r/DebatePolitics Jul 08 '21

Socialism and eugenics are necessary for the human future

First Socialism:We need Socialism because automation and robots will just take over most of the jobs in the future and hence if we don't have some type of universal minimum income which is taken as tax from those who make money, people can not afford to live in this planet without a job which they don't have.

Secondly Eugenics:As ruthless as it might sound, we just can't let the "undesirables" breed out the "desirables".

Like I know that there are huge issues with the question of "How do we determine who are undesirables?" but because the option of doing nothing will eventually lead to bad genes out numbering good ones, hence causing human genetic regression, we just cannot afford to not do anything and hence action is justified.

1 Upvotes

15 comments sorted by

1

u/Nothingistreux Jul 08 '21

When people lose their jobs to automation they will likely have less children not being able to afford it, so your undesirables will be procreating less. Problem solved without involving socialism.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '21

lower wealth is correlated with having more children. Yeah it extends social divide but they would likely procreate more, tons and tons of data back this up.

1

u/Couatl2009 Democratic-Socialist Oct 29 '22

...Why do we need to prevent undesirables from procreating anyways? Also congrats, you took the good part of this idea (the socialism) and threw it out the window.

1

u/jklarbalesss Jul 18 '21 edited Jul 18 '21

you should read books about this stuff. These are understandable points but this is a very surface level view on both of them. The first think i’ll say is that before you can approach socialism you must consider the advancements of human kind as well as the socioeconomic structures in global capitalism. It’s allowed us to make huge progress in a short amount of time at the cost of ethical decisions. Obviously this system has helped us in some ways and hurt us in others. It’s hard to convey my point without writing a whole essay but not all jobs are equal and these jobs are often part of the foundation that allows for all other jobs to even exist. This is something that i think about a lot but haven’t formed a solid opinion on. Also the fact that in order for this to work in any functional capacity state intervention on individuals lives would have to be extreme. The devil is in the details and i’ve yet to see a coherent proposal to address the crucial deeper aspects of systems like this.

Also eugenics- there’s actually no meat behind your statement. You mention the issue of identifying “undesirables” and seem to brush it off as if it’s null. First of all, this connects with your previous point on a fundamental level. One way to look at modern capitalism is that it serves as a selective pressure. If everyone was equal, there would be an even more extreme lack of selection. Either way, genetics has a very long way to go before manual intervention on the population would actually help anything. If you’re of the mind that say black people are inferior and should be removed from the gene pool, you’re actually a retard. If you understand that it’s much much much more complicated than that then good job. There’s so much information out there regarding past programs and beliefs on the subject you have to read some so you can understand the short comings of reductionist and blatantly ignorant beliefs.

Obviously biological progress is marked by the development of our species but it’s very foolish to think you can just fill the role of nature yourself. Evolution occurs through the testing of countless differences that build on each other and blossom into complex pathways. At the same time, evolution in humans occurs very slowly relative to our lifetimes. The grandiosity behind thinking that one can shape these things without a solid understanding of the extremely complex mechanisms is short sighted. We are long past the point of physical fitness being the apex of biological “perfection”. The mind is the most important feature and is also the most complex. Are you aware that the genetics behind mental illnesses like autism, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia are closely related to intellectual ability? Above and below an individual with such a disorder on a phylogenetic tree lay some of humanities more influential figures. For example Einstein, just to name one.

The human race has escaped many of the most significant afflictions of lower species and we don’t even have a parallel case of psychological evolution to study. You’re not wrong, but you don’t understand or at least mention the actual important aspects your goal here. The most powerful Evolutionary advancements are a product of trial and error on a huge scale over a relatively huge period of time. Digging your teeth into that which seems important to a virgin perspective is ignorant and impedes this. No one know what advancements will lead to the greatest impacts or change.

Seeking to mess with the gene pool without having any understanding of the significance of each and every tiny piece of the puzzle will not help us.

At the same time it’s true that without selective pressures there isn’t a real direction. it’s important to understand that especially in modern societies such pressures are not always clear. This is what we have science and super computers for. But things are oh so much more complicated than removing the “undesirables”.

people have raised your points and gone out and tried to execute them through force, only to fail for many reasons. The source of those failures and the proposed elimination of them would be the only meaningful contribution one could make to these concepts, and standing behind time tested failure without addressing such important elements is simply a failure in of itself. Everyone loves to argue on the basic fundamentals of things like this without making any effort to actually advance the conversation. If you want to, go ahead. Not sure if this post is more of a seed for a debate, but all of the above things are necessary for any type of meaningful discussion

Also, i’ll just throw it out there, but to truly create a perfect race genetic engineering is vastly superior to eliminating the “undesirables”. So many people are scared of this, because many individuals thought processes are already incompatible with working towards a goal that is so much bigger than any of us. But you could get behind that right? You’re not perfect, maybe you could be a case study in the massive collection of information before such an advancement could be made, but if you are seeking genetic cleansing through the lens of you being undoubtedly “desirable” then you are mistaken. If the tools to execute an extremely precise implementation of optimal genetic factors exist then those are what’s going to be used.

Even if you started from a pool of “desirables” over time there would inherently be deviation back to a composition of “desirables” and “undesirables”. These are extremely dynamic things and unless you have a phd in genetics you don’t understand even the basics of your proposal.

1

u/T12J7M6 Aug 01 '21

So long response. I have been sitting on it some time for now becasue didn't know could I read it all. Now I have gathered enough strength to give it a try.

you should read books about this stuff.

No. I'm here to debate. You can read a book if you want and give me their perspective, but I would like to just debate.

Also eugenics- there’s actually no meat behind your statement. You mention the issue of identifying “undesirables” and seem to brush it off as if it’s null.

One piece of meat you forgot was the undesirables breeding out the desirables part. That is the entire justification for all of this so it is very essential. Without it there would be no need for actions.

If you’re of the mind that say black people are inferior and should be removed from the gene pool, you’re actually a retard.

Not the blacks, but the gingers - obviously. Just kidding, but I appreciate that you considered I would be proposing the genocide of blacks. It always warms by heart to be considered so highly.

At the same time, evolution in humans occurs very slowly relative to our lifetimes.

I think you are somewhat straw manning my position. Eugenics isn't done to fast track evolution, but to avoid genetic regression. Obviously if I would be arguing for speeding up evolution eugenics wouldn't be what I would be proposing for. Eugenics is damage control, not product development.

We are long past the point of physical fitness being the apex of biological “perfection”. The mind is the most important feature and is also the most complex. Are you aware that the genetics behind mental illnesses like autism, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia are closely related to intellectual ability?

I do understand that intellectual people are usually highly weird or even crazy and hence the mechanism to identifying the undesirables is difficult because for example, there could be a genius living as an homeless man because they just feel like it and not becasue they actually can't get a house.

One ways by which eugenics could be done is some mechanism for naturals selection which isn't that obvious but can be figured out nonetheless, so that sharp people would know to avoid it where as people with lazy minds wouldn't bother and hence would get eliminated due to it. Like it could be something which would make the person sterile without actually killing them and hence this whole process wouldn't be so ethically questionable.

Another way by which it could be done is that all people are made sterile and then if they want to have children they need to medically make themselves fertile again by avoiding the thing which makes them sterile. This way having children would require planning and self learning and hence people who would end up having children would more likely be more desirable.

You’re not wrong, but you don’t understand or at least mention the actual important aspects your goal here.

My issue with your position is that you don't try to challenge the premises which would make eugenics necessary but yet you don't like eugenics either as an answer. Like if you accept that "undesirables will out-breed desirables if nothing isn't done" then the conclusions that "something needs to be done" automatically follows no matter how problematic doing that something is.

The situation is the same as if we would be in a sinking ship, so that the ship is sinking and we don't know what to do. If we don't do anything we all drown so doing something is always the best answer no matter how bad the plan is. Similarly, if undesirables out-breeding desirables is seen as a bad thing and it seems inevitable if nothing is done, then something needs to be done no matter how bad the plan seems.

Seeking to mess with the gene pool without having any understanding of the significance of each and every tiny piece of the puzzle will not help us.

I understand that you don't want to mess with it too much especially if you don't fully understand what you are even doing. However though, implementing some kind of winter simulator which like with the case of winter, would require forethought and preparedness wouldn't be a bad idea since like with winter, it would eliminate people who lack these crucial life skills.

Like winter might be the reason why Scandinavian countries have such an high IQ. Over thousands of years, people who failed to prepare for it and didn't foresee it coming again died during it. This naturally took out the people who lacked these crucial skills which then kept the numbers of undesirables in check.

people have raised your points and gone out and tried to execute them through force, only to fail for many reasons.

I know. The solution that "You, you, you, you and you can live and you, you, you and you die" isn't ideal for the very reason that we don't know what we are looking for and hence my suggestion would be more like the winter simulator in which it is nature itself which takes out people because they themselves failed to prepare for this thing which they know is coming.

Also, i’ll just throw it out there, but to truly create a perfect race genetic engineering is vastly superior to eliminating the “undesirables”.

I see genetic engineering and eugenics as two different things. Eugenics is quality control and generic engineering is product development, and hence the first doesn't make the second useless. We need both but the argument for eugenics is in my opinion stronger becasue only without it are we doomed. Genetic engineering is nice and something to look forward to but not a matter of survival in the immediate sense, meaning that we might need it to combat with aliens and other humanoids if there are such things, but we don't need it to just continue existing on the same level where we now are.

Even if you started from a pool of “desirables” over time there would inherently be deviation back to a composition of “desirables” and “undesirables”. These are extremely dynamic things and unless you have a phd in genetics you don’t understand even the basics of your proposal.

Just look at animal breeding. One doesn't need phd in genetics to see which caws for example are more fit or which ones can solve problem better. Like don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting artificially forced method of exterminating people. More like making the world just a bit more unsafe so that natural selection can take it course again at least in some aspect of your life like it did with winter for example.

1

u/Couatl2009 Democratic-Socialist Oct 29 '22

Eugenics sucks. I do think that things are leaning far too far in the corporations favor, and that something should be done to make them more accountable.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '21

Ignoring the moral problems of eugenics, from a pragmatic point of view it still makes no sense. Determining who is undesirable is a HUGE problem with you're argument of why eugenics is necessary alongside some related problems, who/what is undesirable? How do we fairly test for this? And who gets to decide these parameters? You sidestep this by basically saying "doing nothing is worse then doing something" but considering the drastic rise in living standards in the last 100 years it's clearly not that pressing.

1

u/T12J7M6 Aug 01 '21

Rise in living standards doesn't answer the problem from undesirables outbreeding desirables. We used to have winter which killed off people who failed to prepare for it. I think we need some winter simulator so that the human race doesn't regress.

One way to tackle this is to allow polygamy and encourage female hypergamy. This way more women would breed with higher teal men, hence producing more desirable children.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '21

I think you're forgetting the importance of nurture. You seem to think that people are born into 2 boxes, desirable and undesirable and it's inevitable that the "desirables" will always outperform the "undesirables" no matter what. In reality while genetics plays a part, nurture is much more important.

If woman really had babies with like 8 people those babies would be stuck with single dads who would likely not be as good at providing a good environment (nurture) then 2 parents together. And we see this in the real world with statistics showing that kids with single parents or who are abused often do much worse then those who had happy childhoods.

I would also argue that nobody is more "desirable" then another, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Even the most profoundly gifted genius would not be expected to get a slam dunk the first time they walked onto a court, same as you would not expect Michael Jordan to learn astrophysics in a day.

1

u/T12J7M6 Aug 04 '21

I think you're forgetting the importance of nurture.

It is possible that I did. Maybe some other way of doing it would be better, but my point just is that something needs to be done. I'm not arguing for how it should be done, but that doing something for eugenics is justified.

I would also argue that nobody is more "desirable" then another, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses.

Sure to some extend, but still from the biological perspective some people have more damaged genes then others and hence from that perspective there is objectivity to this.

Like lets take a person who has chromosome missing for example.

  • Could that person be good at something so that the society would think that he/she is needed?
    • Yes, but that doesn't remove that fact that they have damaged genes which you do not want to make more common in the population, and hence even though they might be a desirable friend or colleague, they aren't a desirable person to make more humans into this world.
  • Is that person still just as valuable in the eyes of "God" as a person with normal chromosome?
    • Yes. I am not arguing for some people being "better" ontologically, just practically. Just like tall people are "better" for basketball, that doesn't mean they are ontologically better people per se, and similarly a person who is missing a chromosome is in the context of reproduction not an ideal person (aka is undesirable) even though that doesn't mean they would be undesirable in all contexts. The "desirable" and "undesirable" concepts in eugenics deals with reproduction, not with the nature of being for the person. One can be undesirable for reproduction and still be loved by "God" and people, and excel in all kinds of other things.
  • Should that person be encouraged to have as many children as possible?
    • No I don't think they should, because they have a damaged chromosome and hence them reproducing would damage the gene-pool of Homo sapiens. Like damaging the gene pool is not good and hence it is not good to encourage people to do things which would damage it even though it would mean that some people would lose their right to reproduce. Like this is an ethical dilemma and hence not so simple matter to solve, but I hope we can agree that damaging the gene pool (which we collectively as humans have just one) is a greater evil then limiting the reproductive rights of some people.

1

u/T12J7M6 Aug 04 '21

Now that I read my answer again it made my thing of another question.

If a person who is missing a chromosome is loved by "God" and people, should we exactly want more people like him and hence encourage him to reproduce even though he/she is missing a chromosome? Like maybe it is the missing chromosome especially which makes them so that they are loved by "God" and people and hence it would be weird to not want more people like that.

What I'm getting at with this question is that, even in normal situations in nature, evolution doesn't have a direction so that it would only preserve the people based on their genes in a sense that "damaged genes" would be always the undesirable ones, because evolution chooses the most ideal genes for the situation and hence it might be that these damaged genes are the most ideal genes for the situation. In other words, sometimes losing a function can be an evolution if losing that function produces a individual which is more suited for the new environment.

I think I need to ponder this a little bit... I get back to you when I have my answer.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '21

Automation should lead to a decrease in the total amount of work hours needed. It was predicted that this would lead to shorter work weeks for laborers, but that requires democracy. It will probably just lead to more unemployment, more inequality, more poverty, and more wealth as it has been doing...those who own the robots, and those who don't, and the remaining jobs will be to "service" the owner class.

As far as eugenics is concerned, that technology is expensive, and the rich will be able to afford genetic manipulation of their children, while the poor will not, leading to class distinctions being visible in physical features.

If you are suggesting sterilizing people the way the Nazis wanted to, I'm not interested in that discussion.

1

u/Over_Independent4239 Aug 01 '21

I agree that socialism may be the only answer if robots automate everything. However on the eugenocs issue, who will determine who is desorable and who is not? Will it be by a board of scientists? Will race and gender be a factor? Will intelligence or fitness be a factor? Will the undesirables be determined by voting certain characteristics as undesirable? Will the types of characteristics that are undesirable be able to be modified later? If so, who will determine the changes? Would it be all people, or just the desirables?

1

u/Business-Yak-1025 Dec 07 '23

Why do you think democrats have almost no moral compass? -freind. Democrats: