Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sokolov, Jun 26, 2021.
So you're a fan of eugenics?
Always seemed foolish to presume that, even if someone is actually a "burden on society" that their children would thus follow the same path. Surely there are some people who should likely not be allowed to raise their children... under particular circumstances, but this is not the same as having a child or not having a child. And that's even assuming a perfectly accurate read on who qualifies as "a burden" rather than the obvious issue that @darklord48 brought up.
When the Overton window shifts to the left, it will appear that "politics is going to the right." Because the perception of what is "centrist" is altered. Likewise, in it's original application with regards to what is considered "radical" versus what is considered "authoritarian".
The window, on multiple axis, is shifting rapidly due to the distorted narratives media put out. So you have Biden and Harris, BOTH of whom had spoken against the idea that any vaccine mandates could ever be implimented and indeed cautioning people against taking the vaccine in general, saying it would require a lot of soul searching and prayerful consideration and the like for people to make a personal choice... issuing unconstitutional mandates and not defending one of their prior supporters of Niki Minaj (sp?) who basically said the same thing and was allegedly suspended by Twitter this last week or so.
All in less than a year. The frogs seem to be noticing some heat in their bathtub.
All that said... I'm not seeing a lot of Republicans defecting to Democrats. There are plenty of NeoCons supporting the Democrats... but then again I never considered Bush, Cheney, and the like to represent Conservative values, and to be very much part of "the establishment" which has put itself behind the Donkey for the time being.
I am seeing more Democrats become dissatisfied with their party though... but perhaps this is because I know more Dems than Republicans, personally.
That said, all of this is getting rather off-topic from intra-state representation.
In a vacuum, I suppose there is nothing wrong with Eugenics. I never really pondered the issue. I think in broad terms, there are more burdens to society than not, so the idea that we could use more abortions as a generalization, is in fact true. But that's common sense.
I don't think having a stand on issues (especially something as far off as a moral implementation of Eugenics) is really important when we live so far from a healthy society that we are on the brink of collapse, and the smart people are either trying to get into space or cull the human population through viruses / vaccines / diet / automation.
In a vacuum however, those people might not be burdens, or at least not significantly so. A general issue I see brought up (and to which you seem to allude) is that of "overpopulation." However, the limit of population is based primarily on production and logistics. Both of which are essentially controlled by politics and politicians. If you have enough production, but not good enough logistics to get the goods where they need to go, then you have an "overpolulation" issue, because there is too much demand and no matter how much you ramp up production, it won't get where you need it to sustain that population. It is a contrived, but real, problem.
Likewise, if you have good logistics, but not enough production (perhaps because space is artificially limited, or the means of production is hampered by regulations, etc.) you have a similar problem.
In a vacuum however, the logistics and production can be "built" or designed together, to fit the needs, and, ideally, any expansion which may occur (and account for contractions).
A third factor is economics. Even if you have good logistics and enough production, if the economics is lopsided, you'll again end up with "overpopulation" in the the visible spectrum. If people don't have the economic support to continue to accept the goods and logistics fees, or only some do while many others don't, it can be sold to the public as: "there are just too many people and we can't improve production/logistics enough."
All three of these factors can be manipulated by governments, to one degree or another. Cut funding (or more likely, siphon funding) from useful logistics projects and you suddenly have "overpopulation." Implement stricter regulations and suddenly you have too little production; COVID restrictions is a great example of this, where there is plenty of production potential (and/or goods sitting on ships) but governmental interference limits access to utilize them.
In a vacuum however, such "preexisting" corruption and/or conditions aren't there.
If the "smart people" are trying so hard to cull the population, it only means they want to focus on that, not that it is inherently a problem. It is becaus they want to maintain or grow their own position in society. In other words, they become and/or create the "burden" on society through their actions. This is not a matter of eugenics, because disposition and attitude on these things are not controlled by genetics (even male/female hormonal difference cannot account for the difference in behavior between people, after all, there are plenty of women that are against abortion, and plenty that are for it, so this is not merely a biological phenomenon).
Eugenics was a sort of psuedo-science invented to justify the actions of "smart people" wanting to control and/or cull a growing population for which they lacked the logistics to control. To be used as a means of creating division so that no united populace could stand against them. It failed, but the principle methods are still there, including in vaccine mandates and the like, anyone opposed to mandates (and not all who are so oppossed are oppossed to vaccines in general), is now "the enemy" rather than the government that is limiting everyone's freedoms and access to production, logistics, and economic support which would help to solve many problems.
When they say: "white people are inherently racist and keeping black people down" it's really an extension of the old arguments for eugenics. And, now as then, designed to create division.
We have often been warned that there will be "overpopulation" or it is already there. Whether it's saying the world is going to freeze/burn/melt/whatever because people are doing too much production to "sustain", or even simple projections of overall population growth paired with minimized projections of production growth. Yet it has turned out that humans are inventive.
The ones trying to get into space are more correct. If nothing else, reusable rockets can make for an interesting answer to some logistical challenges, among other things. Throwing our garbage onto another planet could be a means to handle radioactive waste until we learn how to process it into something more useful, etc. And, of course, there is an infinitude of untapped resources in space that could potentially be brought to Earth to solve any shortages... and that's not even getting into colonization.
Such projects however, are limited again by production, logistics, and economics. If others control and limit what can be produced, limit the inventions and innovations of others artificially... it again creates a problem which is often blamed as being "overpopulation."
None of these problems require the killing of unborn children to solve them. Nor to forcible sterilize the "unwanted" members of society. They don't require classifying people as "burdens" or "not burdens" even by someone who is likely as wonderful as Beth.
In a vacuum, without the constraints currently on us, eugenics would still not be useful.
Juse as everyone has the potential to be horrible, cruel, burdensome... etc.
Everyone likewise has the potential to be wonderful, kind, and helpful, etc.
Even those with disabilities and mental disorders have that potential. In fact, I recently (sometime this last year) heard about a man with neither arms nor legs. Yet, despite this massive disadvantage, he has grown to be a good, productive member of the US, even doing his part to speak out against many of the things which you and I also have problems with. Last I heard he was looking at starting up a new bank, as an alternative to others banks, most major banks of which donate to Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.
Deeds and words, rather than genetics, do far more to define a person. The sooner more people accept that, the better we will all be.
lets just say we have a difference of opinion, i do not concede
Progressives build back better plan is more or less dead
Why am I not surprised?
Because you haven't had your booster shot yet, and you are experiencing wrongthink
You think they pull through?
Ofc, trust the science
Separate names with a comma.