Liberal Eugenics

[The Liberated Territories]

Liberal Eugenics, also called "Libertarian Eugenics" and "Consumer Eugenics" is a fringe ideology within liberalism (more so the classical kind than the social kind) and libertarianism that advocates the use of modern advancements in technology in order to improve the human race. Unlike its fascistic predecessor, liberal eugenics stresses parents as individuals instead of state bureaucrats as being the ultimate authorities within a capitalist framework.

For example, some of the things Liberal Eugenicists advocate for include:

—As little regulations as possible as to not encumber the natural eugenic process.
—Little to no restriction on genetic engineering (including embryo selection and modification of its DNA)
—Little to no restrictions on when a woman can get an abortion.
—Likewise, prenatal screening as a consumer choice in order to prevent undesirable traits, from the cosmetic to the truly debilitating.
—Tax incentives as to encourage eugenic actions by parents.

Now I will admit that as someone who already endorses transhumanism, I have a secret soft spot for liberal eugenics. I abhor the human body in its current state, the rising obesity epidemic has significantly hampered our potential. And from a utilitarian standpoint, I believe there is immense potential in being able to get rid of obesity (for example, increasing brown fat cell count), reducing severe autism, eliminating Parkinsons and other late age ailments, and along with transhumanism significantly extending human lifespans. Of course I admit my viewpoint is an unpopular one and there are a lot of ethical considerations to debate before liberal eugenics can truly become a reality.

So what is your opinion on liberal eugenics? Do you think it is ethical or desirable outcome? I think it will be a reality as soon as the technology level advances to the point, like it did with modern surgery in the last 40 years.

[San Lumen]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

[New Emeline]

Are you talking about transhumanism or something else?

[Tinfect]

Transhumanism is not remotely similar to endorsement of motherfucking eugenics. You aren't leaning towards eugenics because you're a transhumanist, you're leaning towards eugenics because your ideology is foundationally unethical.

[Hakons]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Eugenics is not acceptable in any scenario. People with Down's syndrome are still people.

[New Emeline]

I personally don't think that things like human genetic engineering are unethical, but I think it would be dangerous to jump right in to it without further research. I also worry that this technology will only be available to the ultrarich, just making the divide deeper.

[The Liberated Territories]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

[New Emeline]

Transhumanism is not remotely similar to endorsement of motherfucking eugenics. You aren't leaning towards eugenics because you're a transhumanist, you're leaning towards eugenics because your ideology is foundationally unethical.

Yeah, I was thinking that too. Modifying existing bodies is different than saying who can and cannot reproduce.

[New Emeline]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

I mean, you could apply that line of reasoning to people beating their children.
I know you aren't saying that, it just sounds a bit like it. I would like to hear more of your argument.

[The Liberated Territories]

I personally don't think that things like human genetic engineering are unethical, but I think it would be dangerous to jump right in to it without further research. I also worry that this technology will only be available to the ultrarich, just making the divide deeper.

30 years ago cosmetic surgery was also "for the rich," but now it is widely available to the middle class. I don't see that as an issue, as long as government stays out of the way.

[San Lumen]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

No they should not. The biological process should be allowed to play out. In theory you could use it to get rid of certain skin colors or LGBT.

[Kartofian]

Sounds like communist infiltration. Where's McCarthy when you need him?

What is man? He is by no means a finished or harmonious being. No, he is still a highly awkward creature. Man, as an animal, has not evolved by plan but spontaneously, and has accumulated many contradictions. The question of how to educate and regulate, of how to improve and complete the physical and spiritual construction of man, is a colossal problem which can only be conceived on the basis of Socialism. We can construct a railway across the Sahara, we can build the Eiffel Tower and talk directly with New York, but we surely cannot improve man. No, we can! To produce a new, "improved" version of man- that is the future task of Communism. And for that we first have to find out everything about man, his anatomy, his physiology, and that part of his physiology which is called his psychology. Man must look at himself and see himself as a raw material, or at best as a semi-manufactured product, and say: "At last, my dear homo sapiens, I will work on you."

But in all seriousness. Many people have had fantasies about "improving" the human race - through spiritual uplifting, channeling chakra, quantum woo, eugenics - didn't make the world better one bit. If we are talking about social, or in this case socio-genetic, engineering then it needs judged from the perspective of improving the human condition. Is weeding out all the "undesirable" traits really the way to do it?

And then there is the issue of wealth inequality, oh boy. That promises to be fun.

[Aclion]

Transhumanism is not remotely similar to endorsement of motherfucking eugenics. You aren't leaning towards eugenics because you're a transhumanist, you're leaning towards eugenics because your ideology is foundationally unethical.

So do you oppose abortion on demand or are you just reacting to the word eugenics?

[Aillyria]

Eugenics is wrong no matter who is practicing it.

[Albrenia]

I'm opposed to anything which involves purging the imperfect or sterilising the genetically impure. Although sterilisation is ok if it is a person's willing choice, obviously.

As for choosing and/or altering embryos, I don't have any huge objections to it, despite the fact that as a disabled person I do recognise that this means I probably wouldn't be alive under those sorts of conditions.

Is it ethical or desirable? That's a tough one that I can't really answer.

Will it happen? Almost certainly.

[New Emeline]

I personally don't think that things like human genetic engineering are unethical, but I think it would be dangerous to jump right in to it without further research. I also worry that this technology will only be available to the ultrarich, just making the divide deeper.

30 years ago cosmetic surgery was also "for the rich," but now it is widely available to the middle class. I don't see that as an issue, as long as government stays out of the way.

I don't want the government screwing around with humanity either, but what makes you think corporations will behave any better?

[San Lumen]

I'm opposed to anything which involves purging the imperfect or sterilising the genetically impure. Although sterilisation is ok if it is a person's willing choice, obviously.

As for choosing and/or altering embryos, I don't have any huge objections to it, despite the fact that as a disabled person I do recognise that this means I probably wouldn't be alive under those sorts of conditions.

Is it ethical or desirable? That's a tough one that I can't really answer.

Will it happen? Almost certainly.

Its completely unethical nor should it be desirable.

[Kramanica]

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

No they should not. The biological process should be allowed to play out. In theory you could use it to get rid of certain skin colors or LGBT.

What's wrong with screening out transgenderism and saving people a lifetime of suffering?

[The Liberated Territories]

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

I mean, you could apply that line of reasoning to people beating their children.
I know you aren't saying that, it just sounds a bit like it. I would like to hear more of your argument.

Well it is clear that the parents who beat their kids don't have the kids best interests in mind. But I don't think you can compare the two. The state intervenes when their is violence, but this does not count as such. So long as no ill intent is involved, shouldn't parents have the benefit of the doubt?

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Eugenics is not acceptable in any scenario. People with Down's syndrome are still people.

but if you could edit or swap the genes that cause it would you?

[Albrenia]

I'm opposed to anything which involves purging the imperfect or sterilising the genetically impure. Although sterilisation is ok if it is a person's willing choice, obviously.

As for choosing and/or altering embryos, I don't have any huge objections to it, despite the fact that as a disabled person I do recognise that this means I probably wouldn't be alive under those sorts of conditions.

Is it ethical or desirable? That's a tough one that I can't really answer.

Will it happen? Almost certainly.

Its completely unethical nor should it be desirable.

If you've the time, could you explain your reasoning? I'm honestly of two minds about the issue, so your input would be appreciated.

[Chikotsu]

Eugenics is only acceptable to eliminate debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or Down's syndrome. it should not be used for anything else.

Why not? Shouldn't parents have a choice in what their children look like? It's their kids, not your kids.

They aren't _their_ kids though, not really. And that's really quite close to the crux of the matter.

[San Lumen]

No they should not. The biological process should be allowed to play out. In theory you could use it to get rid of certain skin colors or LGBT.

What's wrong with screening out transgenderism and saving people a lifetime of suffering?

And what's wrong with letting the biological process play out? How do you think a generation would feel if we could get rid of whatever causes gay and lesbianism and those people knowing they'd be the last? I think there would be a huge amount of discrimination. There might even be pressure to have children be certain tones so there is no racism.

[San Lumen]

Its completely unethical nor should it be desirable.

If you've the time, could you explain your reasoning? I'm honestly of two minds about the issue, so your input would be appreciated.

The biological process should be allowed to play out. If a children is to be born gay or be mixed race so be it. We have no right to interfere.

[Estlobies]

In theory, this is excellent. All it does is for general benefit and quite effective in such. However, to consider the matter pragmatically, you need some good old regulation and modification to make it work.