Should science embrace eugenics again?

Originally posted by @eladar
What we have today are just the super rich. What they need are prettier and smarter people to tell what to do.

Sounds like they are in control and should make good decisions for building the master race, men like Dawkins, Mr. Science. We should trust them.

He sure beats Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Originally posted by @whodey
Who in their right mind does not want a master race?

I am in my right mind and I do not want that. For starters, a society of homogeneous people would be extreeeemly boring.

But more importantly, most of what we have learned about how evolution works demonstrates that diversity is necessary for survival. Anecdotally, we have known for centuries that inbreeding is problematic in many important ways. It reduces individual fitness.

Advances in mankind come through the generation of new knowledge. It cannot come from the selective breeding of traits that we perceive to be "superior." Dumb idea to be honest.

Originally posted by @whodey
So you are in?

Note that Eladar is, just like you, a CHRISTIAN who does NOT believe evolution.
Two of the kind.

( From a latter post; )

Mr. Science.

Actually, just like you, he REJECTS much of modern day science because it proves his religious beliefs wrong.
Two of the kind.

We should trust them.

We do NOT 'trust' scientists in particular, at least not much more than most other arbitrary groups of people, such as redheads or dentists.
You seem to have the perennial completely idiotic moronic delusion that we all agree with every word/opinion any scientist expresses; nothing could be further from the truth and I and many others including other scientists disagree with Dawkin on certain specific points.
+ Scientist are strongly disagreeing and arguing with each other ALL THE TIME and BOTH on scientific matters and on political/social matters.

Originally posted by @whodey
LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human ...[text shortened]... hat the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.

If you ask enough of the right questions you can get anyone to admit that if you could prevent a birth defect by genetic modification it would be unethical to decline.

Is that eugenics though? I always thought eugenics meant selective breeding and nothing more. Genetic modification seems to be outdating eugenics if eugenics is not GM. Define eugenics.

If you could prevent your child from getting a fatal hereditary disease using GM would you do it? Would you support passing a law doing it for ethical reasons?

Some states here in the USA passed laws against first cousins getting married. Is that eugenics? I could argue that it is and that it is unethical.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I am in my right mind and I do not want that. For starters, a society of homogeneous people would be extreeeemly boring.

But more importantly, most of what we have learned about how evolution works demonstrates that diversity is necessary for survival. Anecdotally, we have known for centuries that inbreeding is problematic in many important ways. It re ...[text shortened]... from the selective breeding of traits that we perceive to be "superior." Dumb idea to be honest.

" Anecdotally, we have known for centuries that inbreeding is problematic in many important ways. It reduces individual fitness."

That depends on how close the inbreeding is and how many generations that inbreeding takes place.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Originally posted by @humy
Note that Eladar is, just like you, a CHRISTIAN who does NOT believe evolution.
Two of the kind.

( From a latter post; )

Mr. Science.

Actually, just like you, he REJECTS much of modern day science because it proves his religious beliefs wrong.
Two of the kind.

We should trust them.

We do NOT 'trust' scientis ...[text shortened]... ing with each other ALL THE TIME and BOTH on scientific matters and on political/social matters.

When have you ever heard me talk about evolution?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
If you ask enough of the right questions you can get anyone to admit that if you could prevent a birth defect by genetic modification it would be unethical to decline.

Is that eugenics though? I always thought eugenics meant selective breeding and nothing more. Genetic modification seems to be outdating eugenics if eugenics is not GM. Define eugenics ...[text shortened]... ould argue that it is and that it is unethical.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

All good points. At some point, I'm sure the state will step in and mandate such eugenical mandates, that is the problem. Abuses will then occur and all backed by science.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
" Anecdotally, we have known for centuries that inbreeding is problematic in many important ways. It reduces individual fitness."

That depends on how close the inbreeding is and how many generations that inbreeding takes place.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Please read articles before posting them. This doesn't provide an accurate rebuttal to what I said. A-n-e-c-d-o-t-a-l.

Inbreeding depression is very real, in that it consistently decreases organismal fitness in a wide cohort of species. The mechanisms are well established and concrete.

Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231599/

Originally posted by @whodey
When have you ever heard me talk about evolution?

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/is-our-planets-size-and-distance-coincidental.174346/page-2#post_3792327

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Please read articles before posting them. This doesn't provide an accurate rebuttal to what I said. A-n-e-c-d-o-t-a-l.

Inbreeding depression is very real, in that it consistently decreases organismal fitness in a wide cohort of species. The mechanisms are well established and concrete.

Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231599/

You have falsely claimed I did not read the article. I have read. I read it many years ago.

Loss of heterosis is real. No doubt about it, but this is common. Out crossing will restore heterosis and is also common. It is often referred to as hybrid vigor.

Like I said, it all depends on how close the inbreeding is and how many generations the inbreeding takes place. Inbreeding is not some horror that always results in horrible results. Inbreeding is necessary to fix certain characteristics into the gene pool of domesticated plants and animals. Without it breeding plants and animals would be very inefficient. Look up "F2 instability"

Your perception of inbreeding bad, outcrossing good is overly simplistic and based on ignorance. There are certain downfalls to inbreeding for sure. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Rothschild inbred line fixed greed and apathy into the gene pool. That would explain their perverse lust for power. BTW, who owns the stock shares in your country's central bank? They will not tell you? Why do you think that is?