people are existential threats and are draining our resources then we should cull them immediately. After all dedicating all those resources to ensure that they don't reproduce is something which will consume enormous resources and is not fool proof. Wiping them off the face of this Earth is foolproof.

Kid I think your should lead this movement. You obviously have great foresight and see what is best for the nation. You understand human nature. You are empathetic. You understand human rights. You understand the sanctity of life. That some lives are inherently worth more than others. That those whom we judge to be inferior deserve only to be culled.

You're as anachronistic as this topic.
  • Pisiu369 likes this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#23
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I do see the point in not bringing new life in that suffers. It's the issue we're seeing in animal rights with pugs and bulldogs.

You could use better examples. Downs Syndrome people don't make babies often due to infertility and general circumstance. Even so, one has to question how much a Downs person suffers. In ways, I'd think they suffer less. And again for dwarfism, I'd question how much they actually suffer.

When I was younger, I babysat a family friend's daughter who had a rather disturbing disability. She grew up, but her mind never did. She was 10 with 6 month old mind. She could smile and react with disgust; She had emotions, but her higher functions and motor skill wasn't there. I remember how much her mother struggled with her. They lived back in Canada, so they got good support from the government, and she was taken to this facillity for care and stuff. My mother told me she'll die when she's 16, which really upset me, and I vowed to find a cure before that could happen, because it's the most depressing thing in the world seeing a human being not live up to their potential.

But I don't regret her existence. I would never euthanize her. The only regret I have was for her mother, and I doubt she would've wanted to kill her. It's just a thing of life. The girl herself never suffered, she lives a pretty good life, as any baby would. It's also a matter of sympathy. Technically, there is nothing wrong with a single mother shooting her one year old baby in the head, it won't understand it, but in terms of sympathy, emotion, and trust; it's a very fucked up thing to do. Human beings hold sympathy, and a desire to protect innocence because it's the way our society is structured. We recognize those who we cant trust and who harm others, so that they do not harm us and our families. A society that practices mandatory euthanasia of stunted children is not a society I'd particularly trust. A society that cares for and supports the families of stunted children is a society I'd very much trust.

And another thing, intelligence is overrated, and this coming from an intelligent person. IQ and that bullshit doesn't define life. Life is experience, and existence. It just is. There is no optimum in life, and if we humans decided to mantle for 'intelligence', then I would be in the 3rd circle of hell where everyday I'm faced with narcisstic prissy assholes who are so insecure of their intelligence that they make everything competitive. I'd rather go through an essential class, than an honors or AP again, if the people are more dope.
  • caltrek, Pisiu369 and Erowind like this

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#24
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

I do see the point in not bringing new life in that suffers. It's the issue we're seeing in animal rights with pugs and bulldogs.

You could use better examples. Downs Syndrome people don't make babies often due to infertility and general circumstance. Even so, one has to question how much a Downs person suffers. In ways, I'd think they suffer less. And again for dwarfism, I'd question how much they actually suffer.

When I was younger, I babysat a family friend's daughter who had a rather disturbing disability. She grew up, but her mind never did. She was 10 with 6 month old mind. She could smile and react with disgust; She had emotions, but her higher functions and motor skill wasn't there. I remember how much her mother struggled with her. They lived back in Canada, so they got good support from the government, and she was taken to this facillity for care and stuff. My mother told me she'll die when she's 16, which really upset me, and I vowed to find a cure before that could happen, because it's the most depressing thing in the world seeing a human being not live up to their potential.

But I don't regret her existence. I would never euthanize her. The only regret I have was for her mother, and I doubt she would've wanted to kill her. It's just a thing of life. The girl herself never suffered, she lives a pretty good life, as any baby would. It's also a matter of sympathy. Technically, there is nothing wrong with a single mother shooting her one year old baby in the head, it won't understand it, but in terms of sympathy, emotion, and trust; it's a very fucked up thing to do. Human beings hold sympathy, and a desire to protect innocence because it's the way our society is structured. We recognize those who we cant trust and who harm others, so that they do not harm us and our families. A society that practices mandatory euthanasia of stunted children is not a society I'd particularly trust. A society that cares for and supports the families of stunted children is a society I'd very much trust.

And another thing, intelligence is overrated, and this coming from an intelligent person. IQ and that bullshit doesn't define life. Life is experience, and existence. It just is. There is no optimum in life, and if we humans decided to mantle for 'intelligence', then I would be in the 3rd circle of hell where everyday I'm faced with narcisstic prissy assholes who are so insecure of their intelligence that they make everything competitive. I'd rather go through an essential class, than an honors or AP again, if the people are more dope.

 

OK. You sound like a great guy. An intelligent young man. Sorry for insulting you and I hope you further develop your bright ideas and bring them to fruition. Sorry for doubting you.

I'm sure your parents must be proud. They must have instilled the best values in your heart of hearts. You would never resort to personal insults like me. How could you? A man of such decency and of such respect? How could you, a man who would forcibly sterilize dwarfs, call someone a dull knife? It's unthinkable. A man who would deprive people of their rights, firstly because they are not full people but something less as evidenced by their mental and physical properties, and secondly because these same people obviously drain resources and are an existential risk to the nation.

I do find one flaw though. Why simply deprive them of their right to reproduce? Obviously if these people are existential threats and are draining our resources then we should cull them immediately. After all dedicating all those resources to ensure that they don't reproduce is something which will consume enormous resources and is not fool proof. Wiping them off the face of this Earth is foolproof.

Kid I think your should lead this movement. You obviously have great foresight and see what is best for the nation. You understand human nature. You are empathetic. You understand human rights. You understand the sanctity of life. That some lives are inherently worth more than others. That those whom we judge to be inferior deserve only to be culled.

You're as anachronistic as this topic.

I will reach out my hand to you, TranscendingGod, will you help me on this quest?



#25
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

I do see the point in not bringing new life in that suffers. It's the issue we're seeing in animal rights with pugs and bulldogs.

You could use better examples. Downs Syndrome people don't make babies often due to infertility and general circumstance. Even so, one has to question how much a Downs person suffers. In ways, I'd think they suffer less. And again for dwarfism, I'd question how much they actually suffer.

When I was younger, I babysat a family friend's daughter who had a rather disturbing disability. She grew up, but her mind never did. She was 10 with 6 month old mind. She could smile and react with disgust; She had emotions, but her higher functions and motor skill wasn't there. I remember how much her mother struggled with her. They lived back in Canada, so they got good support from the government, and she was taken to this facillity for care and stuff. My mother told me she'll die when she's 16, which really upset me, and I vowed to find a cure before that could happen, because it's the most depressing thing in the world seeing a human being not live up to their potential.

But I don't regret her existence. I would never euthanize her. The only regret I have was for her mother, and I doubt she would've wanted to kill her. It's just a thing of life. The girl herself never suffered, she lives a pretty good life, as any baby would. It's also a matter of sympathy. Technically, there is nothing wrong with a single mother shooting her one year old baby in the head, it won't understand it, but in terms of sympathy, emotion, and trust; it's a very fucked up thing to do. Human beings hold sympathy, and a desire to protect innocence because it's the way our society is structured. We recognize those who we cant trust and who harm others, so that they do not harm us and our families. A society that practices mandatory euthanasia of stunted children is not a society I'd particularly trust. A society that cares for and supports the families of stunted children is a society I'd very much trust.

And another thing, intelligence is overrated, and this coming from an intelligent person. IQ and that bullshit doesn't define life. Life is experience, and existence. It just is. There is no optimum in life, and if we humans decided to mantle for 'intelligence', then I would be in the 3rd circle of hell where everyday I'm faced with narcisstic prissy assholes who are so insecure of their intelligence that they make everything competitive. I'd rather go through an essential class, than an honors or AP again, if the people are more dope.

 

I do not think intelligence is overrated, if you had a country full of people with IQ's under 80, the country would be pretty broken and wouldn't be able to function normally. Of course, I know that IQ does not imply intelligence, but it does imply potential for intelligence. People with an IQ of 100 will have less intelligent potential than someone with an IQ of 130. That doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful. I think we should replace IQ (Intellectual Quotient) with IG (Intellectual Potential).


  • Erowind likes this

#26
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I didn't say intelligence is unimportant. I think a more intelligent society is good, but it shouldn't replace much more important aspects of society, like support and care. It is known that societies with average IQs of 80s and 90s are societies with violence, prejudice, and a lack of awareness forthe healthy raising of children. I'm one to argue rather vehemently that IQ is always nurture over nature, added that proper care of children with mental illness could find them the help they need to achieve their potential, instead of being offed at first chance.

What I view very undervalued is emotion in society. I think it's because we always attribute flaws to emotion, but what most people dont realize is that desire and drive are all emotion. When I want to discover the next big thing in science, I do it out of greatness or curiosity; when Hitler set the order to kill 'undesirables' he did it for glory, however ugly it was translated. We all are under the sway of emotion, and I think we should make sure to understand what drives human beings before we make a decision to euthanize the ill, thinking its the logical decision.

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#27
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

I didn't say intelligence is unimportant. I think a more intelligent society is good, but it shouldn't replace much more important aspects of society, like support and care. It is known that societies with average IQs of 80s and 90s are societies with violence, prejudice, and a lack of awareness forthe healthy raising of children. I'm one to argue rather vehemently that IQ is always nurture over nature, added that proper care of children with mental illness could find them the help they need to achieve their potential, instead of being offed at first chance.

What I view very undervalued is emotion in society. I think it's because we always attribute flaws to emotion, but what most people dont realize is that desire and drive are all emotion. When I want to discover the next big thing in science, I do it out of greatness or curiosity; when Hitler set the order to kill 'undesirables' he did it for glory, however ugly it was translated. We all are under the sway of emotion, and I think we should make sure to understand what drives human beings before we make a decision to euthanize the ill, thinking its the logical decision.

How could they achieve a potential? Tell me, what's the point of trying to teach a Down-Syndrome child with an IQ of 50? What good can such a person be? 



#28
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

I want to ask the people on this forum, do you think it would be a good idea to bring disabled people to Mars if we colonise it? Do you really think a colony such as Mars could support a disabled person? If during a prenatal screening on Mars, the parents found out their child will have down-syndrome, they'd have to abort it. A upstart colony wouldn't be able to support a disabled person, neither would it be in its' interests to do so. 

 

That depends on the disability. I think we need to change what the term disability means. To me, someone who is disabled literally cannot function in society unaided in any capacity. Not someone who just can't function as well or as easily. It's also important to understand that this means the definition of a disabled person is dynamic depending on the society in which they live. For example, if I lived in Nazi Germany under my dynamic definition I would be considered disabled because I would be so appalled that I'd refuse to work in any capacity. My personal ethic would make me functionally disabled. By that token a person with down syndrome or dwarfism is not disabled as they can still function in modern liberal democracies. Hell, people with down syndrome have the capacity to gain college degrees and dwarves can do almost anything a normal person can do. They both have to work harder to function but can still function.

 

With this said, if I was a colonist on a new mission I would abort my child if they were diagnosed prior to birth. That is a personal decision though, and not one that any person(s) bar me and my mate(s) should be able to mandate.

 

As a side note this is why I find most people with "learning disabilities" irritating. It's often a problem of motivation and perspective not intelligence or brain malfunction. To illustrate, I was a social isolate for so many years because I was passed through countless special needs placements and surrounded by people who either didn't know how to socialize properly or didn't want to. In the same vain I was passed through the education system all the way up to the 10th grade without making any intellectual progress because my public school district artificially padded their statistics. Within months of leaving the school system I had a social life and started teaching myself. I didn't learn algebra or even some elements of basic arithmetic until I was 16, but when I finally did, it only took a few months. Moreover I learned how to interact with people because I was lucky enough to find a group of people that were able to put up with my awkwardness until I learned how to be a person. All my life prior to leaving the education system people told me I was disabled, socially inept, dense, stupid and so on. None of it was true, all it took was a shift in perspective and the determination to work hard. If people tell someone they're disabled and they themselves believe it, then they will be. If they wield control of their own lives on the other hand, that reality is drastically different.

 

For anyone wondering, I sustained major frontal and parietal lobe damage as an infant resulting in very odd sensory issues as a child. For example, while I was going through the early stages of puberty any liquid touching my skin felt like it was boiling hot. Problems like that led to an autism misdiagnosis and the aforementioned misguided placements. It turned out alright in the end, all it took was a change in perspective and telling some "intelligent" doctors to stuff it. By the way if your child ever has neurological issues such as cloth feeling like gravel or something else bizarre. For the love of god go see a neurologist first, not a psychologist. The psychologists were wrong for years in my case, and all it took was simple scientific tests to find out the actual cause of my ailments. Furthermore if you must find a psychologist, find one with a growth attitude not an abiding one. Even in the case of genuine intellectual disability--unless extremely severe--the majority of behavioral and learning issues are environmentally caused or reinforced instead remedied.

 

Disclaimer: not grammar checking, it's late.


  • Pisiu369 likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#29
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I wasn't referring to downs syndrome individuals, who clearly do have a nature not nurture quality to their IQ. Even then, they can still function as independant adults with the right support.

I think you're overlooking the larger point I'm making on why eugenics is bad.

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#30
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

 

What you're proposing is a complete disregard for human life and a prioritization of preserving of resources over the preservation of life.
 

 

Replace the word "resources" with "profit" and you have a wonderful argument against capitalism. Just saying ;)


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#31
Jakob

Jakob

    Russian Bot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,814 posts

 

 

 

An outdated, false ideology that requires far too much big government and abuse of human rights to sustain itself.

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

The State has no right to regulate reproduction. There are very few legitimate purposes of a state.

 

It's up to the People to decide what is or isn't the legitimate purpose of their State. If they decide it is their State's right to regulate reproduction, we are in no position to stop them; only dissuade them. There are few reasons to infringe upon a nation's sovereignty, and they usually come down to whether that nation is going to infringe on yours.

 

A majority cannot take away the rights of a minority. For instance, the People could not vote to enslave a group of citizens.



#32
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

 

t's a much bigger human rights abuse to let a disabled people reproduces, and pass on his grieving into the next generation. Sterilising a genetically disabled individual is much better than letting that individual bring children into the world, only for them to suffer in pain and depression.

 

I understand where you are coming from.  you think we should have a perfect society, free of disability, and people who are not worth as much as you.  That would be great.  In fact, I recently read a great book that gave some great ways to achieve that.  It was called Mein Kampf by a great guy named Adolf Hitler.  I see you already are familiar with him, as one of his quotes is in your signature.  I think he would agree with a lot of your methods.  Euthanasia of the disabled, and generally lesser humans./sarcasm


  • Pisiu369 likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#33
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,266 posts

 

 

How could they achieve a potential? Tell me, what's the point of trying to teach a Down-Syndrome child with an IQ of 50? What good can such a person be?

 

 

They can love and be loved. Parents often express a profound and deep love for their Down-Syndrome child. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#34
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,266 posts

 

 

Acne is a long-term skin disease, a completely natural by-product of hormonal production, and it usually goes away after the individual reaches a certain age. Thus there is no need for sterilization, the problem solves it self, this isn't the same for other condition, Dwarfs don't magically grow up to normal size, and Down Syndromes don't suddenly regain a chromosome.

 

 

For just about any handicap or deformity that you can mention, it is far more likely that science will find a way to make that condition "go away" before society adopts your proposed solution.


  • Jakob and rennerpetey like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#35
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

 

How could they achieve a potential? Tell me, what's the point of trying to teach a Down-Syndrome child with an IQ of 50? What good can such a person be?

 

 

They can love and be loved. Parents often express a profound and deep love for their Down-Syndrome child. 

 

The ability to love doesn't imply potential. Just because someone can love another person doesn't mean that they are useful for society.



#36
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

 

 

Acne is a long-term skin disease, a completely natural by-product of hormonal production, and it usually goes away after the individual reaches a certain age. Thus there is no need for sterilization, the problem solves it self, this isn't the same for other condition, Dwarfs don't magically grow up to normal size, and Down Syndromes don't suddenly regain a chromosome.

 

 

For just about any handicap or deformity that you can mention, it is far more likely that science will find a way to make that condition "go away" before society adopts your proposed solution.

 

 

Yes and this is all in good order, genetic engineering is a form of eugenics, I'm all for it, if there are simpler ways to prevent disabled people from being born rather than sterilisation, I'd support it, but the fact is in our current form there is no way to prevent a Down-Syndrome birth except by terminating the fetus after a genetic screening.

 

The problem is you're saying "it is for more likely that science will find a way to make that condition "go away" before society adopts your proposed solution." The problem with this statement is you're (just like many other people on this forum) resting on the hope the technology will always be able to solve our problems, and the we'll magically find a solution through constant genetic research, science cannot ​fix or find out everything, and these cases might be one of those which science can't fix.  While right now we don't have the technology to make a condition "go away", it'd be better to just euthanize and sterilise people until we might develop the technology to make that possible. 



#37
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,266 posts

 

 

The ability to love doesn't imply potential. Just because someone can love another person doesn't mean that they are useful for society.

 

Love is the most useful thing that there is in society.

 

 

 

The problem is you're saying "it is for more likely that science will find a way to make that condition "go away" before society adopts your proposed solution." The problem with this statement is you're (just like many other people on this forum) resting on the hope the technology will always be able to solve our problems, and the we'll magically find a solution through constant genetic research, science cannot ​fix or find out everything, and these cases might be one of those which science can't fix.  While right now we don't have the technology to make a condition "go away", it'd be better to just euthanize and sterilise people until we might develop the technology to make that possible

 

While you are hoping that a decidedly dystopian form of social engineering will solve the problem.  Naive in the extreme. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#38
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

Love is the most useful thing that there is in society.

Yes, but only because Love results in procreation, and thus the preservation and continuation of the species, but this is not the case if someone is sterile, or if that someone will produce unhealthy offspring, which can only be a burden on society.

 

While you are hoping that a decidedly dystopian form of social engineering will solve the problem.  Naive in the extreme. 

Dystopian? A dystopian world would be one where everyone has genetic diseases because we failed to sterilise them and their weaknesses have infect the rest of the blood stream. I am not hoping that it will solve the problem, I know that it I will solve the problem, if implemented. What exactly in my opinion in Naïve? There are no other options than the ones I have listed above, other than waiting for some technological miracle to be able to make the condition go away.



#39
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,266 posts

 

 

Yes, but only because Love results in procreation, and thus the preservation and continuation of the species, but this is not the case if someone is sterile, or if that someone will produce unhealthy offspring, which can only be a burden on society.

 

Not "only because."  It has far greater use value that that.

 

 

 

What exactly in my opinion in Naïve? 

 

That the use of force will be welcomed by those who are the victim of that force.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#40
Pisiu369

Pisiu369

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

 

Not "only because."  It has far greater use value that that.

Such as? Love without procreation is entirely hedonistic in its' nature.

 

That the use of force will be welcomed by those who are the victim of that force.

 

I never said the use of force will be welcomed by those who are the victims of that force, the weak don't get a say in this at all. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Racism, News, Science, Discussion, Eugenics, Darwinism, Racial Superiority, Racial Inferiority

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users