[D'rek]

 Apt, on 11 May 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

People always think of Nazi doctors or similar advocates across the world when eugenics is brought up.

The truth is we already perform eugenics. People get tests and scans that reveal birth defects, diseases, genetic disorders, etc. In most cases like those abortions are performed and society as a whole is better for it. EDIT: Not to mention when we do invasive surgeries pre-natal. This isn't about the right to live, or the right to breed, it's about improving the quality of life both for child and parent. I think such procedures will only become more prevalent as the technology improves. And why not? Why not make designer babies as long as this is done across the civilization as whole. We'd have healthier, stronger, smarter children as a result.

The word "eugenics", it seems, can refer to a huge amount of different practices - anything that vaguely aligns with improving human health and is correlated with reproductive habits. Apparently just trying to discourage people from inbreeding is considered a form of "eugenics". The medical technology allowing us to do in-vitro fertilization, have sperm donors, abstinence-only education in Utah, tax credits for people with children, etc can all be considered a form of "eugenics".

So you're right, Apt, that even if the word itself causes many/most people to think of forced sterilization programs, there are many other forms of eugenics that are already having huge impacts on society without as much controversy.

Still, Alberta's eugenics program was indeed horrific and there are many other cases in other countries. As you say, medical ethics have changed a lot since then - now we are morally enlightened and can look back on those dark times, knowing we would never be so unethical. Except, people in the 60s didn't think it was unethical then, did they? So now we start a eugenics program that we think is vastly more ethical, and fifty years from now the victims of it will be looking back at us thinking they are so glad they are enlightened compared to our horrific morals...


Obviously, though, we do already consider some eugenics to be perfectly ethical and fine (or at least most people do) like egg/sperm donation, prenatal diagnoses, etc, while others are abhorrent to us. Where do we draw the line then?

I don't have an answer for that, though one aspect of it would be that most of the past programs we now consider terrible were government-mandated programs that forced eugenic choices on people, as opposed to merely having the medical option available and giving someone the choice of whether to use contraception, have an abortion, undergo pre-natal diagnosis procedures, etc.

[Aptorian]

 D, on 12 May 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Still, Alberta's eugenics program was indeed horrific and there are many other cases in other countries. As you say, medical ethics have changed a lot since then - now we are morally enlightened and can look back on those dark times, knowing we would never be so unethical. Except, people in the 60s didn't think it was unethical then, did they? So now we start a eugenics program that we think is vastly more ethical, and fifty years from now the victims of it will be looking back at us thinking they are so glad they are enlightened compared to our horrific morals...

This is the part where I am going to be a monstrous person and say that you can't make a stronger civilization with out crushing some human beings. Like wars teach us to not wage war because "the horror". In the same way the sins of the past has taught us that we need a strong code of ethics for doctors.

In a less provocative way I would argue that some times being afraid of what may come cannot be allowed to hold society back. But of course it depends upon what end of the spectrum of eugenics we're talking about here. Pre-natal care, preventive abortions, even designer genes I think are perfectly fine as long as the practice is not something reserved for the rich. On the other end you have castrations, sterilization and something like the Chinese One-Child program.

I think where eugenics becomes potentially ground breaking for society, is on the current fringe. Gene-therapy and genetic design, cloning, hell even synthetic life. If we do this, if we stop being afraid of what could be and instead look forward to what could come, I think these methods could fundamentally change us as a species. Instead of sterilizing a person because of the persons genetic make-up you could, hopefully with consent, go in and alter the persons eggs or sperm to not only remove potentially harmful genes but add or alter the genetic make-up to make the child healthier, smarter or you know, glow in dark, have poison glands and a tolerance for lactose. You could make the milk industry sponsor it.

This post has been edited by Apt: 12 May 2015 - 02:53 PM

[Powder]

This thread is quickly filling up with Win.

I particularly like D'reks comment about the evolving nature of subjective morality, and Apt's comment about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. I would say I am tempted to side with Apt (thanks to Herbert's Dune) about thinking past our own lifetime. I probably would not endorse a position that used a biological answer without also embracing a philosophical one. I do not think that Nihilism will lead our (global) society to a bright future. I do however think that a society which endorses love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control, would create a better world.

[Studlock]

@ Apt for the most part I agree with you--it's near impossible to escape the social template of whatever culture you're born into BUT I don't think the means people are unthinking about it. Or at least not most people. My biggest problem with's Marrk post was it saying, in deterministic terms, that the 'only' meaning in life are biological 'imperatives' which just simply untrue. People are more than, as I said, jellyfish. We are a thinking animal by nature (some might say we are the thinking animal). We are not only satisfied by material goods, or biological impulses, for the most part people want, and even need, something more, whether the be going to church every Sunday, or accepting the cold embrace of the void. But for the most part people, in public, or within themselves, create their own 'meaning' and by simply doing so marks that action, the thoughts happening, important and the opposite of futile.

As for eugenics I agree it's a tool but not all tools are made for all tasks. One can't fix society through breeding, one can't breed a more empathetic child for instance. I agree that is may be possible to eliminate some genetic disorders but I highly doubt it, it would need an incredibly invasive 'breeding' policy to be effective and hence something I'm highly against.

EDIT: also I'm all for planning for the future but I really don't think our problem is biological in nature--as a matter of fact I think we'll never 'perfect' the human body through genetics. Mutation happens, gene flow happens, natural selection happens. Plus as stated above I don't such a think could be implemented ethically, and across the globe. I think planning for a better future would mean fundamentally changing our societies to both be more empathetic and accepting, and changing it to better suit our environment.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 12 May 2015 - 03:15 PM

[Andorion]

Regarding Apt and Studlock's discussion over basic needs and cultural needs, I think both have a point. When your survival is at stake a lot of the things that seem important now evaporate. Sukanta Bhattacharya, a teenage Bengali poet who wrote during the horrific Bengal Famine of 1942 wrote:

"In the kingdome of hunger, the world is prose,
The Full moon looks like a burnt piece of bread"

(Sloppily translated by me)

On the other hand multiple times in history you will come across society where socio-economic needs and prosperity were not assured, and yet they took time out to answer cultural needs. I think culture is an inherent quality of the human mind. Where it is not present we try to form it. Only in the most extreme and bleak situations does this desert us.

Regarding Eugenics, I think the best and most relevant purpose it has today is to eliminate genetic disease. This needs to be done and it needs to be done now. Additionally It should not be confined to the rich, but made a fundamental right for all. However I am less confident about genetic therapy being solely responsible for making a perfect society. You an have healthy individuals but you need to teach those healthy individuals to interact with each other in a harmonious way. Our apttenr of existence for the foreseeable future is social, so social training and adaptation are a key part of what makes a person human and what makes a civilisation functional. Should we push the borders? Absolutely. But with our eyes wide open

[EmperorMagus]

 Maark, on 12 May 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

My response would be this: In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative. That goes for all life, as I see it. Eat, defecate, sleep, procreate. It's for us to impart meaning where otherwise there is none. Myself? I came to terms with the futility of it all a while back, and I've actually (and strangely) been a lot happier for it. Nihilistic? Perhaps. But then I identify as a misanthrope, so nihilism isn't too far away.

I'm really not interested in discussion regarding god but I felt the need to add something here.
Culture, the need to belong, and the need to not be alone are biological imperatives. Having a unique culture used to have direct survival value for people in the past. "Culture" has even been observed in animals. (source)
Culture is as much a part of our nature as eating and sleeping.
Furthermore, belief in god and other deities stems from a human need for belonging and companionship (IMO). Which are again, biological. You can't really come out and say our "biological imperative" is eating and fucking.

[Studlock]

Which why I like the term biological impulses which I feel describe the situation of humanity much better. Imperative suggests it must be followed at all cost and yet Jain's will starve themselves at a moment in there lives in which they think they are at the end of their cycle. Catholic priests will sustain from sexual impulses. Individuals will sustain from sleep to finish a school project. Other individuals with isolate themselves from their peers because of dislike or other reasons. Humanity clearly has a biological model in which it evolved to fulfill and yet time and time again it is not met for cultural reasons. I simply don't think humanity is as easily as described as a solely biological animal, cultural has a profound effect on our behaviour that can't be explain in terms of evolutionary biology or genetics. I think bad things happen when we ignore that truth.

[Maark Abbott]

 Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Your language, to me, is very deterministic:

'I subscribe to the fact (as I see it) that there is no purpose to life beyond reproduction.'--the word 'fact' despite the personal modifier threw me through the loop. Facts are empiricist back statements and not personal interpretations of life and ones place in it.

'In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative'--again, this is a very definitive statement.

I apologize if I came on strong, this dark, dark place known as the internet have made harden against such things.

I shouldn't need to add the caveat of 'my opinion is' to something I post onto an internet forum, a place where people exchange their opinions on things.

<div><br></div><div>

 EmperorMagus, on 12 May 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

<br>

 Maark, on 12 May 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

<br>My response would be this: In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative. That goes for all life, as I see it. Eat, defecate, sleep, procreate. It's for us to impart meaning where otherwise there is none. Myself? I came to terms with the futility of it all a while back, and I've actually (and strangely) been a lot happier for it. Nihilistic? Perhaps. But then I identify as a misanthrope, so nihilism isn't too far away.<br>

<br>I'm really not interested in discussion regarding god but I felt the need to add something here.&nbsp;<br>Culture, the need to belong, and the need to not be alone are biological imperatives. Having a unique culture used to have direct survival value for people in the past. "Culture" has even been observed in animals. (<a href="http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853901317367717" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">source</a>)<br>Culture is as much a part of our nature as eating and sleeping.<br>Furthermore, belief in god and other deities stems from a human need for belonging and companionship (IMO). Which are again, biological. You can't really come out and say our "biological imperative" is eating and fucking.<br>

<br><br></div><div>I can't speak for other people, but I've not much interest in culture or belonging. I'm generally happier when I'm by myself. Could just stem from the fact that I really don't like people, but that's a discussion for another topic as we're starting to drift now.</div>

This post has been edited by Maark: 13 May 2015 - 04:14 AM

[EmperorMagus]

 Maark, on 13 May 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

 Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Your language, to me, is very deterministic:

'I subscribe to the fact (as I see it) that there is no purpose to life beyond reproduction.'--the word 'fact' despite the personal modifier threw me through the loop. Facts are empiricist back statements and not personal interpretations of life and ones place in it.

'In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative'--again, this is a very definitive statement.

I apologize if I came on strong, this dark, dark place known as the internet have made harden against such things.

I shouldn't need to add the caveat of 'my opinion is' to something I post onto an internet forum, a place where people exchange their opinions on things.

<div><br></div><div>

 EmperorMagus, on 12 May 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

<br>

 Maark, on 12 May 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

<br>My response would be this: In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative. That goes for all life, as I see it. Eat, defecate, sleep, procreate. It's for us to impart meaning where otherwise there is none. Myself? I came to terms with the futility of it all a while back, and I've actually (and strangely) been a lot happier for it. Nihilistic? Perhaps. But then I identify as a misanthrope, so nihilism isn't too far away.<br>

<br>I'm really not interested in discussion regarding god but I felt the need to add something here.&nbsp;<br>Culture, the need to belong, and the need to not be alone are biological imperatives. Having a unique culture used to have direct survival value for people in the past. "Culture" has even been observed in animals. (<a href="http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853901317367717" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">source</a>)<br>Culture is as much a part of our nature as eating and sleeping.<br>Furthermore, belief in god and other deities stems from a human need for belonging and companionship (IMO). Which are again, biological. You can't really come out and say our "biological imperative" is eating and fucking.<br>

<br><br></div><div>I can't speak for other people, but I've not much interest in culture or belonging. I'm generally happier when I'm by myself. Could just stem from the fact that I really don't like people, but that's a discussion for another topic as we're starting to drift now.</div>

Bullshit.
Why do you have a fiancée?
Why are you on a forum talking with people?

[Maark Abbott]

 EmperorMagus, on 13 May 2015 - 05:13 AM, said:

 Maark, on 13 May 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

 Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Your language, to me, is very deterministic:

'I subscribe to the fact (as I see it) that there is no purpose to life beyond reproduction.'--the word 'fact' despite the personal modifier threw me through the loop. Facts are empiricist back statements and not personal interpretations of life and ones place in it.

'In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative'--again, this is a very definitive statement.

I apologize if I came on strong, this dark, dark place known as the internet have made harden against such things.

I shouldn't need to add the caveat of 'my opinion is' to something I post onto an internet forum, a place where people exchange their opinions on things.

<div><br></div><div>

 EmperorMagus, on 12 May 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

<br>

 Maark, on 12 May 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

<br>My response would be this: In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative. That goes for all life, as I see it. Eat, defecate, sleep, procreate. It's for us to impart meaning where otherwise there is none. Myself? I came to terms with the futility of it all a while back, and I've actually (and strangely) been a lot happier for it. Nihilistic? Perhaps. But then I identify as a misanthrope, so nihilism isn't too far away.<br>

<br>I'm really not interested in discussion regarding god but I felt the need to add something here.&nbsp;<br>Culture, the need to belong, and the need to not be alone are biological imperatives. Having a unique culture used to have direct survival value for people in the past. "Culture" has even been observed in animals. (<a href="http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853901317367717" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="nofollow external">source</a>)<br>Culture is as much a part of our nature as eating and sleeping.<br>Furthermore, belief in god and other deities stems from a human need for belonging and companionship (IMO). Which are again, biological. You can't really come out and say our "biological imperative" is eating and fucking.<br>

<br><br></div><div>I can't speak for other people, but I've not much interest in culture or belonging. I'm generally happier when I'm by myself. Could just stem from the fact that I really don't like people, but that's a discussion for another topic as we're starting to drift now.</div>

Bullshit.
Why do you have a fiancée?
Why are you on a forum talking with people?

I don't really view socialising as any sort of overriding imperative in life.

Anyway, going back to the topic (how rare for me of all people to drag discussion back to such) and away from pointless dalliances, there's a quote in Bakkake 3 that I felt worth adding to this post:

"One cannot assume the truth of what one declares without presuming the falsity of all incongruous declarations. Since all men assume the truth of their declarations, this presumption becomes at best ironic and at worst outrageous. Given the infinity of possible claims, who could be so vain as to think their dismal claims true? The tragedy, of course, is that we cannot but make declarations. So it seems we must speak as Gods to converse as Men."

[Grief]

Thread trimmed, I would use the Spanish Inquisition smiley but it really shouldn't be unexpected. We're not in the inn. Stay on topic please.

[Powder]

Would it be possible to get some clarification on what people consider Objective Knowledge and what is considered Subjective Knowledge? The more I read the more I get shifted into the uncomfortable position that there is no such thing as Pure Knowledge or Pure Reason (things which exist on their own). Instead I keep coming back to the idea that human experience and language taint/disrupt/distort anything which might be considered Pure Knowledge or Pure Reason.

[Aptorian]

A critical positivist (or is that a realist?) would tell you that the only thing that is objectively true, at least from a scientific perspective, is what you can weigh, measure or count. This is why God for example can not be scientifically proven to exist because there is no way to quantify or even observe the beings presence or behavior.

A radical (social) constructivist would tell you that not even the things you can weigh, measure or count are real. They are just figments of our minds understanding of the universe we exist within. Even the universe might not exist, it's just how our brain interprets its own existence. I am not writing this, you are. Or none of us are and this conversation never happened.

As a person who studied history I would tell you that from a hermeneutic perspective there is only what we enterpret. Hermeneutics mainly concerns itself with texts but really everything is about how you perceive the world, how the world is reflected in your understanding of the world and how you in turn are reflected in the world your perceive. Everything is subjective. Nothing is truly objective. You could ask a computerprogramme to spit out quantitative, completely personality free data and the data would still be subjective because a man made that machine and a man is reading the data.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted, God is a DJ.

This post has been edited by Apt: 19 May 2015 - 01:12 PM

[Studlock]

I think the divide between an objective truth and a subjective truth is more a realm of philosophy than science to be completely honest. I know most people like to think of science as a method that finds truth but if we look to the history of science we actually see it's a method of data collection that proves to be most useful at the time rather than what is 'true'. Science, as a quirk of it's continuing pursuit of knowledge, has been more wrong than right in the sense of what is true and yet that doesn't stop use from utilizing that knowledge to better (or worsen) the world. We went to the moon on what is now considered a flaw system to understanding physics. This gets more messy when considering social aspects of human society--what was useful ten years ago might not be useful now because societies change incredibly quickly in terms of demographics, social trends, and so on. Science never claims to be 100 percent correct, and probably never will, so the problem of claiming to be completely correct, I think, is the result of laymen understanding of concepts. At the end of the day you can ask five different physicists what gravity is, really, and you might get five different answers because while we have a general understanding of it (the rate in which acts on objects etc) we don't really know where it comes from, or how it works. We have mathematical models that are very close but there is always going to a little wiggle room there. Hell, we know some particles fundamental to the make up of our universe change behaviour when being observed so it's kind hard to a fully objective statement about whatever the hell is going on there.

I still think that's an objective truth though...you can use it to build shit that flies, or study it's effects on our bodies, or whatever. It has material effects. A subjective truth, for myself, is a truth made from interpreting the material world and impact on your own thought process. You can't be 'objectively true' about a movie for instance. You can make a very convincing argument about why your own subjective truth is closer to the 'truth' (to use forum history: Apt's enjoyment of the Transformers live-action movies--many people think they are bad, but Apt's not wrong in his enjoyment) than another but you can really say with as much certainty as you good with the rate in which gravity acts on objects, or the fundamentals of supply and demand. But I think someone like Gnaw might have more hardline argument.

EDIT: Typos galore.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 19 May 2015 - 01:19 PM

[Powder]

http://existentialcomics.com/ This website has lots of win on it and occasionally stars my favorite philosopher (Kierkegaard).

I think apt is going on towards what I am saying. I tend to get uppity when someone who has not thought about the philosophical underpinnings of what they are saying and the logical ramifications of such a position, who then goes around high-five'ing their bro's like they just solved a question which has been considered for thousands of years by scholars from every discipline who were unable or unwilling to give an answer which they and their bro's thought about and created in an hour collectively, an answer whose brilliance is so apparent it silences all opposition to their view of the truth (hence the high-fives).


Those who have actually engaged in the discussion thus far, thank you. I really do enjoy posts from different perspectives.

[Andorion]

My link

Just thought i would get thoughts on this article. Its on the subject of the recent survey inthe US that religious population is on the decline

[Maark Abbott]

 Andorion, on 24 May 2015 - 03:52 AM, said:

My link

Just thought i would get thoughts on this article. Its on the subject of the recent survey inthe US that religious population is on the decline

Specifically concerning the spirituality aspect being raised here: I don't really see the point in spirituality at all, but then that's largely because for me personally it holds no purpose. It's not something I need at all in my life to get by.