Conversation on Eugenics (FAQ thing)

me: hii wrote the following to someone on aardvark: you asked me about autism earlier. well, i supposedly have asperger's myself, and there is an expert who deals with me in relation to that, and the main question i'm trying to investigate with her is exactly the one you mentioned; namely, whether it is an impairment or not. if it is an impairment, of course that means that people with it are undeserving of life, but then what about confirmed autistic cases in which there is great talent and/or high intelligence? my viewpoint is that it is not autism itself that impairs people but mental retardation, and that the two need to be dealt with separately. that way, autistics may or not may deserve to live, according to their real competences, just like any other human being but not written off as a group.

  i wanted to ask what do you think about this.

 theclawofz: hm

undeserving of life?

  I think that's a little extreme. Are we to suggest that all people who suffer from mental retardation are undeserving of life?

 me: i thought that was obvious already

mental retardation is not a good thing, not for themselves, not for society.

  we would be doing a favor to them. win-win situation.

 theclawofz: I think it's a slippery slope

For example

  if you have a guy with no job, no friends

  no family

and killing him and taking his organs would save the lives of five important people (doctors, etc) with friends + family

  would you kill him?

 me: well, if he has skills, he should have a job. if not, then yes.

why you mention friends and family though? that's irrelevant.

 theclawofz: killing him could cause mental trauma to his friends and family who if they take it badly could've otherwise gone on to great things

 me: the Curies had few friends, lol

 theclawofz: heh

me: well, that's lame. i know i wouldn't be traumatized knowing my relative or friend had been useful.

 theclawofz: people are different, though.

me: true. but education could help that. i mean, my country has a lousy attitude to death, no such thing as halloween etc., while in Mexico they regard it as a normal part of life. they are normal people, just like the people here, their upbringing is different.

 theclawofz: hm.

 me: i'm simplifying a little of course but with statistics that's inevitable.

 theclawofz: moreover, what about the elderly? What do we do about those who no longer have a job and no longer contribute to society?

Kill them?

 me: indeed.

  i already said i'm pro-euth...

 theclawofz: There's a difference between being for euthanasia and killing people who don't have any usefulness for soceity

me: besides, i live with two almost-elderly invalids. they are not happy. they whine all the time despite painkillers and all other meds.

  it would be voluntary of course.

  if they are okay with it, they can live.

 theclawofz: Ah. That changes things.

 me: but i wouldn't be okay with living like that at all.

theclawofz: I think people should be given the choice to voluntarily take their lives, but I think it starts going into a grey area if we involuntarily take it

 me: but then again i'm not keen on being sick anyhow... there may be people that like being in pain.... shudders

theclawofz: heh

 me: voluntary if you have the mental capability to decide, involuntary if not. that's my position.

theclawofz: okay then.

 me: we don't even have DNR/NFR orders here :/

 theclawofz: :\

However, I'd agree that a single aspect of a person shouldn't instantly decide things, and that we need to look at the whole person instead of focusing on a single aspect of them

 me: plus all the catholic baggage.... grr. i can't get my doctor/friend to help because she has that noxious "suffering makes you grow" attitude.

 theclawofz: hm

me: of course not! but brains > brawn.

 theclawofz: indeed. but people without intelligence can be put to use for other things

 me: it should have a priority, just as with Galton's original systam

  *system

...until we can make robots that do that kind of work.

 theclawofz: but then could we get to the point where we no longer need humans? as robots are considerably more intellectual than humans? what would you do then?

me: but i agree, mating a strong but not very smart individual with a smart but maybe weak/sickly one can yield good results

  well, then humans would be extinct in a short while

  i mean, erectus is gone too

 theclawofz: hm

So people's only value, in your mind, is how much they can contribute to society?

me: yes, but they themselves are part of society, so it's really how good they help themselves.

of course a cure has effect on others, but that is paid back in the form of financial stability and so on.

  for the cure creator.

 theclawofz: mhm

How would you quantify value to society?

 me: how would you quantify health?

  they are virtually the same thing.

twofold goal: the minimization of suffering and the accumulation of knowledge. if you are a positive factor in that, reward. if negative, elimination. if neutral, you decide.

 theclawofz: Does creativity have any value whatsoever?

me: well, science is a creative thing too, but in other ways :)

 theclawofz: of course :P

me: well, that's a bit of a dilemma. but there can be some sort of scientific application for artist-like abilities, i think.

  otherwise, art can be a "free-time" activity.

  as it is in my case.

(open source ethos, lol - no selling of results of creativity)

 theclawofz: but then what motivates humans to be creative/

  *?me: heh, most artists i know don't need material motivation :D

  but then again they're all CC...

 theclawofz: mhm

me: for me it's therapeutic/propagandistic.

 theclawofz: If you could somehow quantify creative quality, then that'd be useful, but unfortunately you can't

 me: yeah, kinda like that.

theclawofz: What are your thoughts on capitalism, then?

 me: creativity is one of those emergent properties which can be used in gopod or in bad ways... heh

 theclawofz: heh

 me: well... it's not fair to say the least

for example inheritance gets you a head start

  and lying is profitable

 theclawofz: indeed

 me: these make capitalism not a meritocratic system

  but a plutocratic one

 theclawofz: indeed. But, what would you replace it with?

me: i know next to nothing about economics, lol

 theclawofz: heh

me: maybe regulations on charity and trade, i don't really know.

  only thing on my agenda is controlled reproduction :)

 theclawofz: Heh.

  How would you implement it?

me: hmm, the Germans had an idea on that.

  safe sex and/or sterilization allows to leave personal freedoms and pleasure uncompromised while maintaining reproductive supervisability.

cheating our instincts, in a way.

  Dawkins said the same on Roe v Wade i think

  (abortion legalization)

theclawofz: So would you take a sample of everyone's sperm/eggs, freeze it, and make the people sterile?

 me: nah

  well, that could be a way

initially i thought sterilizing of the unsuitable only, though.

  but that's only the negative part, no positive incentive for the above average.

the lebensborn program was too small-scale and short-duration to measure its success.

 theclawofz: hm

me: it's weird that we have only one precedent and that was even before the Watson-Crick thing... but i guess that's exciting about beginnings

theclawofz: mhm

  As much as this conversation is interesting, I need to get on with an essay

 me: on? :)

 theclawofz: well, it's more a piece of creative writing, for my english

 me: ahhhtheclawofz: The task is to describe my house

 me: haha

 theclawofz: I'm taking creative liberties to make it interesting, though

 me: good work then :) i like your way of questioning!

 theclawofz: thanks :)