[BeardFisher-King]

BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.

Wow, Wilshire. You completely missed the point of my post. Did I refer Tleilaxu's post for moderation? No. I was making a rather labored joke (of sorts) concerning the goal of pro-eugenics advocates to literally attempt to build better communities.

To repeat, I didn't refer the post for moderation.

[Wilshire]

BFK, you cry foul more than any kid on the playground. If you can't participate, please don't. I grow tired of babysitting you.

Wow, Wilshire. You completely missed the point of my post. Did I refer Tleilaxu's post for moderation? No. I was making a rather labored joke (of sorts) concerning the goal of pro-eugenics advocates to literally attempt to build better communities.

To repeat, I didn't refer the post for moderation.

Ha ha.

[BeardFisher-King]

Glad you finally got it.

[H]

Let's move on, no one did anything wrong.

[BeardFisher-King]

Let's move on, no one did anything wrong.

And the moral of this story, children, is: No joking about the Building Better Communities thread! Not even pointedly ironic jokes!!

[H]

And the moral of this story, children, is: No joking about the Building Better Communities thread! Not even pointedly ironic jokes!!

Meta-humor too meta.

On the actual issue that got us here, there is always the issue of human truths that turn out to only be true if we assume, at minimum, a several not-so-cut-and-dry "facts" and extrapolate from there.  Turns out when we begin in different places, we end up to further different ones...

[TLEILAXU]

And I'd probably amend any argument to include that tleilaxu, as the person arguing for such extremity, be the one to euthanize them.

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

As I said, sure, so long as you kill them. It would take a whole another thread to discuss abortion, methinks.

I'd have no problems with that to be honest.

Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.

I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.

I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?

Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.

First you have to define the definition of children.  At what point are they no longer a child?

Second, since you now brought in the issue of conscious, we need to tightly define it and be able to measure it.

Idk, we could set an initial cut-off at 6 months and go from there.

Third, there are people, like, Steven Hawking, who are wheelchair bound and do a fair amount of drooling (not only, of course) but are highly useful to society.  How do we know when someone isn't (won't be)?  See the second point here also.

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

[H]

Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

Right, it can be treated, so where do we grant a "right to life" or deny it?  What measure do we use for "treat-ability?"  In the same manner, where do we delineate consciousness?  Also, what if the outcome is not 100% guaranteed?  What arbitrary percent do we declare the cut off?

What are the moral (and ethical) implications of what we choose also and how do we navigate them?  It really is a quagmire...

Idk, we could set an initial cut-off at 6 months and go from there.

OK, but an arbitrary cut off is arbitrary.  Why not 5 or 7?  You see the issue then, right?

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

Sure, not exactly the best example, but lets consider the future.  Plausibly there could be a genetic test, before birth, that allowed his parents too know what his ultimate fate would have been.  Do we offer then the possibility of the life he had (has) or not?

Again we can answer simply, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a complex "problem."

[TLEILAXU]

Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).

Right, it can be treated, so where do we grant a "right to life" or deny it?  What measure do we use for "treat-ability?"  In the same manner, where do we delineate consciousness?  Also, what if the outcome is not 100% guaranteed?  What arbitrary percent do we declare the cut off?

What are the moral (and ethical) implications of what we choose also and how do we navigate them?  It really is a quagmire...

Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

OK, but an arbitrary cut off is arbitrary.  Why not 5 or 7?  You see the issue then, right?

Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?

Plausibly there could be a genetic test, before birth, that allowed his parents too know what his ultimate fate would have been.  Do we offer then the possibility of the life he had (has) or not?

Statistically speaking, your child is not going to be the next Stephen Hawking.

I think that without the shaming that comes with the "all life is sacred" attitude most people would probably be relieved if it were legal to euthanize e.g. children with cerebral palsy.

[TaoHorror]

H is correct from implementation perspective. Arbitrariness is quite the challenge to legislate; didn't seem to stop USA's forefathers, but nowadays it's tough with attempts at such getting tossed out in higher courts. You have to provide standing for the numbers you choose, they cannot be arbitrary or you enable damn near any argument against it to have legs.

That said, we are moving in TL's direction as a society. They test fetuses for abnormalities and parents are increasing their decisions to abort based on those tests. There are a few "hero" stories of parents swearing their child with cerebral palsy saved their lives by the incredible continuing effort in keeping their child alive, but a large majority break ( and quick ) and send their child to an institution. The rubber meets the road with parents who want to keep the child - don't think you can deny them even on grounds if they cannot prove their ability to support the child ( i.e. they don't have the financial resources themselves and would be relying on help from society, welfare, etc ). We're inching our way closer to allowing parents to euthanize their newborn if perceived "defective". It's alarming to many people's sensibilities now, but if you told a 19th century people that in 100 years the United States would be performing over 1 million abortions a year, they would collectively faint. I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.

Asperger

By the way, no more "Aspergers" or "PDD NOS", etc - it's all ASD now ( Autism Spectrum Disorder ); doesn't matter, just letting you know.

[TLEILAXU]

I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.

Keep in mind the probability that you will procreate if you have a mutation/congenital error that leaves you mentally or physically handicapped, such as cerebral palsy.

[TaoHorror]

I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.

Keep in mind the probability that you will procreate if you have a mutation/congenital error that leaves you mentally or physically handicapped, such as cerebral palsy.

Agreed, but could be in the future treatments render such individuals with greater capacity to contribute and one of them concocts a worm hole for interstellar travel ... can't source it, but I believe we've come up with useful innovations by developing aides for disabled people.

[H]

Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

OK, if we go with "whenever we want" how do we when someone has (perhaps) gone too far?  So, if the test says, "will be blind" is that "severe?"  What about deaf, "severe?"  Who gets to decide that?  And why?

Claiming moral certainty doesn't assure moral certainty is what I am trying to convey to you.

If the bar is set to "able to procreate" what should happen if some test said the child would be born sterile?  If it's "likely to procreate" how do we rate the statistical probability and what should the threshold be?

[Wilshire]

Not sure why ability to procreate is in here.

Honestly I think most leaps forward in scientific knowlege happened to be with children before they were adults - by today's standards at least.

Why not just start killing everyone that hasn't achieved Newton level of scientific achievement by the age of 16ish? That would solve a lot more issues than pretending like getting rid of a few kids who can't think good would solve anything.

Far, far more fully functioning adults that are more worthless than their genetically encumbered counterparts.

Maybe give everyone a flat 20 years. If you haven't done anything by then, its off to the oven with you. We don't need worker drones - we have actual drones for that. Too many worthless people taking up space, wasting valuable resources, doing things that don't matter.

Anyone who finds joy in doing any thing other than working should be killed too. Reading SFF? Dead. Playing video games? Dead. Gardening? Dead. In fact, why not just off everyone that not contributing to the technological singularity - let our AI offspring rule the galaxy and do the universe a favour and off ourselves in the process.

[BeardFisher-King]

This thread needs a new name.