The Philosopher's Gazebo

[Ironbound]

"Question Everything"

"Why?"

Welcome to the Philosophy Club, the little alcove wherein one can find a respite from the rapid eddies of life's daily toils; a place where one can think and question, answer and learn, purely for the sake of the thought itself. This is a place of discussion and of debate, of opinion and of introspection, of free thought and of the exchange of ideas, a place to exercise the mind.

The basic premise of this place is to talk, quite simply, about any topic that captures one's attention. I was part of a rather fascinating discussion involving, among other things, the subjects of children and parenthood, eugenics and cloning, dictatorships and democracy, and all things in between, back in the in the Ask the Next Person a Question thread of the Onyx Arcade a day or two ago. I felt that such topics needed a place of their own to be discussed heartily.

This thread works similar to the arcade one, but it is very lax in its functioning. Any contributor may ask a question or state a view about any topic that comes to their mind, provided it is not better suited in another place of this forums, and provided it pertains to the world at large and can fall within the ambit of a general discussion. Any subsequent contributor may answer, counter, or otherwise continue any previous topic, should it catch their fancy, or may start a discussion of their own. In short, it is not necessary for one to answer the previous post.

RULES

The reason this is in the Trainer's Journal is because it can be personal with its topics or with the views one may proclaim, and because i would like to throw open the halls of thought to all and any who wish to participate, provided they remain pertinent, civil and respectful of another's comforts, opinions or differences.

This is a place of discussion, even debate, but not of argument. However, it is inevitable that people may disagree and even be disturbed by the ideas of another, and so, the best we can do as people is to moderate our tongues and minds to broach such topics maturely. To those who may be unable to accept another's statements, the remedy is to simply ignore it and continue on a new tangent.

While any topic, however trivial or however controversial, can be initiated here, please bear in mind to be pertinent. A topic that can better be started in another part of the forums is not suitable here. The scope of this thread is naturally broad, and hence it is difficult to state what is and is not truly 'philosophical', but as long as it evokes critical and rational thought, it is welcome.

We're all guilty of it at some point, but it's not great fun to be a philosophaster, that is, pretending to have a greater knowledge of a topic than one actually does. No one is a know-all, and no one should think to be one or feel bad for not being one, for both are an impossibility.

A request to contributors to please quote or reference the excerpt they are responding to, if they are not immediately prior to their own. Since it is possible for one to pick up any previous topic, even if it were several pages ago, it would be confusing for any subsequent contributors to follow. If the excerpt is too big or cumbersome to encapsulate in a quote, it will suffice to provide a reference to the post number (reply number) of the post which one is responding to. This is not a compulsion if it is a direct response to an obviously ongoing topic, or if it is an answer to an immediately preceding post, but it would be easier to categorize if a reference could be provided.

And there it is. Let the talk begin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a start, to carry on the last interesting Arcade question, what do you think of eugenic research and genetic customization as a notion?

[Ironbound]

Reserved for future archiving, if need be.

[Raindrop Valkyrie]

This is more for... my knowledge later down the line as I don't have anything philosophical to posture now, but... a lot of my short pieces that I write in the Creative Writing are big question or I suppose my own philosophical musing on a topic through a creative medium. I'm wondering if It's alright of me to you know use those as fuel to a Philosophical discussion I suppose.

I ask moreso because of a lot of my postulation and thinking comes in the form of writing. As I've said before writing to me is like second nature, it is as breathing is to me. So, a lot of my thinking is done in the form of displacing it from my head onto paper or some form of text. I just want to know if that's cool before I randomly link something to talk about at some point etc... and I'd be thinking it's best whirl this thread is young to ask as to not disturb those using it for it's intended purpose.

[Ironbound]

As I said, the 'intended purpose' is to talk and discuss in any way one pleases. If your chosen form of contribution is in your writing, then by all means, it is welcome.

There may be many points of similarly between the eventual scope of this thread and your musings, but while the latter can elicit responses both of the topic and of your literature in general, this will focus mostly on the topic at hand. Consider it a consolidation, if you will. Feel free to link your works here, and expect a response here about the topic at hand, while a response about your work or the style theoreof can be expressed there. For instance, if I feel that a picture conveys a thousand words, and link a drawing of mine here to substantiate a point, I can expect a discussion about the subject here and my artwork and associated criticism there, back in my art thread. You needn't worry about a duplicity of effort.

[Raindrop Valkyrie]

I of course, I realize that just don't want to seem like I'm advertising or anything etc... ((since I'm not it's just a lot of how I discuss things personally, and I'f I've written it, I dunno why I'd write it again XD. I do realize it would be for discussing the philosophy or the topic said piece presents, moreso then the piece itself.))

Thanks for answering so quickly~

[Zargerth]

Eh, I can't see how anyone would support eugenics as a whole. Killing off people with (minor) undesirable traits is dubious from an ethical point of view. To me this seems to be the "only the strong survive" type of mentality.

What kind of genetic manipulation did you have in mind? I mean, as long as it's done in order to cure diseases, I can't see any harm in it.

[Maelstrom]

Eh, I can't see how anyone would support eugenics as a whole. Killing off people with (minor) undesirable traits is dubious from an ethical point of view. To me this seems to be the "only the strong survive" type of mentality.

What kind of genetic manipulation did you have in mind? I mean, as long as it's done in order to cure diseases, I can't see any harm in it.

That really depends on your definition of eugenics. Sex/breeding is a choice. One does not need to kill off other peoples in order exclude their genes from the pool.

Dog breeding is its own study in genetics/eugenics, when you really get into it.

You can point, click, and buy parts to make your own ideal computer. When applied to human DNA, why are you suddenly so reticent? There's another topic about this sort of stuff that I could link you to if I wasn't feeling so lazy. It even referenced a CoD game. If you could empirically improve upon something, even your descendants... why wouldn't you? And not just diseases. Why wouldn't you want your kid to have, say, improved reflexes, react faster to anything?

Forewarning to all: if I argue or push a point, don't assume I agree with it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I just wish to incite a certain line of thought. I want to see what you can come up with.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

I don't know enough about the topic itself to have a discussion about it as a whole, but in response to the point about people wanting to have the best computer but being hesitant about applying it to humans: humans and machines are sometimes treated differently, so it's understandable if someone doesn't always apply the same logic to a person they would to a machine.

Example: sometimes when people get frustrated at a machine, they kick it or throw it. Most people wouldn't kick or throw a person just because they're frustrated with them. If someone does so with a machine most of the time people would just think "You need to calm down", but with a person, it's assault. Also, when a machine stops working, it's not as huge a deal as when a person does. You can get a new computer or a new phone or a new PS4. But when someone's child for example stops functioning, most parents wouldn't just think "Oh well, I can always have another kid" and move on with life as usual.

That being said, wanting to weaken or get rid of diseases doesn't sound like a bad goal to me. The problem is if someone wants to continue the Nazis' work or something similar.

[Felicity]

Could a dolphin love a whale?

Why is there a command to "Reply to this topic" above this reply box?

Can dragons breathe fire by simply screaming to the point where the vibrations cause combustion?

How many licks does it take to get to the centre of a lollipop? Where would you consider the centre to be if you included the stick?

and most importantly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrBDcQq2DM

[Ironbound]

A Dolphin can love a whale; depends on your definition of love, too. If love is defined as compassion and responsibility, then yes, it has been shown that dolphins, being the more intelligent of mammals, can exhibit extraordinary care, such as towards humans. Although generally dolphins are hostile towards other species of cetaceans, and bully smaller ones (in Orcas' cases, actively eat other cetaceans) they can theoretically love another.

And if we think sexually, there are instances of aggressive, aroused male bottlenose dolphins who tried to have intercourse even with human divers! I wouldn't put even a small whale, say a minke or a fin, beyong the cavorts of these hormone-charged casanovas.

I can't answer why the structure of this forum is as it is.

I always assumed dragons contained an organ that produced a bilious, liquid-nitro type fluid. This burned when it was belched up and spat; thus dragons breathed Fire by belching up a combustible liquid/gas.

The last question's answer depends on the size of the lollipop, the dexterity of the tongue lucking it and the number of shots the person actually gave to record the instance.

[Halloween]

okay this is way more than 1-2 hours later, but lets bury ourselves deep into this shithole

There's a lot of talk in this area about drawing lines – diseases are ok, but don't fuck with appearance being the most common one, but that's pretty easy to say but in theory less likely to happen.

As a lowest point above zero, don't play god, don't fuck with nature, yadda yadda, we have parents with a high risk of passing down inheritable diseases. Say there's a 75% chance their kid is gonna have a severe disease of some kind. I mean they could adopt, but no, they want their own for some reason - afraid they won't be able to connect as well with an adopted child, maybe. So they wanna pick out an egg with none of that bullshit attached. Or they know that they will only pass down the disease to girls, so they want a boy so he won't have to deal with it.

But if we let them pick eggs, we should let normal couples pick out healthy spawns, 'cause where to draw the line? Older couples have a highly increased risk of birthing children with some kind of deficiency, and otherwise we have to set out some kind of percentage – sorry, only 15% chance your kid will have a disability, you don't get to pick, go home – which leads us to some fucked-up system there best way to birth healthy kids is to carry the genes for a disease yourself, and where parents around 35-40 wait extra long with having children, because two more years means they can guarantee a healthy one.

Which brings up the next line, increased healthiness. Science isn't quite there yet, but theoretically – instead of just picking the best egg out of ten, you pick the best egg, and then you make it even better. You reduce aging, take away addictive personality traits, give them low blood pressure, fast metabolism and reduce the rate of hormone-provoked depression. And here's where the class issues really start – obviously, a treatment like this will cost money, so we will get a society where wealthy parents give you an even bigger advantage in life. We're also getting into a "building a army" kind of thinking.

I'm not getting into full-on cyborgs or even further mods, like increased brain connections here, so the final step is custom appearance. Here's where a lot of people balk; because it's remarkable similar to what a certain man with a terrible taste in facial hair wanted – breeding, blonde, blue-eyed children with triangle waists and legs like Naomi Smalls. The thing is, sorry, you can't draw a line here, the ship has sailed and you have to stand on the harbor and watch diversity disappear on the horizon.

Purely scientifically, hair color, eye color, that stuff is easy. If you're going to dig into a person's DNA and fix their future sleeping habits, checking however they'll inherit their mothers drenched rat esthetics isn't gonna be a problem, we can already do that. So if we wanna stop people from checking that stuff, we need to outlaw it, and we can't. Sure, maybe it'd work in the US and Europe, but that just means people will go to Thailand and do it, and trust me, Thailand wouldn't definitely not outlaw it, their economy relies on tourism, and a lot of that tourism comes from people that goes there to do plastic surgery much cheaper than elsewhere – this isn't a huge step away and their government is fucking insane anyway.

And even if we don't change anything about the eggs, and just pick one, once this becomes a bigger capital market, there will be a competition between companies, how much they can tell you about your future baby will be a selling point for the companies. Of course appearance will be included.

My stance on the whole thing thou, is a big fat "don't worry about it".

We're still decades away from this becoming common practice, and once it does become common, sorry to say, but first of all, plastic surgery will most likely be cheaper and more readily available for anyone middle class and up anyway, some gives their kid a big nose or not, it won't matter. We do need to fight unrealistic beauty standards, but not by banning scientific process. As for skin and hair color – that follows trends. I'm not trying to argue against racism, racism still very much exists, and there will probably be black couples that want a kid with lighter skin to give that child an easier future, but I really really doubt that anyone will start actively mass-breeding an aryan race through science labs, I mean, those kids would still need parents among about a hundred other issues.

The class question is more important, but I don't think we shouldn't try to increase healthiness because some can't afford it – I mean, should we stop making prosthetic limbs because they're expensive as fuck? We might even actively need to make humanity healthier through scientific means, if we keep going as we are...

No, I think the real question is a moral one. We're playing god here, speeding up evolution. No one knows what drawbacks decreasing aging genes will have in a hundred years, because we can't wait that long to try it. Like, even I that wanna give my potential future son or daughter as many he or she can possibly wouldn't want to fuck with their appearance, and I don't even know why – I know that there's a lot of doors opening to people with a conventionally attractive face, but it doesn't feel right so I don't know.

And, I was on about this a bit in the Ask the next person a question thread too, but if Viri brings up the same topics he'll have to deal with the same answers, again it directs attention to traits which I frankly find overrated. I have no doubt that children with be called "better" if their parents have thrown out a fucking buckload of sweet cash to make them so. "Better", as if a persons value is based on physical appearance, intelligence or whatnot. I don't think science will find a way to make people more optimistic, unique, hard-working or blithesome. And to be honest, I don't even think they're trying.

[Ironbound]

Well said. I too will make a disclaimer, that initiating a topic here does not necessarily mean that I agree with all that it says. Needlessly playing the devil's advocate is not my intention, but it may still be noted, as I said in the introduction, that this place is for thought for thought's sake; we're merely woolgathering.

I broadly concur with weenie about the line between eugenical research for the sake of medical advancement and, to a point, for the betterment of the human genome quintessential to the continued existence of our species as a whole. The issue arises when we go beyond trying to cure our problems (physical and mental) and try to gild the lily, so to speak.

I may or may not ask the same questions here as back in the arcade. I will expect the same responses from weenie, but my reason for doing so will be to expose such topics to everyone in one place, this being more appropriate.

We may as well continue. I'll remind our contributors that they can continue with the previous topics or start their own as they please, regardless of me posing a new question.

What is your opinion on children and parenthood, both positively as a fact of life today and normatively, as you think it ought to be?

[Halloween]

'morning Viri

Could you clarify that question, please?

[Ironbound]

It can't be simpler. What do you think of children and parenthood as a concept, and, if you choose to view it that way, as a personal opinion.

[Halloween]

the typos of my post above... well, people will probably just tl;dr it anyway

Ooh, I read it as the circumstances of being a parent today (positively as a fact of life today), and how I would like to change about those circumstances politically (normatively, as you think it ought to be), but I had a feeling I was off, since I can't imagine many here possess the full scope of the parental experience. Thank you.

I don't know what to say. Kids are great, but as sad as it sounds to say, I've put more thought behind genetic customization than children. As an active choice even; it's very hard for me to think about getting children without immediately connecting it to getting a life partner, a stable job and so on, all which I feel depressingly far away from. Especially if homegal doesn't want kids, which I don't think she does, so I might need to find someone else for that.

And I said in the other thread, the prospect of becoming a parent is terrifying. I'm not a stable person, and having children... I don't doubt that when I get a child, I will love it unconditionally, but I'm scared that it won't be enough, and that I'm sooner or later will regret tying myself down and then proceed to take it out on the kid.

There's also a whole lot more pressure to get children than it should be. C'mon, aren't we overpopulated enough?

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

So, I am a kid. Specifically, I have a condition where I stopped developing, making me a kid forever. For that reason, it always makes me very uncomfortable when people talk about how much they hate kids, even though they're usually referring to ones half my age or younger.

It's fine to not want to have kids. I wouldn't want them if I were able to have them. But I feel like outright hating is going a bit far. I wouldn't say it's on the same level as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. because people who hate kids ~95% of the time don't harass or attack them, they just avoid them as much as they can, which is pretty much what some introverts do with people in general. But they still hate a group of people for something they have no control over and make generalizations about that group.

For parenthood, I've always thought there should be tests to determine whether people should be able to parent. Here are some people who I think shouldn't be able to:

-alcoholics or people who have some other kind of major addiction that gets in the way of daily functioning

-people who have a history of anger issues/outbursts (MAYBE they can be considered eligible if they haven't had any recent ones and there's reason to believe they've changed)

-people who wouldn't accept their children if they were LGBT+ (it's fine if they would still love them despite not approving, I'm talking ones who would for example beat their kids, throw them out on the streets, or make them go through some kind of "conversion" exercise)

[Ironbound]

I agree. The enormity of bringing a child into the world can't be overstated, and I will repeat the sentiment I shared at the arcade in that only those who genuinely want and can place the needs of another before their own, and are prepared to go to any lengths to that extent, should be parents by definition.

Personally, although there's a goodly number of years for that, I adore kids and would most certainly have 'em. I agree with weenie in the sense that parenthood of any kind cannot be considered unless one is able to provide for them in a way which inspires self-confidence, i.e., having a stable career and resources, etc.

And as for the overpopulation question, that's beyond any individual. Some people unfortunately do not see the importance of family planning, or are driven by poverty to sire more hands which can help eke out a living, but in my view that should be no reason for one to avoid parenthood if one is otherwise desirous and able. One can always be content with a single ward, after all.

To broach yet another subject, where do we stand on the question of governance? What is your opinion of the way the world is being run, without particular reference to any one country, and where do you see it going? Do you believe any of us can have an impact? What do you wish to do or not to do with that regard?

[Zargerth]

That really depends on your definition of eugenics. Sex/breeding is a choice. One does not need to kill off other peoples in order exclude their genes from the pool.

Dog breeding is its own study in genetics/eugenics, when you really get into it.

You can point, click, and buy parts to make your own ideal computer. When applied to human DNA, why are you suddenly so reticent? There's another topic about this sort of stuff that I could link you to if I wasn't feeling so lazy. It even referenced a CoD game. If you could empirically improve upon something, even your descendants... why wouldn't you? And not just diseases. Why wouldn't you want your kid to have, say, improved reflexes, react faster to anything?

Forewarning to all: if I argue or push a point, don't assume I agree with it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I just wish to incite a certain line of thought. I want to see what you can come up with.

This argument is either overly simplistic or I cannot follow the train of thought behind it.

Why would you bring up dog breeding? From what I understand, it's more about "genetic customization" than "eugenics". Eugenics has two goals: to strengthen the pure/better pool of genes (positive eugenics) as well as diminish/get rid off worse/contaminated pool of genes (negative eugenics). I don't see modern dog breeding doing either, it's done for aesthetic reasons. You see, many dog breeds today suffer from illnesses and infections their ancestors - for the lack of better word - didn't, or at the very least, modern dog breeds are more likely to get ill - this is a direct consequence of dog breeding. You can still support dog breeding, though (even though there are dishonest dog breeders as well, like puppy mills). I did mention "eugenics as a whole": while it can be argued whether dog breeding is eugenics or not, eugenics aren't limited to dog breeding only. In fact, I believe it's most often associated with people. I don't think dog breeding and people breeding are (directly) comparable.

Sex/breeding is a choice, I agree. However, for the sake of it let's assume that a community of 100 people decide they won't breed. Assuming that they lived up to this, the whole community would eventually disappear. This can happen with families as well. Everyone can choose (at least in theory) whether they want to breed or not, but not doing so could eventually result in the whole family dying. If done because of eugenics ("I have bad genes, I won't breed"), this could be seen as voluntarily killing off people with worse pool of genes.

Edit: I forgot to mention that deciding not to breed can't really be considered "ethically dubious". However, segregating people because of their genes can be considered such. Let's say in my family there's an increased probability to get some sort of cancer. Should I be allowed/not allowed to breed, even though I carry a worse pool of genes?

I would very much like to see the day I could go and pick genes for me and my children like I was grocery shopping. I just think that's not how it works, even if it was possible.

I could be way off here, but like I said, I found it difficult to follow the train of thought behind your argument.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Zargerth

[Halloween]

For parenthood, I've always thought there should be tests to determine whether people should be able to parent. Here are some people who I think shouldn't be able to:

-alcoholics or people who have some other kind of major addiction that gets in the way of daily functioning

-people who have a history of anger issues/outbursts (MAYBE they can be considered eligible if they haven't had any recent ones and there's reason to believe they've changed)

-people who wouldn't accept their children if they were LGBT+ (it's fine if they would still love them despite not approving, I'm talking ones who would for example beat their kids, throw them out on the streets, or make them go through some kind of "conversion" exercise)

I think this a dangerous kind of thinking, because there's no practical execution of it. Either we'd have to regulate when people are allowed to have sex, or we'd have to take out preemptive action. Are we gonna castrate people when they look for help with addiction? That'll just make people not look for help.

Or will we abort the kids if someone who doesn't fulfill the requirements gets pregnant? Even if that person does have a history of violence, they're still a person, and a forceful abortion of a wanted child is bond to fuck with someone.

Finally, even if I agree that people that believe homosexuality are inherently wrong are completely unfit to be parents, I don't think we should withdraw basic human rights from anyone. We should fight the system, create better educations and representation in media so that the following generation doesn't grow up to be as narrow-minded as the previous one, but we shouldn't attempt to take away rights from then, 'cause then we'd be just as bad.

I agree. The enormity of bringing a child into the world can't be overstated, and I will repeat the sentiment I shared at the arcade in that only those who genuinely want and can place the needs of another before their own, and are prepared to go to any lengths to that extent, should be parents by definition.

Personally, although there's a goodly number of years for that, I adore kids and would most certainly have 'em. I agree with weenie in the sense that parenthood of any kind cannot be considered unless one is able to provide for them in a way which inspires self-confidence, i.e., having a stable career and resources, etc.

And as for the overpopulation question, that's beyond any individual. Some people unfortunately do not see the importance of family planning, or are driven by poverty to sire more hands which can help eke out a living, but in my view that should be no reason for one to avoid parenthood if one is otherwise desirous and able. One can always be content with a single ward, after all.

Yes, I did not mean to say that people that doesn't have the minimum founding for a future of their child shouldn't have any kids – even wealth is, after all, something very relative, and no one should be deprived of the right to get them – what I mean is that there's a significant pressure on most young people to have children, regardless of financial situation or a person's will. And that's something incredibly dangerous in today's society, because it's a lot more dangerous for a kid to not have the love and attention they require than to not have the money.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

I think this a dangerous kind of thinking, because there's no practical execution of it. Either we'd have to regulate when people are allowed to have sex, or we'd have to take out preemptive action. Are we gonna castrate people when they look for help with addiction? That'll just make people not look for help.

Or will we abort the kids if someone who doesn't fulfill the requirements gets pregnant? Even if that person does have a history of violence, they're still a person, and a forceful abortion of a wanted child is bond to fuck with someone.

Finally, even if I agree that people that believe homosexuality are inherently wrong are completely unfit to be parents, I don't think we should withdraw basic human rights from anyone. We should fight the system, create better educations and representation in media so that the following generation doesn't grow up to be as narrow-minded as the previous one, but we shouldn't attempt to take away rights from then, 'cause then we'd be just as bad.

I was picturing when it's known there's a kid, the doctor gives the tests. Basically it's paperwork, where they're given questions with check boxes and they fill in the one that matches them for each question. No one would be forced to abort whether they pass or fail.

Also, if someone seeks help with addiction, that would make them one step closer to being eligible to be a parent. But if their addiction is to the point where it would get in the way of being a parent and they'd spend more time drinking (just an example, people can be addicted to literally anything) than with their kids, that's not a good environment.

I don't think it would be "just as bad". It's true that it would be taking away rights from them, just like they don't believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. But the difference is that same-sex couples marrying harms no one, while homophobic people having kids harms those kids if they happen to be LGBT+. Again, I'm not talking about people who would still love them even if they disapprove of homosexuality. I'm talking about ones who would beat their kids, throw them out, or make them go through some kind of "conversion" ritual. Oh, speaking of conversion, I also just remembered about anti-vaxxers and their bleach enemas. They shouldn't be able to have kids either.

Both of the above examples with addiction and homophobia fall under what you said about it being dangerous for kids to not get the love and attention they deserve. Parents with addiction wouldn't give them attention. Homophobic/transphobic parents wouldn't give them love if they didn't happen to turn out how they wanted. Anti-vaxxers would give them and possibly others preventable diseases.

I'm not sure where you live or what parenting laws are like there, but here there are situations in which parents can be considered legally unfit to parent and have their children taken away from them. In what I'm describing, it's the same except it happens before the kid is born, not after the kid has been neglected or mistreated for years.

There are problems with this that I didn't consider when I made that post, though. For the test I imagined, I'm sure some people who the tests would consider unfit would just lie about their answers, and no one would know until something bad ends up happening. From what I've heard, a lot of alcoholics think they don't have an addiction and that they can just quit any time, so as far as they're concerned they're telling the truth. And many homophobes would just think "No son/daughter of MINE is going to be gay" because they think it's a choice that they can prevent with religious parenting, so they'd lie and say yes to become a parent because they don't consider it as a possibility.

[Maelstrom]

This argument is either overly simplistic or I cannot follow the train of thought behind it.

Why would you bring up dog breeding? From what I understand, it's more about "genetic customization" than "eugenics". Eugenics has two goals: to strengthen the pure/better pool of genes (positive eugenics) as well as diminish/get rid off worse/contaminated pool of genes (negative eugenics). I don't see modern dog breeding doing either, it's done for aesthetic reasons. You see, many dog breeds today suffer from illnesses and infections their ancestors - for the lack of better word - didn't, or at the very least, modern dog breeds are more likely to get ill - this is a direct consequence of dog breeding. You can still support dog breeding, though (even though there are dishonest dog breeders as well, like puppy mills). I did mention "eugenics as a whole": while it can be argued whether dog breeding is eugenics or not, eugenics aren't limited to dog breeding only. In fact, I believe it's most often associated with people. I don't think dog breeding and people breeding are (directly) comparable.

Sex/breeding is a choice, I agree. However, for the sake of it let's assume that a community of 100 people decide they won't breed. Assuming that they lived up to this, the whole community would eventually disappear. This can happen with families as well. Everyone can choose (at least in theory) whether they want to breed or not, but not doing so could eventually result in the whole family dying. If done because of eugenics ("I have bad genes, I won't breed"), this could be seen as voluntarily killing off people with worse pool of genes.

Edit: I forgot to mention that deciding not to breed can't really be considered "ethically dubious". However, segregating people because of their genes can be considered such. Let's say in my family there's an increased probability to get some sort of cancer. Should I be allowed/not allowed to breed, even though I carry a worse pool of genes?

I would very much like to see the day I could go and pick genes for me and my children like I was grocery shopping. I just think that's not how it works, even if it was possible.

I could be way off here, but like I said, I found it difficult to follow the train of thought behind your argument.

You have not followed my train of thought because you haven't really thought through the implications and complications of breeding, genetics, etc.

Dog breeding is essentially eugenics in a nutshell: specifically choosing what traits to pass down in a conscientious attempt to make the offspring better for a specific purpose.

Fact: many dog breeds, if not most, are plagued with diseases, most of which are genetic in nature. Inbreeding, etc.

Clearly, breeding and eugenics can be far more subjective than objective. Sickle cell patients are far more resistant to certain diseases than normal people but it has its own downfalls. Don't you think something a person designed by another could have its own inadvertent downfalls? Have you ever seen the movie Gattaga? Would you willingly and knowingly design the future of humanity to be necessarily susceptible to certain diseases? Did you decide it was worth that risk? Did someone else? What qualifies them to make that decision?

When in comes to humanity, what defines a good person, a strong person, a gentle person, a wise person, etc? How much of that is in their genes? How much of that is in the environment of their raising? As a person given leadership, how do you recognize these traits in other persons? You have your own ideas and ideals. Each and every other person has theirs. Who decides who is more correct?

How often have we seen an imbalance in people? Socially retarded but scientifically exceptional? And vice versa? Random chance and diversity goes hand in hand. How much do we have to learn before we can decide empirically what are the best and worst genes to have?

Hell, I recently saw a movie trailer that hints at this conundrum. It is called The Accountant. Define normal. Define advantageous. Is it absolute or circumstantial?

How do you feel about replacing your organic limbs or organs for artificial ones? How much advantage would they need to have for you to consider them. What kind of inherent weaknesses or limitations would they have?

If you replace organic mechanisms and senses for mechanical ones, how much importance does genetics have left now?

There are a lot of important questions to be asked, to include those I have and have not thought to ask. Do you really think you've thought of everything, every time? Have you never had an expectation come out wrong?

There are few absolutes and certainties in life or nature. I highly doubt you have thought of them all. I highly doubt everyone would deem you qualified to make that decision for yourself, much less for anyone else, or everyone else.

So many desire power. So few truly understand the kind of responsibility it entails. Or what it would mean to discard that responsibility entirely.

[Maelstrom]

Double post, but I believe the import of this passage to be relevant and worth another post to bring it attention.

"What is the true source of magic? Is one born with it in the blood, as some dogs are born to follow a scent while others are best at herding sheep? Or is it a thing that may be won by any with the determination to learn? Or rather are magics inherent to the stones and waters and earths of the world, so that a child imbibes abilities with the water he drinks or the air he breathes? I ask these questions with no concept of how to discover the answers. Did we know the source, could a wizard of great power be deliberately created by one desiring to do so? Could one breed for magic in a child as one breeds a horse for strength or speed? Or select a babe, and begin instruction before the child could even speak? Or build one's house where one might tap the magic where the earth is richest with it? These questions frighten me that I have almost no desire to pursue the answers, save that if I do not, another may."

[Halloween]

I was picturing when it's known there's a kid, the doctor gives the tests. Basically it's paperwork, where they're given questions with check boxes and they fill in the one that matches them for each question. No one would be forced to abort whether they pass or fail.

Also, if someone seeks help with addiction, that would make them one step closer to being eligible to be a parent. But if their addiction is to the point where it would get in the way of being a parent and they'd spend more time drinking (just an example, people can be addicted to literally anything) than with their kids, that's not a good environment.

I don't think it would be "just as bad". It's true that it would be taking away rights from them, just like they don't believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. But the difference is that same-sex couples marrying harms no one, while homophobic people having kids harms those kids if they happen to be LGBT+. Again, I'm not talking about people who would still love them even if they disapprove of homosexuality. I'm talking about ones who would beat their kids, throw them out, or make them go through some kind of "conversion" ritual. Oh, speaking of conversion, I also just remembered about anti-vaxxers and their bleach enemas. They shouldn't be able to have kids either.

Both of the above examples with addiction and homophobia fall under what you said about it being dangerous for kids to not get the love and attention they deserve. Parents with addiction wouldn't give them attention. Homophobic/transphobic parents wouldn't give them love if they didn't happen to turn out how they wanted. Anti-vaxxers would give them and possibly others preventable diseases.

I'm not sure where you live or what parenting laws are like there, but here there are situations in which parents can be considered legally unfit to parent and have their children taken away from them. In what I'm describing, it's the same except it happens before the kid is born, not after the kid has been neglected or mistreated for years.

There are problems with this that I didn't consider when I made that post, though. For the test I imagined, I'm sure some people who the tests would consider unfit would just lie about their answers, and no one would know until something bad ends up happening. From what I've heard, a lot of alcoholics think they don't have an addiction and that they can just quit any time, so as far as they're concerned they're telling the truth. And many homophobes would just think "No son/daughter of MINE is going to be gay" because they think it's a choice that they can prevent with religious parenting, so they'd lie and say yes to become a parent because they don't consider it as a possibility.

I think I understand you a little bit better now, but I still take issue with this – the concept is valid, but the execution would cause more problems than it would solve. Starting with the obvious – it's not just that some people would lie, no one in their right mind – or at least no one that really wants a kid – would write down on a legal paper that "I'd beat my kid" or "I'm an alcoholic" if they knew the circumstances, and logically, well, they would know the circumstances.

To want a child, for me, is like an subconscious urge. I know I'm in a terrible position right now, but a friend of mine recently accidentally got pregnant (not by me, although we're pretty close), and like... I almost jumped at the chance, despite that she's spent most the last year on a mental institution and is in an even worse position than I am. People would go far to be able to have kids on their own.

Which brings us to other methods of checking this – criminal records, records of AA, enlistment in churches, 'cause let's face it, homophobic douchebags are almost always homophobic douchebags because they think their religion tells them to be. If someone knows that their record might get their child taken, they might not go to a doctor, or worse, not search for help for a problem they have, which endangers the child further.

In the case of people with a history of violence, I also feel like we'd be handling out punishments before a crime has been committed, which is never a good thing, especially if we'd go after criminal records in a justice system that look like America's.

But I do think child abuse, especially against lgbt children is a serious problem, and there are things schools, pre-schools and kindergartens could do better. We need to talk to the kids. Early. Talk by people outside the education system, so that schools in suburban Florida can't make their own, "remixed" version of the children should hear. I'm of the opinion that sexual education should start as early as 3, just explaining the concept of lgbt and genitals - no birds and bees, just "this is your penis/vulva, and if anyone touches it when you don't want to, here's what you do", because that's a proven defense against pedophiles. At a similar age, explain abuse and neglect, what it looks like, and how to report it if any child suspects it for either themselves or their classmates. Abuse and neglect are unfortunately things that are very hard to completely prevent, especially in a large country. Few people know they're going to be an abuser or a neglectful parent.

We need better protection laws. I cannot believe that Leia's law still isn't legislated despite reading pretty much; "don't electrocute children, fuckmunch". Protective custody if your parents don't approve of your sexual or gender orientation. It's such basic decency in those things that it gets me so fucking pissed that it doesn't go through.

As for the anti-vaxxers, that's not something they should sign a paper on – it should be a legal requirement for all kids to get vaccinated, and failing to turn in your child should be classified as child abuse. No doubt they have other stupid opinions that might make them less than ideal parents, but if we're really going there, then I'd like to suggest a much simpler solution – castrate Donald Trump supporters.

[Maelstrom]

I'm down for castrating donald trump supporters, but what real, rational explanation would you give for trampling on people's rights to believe and/or choose whatever they wish?

What does it take to be considered criminal, insane, etc? Actions and beliefs are two separate things. Justification is a tricky business.

If it wasn't, racism would either not be a thing anymore or it would be THE thing.

Even if you trust yourself to make the right decisions if given ultimate power, how would your successor be chosen and theirs after that in such a way that the answer is clear? Would you simply appoint someone and trust their judgement and continually trust whoever they chose beyond them? Or do you leave specific qualifications behind you. Does that make you a tyrant or a person who strictly listens to the people you govern? Because doesn't the consideratopm of others make you fit to the rule the masses? And what about those times when you feel the masses are being incredibly stupid, such as liking and accepting music by Justin Bieber? seriously, wtf, the dude is a douchebag. But SAO is perfect in every way, you peons.

because listening to the masses makes you a democratic/republic leader, even if it is stupid, and forcing beliefs on others, despite the masses, makes you an inconsiderate a-hole dictator with no thought for the happiness and well-being of the masses. because what they want is always well thought out and in their best interests.

kappa

These people have the freedom to listen to and believe what they want to, and act upon this as they choose, barring certain basic rules against killing for no reason, monopolies, etc.

To preserve freedom for yourself, you must preserve it for it for others too, whether you agree with it or not. How often has the masses been correct about a thing? How often have they not?

Again, I say unto you whippersnappers... you don't truly understand what it means to have freedom, to preserve it, or to disregard it. Few of you have ever thought... what if you were wrong, and what it would take for the body of people you are ruling, to make you see you are wrong.

How do you define the balance. To yourself and to others?

Power. Responsibility. Ethics. It is all incredibly complicated.

[Ironbound]

Ah, I'm happy that when I awaken in the morning I am greeted by birdsong and complex discussions on this page. Beats Sudoku and the less cryptic crosswords anyway.

While we're on the topic, I'll throw in another question: there's increasing possibility of us colonizing Mars. Tesla's chappie, Elon Musk, even went so far as to suggest dropping a nuke or two over Mars' poles to 'stabilize' temperature and induce climate change. What's your view on the thing, as a concept, as a possibility and from a moral angle or whether or not to actually do it?